|
Post by rgthomas on Oct 11, 2011 8:49:06 GMT -6
"Jag", good morning...I very much look forward to Carolyn Marr's book. Now, "may it please the court"...In one of my first posts about putting together what ended up in ROLH I freely admit to my bias' and how I tried to maintain that awareness as we did the RESEARCH with over 100 institutions (libraries - yes they have art collections also, museums, foundations, private collections in seven countries) all of whom are listed in the Acknowledgements. Then even more having several folks read what we wrote and CONCLUDED so that my bias' would at least be brought to my attention if not worked on in the final verbiage. I believe these folks taught me a lot - about myself and especially about cultures of which I knew next to nothing. Well, except for that soaked up on Saturday afternoons at the "movies" and force fed bad history for several decades.
I do understand, I think, your point about "truth", and in fact I ended the Preface of ROLH thusly: "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."
That's what I tried to get to. I like to believe that somewhere and in some things I succeeded somewhat. Knowing that attainment is still a long way off I ended ROLH, as I did with almost every chapter in the book, with a call for MORE RESEARCH. And, you and I are in violent agreement it seems on the amount of truth twisting in the wind along the Greasy Grass.
If you don't mind, I'd like to discuss your points about "seeing" versus "what happened" but first I need to read Carolyn's book.
Thanks again for your thoughts and please have a great day!
Regards, Rod...
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Oct 11, 2011 9:27:56 GMT -6
I am going on Fred’s new time line here (sorry to have to use your data Fred), not Grey's, I had Fred’s time line for Weir to arrive at the peaks at 4.20, Grey has it as 5.25. I can’t find the data Fred posted on his time lines; I forget what thread it was on. P.S. The ‘’High Ground’’, I meant ‘’Weir Peaks’’ Sorry Jag.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Oct 11, 2011 9:50:35 GMT -6
There are some things that I think need to be stated.
This is an anthropological exercise, discussing symbols of a culture and how it sees itself. One of the things that has proven harmful is the insistence of LBH exceptionalism even within the context of American exceptionalism. We may not have a lot of insight to the Native American cultures - various and diverse as they are - but we have a lot from around the world that holds together, and we ought to view with cancerous eye anything that varies significantly from the norms of a known majority of cultures. Not damn or exclude it, but insist that there be evidence for significant variation to be accepted as possible.
Gideon is a name; guidon is a military unit flag symbol. Nobody named Gideon was planted on Weir Point for Benteen, Custer, God to see.
I haven't read the book, obviously, because it's on its way, but here are the potential trouble points I foresee.
Used so much by me, even I cringe to use this, but I insist on its importance. The Glossary of Terminology.
For example, Col. Thomas references the 'two armies' of the LBH participants. While I know what he means, because in the general layman's definition 'army' is pretty vague, it is still a bad habit to apply Euro/English terms to Indian institutions. 'Chief' being a good example, and I'd contend 'army' is another.
There was no Sioux/Cheyenne Army. There was no commander, no central source of decision, no organization as an army in our sense. If there had been, the Sioux would have had to have dissolved their own society to support it and been more like the white man. It was a collection of clans coincidentally having a common enemy.
It's the same thing the Confederacy (and Scots, and Irish, and everyone at one time...) discovered: to fight the North (England, or whoever) efficiently with its direct cultural lineage to emerging European concepts you had to centralize power and, well, tamp down state's rights in emergency situations. They couldn't do that. And neither could the Indians as everyone from King Phillip to Geronimo discovered. They had no organized support for those in the field. This is a consequence of cyclical thinking: we start again next year. Well, the US didn't. They waged war through the winter.
As such, the distinction between US culture and the Indians is exemplified by one having an actual Army as a standing institution and the other not being able to. This cannot but be reflected in the art both brought to the table.
Also, I'm not entirely sure they thought of this as 'art' per se, but as writing, record keeping, and memorial to the dead. And, if so, is it poetic in motivation or prose? And, if memorial, is it meant to be literally true? Ours are not.
Also, just having colored pencils and paper was a huge cultural innovation to them. It's not like they could absently sketch out things of granite cliff faces or sand or valuable hides. It was new and had to be pretty exciting to those so inclined and allowed a release of talent and..........imagination?
