Arts, Faculty of
Fine Arts, Department of, Department of
DSpace
UBCV
Tibbel, Deborah Elizabeth
Master of Arts - MA
University of British Columbia
Since the closing years of the nineteenth century, the name "Nampeyo" has been synonymous with pottery produced on the Hopi Reservation in northeastern Arizona. By re-introducing and re-interpreting various pre-Hispanic forms, designs, and colour schemes, Nampeyo became the icon of a new approach to ceramic production that was quickly adopted by other potters. This new style came to be known as . "Sikyatki Revival Ware", in association with archaeological excavations being conducted during the 1890s at the unihabited Hopi town of that name. As one of the first Native artists to be acknowledged by Euro-Americans, the story of Nampeyo was manipulated according to a colonial discourse which simultaneously idealized and marginalized the artistic motivations and production of colonized Others. In the case of Nampeyo, this involved a notion of Pueblo society and art as conservative, static, and incapable of independent change. This study examines such notions in relation to the history of Hopi pottery, both before and after contact with European influences, as a means of demonstrating the dynamic aspects of Pueblo ceramics. Furthermore, I argue that the story of Nampeyo, and her relationships with numerous Euro-American patrons is the product of conflicting dominant interests, with little or no regard for Native agency. Rather, as a member of a subordinate group, Nampeyo created a niche for the concept of "Native art" acceptable in both Pueblo and Euro-American terms, while working from within the constricted boundaries of colonial domination.
15005723 bytes
application/pdf
NAMPEYO AND THE SIKYATKI REVIVAL: CREATING A LEGEND WITH HOPI "CERAMICS by DEBORAH ELIZABETH TIBBEL B.A., The University of British Columbia, 1990 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Fine Arts) We acccept this thesis as conforming to the reauired standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA November, 1994 © Deborah Elizabeth Tibbel, 1994 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of zJvttX^ ftfk The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date l/Mt /£, . /91+ DE-6 (2/88) Abstract Since the closing years of the nineteenth century, the name "Nampeyo" has been synonymous with pottery produced on the Hopi Reservation in northeastern Arizona. By re-introducing and re-interpreting various pre-Hispanic forms, designs, and colour schemes, Nampeyo became the icon of a new approach to ceramic production that was quickly adopted by other potters. This new style came to be known as . "Sikyatki Revival Ware", in association with archaeological excavations being conducted during the 1890s at the unihabited Hopi town of that name. As one of the first Native artists to be acknowledged by Euro-Americans, the story of Nampeyo was manipulated according to a colonial discourse which simultaneously idealized and marginalized the artistic motivations and production of colonized Others. In the case of Nampeyo, this involved a notion of Pueblo society and art as conservative, static, and incapable of independent change. This study examines such notions in relation to the history of Hopi pottery, both before and after contact with European influences, as a means of demonstrating the dynamic aspects of Pueblo ceramics. Furthermore, I argue that the story of Nampeyo, and her relationships with numerous Euro-American patrons is the product of conflicting dominant interests, with little or no regard for Native agency. Rather, as a member of a subordinate group, Nampeyo created a niche for the concept of "Native art" acceptable in both Pueblo and Euro-American terms, while working from within the constricted boundaries of colonial domination. Table of Contents Abst rac t ii Table of Contents iii List of Figures iv Chapter One The Sikyatki Revival 1 Post Colonial Discourse and Native American Art 5 Chapter Two Reconstructing Hopi History 16 Constructions of the Hopi in Anthropological Literature 19 Pre-Hispanic History 23 Post Conquest History: 1540-1848 27 The United States 37 Hopi - Tewa Relations 45 Chapter Three Introduction to Hopi Pottery: Chronology and Historic Context 49 Pueblo IV: Hopi 53 Post Conquest Ceramics 56 The Sikyatki Revival and Its Context 62 Chapter Four Euro-American Involvement in the Development of the Sikyatki Revival 79 Thomas Varker Keam 80 Alexander McGregor Stephen 93 Jesse Walter Fewkes 100 Harvey Company, Grand Canyon 111 Chapter Five Nampeyo - Life and Myth 121 Biographical Narratives 122 Descriptions of Nampeyo 130 Training 133 Transition to Sikyatki Revival Style at First Mesa 136 Hidden Conflicts and the Creation of the Artist 140 Travel and Promotion . 143 Vision and Identity 146 The 1920s -- Anthropologists and Marketing 150 Conclusion 155 Bibl iography 169 iii List of Figures Figure 1. Map of the Hopi Mesas, northeastern Arizona 17 Figure 2. Bowl, Kayenta Black-on-White 69 Figure 3. Jar, Tusayan Black-on-White 70 Figure 4. Bowl, Fourmile Polychrome 71 Figure 5. Bowl, Jeddito Black-on-Yellow 72 Figure 6. Bowl, Sikyatki Polychrome 73 Figure 7. Jar, Sikyatki Polychrome . . . 74 Figure 8. Jar, Payupki Polychrome . 75 Figure 9. Jar, Polacca Polychrome 76 Figure 10. Jar, Sikyatki Revival Polychrome 77 Figure 11. Tiles, Polacca Polychrome 78 Figure 12. Nampeyo, 1875 161 Figure 13. Nampeyo, 1900 162 Figure 14. Jar, Sikyatki Revival, by Nampeyo 163 Figure 15. Bowl, Sikyatki Revival, by Nampeyo 164 Figure 16. Jar, Sikyatki Revival, by Nampeyo 165 Figure 17. Jar, Sikyatki Revival, by Nampeyo 166 Figure 18. Jar, Sikyatki Revival, by Nampeyo 167 Figure 19. Jar, Sikyatki Revival, by Nampeyo 168 iv Chapter One The Sikyatki Revival During the closing years of the nineteenth century, a dynamic transformation was enacted in pottery production on the Hopi Reservation in northeastern Arizona. This transformation, which included a re-introduction and re-interpretation of pre-Hispanic ceramic forms, painted designs, and colour schemes was, in part, a response to Euro-American influences and the ensuing shift towards a cash-based economy. It also served as a vehicle for contact, communication, and exchange between Pueblo peoples and Euro-Americans, generating an unprecedented degree of popular and scholarly interest, and sparking a commercial revolution in Pueblo ceramics. A burgeoning tourist industry provided additional marketing potential, and by the early years of the twentieth century, a new movement in "Hopi"1 ceramics was firmly established. The product of this movement became known as "Sikyatki Revival Ware"2, a term which continues to be used in reference to present-day Hopi painted ceramics by collectors, dealers, and scholars (Walker and Wyckoff 1983:67). 1 The word "Hopi" appears in quotation marks here in reference to ceramics produced in styles identified by Euro-Americans as Hopi, but which are produced by both Hopi and Tewa potters. Although quotation marks will be dropped for the remainder of this text, the reader should be aware of this distinction. 2 The term "Sikyatki Revival" appears in quotation marks here in reference to later discussions, where ii will be argued that the term is misleading and therefore inappropriate. However, since the term is now so widely accepted, quotation marks will be dropped for the remainder of this text, except in specific references to its origins. 1 As one of the earliest Southwestern Native art movements to be recognized and documented by Euro-Americans, the Sikyatki Revival represents an opportunity to reveal ways in which nineteenth century contact situations were constructed, and how these constructions have affected Native artistic production. In both popular and scholarly literature, ranging from newspaper accounts and magazines to Bureau of American Ethnology reports, a convoluted story of intercultural encounter is narrated. This study examines several aspects of this story by exploring the actions of the individuals most closely associated with the Sikyatki Revival movement. Although each approached the Sikyatki Revival from a different ideological perspective, all of these individuals were inextricably linked as elements essential to the movement's particular formation. What is now known of this movement, it will be argued, has been constructed through Euro-American discourse which, although it has changed significantly during the course of the twentieth century, retains many of the basic assumptions which informed nineteenth century American ideology. The impact of the Sikyatki Revival on the Euro-American public is evidenced by the sheer volume of references to Hopi pottery and, in particular, to a single potter, Nampeyo (c. 1860-1942). Her role in initiating the revival of pre-Hispanic designs in contemporary pottery production was, by the early twentieth century, well on the way to becoming legendary. Jesse Walter Fewkes, the first professionally sponsored anthropologist to do extensive ethnographic and 3 archaeological research among the Hopi, has long been linked to Nampeyo and the inception of this "revival" through his excavations at the uninhabited Hopi village of Sikyatki (Hough 1917; Colton and Colton 1943). Thomas Keam, the proprietor of one of the first trading posts in the Hopi vicinity, has more recently been recognized as an active participant, for his role in encouraging Nampeyo and other local potters to utilize these