Kora

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by mahratt

Jim, that's fine - trust people! I repeat to you the question that asked ariel (ariel not answer). You know Durbar photo, for example, in Delhi, which has a similar sword?

I don't trust everyone........but I will tell you that if Oliver says it, you better believe it! He says more in just a few well chosen words than a lot of arms scholars can put together in many (including me . That is why I always resent this book of a fine collection by him being even remotely classified as 'coffee table' !!!

So that was a serious question (or statement?) on photos being required as proof of the weapons appearing in these Durbars, as well noted by Ariel ?
That particular prerequisite seems rather humorous in this context, as I would imagine many archaeological and anthropological papers and texts must be rendered inconsequential as many assertions concerning artifacts do not have photographic proof. There weren't many cameras around before the 1850s (at least as far as I know).

In any case, Oliver perfectly responded to this (I believe tongue in cheek question?) insistence on photographic proof of weaponry at durbars. This was in my opinion well placed as it illustrated the sort of weaponry, and clearly somewhat theatrical or exaggerated types of costume etc. were extant in these events.

The British Raj and many colonial circumstances in various countries and regions lent well to the cottage industry of supplying souveniers to both occupying forces and whatever tourism might have developed by visitors.

These items were inherently of traditional forms, and meant to be impressive. They were not of the quality of diplomatic gifts or presentation items, but as Ariel has noted, have gained their own historic value as pertains to the events in which they might have been emplaced.

To speak of these kinds of items dismissively seems unwarranted when being shown in good faith for discussion.
I would share this little note here for consideration:

" ...I was once told that it was said of Laking that he
would always find something kind to say about
a fellow collectors object".
re: Sir Guy Francis Laking (1875-1919) arms collector and historian
-"Arms & Armour Study in Edwardian Britain"
Sid Blair and Michael Lacy (1999)

I guess sort of the mark of a gentleman. I know I choose to try to
follow that lead......but not all collectors do.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

So that was a serious question (or statement?) on photos being required as proof of the weapons appearing in these Durbars, as well noted by Ariel ?
That particular prerequisite seems rather humorous in this context, as I would imagine many archaeological and anthropological papers and texts must be rendered inconsequential as many assertions concerning artifacts do not have photographic proof. There weren't many cameras around before the 1850s (at least as far as I know).

My dear friend, Jim, of course, I understand that in 1850 there were some problems with taking pictures But, we're kind of talking about 1903? I do not get them mixed up?

Originally Posted by Oliver Pinchot

This photo is from a 1903 edition of National Geographic, commemorating the Delhi Durbar held in that year, which celebrated the accession of Edward VII. .

But I do not insist on the pictures. After all, we both know that nobody knows these photos if no one was able to show this photo. For I will have enough historical source of the late 19th - early 20th century, which will be write of such items. Anybody can quote? I am very interested.

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

In any case, Oliver perfectly responded to this (I believe tongue in cheek?) insistence on photographic proof of weaponry at durbars. This was in my opinion well placed as it illustrated the sort of weaponry, and clearly somewhat theatrical or exaggerated types of costume etc. were extant in these events.

Can you give more examples (besides photos that kindly showed Oliver), where clearly somewhat theatrical or exaggerated types of costume etc.? I can show you a few images of Durbar. But there are all dressed real, without exaggeration.

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

To speak of these kinds of items dismissively seems unwarranted when being shown in good faith for discussion.
I would share this little note here for consideration:

" ...I was once told that it was said of Laking that he
would always find something kind to say about
a fellow collectors object".
re: Sir Guy Francis Laking (1875-1919) arms collector and historian
-"Arms & Armour Study in Edwardian Britain"
Sid Blair and Michael Lacy (1999)

I guess sort of the mark of a gentleman. I know I choose to try to
follow that lead......but not all collectors do.

