|
Post by fred on Oct 9, 2011 15:15:38 GMT -6
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 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. Shan, I see no disagreement between us in anything you have said, but what I do see-- and please do not take this the wrong way because it may be my inability to communicate properly-- is a lack of understanding. And this is not unusual. What I see with you, however, is an extreme reasonableness to understand without being dogmatic or full of preconceptions. You and I have gone over this privately and the thing I have always liked about you is precisely that ability to "understand." Let me take your example, above. Despite what many of the more dull-witted on these boards say, I am a firm believer that this battle can be understood properly only within the twin parameters of "context" and "timing." As for "context," it is not easy to understand and it involves considerably more than putting two similar comments about a specific event together. It involves many dissimilar areas; diverse opinions; and more, all coming together to describe a "specific." "Timing," while even more difficult to establish, is easier to understand. The event began at H-Hour and it continued until H-Hour + something. Everything must fit within those borders. That is why it is so important, as well, to understand that a military operation-- out of necessity-- must be simple; it must flow with an element of reason and smoothness; and it must be logical. Without those parameters being generally met, well, it didn't happen. The halt on Cemetery Ridge is easy to understand when placed within all of those parameters. The timing is fairly straightforward; and the context, when properly explained, makes eminent sense. "Timing" dictates that the halt was probably not quite as long as described by an Indian descendant familiar with modern-day "times"; but it was also hardly a rest break and things occurred during the short hiatus, things we are all familiar with; things we have all read. This is why "context" is so difficult and not as self-contained as we all like to think. Too many things happened while Custer "sat" on Cemetery Ridge; too many things emanating like the spokes of a wagon wheel. In order to understand that "wait," it is necessary to understand everything else that forms this particular "context." The ledger art-- to me-- helps us understand some of that context, but it is distorted and it must be cherry-picked for accuracy... of which there is probably a fair amount. Not all soldiers wore yellow stripes; not all soldiers wore black hats; not all soldiers wore blue coats. That must be cast aside as an observed generality-- for whatever reason (and I am not expert enough to comment)-- and the art must be cherry-picked (not always a bad thing) for fact. From a personal perspective, my own certainties range from 51% to 100% (a rarity), and I am comfortable with a mark of 65%, especially if it falls within my own sense of reasoning. There isn't a single, solitary thing I put up here that doesn't come with some measure of support. If some choose not to accept it, that's fine with me; I am not in the teaching business. They can eschew it however, at their own risk or ignorance, because the onus then falls on them to provide better proof. If they can, I will except it as volte-face. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by rgthomas on Oct 9, 2011 15:34:22 GMT -6
"Helford", thanks...and I'll go check Schoolcraft as Mallery only shows one example of upside down figures representing death and that is from an Iroqois painting. Please see Figure 1072 in his work. If you have the two volume reprint from Dover Press it is on page 660 in Volume Two. Also in the same section entitled "Kill and Death" starting on page 658 the Lakota and other Tribe's manner of showing death and none involved upside down figures. The more conventional Lakota manner for showing death is a bow or other weapon near or touching the individual who usually is shown scalped, blood flow from the mouth, often leaning backwards, etc. As for the Boy Scout Book on signing well...about half or more of the signs were made up since the Plains sign language had no sign for the English words he wanted to use. I once used this book as a reference and was told that to be considered a serious researcher to discard it. Granted there is always a crumb or two of goodness in everything but the Tomkins book is not a serious reference. As for his pictograph references we already know what is in Mallery's work and I'll check Schoolcraft once again.
Why all the ambiguity? Well, because not even the modern day Lakota artists and scholars agree. Besides all the supposition in the two references I included in the ROLH bibliography I will add two more about the subject that I've found since ROLH came out. As I said before there are flag images used by White Swan and they need to be addressed. The two additional references are first: Michael Logan and Douglas Schmittou. "Inverted Flags in Plains Indian Art: A Hidden Transcript" published in Plains Anthropologist, Volume 52, Issue 202 in 2007; and the second also by Logan and Schmittou entitled "Fluidity of Meaning: Flag Imagery in Plains Indian Art" published in The American Indian Quarterly - Volume 26, Number 4, Fall 2002, pp. 559-604. I highly recommend both for the several options of meaning they discuss.