and other pre-Hispanic forms and designs (Wade and McChesney 1980). Alexander M. Stephen made the first detailed study of the Hopi in a journal of his observations and participation in Hopi daily life during the 1890s, and worked with Keam on a number of projects involving Hopi potters (Parsons 1936:xx; Wade and McChesney 1980). The Fred Harvey Company, in connection with railway expansion and the the development of tourism in the West, promoted Nampeyo as a Native artist to the Euro-American public. In brief, the actions of Nampeyo, Fewkes, Keam, and Stephen, and the wider exposure brought about by the Harvey Company's marketing strategies, were prominent among those which led to the emergence of a historical narrative of a Native American movement into which Euro-American ideology could be inserted as a crucial factor. However, with the recent emphasis on a more reflexive approach to historical analysis, and the urgent need to recognize the important roles played by Native participants, it has become clear that much has been excluded by the specific focus of this history. This study seeks to extract another story by looking at ways in which the discourse was manipulated and altered as ideology shifted. Chapters two and three provide background for this approach, with particular emphasis on 4 the ways in which Hopi pre-Hispanic history was constructed as a metanarrative of the Southwest in order to serve Euro-American interests. The story of Nampeyo is well-known to anyone interested in Hopi pottery. Yet even a cursory examination of the facts reveals conflicts and inconsistencies. The earliest biographical accounts of Nampeyo's life, published in 1943, a year after her death, created a foundation of well-intentioned, but misleading information upon which later scholars based their interpretations. As tributes to a particular Native artist, these accounts were unprecedented. They also served, however, to reinforce stereotypes, and created a sanitized narrative of the first "famous Hopi potter" (Nequatewa 1943:40). This is one of two central aspects of the story of Nampeyo which are particularly problematic, for although she was born in Hopi country, she was in fact Tewa, and resided in a Tewa-speaking community that maintained its distinction from the Hopi villages nearby. To Euro-Americans, however, she was associated most strongly with the Hopi pottery style for which she was known, suggesting that not only her ethnicity, but her individual identity were secondary to the material objects she produced. The second problematic aspect of this account, which has been challenged only during the past two decades, (Frisbie 1973; Wade and McChesney 1980), is the extent to which Fewkes, Keam, and Stephen were involved, directly or indirectly, in influencing Nampeyo, and in the inception of the Sikyatki Revival. In early renditions of the story, for example, Keam and Stephen are rarely, if ever, mentioned in direct relationship to Nampeyo or the Sikyatki Revival, and instead, Fewkes is credited with inspiring the use of Sikyatki designs. Chapters four and five will discuss some of the ways in which Euro-American actions have been privileged in these accounts, and how changing emphases of the significance of their roles reveal tensions between scholarship and commercial interests. The roles played by various individuals in the inception of the Sikyatki Revival reveal nascent ideologies in both Pueblo and Euro-American societies. Keam, Stephen, and Fewkes were representative of what has been referred to as an "irreducible triad" of the marketing, collecting, and scholarship of Native American art (Alsop, quoted in Wade:1985). In considering Nampeyo as an integral fourth component, this group becomes what Edwin Wade calls a "volatile quartet" (Wade 1985:167). Their actions resulted in the invention of a Hopi cultural product drawn from pre-Hispanic design systems, and intended for public consumption. Post Colonia l Discourse and Native Amer ican Art The Sikyatki Revival is an example of the dramatic transformations which have characterized the artistic practices of indigenous and other minority groups during situations of colonial domination, and which have become central topics in art historical research (Berlo 1992). Concurrent with recent developments in fields as diverse as history, literary criticism, and anthropology, students of art history are presently engaged in a reappraisal of colonial discourse which challenges many 6 long-established theoretical and methodological paradigms. The central theme of earlier theoretical approaches was the separation between the West and all other groups. This appeared theoretically as radical contrasts between modern Western societies and their traditional predecessors and temporal compatriots -- a dichotomization which was expressed in terms of economics, politics, meaning, and social organization. Methodological assumptions of Western progress versus the stability of the primitive Other tainted all constructions of non-Western societies. In recent years, however, issues of reflexivity have become common. These new issues, which are also defmitionally contested, require an examination not only of the topic of study, but also the motivation for choosing it. Such ongoing discussions have provided valuable insights into the ways in which historical renderings of colonial encounters have been shaped by European ideological constructions, and have exposed many of the limitations inherent in traditional critiques of colonial texts. In various studies of the Sikyatki Revival, the constructed nature of historical events are illustrated. The following analysis will show some of the ways in which texts are dependent upon ideological constructions, of which authors are incapable of divorcing themselves. As such, these texts must be anchored in the context of their production, not naively accepted (Comaroff & Comaroff 1992:25). Thus, the analysis of colonial events must go beyond the literary to include the practices, goods, and meanings that both influenced and were a part of the everyday, within which the texts fall. 7 Terry Eagleton has shown that there are many possible definitions of the term ideology (1991:1), and refines these multiple meanings into six basic definitions (1991:28-30). Of the possible meanings discussed by Eagleton, I have rejected those that suggest that ideology is a tool of the dominant groups, or a manifestation of false consciousness. Rather, the term "ideology" is being used here to describe forms of thought motivated by social interests - ideologies exist only in relation to other ideologies: A dominant ideology has continually to negotiate with the ideologies of its subordinates and this essential open-endedness will prevent it from achieving any kind of pure self-identity. Indeed what makes a dominant ideology powerful - its ability to intervene in the consciousness of those it subjects, appropriating and reinflecting their experience - is also what tends to make it internally heterogeneous and inconsistent. A successful ruling ideology... must engage significantly with genuine wants, needs and desires; but this is also its Achilles heel, forcing it to recognize an 'other' to itself and inscribing this otherness as a potentially disruptive force within its own forms. We might say in Bakhtinian terms that for a governing ideology to be 'monological' - to address its subjects with authoritarian certitude - it must simultaneously be 'dialogical'; for even an authoritarian discourse is addressed to another and lives only in the other's response (Eagleton 1991: 45-46). In terms of the issues being discussed in this paper, the ideologies of Euro-Americans: ... can actively shape the wants and desires of those subjected to them; but they must also engage significantly with the wants and desires that people already have, catching up genuine hopes and needs, reinflecting them in their own peculiar idiom, and feeding them back to their subjects in ways which render those ideologies plausible and attractive (Eagleton 1991:14-15). Thus, in the following analysis of the Sikyatki Revival, I will be looking for the social interests of the parties involved, ways in which these social interests conflict 8 with those of other groups, and ways in which ideologies are adapted and "reinfected" back to the subjects. Critiques of colonial discourse in a variety of academic fields have also revealed that the supposedly shared and coherent ideology that comes into play in situations of intercultural contact is context-specific, and when illuminated through analysis of different contexts, can often be seen to be contradictory (cf. Clifford 1988; Said 1978). Renderings of history, which are now being recognized as having roots in ever-changing ideologies, nevertheless tend to be constructed as coherent, stable singularities. Representations of national identity, ethnicity, and tradition are perpetually revised and re-constructed to conform to current contexts, philosophies, agendas, and self-perceptions. This process of continual reconstruction exposes the real, fluid nature of ideology that becomes obscured by searches for coherence. Furthermore, these constructions disregard, negate, or absorb "differences" in minority groups (lower classes, women, ethnic or religious minorities) as a means of creating a homogeneous self-portrait, while simultaneously distancing the minority groups to prevent them from gaining