Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

Tim Simmons · 21st March 2016, 08:13 PM

I am having a problem with the term Reservation period. It starts around 1860 and is not without conflict right up to 1890's and latter. The use of the term seems to down grade Native American culture. As if all fighting stopped and Native American life was devoid of its own sophistication. This is odd as collectors. We accept the weapons, art works and cultural sophistication of say the Zulu and other South African peoples also living on restricted home lands. The artifacts of the Zulu for example do not get the same somewhat scornful treatment. Why is this? Genuine 19th century South African artifacts are very common. Weapons, ceremonial regalia all very common but not questioned is the same way. Why should genuine artifacts of the Plains Nations be not so common or at least plentiful?

21st March 2016, 08:13 PM	#40
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,742	I am having a problem with the term Reservation period. It starts around 1860 and is not without conflict right up to 1890's and latter. The use of the term seems to down grade Native American culture. As if all fighting stopped and Native American life was devoid of its own sophistication. This is odd as collectors. We accept the weapons, art works and cultural sophistication of say the Zulu and other South African peoples also living on restricted home lands. The artifacts of the Zulu for example do not get the same somewhat scornful treatment. Why is this? Genuine 19th century South African artifacts are very common. Weapons, ceremonial regalia all very common but not questioned is the same way. Why should genuine artifacts of the Plains Nations be not so common or at least plentiful?