|
|
Post by gregor on Aug 31, 2012 7:37:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by ladonna on Aug 31, 2012 8:55:56 GMT -5
The Cheyenne are so intermixed with the Lakota before 1700s that it could be a possiblity but i never heard of it, I know that the Cheyenne were camp with the Lakota in the middle 1700s but unsure if these words were taken from them
|
|
|
|
Post by kingsleybray on Aug 31, 2012 10:27:20 GMT -5
I am not a linguistic expert, but it's worth pointing out that Ray DeMallie believes that the term naca, which "seems to have designated a leader in the context of the tribal council", was "probably borrowed from Arapaho ne.ce. [pron. ne-che, meaning] chief".
Source: DeMallie, 'Teton', in Handbook North American Indians Vol. 13 PLAINS, p. 802.
|
|
|
|
Post by ladonna on Aug 31, 2012 11:16:48 GMT -5
but it sound like they are guessing instead of asking if it is true
|
|
wind
Junior Member
Posts: 53
|
Post by wind on Aug 31, 2012 11:44:28 GMT -5
According to Thomas Powers in his "The Killing of Crazy Horse" it's "Ongloge Un". TomV Yes, I remember this part in the book and it is the reason why I desided to ask - I couldn`t translate Ongloge Un I don`t speak Lakota, but I need to understand the things that I study. There are many mistakes in English books about Lakota tribe. And it is really important for me to know some things for certain. |
|
wind
Junior Member
Posts: 53
|
Post by wind on Aug 31, 2012 13:25:29 GMT -5
I want to ask one more thing.
Nacha - is a leader, a chief
Wichasha Itankan - is a leader, a chief
Blotahunka - is the leader of the war party
Hunkayapi - is the leader of a society or a ceremony
Nacha - what kind of a chief is that ?
The chief of a tribe (Hunkpapa. Oglala, Sihasapa, etc ) ?
Or the chief of a smaler division like Hunkpatila ?
Or the chief of Teton Nation ?
Or Nacha means any kind of a chief?
Thank you
|
|
|
|
Post by kingsleybray on Sept 1, 2012 4:08:27 GMT -5
Ok I'll try to be as succinct as possible, and focus on the question "Nacha - what kind of chief is that?" This is how I understand it, from everything I have found in books and from talking to Lakota people.
It's easier to understand if we remember the annual pulse of Lakota life, moving through a seasonal cycle. As game and resources increased or declined, people aggregated or dispersed. Different activities and opportunities required different-sized groups, from extended-families, tiwahe, up to large camps, sometimes of several thousand people, organized as tribes, oyate.
The basic building block of society was a group of related extended-families which habitually travelled together. The normal number of people was 50-100. I'm going to call this a band. The families would all be related by blood and marriage, and they accorded a loose allegiance to a headman - a senior male of the grandparent generation. Because the group was so small and ties were so intimate organization was very minimal, based round the co-operation of a core of closely related people. The headman acted as a spokesman for the group, and he normally hosted band councils.
The band might operate independently for a few weeks or longer each year. Late winter-early spring was a classic dispersal time, after winter surplus stores had been consumed and when game resources were typically dispersed. Late summer-early fall was another time when one or two closely related bands operated in groups of 30 or 40 lodges. Then deer hunts, organized at family level, and fruit gathering, organized by groups of women and girls, were the main activity. These all demanded little co-ordination.
When the tribe, the Oglala, let's say, or the Hunkpapa, gathered in late spring, preparatory for the summer ceremonial season, it organized for highly co-ordinated buffalo hunts. This is when tribal organization kicked in. The trader P.A. Tabeau, writing about 1804, has a good expression here. He talks about what he calls "subordinate chiefs" who led what I've called bands. "These chiefs return to the rank of companions when the tribe is all reunited." He means that their status is undifferentiated, the headmen are all of the same rank when they convene the tribal council. This council was called nacha omnichiye, the nacha council. These headmen were the nacha, in a collective sense. I think the term was used rather formally, and indicated their status as part of the tribal council.
Because hunts and tribal movements had to be co-ordinated, the nacha council then appointed a number of officers to oversee affairs for the forthcoming season. The basic appointments were of headmen called Deciders, wakichunze. Four is the number usually given, but I've read accounts, of two, or six, or even twelve Deciders being appointed for a given season. Who were the Deciders? Typically they were drawn from the membership of the nacha council. It was considered important to have continuity of leadership, so that experienced men could fill this important post. On the other hand, Lakota people always had before them the necessity of bringing on a new generation of leadership, so one or two younger men might be invited to be Deciders. At times of warfare, war leaders, the officers of warrior societies like the Strong Hearts and the Kit-Foxes, might be invited to be Deciders. Responsibilities cored round communal hunt organization and camp removes, but Deciders might be called upon to umpire games, redistribute meat surpluses, adjudicate in civil disputes, decide on issues of peace and war, and so on. The Deciders named two distinguished warriors as akichita itanchan, soldier chiefs, who then named a body of subordinate akichita to serve as police throughout the season. Sometimes a warrior society was named to take up the responsibility of acting as the akichita. When the tribal village dispersed, typically at the end of summer, the Deciders and the nacha council disbanded, and band level organization resumed. Next year it started up all over again.
Close readers will note I've not tackled the roles of the wichasha itanchan and of the shirt wearers. I'll try to do that another time. Both of them seem to be later developments. The above is a capsule account of how things operated in the old days BLC - Before Lewis and Clark let's say.
