Crazy Horse photo at the Custer Museum

[John Tortorella]

Guest-Don said:

Well, I didn't think it was No Neck either, but I'm far from convinced it's Crazy Horse for the reasons I gave above.

Don, never tought to convince you. When the time is ripe all reasons you gave above will be answered. Reason by reason. One by one. But that is an othe story. I' m 200% sure it is Crazy Horse for so many reasons that now we can not disclose yet. If the man in the picture is not Crazy Horse, then it must be his twin brother or someone who dressed, wore the hair like him, got shot in the face like him, wore the same clothes like him and was about the same height and frame like him. Regards

[Don Blake]

Good article in the latest English Westerners' Tally Sheet about this photo. More or less says what I think, although the author, John Bishop, thinks he can estimate the height of the subject based on the typical measurement of the bones used in breastplates and from the head to body ratio and comes up with a man just over five feet. I'm not sure I put the subjest that small. He also points out, drawing on easrlier research, that the neckerchief is tied as an Ascot-style cravat typical of the turn of the century. Other points, like the hairstyle and length of breastplate, I've mentioned above, he claims dates the photo as late nineteenth century. Finally, he draws the reader's attention to a point I've always felt a little incongruous: the description given in Vaughn and Friswold of a man with braids to his waist and two feathers in his hair doesn't seem to match the man in the photograph, which, of course, brings up the interesting question of whether the photo is actually the correct one!

[John Tortorella]

Guest-Don said:

Good article in the latest English Westerners' Tally Sheet about this photo. More or less says what I think, although the author, John Bishop, thinks he can estimate the height of the subject based on the typical measurement of the bones used in breastplates and from the head to body ratio and comes up with a man just over five feet. I'm not sure I put the subjest that small. He also points out, drawing on easrlier research, that the neckerchief is tied as an Ascot-style cravat typical of the turn of the century. Other points, like the hairstyle and length of breastplate, I've mentioned above, he claims dates the photo as late nineteenth century. Finally, he draws the reader's attention to a point I've always felt a little incongruous: the description given in Vaughn and Friswold of a man with braids to his waist and two feathers in his hair doesn't seem to match the man in the photograph, which, of course, brings up the interesting question of whether the photo is actually the correct one!

Don, where can I buy this magazine? Could you also tell me the entire title and the month that came out?
It seems to me the writer is using his personal opinion only. He should do more researches and be open minded. It seems to me he has one track mind that the picture in question is nor Crazy Horse, period, no other ways.
Well, I know for a fact the tintype was taken in the 1870s, so there goes his theory of the 1900s. I know of many similar backdrops used in the 1970s out west. The length of the breast plate is just another reason that shows the writer researches were very light.
At the Smithsonian, there is a picture of an Indian who was on a delegation, taken at Washington DC dated October 1877, just two months after Crazy Horse assassination.
This particular Indian has a breastplate with 39 bones. Now, Crazy Horse breastplate has only ten more. Plus, we know of a different photograph of a Lakota taken in 1876 with a breast plate with over fifty bones, much longer than Crazy Horse breast plate. This also proves that the writer researches are not deep at all and he is only stressing what he wants people to believe. The braids to his waist are also visible on the photograph. This is not an opinion but even a blind man could see that.
It is a known fact that the Lakota used to wrap their hair on a fur or on clothes just as long as their hair. Crazy Horse is the only photograph known that has hair wrapped on a fur that long. The style of his hair is exactly the way he used to wear it. Even No Neck in 1878, has hair with that style and so many other Lakota. The writer should do more researches before he says that the hair style is of the late 1900. I wonder what he got to say about Crazy Horse his clothes, height, frame, light skin, brown hair and the deformation on his face caused by the shot Crazy Horse received on his face by No Water. All these things are visible on the Crazy Horse photo. Next thing we know, he is going to say that the man in the photo is not an Oglala, but a Seminole.

[Don Blake]

It sounds like you're taking this personally, which is not how it was meant.

Looking through photos of Lakotas, the bulk of the longer breastplates come from a later decade than the 1870s. Can you give me the name of the Lakota with the 50-bone breastplate?

How do you know 'for a fact' that the photo was taken in the 1870s?

I've seen some reasonably elaborate photographic backdrops from that period, but they tend to be in studios and this was supposed to have been taken at Fort Robinson. I'd be more convinced if the other photos (Grouard and Little Bat's wife) that were taken at the time had turned up.

Yeah, I know Lakotas wrapped their braids in fur, but these seem to be otter skin ties more commonly seen in portraits later than 1877. Furthermore he does not have two feathers - certainly not in his hair.