I understand that tolerance is fine I love when forum participants see an modern item (such as a souvenir knife) and a few posts flowery praise this item. And to end the discussion, the words that it "is not quite old an item". But I do not understand why can not just say, "Man, this is not the authentic item is. Great if you like him, but this is not the old thing..."

Is telling the truth - this is not the act of a gentleman?


Dear Oliver, you write about an similar item in his book: "Many were produced for the Dehli Durbars". Tell me, please, in which a book on Delhi Durban you get this information?Or is it your personal opinion?

[Ian]

Hi Mahratt:

Perhaps some of the discussion of durbars reflects the different functions of these events, especially under British rule in India during the second half of the 19th C and into the 20th C.

Durbar is originally a Persian word for the King's Court--a place where the king did his business with nobles and courtiers, and important ceremonies were held. A special durbar could be called for major events, such as the marriage of the next heir to the kingdom, etc. These practices continued in the various Indian princely courts, even during the time of the British Raj. Traditional durbar were held into the first half of the 20th C. in many of the princely states.

The British somewhat corrupted the process by holding large gala pageants when a new Viceroy was installed or a new British monarch was crowned or celebrated a jubilee. This practice started in the late 19th C. In keeping with local custom, the British called these events durbar but there was no traditional business conducted at these spectaculars.

I think it's important to distinguish between the traditional functions of durbar and what foreigners introduced at a fairly late stage. That's not to say that traditional durbar were devoid of spectacle, but the British versions were all spectacle and no real substance other than showing loyalty to the Viceroy and the Crown.

Ian.

[mahratt]

Ian, thank you!

I have no doubt that you are right. But I understand that there is no evidence that at the time of such theatrical durbars for Europeans, the Hindu had swords, like a sword that we are discussing? Or I'm wrong?

[Jim McDougall]

Ian, thank you so much for the great synopsis on durbars! This really gives a great perspective on the significance of these notable events. Clearly these evolved into events of quite different character eventually, and of course the nature of items either presented, displayed or sold would have had various degrees of character.

Mahratt, you do know of course that the analogy on cameras was to illustrate a point. We do not always have the benefit of photographic evidence to support every aspect of our observations or suggestions.
Naturally much of what is presented here in discussion will be a matter of opinion, but in most cases 'informed' opinion. I am more inclined to accept an opinion offered by a person who has handled enormous numbers of weapons, studied academically and produced considerable published material on topics than someone who simply makes an off the cuff comment.

While you clearly do not approve of Oliver's book on the Wagner Collection, referring to it as 'coffee table' level, he entered a post supportive of your other comments and tried to accommodate your 'requests' for images of durbars. He was being in my view quite gentlemanly if you noticed.

His comments on the durbars and nature of the weaponry found in them is based on profound experience, and many years of handling and researching arms. Just how much proof is needed to convince you of the integrity of his comments ? It is often difficult for someone to produce exact references for every observation over many years of studies. I know that I cannot always do so regarding my mere five decades of study, and citing examples from many years back....but I know the veracity of what I say . Would then a comment by me be considered useless if I could not produce exact reference?

Here we have friendly (?) usually, discussions where stringent academic protocol is not required to make observations or comments. If another does not agree, then that is their own choice.

As for making comments on a weapon here for discussion. There is nothing wrong with being truthful, however it seems that it should not be too hard to say an item is probably modern and commercial.......but to withhold calling it junk or low quality etc. It is not necessary to deride others who politely comment on an item regardless of its quality, and these things are just common courtesy.

Regarding the question you just asked Ian........yes, there is evidence that there were weapons like this in use. I have one, a kora with a tulwar hilt. These I have found are Bengali, just as noted in earlier discussions.These I have been told were used in sacrificial rituals of doves , but I have no proof or pictures, and I have not had access to the sword for years, and mine was not embellished.
Im just sayin'

[mahratt]

Dear Jim, I did not want to offend anyone. But I prefer the concrete facts of the private view.

Do I understand correctly that if someone will handle a lot of weapons, even if this man will not have any historical evidence of his words, you will consider these words right? (Sorry for my english, but I hope you understand my question?)