I must agree with you on your statement "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." I noted that in the book several times and in this discussion at least once. The simplest explanation is usually the best. You should also recall my note above somewhere about what I think of "White mysticism" that runs rampart at times.
I also highly recommend a book I just referred to again for our discussion. It is written by Janet Catherine Berlo and Ruth B. Phillips entitled Native North American Art published by the Oxford University Press in 1998. Chapter 1 and Chapter 4 are directly related to our subject here. Have fun!
I'll let you know about Schoolcraft.
You should not worry about asking me a question and especially one that I can't answer. I rather like that as it forces me to expand my horizons and then discuss what I find. And...I go by Rod.
Thanks and hope your weather is allowing you to enjoy a grand fall day.
Regards, Rod...
|
|
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 18:01:39 GMT -6
Mysticism, specially dark, can be quite intriguing when it's not explainable. White mysticism on the other hand tends to point the finger at what some would interpret as modern voodoo as seen through the lens of someone who doesn't have a clue and thus creates illusions where none exist. They are consistent in their fears that something is not being taken from them. But they feel there is something emitting some noxious and offensive force upon them they can't understand. This rationale has its origins in the misconception that a human beings vision begins with the eye. Which begs the questions. Does the camera capture something from the person or subject being photographed? Or is the camera emitting some mysterious force that causes the photo to appear?
No mystics or practitioners of sympathetic magic need apply. The above descriptions and depictions do describe some individuals who may be said to have acquired the evil eye. AS most artist know, vision doesn't start with the eye, it starts with light entering the eye. For some still whose fears abound rather than them believing that the light has anything to do with it, their eyes shouldn't betray what they see, thus their eyes emit some mysterious force upon the subject being viewed causing all who wouldn't believe to zombie anyway. As simple as the answer is to those questions above, the answer is in the first - yes the camera does capture something, light. And in the 2nd, no the camera isn't emitting anything but the object or subject being photographed is, light.
what pictography is all about is its not just recording a persons likeness for your posterity musings, but was meant to capture a part of who they were. And the thought must occur, some people did consider the pictograph to be a part of their spirit (soul). To think less demeans what they were trying to portray. All human beings are conditioned by their environment and influenced by their origin of birth. Belief is not the issue here, whether it be the capture of souls or not, the beliefs and culture of the subject as depicted should be respected. To reiterate, 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.
Carolyn J. Marr "Taken Pictures: On Interpreting Native American Photographs of the Southern Northwest Coast."
|
|
|
Post by shan on Oct 10, 2011 4:50:38 GMT -6
Fred,
Good post, one that I have no problem with at all.
We've been through this before and as I said previously, I'm very glad that there are people like you whose mind works in a logical, ordered way, people who get out there and do the work the rest of us either can't be bothered to do, or; as in my case, haven't the sort of mind that seems capable of doing it. That's not to say that I can't follow your logic, I can and do, and for the most part it makes complete sense to me.
But, and you must have known that there was a but coming, within that logic there are a few black holes that leave space for people like me to conjecture and listen to hunches. As an example, although I'm not 100% certain that there was a move to a ford D { much as I want all Indian testimony to be true, it seems to me that beyond John Stands in Timbers story we have very little other evidence that Custers command was actually there,} but putting that to one side, I have a gut feeling that the stop on Cemetery Ridge may have had something to do with The Big man himself having been hit.
Now I'm pretty sure that we will never know whether this is true or not, and I'm not claiming that if it were true, it helps explain what happened next, although my own juvenile logic says why not? But as I pointed out with Godfreys 4.20 entry, there are several possible explanations that we can choose from should we so wish.
Individual minds are mysterious things, very hard for others to fathom out, but then as they say, variety is the spice of life. Which brings to jags post.
Again a good thought provoking post, one that prompted me to re-think the how and why of how most of my own work arises. I should say here before going on that maybe this discussion should rightly be on some other kind of board altogether, but I've started so I'll finish. Artists can be broken down into two main categories, those that work using their eyes to try and capture the outside world either representationally, or abstracted if that's their thing. And then there are those like myself who just watch things arising from within, rather as dreams do; watch and try and catch the essence and the smell of them. That said, most of us in the second category have trained by looking hard at the outside world, which means we have a level of craft to use. But, and this brings me back to the differences between the types of minds Fred and I happen to own. For me the logic of the outside world just doesn't apply to the inner. I can paint a flower with the best of them, but the logic that makes a flower doesn't appear to apply to a dream.
