|
Post by grahamew on Jul 7, 2024 12:18:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Jul 7, 2024 12:39:28 GMT -5
agree with you that the first one does give a "feel" of being an Arapaho and the second one (with the wide breast plate) being Kiowa. On these new images, not sure about the first one, hair seems to be unbraided by have ties at the bottom. The second one could be Pawnee ? I am asking a friend who's familiar with Pawnee beadwork designs for an opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Jul 7, 2024 16:47:01 GMT -5
>> please see correction/clarification on the follow-up post
Hi Grahame, my "museum" curator friend confirmed that the fellow with the "mohawk" hairdo is likely Pawnee, the beadwork style is in line with what's typical of that tribe. He says the ear rings and also the mirror he holds in his hand indicate more likely an 1880's time frame.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Jul 7, 2024 21:49:05 GMT -5
corrections on my previous message - I was on the road answering from the cell phone ...
it was meant, that the oddity was the absence (!) of the otherwise typical earrings among the Pawnees and that he apparently has a mirror bag on his lap, but everything else confirms this man to be Pawnee based on the hairstyle and also the beadwork pattern. Estimated date of the photograph is 1860's, not 1880's.
|
|
gleb
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by gleb on Aug 23, 2024 3:53:41 GMT -5
Hallo everybody! The second image looks more like Sauk and Fox. The necklace style, the shirt beaded stripes and face features. The date somewhere in 1870s. Please compare with some known Sauk and Fox images: ![](//storage.proboards.com/1261720/thumbnailer/UfvbPnJyXllMjDXsToqi.png) ![](//storage.proboards.com/1261720/thumbnailer/oRKRDrkglCYwTAWv0JkL.png) ![](//storage.proboards.com/1261720/thumbnailer/fhqDshOLdqgvqoroHRbK.png) My best wishes!
|
|
|
Post by johnredhawk on Aug 25, 2024 11:16:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by johnredhawk on Aug 25, 2024 11:23:30 GMT -5
Grahamew, I’m a bit confused about your statement. “ Despite the frame, the long breastplate would suggest a later date”. Do we know the time or year of the frame? And what do you mean the long breast plate suggests a later date? What year such a long breastplate came out? Just joined the site, willing to learn. Thank you
|
|
|
Post by grahamew on Aug 26, 2024 5:06:53 GMT -5
Maybe I'm wrong, but I associate this kind of elaborate frame on photographs of Native Americans with an earlier date - 1850s/60s. As for the bone breastplates... you can see their use among Southern Plains people in the 1860s, but according to John Ewers, the Lakota don't seem to have them until the early 1870s* and initially wore them quite short or down towards the bottom of the diaphragm, but the longer breastplate is evident in images from the 1890s. ![](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSEdL9I44t8T17b2cdihwvubhJ_kt8ssvWH1A&s) Lost Medicine, Hunkpapa (Gardner), 1872 ![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/41/Little_Big_Man.jpg/375px-Little_Big_Man.jpg) Little Big Man, Oglala, 1877 ![](https://www.worldhistory.org/uploads/images/17894.jpeg) Red Cloud, Oglala (Charles M. Bell Studio), 1881 ![](https://i.postimg.cc/4dSGMXTj/743139.jpg) Kills on Horse, Oglala (by Heyn), 1899 ![](https://ids.si.edu/ids/deliveryService?max_w=800&id=NMAH-2004-57875) Little Finger, Oglala (Kaesbier), 1898. I wouldn't say that ALL breastplates became longer during this period, but there was certainly a fashion for them, perhaps, like the elaborate bead and quillwork of the same period, it was a way of re-stating identity in one of the few arenas it was still allowed - i.e. traditional ceremonies and dances, expositions and Wild West Shows. There's a paper online by John C. Ewers on the development and spread of the use of the bone beastplate: "Hair pipes in Plains Indian adornment, a study in Indian and White ingenuity." * Or maybe slightly earlier... ![](https://i.postimg.cc/Z564skn5/nby-eeayer-3220-full.jpg) * This photo taken during the Fort Laramie Treaty negotiations shows three Lakota wearing breastplates - or are they, perhaps, extended necklaces? It's hard to tell from this distance anything about their construction or the materials used to make them. They could be dentalium shell - or they could be bone. ![](http://www.american-tribes.com/messageboards/dietmar/Gardner1868b.jpg) The man at the right does seem to be wearing a short dentalium shell necklace or breastplate - something that can be seen in other Gardner photos of Lakota taken around Fort Laramie. These shells were obtained through the indigenous trade network but also from fur traders where they were known as "Iroquois beads," hence, I guess, the reference to Crazy Horse wearing an "Iroquois shell necklace" (meaning, I suppose, a dentalium shell choker) by Short Bull.
