peter
Junior Member
Posts: 98
|
Post by peter on Oct 6, 2017 10:55:51 GMT -5
Very simple Dietmar, there is a magazine called the Annals of Iowa. I will give it to you the right date, I got nothing to loose. It only took me more than 18 long years of intense researches to find it, but I'm happy that will take you only 18 second to do the same on the Internet, What a life you have. hahaha. From that magazine, you can date back when Hamilton was at Camp Robinson. It will not tell you, but it is up to you to find it out according to Hamilton son narrative, very simple if you are a true detective. Here it is:' Annals of Iowa, volume 41 Number 3 Winter 1972. Enjoy it
|
|
peter
Junior Member
Posts: 98
|
Post by peter on Oct 6, 2017 10:40:44 GMT -5
Dietmar, I don not want to prove anything so I will not get discouraged. I'm only stating the facts and I already stated I will not talk about Crazy Horse tintype, but photographs and so forth. My facts are based on actual photographs and history not subjective but objective not on opinions. The man on the tintype dressed exactly like the photographs of the 1877 delegation to Washington it is not to hard to see, unless you refuse to look at them with an open mind since your mind is already made up, but please just look at the photographs and with an open mind you will see that the Wild West performers of the 1890s dressed exactly like the 1877 delegation to Washington, just look at the photographs. I'm saying according to the fact, visual photograph and historical records that it was the 1890s photographs that look like the 1877 and not viceversa. 1877 comes before 1890 and the man on the tintype dressed exactly like the 1877 delegation Washington. pure facts, not opinion. By the way all the Indians who went to Washington were wearing only and solely white muslin shirts, beside the usual regalia, but on a daily basis only white muslins shirts. The performers in the 1890s, the majority of them wore only dark tunics, nothing to do with the white muslin shirts that the Indians at Red Clou wore in 1877 just one more consideration to think about. So it is incorrect saying that the man in the tintype dressed like the Wild West Show, even the shirts do not match, including the the way they had their hair wrapped in plain clothes instead of fur and the way they braided their hair. Look at the distinct, proud way the man in the tintype wears his hair, look at the length of it and then come back to me even with one photo of the 1890s performer wearing and braiding his hair with distinction, dignity and a regal way like a true chief would, like the man in the tintype does. They don't. They were only performers. They all look like cloned to me. Nothing like the man on the tintype, not even close.
|
|
peter
Junior Member
Posts: 98
|
Post by peter on Oct 6, 2017 10:02:30 GMT -5
Yes Grahamew, but I always go according to the math. 1877 comes before 1890. There is at least more than 10 years of difference between the two dates. If there are similarities, like you correctly stated, actually all match, it was the early 90s similarities that look like the traditional costume of 1877 and no viceversa. It was the 1890s customs of the 1890s Wild West performers that were dressed exactly like the Lakota and Arapahoes of the 1877 delegation to Washington. It was the 1890s costumes that copied and dressed exactly like the the 1877 delegation to Washington. If there are any similarities it is only because the 1890s copied or matched the 1877. The Indian of Little Bat tintype dressed exactly like the Indians who went to Washington in 1877. The 1890s photographs show performers that continued to dress, imitated and kept up with the way of dressing and culture and tradition of the 1877 delegation to Washington. After all they were all showmen and they all dress the same to please the public. They performed in circus, one custom or an other made no difference to them, just show me the money. The Indians who went to Washington in 1877 represented the true Lakota people and went there to fight for their rights, for their way of life, for their culture and dressed in a proper manner, like the true Lakota dressed that year in 1877. The photographs taken at Washington show just that, all dressed just like the Indian of Little Bat tintype. Exactly the same. Regards
|
|
peter
Junior Member
Posts: 98
|
Post by peter on Oct 6, 2017 8:39:25 GMT -5
I think you might find similarities to the 1877 photos - blankets, shirt, stroud leggings - but I genuinely feel there are at least the same similarities with Indians photographed in 'traditional' costume from the late 80s/early 90s with the added bonus of the longer breastplate. I am familiar with the Yellow Bear breastplate. I, too, would like to see those other photos with the same backdrop. I'd love to be proven wrong.