power. It is this ambiguity and contradiction, however, that creates an opening for subaltern groups to develop and maintain their own ideology, identity, and power. This opening does not initially involve a direct or confrontational attack, but rather a manipulation of ambiguities which are inherent in the dominant ideology. Ross 9 Chambers refers to this phenomenon as "oppositional behavior" which finds "room for maneuver". In Chambers' definition, this phenomenon of oppositional behavior is distinct from resistance, where the participants view the policies and acts of the dominant group as illegitimate -- a force that needs to be opposed by a counterforce. Chambers states: "oppositional behavior consists of individual or group tactics that do not challenge the power in place, but make use of circumstances set up by that power for purposes the power may ignore or deny" (Chambers 1991:1). For art historians and others interested in this topic, not only are the actions of the disempowered indigenous groups of interest, but also the incoherent, and therefore questionable position of those in power. The resulting tensions serve to highlight the need for the reflexive nature of these studies, where analysis not only involves the "Other", but also critiques of our own society and academic fields. During the past two decades, these tensions have been addressed in a number of ways. Nelson Graburn has written that aesthetic sensibilities and traditions are "in a continuous state of transition" (1976:30), which incorporates a delicate balance of persistance and change. Similarly, the work of scholars such as Eric Hobsbawm (1983) and Nicholas Thomas (1992) on the constructed nature of tradition, have provided a basis from which to challenge once-popular notions of inherent conservatism, and therefore lack of self-motivated change, in Native societies. They have replaced this characterization of the stability and continuity of 10 tradition with one which suggests that tradition is dynamic, and that often the vehicle of tradition is a very recent construction, or that the social meaning of a given tradition changes although the visible vehicle remains the same. The Sikyatki Revival was perceived as a return to a Golden Age of traditional Hopi ceramics, when in fact it was an innovative form with an entirely different social significance and purpose. This new traditionalism was manipulated for economic and political reasons by both Euro-American consumers and the Native producers. The strategies of those involved in situations of colonial interaction, including movements such as the Sikyatki Revival, have been illuminated through a variety of academic perspectives. While Allan Hanson (1989) and Susan Stewart (1991) demonstrate ways in which the meaning of the culture and traditions of subaltern groups are often invented by representatives of the dominant power to serve as a foil in the presentation of their own culture, traditions and ideology, Chambers (1991) shows how these same constructions can themselves be manipulated by subaltern groups for their own purposes. An analysis of the Sikyatki Revival will provide many specific examples of these processes. The problematic categories of tradition, individuality, creativity, and art among Native Americans may be drawn together as essentially one topic. The initial formulation of these as separate categories arose out of the Euro-American 11 desire to develop a distinct identity opposed to that of Europeans. This resulted in an orientation that had little to do with the specific and actual life and history of the Native peoples involved. Yet once developed, they become issues that have real repercussions for Native ways of life, and reveal as much about the perceptions of the Euro-Americans who construct them as they do about the Native peoples they purport to describe. In attempting to uncover the "truth" of America, they are actually constructing it through actions, agendas, and differential interpretations of events. Thus, historical constructions tend to deal with abstract periods, failing to take into account that the past is comprised of overlapping individual and group actions, that are not necessarily based upon the meanings later ascribed to them. However, in discussions of indigenous arts, the tendency to categorize according to "pre-contact" and "post-contact" periods lead to notions that "tradition" and "authenticity" are rooted in the past, and are therefore not a vital aspect of contemporary life. It is necessary, then, to address the implications which arise from such categorizations. In this study, it will be argued - with specific reference to Nampeyo - that although the transformations which took place in Hopi pottery-making during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were the product of colonial encounters, such transformations are related to a fundamental, on-going process of self-definition and re-definition. 12 A central theme in current discussions of Native art, which recurs throughout this study, is the dialectic of creativity and tradition. Creativity, and its association with dynamism and individuality, has often been discussed as problematic in its relation to notions of tradition as being static, and locked within the strictly defined boundaries of conservatism. A recent anthology assumes a similar position to Hobsbawm's and Thomas's arguments, challenging assumptions that "tradition" must be equated with "conservatism" by exploring the interconnection of creativity and tradition: Members of a society's younger generation always select from, elaborate upon, and transform the traditions they inheret. The healthy perpetuation of cultural traditions requires invention as well as rote repetition. Even decisions to alter nothing received from the past will usually be thwarted because changing circumstances transform the meaning and consequences of dutifully repeated traditional actions (Rosaldo, Lavie, and Narayan 1993:5). These changing circumstances are of central importance to the Hopi ceramic innovations which have emerged from "close cross-cultural relationships between entrepreneurial, marginal, (and) bicultural people of both groups" (Graburn 1976:31). Hopi pottery production provides a useful context in which to discuss these issues. In this study, the transformations which occurred in late nineteenth and twentieth century ceramics produced on the Hopi Reservation will be viewed as part of a complex process of interaction and exchange -- a process of inventing tradition which has and is occurring globally in situations of colonial contact. In 13 response to the imposition of Western ideological constructions, colonized Native peoples have devised strategies for both cultural and economic survival from within an environment of domination. These strategies involve, among other things, the production of objects intended for external consumption which simultaneously satisfy internal aesthetics,3 and thereby assert a "distinctive cultural identity" (Phillips 1989). Western interpretations of the aesthetic products of Native manufacture have incorporated these objects into a broad and rather ambiguous framework of classification. Such interpretations involve a taxonomic shift from "artifact" or "ethnographic object" to "Primitive", "Tribal", or "Native" "art". A development of modernism, with particular impetus from the Arts and Crafts movement, the "discovery" of Native art emerged from changes in Western ideology and taste around turn of the century. That the term "Native Art" itself has undergone extensive criticism is revealing. James Clifford, for example, has shown how art as a category has been defined and re-defined in specific historical contexts and relations of power (1988:198), and how the aesthetic recognition of "tribal" objects as art depends on Western interests (ibid.:203). The problematic nature of this classification is but one example of the ambiguities from which relations of power have been constructed in Western discourse. Furthermore, the commoditization 3Although it is difficult to prove that anything satisfies a "cultural aesthetic", the ability of Pueblo potters to distinguish the subtle differences between ceramics produced by different groups and simultaneously explain their choices in design in aesthetic terms, as shown by Bunzel (1929), suggests that this is the case. 14 of Native products at the close of the nineteenth century may be viewed from a variety of perspectives - from the much-maligned "curios", including tourist souvenirs, to individual and institutional collecting -- conoisseurship and scholarship. The same issues that are elaborated by Clifford in reference to "Native Art" in general can be seen specifically in literature dealing with Nampeyo and the Sikyatki Revival. Although the notion of Native "art" has been accepted for a century or more, the notion of Native "artists" is far more complex. This raises a challenge which has become an important aspect of this study. Among Pueblo peoples, as with other Native groups, problems with material records make it particularly difficult to acknowledge the central role of the Native producers, who, prior to the twentieth century, did not sign their works in a manner identifiable to Euro-Americans. However, despite the importance of the artist-as-creator in Western thought, documentation of Native "art" acquired (and acknowledged as such) by institutions and private collectors has been, until quite recently, sporadic and unreliable. The conflict between a European definition of "art" and the qualifier "Native" becomes clear. The "art" is abundant. Who are the "artists", and what do we know of them? Further, upon what types of historical data is this knowledge based?4 An examination of these questions reveals much about ways in which 4 Spooner (1988:197-98), for example, observes that collectors and scholars alike rely on "trade lore" acquired and embellished by dealers as marketing strategies to enhance the perceived value of objects, and that few alternative sources are available. With repetition over time, this "lore" becomes incorporated into the literature as "fact", which is difficult to either corroberate or challenge. 