|
|
|
Post by johnredhawk on Aug 26, 2024 19:21:55 GMT -5
Thank you Grahamew, but I personally think that the longer breastplates wore by the Lakota that are only from the 1890s is just a myth created by the so called “ historians”. It is not true at all. Even historian Donovin Sprague is wrong stating that in 1877 the breastplates had 10 to 25 hair pipes the most and so are the others historians who also belong to this site. The Indian posted in this tread has a breastplate with 37 hair pipes and you stated that such a breastplate is from the 1890s and you posted a picture of Little Big Man in 1877 and Red Cloud in 1881 wearing short breastplates, those are pretty convincing evidence unless there were breastplates longer than that in 1877. I’m attaching a picture of the 1877 Lakota delegation to Washington proving all the opposite, debunking the myth of the long breastplates that came out only in 1890s two decades later. Yellow Bear sitting from the left has a long breastplate with forty rows, three more of the Indian posted in this tread that you stated it is from the 1890s. So, unless the 1877 delegation photos are from other dates, which I doubt it very much, the theory that the long breastplates came out only in the 1890s is wrong and needs to be address to the readers that have been mislead by the so called historians. Anyway thank you so much for your time. ![](//storage.proboards.com/1261720/thumbnailer/uSmcfkZXKsvLUCPpgODH.png)
|
|
|
Post by grahamew on Aug 27, 2024 3:53:06 GMT -5
I suspected I knew where this was heading. If you were trying to convict Yellow Bear for murder based on a witness account that claimed his breastplate fell below his waist like that worn by the unidentifed man above and you only had the delegation photos of him sitting down as your evidence, you wouldn't get a conviction. Not even if he's a Lakota and it was in the West. I'm going to resepectfully ask you to agree to disagree, because this has been hashed out before.
|
|
|
Post by Dietmar on Aug 27, 2024 9:28:31 GMT -5
As Grahame assumed, the picture is not as old as it seems: ![http://www.american-tribes.com/messageboards/dietmar/31590197469sioux.jpg](http://www.american-tribes.com/messageboards/dietmar/31590197469sioux.jpg) ![https://i.postimg.cc/bN3XLdxT/31590197469.jpg](https://i.postimg.cc/bN3XLdxT/31590197469.jpg) I guess this is a Shoshone photographed by Benedicte Wrensted.
|
|
|
Post by johnredhawk on Aug 27, 2024 13:09:15 GMT -5
I suspected I knew where this was heading. If you were trying to convict Yellow Bear for murder based on a witness account that claimed his breastplate fell below his waist like that worn by the unidentifed man above and you only had the delegation photos of him sitting down as your evidence, you wouldn't get a conviction. Not even if he's a Lakota and it was in the West. I'm going to resepectfully ask you to agree to disagree, because this has been hashed out before.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Aug 27, 2024 13:18:18 GMT -5
totally concur with your detailed elaboration, thank you Grahame. I suspected I knew where this was heading. If you were trying to convict Yellow Bear for murder based on a witness account that claimed his breastplate fell below his waist like that worn by the unidentifed man above and you only had the delegation photos of him sitting down as your evidence, you wouldn't get a conviction. Not even if he's a Lakota and it was in the West. I'm going to resepectfully ask you to agree to disagree, because this has been hashed out before.
|
|
|
Post by johnredhawk on Aug 27, 2024 13:30:23 GMT -5
Not big deal, I also respectfully ask you to agree to disagree, the fact remains that if a breastplate with only 37 rows is considered a long breastplate that came out in the 1890s only and was not around in the 1870s, why everyone says that in the 1870s there were not such long breastplates if we have physical proves that there were longer breastplates? What difference does it make if you standing, sitting, lying down. That is pure mathematic and mathematic is not an opinion. 40 is bigger than 37. Numbers don’t lie. In 1870s photographs were scarse in comparison with 1890s where photographers could go around as they pleased, the Indian wars were over. In 1870s the only evidence the Indians had, were the ledger drawings and those ledger drawings prove that in the 1870s the Lakota were wearing long breast plates. I personally believe the Indian who lived those times than some historians who came out 5 6 generations later assuming and guessing things that they never experienced or actually witnessed.
|
|
|
Post by grahamew on Aug 28, 2024 11:13:17 GMT -5
LIke I said, respectfully disagree.
|
|