|
|
Post by ulan on May 16, 2012 13:09:19 GMT -6
My wife has a family photo from the late 1800's of a couple with the father holding their young daughter (around 2 years old or so) upright on his lap. Her eyes are closed and she appears dead. The couple have a rather stoic and sad look on their faces. She must have died young and they wanted a pic to remember her buy. bc From todays view it seems very obscure that people let take photographes of deads in their family. But i think we must remember that people in that time had normaly no photo of anyone and it was very special to own one. Therefore if someone in the family died in young years it was the only chance to recover something to remember him. Today we all have many photos of everyone around us, but in the earlier days they had only pictures in their minds. |
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on May 16, 2012 23:12:47 GMT -6
I don't doubt bc's family story, and I agree that such photos were taken. If you select the post-mortem photography previews from the Antique Photo Album website, www.antiquephotoalbum.nl/pmgalleries/categories.php?cat_id=8, you will see that they all are either lying down or propped up in a chair. I did not see any instance of someone standing up. I saw only one with her eyes open, and I am not convinced that was post-mortem because she was holding the arms of a chair. I find it unlikely that someone took a dead Indian (or anyone else) to a photographer's studio, dressed him up, applied make-up, and somehow got the body standing and posed for such a photo. Diane |
|
|
|
Post by ulan on May 17, 2012 0:25:10 GMT -6
Maybe we need a photo of someone well known alive at the time when the photo was taken and with such a post in his back visible.
Edit: I just spend some hours again and studied photos from that time frame. Actually many of the portrait photo wich where made in studios are showing a post/stand behind the person. Possibly the information from the website is wrong and these posts were used just to hold the body of living person in position.
May a photograph expert can explain the sense of those posts one day.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 17, 2012 12:53:50 GMT -6
Any of the websites about Mathew Brady and his peers would inform about the standard practices of the day.
The reason nobody smiles in photos, for the most part, is they had to stay still for so long and not move. Lincoln, for example, was often smiling and laughing - God knows why - and there is not a single photo of him doing so. He also, for the time, had great teeth and his smile was illuminating, his peers said. What a difference that would have made to meld his physical self with the stories about him.
I don't think post mortem photos were that common because they weren't that possible. Would require near instantaneous availability and motivation, because embalming was expensive and also not immediately available, especially on the frontier. Photos creeped out the Indians, as they would anyone not familiar with the concept, and that would add another layer of implausibility to the issue. They'd kill anyone whom they thought had insulted their dead.
I don't think the website was correct and was just playing a joke.
|
|
|
|
Post by WY Man on Jul 27, 2012 22:19:46 GMT -6
This is the photo of Little Bat Garnier that appeared in "The Life and Adventures of Frank Grouard," ed. by Joe De Barthe, and published in 1894. I'm not sure when this photo was made, but it had to be prior to the book's publication. It is striking to me the similarity of the shirt and breastplate worn by Little Bat in this photo, and the purported photo of Crazy Horse. The so called Crazy Horse photo was found by Ellen Howard, the daughter of Little Bat Garnier, in her father's possessions. This similar photo gives the Crazy Horse photo some validity, in my opinion. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by bc on Jul 27, 2012 22:33:02 GMT -6
This is the photo of Little Bat Garnier that appeared in "The Life and Adventures of Frank Grouard," ed. by Joe De Barthe, and published in 1894. I'm not sure when this photo was made, but it had to be prior to the book's publication. It is striking to me the similarity of the shirt and breastplate worn by Little Bat in this photo, and the purported photo of Crazy Horse. The so called Crazy Horse photo was found by Ellen Howard, the daughter of Little Bat Garnier, in her father's possessions. This similar photo gives the Crazy Horse photo some validity, in my opinion. Can you post the pic that was supposedly CH for comparison? Maybe that person is related to Garnier and the clothing passed down. Never mind, here it is.  After looking at the bigger photo from the Friends site, the vertical bar in the center is a whole lot wider with the alleged CH photo. Nice try though. Here is the link to it: -- www.friendslittlebighorn.com/crazy-horse-photo.htm -- bc |
|
|
|
Post by WY Man on Jul 28, 2012 0:14:51 GMT -6
I didn't say the shirt and breast plate were the same, I said they were similar.
