significance of native american warpaint/bodypaint

Rick · 23rd September 2009, 02:43 PM

War paint could also have been used to disguise the soul .

aiontay · 23rd September 2009, 08:12 PM

Fearn is on the right track with this one. A little more speificity is needed to answer the question, which is pretty broad. Since we're talking about Villasur, I'd say you'd be better off asking about body paint and its use among the Pawnees, and Peublo tribes, since they're the ones depicted. I'd point out that there could be quite a bit of divergence here between the Pawnee rationale and the SW rationale. I'm not saying that definitively, but just saying it is a possibility. I don't know, I'm not Pawnee or Jemez.

I would just point out that several Indians are depicted as armed with swords.

aiontay · 23rd September 2009, 08:59 PM

I forgot to mention horses. Yeah, the Pawnees probably had them by this time, but they weren't too common that far north at that time. Furthermore, the Pawnees were an agricultural tribe who spent part of the year in permanent villages, so they never had as many horses as the nomadic tribes. Even after they got more horses, the Pawnees still made long distant raids on foot, all the way down to New Mexico at times, so fighting on foot wasn't particularly unusual for them.

It should be pointed out that even among the more equstrian tribes there are still plenty of accounts of fighting on foot. Forget all the supposed "ceremonial" nature of Plains warfare and counting coup, war was deadly serious business- especially at this time frame on the Plains- where people had lances and arrows driven through their bodies, were shot in the face with guns at point blank range, had their skulls smashed with war clubs or rocks, and where heads were cut off and left in brass trade buckets fror their families to find when they came home. The name of the game was killing as many of your enemies as you could at the least risk to yourself, and if that meant fighting on foot, you fought on foot. Remember, the Pawnees were fighting to protect their village and their families who were just a few miles away from an invading army. Villasur was camped on a river bank, so it could be the terrain just didn't suit fighting on horseback, even if the Pawnees did have plenty of horses at that time.

Jim McDougall · 25th September 2009, 01:47 AM

Excellent observations on this fascinating subject! Nice detail Fearn, and I think everybody here has the right track on this phenomenon, which as has been noted, traced into modern society as well in various degrees, especially tattooing. Most readily apparant is the faddish application of tattoo's in what may be best described as a sort of herd mentality in my opinion, as the rationale or 'symbolism' suggested is shallow at best as a rule. On occasion I have asked someone the significance of a tattoo (applied in virtually the same body location and of the same basic design seen everywhere) and I get the same vague (uh, its tribal...????).

Before tattoos became associated with military or outlaw biker elements, there were distinct symbolic and traditional associations extending often into prehistoric times in many cultures. These body decorations of course may be more permanent applications of body decoration previously often applied by paint or natural substances on certain occasions or for specific purposes.

From man's earliest times he became acutely aware of his surroundings in nature, the wildlfe, plantlife, waters, earth and the heavens. He sought to place himself as an element among these things and find associations with which to identify, eventually searching for ultimate powers that must control all of these. With this, the earliest forms of religion developed, and man sought to express his deepest beliefs in symbolism.

It is in this spiritual sense that early man began to decorate his surroundings, his weapons and himself with these symbols, intended to invoke the powers of his faith and these elements as best suited him. This distinct facet of human nature prevailed through the developments of groups into clans and tribes, and into civilizations.

As Aiontay has noted, these kinds of symbolisms certainly varied among the many tribes within the various Indian Nations in thier implied meanings, but it is important to note that the application of the symbols and colors typically were significant to the warrior himself. This is contrary to the oft suggestion that warriors decorated themselves to frighten the enemy. The painted symbols on the warrior and his horse (often similar in certain cases,as they were a distinct team) were representative of victories and invocations for power and guidance in thier quest in battle.

As noted in "The American Plains Indians" (Jason Hook, 1985, p.33), "...face and body paint established the Indian in the role of a warrior. While certain colors could have specific meanings (black for instance often signifying victory) and while coup marks were used and old wounds highlighted, a warriors war paint designs were usually only significant to him. Together with solemn prayers and vows, and the warriors sacred costume and regalia, these designs completed the medicine preparations which fortified him for war".

While these observations address the broader question about the use of war paint and body decoration among Indian tribes generally, it is of course necessary to note that distinct exceptions and variations may be present in certain instances and with particular tribes. It would be most interesting to hear of these from members and readers !!! Great topic!