I thank Oliver for the fact that it supports my words. And I really liked his article on the Shamshir and collaboration with K.RIvkin "Arms and military history of the Caucasus".
Dear Oliver, accept my compliments.

But let's talk referring to the facts. Here are the photos with the Delhi Durbar in 1903 and 1911's. I'll be glad if You show on these photos of people who would be overly theatrical or exaggerated types. Maybe someone will see too theatrical weapon in these photos?

[ariel]

Jim,
You have opened an interesting angle on the theory of evidence.

There is a well-known rule in science: absense of evidence is not the same as evidence of absense.

Ignoring it is a routine mark of an inexperienced or , even worse, overzealous researcher trying to prove his (or her) pet theory :-))

[mahratt]

Well, facts probably will not ...

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by mahratt

Dear Jim, I did not want to offend anyone. But I prefer the concrete facts of the private view.

Do I understand correctly that if someone will handle a lot of weapons, even if this man will not have any historical evidence of his words, you will consider these words right? (Sorry for my english, but I hope you understand my question?)

I thank Oliver for the fact that it supports my words. And I really liked his article on the Shamshir and collaboration with K.RIvkin "Arms and military history of the Caucasus".
Dear Oliver, accept my compliments.

But let's talk referring to the facts. Here are the photos with the Delhi Durbar in 1903 and 1911's. I'll be glad if You show on these photos of people who would be overly theatrical or exaggerated types. Maybe someone will see too theatrical weapon in these photos?

Actually Mahratt, your English is remarkably clear, and clearly in our discussion there are some different points of view. I agree with you and of course Oliver, that it is preferred that substantial evidence should be provided in support of assertions. In the case of photographic evidence, even this cannot always be trusted for irrefutable truth.

For example, it is well known, particularly in earlier stages of the 'photographic era', that photos were typically staged, and in many cases (often possibly most) used props and various embellished posturing etc. .
This is often seen in the military photos of the times, where actual combat scenes were staged, and there are many other examples.

With reference to these durbars, most of these photos I would suspect fall into these categories. It is, in my mind, inconceivable that the entire scope of these events would be captured photographically. I perceive these durbars as much like 'fairs', where these scenes involving significant people and groups are shown do not include the lesser scenes at accompanying bazaars with vendors hawking their wares and materials,

In many cases facts may be found in related mediums, such as narratives, personal notes or recollections, and particularly provenanced items.
Sometimes it may be that a reasonable assumption might be made which is compelling by other factors, but these cases are so many that including them here would be almost impossible. Most of these kinds of situations are well explained in books like "After the Fact: The Art of Historical Detection",
( J.W. Davidson, M.H. Lytle, N.Y. Knopf, 1982).
Those interesting in carrying investigations in these degrees would be most enlightened by this and other writings on this topic. Here, we maintain a more fluid and not quite as collegiate discussion format, which enables us to cover a broader scope pertaining to items at hand. Naturally many elements of these discussions serve as benchmarks for those choosing to pursue detailed factors to more comprehensive study .

While your personal levels of study and research are clearly of very high standards and academically exemplary, they are not necessarily demanded nor even expected in our formats. While recommendations for more thorough supportive findings are welcomed, it is purely elective as far as the other participants in discussion are concerned. With that in mind, those recommendations should be entered as just that, and in a cordial manner, without negative feature.

I think in that light, your knowledge will be better employed to the advantage of us all, rather than in conflicting interaction.

Best regards
Jim

[Mercenary]

The Durbars were not theatrical performances.

[Mercenary]

.

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by ariel

More likely it is a purely decorative piece, although the style of decoration is of the pattern that was thought to be used for arming retinues of Rajahs attending Delhi Durbars in an attempt to look colorful and lavish.

May be you are confusing with Indian festivals?

[Jim McDougall]

LOL!!!!
Good one Mercenary!!! 'durbars were not theatrical' !!!????
Great photos which illustrate the monumental degree of 'performance' which were intended fully to impress and influence.

