|
Post by rgthomas on Oct 8, 2011 9:58:49 GMT -6
Richard and all...thanks. In the Preface to the book I said: "Besides the battle history, detailed studies of the Army in the West, ordnance, uniforms, Tribal histories, anthropology, ethnography, Federal policy, and art history were essential in understanding sources and underpinnings of the art and word. These studies gave me insights into two armies. One was an instrument of a growing nation, bursting its seams in an expansion colored by all things wonderful yet ominous. The other was also an instrument of a culture solidifying territory and influence. Neither has had the truth fully told about them in this battle."
I point this out to show that when I started on this trail I was soooo smart about my own Army that I didn't know Cavalry guidons were once NOT red and white swallowtail pennants. In 1862, the Union Cavalry finding it difficult in action to carry a full size US flag that accompanied the unit colors AND to identify individual fighting units sought and got permission to change the then red/white swallowtail to a US flag swallowtail pennant and that was the "company" guidon carried until 1882 or 1884 (I forget which year it was changed back to the red/white pennant). So, at the LBH there were 12 such guidons. The full size US colors and Regimental colors were carried in the pack train so the ONLY flags on the battlefield were the US flag guidon and Custer's General Officer colors he was permitted to use after the Civil War (well, they all were so it just wasn't a Custer thing). If I recall correctly, Benteen and Company B kept theirs; Reno lost one; and of course the Custer flag and all five guidons were lost with his group. So yes...the US flag was on the battlefield. We talk about this in the book for several reasons one being the guidon style in use then. We also had to talk about it as White Swan uses the Custer GO colors as a way to specify the vignette is about the LBH in amongst all the other vignettes.
Regimental colors: The same year the guidon was changed back was the same year the regimental color schemes were adopted. Consequently white art of the battle that shows a yellow 7th CAV regimental flag is notoriously incorrect. I am not sure about uniform piping but think it was changed at the same time. I'm sure there is a period uniform expert around here that can pinpoint that exactly. Doug McChristian's books on Army stuff are the best source that I've found but sure there are others as well.
I will also lend suport to David's points about using the examples they saw later on the Reservations and with the units in which they served as scouts...before, during, and after the LBH! Now there's a topic for some serious research and if anyone takes this on let me know and I'll send you a copy of Joseph No Two Horns' discharge in April, 1876 signed by Myles Keogh. No Two Horns took the discharge so that he would not have to "fight" against his people and left Fort Abraham Lincoln for the Greasy Grass country. I wonder if they knew who was coming to force them onto reservations? No Two Horns fought in the battle, had a favorite war horse killed from underneath him and created several horse memorial sticks that are prized in several musuems and the No Two Horns family at Standing Rock. His art is in the book and includes drawings on paper and a lodge cover about the LBH events.
By the way, as the new Editor for the CBHMA Greasy Grass, I am seeking contributions for the 2013 issue which will be thematically focused on the Indian story. This would be a great way for any interested parties to get published in a well-known, well-respected publication. AND...drum roll please...it is NOT just LBH as we are expanding beyond, before, and after, Last Stand Hill. Advertising done.
Sabers: David! Merci beau coups! Exactly! If warriors portrayed their conquests' finest then why not "START" the LBH with the soldiers so arrayed? Well, maybe not exactly but it does provide an option not considered before. Once again you shine light into the darkness. As I noted above, and akin to Sherlock, "the simplest explanation is usually the best."
Numbers: One of the fascinating aspects of this art is to get started oddly enough at the beginning - rock art. It has been classified into four subjects: hunts, conquests, religious, and tally counts. Richard's point about numbers is a popular one but while Plains Indians did not "cipher numbers" in a classical sense they had a very pronounced need for numbers when it came to tracking things in the first two categories. So, numbers were important. I think, based on my readings and discussions, that most of the number issues - especially those that indicate huge numbers of Indian casualties in this fight - presented by the widly varying Indian narratives - were created by the Indians in an attempt to lessen the retaliation they felt coming and even into modern day discussions. In any case, the Red Horse casualty numbers that differ between those in the drawings and those in his "narrative" are discussed in detail in the book. In fact, we were able to locate the five Cheyenne casualties in the drawings. Amazing stuff.