15 people of European descent distance themselves from "art" created by "the Other", by absorbing it via a culturally acceptable category, which is then qualified with the appendage "primitive" or "native". As a means of unravelling some of these convoluted issues, this study will focus on the history of Hopi ceramics, with particular emphasis on the emergence of a style which came to be known as "Sikyatki Revival Ware". In particular, an examination of the artist, Nampeyo, will show how her ethnic origins, as well as the role she played in the Sikyatki Revival are problematic. As an individual, Nampeyo's role has been emphasized at times, but has also been subordinated in order to maintain the Euro-American assertion that Native art is communally rather than individually produced. From this foundation of revisionist thinking of Euro-American colonial ideology, another question arises: How do such seemingly unrelated aspects of Euro-American interest in Native American art - commercialism5 and scholarship -not only affect, but also become affected by, Hopi artistic practice? In order to clarify the complex nature of the overlapping motivations and strategies employed by these individuals, it is necessary to examine the broader context of Hopi history, as well as the more specific ideological transformations which took place during the late nineteenth century. 5 The word "commercialism" is being used here in reference to Euro-American interests in the production and consumption of Hopi ceramics. Chapter Two Reconst ruct ing Hopi History 16 Hopi lands are part of a high desert area in northeastern Arizona. For more than nine centuries, the majority of the Hopi villages have been situated on or near three southern spurs of Black Mesa on the Colorado Plateau, and, until the beginning of the eighteenth century, on Antelope Mesa (fig.1). The easternmost Hopi settlement of Kawaiokuh, situated on Antelope Mesa, was partially destroyed by the Spanish during their first encounter with the Hopi in 1540, and was subsequently abandoned. A second settlement, Awatovi, was destroyed by the Hopi themselves in 1700. Although the lands formerly belonging to the people of Awatovi were distributed among Hopis from other villages, Antelope Mesa remained uninhabited until the 1870s, when trader Thomas Keam settled there. While the area has remained Hopi territory, it is more often associated with Euro-American settlers than with its Hopi history. The exclusion of Antelope Mesa from a Euro-American concept of 'Hopi' is compounded by the names given to the present-day Hopi settlements: Antelope Mesa is distinguished from the three Hopi-occupied extensions of Black Mesa, which are now designated, from east to west, First, Second, and Third Mesas.6 According to Dozier, First, Second, and Third Mesas were so designated by early American travellers who entered Hopi country from the east (1966:20). Perhaps Antelope Mesa was not included in this designation because it was uninhabited at that time. 17 Figure 1. Map of the Hopi Mesas, northeastern Arizona. (From The Uses of Style in Archaeology, M. Conkey and C. Hastrof, eds. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press). 18 The Third Mesa town of Oraibi, dating back to A.D. 1150, is popularly referred to as the oldest continuously inhabited community in the United States. Six other of the nine mesa-top villages, Shongopavi, Shipaulovi, and Mishongnovi on Second Mesa, and Walpi, Shipaulovi, and Hano (Tewa Village) on First Mesa, were settled between the thirteenth and eighteenth centuries. Hotevilla and Bacavi on Third Mesa were founded in 1906 and 1909 respectively, following a series of disputes between "traditional" and "progressive" factions at Oraibi. The village of Sikyatki was uninhabited when the Spanish arrived in 1540. Since the second half of the nineteenth century, other villages have been settled below or away from the mesa-tops. The villages of Moencopi, originally founded as an Oraibi farming colony (now split into Lower and Upper Moenkopi), and Kykotsmovi (New Oraibi), are considered to be Third Mesa villages. Other "suburbs" have appeared below First and Second Mesas, as a result of Euro-American contact (Wyckoff 1985:23). Polacca, named after Nampeyo's brother Tom Polacca, who established a trading post there in the early 1900s, is located at the base of First Mesa, and has become the largest Hopi settlement on the Reservation. At Second Mesa, Torvera, a small settlement of Christian converts, grew up around the Baptist Mission built there in 1901 (ibid.:23). In addition to these, a number of homes are located along the modern highway, Route 264, and the government agency town of Keam's Canyon, eleven miles west of First Mesa, is also largely populated by Hopis. 19 Const ruc t ions of the Hopi in Anthropologica l Literature During the short period in which the Hopi have been studied, they have been characterized in such diverse sources as archaeology, ethnography, colonial administrative records, traveller's chronicles, Pueblo oral traditions recorded in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and ethnohistoric observations.7 Often, these sources are brought together to support "factual" constructions of history which ignore, distort, or elide the differing motivations of the chroniclers cited, as well as the ideological shifts of nearly five centuries. The use of ethnographic analogy, in which the past is reconstructed through the observation of present-day practices, has further complexified these interpretations, resulting in imprecise and/or biased historical chronologies. From this data, many scholars from a variety of educational and philosophical backgrounds have constructed the Hopi in a way that emphasizes continuity and conservatism. Ruth Benedict, a student of Franz Boas, described the Puebloans in terms of "Apollonian" as opposed to "Dionysian" personality traits, employing psychological theory to support the concept that culture predetermines certain attitudes, and that twentieth-century Pueblo life "follows essentially the old routines" (Benedict 1934:57). Fred Eggan has written of Hopi social structures, identifying correlations between kinship terminology and behavior as a means of For summaries of the development of anthropological studies of the Southwest, see Rushforth and Upham (1992:19-21), and Wyckoff (1985:7-8). 20 demonstrating the "underlying uniformities of social structure and the factors responsible for them" (Eggan 1950:1). Edward Spicer, citing Spanish colonial documents, also suggests that little change took place in Hopi social organization between the sixteenth century and the middle of the twentieth century (Spicer 1962). The writing of anthropologist Edward Dozier agrees with this static view of the Hopi (Dozier 1966; 1970). Of particular interest in Dozier's case is his ethnic background as a Tewa from the Rio Grande Pueblo of Santa Clara. While Dozier's representation of Pueblo peoples predates the current concern with the appropriation of the voice of the Other, his work provides valuable insights into the problematic nature of combining anthropological theory and Native perspectives. In the following section, this data will be re-examined, providing an alternative interpretation which emphasizes dynamism and change. The term "Pueblo" was coined in the sixteenth century in reference to the Spanish word for town. In anthropological terms, the Hopi are classified, along with Zuni and the Keresan-speaking Pueblos of Acoma and Laguna as "Western Pueblo" (Eggan 1950:2). In this classification, Western Pueblo peoples are distinguished culturally, as well as spatially from the Tanoan-speaking "Eastern Pueblo" groups clustered along the Northern Rio Grande in present day New Mexico. Perceived as a "cultural unit", Western and Eastern Pueblo peoples have lived as sedentary agriculturists in compact communities of masonry or adobe dwellings since at least A.D. 900. 