The bulk of the photographs I've seen of Lakotas with hair styled and dressed in this fashion (such as in the photos of J. A. Johnson or in Wild West Show group shots) are from later than the 1870s. What's your source that says Crazy Horse wore his hair exactly the way it was in the photo? Where does it mention the off centre parting or the breath feather tied at the side?

The scar? Yes, there seems to be some deformation to the side of his face, but there is in the Morrow photo of Crazy in the Lodge too and that was another portrait mistaken for Crazy Horse.

His clothes? There are loads of photos of Lakotas wearing stroud leggings and white shirts from the 1870s and later.

Like I said, I'd love to believe it was him, but I need more evidence. The photos of Bat's wife and Grouard in the same setting would help. Why can't you disclose the reasons why you feel it's definitely his photo?

[John Tortorella]

Guest-john said:

.

Don, nothing personal. I can not disclose all the evidence we have now. But by the end of this year' 2005' is going to go public. Just some think I think you should know about the backdrop. If you look at the original tintype you will be able to see that the backdrop is a portable one. It could have traveled any where in any wagon. In 1870s it is known and proved that backdrops like that were already out west. Crazy in the Lodge scar or disfiguration is nothing like the one of the real Crazy Horse, big difference. If you look close at Crazy Horse, you could see that one cheek bone has collapsed in comparison of the other. Again I do not want to go on details but this one is in the bank. Two different forensic specialists have already stated and guaranteed us that one of the cheek bones has collapsed because of a projectile entering from the front of the individual and exiting from the back. That is not the case of Crazy in the Lodge.

[Don Blake]

I'm aware the backdrops were portable; it was the tiled floor that got me.

Do you work at the Custer Museum?

Fascinating, intriguing stuff, whatever.

[john tortorella]

Guest-Don said:

I'm aware the backdrops were portable; it was the tiled floor that got me.

Do you work at the Custer Museum?

Fascinating, intriguing stuff, whatever.

Hi, Don, no I do not work at the Custer museum. I resides in New York. I' m helping a friend of mine with his researches on Crazy Horse. The floor that you mentioned will be one of our most important ace. We think the floor will paly a major role on the identification of the tintype. Regards, John

[Don Blake]

Not sure I'll believe it, but I'm looking forward to it.

[Ephriam Dickson]

I would like to add some information to the debate about this tintype in regard to photographers present at Camp Robinson in 1877, if we assume that is when the image was taken.

The following photographers are known to have visited Camp Robinson that year:

1.) Unidentified Photographer, January 1877
Newspaper reporter Robert Strahorn visited Camp Robinson and the nearby Red Cloud Agency in late January 1877, traveling with General Crook. He noted that a small log cabin studio was in operation at Camp Robinson near the post trader's store and doing a good business in producing portraits for the natives. The name of this photographer is not known nor how long he stayed. Could he still have been there four months later when Crazy Horse surrendered?

There is one small carte-de-vista print known in the collection of the Nebraska State Historical Society bearing the imprint "Hamilton & Smith's Gallery of Art, Red Cloud Agency, Nebraska." We do not know if this is that unknown photographer. The background in this image incidentally does not match the Crazy Horse tintype.

2.) James H. Hamilton (c1833-1897), photographer from Sioux City, Iowa, at Red Cloud and Spotted Tail Agencies, August to September 1877.

Hamilton was at the agencies during the period that Crazy Horse was there and did produce a number of Indian portraits, though mostly of Brule at the Spotted Tail Agency. Hamilton did include on his list of images a portrait labeled "104. Crazy Horse." An example of this image with the negative number marked on it has not been found yet. However, at least one image in the Hamilton series is known with the name Crazy Horse handwritten on the reverse; it has been shown to actually be of a Pawnee named "Chak-ur-t-kee", an image actually made by Byron Gurnsey and later reprinted by Hamilton. There still may be a Hamilton image out there waiting to be discovered. However, of the number of Hamilton Indian portraits from the agencies from 1877 that are known, none of them have the backdrop visible in the Crazy Horse tintype; Hamilton instead used a blanket, tree branches and other props in his temporary studio.

3.) Private Charles Howard, 4th Infantry, at Camp Robinson Sept. 30 to October 4 and from Oct. 25 to Oct. 28, 1877. Crazy Horse had already died by this time, so he could not be the photographer. Only one image showing a backdrop is known by Private Howard. It dates to the 1878-80 period and is different than the Crazy Horse tintype.