|
|
peter
Junior Member
Posts: 98
|
Post by peter on Oct 6, 2017 8:06:16 GMT -5
Hi Ephriam, thanks for your reply. Without touching anymore the tintype/photograph issue of Crazy Horse, I would love to communicate with you about photographs in general, photographers and so forth. You are one of the best for sure. I just want to point out that is true that Hamilton produced, as you stated,portraits at Spotted Tail and he used hanging blanket as backdrop, so true, but he did not have any other alternative. His son stated that at Spotted Tail, his father set a portable studio, small in size in my opinion, and could not have set up any big backdrop. So far so good. At Red Cloud instead there was a studio with skylight and pretty big in dimension, plenty room there to set up a portable backdrop, exactly like the backdrop of the Little Bat tintype. Regarding the 104 image, it could very well be the Little Bat tintype or perhaps one of the three photographs Crazy Horse was photographed on horseback or perhaps one taken on the Sun Dance or when he went to the Spotted Tail agency on his way there, we do not know, but chance are that he took a photo of him. He had a lots of opportunities and plenty time and he knew who Crazy Horse was and where his camp was. I know in the past you stated that Hamilton was in the vicinity of Crazy Horse only in August, but according to his son he was also there in June, July and perhaps even in May. These last three months was the time when Crazy Horse was not defiant towards the white people and would do anything to show his good intention towards them, those were the months that Little Bat was there and that was the period that Crazy Horse would have posed for a picture. Regarding Tom Buecker, he did not show me those photos, but he said that he knew of those two photos with the same backdrop and where the backdrop originated. He even told me the name of one of them, but was not sure if it was Red Cloud or Red Feather, but the name started with Red. Tom, mentioned the same backdrop of the Little Bat tintype putting it in writing in the Greasy Grass magazine, confirming exactly what he had told me in 1989 ten years before that the same backdrop was from a photographer from Sioux City. Many years later he tolm that that studio belonged to Hamilton and a partner. Regards Peter
|
|
peter
Junior Member
Posts: 98
|
Post by peter on Oct 5, 2017 18:41:50 GMT -5
Anyway, dear Kingsley, thank you very much for what you have done for this great man. Your book, is by far the most accurate historical book on Crazy Horse out there. I could say nothing else but praise your knowledge, your dedication, your efforts and the love you shared and showed towards the patriotic Oglala chief Crazy Horse. I have shared with you my thoughts as you have shared your views with me and the other members regarding the tintype. I respect you very much for your views about the photograph/tintype as I also respect the other members views, but because of personal reasons, I can not go on and writing anything and disclosing anything else about this subject, despite what your next reply or any other replies from the other members of this website will be. As I have already said, right now, I can not disclose and I can not touch or talk about this subject any longer. Thanks again for you precious and valuable time and specially your knowledge you are sharing with us. I do not mean any misrespect to anyone if I do not reply or make any other comment on this subject again. Regards to all. Peter
|
|
peter
Junior Member
Posts: 98
|
Post by peter on Oct 5, 2017 16:07:47 GMT -5
ok
|
|
peter
Junior Member
Posts: 98
|
Post by peter on Oct 5, 2017 14:47:56 GMT -5
Thanks Kingsley, the photographs taken in 1877 delegation to Washington proves indeed that the tintype is exactly like the fashions of the 1870s. Please look at all the photographs with an open mind and you will see just that, specially the ascot ties that you just mentioned. Just look at the 1872 delegation to Washington, all the Oglala and Brule had already ascot ties back then.
He Dog, Young Man Afraid of His Horses, Spotted Tail, Three Bears just to mention a few, all have ascot ties in the 1877 delegation to Washington and Yellow Bear is also wearing a long breast plate in contrast to the others. So there goes the brestplate theory as well the ascot ties. There are also a few pictures of the Brule delegation in 1880 with long breastplates. Not an opinion, but photographs do not lie. Perhaps costume looks like the fashions of the 1890s started with the Indian scouts in 1877 and therefore continued then and became bigger in the 1890s. But make no mistake, that fashion you are referring in the 1890s was already in place in 1877 always according to the photographs and not according to me.
