the picture on left is a Sicangu, who was part of the Sioux group that went to Cincinnati in 1896. He is NOT Crazy Horse and NOT the same man as in the tintype on right.
Greetings to the LBH forum ;-)
P.S.: just looked over at the FB page, the member there got the information about the 1896 photo directly from me per e-mail a couple of days ago.
It would have been nice to know where it ends up.
Thank you very much!! Coming from you, I know it is correct. If I may, I am going to post your comment of that FB site. Since it is a site where I am the "admin," I will make sure that in the future you shall receive the credit you should receive. Believe me, I am quite big on giving credit where and when due.
Have you any opinion on the Pietro Abiuso/Cesare Marino/Francis White Lance claims of Crazy Horse being the person in the tintype and of their work in the book, The Face of Crazy Horse? I have the book, but I have not read it. I do not know the others, but Marino has done some good work on those at the Little Big Horn, even though error-prone and a bit sloppy.
However, I can make mistakes just like everyone else.
Regarding the tintype question:
Crazy Horse is not just anyone. He is an American Indian icon. He means a lot to the Lakota. If someone claims to have a picture of Crazy Horse, he must be able to prove it. And I mean proof. What I've seen so far are clues and allegations that, seen alone, could suggest that there might be a photograph of Crazy Horse. But this only works if you completely hide all the doubts that speak against it. Unfortunately the book does just that. It is interesting to read. But also one-sided. So, as long as there is no clear evidence that the tintype is a portrait of Crazy Horse, I don't believe it. I will be happy to change my mind, maybe if, for example, a second photo appears that shows the same backdrop as in the tintype and clearly identifies it as a J. H. Hamilton photo. James Hamilton could have been the only photographer at Fort Robinson at that time in question. What we do here usually is identify photos by finding other portraits and sources, compare them to each other and sort them out. That will positively never be possible with any alleged Crazy Horse picture.
Another argument against the photo: In the period around 1876/1877, Crazy Horse was a relatively well-known personality in the Dakotas, in the army and among agents and politicians. If a photographer had had a picture of this warrior icon, he would have marketed it intensively by September 1877 at the latest. But there was nothing. As far as I know, no photographer even attempted to market a photo of Crazy Horse at that time. And photos of well-known Indian personalities sold very well at that time. Toksha ake Gregor
Gregor, I suggest you read the book. Your statement is incorrect. James Hamilton not only attempted but indeed MARKETED the photo of Crazy Horse on his " Catalogue of Stereoscopic Views of the Northwest" and clearly stated # 104 Crazy Horse. The tintype could be # 104 or could be an extra photo of Crazy Horse as per Helen Howard, the daughter of Crazy Horse’s wife Black Shawl ‘s cousin. Make no mistake, James Hamilton marketed the photo as he marketed all the other photos that keep showing up today. All these Hamilton's photos match the numbers and the names on his catalogue. Take care
Hello Dietmar, I was just reading your comments above. Since you are so against the alleged photo, which is completely fine. My question to you is this: " did you read the whole book or just browsed through it?" I'm a strong believer that the tintype is indeed Crazy Horse, the story says so. I was very skeptical too, but the book and the story that goes with it, did convince me that the tintype is a truly representation of Crazy Horse. I'm asking you this question because you stated the book is one sided. Well, the book starts with the introduction that clearly says: " Steve says NO" and of course I'm pretty sure you know of Steve Feraca. Just wondering if you read the whole book if you don't mind to let us know. Thank you
Ted, yes, you are right Hamilton lists a Foto "Crazy Horse" (104) in his catalog.
To date, however, I have not seen a Hamilton Stereo wearing the number 104 and showing a person "Crazy Horse". It is known that there is a photo of the Crazy Horse grave. I know the picture, but I cannot assign it to Hamilton or one of his brothers. And finally, we have to consider that the name Crazy Horse / Tashunka Witko - just like Sitting Bull - was not a unique name among the Lakota. If you go through the census lists, you will always find people with these names.
Gregor, there are many Hamilton Stereos wearing a number and not showing the person or the name. What does it mean? As far as I'm concerned, the tintype is the number 104 or could also be that is not. Perhaps there is a number 104 out there. Only God knows who owns it or what happened to it. Keep in mind that there are three more pictures of Crazy Horse on horseback. 104 could be one of it or could be not. I'm also very much aware that there was more than one Crazy Horse, TASUNKE Witko, as matter as fact one was a San Arc who got his leg shot to pieces during the Rosebud fight or the Little Big Horn, don't remember exactly which battle. There was also another Crazy Horse who was Horn Chips's brother and there was also one Cheyenne Crazy Horse which I have a picture of it. Make no mistake here, Hamilton knew exactly who Crazy Horse was. Hamilton saw Crazy Horse for sure at the Sundance that took place at the end of June 1877. He was at Crazy Horse camp when the Sundance took place and it is recorded on his catalogue. The catalogue you posted ends at Number 126 Black Crow unfortunately , number 129 is "Touch The Cloud" and it is the only number on the catalogue with a description of the person. It says # 129 Touch-the-Cloud. Led principal charge, under Crazy Horse, in Custer Massacre. Even though he might be historically incorrect, he knew exactly who Crazy Horse was. The photo of Crazy Horse grave, I agree, it is not Hamilton, but Howard.
Form Cowan's: CDV oval bust portrait with printed "frame," featuring an American Indian identified as a Ponca by pencil inscription on verso. Uncredited, n.p., n.d. Additional pencil inscriptions on verso including a possible name and the word "Yankton" crossed out. Subject wears braided hair and beaded breastplate.
Fairly sure I've seen another man in a mount like this who was labelled a Yankton. Though I could be confusing him with someone else, i think it was annotated on the reverse that he was a great guide. Unfortunately, I can't find it - probably wiped out in the TinyPic massacre.