I'd add images if pemitted and if anyone is interested - is that done via the "Attachment" then the "Browse" function? I'll have to neck the file size down. OH, and when I use upper case I AM NOT shouting but emphasizing.
Thanks for everyone's reception of this discussion. I may not be an "expert" (or as we used to say in the Army 'a former drip under pressure!'...right Fred?) but I knows a bunch of 'em. Besides David continuing to educate me I can see Richard will not let me "baffle with BS." Oh well...and everyone please enjoy a grand fall weekend!
GO ARMY! BEAT NAVY!...now that's a shout!
Regards, Rod...
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Oct 8, 2011 10:35:11 GMT -6
Wide agreement can be achieved that arguing about the pace of mules on a day in 1876 in Montana as either 3 or 3.5 mph is absurd. Studies in Burma using Welsh mules clearly showed that to be a pointless endeavor, as obviously Custer's mules made 1.78 mph because the mules in tropical Burma during the Monsoon could make .... No. Wait. That was studies of Welsh long distance runners using Burmese mules....... Hold on. It's been too long. That key info is now lost. Now, we'll never know.
I was under the impression, because I think I was yelled at about this, that a 'flag' was considered different from a 'guidon' and not to use the terms interchangeably, because a rectangular flag signified higher brass presence. Something. There were protocols for a flag that did not apply to a 'mere' guidon. As a civvy, these things elude me.
In SOTMS, Connell does a bit on exactly what is discussed here, that Indians would sometimes show both legs of a man on a horse at whim because, after all, a man has two legs, regardless of whether it wouldn't be visible in that view. And I understand that these guys were friends and would want to represent a friend looking good. So do whites, and historical absurdities in our paintings with people known not have been on the North American continent at the time surrounding Wolfe dying speaks to the point.
Nevertheless, future historians would go very wrong trying to divine accuracy from this representation, comparable to the Indians' work.
from the Wiki about Battle of Quebec from Benjamen West's famous painting:
"The inclusion of Simon Fraser, Lieutenant Colonel of the 78th Fraser Highlanders (behind the Rogers Ranger, who is wearing green) is interesting, as General Wolfe had always spoken highly of Fraser's regiment, yet Fraser was not at the battle, as he was recovering from wounds received earlier. In the painting, Fraser wears the Fraser tartan, which was probably worn by officers in that regiment. All in all only four of the fourteen men depicted were actually at the battleground.
The clothing West depicted in this scene was highly controversial at the time. Although the event was relatively recent?only eleven years prior?its subject matter made it a fitting example of the genre of history painting, for which contemporary dress was unsuitable. During the painting, several influential people, including Sir Joshua Reynolds, instructed him to dress the figures in classical attire, and after its completion, George III refused to purchase it because the clothing compromised the dignity of the event. The work, however, eventually overcame all objections and helped inaugurate more historically accurate practice in history painting."
I emphasize "All in all only four of the fourteen men depicted were actually at the battleground."
We're all human, and I would suspect similar sensitivities would encompass the Indians as well to greater and lesser extent. Is it not possible that so and so WOULD have been at the battle had he not left the day before to hunt, and it would be rude and insensitive not to include him?
I surely do not know, but I retain great - if not actual cynicism - reservations about ledger art, just as I do about Anglo newspaper interviews where Sioux chat in phrases to twist the tongue of Pitt the Elder and conform so utterly to the racist impressions and templates available at the time, from Noble Savage to vicious killer, that the content is immediately suspect.
Paul Fussell in The Great War and Modern Memory, pointed out that British soldiers writing friends and family had been confronted with such horror beyond that of any warriors previous because of the heavy artillery and trench warfare. He presented examples of people trying to give honest and accurate tales but, even before getting to stuff that would alert the censors, they often self censored the letters because the people they wrote to had zero common frame of reference. Fussell's point was that letters of first person participants from that war would leave a very inaccurate impression to history were there not opportunities for later explanation and context. In short, first person accounts aren't always very accurate.
Is there any ledger art depicting the Indian wounded, or any of their women and children being assaulted by other tribes or soldiers? I don't recall any, but I haven't seen all that much in general. There is the story of Wooden Leg's about the guy who had his jaw shot off, clearly doomed, and the sort of thing that would lend to graphic impact. When the Cheyenne made necklaces of the Shoshone children they killed, does that sort of thing show up in ledger art in any form?