The only valid argument is the backdrop, but again the tintype was taken inside instead of being outside like all the majorities photographs of Hamilton taken outside Camp Robinson and Red Cloud. Clearly al these photographs taken outside, could not show the tintype backdrop taken inside. It is only obvious. As we know by now, there was a studio with a skylight when Crazy Horse was there, and most likely it was there inside that studio that the tintype was taken. The rafters height from the inside studio, matches perfectly the height of the roof with the skylight. There were two more pictures with the same backdrop, that according to Historian and Fort Robinson curator Tom Buecker were taken that, he, Tom was was aware of. Both of these pictures had written in the front: "Sioux City Iowa". One of this picture, according to Tom, was either Red Cloud or Red Feather and it makes a lot of common sense now since both men were there at the same time Crazy Horse was. Tom could not remember who was the other Oglala on the second photograph, but there was a second photograph out there with the same backdrop. Tom went on saying that the picture of either Red Feather or Red Cloud, could have been definitely true because chances were that both of them or one of them could have easily traveled to Sioux City in later days, validating the photo with the same backdrop, but the tintype, Tom said, it definitely could not have been Crazy Horse because Crazy Horse never traveled to Sioux City. The same statement he made on the Greasy Grass Magazine, "The search for the elusive( and improbable ) photo of the famous Oglala chief". This was a great and convincing statement by Tom and made a lot of sense at the time, but Tom, 19 years ago, was not aware that all the rest of the pictures that Hamilton did not sell or donate to Peter Buckley and/or to others people at Camp Robinson,were taken back by Hamilton to his studio in Sioux City, where he marked them, :"Sioux City Iowa" including photos listed in the Stereoscopic catalogue of the Views of the Northwest which I have one in my possession # 136 "Pappoose in Cradle, Strapped to pony". Does this mean that the mother, the baby and pony traveled to Sioux City? definitely not. It was just the way Hamilton marked his work and the photo of Red Cloud or Red Feather with the same backdrop, (I suspect more Red feather) was no exception. It was taken at Red Cloud in the same studio where Crazy Horse took his and not at his Sioux City Studio. Take care
|
|
peter
Junior Member
Posts: 98
|
Post by peter on Oct 5, 2017 14:16:46 GMT -5
Dietmar, I sent you a private email to address you provided me. Couls you confirm you got it?
|
|
peter
Junior Member
Posts: 98
|
Post by peter on Oct 5, 2017 14:15:51 GMT -5
Grahamew, it is not only about the breastplate. The breastplate it is like an excuse for those who try to look for a needle in hey stock. Only because on the Wild West Show there are breastplates like the one on the tintype, it dose not mean that the man on the tintype breastplate is from the Wild West Show. If this is true, then all the Wild West Show photographs are not from the Wild West Show in the 80s and 90s, but were taken in 1877 because they all are dressed with STROUD, MUSLIN SHIRTS, red blankets, beaded moccasins, ASCOT TIES, ARMBANDS like the 1877 Delegation to Washington. So what is the theory here, that the wild west show men are from the 1877 and performed at the Washington delegation since they are all dressed like the man in the tintype who is dressed exactly like the 1877 delegation or because of a longer breastplate. So all the other items do not count? because a long breastplate we do not know when it originated? There is no evidence what so ever that the long breastplate were not from the 70s. Only theoris to discredit the tintype and an Oglala woman who said so. There is evidence that they were used at Wild West Shows because there were photographers taking pictures of the WILD WEST SHOW all over the place. In the 70s the photographers were not around like the wild west show and the Indians were not around to be photographed like the wild west show. Anyway it is only about a long breastplate and dear Grahamew, very poor argument. I would like for you to see, to take a better look at the breast plate that Yellow Bear, a rival of Crazy Horse is wearing at the 1877 delegation to Washington, just one month after Crazy Horse was killed. Take a close look at it, you will change your mind and I have more evidence that there were long breastplates in the 1870s, which I can not disclose it right now. I have read all the reason Ephriam, which I do contact him privately once in a while, has spoken at lenght and that was then. Today there are more info. I'm sure that he knows, that today info, contradict what he originally stated. Most of them if not all of them I mentioned in the paragraph above. There is much more to what Ephraim said that is not the same anymore. I remember him saying that the photograph could not be credit to Little Bat when he asked Crazy Horse to have his photo taken, because there was no photographer at Camp Robinson when Little Bat was there, from beginning to the third week of June and the only time there was a photographer at camp Robinson, Hamilton was only in August, beginning of September. Well, now is confirmed that there was a photographer there, Hamilton in June, July, August, September and perhaps he was there in May too and we know that Little Bat was there in June. Those statements by the remarkable Ephraim, in my opinion one of the best historian out there, were made years ago, when we did not have the knowledge that we have now. Regards