Sorry about that, as I said, this is the wrong board for this kind of thing. So, back to Rubbing out Long Hair.
Shan
|
|
jag
Full Member
Caption: IRAQI PHOTO'S -- (arrow to gun port) LOOK HERE -- SMILE -- WAIT FOR -- FLASH
Posts: 245
|
Post by jag on Oct 10, 2011 8:37:47 GMT -6
I don't think it inappropriate to discuss these issues you've presented here and now. They are in fact what lies at the heart of this discussion - the very basis of how an artist thinks. How that artist interprets the light they are trying to portray in pictorial form, that is, if such inspiration comes to them from the outer world and not the inner light of vision quests.
As I indicated earlier the culture and their birth origins heavily influenced an artist. For the Plains Indians, the White man's influence on their culture can't be overlooked. This was a region where Buffalo Bill's side shows imprinted on many a very different reality than what had gone on culturally before. Television and Movies, even in their earliest contributions presented more fiction than reality when it came to actually portraying the natives. From all of this came the all to familiar bead-work costumes, the feathered warbonnets and those painted shields that even to this day non-Indians think had always been there as a permanent part of their culture.
A lot of their art could be classified into 1) spiritual and 2) decorative, and a third most non-Indians don't appreciate very much, the mixture of the two. Some designs might appear to be a very colorful decoration, yet, to those not looking for it, it was also held in higher regard by its owner as it also embodied for them a guardian spirit. Oh I know, Lord forbid them believing in such crapola, surely if someone stole the image they wouldn't be stealing their guardian angel, would they?
With the coming of the white man, the natives artistic creativity either ended and rather abruptly or they were diverted to other purposes other than what the natives intended. Tribes were eradicated or were dispersed by wars and disease and in the case of the Plains Indians even starvation was the order of the day. For most of the Plains Indians their social organization was so disrupted that they could do little else but spend their energies upon survival. Native artists lost everything, even those who understood what the function of the object they were purchasing was and they instead served a market base more concerned with the external appearance Shan postulates is the right choice. The result - tourist art - a flashy, flamboyant, pretentious embellished piece that had little to do with the integrity of the finished piece or its artist. And it had absolutely nothing to do with the historic significance some attached to it.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Oct 10, 2011 10:12:24 GMT -6
Okay.
Ordered Colonel Thomas' book today from some cave up in Washington. Along with shipping and handling, various extortions I'm running, the mortgage on the farm - plus the cash I got from the plasma center after I recovered consciousness for my 2 quart sale - along with money acquired over the weekend (You know how many poorly secured cash registers there are in liquor stores between Boulder and Pueblo manned by aged clerks with poor aim? Seventeen. Fun Fact.) it should be here by next plowing.
If it's up to the level I've been told, there will be no need for me to utilize my 'special pen' honed from the skull of various posters buried on my property.
Mumble..............
|
|
|
Post by Margaret on Oct 10, 2011 17:11:30 GMT -6
Hello Rod,
I've found the Berlo/Phillips book on Amazon, which I can get if I want. In England, your book isn't readily available here. I don't have the Mallery work from Dover Press so cannot refer to that currently. As for old Tomkins, well it's not him so much as his sources that interest me and they include Indians of the day who surely must have helped him answer many questions to authenticate his research, so I feel reluctant to dismiss him absolutely. I'll go with the ''crumb or two of goodness'' at least for now.
Thank you for pointing me in the direction of the Logan/Schmittou work on ''Inverted Flags...'', I've been reading it today and I like much of what they have to say. I'm getting the impression that, if their reasonings are to be believed, that post breakdown of Lakota society from the 1880's onwards or so, the inversion of flags became widespread and somewhat politicised and full of hidden meanings. I especially like this paragraph:-
"By displaying flags in an inverted position, or by crafting flags upside down, as well as depicting them inaccurately in terms of colors, Native Americans created a veiled, though meaningful, gesture of defiance and disrespect. Put simply, they took something of great salience from white American culture and "messed" with it."
I can relate to that actually, but I still wonder if that early battle art depicting inverted flags was more simplistic in meaning than that which it evolved into, in later years.
I note you are retired. If I may ask, what made you get interested in this.... did it start as a hobby perhaps? Have you ever been to the battlefield, if so what were your impressions?