|
|
|
Post by Margaret on Oct 11, 2011 11:15:56 GMT -6
Hello Rod, I'm delighted you found what you were looking for regarding Schoolcraft's work and thank you for taking the time to let me know this information as it's all quite historic. Of course the Sioux were once woodlanders living near the Ojibway so maybe some cross cultural influences hung around when they moved onto the plains. I'd like to think so. Old Tomkins does cite the Ojibway but gives the impression that his pictographics are more Siouan in origins. Anyway, enough of that - I clearly need to apologise for calling you out earlier in the thread with incorrect assertions although I still feel a vague need to hold onto something there.... How very fortunate that you have toured battlefield areas not usually available to the rest of us - I'm quite envious of that, and with Richard Fox too! There is never enough time or opportunities to do these things. Yes I've heard of the Custer Association of GB. Thank you again for pointing me in that direction. I have been on their website before, some time ago and looked into that. I recall finding some useful information from them, and some photos etc. taken on their trips. I like that sort of thing. I'm not sure it's really for me right now though. It's a pity I cannot be at your Denver Symposium so I wish you well, in advance, for that. I've been to Denver and liked it there very much - as a tourist. I have only made fleeting visits to the LBH. You sound as though you've had an interesting military history yourself and I expect you must have been in combat at some time or other during your many postings. It frightens me the number of women today that join up, and on the front line too in some places - it makes me feel inadequate. I wonder they don't have other interests to be getting on with that they should wish to be so involved, unless as a last resort, like protecting your immediate family. I find it a strange psyche, admirable of course, but unfathomable. Have you found any women depicted in the vast array of pictographs you must have seen, in battle I mean. I've only heard of one Cheyenne woman and a Crow woman who lived that life. Meanwhile, I do have a question for you:- can you tell me please from what year do you know of when these upside down flags specifically in Lakota battle art, started appearing? I would really like to know if it was very much post-Little Big Horn or way before then referring to other battles? I'm not clear about that, as I have a hunch about something. Thank you, and ...keep cogitatin'
|
|
|
Post by Margaret on Oct 11, 2011 11:35:38 GMT -6
............ 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 Hi Shan, thank you for getting in touch. There is an article on the internet that one can read called ''Inverted Flags in Plains Indian Art: A Hidden Transcript'', this is by Douglas A. Schmittou and Michael H Logan. I found it most interesting. Mr Thomas earlier in this thread, referred me to it. It's good, if you have the time. The other is a book I've just ordered from Amazon, again recommended by Mr Thomas, namely :- ''Native North American Art'' this is by Janet C. Berlo. There are quite a few to choose from on this subject but I thought to start with this one. Margaret
|
|
|
Post by rgthomas on Oct 11, 2011 11:40:37 GMT -6
Richard, thanks..."army" - understand and glad you noted the association. I used that categorization based on a series of conversations with scholars, both Indian and non-Indian, on just the very topic to which you write. I purposefully chose to retain "army" based on those discussions. You'll also find that I use "soldier" for both sides more than "warrior" as "warrior" was/is looked upon as an imposed "colonial" term much like some others of a more perjorative personal sense.
Perhaps Richard's point about lacking support in the field and all the other trappings of a formal military force brings back a discussion relative to "Indian style warfare" or guerrilla warfare. Again terminology is important and when I discussed the military societies inherent in several tribes with current leaders of those same societies from long ago, their take on waging war was anything but "guerrilla" at least as I came to understand Mao's concepts. In fact, it was a few of these men who asked me directly why their fighters were not called "soldiers" in White history!
I'd offer three references for those interested that directly address Richard's points regarding terminolgy, art, and views of art. I've had the good fortune to talk with two of them about this very topic. The first is Steven Leuthold entitled Indigenous Aesthetics: Native Art, Media, and Identity published by the University of Texas Press in 1998. The second is by Devon A. Mihesuah entiteld Natives and Academics: Research and Writing about American Indians published by the University of Nebraska Press in 1998. The last is a panel discussion preface by Bea Medicine entitled "Lakota Views of 'Art' and Artistic Expression" which I can provide as soon as I can re-locate the digital file on my infernal machine.
As for a "view" (and here I'd refresh a couple of jag's points) as long as we non-Indians continue to categorize Indian "art" in a European/Western context these sorts of discussions will flourish. On the other hand, if we crawl and claw our way out of those confines what these direct witnesses created as a manner of expression of their story gives us some ability to get inside of what they are "saying." Then again maybe not.
Terminology. Absolutely. I continuely work on this and sometimes I succeed.
Thanks and please have a great day!
Regards, Rod...
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Oct 11, 2011 11:57:29 GMT -6
A soldier could not participate or not depending on whim. A soldier could not take his time getting his outfit together before joining a battle then waging. A soldier has to follow orders, and if he does not he can be sanctioned. Or killed. A soldier trains in units. Not sure any of that applies to plains tribes, even their warrior societies. Am I wrong? There is a resemblance to the state militias Washington had to deal with during the Revolution, but they left as units not as individuals because of contract failure.
At the LBH, there were Indians out hunting that day (as would be necessary). Do we know who they were? Did Sitting Bull or anyone? Didn't people leave and join the camp at will? THAT's an army? Did anyone at the camp have an idea how many warriors they had at a given time?
Tribes resemble street gangs to me more than armies, and while I have not discussed this with tribal elders of the present, they followed the most charismatic and reputedly successful rather than the most organized and competent, although those could overlap.