21 It is important, however, to recognize that in addition to the general similarities, there are also innumerable social, political, linguistic, and environmental variations among the groups categorized by the term "Pueblo". It has been observed of differences among the Pueblo peoples that "the line of cleavage is not a sharp one; rather there is a gradual shift in most social institutions as one travels from west to east", and the terms "Eastern" and "Western" Pueblo are in many respects "arbitrary" (Eggan 1950:2). While these classifications may be criticized for their limited practical value considering the diversity of the various Pueblo groups, they remain in use for heuristic purposes as geographic, as well as cultural locators. As Rushforth and Upham have shown, the categorization of Puebloans as members of an organized, cohesive unit, or as several related but autonomous villages, depends on "the strong interpretive component" of various analyses (1992:98-99). Typically viewed by scholars as isolated from, and therefore untainted by Euro-American influences, the Hopi have represented an unparalleled opportunity to explore "the past existent in the present" (James 1904:31). While some recent scholars (Wade and McChesney 1980; Rushforth and Upham 1992) have discussed aspects of Hopi history which suggest that outside influences have been incorporated into the Hopi way of life - for example, the possibility that the katcina cult was influenced by images of Christian saints introduced by the Spanish, and 22 the adoption of a black katcina following an encounter with the conquistador Esteban in the sixteenth century - stereotypes of isolation, conservatism, and ethnic purity persist. The Hopi have also been described as "one of the most thoroughly religious peoples in the world" (Bunzel 1929-30:480), inherently peaceful, pastoral, and egalitarian. This enthusiasm for the exotic, the pristine, and the notion of unlocking "the chief mystery of our country, an anachronism, an anomaly in our twentieth-century civilization" (ibid.: 30) has been central to this characterization. Viewed from this perspective, the Hopi have been carefully "preserved" — as if the Hopi Reservation constitutes an enormous, living museum in the midst of modern America. The Hopi are often constructed as distant, exotic, and isolated - both temporally and spatially. The notion of "isolation" is supported by references to the location of the vast Navajo Reservation, which completely surrounds the Hopi Reservation, and is perceived as a social, as well as geographic barrier between the Hopi and the "outside" world. This form of marginalization also serves a scholarly agenda by preserving the unique, the unusual, and the unaffected "primitive", illuminating the dichotomizing agenda of modernism, which collapses the "premodern" into a timeless "past", able to permeate the present only as an anachronism. 23 Clearly, this isolation has been defined in terms of relatively recent interactions with Euro-Americans, notwithstanding generations of contact and relations with other distinct cultures. Even today, when members of most families have lived away from the reservation, and are active participants in virtually all aspects of Euro-American society, the Hopi are often presented in terms of these historical constructions, without reference to modern amenities and relationships. "They inhabit", writes architectural historian Vincent Scully, "the same unit of time as their old ones, with the same view of life and the same laws as they" (Scully 1972:1). Similarly, by carefully choosing the point at which her relevant history begins, most discussions of Nampeyo perpetuate the myth of the Hopi as an unchanged, conservative and "culturally pure" people. This chapter does not present a comprehensive account of Hopi history according to conventional historical approaches, but offers a general introduction to the Hopi in a way that avoids either an ahistorical primitivist paradigm or an evolutionary paradigm of a seamless, linear narrative. Pre-Hispanic History In addition to the scholarly attraction to the mystique of the Southwest, the arid climate of the Colorado Plateau has provided superior conditions for archaeological investigations, and studies of Hopi pre-Hispanic history are both extensive and well documented. With the development of physical dating methods 24 such as dendrochronology,8 archaeological studies conducted during the past century have revealed much about the ancestors of present-day Hopis. As a result of this combination of scholarly fascination, fortuituous conditions, and technical developments, the Southwest is the only region in North America for which a continuous and detailed history from pre-conquest times through to. the present has been constructed. The extended period of Hopi pre-Hispanic history is approached according to various academic perspectives. Some scholars trace Hopi history to Paleo-Indian peoples who arrived on the continent some 25,000 years ago (Cordell 1989:4). Others focus on the transitional period in which peoples gradually turned from nomadic hunting and gatherering toward a sedentary, agricultural lifestyle, leaving tangible evidence of material culture to link them with their descendents (Eggan 1950:17). These northern ancestors of the Pueblo peoples, who have inhabited the Southwest for approximately 2,500 years, are broadly referred to as "Anasazi", variously translated in English as "ancient ones" or "ancient ancestors", (Ambler 1977; Spicer 1962). The term, however, was originally taken by the Spanish from the Athapaskan language spoken by the Navajo to describe the abandoned villages they encountered in the region, and has been more accurately 8 Dendrochronology, or tree ring dating, was first applied to archaeological investigations during the 1920s by astronomer Andrew Ellicott Douglass and archaeologist Neil M. Judd (Frazier 1986:74-77). According to Ambler (1977:2) this method is "so precise and economical that Southwestern archaeologists rarely use other physical dating methods such as radiocarbon dating.thermoluminessence, or obsidian hydration dating except when the remains are older than the 2200-year old Southwestern chronology or when suitable pieces of wood are not found." 25 translated as "enemies of our ancestors" (Sando 1982:8). Thus, the term most commonly identified with ancestors of the Hopi originates from peoples with whom the Hopi have been in various forms of conflict for centuries. The continued use of the terms "Anasazi" and "Pueblo" has created an artificial terminological distinction between pre- and post-Hispanic developments, yet popular literature still refers to the Four-Corners ruins as "Anasazi" and the present communities as "Pueblos." Anasazi periods are subdivided according to changes in material culture, often marked in historical literature by changes in ceramic styles (Colton 1935;49; Wright 1986:3). The most frequently used chronology, the Pecos system,9 retained the terms "Basketmaker" and "Pueblo" from former classifications to describe the earlier and later periods of Anasazi development. Also within the Anasazi tradition, smaller, geographically determined branches have been categorized by stylistic traits. According to these distinctions, the Hopi are descended mainly from the Kayenta branch of the Anasazi.10 Archaeological evidence suggests that some ancestors of the Hopi, living in partially submerged mud and stone dwellings known as pithouses, have occupied this particular region since as early as A.D. 600. g Established at a meeting of Southwestern archaeologists in Pecos, New Mexico, in 1927, the Pecos system formalized periods, or "cultural stages" of Southwestern prehistory, beginning with a hypothetical Basketmaker I stage of unknown antiquity. Eight undated stages were recognized - three Basketmaker stages, and five Pueblo stages (Colton 1935:6). Attempts to date these stages began with the advent of dendrochronology in 1929. Although the dates proposed for these stages have varied over time, the terms are still widely used as general references to cultural changes, with the Pueblo stages beginning between A.D. 700 and A.D. 750, and extending to the present. 1 0 The Kayenta region is defined as extending from north of the San Juan River in Utah to the Puerco River in the south, and from the Little Colorado River on the west, to the Chinle Valley on the east (BartJett 1977:2). 26 Others arrived from the northeast as part of a general population relocation during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and later from the Little Colorado in the south, as these regions became sequentially uninhabitable due to unfavourable environmental conditions, or as a result of territorial frictions with incoming migrant peoples.11 Pueblo oral history has often been cited by anthropologists to support their own constructions of historical "facts". According to Hopi mythology, the Earth is the fourth world created by Tawa, the sun god. Upon their emergence into this fourth world, the Hopi were divided into clans and began their separate migrations, during which time events took place that linked clans together (Waters 1963). Gradually and sequentially, their wanderings ceased, as the clans came together in the region now occupied by their descendants. The ethnic entity called 'Hopi' dated after this aggregation. Hopi clan markings and the remains of ancestral towns designate the traditional boundaries of Hopi territory, extending from the Grand Canyon to what is now called Navajo Mountain (Toki'ovi), toward the Lukachukai Mountains near the New Mexico-Arizona border, and south to the Mogollon Rim (Anonymous, n.d.). 