|
|
|
|
Post by chuntulhi on Apr 5, 2013 14:54:47 GMT -6
So a photo appears 70 some odd years later of the most mysterious elusive warrior of all the plains from the daughter of an "army scout" interpreter ... Sorry try another pawn shop...
by the way I love this discussion board..great stuff..
|
|
|
|
Post by fred on Apr 5, 2013 15:28:50 GMT -6
So a photo appears 70 some odd years later of the most mysterious elusive warrior of all the plains from the daughter of an "army scout" interpreter ... Sorry try another pawn shop... I agree. By the way, welcome to our madhouse. Please try to make it yours as well. Best wishes, Fred. |
|
|
|
Post by scottbono on Jan 26, 2014 20:00:10 GMT -6
I don't doubt bc's family story, and I agree that such photos were taken. If you select the post-mortem photography previews from the Antique Photo Album website, www.antiquephotoalbum.nl/pmgalleries/categories.php?cat_id=8, you will see that they all are either lying down or propped up in a chair. I did not see any instance of someone standing up. I saw only one with her eyes open, and I am not convinced that was post-mortem because she was holding the arms of a chair. I find it unlikely that someone took a dead Indian (or anyone else) to a photographer's studio, dressed him up, applied make-up, and somehow got the body standing and posed for such a photo. Diane Was just browsing the thread and came across the comments vis-a-vis CH and the purported photo. I'd love for it to be CH...except the arguments for it not to be are too strong and well constructed. To the point of post-mortem photography, one of the reasons the cadavers are found either sitting or laying down is a consequence of the rigor mortis ending - usually after 24 hours. The cadaver becomes, literally, 'limp as a wet noodle'. If this had been CH, not only would the cadaver have had to be supported upright but the head would need to be fixed in place and the arm exttension would have to be fixed. It won't do to try it during rigor because the cadaver simply won't respond. Additionally, the appearance 'sinks' - e.g. the face tissues lose elasticity and strength and collapse. The idea of photographing death is a bit eerie to me and always has been. My grandparents have an entire ALBUM of dead relatives' pictures - I mean, done when dead! Albums, mind you! In addition, it seems it was quite the tradition to have the body laud out in 'the sitting room' for a few days for viewing - the babies in the album (yes, it covered the gamut of family age groups) had coins over their eyes. Anyway, back from that morbid sidetrip; my purpose in posting was simply to show the photo wasn't post-mortem. |
|
|
|
Post by pietro on Oct 2, 2017 15:57:12 GMT -6
So a photo appears 70 some odd years later of the most mysterious elusive warrior of all the plains from the daughter of an "army scout" interpreter ... Sorry try another pawn shop... by the way I love this discussion board..great stuff.. She was also a Lakota, an Oglala, and cousin of Crazy Horse. 75% American Indian, 25% white. Not merely a daughter of an "army scout" Little Bat, who was considered one of the most honest and reliable scout the army ever had, but a daughter of the Lakota nation. As a seventy years old woman, she had no reason to lie so many years later. I rather believe her than any other white source, specially the one who started all this myth, the mighty Doctor Valentine McGillycuddy. |
|
|
|
Post by pietro on Oct 2, 2017 16:00:53 GMT -6
Another aspect of the Crazy Horse tintype that we can examine, besides the historical record for photographers known to have visited the Red Cloud Agency (detailed above), is the story that came with the tintype. Can this be tested for historical accuracy? Supposedly, Baptiste "Little Bat" Garnier was the one who persuaded Crazy Horse to sit for this photograph. Little Bat's brother-in-law was John Hunton who operated a ranch south of Fort Laramie and fortunately for historians, kept a diary. Little Bat originally lived and worked on the Hunton ranch, though by 1877 he had his own place nearby. Because Hunton and Little Bat were good friends, his diary gives considerable detail about Garnier's movements. Did Little Bat visit the Red Cloud Agency anytime between May and Sept 1877 when Crazy Horse was there? Hunton's diary records three visits by Garnier to Red Cloud: 1.) in March 1877 (but that was before Crazy Horse had surrendered). 