If not, I'd suspect Indians, too, had self censorship issues that could also provide a VERY inaccurate version of what happened, even starting with no intention but truth.
I remain interested in the change from cyclical world view to the linear one, and I think that represented in Indian ledger art as well.
|
|
|
Post by rgthomas on Oct 8, 2011 12:23:10 GMT -6
Richard, thanks...I've attached (I think) the bibliography for ROLH and highlighted references on American Indian art that should make for good reading over a long winter. I'm slow and it took me a few years. A healthy dose of skepticism with any art is required I would think. In all the LBH art by non-Indian artists there are perhaps two that approach a degree of realism. The rest are beer ads I think. So... When I first started out I was convinced that if I could assemble all the art I would have how they died with their boots on figured out. After all, a picture is worth a thousand words...well, almost in this case. Richard, your points are understandable and in most instances are valid cautions to those who pick up a piece of ledger art looking for enlightenment on this, or any other event. Of all the pictographic art known today, and that is a couple of thousand examples (Amos Bad Heart Bull's ledger book contains 451 drawings for example), only about 130 or so warrior-artists have been named in association with their art. I'm working at the moment on a hide painting attributed to Chief Joseph (not even Nez Perce much less by Joseph), a muslin painting about Wounded Knee whose creator is unknown (not now as I've identified him), and 34 drawings from a museum in Arizona taken from what appear to be at least five ledger books and whose artist (for them all) was named a Cheyenne fellow No Horse. The museum asked me to confirm or deny same. So...skepticism is a necessity. This sense of "accuracy" is mostly I think a "Western" one and your comment about cyclical versus linear views I think is most telling when dealing with our view of accuracy and a warrior's view of accuracy. Lots of this art was created first as a record but also to serve as a memory aid. Consequently, the shorthand conventions I mentioned in my first post were de rigueur until the warrior artists came under the influence of European/Western artists. I highly recommend John Ewers 1939 classic Plains Indian Painting: A Description of an Aboriginal American Art published by the Stanford University Press as a MUST READ first book. There is online at the Smithsonian his famous Early White Influence upon Plains Indian Painting (Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 134, number 7) as next. Armed with that branching out into those I've highlighted makes more sense. I learned long ago when dealing with this artform that for the warrior artist the important thing was what he did and NOT the event or the overall. His accuracy is tied to the accomplishment not the time nor place it occured. This art then has been viewed as a "circular" rather than as "linear" approach to commemoration. Some tried the linear approach and did not succeed to our liking. But, their work still contains information that we can use for more understanding. I hate "White Mysticism" - the imputing of meaning drawn for an overly inflated sense of the "Noble Savage" context by which most of us were fed when growing up. Nattie Bumpo comes to mind as does the Deerslayer. Unfortunately, some of the more popular understanding of this art (in general) has been drug through the same trough. Kicking Bear's magnificent LBH muslin painting in the Autry is a prime example of such degradation. We were able to get the story back in line with what Kicking Bear "said" and now the painting is on display in the Autry. If you ever go, you must seen the painting. Of course, armed with the chapter on him in ROLH you'll really appreciate the work. As I noted above, the White art about this is amazing incorrect. Well, shame on the yeller about flags and guidons. The "guidon" or company command and control indicator WAS THE US National Colors until changed. The National Colors scheme was put in place since, guess who, also used a red/white guidon in 1862? Yes, and the justification for the National Colors was to identify Union units in the heat of battle. Yes, there is probably an Army regulation that expresses the difference between the two but it is talking about NOW and not then. Good grief. I've got several scores of examples of the sorts of scenes you ask about. Some of them are in ROLH. I'll need some time to downsize the file size for posting here or if not allowed I'll post them on my website (badly in need of updating any way. Finger necklaces notwithstanding, my experience and exposure to this art form indicates that self-censorship existed only to insure that what the warrior artist drew was what he actually did. Taking undue credit would get you banished if not killed in some societies. David's got some as well. Well, I live in the South Puget Sound and there is a strange bright light in the sky. It's either the sun or Mt. Rainier erupting. Since I feel no unusual vibrations it must be the sun. This calls for a great Russian River Chardonnay on the back porch while reflecting on why White Swan would kill a US soldier in combat sometime in the late 1870s. White Swan was after all, a great Army scout. "Watson, quick...the game is afoot!" Please have a great weekend... Regards, Rod... Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by shan on Oct 8, 2011 14:23:47 GMT -6
DC you may be somewhat surprised by me choosing to start this post by thanking you for having driven me back to my collection of books on ledger Art in order to try and find a few examples with which to confound you. The last couple of hours has given me a great deal of pleasure perusing through books I'm ashamed to say I haven't picked up for a couple of years, so thank you once again.