These were oriented toward British officialdom and often nobility and naturally the highest degree of embellishment could be found on all manner of costume, material cultural items, weapons etc.

Indian 'festivals' were far more often and regularly held events with the purpose of traditional and often religious orientation. While the durbars of course brought in colonial populace, officials and occupying military and many associated groups who certainly sought souveniers of these great events.......the festivals would have been far less 'commercial' in my view.

The term 'theatrical' in our discussion as I have understood is a metaphoric term to describe something embellished far beyond similar items in regular situations, made to outwardly attract attention. Often this term refers to stage type props which would not be of the quality and durability of the items they portray.

[mahratt]

Jim, monumentality and theatricality - is not the same))))) The greatness and cheap farce - different.
Excellent swords, that we see among the participants durbar in Delhi (in the photo) do not look like the sword that we are discussing

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by mahratt

Jim, monumentality and theatricality - is not the same)))))

Of course. I think there were not any cheap sham items. The real weapons or ceremonial of high quality.

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by ariel

Well, let's not exaggerate:-)
This is a ceremonial weapon 19-20 century...

...likely it is a purely decorative piece .... that was thought to be used for arming retinues of Rajahs attending Delhi Durbars in an attempt to look colorful and lavish.

And I agree with Timo: more likely Bengal.

As I remember the rulers of Bengal were muslims. I do not think that on the Durbar of Bengal court such the Hindu weapon could be used. It is just the unjustified fantasies which lead to false conclusions.

[Tim Simmons]

Asian things are not my thing but I have to agree with Mahrrat . In the UK these things are extremely common and the very same decorative techniques can be be found on many blade weapon forms. They are late 19th century early 20th century souverniers. Really not worth argument in my mind. Still look good if you like Asian stuff.

[Jim McDougall]

Guys, maybe I'm not making what I am suggesting clear enough. If we are talking about durbars........the EVENTS are monumental and theatrical in sense.
The weapons and costume etc. USED or PRESENTED in these events are of course often highly embellished and of superb quality.

The items often hawked in bazaars and by sellers AROUND these events during their time and frequented by TOURISTS and SOUVENIER SEEKERS
though NOT actually USED in the durbar itself are of course of lower quality,
often even cheap.

The bizarrely costumed guy with the huge tegha and spikes galore is what I would call THEATRICAL......this is not the common costume worn .....it seems this image is often referred to as an executioner, but that is because of the IMPRESSION being staged.

The durbar events were MONUMENTAL because if their huge scope, celebration and importance.

I hope this might clarify what I was trying to say. Please pardon the capital letters, my goal was to emphasize the terms . I apparently often don't make myself clear so my apologies for the confusion.

I really had no idea that trying to describe an item from a durbar in the 19th century which falls into 'souvenier' scope would be confused with the presentation and lavish items used by important individuals there.

[David]

I must say that i have been following this thread with some amusement, but also a little bit of concern. It seems to me that the need to be contrary has trumped the obligations we may have to present the OP with some clear and understandable opinions. I can only image what must be going through our novice collector Panzerraptor's mind at this point. He came to us very excited about what he had hoped was a great buy on an authentic weapons lot. After some uncomfortable discourse between certain members here was his initial take from the debate.

Originally Posted by Panzerraptor

Just to make sure, my weapon is likely a 19th Century Indian kora/tulwar hybrid crafted for royals? Sounds awesome! I figured that this weapon was ceremonial based on the design and flange size, but I wasn't sure where it was from or who could've actually used it. Also, I forgot to mention that this item still has an edge along the inner curve.