|
|
peter
Junior Member
Posts: 98
|
Post by peter on Oct 5, 2017 12:31:07 GMT -5
Thank you for prompt reply and for the info on the sun dance. Regarding the Little Bat photo, I respect your opinion, but I disagree on the theory from the Wild West Show. It has been going on for too long and it is nothing but an unfunded theory. If you look at all the photographs of 1877, specially the delegation to Washington in 1877, all the Oglala, Brule on those pictures, including the Arapahos, dressed exactly like the Little Bat photo, many years before the Wild West Show. item by item, bottom to top. They all dressed like the little Bat photo. All the descriptions of Crazy Horse match the way he was dresses, all match the Little Bat photo. I rather believe Little Bat daughter, who was a Lakota woman, who in her old age, had nothing to gain telling the truth about the Crazy Horse photo than an untrue theory that the Indian in the Little Bat photo dressed like the Wild West Show proved completely wrong by the numerous photos of the 1877 delegation to Washington, merely one month later Crazy Horse was killed. Thank you again for your precious time and for the great book you wrote. Sincerely Peter
|
|
peter
Junior Member
Posts: 98
|
Post by peter on Oct 5, 2017 11:11:02 GMT -5
Thanks, I'm writing from my daughter house, far from by home and I do not have your book handy right now. I remember the dates of the Crazy Horse sun dance, perhaps the one at Spotted Tail I think in the middle of July, but I do not remember the dates of the one held by Red Cloud and Spotted Tail. Could you please help? Regarding the photograph of the great man, that is an other story. There is one I'm sure it is him and it is the Little Bat one. You mentioned the Hamilton list, which right now I have the original catalogue with me. Number 104 is Crazy Horse. So far, in his catalogue Hamilton has been very accurate and I do not see why he should all of the sudden made up the Crazy Horse one. According to Ephraim in his great and brilliant review of the photographers who were at Camp Robison during the four months Crazy Horse was there, Hamilton got there only in August. That is what we knew then, now with the Buckley collection and the Hamilton catalogue, we know that is not the case anymore. We do not know for sure if the Little Bat photo is Hamilton # 104, but we know according to him and also Short Bull that indeed Crazy Horse was photographed and I tend to believe Hamilton and specially Short Bull who recognized even Crazy Horse horse, than a white man who started all this myth, Doctor McGillicuddy, known for his exaggerations who did know nothing about our great man. Thank you for your help.
|
|
peter
Junior Member
Posts: 98
|
Post by peter on Oct 5, 2017 8:44:23 GMT -5
No expert what so ever, just a passion for it. There was a photographer for sure during the sun dance at Crazy Horse camp in June 1877 and he even recorded the event in his catalogue. I can not locate that picture yet, but there were numerous pictures taken that day according to eyewitnesses and the catalogue. This is an other story, but there goes away the myth and the theory that Crazy Horse was never in the vicinity of a photographer that summer. The photographer was at his camp and consequently near him for four days or so during the Sun Dance held in his camp, but by any means, I do not want to start the photograph controversy. I just wanted to point out that even back then the Sun Dance was photographed.
|
|
peter
Junior Member
Posts: 98
|
Post by peter on Oct 5, 2017 8:04:43 GMT -5
Thank you very much. I'm honored that you took your own time to reply to my question. Your book on Crazy Horse, in my opinion, by far is the best out there. I'm new on this forum and I was reading that photographing the Sun Dance is forbidden. You made a valid point about the Rosebud Sun Dance in 1928. It has nothing to do with disrespecting the Lakota culture. The Lakota people were the ones who invited the photographers that year. Anyway, in 1877 June 26 through June 29 there was the famous Sun Dance held at Crazy Horse camp near Red Cloud Agency and Camp Robinson. Even then the sun dance was photographed. I'm pretty sure that if Crazy Horse and the other Lakota leaders had a problem with it, the photographer/photographers who were there at the time, would been notified not to take pictures. Regards
|
|
peter
Junior Member
Posts: 98
|
Post by peter on Oct 5, 2017 7:49:52 GMT -5
Dear Dietmar, if you wish I can provide you the all catalogue. Right now I have the original in my hands.
|
|