I'm going to start by blowing my own trumpet for a minute by stating that you have to look, and look hard if you want to make any kind of artwork. Most people glance rather than look, not their fault, life can be too quick and too distracting to do much else, but an artist has to look hard and just as importantly, remember what he has seen, and I believe that there is plenty of evidence in these art works that that is exactly what they did to. Therefore I think we can make a great deal of use of what they choose to depict when it comes to trying to get some idea of what went on during the battle.
Now, to address a couple of points you raised. Yes these warriors were quite happy to depict themselves being wounded in action; it stands to reason that they hadn't been killed or we wouldn't have the artworks, they were also more than happy to depict their ponies being killed or wounded in combat because such events would confer great prestige on them, and as Rod points out, the primary reason driving these works was just that, for prestige was the name of the game. Curiously, at least to our way of thinking, they were also more than happy to show themselves fleeing in the face of enemy, or else being helped to flee by a companion on a horse. Aside from showing their own exploits, there are plenty of paintings showing warriors they either knew, or knew of, being killed or wounded in a variety of encounters, whatsmore; in my opinion, they didn't just put a gunshot anywhere to show that the man had been shot, they took great care in getting the exact number and the parts of the body on which these fatal wounds occurred.
I said in an earlier post that they would often pay as much attention to the apparel of the enemy as that of their own warriors if they came close enough, and often enough to be able to examine them. Generally this was easier when dealing with other tribes as enemy warriors tried to be as individual in their dress and accoutrements within the conventions of their own tribe as themselves. With white men it was different, as white soldiers being in uniform could often all look the same for obvious reasons. That said, most depictions of soldiers do note various differences where possible, the prime area of focus often being in the differences in facial hair.
Which brings me to a wonderful example. In 'Arrow Elk Society ledger. there are two drawings which depict a particular action that took place in july 1874. A small party of Cheyenne attacked a wagon train, and the artist, a man named Arrow killed four of the men with a sabre. What's interesting is that although the action was apparently very brief, he still manages to depict each white man as a very distinct individual, showing them with differnt hair cuts, even indicating whether the hair was curly or straight, he also dipicts the various kinds of clothing each man was wearing, including drawing the texture of corduroy on one mans trousers when he didn't really need to go to that level of detail.
I could add dozens such examples but I sure you get my drift. Now I'm not arguing that these are perfect protraits, that would be ridiculous. But whereas, when it came to dipicting himself, the warrior tended to ignore his own physical attributes, big nose or short or large stature, in favour of showing how he painted himself and what he choose to wear, white men being less flambouantly attired, the artist was forced to look for physical attributes in order to to differenciate one individual from another wherever possible.
So DC. thanks again, and having put the world to rights, its back to my wonderful ledger books for another hour or so with a nice big glass of red wine.
Shan
|
|
|
Post by Margaret on Oct 8, 2011 14:29:46 GMT -6
To Mr Thomas,
"Flags. The US flag shows up mostly in Lakota battle art. It is often shown upside down. There have been a few studies done as to why that portrayal with no clear answer. The immediate reaction from us in the 21st Century is that it shows the Army forces are in distress or defeated or some other modern view. Frankly, pictographic portrayal of defeated usually shows in the victim dressed in whatever spiritual helpers (shields, wotaws, etc.) and honorific dress (crooked lance, warrior sash, bonnet or split horn headdress). Using this conventional way of describing the significance of the warrior’s prowess, many think the use of the flag is done in the same way. The Indians noted the fierce fighting to protect the flag and in the Indian way of things it was a very strong spiritual helper. Why upside down? Don’t know. Did upside down mean the spiritual power of the flag was drained? Lots of speculation but no definitive answer....."