Remain leery of re-re-re-revisionist takes by our contemporaries in the tribes. Like listening to the Irish or Scots describe past heroics against cowardly and idiot English who, somehow, always won. In short, I'm not given to accept current tales at face value by Native Americans of their ancestors anymore than I am my own family's highly dubious past.
|
|
|
Post by bc on Oct 11, 2011 13:19:26 GMT -6
Darn, just when I was beginning to think that some troops must have stayed at Riney's motel in the valley and raided the nightstand drawer.
bc
|
|
|
Post by fred on Oct 11, 2011 14:12:28 GMT -6
Ian,
First of all, you are wise to use my time-line, for despite the fact it has not been published-- yet-- it is more accurate, by far, than John Gray's.
You have, however, gotten the times wrong.
Tom Weir reached the peaks at 3:51 PM. That is at the top of the northernmost peak. At that same time C Company is being routed out of Calhoun Coulee.
Smoke and dust are beginning to shroud everything, making it extremely difficult-- if not impossible-- to figure out what is happening north of Deep Coulee.
Several minutes later, LT Edgerly, in front of his D Company troops is in Cedar Coulee, adjacent to the "loaf" area to the east of the twin peaks.
At 4 PM, the lead packs are beginning to arrive on Reno Hill.
At 4:02 PM, D Company reaches its farthest point north of Weir Peaks complex and is signaled by CPT Weir to return.
By 4:14 PM, Edgerly is up onto the "loaf" and is positioning his troops. By this time, Calhoun has been wiped out and Keogh is most likely dead, his command in the process of being finished off.
At 4:18 PM, Edgerly begins firing at some Indians south of MTC. These are probably the remnants of the Indians left behind to keep an eye on Reno's beleaguered command.
At 4:20 PM, Benteen is standing next to Weir. Custer and Smith have been attacked and have been pressured up Cemetery Ridge to LSH.
At 4:45 PM, Indians are now beginning to see troops deployed on the Weir complex and many of them start to move in that direction. Custer is already dead and the only thing happening on that field is a mop-up.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by shan on Oct 11, 2011 14:17:17 GMT -6
Maragret,
thanks for that I will check the online site you suggested. As for the book, I bought way back when the Hayward gallery had an exhibition of early photographs of Native Americans, in fact it was the book that got me buying a dozen or more others on the subject, including Rods.
Women are of course represented in numerous pieces of ledger art, but as you can probably can image almost always as victims. There are a few that show women warriors, the famous Yellow Nose who snatched the Guidon during the battle did a couple of interesting ones which you can find them on Siris if you trawl through the ledger Art sections.
Then there is the famous one of the woman rescuing her brother at the battle of the Rosebud, both of whose names I know as well as my own, but the department where that information is stored has just embarrassed me by shutting up shop before I could retrieve them
Shan.
|
|
|
Post by rgthomas on Oct 11, 2011 15:07:50 GMT -6
Margaret, good afternoon...I've attached (I think) two papers. One was published in my column in the now defunct Journal of the Indian Wars back in 2000 and the other is a paper I presented at the CBHMA Annual Symposium in Hardin also in 2000. The two well-known Cheyenne drawings of women in combat are contained in the Spotted Wolf-Yellow Nose ledger book in the National Anthropological Archives, Bureau of Ethnology ms. 166.032. I will have to attach to a separate post due to file size. At the moment I have not found anymore on this subject but again...we really don't know what is in the next drawer or book. One is of Buffalo Calf Robe Woman rescuing her brother in the Rosebud fight before LBH. In fact, the Cheyennes still call that battle by the name "Where a woman rescued her brother." There is an obscure reference which has escaped me at the moment that alleged she was on last stand hill and may have killed GAC. The other drawing is probably, according to most Cheyenne sources, of E'hopysta or Yellow Haired Woman a very famous lady who fought in the Beecher Island fight and probably in the big fight with Shoshonie people. Those two papers are a bit dated now and I would write them differently with a decade of learning since penned. But, they will get you into the references that were around then. A quick "Bing" or "Google" should bring up more modern writings. When did the inverted flags start showing up? Well, now I have to dig into that. I'm off for the next week to visit with my oldest son and his family so I'll get to that task when I return. Thanks and please have a great day... Regards, Rod... Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by rgthomas on Oct 11, 2011 15:13:11 GMT -6
So, let's try these two images... Regards, Rod... Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by rgthomas on Oct 11, 2011 15:14:10 GMT -6
It appears only one at a time...so here goes... Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by rgthomas on Oct 11, 2011 15:15:00 GMT -6
And the second article... Regards, Rod... Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by rgthomas on Oct 11, 2011 15:21:47 GMT -6
In all the thousands of pieces of this art that I've looked at, this is the only example I've found of a jammed Springfield carbine. It is in Mike Cowdrey's wonderful Arrow's Elk Society Ledger published by Morning Star Gallery in Santa Fe. While none of the art of the battle I've seen shows this, here we have two Southern Cheyenne hunters with one having trouble with a jammed casing. In case anyone is interested. Regards, Rod... Attachments:
|
|