Sioux Nation Indian Trade Musket Buffalo Hide Wrapped "Help"

It measures 49-1/2" overall with a 30" barrel going from octangle to round barrel. While as you can find them, the ones more collectible are the ones that have been in Native American hands such as this one, they are rare. A scout rifle with the Santee name on the stock on one side with a star on the other side. The Santees are Sioux hence, Santee/Sioux when you research it. Any opinions or suggestions as to selling it would also be greatly appreciated.

 

having difficulty trying to determine if the red beads and tinkle cones have the same age as the rest. Not saying they don't..just wondering

 

You need a gun auction.....but 1st run it by a native american auction house....

I;m having trouble with the really dark almost burnt look to the firing area....that looks like the leather may be covering up damage......and the Indians did not write their tribe names on their weapons....only , maybe an owners mark.....

Maybe SA can speak to the model & maker...

 

So they were illiterate?

 

if it were a shortened flintlock, with no butt plate...i'd like it better...

https://truewestmagazine.com/weapons-of-the-indian-wars/

 

Any small to medium-sized auction house that will accept it is an acceptable sale venue. It is too low-value for most of the bigger places. I'm guessing it'd bring $50-$250, no way to get closer guess than that. See if Redding's in Gettysburg Pa will take it. IMO it isn't collectible in the American gun collector sense, condition is too poor, basic gun is too common, etc. Since the demand for this type item is almost nonexistent, you may have to work hard to sell it.

 

The gun has three proof marks, all of them are letters under a crown, the more legible on is the proof mark that is on the metal. Ir is a crown over an R, meaning it is proof marked Birmingham mid 1800s which makes it a British Indian Trade musket. We'll see, thanks.

 

No, they probably just didn't put their tribal affiliation on stuff, only their name. Would you put your state on something as an identifier? Like, MAINE on your luggage. No, you'd put your name.

 

Not when they are of one mind as in a tribe.

 

I still don't see them putting it on a gun like this.

 

if they were of one mind, maybe they only needed ...one gun !

( or maybe they were on vacation.....in another tribes territory ! )

 

Yeah, and America would still be theirs.

 

Distinguishable from other flinters of the era, these trade guns were fitted with a part-octagon and part-round smoothbore barrel that measured from 30 to 48 inches in length. The ruggedly built, lightweight and economically manufactured Northwest Gun could be loaded with either a single ball or a charge of shot. The full-stocked arm employed barrel pins to hold the stock and barrel together in the manner of military muskets. A large sheet iron trigger guard allowed the user to wear mittens while shooting. A brass serpent-shaped side plate opposite the lock became a crucial factor in the sale of these arms, as did other markings, such as a “seated fox,” which signified high quality to an Indian. Those that were a bit better finished, perhaps containing a silver-inlaid nameplate in the stock, were known as “Chief’s Guns.”

Once Indians got a hold of their longarms, they often shortened the barrels, for ease of handling on horseback, one of the Indian warrior’s favorite modes for battle. (At other times, an improperly loaded firearm caused a burst muzzle.) They modified the muskets further by removing the butt plates, in part to keep a sun-heated metal plate from burning the shoulders of these bare-chested braves. Women utilized this thin-edged piece of iron or brass as a hide scraper.

When gun stocks split, forearms burst or wood and metal parts got damaged, Indians wrapped the damaged part with tightly bound wet rawhide, then let it dry so that it shrunk to form an ironclad-like mend. Sometimes they hammered in iron or brass nails to hold together a broken stock, but usually they reserved such hardware to decorate the firearm. Feathers, beads, even human trigger fingers cut from an enemy, as well as other body appendages, could also adorn an Indian’s gun throughout the 19th century.

We're talking FLINTERS...flintlocks here....
If you find out more about this rifle.....to back up your thoughts....please bring it to our attention.....

 

Turns out it is an indian trade rifle and I found out who the owner was. Guy by the name of Little Crow, a Sioux chief. This was found out by an authenticator who authenticated firearms from Custer's Last Stand, Wendell Grangaard. Apparently the little figures made out by the tacks spell out his name by the symbolism and the "Santee" was the tribe, Little Crow was literate and, him being a Chief, more than likely, was put there by him. The Santee/Sioux tribe in Nebraska will be the new owners, guess it went a full circle.

 

That's pretty cool !!!

 

This is an interesting "case" to me anyway. None of my biz now that you have a disposition decided, etc, but IF I was a potential customer for that item I'd want to know a bit more. I did look up Little Crow and there's a wealth of info on him, he was killed in June 1863 while trespassing. In 1862 he led the Indians in a war against all caucasians in his area. His skull etc was a prized possession in a Minneasota museum until repatriated under the federal legislation requiring it.

A few questions: Creds of authenticator? Is authentication in signed, dated document? When was gun made? When did Indians begin acquiring firearms? Any documentation that Little Crow ever owned a firearm? Since this gun was not with LC at his death, where was it then? If with his tribe, wouldn't Army have confiscated it before they moved the tribe to Nebraska? Why is there such a great difference in the patina between the large and small tacks? Where are the little figures spelled out by the tacks, I can't see any?

There's an interesting and quite negative commentary on the authenticator at following link, scroll down to the July 17, 2017 entry:

https://www.forgottenweapons.com/book-review-documenting-the-weapons-used-at-the-little-bighorn/

 

Yes, I've perused all that. But, if you read between the lines and look at his life story it would make you think. He had a lot of communication with the Sioux and it would stand to reason that his association with them would provide him with a wealth of knowledge. More so if he were like me, I would always ask questions of my elders about bygone eras. I do believe that there would be reasons weapons would be decorated and that those decorations have a hidden meaning. Well, the deal is done and its back where it should be, in their hands. As to when the gun was made it was made in the mid 1800s by the proof mark on the barrel which is an R under a crown
http://www.nramuseum.com/media/940944/proofmarks.pdf
so, yea, it's the real deal.

 

Thanks Mario. Maybe you could help me with this seeming inconsistency: The R-under-crown proof mark has only been in use since 1868 according to the chart you linked. It means the black powder rifle was re-proof tested in Birmingham, England in or after 1868. Little Crow was killed in 1863, five years minimum before the re-proof took place in Birmingham. How is that possible? Even if someone took the trouble to ship it back to Birmingham in or after 1868, the proof-master wouldn't have accepted it for test with the supposed Indian modifications. And I'll guarantee no one would ship a gun that didn't require re-proof back to England for that purpose.

 

time to call Wendell.....