I've just quoted part of your post earlier as I'm a little surprised that you are not clearer about the meaning of the upside down flag, as I thought it was generally known by students that people or animals represented as 'upside down' in Sioux art referred to something that was 'dead'. The flag represents a kind of 'totem', an emblem for the soldiers and it is simply telling us the emblem, like the soldiers, has met it's death.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Oct 8, 2011 15:19:26 GMT -6
This does not require anything like an immediate reply, so please continue with wine and football. I have a couple of hours before CU takes on Stanford at Stanford. Hahahahahahahaha. Will be as enjoyable as puppies being force fed down a disposal. Luck could score 100 today. CU is not only not in the Pac10/12's league, it isn't in their hemisphere. Yet.
Helford makes all the sense in the world, and while I'm skeptical of both Tatanka's dream of soldiers falling upside down into the camp as well as the supposed reflection above the departing cavalry showing them reflected upside down, it is certainly something that could have been known by the time Red Horse sought the muse. Both of those tales are a little too 'too' for me, and only La Custer mentions it or is the source of others' mention, if I recall correctly. This long after SB's dream was about, and I think it appropriated.
If that convention is true, it probably isn't just the Sioux.
I do not, and have never, doubted that ledger art contains all sorts of info that I wouldn't get with brain serum and hand puppet explanations or a Vulcan Mind Meld. What I question is its temporal accuracy on specific events as well as the events themselves. It the drawings represent, as is said, both tales the artist experienced personally AND those of others, they are of value in the former and mere hearsay in the latter. But even the former is subject to the same problems of white testimony: truths or 'greater truths'? approximations? making sure the dead warrior isn't recalled for one not so great moment (when he died squatting over a rattler) but for his many other worthy and heroic deeds.
As with oral history, I would suggest accuracy drops like a paralyzed falcon as the years accumulate between event and setting it down. If we admit they have melded present info - uniforms, swords - into their official memory system, what else?
Shan, I've seen graphics of dead Indians and dead Indian ponies with the wounds which may well be accurate to wound placement. Same with soldiers. But I cannot bring myself to believe that when we know the artists in question have winged in in other areas they can be taken as gospel overall.
But in any case, a stick of gum can confound and entertain me for hours. No need to pile on.
|
|
|
Post by rgthomas on Oct 8, 2011 17:37:02 GMT -6
"Helford" - thanks...well, one ought not be surprised at anything as we work our way to more understanding of this art. I easily confess my lack of knowledge about such a standardized, conventional way of showing "death" in Lakota art. What is your reference or references? I like references - they start us all at a common point from which we can learn.
I did ask "Did upside down mean the spiritual power of the flag was drained?" which in so many words means dead I guess. I've just never read or at least recall reading of such a conventional manner anywhere so your source is most eagerly awaited.
What a great Chardonnay! Richard, I looked for the Buffs to have done better last week than they did. Fates of college football...
In any case, great talking with everyone and please enjoy a great fall day!
Regards, Rod...
|
|
|
Post by fuchs on Oct 9, 2011 0:03:57 GMT -6
Aside from showing their own exploits, there are plenty of paintings showing warriors they either knew, or knew of, being killed or wounded in a variety of encounters, whatsmore; in my opinion, they didn't just put a gunshot anywhere to show that the man had been shot, they took great care in getting the exact number and the parts of the body on which these fatal wounds occurred. If you browse through battle accounts attributed to Indians, you will notice the same fixation on the specifics of delivering/receiving wounds. And what I remember from having a quick look into a (older) Lakota/English dictionary, it was quite striking how many words dealt with the human anatomy and ways of killing/wounding. So it appears that those things had a high importance in their cultural frame of reference, and the instruments existed to accurately convey them.
|
|
|
Post by shan on Oct 9, 2011 8:03:42 GMT -6
DC,
Speaking personally, I'm not taking the events depicted in these drawings as gospel any more than I would any of the oral testimony be it white or red.
But I would say this, apart from the problems we have all discussed over the years relating to the oral testimony given by the warriors; i.e. saying what they thought the listener wanted to hear; bored interpreters abbreviating, or even changing testimony to what they too imagined those that employed them wanted to hear, or in some cases, plain boasting on the part of the warrior, I would contend that for the most part these drawings didn't have to jump through those kind of hoops.
They were made mostly because the artist wanted his fellow tribesmen to be aware of what a brave individual he was. He could never have imagined that we would be scrutinizing them for clues more than a century later, or, in most cases, that white people would be the least interested in them.