Incidentally, ongloge'un literally does mean shirt wearer. Ogle-tanka'un seems to mean great shirt wearer. The words ogle and ongloge both mean a shirt or coat.
|
|
alex
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by alex on Sept 9, 2012 6:09:34 GMT -5
I wonder if Shirtwearers really existed as an "institution of chiefs". Maybe Crazy Horse and others were made Shirt Weearers only once and never again there were new Shirtwearers?
|
|
|
|
Post by kingsleybray on Sept 9, 2012 14:29:02 GMT -5
You are right, the cohort of Oglala Shirt Wearers selected in 1868 (including Crazy Horse) was "the last to hold these offices", according to what Thunder Bear told Clark Wissler. However, there were earlier Shirt Wearers. Quoting Thunder Bear again, "Later, it was decided to appoint four leaders of equal rank, the best and bravest men of the tribe. They became so powerful that they were respected by all. The last to hold these offices were American-horse, Crazy-horse, Man-afraid-of-his-horse, and Sword." (Wissler, 'Societies and Ceremonial Associations in the Oglala Division of the Teton-Dakota', p. 39.)
|
|
|
|
Post by lincoln on Sept 21, 2012 5:21:28 GMT -5
George E Hyde at page 31 of his book Spotted Tail's Folk says "......after this fight, says Eastman, Brave Bear and the other chiefs made Spotted Tail a 'tanka-un', or war-shirt wearer ........" Hyde does go on to refute much of what Eastman says but he makes no mention of disagreeing with the translation. At page 80 Hyde says ".... Spotted Tail was still an 'ogle-tanka-un' - a war shirt wearer - and a 'wakicunsa' or head soldier of his camp ......."
This concurs with what has been posted above.
|
|
|
|
Post by nicolas (carlo) on Oct 13, 2013 4:03:02 GMT -5
Another name for the Shirt Wearers is Wicasa Yatapika. However, there is some confusion on whether the Wicasa Yatapika were actually the same as the Shirt Wearers or a separate office on tribal/national level.
Raymond DeMallie states there is no good etymology of the term Wicasa Yatapika, but the translation often used for Yatapika is "praiseworthy". Thus the Wicasa Yatapika are Praiseworthy Men or Men They Praise.
Hassrick ("The Sioux") calls them the "Supreme Owners" of the tribe, i.e. "Men who Own", and states the office was actually a national (Lakota) counterpart to the divisional (Oglala, Hunkpapa, Miniconjou, etc.) office of Shirt Wearer. Hassrick claims that four men were appointed by the Naca as executives on a tribal level. Like the Shirt Wearers, these four would have been above reproach and constantly had to prove themselves as judicious leaders of their people, yet were not chiefs. According to Hassrick, the last known investiture took place around 1850. These were Iron Shell, son of Shot In The Heel (Miniconjou), Great War Leader, Eagle Feather Back and Little Thunder. In the ceremony to appoint them, each man was given a hair-fringed shirt as his badge of office. "Men who Own" thus might allude to the ownership of this shirt. Curtis calls the Wicasa Yatapika head-chiefs, a common mistake when describing the Shirt Wearers, but also claims there was one for each tribal division. This might infer that the office was on a national level, i.e. one member from each division to form a national office.
Black Elk, however, clearly states the Wicasa Yatapika and the Shirt Wearers were one and the same. In "Sixth Grandfather" he goes on to list the last Oglala Wicasa Yatapika, namely Crazy Horse, American Horse, Man Afraid, and Sword; thus there is no doubt that he is talking about the Shirt Wearer office as we know it. DeMallie, in various publications, agrees that Wicasa Yatapika was the name for the Shirt Wearers, and so does Vine Deloria ("Crazy Horse, Strange Man", ed.).
Given the details mentioned in these sources, it is clear that the Wicasa Yatapika were indeed the Shirt Wearers. However, there may have been Shirt Wearers on a national/tribal level before the 1850s.
The term "Praisworthy Men" may have fallen in disuse after the more descriptive name "Shirt Wearers" became popular. In any case the term Wicasa Yatapika, just as Ogle-tanka'un, denotes the Shirt Wearers.
Carlo
|
|
|
|
Post by nicolas (carlo) on Oct 13, 2013 13:57:07 GMT -5
Didn't think much of it when I typed my last post, but the names mentioned by Hassrick as being the last Wicasa Yatapika are of course all prominent Sicangu (Brulé) men. This seems to contradict Hassrick's assertion that these were national/tribal officers, when they were actually Sicangu Shirt Wearers. Confusion may have come from Iron Shell's grandson being his informant.
(According to Hyde, Spotted Tail was also a Shirt Wearer among the Sicangu, which would have been late 1850s as well.)
|
|
|
|
Post by alexander on Nov 13, 2013 12:44:36 GMT -5
You are right, the cohort of Oglala Shirt Wearers selected in 1868 (including Crazy Horse) was "the last to hold these offices", according to what Thunder Bear told Clark Wissler. How many Shirt Wearers in all were in the last free years of Lakota? Let`s say during the last 10-11 years of their free life (1866-1877) How many Shirt Wearers are known by name? Was was done to Crazy Horse`s shirt? Was it given to someone else? |
|
|
|
Post by ladonna on Nov 13, 2013 16:30:37 GMT -5
i think a person need to take a step back and ask which band are you talking about?
the 7 Lakota Bands 28 Shirt Wearers
the 4 Dakota Bands 16 Shirt wearers
The 3 Nakota bands 12 Shirt Wearers
Then you divided each of the bands into the sub bands
and double that number by four
you end up with many shirt wearers
so what you need to do is narrow it down to band and a sub band
then ask your question
Plus we know our people and their names
|
|
|
|
Post by alexander on Nov 14, 2013 11:18:37 GMT -5
the 7 Lakota Bands 28 Shirt Wearers 28 Shirt Wearers in 7 Lakota bands = 4 Shirt Wearers in each band. Ladonna, can you name them ? And can you tell who became a Shirt Wearer instead of Crazy Horse when he lost his status after "Black Buffalo Woman affair" ? |
|