1 1 Eggan (1989:17-40) summarizes "inferences from the archaeological record" which correspond to linguistic postulations regarding population movements into the Hopi area. 27 Post Conques t History: 1540-1848 Under the command of Francisco Vasquez de Coronado, the Spanish invaded the Pueblo area in 1540. Although they did not establish a formal colony in the area until 1598, sporadic incursions into Western Pueblo territory during the intervening decades were characterized by aggresive and often hostile behavior on the part of the Spanish. Furthermore, the Hopi were cognizant of atrocities committed by the Spanish against the Eastern Pueblo people, since news of such magnitude spread quickly throughout the Southwest, and, according to Dozier, "laid the foundation for the mistrust and antagonisms that thereafter characterized relations between the Pueblos and Spaniards" (1970:44). However, in keeping with constructions of the Hopi as isolated and inherently peaceful, Spicer (1962:187) suggests that the farthest Western Pueblos, which began at a distance of two hundred miles from Spanish administration centres in Santa Fe and extended far to the west, were "frontier margins" of the Spanish domain, and "never experienced intensive contacts with Spanish colonists or administrators" (Spicer 1962:187). Dozier asserts that because the harsh terrain of the mesa country lacked profitable natural resources or the agricultural potential of the Rio Grande Valley, and the vast stretches of inhospitable desert prevented the Spanish from consistently monitoring the Native inhabitants, Spanish domination was insignificant among the Hopi. This isolation, which, according to Dozier, "became even more pronounced" during the brief period of Mexican rule (1821-1846), is perceived to have been virtually complete for several decades: "Indeed, contact 28 with these pueblos ceased until late in the nineteenth century when the United States government established relations with them" (Dozier 1970:88-89; see also Truettner 1986:29). In addition to geographical isolation, Benedict cites cultural conservatism to support their assertion that few significant changes occurred in the Hopi sociocultural system, despite the pressures of contact (Benedict 1934:57-129). The combination of isolation and conservatism, as presented in these interpretations, suggests not only that the Hopi resisted change, but that they lacked sufficient contact with the diffusion of cultural traits that would bring about opportunities for change. Furthermore, the stability of Hopi sociocultural traditions during this period is viewed by Spicer as indicative of "the waning spirit and resources of Spain on her northern frontier in the New World" (Spicer 1962:188). Thus, although the concept of resistance has been incorporated into characterizations of the Hopi, it is presented with little consideration of Hopi participation or agency in events which ultimately affected dramatic changes in both Native American and Western ideology. This view is clearly demonstrated in Spicer's statement that: "Their role in the drama of cultural conflict and change which began to unfold after the Spanish arrival was one chiefly of a tenacious and, for the most part, passive resistance" (ibid.: 14). The term "passive resistance" is particularly significant because it denotes another aspect of how the Hopi continue to be portrayed as "peaceful, sedentary, and pastoral". 29 As an alternative interpretation, I would suggest that encounters with Spaniards, Mexicans, Euro-Americans, and other Native Americans had a significant and continued impact on the Hopi prior to Euro-American expansion in the late nineteenth century. During the first six decades of Spanish domination in the Southwest, for example, numerous major expeditions travelled through Hopi lands. These encounters almost invariably ended in violence, and recorded episodes illustrate ways in which the Spanish affected the Hopi, revealing a wide range of strategies, both passive and active, which the Hopi employed.12 Extended relations with the Spanish began when a mission program for the Hopi was implemented. From 1629 to 1641, Franciscan friars used Hopi labour to build missions at the villages of Awatovi, Shongopavi, and Oraibi, and visiting chapels at Mishongnovi and Walpi. Hopi men travelled long distances on foot to haul fir, pine and spruce trees from the San Francisco Peaks for mission roof beams (Hargrave 1932:4). Village locations shifted to accomodate these new "centers of activities" (Hargrave 1931:5). Factionalism was precipitated by the fact that some Hopi were more accepting than others of Catholicism. Indications that a pattern of active resistance was developing include the reported poisoning of the missionary at Awatovi in 1633 (Spicer 1962:191). Since it is asserted that the people of Awatovi were more fully converted, and, according to some accounts of Detailed accounts of Spanish expeditions in the Southwest have been compiled by Bancroft 1889; Winship 1896; Hammond and Rey 1929. 30 this incident, mourned the missionary's death (Wyckoff 1985:30), this murderous act suggests that internal dissent among the Hopi was a factor in adopting strategies of direct and active resistance. According to a Spanish account of 1634, the Hopi planned attacks on the missionaries on at least two other occasions (Spicer 1962:191). In keeping with Spanish practices, the church at Awatovi was built over an intact Hopi kiva (Montgomery, Smith, and Brew 1949:265-272). This tactic of "superposition" imposed a constant visual symbol of Spanish authority. Clearly, these methods had disruptive effects on religious ceremonies, as well as on other Hopi practices. According to Hopi author Edmund Nequatewa (1936:42), ceremonial practices such as katcina dances, in which masked dancers represent mythological beings, were prohibited by the friars. The Hopi continued to hold dances and other sacred ceremonies in secret, but when the missionaries discovered such acts of defiance, those involved were severely punished, and religious paraphernalia was confiscated and destroyed (ibid.). This period of Spanish domination was characterized by the expropriation of Pueblo lands, resources, labour, and a concerted program to destroy the traditional Pueblo way of life. In less than eighty years, as a result of the "merciless pressure" applied by the Spanish, the population was reduced by half (Wright 1986:4). Rushforth and Upham (1992:101-102) assert that the situation 31 was further complexified by the fact that disagreement among Spanish colonists, manifested in the conflicting agendas of the clergy and the military, also caused turmoil among the Native Americans. Furthermore, by 1676, Apache and Navajo raids on Spanish goods and livestock resulted in the deaths of Puebloans and Spaniards alike (Sando 1979:197; Wyckoff 1985:31). Through necessity, the Hopi also became militant, taking direct action to protect themselves from these invaders. Of great significance to the Hopi way of life was the incorporation of livestock, new food plants, and metal tools, which were introduced throughout the period of Spanish domination. It has been stated, for example, that stone axeheads were replaced with metal implements "purchased" by the Hopi during early contacts with the Spanish (Wright 1979:49). Metal hoes and shovels, as well as ploughs and oxen made it possible to farm larger areas, and the increased efficiency brought about by these innovations was helpful in establishing the new food crops, which included wheat, melons, apples, peaches, pears, tomatoes, and chiles. Domesticated animals, including mules, horses, cattle, goats, sheep, and fowl, with the equipment and tools necessary to maintain them, were also introduced. Although the benefits were slow to emerge as the Hopi toiled under the forced labor policies of the Spaniards, the impact of these material changes had far-reaching effects on Hopi economy (Dozier 1970:65-67). The skills which 32 the Hopi learned during this period of exploitation outlasted Spanish domination, as did the tools, crops, and livestock. The last veneer of cooperation and acceptance of Spanish domination among the Hopi dissolved when the Pueblo Revolt took place in 1680. After eight decades of Spanish subjugation, five of which were marked by the corruption and cruelty of the missionaries,13 the Hopi joined forces with other Pueblos, expelling the Spanish from the Southwest for twelve years. In the Hopi area, the missions were destroyed, and four friars were killed ~ two at Oraibi, one at Awatovi, and one at Shungopovi. Following the Revolt, Hopis used materials from the Spanish churches to build new kivas, and incorporated church bells into some of their ceremonies (Rushforth and Upham 1992:102). The expulsion of the Spanish, however, caused repercussions which significantly affected the Hopi way of life, including the relocation of several villages between 1692 and 1699 (Brew 1949:20). Fearing Spanish retaliation, Tewa and Keresan refugees from the Rio Grande arrived in the Western Pueblo region between 1680 and 1700, in the aftermath of the Pueblo Revolt, and during the Spanish Reconquest period after 1698. The village of Hano, or Tewa Village, was settled by a group of Tewa in approximately 1700. While most of the refugees at 1 3 In addition to the suppression of religious practices, and the virtual enslavement of the Hopi people, Hopi oral tradition recalls specific incidents of mistreatment by the missionaries, including allegations of torture and sexual abuse. Examples of such incidents at Shungopovi were recorded by Nequatewa 1936:43-44; Hackett 1937:141, and at Oraibi by Voth 1905:270. 