You and I have both had a go at Yantaylor for spouting off without bothering to read the books, maybe I'm wrong but I suspect this maybe a case of someone doing something very similar. And before you launch into me, no I am far from being any kind of expert, but I have read the books.
Look, we are all guilty of cherry picking the evidence, you have tried to get some reaction to the notion of Warriors dressed as soldiers riding in columns or formation towards the end of the battle, actions that frightening a number of the non-coms as well as giving rise to various myths about troop movements. As far as I'm aware this has never been taking up or discussed at any length because it sounds like an oral story that hasn't got a shred of evidence with which to prove it. For my own part I can't remember ever reading about it and I've no idea when the story was first circulated, but that's not to say that it's not out there somewhere between the pages of some book or other, so I'm quite prepared to admit that maybe a fault on my part.
My point is that you have always been very adamant that we ought to ignore anything that was said; or as in this case painted beyond two or three years after the battle, as the participants memory would already be becoming contaminated by then. It's a view I have some sympathy with, but, if you pay close attention to any kind of self aggrandizing testimony then I think you can always sniff out a few bones lying just below the surface that have a smear of truth clinging to them . Besides, if we can't talk about anything said or painting almost immediately after the battle, then we might as well close down these boards. Then what would we all do?
Shan
|
|
|
Post by rgthomas on Oct 9, 2011 9:25:10 GMT -6
David, thanks...I was having some difficulty understanding Richard's reluctance (or cynicism) with what the art and probable connected narratives might provide about the event and people. Your last post made the sun come out. I'm a "newbe" and not aware of all the discussions in the past where all the groundwork was laid for such views.
The first goal of the book was to find and publish in one source all the battle art that we could. Secondly, to lay the art next to narrative and see if any clarity might come from such an association especially if the narrator did both. Third, to make connections where I felt they probably existed and to see if those connections withstood scrutiny and further research. Lastly, I know there is more art AND narrative "out there" and this book would give others at least a better view of the trail ahead than I did when I started a long while back.
Did I meet my goals? I like to think so. We're having this discussion for one thing. Do ALL 200 images of the battle reveal the unknown? No. Just like the narratives, the art has been questioned and I addressed that in the book and all my presentations. I could have "cherry-picked" art to prove points. I put it all in the book and said here it is. Do with it what you will but you MUST deal with it. At least I think so. I think I succeeded with the standard academic approach of including points that are counter to mine and dealing with them.
Lastly, I normally don't "do" message boards but in this instance I think our discussion has given me insights into several points that merit further research and consideration on my part.
In short, Richard - I got it. David's tip of the hat to the past discussions on this board provided the nudge. I have advocated for so long for this source of history to be accepted that I didn't really "hear" what you were saying. Pictographic art/ledger art/ whatever one wishes to call it IS a source for understanding and connectivity BUT it must be used as carefully as, if not more so, than any other source. My POINT was simply to say that here's all of it (at the time) and after careful consideration this is what I THINK it says.
I frankly have enjoyed this and hope everyone else has as well. My ledger art books are stacked by my desk in anticipation of "Helford's" citation on Lakota death conventions which I've apparently missed.
Thanks and everyone please have a great day.
Regards, Rod...
|
|
|
Post by rgthomas on Oct 9, 2011 9:27:48 GMT -6
Wait...just there is no unintended consequencies here...when I said above "...Richard's reluctance (of cynicism)..." that is with my belief that my own cynicism at least matches his. It is healthy and necessary particularly with a screwed up historical record such as surrounds this event.
Regards, Rod...