Fall, autumn to us, has been fairly kind here so far. In fact, we have just had an Indian summer.
I hope to have some further questions another day, if you have the time, but of course understand if you don't. Forums can be hard work. Until then...
Margaret
|
|
|
Post by rgthomas on Oct 10, 2011 17:15:04 GMT -6
"Helford", good afternoon...wow, found both Parts I and II of Schoolcraft's works from 1859 on the web. Complete with all illustrations. Took a while to go through but just completed. Phew.
Death. Well, I didn't miss it as I never read that part of Schoolcraft. I focused on Plains and not Great Lakes/Woodland folks when doing ROLH. Schoolcraft's Part I is mostly about Iroquois/Ojibway the tribe to which his wife belonged. Page 411 of Part I and the accompanying illustrative chart show two entries - 139 "Symbol of the death of a man whose 'totem' was a crane" and 140 "Symbol of the death of a bear." Both ideograms are upside down. These ideograms were used by the Iroquois/Ojibway people on burial posts and village markers as a way to let people know news. In any case, they are the only two upside down ideograms in Part I.
In Part II, Schoolcraft describes "Feathers of Honor" in a section on war. The accompanying illustration shows feathers indicating coups, etc. and on a row seven figures indicating how the "Dacotah" people indicated death. Adults and children are shown either headless or not and in a leaning back position with bent knees. These same figures are seen in Mallery's Figure 1070 already mentioned. The upside figures seen in Mallery's Figure 1072 are indicated Iroquois but are not in Schoolcraft but rather in a really obscure reference written by a G. Copway published in London in 1850. Given this, if you have Mallery's reference you have what is in those two hard to find books.
I also checked several other pictographic lexicons such as Keyser's Plains Indian Rock Art (from which many conventions were carried forward to hide and paper), Petersen's Plains Indian Art from Fort Marion in which she constructed a dictionary to accompany the art from those held captive there, and another rock art guide published by Alex Patterson about Greater Southwest Rock Art Symbols. Patterson is the only one with any entries about death ideograms and on page 81 shows three examples. The Iroquois figures from Mallery are there as are two other figures one of which appears to be treated or healed. The third is a Chumash figure that according to tradition represent sickness or death.
That's it. All the upside representations of death occur in tribes other than the Plains peoples. However, as is the case in all this perhaps someone will be able to uncover a Plains use of such a figure.
"jag" - thanks for your posts. I really appreciate the reference about Northwest Indians and photography. I'm working on a paper about Indians and photography from the earliest times until the end of the 19th Century. In fact, I've been told of an Oglala family who has avoided photographers since 1890 until recently based on fear of retribution about Wounded Knee - the massacre that is. The generalized assertion that "Indians didn't like to have their picture taken as it stole their soul" is counter to the thousands of Indian photographs in repositories some of which go back to the late 1840s. I don't doubt that some had this concern but I've not found any evidence of a wide spread notion even among the Oglala. Hopefully Carolyn Marr's book will help shed light on this.
Your classifications of Plains Indian pictographic art fall in line with what I've been accustomed to in researching the art. Warrior, religious, and decorative are the three terms I have found to be helpful. I really do highly recommend the two chapters (1&2) in Berlo and Phillips book Native North American Art as well as several of the papers by John C. Ewers.
There is a wonderful reference just published by the University of Oklahoma Press Plains Indian Art: The Pioneering Work of John C. Ewers. I highly recommend for those interested in not only his works starting with the Blackfeet People in the 1930s. His article in the American Indian Art Magazine, volume 17, number 4, pages 36-47 entitled "A Century of Plains Indian Art Studies" is a must read even if your interest in the subject is marginal.
Well, that's all for now...I guess if my posts are too long someone would have carped by now. In any case, I appreciate all the posts and now have a wonderfully sounding book about photographs to check out.
But before I do that, I have to go find a rider to carry a copy of my book down to the steam packet before it sails for Spokane next month. An order came rolling in from out Colorado way stuffed into a skull with an ink pen jammed into the left eye. Thank goodness it landed rightside up or I'd be concerned about pending death by obsfucation!
Gid'dup!
Please have a great day...