Now, i'm not expert by far in this particular field of collection, but from what i can see in the photos and from what i can glean from what others have been presented here so far, Panzerraptor's kora does indeed seem to be a souvenir. I mean, that is what you call an item bought in a place or at an event to commemorate that moment and experience in your life. And that is a possible description of what this item might be (sans the actual word souvenir) as provided by both Oliver and Jim. Now, it does seem to be an antique souvenir so i suppose it has some collector's value as such. It may or may not be an "historic" souvenir depending on whether or not it was purchased in a bazaar at one of these grand Durbars or just anywhere at any other time. But to be clear, i don't think anyone won the lottery here with this purchase and i would hate to see Panzerraptor get the wrong impression from this discussion. Though i could be wrong i cannot image such an example as this being crafted for royals for ceremonial purposes at a Durbar. And from what i understand these Durbars put on for the British Raj didn't really conduct any real business of state as the original Durbars did so what kind of ceremony would this kora possibly be used for. I believe it is important that we be kind, especially to new collectors, but also as clear and accurate as possible for Panzerraptor's sake and not be feeding him any false hopes that this kora is more than it appears to be, a souvenir. While there may indeed be some possibility that this kora was sold at market to someone who attended one of these Durbars, since their is no commemoration marked on the blade nor any written provenance to that fact, nor any photographic evidence showing similar blades either in use ceremonially or even being sold in the markets there in the first place, nor for that matter, AFAIK, any written evidence describing such similar swords of this quality being used in ceremonies at any of these Durbars it seems imprudent of us to suggest otherwise. To give Panzerraptor hope of this being anything more than an antique souvenir seems to serve no purpose as far as i can see. I don't think any of us can say for sure that it is anything else no matter how many photographs we show or what arguments we want to make about the added importance of "historic" souvenirs that were acquired at important events over everyday souvenirs collected by travelers at any other time in history. If Panzerraptor were to decide tomorrow to then re-sell this kora would it be fair of him to present the Durbar story as a selling point? I don't think so.
That said, i am really enjoying the historic photographs of these events. Jim, for your sake, and speaking from the perspective of a professional photographer and photography instructor who teaches a bit of photo history, i would say that it would be more correct to say that most of these images are "posed" not "staged". Staged would imply they were set up specifically for the photograph while posed means they were simply told to hold it for the long exposures of the time while going about their ordinary business at hand. There were one or two group shots that might come under the heading of staged, but the overall scenes of the proceedings themselves went on regardless of whether a photographer was trying to capture them or not.

[David]

BTW, i did find a few other similar koras when searching the net. Their engravings are of somewhat varying qualities as i believe Oliver stated was common for these blades found in the market places. None of these made any claims to be connected to any Durbars, some where labelled as Nepali, some Indian.

[Ian]

David, you raise an interesting point about whether early photographs were "posed" or "staged." I agree with Jim that many early photographs of, say, western U.S. subjects, especially Native Americans, were both posed and staged. The subjects of some of these were given costumes to wear and weapons to brandish that were not their own but were simply props for the purpose of the picture. This is still done today and there was a photographer at the Minnesota State fair who for many years would take pictures of his customers in 19th C. style clothing that he provided and carrying a variety of facsimile weapons.

In this spirit, the picture of the big guy (perhaps a Sikh) earlier in this thread wearing the spiked elephant armor would seem to have the characteristics of a staged portrait. Some of his costume may well be his own, but it looks to me like he was dressed up further for this picture. No way of knowing for sure, I suppose, but I don't see any reason why some of these pictures were not "staged," as Jim suggested.

Ian.

[ariel]

[QUOTE=Mercenary]As I remember the rulers of Bengal were muslims. I do not think that on the Durbar of Bengal court such the Hindu weapon could be used. It is just the unjustified fantasies which lead to false conclusions.[/QUOTE/]

Last Delhi Durbar occurred in 1911. At that time Bengal was a defined historico-geographical unit.

One should not confuse historical Bengal and Bangladesh:-))))

West Bengal was Hindi and stayed in India in 1947. Muslim East Bengal became Bangladesh.

Historical Hindi West Bengal , Assam etc directly border or are in the vicinity of Nepal. Muslim East Bengal is almost Burma.