33 other Western Pueblos gradually returned to their Rio Grande homeland,14 the Hano Tewa remained, and by the time of Nampeyo's birth in approximately 1860, they had become permanent residents of First Mesa. Thus, the Hopi experienced additional extended relations with non-Hopi people. The resulting population increase, and the relocation of villages to the mesa tops were part of a well-planned defensive measure.15 However, the Tewa refugees were only marginally accepted by the Hopi. Tewa oral history recalls the original agreement made between the two groups -- that the Tewa were formally invited by the Hopi to act as guardians of First Mesa (Stephen 1936:146-147; 483-484; Parsons 1936:xlv). Treated as latecomers and mercenaries, the Tewa were assigned a village site at the edge of the mesa that was most vulnerable to enemy attack, and given the least desirable agricultural land (Eggan 1950:171). Following the Reconquest of 1692, Spanish policies regarding Pueblo submission were unchanged; they sought to control the Hopi through intimidation and displays of military strength. The Spaniard De Vargas visited Awatovi, Walpi, Mishongnovi, and Shongopavi, "receiving submission before a large white cross he erected in the plazas, though the party had to placate forces of armed men at 1 4 Sandia Pueblo was attacked and destroyed in 1681, and the villagers fled to Hopi country, where they are thought to have founded the village of Payupki on Second Mesa. They remained among the Hopi until the 1740s, when they returned to their homeland (Sando 1992:67). 1 5 Walpi was moved from its position midway up First Mesa to its original site on the mesa-top. Mishongnovi and Shongopavi were relocated atop Second Mesa. Shipaulovi was established by the people of Shongopavi in an inaccessible location on Second Mesa, as a safe place for ceremonial paraphernlia, and, according to Hopi tradition, as a neutral or "innocent town" (Nequatewa 1936:46; Spicer 1962:192). 34 Awatovi and Walpi" (Espinoza, quoted in Whitely 1988:19). Despite their outward acceptance, all of the Hopi villages, with the exception of Awatovi, successfully resisted the reentry of the missionaries.16 When the missionaries subsequently attempted to expand their program to other villages, they were met by a force of eight hundred Hopis, who forbade them to leave Awatovi (Rushforth and Upham 1992:103). According to Hopi accounts, the village leader of Awatovi was dismayed by what he considered to be the villagers' corruption by the missionaries (Courlander 1972:178-180). He appealed to the leaders of other villages, and the decision was made to put an end to the chaos caused by Spanish interference. In this bloody attack, the village was razed, the men and the elderly were systematically killed; surviving women and children were adopted into other villages. This was one of the most violent acts in recorded Hopi history, and an example of the extent to which entwined issues of power and religion must be acknowledged as a brutal counterpoint to the often one-sided, stereotypical portrayal of the Hopi as an inherently peaceful people. That the Hopi were capable of violence, and efficiently carried out the atrocities of warfare within their own society must be regarded not only in terms of shattering the stereotype of the pastoral but ineffective "noble savage", but also reveals an aspect of intense 1 6 The strategies used by the Hopi to resist the Spanish have been discussed in detail by Bancroft 1889:221-222. 35 political power struggles with which the Hopi are rarely associated. Indications of factionalism, which have long been interwoven into Hopi mythology, were inevitably brought to the surface under colonial pressures, and in this instance, led to the destruction of one of their own villages. Such desperate measures, taken by the Hopi under foreign domination, resurfaced in response to Euro-American presence when, in 1906, dissention regarding acceptance of United States policies of forced education led to the division of Oraibi. After the destruction of Awatovi, the Spanish were never again able to achieve religious conversion or military control over the Western Pueblos. Although Spanish policies toward the Puebloans did not officially change, their forces were directed toward the more pressing problems of Navajo, Apache and Comanche raids. Missionaries continued to visit the Hopi, but were virtually ignored. It has been suggested, however, that the Hopi were in fact a source of concern to the Spanish because of their stubborn resistance, and because they "encouraged the New Mexico Pueblo Indians to resist" (Flagler, quoted in Sando 1992:76). Other factors also precipitated interaction and change. From the 1850s to the early 1860s, drought, smallpox, and Navajo incursions occurred with increasing frequency. Periodically, many sought refuge at Zuni, or adopted a nomadic existence of hunting and gathering. Their temporary residence at Zuni was clearly an opportunity for extended communication and exchange, which is 36 particularly evident in the Zuni elements thereafter incorporated in Hopi ceramic designs. The most sustained threat to the Hopi was posed by the Navajo, who had gradually moved westward during 1700s as a result of pressure from Utes and Comanches. During this period, the Navajo acquired large herds of horses and flocks of sheep. Periodically in the past, the Navajo had raided Pueblo and Spanish settlements to increase their livestock, but relations have been described as tolerable until approximately 1800. As the Spanish began to respond to these raids, virtually enslaving their captives, the Navajo became increasingly aggressive. In turn, they pillaged Pueblo towns, taking "slaves" to exchange with the Spanish. This pattern of raiding and kidnapping reached such drastic proportions throughout the Southwest that the Eastern Pueblos sent a delegation to Santa Fe requesting aid from the Spanish. The Spanish could provide little relief. A short time later, the Spanish lost control of New Mexico, and the Mexican government took over the territory. They too were unsuccessful in quelling Navajo raids, and the Hopi continued to deal with this threat on their own, until the raids were suppressed by American troops around 1860. The United States 37 The creation of the United States at the end of the eighteenth century had powerful ramifications for Native Americans. Ideally, the concepts of social equality, political and religious freedom, and enlightened liberal ideals which had long been part of European social theory, were to be put into practice in America. These concepts were heavily manipulated in policies concerning the rights and freedom of Native Americans: From the founding of the nation until recent times, and some would include today as well, United States policy makers placed two considerations above all others in the nation's relation with Native Americans as Indians: the extinction of native title in favor of White exploitation of native lands and resources and the transformation of native lifestyles into copies of approved White models....The idea of the Indian...probably served more often to reconcile national interests with national ideals in regard to Native Americans than basic American values were held to condemn the policies formulated for the Indian (Berkhofer 1978:135). As Westward advancement continued, conflicts over lands and resources escalated. During the second half of the nineteenth century, the United States Government developed a policy with the aim of assimilating Native American into mainstream Euro-American culture. The Hopi Reservation of 3,863 square miles was created by executive order for the sole use of the Hopi people in 1882 (Euler and Dobyns 1971:56). However, by 1887, Euro-Americans were provided with legal means to acquire Indian lands when the Dawes Act and its amendments were implemented. According to the terms of this act, training schools were to be established, native religious practices were to be replaced by Christianity through the auspices of The Code of Religious 38 Offences, which was "enforced by federal agents and missionaries funded by the govermnent to establish local reservation schools", and communal tribal holdings were to be reorganized in the form of individual allotments of land (Wyckoff 1985:41). The Dawes act, which effectively rationalized the assimilation and exploitation of poverty-stricken Native Americans, was enforced until 1934. The Hopi were not isolated from the immediate effects of the Dawes Act. In the same year of its implementation, one of the buildings at the Keam's Canyon trading post was converted into a boarding school, which opened on October 1st, 1887, with a capacity for fifty children. In 1890, census agent Thomas Donaldson reported that while 45 students were enrolled, the average attendance was 27 (Donaldson 1893:36). Despite glowing reports that the school was in "successful operation" and that the children were "returning to their homes imbued with another and better civilization" (McCook, quoted in Donaldson: 1893:37), opposition to this policy of forced education, which disrupted families and entire communities, soon resulted in confrontation: In June, 1891, the opposition of the Moquis to the Keams Cafion school continued, and it was reported that the Oraibis would fight before permitting their children to be taken to it. It was given that they were tearing up the surveyor's stakes, destroying survey monuments, and threatening to raid the school. They objected to their children being taken from them by force and placed at the school at Keams Cafton, so many mile away from them, but they did not object to day schools or a school near where they could see their children (Donaldson 1893:37). 