Regards, Rod...
|
|
|
Post by fred on Oct 10, 2011 17:49:08 GMT -6
As an example, although I'm not 100% certain that there was a move to a ford D { much as I want all Indian testimony to be true, it seems to me that beyond John Stands in Timbers story we have very little other evidence that Custers command was actually there,} but putting that to one side, I have a gut feeling that the stop on Cemetery Ridge may have had something to do with The Big man himself having been hit. Ah-h, Shan, my friend! Remember my emphasis on "logic," "simplicity," and "flow"? This is the perfect example. We know the general location of bodies. We also know that certain units were found-- perished-- in certain places, giving us the impression-- correctly, in my opinion-- of a specific flow of the fighting relative to unit movement. Now... it is widely known-- correctly, I believe as well-- that the last time all five companies were together was on Calhoun Hill. Agreed? Now... something made George Custer, his HQ contingent, and companies E and F move farther north. The fact that none of these units were found to be south of the Last Stand Hill/SSL/Deep Ravine areas tells me the so-called "fatalistic" theory is complete bunk. So, based on that, it is evident to me that Custer moved north of his own volition with those units. Why? Come up with a reason. My reason is because he wanted to find a fording place that would be below the gathered refugees. So far, nothing new. Based on your post, we have some indication-- legend, lore, hearsay... whatever you might want to call it-- that he actually did reach a ford-- Ford D-- then moved away, winding up on Cemetery Ridge. Now... let's address that. We have John Stands In Timber's stories; we have a smattering of tales from others, tales that were not related until decades later, thereby failing the first sniff test. However...!In 1994, Dr. Douglas Scott and Dr. Peter Bleed, two archaeologists (everyone knows of Scott; Bleed taught or teaches at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln), undertook a small metal-detecting/archaeological expedition around the periphery of the battlefield. They got permission from-- actually, they have even been invited by-- several land owners to check their properties and see what could be found. Personally, I have never heard anyone mention this little foray or even allude to it. They checked a number of places-- Weir Peaks, Deep Coulee, Henryville-- and found a small but very impressive array of things, primarily period cartridge cases and bullets, but other military artifacts as well. Then, just north or slightly northwest of Last Stand Hill, about 1 mile from Calhoun Hill and on private property-- meaning, close to mid-point between Calhoun and what we assume is Ford D-- they discovered a number of cartridges, cases, bullets, and a couple of items of military apparel. The patterning of the artifacts indicates a move toward Ford D, the Indian paraphernalia positioned between the military's and the ford. Now... while not definitive by any stretch... place this within the context of "flow." It would fit perfectly with a movement in a northward, then a westward direction. Some might say, well, that's fine, but the troops never reached the ford, but went directly to Cemetery Ridge which would have been to the advancing column's left. Fine, except for one thing. Military artifacts were found at the lower end of Cemetery Ridge, some distance from the 1994 findings. How or why would troops have gotten there? Well, through a natural progression of "flow"-- and here is where we apply the element of "context"-- a mission to find a ford, emanating from a decision made atop Calhoun Hill, would dictate that the troops took that route, ran into some opposition, persisted, then left the ford area to mount the lower portion of Cemetery Ridge... and await Keogh/Benteen, as planned. Custer would have mounted that ridge because he could be seen there easily and Keogh/Benteen would have short-cutted it across Battle Ridge (rather than follow Custer's route). This whole thing is very simple, flows perfectly, and is eminently logical, thereby fulfilling all of my requirements for believability. While not perfect-- remember, there is nothing definitive (I believe) that actually ties them to the actual ford!!-- reason can be substituted for that last mile to the ford. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by rgthomas on Oct 10, 2011 17:54:40 GMT -6
Margaret, thanks and glad to hear you found the the inverted flags article and we see eye to eye on the way ahead for meaning. The two Ewers articles - one about the century of study and the other on White influence are very helpful as to your note on earlier versus later works. Absolutely.
Ask away. I may not always get right back but this is very helpful.
A mentor of mine suggested that once I got into brigade command that I'd need a "mind clearer" sort of hobby or the like when coming home for the day. Battalion command and you know every soldier, their families, etc. I mean really know. Brigade command was different he said and it was. There one really "commands" five or six battalion commanders who get to have all the fun. In 1994 I attended a LBH symposium in Billings, MT and spent some considerable with Richard Fox walking around the battlefield. Most of it actually and especially all the parts NOT in the National Park system. He told me that if I wanted to really understand the battle and how GAC "bought the farm" then I needed to really "know" the village and its inhabitants. I listened and glad I did. In any case, have been several times, have guided folks a few times, and so now am finishing up the research on White Swan. I suppose it is like most famous places, it is nothing in person as it was in our mind.