As a matter of fact, when Nepal became independent after WWI it retained some old Bengal kingdoms.

Plenty of Hindi Koras in historical Bengal:-)))

[David]

Originally Posted by Ian

David, you raise an interesting point about whether early photographs were "posed" or "staged." I agree with Jim that many early photographs of, say, western U.S. subjects, especially Native Americans, were both posed and staged. The subjects of some of these were given costumes to wear and weapons to brandish that were not their own but were simply props for the purpose of the picture. This is still done today and there was a photographer at the Minnesota State fair who for many years would take pictures of his customers in 19th C. style clothing that he provided and carrying a variety of facsimile weapons.

In this spirit, the picture of the big guy (perhaps a Sikh) earlier in this thread wearing the spiked elephant armor would seem to have the characteristics of a staged portrait. Some of his costume may well be his own, but it looks to me like he was dressed up further for this picture. No way of knowing for sure, I suppose, but I don't see any reason why some of these pictures were not "staged," as Jim suggested.

Ian.

Well Ian, i certainly wouldn't argue with you about the staged nature of the guy with the spiky armor. But i am talking about the large majority of these images, not the odd man out. Take a look at the last group of photos that Mercenary put up for instance. You think a photographer staged all those people in those photos. Of course he didn't, they are the actual event including up to thousands of participants. Even the group shot of the dignitaries doesn't look staged since all their attentions seem to be elsewhere rather than on the photographer.
The photographer you are thinking about regarding Native American photos was Edward Curtis. It is true that he staged many rituals for the camera in order to preserve them for history, though generally not incorrectly. Some of the rituals he recorded have never been seen otherwise by any other white man. He was known to carry some wardrobe with him, but he travelled extensively throughout native lands living with tribes for long periods at a time so he got to know them and their ways rather well. There are not many cases known where he gave incorrect weapons to his subjects to hold. He created tens of thousands of images and collect copious notes chronicling the tribes he studied creating an invaluable collection for research despite what we might consider today to be a few missteps in his methodology.

[Mercenary]

[QUOTE=ariel]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

As I remember the rulers of Bengal were muslims. I do not think that on the Durbar of Bengal court such the Hindu weapon could be used. It is just the unjustified fantasies which lead to false conclusions.[/QUOTE/]

Last Delhi Durbar occurred in 1911. At that time Bengal was a defined historico-geographical unit.

One should not confuse historical Bengal and Bangladesh:-))))

West Bengal was Hindi and stayed in India in 1947. Muslim East Bengal became Bangladesh.

Historical Hindi West Bengal , Assam etc directly border or are in the vicinity of Nepal. Muslim East Bengal is almost Burma.


As a matter of fact, when Nepal became independent after WWI it retained some old Bengal kingdoms.

Plenty of Hindi Koras in historical Bengal:-)))

What was it? Read this for a start:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hassan_Ali_Mirza
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasif_Ali_Mirza
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waris_Ali_Mirza
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...lers_of_Bengal

[ariel]

David,
Nobody ever claimed here that this particular Kora was actual armament of a royal retinue. Nor was a claim introduced that this particular Kora was even a commemorative piece sold at the Durbar pageant.

The only thing that was said, that according to Oliver, weapons of similar decorative motives were manufactured en masse for Delhi Durbars.

For some reasons, some people misinterpreted ( misread? misunderstood?) the meaning of this statement, took it as an categorical claim about the posted Kora and started a pseudo-academic Jihad , demanding documented and photographic proof affirming the idea nobody here ever advanced.

Please re-read my posts ## 9 and 24 and try to find a single statement that was misleading Panzerraptor or anybody else about historical, artistic or commercial value of the Kora.

Once again, I think that a question asked by a novice deserves truthful, informative and respectful answer. No sarcasm. No snarks. And that was exactly I and Jim tried to convey.