2.) about May 22 to about June 4 (Crazy Horse at Agency but no photographer there) 3.) about June 15 to sometime before June 24 (again, Crazy Horse at Agency, but no photographer there) The only time that there was a photographer at the agency at the same time as Crazy Horse was James H. Hamilton, photographer from Sioux City, Iowa, who was there in August and September 1877. But where was Little Bat at that time? He was actually traveling with Hunton, as detailed in his diaries, in northern Wyoming searching for hay. Garnier returned to his home in late August 1877; and there is no indication that he visited the Red Cloud Agency before Crazy Horse was killed on September 5. So, the historical record does not support the story of Little Bat pursuading Crazy Horse to sit for his photograph. The story also implies that there was some relationship between he and Crazy Horse, a bond strong enough to overcome Crazy Horse's aversion to being photographed. Every indication however is that Little Bat did NOT enjoy a special relationship with the famed Oglala warrior. While he spoke Lakota as a mixed blood and made occasional visits to the agency to visit Oglala relatives, he was not strongly connected to the full blood community there. He served as a scout for Crook in the initial campaign in March 1876 and as scout for Col. Merrit 5th Cavalry when he headed out in May 1876. Unlike other mix-bloods such as William Garnett (aka Billy Hunter, interpreter at Red Cloud Agency/Camp Robinson), the historical record does not support that Little Bat enjoyed strong relationship with the surrendereding northern Oglala. So, not only does our knowledge of the photographer suggest that this tintype is not of Crazy Horse, but the story of Little Bat's role does not pass historical muster either. Ephriam |
|
|
|
Post by pietro on Oct 2, 2017 16:02:26 GMT -6
Dear Ephriam, how sure are we that James Hamilton was at Red Cloud Agency only from August to September? Thank you, your friend Peter
|
|
|
|
Post by pietro on Oct 3, 2017 10:52:56 GMT -6
Another aspect of the Crazy Horse tintype that we can examine, besides the historical record for photographers known to have visited the Red Cloud Agency (detailed above), is the story that came with the tintype. Can this be tested for historical accuracy? Supposedly, Baptiste "Little Bat" Garnier was the one who persuaded Crazy Horse to sit for this photograph. Little Bat's brother-in-law was John Hunton who operated a ranch south of Fort Laramie and fortunately for historians, kept a diary. Little Bat originally lived and worked on the Hunton ranch, though by 1877 he had his own place nearby. Because Hunton and Little Bat were good friends, his diary gives considerable detail about Garnier's movements. Did Little Bat visit the Red Cloud Agency anytime between May and Sept 1877 when Crazy Horse was there? Hunton's diary records three visits by Garnier to Red Cloud: 1.) in March 1877 (but that was before Crazy Horse had surrendered). 2.) about May 22 to about June 4 (Crazy Horse at Agency but no photographer there) 3.) about June 15 to sometime before June 24 (again, Crazy Horse at Agency, but no photographer there) The only time that there was a photographer at the agency at the same time as Crazy Horse was James H. Hamilton, photographer from Sioux City, Iowa, who was there in August and September 1877. But where was Little Bat at that time? He was actually traveling with Hunton, as detailed in his diaries, in northern Wyoming searching for hay. Garnier returned to his home in late August 1877; and there is no indication that he visited the Red Cloud Agency before Crazy Horse was killed on September 5. So, the historical record does not support the story of Little Bat pursuading Crazy Horse to sit for his photograph. The story also implies that there was some relationship between he and Crazy Horse, a bond strong enough to overcome Crazy Horse's aversion to being photographed. Every indication however is that Little Bat did NOT enjoy a special relationship with the famed Oglala warrior. While he spoke Lakota as a mixed blood and made occasional visits to the agency to visit Oglala relatives, he was not strongly connected to the full blood community there. He served as a scout for Crook in the initial campaign in March 1876 and as scout for Col. Merrit 5th Cavalry when he headed out in May 1876. Unlike other mix-bloods such as William Garnett (aka Billy Hunter, interpreter at Red Cloud Agency/Camp Robinson), the historical record does not support that Little Bat enjoyed strong relationship with the surrendereding northern Oglala. So, not only does our knowledge of the photographer suggest that this tintype is not of Crazy Horse, but the story of Little Bat's role does not pass historical muster either. Ephriam |
|
|
|
Post by pietro on Oct 3, 2017 10:53:19 GMT -6
|
|