As Editor of the CBHMA journal Greasy Grass I'll keep my hand in LBH but after White Swan I'll be ridin' into some other great Western history. Since the book was published I've been contacted for help by some museums and who would have thought that an old beat up Army guy would be cogitatin' about art! I've also got some speaking engagements lined up for the next year to include one of my favorite gatherings, the Denver Plains Indian War Symposium held in April. So that's how I got hooked. How about yourself?
There is an outfit over your way known as the Custer Association of Great Britain. Check it out on the web. Kevin Galvin is a very good friend. I was the first US member and the first US member to give a paper in London. Fun group of folks.
Well, to horse. I've got more Schoolcraft to wade through in more detail as once again I learn the hard way to "read the entire reference!"
Please have a great day...
Regards, Rod...
|
|
|
Post by rgthomas on Oct 10, 2011 18:13:57 GMT -6
Fred, all...see Scott, Douglas D. and Peter Bleed. 1997. A Good Walk Around the Boundary: Archeological Inventory of the Dyck and other Properties Adjancet to Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument. Special Publication of the Nebraska Association of Professional Archeologists and the Nebraska State Historical Society, Lincoln.
Good read. Fun to use. One of the properties - "the Dyck" - is the acreage by 212 up to the entrance road to the National Monument and over to the National Monument boundary. This site is being proposed for the new Visitor Center when the land belonging to the Custer Battlefield Preservation Committee is deeded to the NPS. Oddly enough, part of the survey was to try to find some markers that were at one time (in the 1920-30s) along side what is now the entrance road. The original entrance road had more along it. Additionally, across 212 on the bluff above Putt Thompson's Trading Post there were four or five markers. All these "outside" the boundaries were at some point moved "inside" the boundaries if not just done away with. All part of the mystery, man...strange crap happens on the Greasy Grass.
Most of the land in this survey belongs to the CBPC by the way. Belong to that and you walk on it all you want. Just watch for mad stallions, madder snakes, and the occassional real mad rancher who just thinks he still owns that land.
Regards, Rod...
|
|
|
Post by shan on Oct 11, 2011 3:26:18 GMT -6
Fred,
Like you I was unaware of the 1994 survey; very interesting information. It seems a long time ago that I was on the battlefield, so forgive me if I get this wrong, but would the area you're talking about be somewhere close to what I remember as a big stone house; just off to one side of the entrance where you pay if I remember rightly?
It certainly helps me feel more comfortable with what I previously felt was a theory based on some stories. In that context, I remember having a discussion with Geodie as to whether some of those stories about fierce fighting down at Medicine Tail ford had; with time, been either mistakenly misremembered, or mistranslated, thus creating a template that is very hard to shake off when the event had actually happened at ford D. Unlikely I agree, but I throw it into the pot just to stir things up.
rgthomas
Again a very interesting story, but if we are to believe that these markers were actually there, then either the numbers of men in Custers command was running up towards the 300 mark, or the battle was much more fragmented and scattered than the placement of the markers we now see, in which case we have all bought into a fairy tale. { By the way I'm aware that the markers as we now see them have been tidied up and only give a superficial impression of where the bodies lay.}
helford, or may I call you Margaret?
I see from your posts that you live in England so, a silly question, what are these books your referring to, and are they available over here?
