I was watching a western movie on DVD today. The big-mouth wagon train leader constantly recounts to the settlers stories of savage Indian attacks against whites.
One story involved a friend of his who supposedly was scalped by an Indian but lived to tell the tale. That made me wonder: Would such a thing be possible, especially given 1800s medical capabilities? If so, what were a victim’s chances? And how would they treat such a wound?
An obvious follow-up question: If such a scalping were to happen today, can I assume that modern medicine would give the victim an excellent chance of survival?
I can recall at least two, perhaps three instances of the victim surviving. One was from The Frontiersman by Allan Eckert, which is ‘historical fiction,’ and may or may not be based on reality. A ‘doctor’ of the time (ca. 1765) actually was able to take an awl and draw the hair through the top of the head to encourage growth.
Then you had Robert McGee, who survived a scalping by Little Turtle in 1864.
The Wild Frontier, by William Osborn has many accounts of atrocities committed by whites and Indians alike. One incident involved a female victim that survived and I believe she went on speaking tours in California, but she was deeply vain and the account described the great lengths she went to in order to appear normal.
I’m not sure a competent adult other than the victim was even necessary in all these cases to keep the victim alive, I believe the victim’s survival instinct coupled with the circumstances was adequate.
“Son of the Morning Star” by Evan Connell, about Custer and the Little Bighorn, discusses at least one instance of a man who survived a scalping. If I remember correctly, he would travel around with his scalp floating in a jar. He may have also mentioned a second instance, though I may be remembering correctly. So evidently it was possible, if not real likely.
Of course, when you were scalped, there were generally several other bad things happening to you at the time, so I imagine not many people survived, since most of them were dead or dying first.
I don’t believe the perpetrators of any of these acts considered them atrocities, unless the act was committed against ‘your side’ by ‘the enemy.’ If you were the one committing the act, I’m sure it was perfectly acceptable and justified.
No, it was usually done when the opponent was dead, just as a way of counting/proving your victory. And not all that commonly done by Indians – often done by whites, who got paid bounties for the scalps at times.
And this isn’t unique – doesn’t the Bible mention Samson doing something similar?
You might be thinking of Saul’s challenge to David, while David was still his servant. Saul told David that he could have Saul’s daughter in marriage if David and his men would bring in 100 Philistine foreskins. Just for insurance, David brought back 200 foreskins. Yes, that’s what it says. 1 Samuel 18:27
It says that the Philistines did not - could not, being dead - object to this.