|
|
|
Post by fred on Oct 9, 2011 9:43:55 GMT -6
My point is that you have always been very adamant that we ought to ignore anything that was said; or as in this case painted beyond two or three years after the battle, as the participants memory would already be becoming contaminated by then. Shan, That is not the way I have read DC. I think his emphasis is that the earlier the testimony, the more likely it is to be valid. This is the way I have interpreted his comments, but I also do not believe DC's opinion excludes everything said many years later. If someone was not spoken to until 30 years after the battle, there is no reason to discount his accounts, though the time lapse needs to be considered. To me-- and I believe this bridles DC, as well-- the most serious problem is with people like Martini, Curley, Kanipe, and others whose accounts change over the years. And while I understand the validity of ledger art, it is rife with inaccuracies. The question then becomes one of interpretation... and to me, therein lies the trampoline. How doers one reach the truth without all the bouncing around? And I do not believe it is possible. As much as I am in love with my own theories and my own work... am I correct in everything I claim? Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
jag
Full Member
Caption: IRAQI PHOTO'S -- (arrow to gun port) LOOK HERE -- SMILE -- WAIT FOR -- FLASH
Posts: 245
|
Post by jag on Oct 9, 2011 11:09:17 GMT -6
The importance of images being bandied about this board are to me a fruitless adventure into the realm of science fiction. While I most certainly appreciate and respect all who have posted on this subject, it appears some have missed the point entirely. It's not what we think we see in their images, but what they thought they were representing. And to its composer, more importantly, whether it was appropriate to have made the image at all. One of the most famous Natives in our history was never photographed. He never allowed his likeness to be stolen, even when on his deathbed Crazy Horse with his remaining strength wouldn't allow his likeness, his soul, to be taken from him.
Though such superstition should influence our thoughts, it don't. Even when those who have produced the pictograph did. How an image is regarded and what is done with can be important, maybe even sacred. "You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or earth beneath or in the water under the earth..." Yet, such a belief, even viewed as non superstitional among its congregation. That the priests at one with their religious fervor, would or surely should burn at the stake those who would disobey its incantation. This image idolization meant what to those who upon the pyre faced certain destruction? And in the larger debate since the inception of such a thought, an ever ongoing difference between one faith and another, yet, all under the name of a benevolent Christ. Whose image, in the one belief, should not be idolized. Yet it is. A vivid reminder each Saturnalia.
Is is appropriate to degrade the beliefs of someone else to mere superstition? We might not believe that someone is stealing our soul if they take our picture. But I think it important to understand that some of us wouldn't want a perfect stranger to take our image ( photo or otherwise) quite simply because we are by nature privacy oriented and wouldn't want that invaded. Are your souls, (your essence of life, whatever you'd wish to term this phenomenon), telling each of us that our privacy and that essence (some calling it a soul) closely related? We protect those things deeply personal to us, and those things we intend for only ourselves to know. These things are not for the Paparazzi to come and snap a fleeting glimpse of this perceived weakness when we aren't looking. And then publish it to the world.
What isn't missed by me, is that this is all about the motive of the pictographer. But we don't think, use our heads. It's not only what it is we take away from a person when we take their image and display it to others. It is that same process in reverse. When others display an image and what they take away from that person in the image.
Earlier I mentioned Crazy Horse. It was a vivid reminder that not all natives liked their image taken from them. Even later than 1876, and, on into today this still holds true. Can the same be said of a painting or a pictograph?
Would your painting or pictograph offend, and if it did, would the primitive culture you encountered lightly dismiss it or behead you for it? I guess the opposite might be equally frightening. If they liked it and thought it was a deified image that you'd made, you could end up married to the Chief's son or daughter and end up a venerated object of desire and affection that you'd never leave their camp again. Or in its stead feel the wrath of the first reminder if you'd tried. However someone chooses to look at this image there emerges an irrefutable fact from our dark and long distant past. We all (even the person who painted the pictograph) develop persona's which we present to the world. That persona is a mask a protective covering or shield. And we all hide behind it. Just like those head hunting tribes still extant in Papua New Guinea with their masks, makeup and shields dancing for the next human kill. Candidly photograph them in the middle of a dark moonless night? And if you did manage to successfully pull it off - flash and all, and one was picking his nose, would it mean anything?