thanks Shan
|
|
|
Post by fred on Oct 11, 2011 4:23:11 GMT -6
... but would the area you're talking about be somewhere close to what I remember as a big stone house; just off to one side of the entrance where you pay if I remember rightly? Shan, No. The stone house is at the lower end of Cemetery Ridge. The Scott/Bleed/private land area I am referring to is just north of the current entrance road on what is referred to as the Custer Ridge Extension. If you travel north along the park road on Custer/Battle Ridge and you reach the monument, you will see the ridge sloping gently northward and slightly west toward the river. The entrance road meets it and the ridge extension is just beyond, but before the state highway. It would be the perfect route along the northern side of Cemetery Ridge were one turning left-ish and heading toward the river. That is why it is so compelling to me. One of the more obvious groups that would have confronted Custer at that point would have been part of the Wolf Tooth/Big Foot band, really, the only "organized" grouping of Indians that might be in that area at that time. Remember, there accounts of that band splitting, and I would think one part would have ridden rather quickly, east of the troops, in an attempt to get ahead of the soldiers. It would be that group that could have begun the firing there; a group interjecting itself between the soldiers and what they may have feared would have happened had Custer gotten into the valley. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Oct 11, 2011 4:42:59 GMT -6
Hi Fred, when Weir and Benteen got to the peaks, they allegedly put up a Guidon, so that Custer’s men could see them up on the high ground. Now while we are talking about Indian drawings and oral histories, did the Indians also see this Guidon?, did they say anything about this Guidon in their accounts later, if this all took place about 4.20 then maybe the Calhoun position was still active. Now the point I am getting at is, Benteen and his men where on these peaks for one hour maybe two, and if the Indians had seen this Guidon when it was first erected then this could mean that the Indians where still pre-occupied with Custer, we see posts on this board and the other saying that the Indians could not wage full attacks on two fronts at the same time, and this could be the reason why Benteen’s men where left alone for this length of time. So if the Indians had seen the Guidon and Custer was still active, it could mean that the Indians still had a good hour to finish off Custer, otherwise they could have made their move against Benteen much earlier. P.S. Sorry about Gideon (I meant Guidon) I should have just said flag. Ian.
|
|
jag
Full Member
Caption: IRAQI PHOTO'S -- (arrow to gun port) LOOK HERE -- SMILE -- WAIT FOR -- FLASH
Posts: 245
|
Post by jag on Oct 11, 2011 6:28:16 GMT -6
"jag" - thanks for your posts. I really appreciate the reference about Northwest Indians and photography. I'm working on a paper about Indians and photography from the earliest times until the end of the 19th Century. In fact, I've been told of an Oglala family who has avoided photographers since 1890 until recently based on fear of retribution about Wounded Knee - the massacre that is. The generalized assertion that "Indians didn't like to have their picture taken as it stole their soul" is counter to the thousands of Indian photographs in repositories some of which go back to the late 1840s. I don't doubt that some had this concern but I've not found any evidence of a wide spread notion even among the Oglala. Hopefully Carolyn Marr's book will help shed light on this. Your classifications of Plains Indian pictographic art fall in line with what I've been accustomed to in researching the art. Warrior, religious, and decorative are the three terms I have found to be helpful. I really do highly recommend the two chapters (1&2) in Berlo and Phillips book Native North American Art as well as several of the papers by John C. Ewers. There is a wonderful reference just published by the University of Oklahoma Press Plains Indian Art: The Pioneering Work of John C. Ewers. I highly recommend for those interested in not only his works starting with the Blackfeet People in the 1930s. His article in the American Indian Art Magazine, volume 17, number 4, pages 36-47 entitled "A Century of Plains Indian Art Studies" is a must read even if your interest in the subject is marginal. Well, that's all for now...I guess if my posts are too long someone would have carped by now. In any case, I appreciate all the posts and now have a wonderfully sounding book about photographs to check out. But before I do that, I have to go find a rider to carry a copy of my book down to the steam packet before it sails for Spokane next month. An order came rolling in from out Colorado way stuffed into a skull with an ink pen jammed into the left eye. Thank goodness it landed rightside up or I'd be concerned about pending death by obsfucation! Gid'dup! Please have a great day... Regards, Rod... Rod, You share a belief not unlike quite a few on these boards who don't do the research to really find out. Not that you [personally] wouldn't, it's just that some, unlike you, put to much faith in their own biased intuition rather than find out the truth. This is a case where simple logic by any one man or woman can't explain it. It's like that quote "high ground" mentioned in Ian's post, it's assumed to be but not known for sure where that high ground was. In these instances its not about some percentage of assurance, its about someone, somewhere who did know the truth and tell of it. And you can tell they were telling the truth because they had no personal vendetta, one way or another, in telling a lie, yet those have occurred in great abundance along the LBH. Carolyn Marr's work is exemplary and one you wont want to miss. She tells how the Indians believed that the photographic process would steal a person's soul and they additionally believed it disrespected their spiritual world. She explains the process of what you and others have taken for granted because of the end result you see and not what had happened. An oft repeated mantra by way to many here. As she will explain to you the process by which those photos you do see came to be, not by percentages or simple logic, but exactly how that was done.
|
|