All best regards,
Jim

23rd September 2009, 02:43 PM	#1
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,339	War paint could also have been used to disguise the soul .

23rd September 2009, 08:12 PM	#2
aiontay Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 88	Fearn is on the right track with this one. A little more speificity is needed to answer the question, which is pretty broad. Since we're talking about Villasur, I'd say you'd be better off asking about body paint and its use among the Pawnees, and Peublo tribes, since they're the ones depicted. I'd point out that there could be quite a bit of divergence here between the Pawnee rationale and the SW rationale. I'm not saying that definitively, but just saying it is a possibility. I don't know, I'm not Pawnee or Jemez. I would just point out that several Indians are depicted as armed with swords.

23rd September 2009, 08:59 PM	#3
aiontay Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 88	I forgot to mention horses. Yeah, the Pawnees probably had them by this time, but they weren't too common that far north at that time. Furthermore, the Pawnees were an agricultural tribe who spent part of the year in permanent villages, so they never had as many horses as the nomadic tribes. Even after they got more horses, the Pawnees still made long distant raids on foot, all the way down to New Mexico at times, so fighting on foot wasn't particularly unusual for them. It should be pointed out that even among the more equstrian tribes there are still plenty of accounts of fighting on foot. Forget all the supposed "ceremonial" nature of Plains warfare and counting coup, war was deadly serious business- especially at this time frame on the Plains- where people had lances and arrows driven through their bodies, were shot in the face with guns at point blank range, had their skulls smashed with war clubs or rocks, and where heads were cut off and left in brass trade buckets fror their families to find when they came home. The name of the game was killing as many of your enemies as you could at the least risk to yourself, and if that meant fighting on foot, you fought on foot. Remember, the Pawnees were fighting to protect their village and their families who were just a few miles away from an invading army. Villasur was camped on a river bank, so it could be the terrain just didn't suit fighting on horseback, even if the Pawnees did have plenty of horses at that time.

25th September 2009, 01:47 AM	#4
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,281	Excellent observations on this fascinating subject! Nice detail Fearn, and I think everybody here has the right track on this phenomenon, which as has been noted, traced into modern society as well in various degrees, especially tattooing. Most readily apparant is the faddish application of tattoo's in what may be best described as a sort of herd mentality in my opinion, as the rationale or 'symbolism' suggested is shallow at best as a rule. On occasion I have asked someone the significance of a tattoo (applied in virtually the same body location and of the same basic design seen everywhere) and I get the same vague (uh, its tribal...????). Before tattoos became associated with military or outlaw biker elements, there were distinct symbolic and traditional associations extending often into prehistoric times in many cultures. These body decorations of course may be more permanent applications of body decoration previously often applied by paint or natural substances on certain occasions or for specific purposes. From man's earliest times he became acutely aware of his surroundings in nature, the wildlfe, plantlife, waters, earth and the heavens. He sought to place himself as an element among these things and find associations with which to identify, eventually searching for ultimate powers that must control all of these. With this, the earliest forms of religion developed, and man sought to express his deepest beliefs in symbolism. It is in this spiritual sense that early man began to decorate his surroundings, his weapons and himself with these symbols, intended to invoke the powers of his faith and these elements as best suited him. This distinct facet of human nature prevailed through the developments of groups into clans and tribes, and into civilizations. As Aiontay has noted, these kinds of symbolisms certainly varied among the many tribes within the various Indian Nations in thier implied meanings, but it is important to note that the application of the symbols and colors typically were significant to the warrior himself. This is contrary to the oft suggestion that warriors decorated themselves to frighten the enemy. The painted symbols on the warrior and his horse (often similar in certain cases,as they were a distinct team) were representative of victories and invocations for power and guidance in thier quest in battle. As noted in "The American Plains Indians" (Jason Hook, 1985, p.33), "...face and body paint established the Indian in the role of a warrior. While certain colors could have specific meanings (black for instance often signifying victory) and while coup marks were used and old wounds highlighted, a warriors war paint designs were usually only significant to him. Together with solemn prayers and vows, and the warriors sacred costume and regalia, these designs completed the medicine preparations which fortified him for war". While these observations address the broader question about the use of war paint and body decoration among Indian tribes generally, it is of course necessary to note that distinct exceptions and variations may be present in certain instances and with particular tribes. It would be most interesting to hear of these from members and readers !!! Great topic! All best regards, Jim