[Jim McDougall]

Panzerraptor,
In hopes you are still here!!!
I would like to point out the kind of excitement, drama, controversy, discussion, debate and all manner of dynamics which are brought out by even the most simple of weapons being collected.

You can see the diversity of perspectives, interests, and views being expressed here with the focus being on just what this particular weapon was, and what sort of history might have surrounded it.

Here we have individuals with expertise in a number of fields of arms, some who have studied academically and authored books, some who have written and are amidst finishing other articles on many topics. Even as the subject of photographic evidence is brought into the discussion, we have the benefit of professional photography experience to add to the dimension of our adding that into the equation.
We have English critique to examine the proper words or terms to use in describing some of the circumstances involved in our investigative discussion.

But above all, we have history, so you see how important weapons can be as virtual icons of the times, events and people in which they came from!

While you began a thread with wonderfully posed questions about the collecting of arms, what you have here is a fully dynamic exercise in exactly what collecting weapons is all about!
It is an adventure which becomes lifelong, and 'monumentally' (if the right word exciting!!!!!
WELCOME TO OUR WORLD!!! Glad to have you here.

All best regards
Jim

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Ian

David, you raise an interesting point about whether early photographs were "posed" or "staged." I agree with Jim that many early photographs of, say, western U.S. subjects, especially Native Americans, were both posed and staged. The subjects of some of these were given costumes to wear and weapons to brandish that were not their own but were simply props for the purpose of the picture. This is still done today and there was a photographer at the Minnesota State fair who for many years would take pictures of his customers in 19th C. style clothing that he provided and carrying a variety of facsimile weapons.

In this spirit, the picture of the big guy (perhaps a Sikh) earlier in this thread wearing the spiked elephant armor would seem to have the characteristics of a staged portrait. Some of his costume may well be his own, but it looks to me like he was dressed up further for this picture. No way of knowing for sure, I suppose, but I don't see any reason why some of these pictures were not "staged," as Jim suggested.

Ian.

Thank you Ian!
As you note, photographers indeed produced many fascinating photos of Native Americans etc. and I found David's edification on the terms 'posed' vs,. 'staged' most interesting.
I fully thought, as you have perfectly noted, that a 'staged' photo would have been of an 'action' illustration, as in my mention of 'combat' photos.
A posed photo would be a still 'portrait type photo.



In an interesting analogy (and I fully expect correction) it seems that in the Mexican Revolution. a movie (film?) maker wanted to use Pancho Villa and his men in a movie. They filmed an actual charge or attack while accompanying him on campaign......however they declined to use the footage.......it wasn't real enough!!!!
Now I cannot state which documentary I saw this in, so I present it here anecdotally for entertainment value only.

[ariel]

Say what?

You cannot present a photograph of the movie crew actually filming Pancho Villa at the head of the charge?
Then how can you claim that Pancho was a real living human being? Or that there was a war between the U.S. and Mexico? Or that there was such country as Mexico?

:-))))))))))))))


Argumentum ad absurdum.....

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by ariel

Say what?

You cannot present a photograph of the movie crew actually filming Pancho Villa at the head of the charge?
Then how can you claim that Pancho was a real living human being? Or that there was a war between the U.S. and Mexico? Or that there was such country as Mexico?

:-))))))))))))))


Argumentum ad absurdum.....

LOL!
I think the problem was that the charge was actual and not staged, so perhaps it posed a reality issue. Also, this was not a war between U.S. and Mexico but an in house problem, the Revolution! We do know that Pancho Villa posed for photographs, as did his men in many cases, and they had weapons, which I believe were real, and not souveniers.

Quo Vadis

[David]

Originally Posted by ariel

Please re-read my posts ## 9 and 24 and try to find a single statement that was misleading Panzerraptor or anybody else about historical, artistic or commercial value of the Kora.

I can assure you Ariel that it is not necessary for me to re-read any of your posts since i have already read yours and everyone else's on this thread 5 or 6 times. But please feel free to re-read my posts as i don't believe any of them have accused you of misleading anybody.