A Civil War khukuri??!! You gotta see it to believe it! Take a look.

Ben did say, as I recall, that he scanned the photo from a book about the Civil War. On campus at MSU. As to the authenticity of the photo I'm not sure. I suppose some inspired photographer might have gotten the guys to stand still for the photo. It certainly tells a very poignant story quite well and I'm pleased I got to view it whether staged or not.

Perhaps Civil War buffs might be able to tell something from uniforms so at least we will know the photo was not shot at the Khyber Pass!

More help needed from people who know more about the subject than me.

------------------
Uncle Bill
Himalayan Imports Website
http://members.aol.com/himimp/index.html


[This message has been edited by Bill Martino (edited 04 November 1999).]
 
No, it's US Civil War. The rifle is a Springfield and the equipment worn by the dead soldier in the back ground it US. It's a bunch of Yanks. Southerns used 3 or 2 banded Enfields until the Richmond rifle go into full production and then that version didn't even make it out to most units. Not to mention the uniform style isn't the type worn my English units during that time frame.

------------------
-------------------------
MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY
-------------------------
Fear the man that owns only one rifle,
he likely knows how to use it.
- Anonymous
-------------------------
Ben Lee
Computer Science
Yahoo Msgr: mississippi_rifleman
www2.netdoor.com/~rifleman
www2.msstate.edu/~brl2
-------------------------

 
Ben,
The fact that an expat Englishman or Irish trooper brought this knife with him are not only logical but more than possible.
Gurkha regiments being under England's command since 1815 could put a khukuri into someone else's hands to bring to America's Civil War. Or as some Yanks refer to it as the 'Southern tragedy.
I seriously doubt this is an authentic 1860s photo. Goat is right that 'action' shots didn't exsist. What book did you scan this from and what do they give as a source?
I have been to reenactments where you could easily shoot a photo like this with a modern camera and age the print.
With all that I still believe a khukuri could have been carried on American soil during the Civil War.

------------------
JP
 
Thanks for valued input!

I like to believe that some photographer with a soul asked the soldiers to stand still for this "horrors of war" pix. Don't know if it was possible at that time but it makes me feel better to believe it.

I think John is dead on. It is more than possible that a few khukuris could have seen action in the Civil War.

------------------
Uncle Bill
Himalayan Imports Website
http://members.aol.com/himimp/index.html
 
John,

The picture only has a name as a source. Shots like these were taken throughout the war for newspapers especially up North. There was an anti-war movement then and this picture could be for that purpose, but the fact that they are in a cornfield, called Miller's cornfield (which doesn't exist now), with stalks beneath them with corn still on them and the background with the other soldiers as they are just makes the photo stronger. I've been trying to find the offical source to no avail.

------------------
-------------------------
MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY
-------------------------
Fear the man that owns only one rifle,
he likely knows how to use it.
- Anonymous
-------------------------
Ben Lee
Computer Science
Yahoo Msgr: mississippi_rifleman
www2.netdoor.com/~rifleman
www2.msstate.edu/~brl2
-------------------------

 
At first I also questioned the authenticity of the photo, but am now convinced Ben is right. There's a photo of three Confederate pickets struggling to stay warm at a campfire near Fredericksburg, VA on p. 185 of "The Civil War: An Illustrated History" (based on Ken Burns' great PBS documentary) which shows remarkably similar detail in closeups of "live action". See also http://lcweb2.loc.gov/pnp/cwp/4a39000/4a39500/4a39563r.jpg for a view of the Antietam battlefield in a photo from the Library of Congress and note detail of figure in foreground.

[This message has been edited by Berkley (edited 08 November 1999).]
 
I hope this is an authentic photo. The cornfield certainly would back this up and recreators wouldn't trash a real field. I doubt anyone would do a 'set up' like this.
This just makes the khukuri, the photo and the whole story that much better. Great!
I just can't imagine the equipment and film being "fast" enough to capture this.
Where are the rest of the Civil War buffs and photo experts to comment on this?

------------------
JP
 
At this point, I don't think it really matters if the photo is "genuine" or not. It has spoken to all of us who have seen it. And the reason we're so intrigued by it is the power of its message. The purpose of art is to communicate, and this photo does just that -- the photographer had a messagae to convey, which he did -- whether the photo was staged or not. So, perhaps we should allow the mystery to remain unsolved and focus on what the photographer was trying to tell us about the sadness of war -- of fallen comrades and dreams forever unfulfilled.
 
I have people who fought on both sides of the Northern Invasion.Ignorant Norskis,in the north,they didn`t even speak English.They just went out to be shot because it was expected; and southern gentlemen.The causes are still with us.I side with the state`s,and local control,and against the Feds.

------------------
 
Amen, Brother Ghost. I'm on your side. And if we don't start standing up for our rights Big Brother is going to take them away from us. Look at what Al Gore is proposing: requiring gun owners to carry special photo IDs.
 
I would like photo IDs for politicians.

Campaign finance reform would be nice also.

And while I'm on the topic of things that will never happen, I would also like to date movie stars and drive a Ferrari.

Oh well.
 
I was just browsing through Jansen's History of Art the other day, looking for something else entirely, and got stuck in the section on early photography, couldn't go on until I read the whole section.... They were making photographs that looked like action snapshots well before the Civil War -- they were posed, of course; the models had to hold still for the slow emulsion -- but there are paintings that look like snapshots from centuries earlier. The models probably felt lucky they didn't have to hold their poses for hours and keep coming back day after day for a painter -- photography was fast!
smile.gif


I guess most everybody knows the famous photo of the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima was posed and taken hours after the actual event ... it's still a great work of art, even if it isn't exactly a record of history. This picture is very good from a formal viewpoint, too; real snapshots are seldom so well composed.

For our purposes, if the picture was taken a few hours after the battle, maybe the next day, that's as good as a snapshot; it still places a khukuri in the American Civil War. I can't say it wasn't taken at a modern re-enactment; you can fake a picture of anything you want. All I can say is it could have been taken only hours after the battle. It has the look of war photography of the period, the artistic style and a typical theme. I'm willing to bet money it's not a snapshot somebody casually took at a re-enactment -- if it's a modern picture it's a deliberate effort to imitate contemporary Civil War photographs, whether intended to deceive or not, and it occurs to me somebody who went to the trouble to do that and did it so well would probably have taken the trouble to make sure all the gear shown was authentic issue -- he might have screwed up and shown a khukuri, but I don't think it's very likely.

-Cougar Allen :{)


[This message has been edited by Cougar Allen (edited 12 November 1999).]
 
That was a really neat picture, Ben and Bill.

I have a friend from New Zealand who said there were even New Zealand volunteers on the Union side (this came up in relation to the fact that NZ troops had fought alongside Americans in every war we've fought in since 1861). Does anybody know about other foreign volunteers, especiall British colonials? Maybe Australia? South Africa?

For people interested in the political side to it, I am concerned about a tendency to romanticize the Late Unpleasantness as a struggle against Big Brother. It's not my intention to offend or upset anyone, the following is just a "snapshot" of the history that I hadn't seen until just a couple of years ago.
The text below is from Mississippi's Declaration of Causes of Secession--I picked Mississippi's because it is clear and well-written, not in order to pick on Ben.

You can get the whole thing at http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html
----
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of
commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
[rest at http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html
]


[This message has been edited by johnniet (edited 16 November 1999).]

[This message has been edited by johnniet (edited 16 November 1999).]

[This message has been edited by johnniet (edited 16 November 1999).]
 
I guess this pix is worth to be attached to Khukuri FAQ! ... somewhere under historical topic.

What do you say Pakcik Bill? ... Howard?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top