|
|
|
Post by Margaret on Oct 9, 2011 12:49:17 GMT -6
"Helford" - thanks...well, one ought not be surprised at anything as we work our way to more understanding of this art. I easily confess my lack of knowledge about such a standardized, conventional way of showing "death" in Lakota art. What is your reference or references? I like references - they start us all at a common point from which we can learn. I did ask "Did upside down mean the spiritual power of the flag was drained?" which in so many words means dead I guess. I've just never read or at least recall reading of such a conventional manner anywhere so your source is most eagerly awaited. .... Hello Mr Thomas, Thank you for your reply. Please don't think I'm trying to catch you out in any way, but it just puzzled me that you were unsure of the meaning of an ''upside down flag'', as if to suggest that there is still some deciphering to be done and that no one really knows what it means for sure, whereas with my limited experience I understood that it was readily known and not in any doubt. My source is a certain Mr William Tomkins who wrote a dinky little book mostly on Indian Sign Language, published 1931, and perhaps written as much with Boy Scouts in mind, but we shouldn't be put off by that as it also includes chapters on pictographic art of the Sioux or Dakota peoples. Mr Tomkins lived near the Cheyenne River agency in the late 19th C. and was adopted by the Sioux of that region. There are a number of photos of him with elders of those times, but besides his connections with old Indians from the period, he also states his sources for the pictograph sections to be:- Lieut.-Col. Garrick Mallery, 10th Annual Report 1888, Bureau of American Ethnology [whom I note you also cited earlier] and Henry R. Schoolcraft, 1851, who prepared historical information for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. I admit that he doesn't state categorically [as I thought he did], that an 'upside down flag' represents the dead but then he wasn't describing any battle with US Cavalry, but he makes it clear in footnotes and examples of pictographic art given, that in the case of dead persons, a representative family totem would also be shown upside down to represent death. As for troopers in the battle, I would assume from this that the flag - so religiously guarded - would be denoted in the same way. Animals or birds killed would also be drawn upside down. Personally I don't feel there is any ambiguity about it and I wonder if perhaps non-Indians question a little too much and try to read complications into something that was actually quite basic and easily understood by the artist's contemporaries. Your new book sounds like something I might enjoy, and I hope to possess a copy in due course.
|
|
|
Post by shan on Oct 9, 2011 13:10:13 GMT -6
Fred,
you may have noticed that I said I have some sympathy with DC,s cut off point of around 2/3 years after the batlte, we only have to look to our own experiences to see the truth in that, but as you know yourself, once Custer disappears down Cedar, or what ever else coulee takes your fancy, we have no idea of how things evolved from there on in and in what sequence. All we have are the stories, whether we wish to believe them or use them to shore up our own theories is up to us. All I'm saying is nothing should be pushed aside because one sees, or hears certain mistakes being made.
You wrote, " And while I understand the validity of ledger art, it is rife with inaccuracies. The question then becomes one of interpretation... and to me, therein lies the trampoline."
Fred, there are so many small things about this battle that people choose to hang their hats on, Godfreys 4.20 entry in his notebook being an example. The sound of Custers firing? The arrival of the packs or the departure of the hostiles below? Who knows, but plenty build their theories on whichever interpretation they care to put on it.
The one I've wrestled with myself is John Stands In Timber assertion that Custers force dallied on Cemetery Ridge for some 20--30 minutes after leaving what we now call ford D. He heard these stories as a boy from men who had been there and witnessed the events. BUt I'm certain that they never used the words twenty to thirty minutes. He told this story in later life when he was a middle to old aged man and had become familiar with such terms from mixing with whites. He's done his best to make an approximation of how his people described this time lag, but can we trust it? Indians would have naturally talked differently to white men than they did amongst themselves. I'm aware of this myself being Irish, for having lived amongst the English for most of my life, I still talk differently to English people than I do to Irish. I suppose what I'm saying is we have no choice sometimes but to accept that we will be bounced around on your trampoline if we want to get to the bottom of something.
jag,
Two points, Crazy Horse is represented in a number of ledger drawings, and one can be pretty sure that he was aware of at least some of them. If he did have a problem having his photograph taken; and remember its only a story that has grown into a myth, then it was likely because of his antipathy to white people.
Secondly, you say, " The importance of images being bandied about this board are to me a fruitless adventure into the realm of science fiction. While I most certainly appreciate and respect all who have posted on this subject, it appears some have missed the point entirely. It's not what we think we see in their images, but what they thought they were representing."
But surely this applies to words as well. Words are just abstract sounds trying to convey information, sometimes they do the job and sometimes they don't. Whatsmore, just like images, people play around and use them in tricksy ways in order to make sure that their point of view trumps that of others, often to the point of lying if need be. That's a little trite I'll agree, but I'm just pointing out that words aren't automatically the vehicles of truth. As I said before, when you have a mystery you have to work with whatever you can lay your hands on.
Shan
|
|