4.) David Rodocker (1840-1919), from Winfield, Kansas, passed through the Red Cloud Agency in October 1877, after Crazy Horse died. All of his stereocards are outdoor views; no Indian portraits are known. The backdrops in his known portraits from Winfield, Kansas, do not match the Crazy Horse tintype.

5.) D. S. Mitchell (1838-1929) was a traveling photographer with his partner Joseph McGowan in the fall of 1877, having just shut down his studio in Cheyenne. We do not have any independent evidence to document that he visited the Red Cloud Agency, however, he produced a set of 38 portraits of Oglala and Arapahoe men and women from the Red Cloud Agency in the fall of 1877. He had a painted backdrop, however, it is different than the one appearing in the Crazy Horse tintype. And he does not list a portrait of Crazy Horse in his catalog of views; seems he would have had he taken one. The fact that the Oglala headmen are wearing their Grant peace medals suggest that the portaits were made after the delegation had returned from Washington D. C. in October 1877, after Crazy Horse died.

CONCLUSION:

The historical record documents that at least five different photographers passed through Camp Robinson and the Red Cloud Agency in 1877. Of these, only one -- James Hamilton -- can be shown to have been there during the period that Crazy Horse was also there. None of the backdrops used by four of the photographers (the fifth one is not known) match the Crazy Horse tintype.

So, just based on the information we have about the photographers, the timing of their visits and their known backdrops, I find it highly unlikely that the tintype discussed was taken at Camp Robinson in 1877.

Ephriam

[Don Blake]

You've got to wonder if there were any sletches done of him; there are, after all, numerous newspaper reports reproduced in the Hardorff book about his death and sketches were made of his parents travelling with his body and of the initial 'burial' place. There is one possible engraving showing his band surrendering which seems to combine elements drawn from observation and elements drawn from other, less ethnographically accurate illustrations. There is however, one mounted Indian in a fringed shirt looking back as the rest ride by. Of course, he was supposed to be at the head of the group...

[Ephriam Dickson]

Don:

You need to remember that the sketches you are referring to were published in Leslie's Illustrated (see Denver Public Library photographs website for scans of each one). They were created by artists at the magazine, not by someone actually in the field. The sketches probably say more about what our culture at the time thought Lakota should look like rather than reality.

ephriam

[Don Blake]

Sorry, I'd assumed the illustrator (Berghaus?) was in the field. It seems odd that no-one drew him or that no sketches have survived; after all, there are sketches of Sitting Bull surrendering and some from before that. Then again, reading through Hardorff's book, the written descriptions often vary considerably...

[crzhrse]

According to the correspondence of William Garnett (interpreter at the time of Crazy Horse's time on the reservation) and Dr. McGillycuddy who had befriended Crazy Horse once on the reservation, McGillycuddy wrote:

"Crazy Horse never had a picture taken that I know of, and if there was one taken, some one sneaked up and took it, for he never would consent to be photographed. He was very peculiar about this, and was a very modest man, considering his fighting ability and bravery . . . I enclose a picture of Crazy Horse recently published, I made up my mind that it was a fake . . . Crazy Horse was a strange looking Indian, and I would have known him any where . . . Did Crazy Horse ever have his picture taken? I hardly believe it, for I tried hard to have one taken of him in 1877 . . . the Photographic Division of the War Department has just issued the inclosed photograph claiming that it is a picture of Crazy Horse. It certainly does not look like him as I remember him. I never knew of his having a photograph taken."

And Garnett wrote: "I am very sure he never had a photograph taken."

Of course this was before the supposed tin-type of Crazy Horse was found in 1956 and no one was alive then who could authenticate it being Crazy Horse. In my opinion, Crazy Horse would never have allowed his photo taken so soon after coming to the reservation. His mysticism and aversion of self-indulgence would not have allowed it. However, if he had survived, and given time he might have allowed is "spirit" to be taken.

[tomthebomb]

Crazy Horse had always been known as different, shy, and rarely wore the gaudy clothing and paint as most warriors. He was one of the most mystical and spiritual of the Lakota and once on the res stated that he did not want his "shadow" captured by the black box (camera). I doubt he was photographed. The McGuillycuddy/Garnett letters speak volumes on their belief that CH was never photographed. After all they were there and Dr. M had gotten as close to CH as any white man.

[tomthebomb]

One would think if a photographer got Crazy Horse's photo he would have made a big deal out of it. After all this was the great warrior who vanquished Fetterman, Crook, and Custer. He would have made a lot of money by being the person to "capture" Crazy Horse.


I doubt Crazy Horse was ever photographed.