39 In response to these objections, government schools were also built at Oraibi and below First Mesa. in conjunction with tensions surrounding educational issues, on-going tensions with Navajo and other groups created additional problems. The Navajo Reservation, which surrounded Hopi lands, threatened Hopi agricultural practices with environmental alterations created by ever-increasing grazing of sheep. The Bureau of Indian Affairs, acting under the Dawes Land Allotment Act of 1887, sought to alleviate these problems by attempting to individualize clan-held lands (Donaldson 1893:37). The Hopi responded by removing the surveyor's stakes. Their resistance was met by Federal troops, and several Hopi leaders were imprisoned at Alcatraz for "seditious acts." These factors served to intensify factionalism among the Hopi. Internal dissention between "Hostiles", most of whom were from Oraibi, and "Friendlies" reached a breaking point in 1906, when the conservative "Hostiles" were forced from the village. The "Oraibi Split" resulted in the founding of two new villages. A flurry of Euro-American activity took place during the second half of the nineteenth century. Protestant missionaries of numerous denominations moved into Hopi country: as early as 1858, Mormons visited all seven pueblos of the Hopi mesas, establishing the Mormon community of Tuba City near the Oraibi farming colony of Moencopi in 1875, the same year Thomas Keam opened his trading post; Moravians established a mission at Oraibi in 1870; Baptists built at Second Mesa in 1875; and H.R. Voth, a Mennonite missionary, settled at Oraibi in 1893 (Euler and Dobyns 1971:57). During this period, however, the Hopi received little assistance from government representatives. Apart from peace-keeping activities, the tasks of Indian agents, whose tenure averaged only three years, were vaguely defined (Spicer 1962:350). Even those agents who demonstrated genuine concern for the welfare of the Hopi were stationed too far away to be effective liasons (Bourke 1884:79). The 1890s were also a period of social and political transition in the United States. The powerful Eastern states were experiencing a severe economic depression and political upheaval, and a new message arose that the major potential of the Western frontier had been exhausted (Dippie 1982:202-203). In 1893, historian Frederick Jackson Turner addressed the American Historical Association at the World Columbian Exposition in Chicago, and subsequently published an essay "The Significance of the Frontier in American History". Turner's work is instructive, not only because it marks profound changes in nineteenth-century Euro-American sensibilities, but because it "influenced the way the American public sees, feels, and thinks about itself, its past, and its future" (Ridge 1991:65). According to Turner, "Indians" had been subdued and confined to reservations; settlement populations had reached the figure of at least two people per square mile; westward expansion had reached the Pacific coast; and 41 railways had been engineered through the sheer rock of mountain ranges and across vast stretches of forbidding desert terrain. The search for a distinctive American history and national identity had reached a new era. Furthermore, the economic and political turbulence of the 1890s caused Americans to pause and look back nostalgically upon their own short history (Malone and Etulain 1989:3-5). In this now-famous, albeit controversial "frontier thesis" Turner disputed established views of history that traced the formative influences of American identity to European legacies. Rather, in Turner's interpretation, the American frontier, with its "existence of free land, its continuous recession, and the advance of American settlement westward, explain American development" (Turner 1893:27). Turner's assessment and predictions had already taken root in the development of American anthropology. As the nineteenth century drew to a close, the Southwest, considered to be one of the "last frontiers" with "the richest possible evidence of ancient life in America" (Truettner 1986:20), became a focal point of anthropological interest. While other areas were "approached...with an ingrained fatalism" (Dippie 1982:284), the Southwest was something of an anomaly. Academically untrained, but passionately dedicated mavericks such as John Wesley Powell and Frank Hamilton Cushing regarded the Southwest as a place where their own, sometimes fantastic notions about the mysteries of Indian life and lore could be played out on a real-life stage. By contemporary standards, 42 the veracity of Cushing's highly subjective data is debatable (c.f., Wade 1980:6-8; Hinsley 1981:190-207; Fane 1991:56-63). Nevertheless, as Dippie has stated: Cushing did perform the service of bringing a living native culture into the consciousness of white America. Others after him also discovered the desert peoples, and the image that they promulgated of a flourishing native populace served as a convincing rebuttal to the tradition of the Vanishing American (Dippie 1982:285). Increasingly, the Southwest became a focal point of other developing aspects of anthropology. Collecting expeditions, which had begun with the sponsorship of the Smithsonian Institution in 1879, were expanded to accomodate new developments in archaeological and ethnographic research. In conjunction with the desire to capture and define the essence of a distinctly American heritage, the purpose of these expeditions was to salvage, collect, and document what was percieived to be the last vestiges of disappearing indigenous cultures. During this period, thousands of ceramic vessels, both ancient and modern, were excavated, purchased, or otherwise appropriated, to be stored or displayed in eastern museums. Further interest was sparked in 1888, when Richard Wetherill and his brothers discovered the ruins of cliff dwellings in the canyons of Mesa Verde near their ranch at Mancos, Colorado (Frazier 1986:36). These actions marked the beginning of a fascination with Pueblo pottery that "has probably generated more literature than any other aspect of Southwestern culture" (Batkin 1987:77). The focus was on antiquity, as Euro-Americans sought to construct for themselves a national identity distinct from, but equal to the great European traditions. 43 Travel and tourism became widespread phenomena in the late nineteenth century. Railways played an important role in the development of tourism, offering travellers an opportunity to view, in relative comfort and safety, the remote areas. previously seen only by more adventurous explorers. In 1880, the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad reached Albuquerque, and construction began on the Atlantic and Pacific Railroad. As tracks were being laid westward from Isleta Pueblo, New Mexico, across Arizona toward the West Coast, and eastward to the Indian Territories of Oklahoma, Pueblo peoples were thrown increasingly into direct contact with Euro-American economy and industry. New Mexico and Arizona became particularly popular destinations for Euro-American travellers eager to encounter Native Americans in their "natural" environments. Wade offers a generalized description of such travellers: Many of these travelers were learned people, familiar with the prestigious eastern museums, the popularized scientific reports published in Harpers and the weekly tabloids, and occasionally even the detailed military and research institution reports that dealt with the indigenous people and arts of the southwestern frontier. Others came anticipating a grand affair, replete with scientific wonders and quaint mementos from a distant land populated by "savage" artisans (Wade 1985:169). Railway companies were swift in capitalizing on this new market, developing advertising campaigns with informative brochures and handbooks, written by scholars, about the various Native peoples, their customs, and the arts and crafts the traveller could expect to purchase from convenient locations, as well as exotic descriptions of paid side trips for the more adventurous. The Fred Harvey 44 Company, in conjunction with the Santa Fe Railroad, opened a chain of hotels and restaurants along the route, with adjacent shops in which Native-made arts and crafts were sold: "To the visitor this was the epitome of the Southwest, and nearly everyone bought something to take home" (Deitch 1989:226). These well-planned marketing strategies had a profound and lasting impact. Wade has commented that "No other influence, neither traders nor dealers nor scholars, would so broadly promote and transform Indian art as did the railroads and their tourist bureaus" (Wade 1985:169-170). The examples discussed in this chapter reveal some of the complexities of Hopi history, and ways in which the Hopi actively participated in historical events. These were not the actions of a passive, isolated people, but those of a dynamic group who exercised agency and found "room for maneuver" during centuries of subjugation. A society that has undergone such extensive changes in religion, technology, language, and social relations cannot be characterized as stable, unchanging, or conservative. The same assumptions that have been applied to the Hopi in relation to the Spanish have characterized the literature and documentation of Nampeyo and the the Sikyatki Revival, and despite often overtly positive intentions, they have been dictated on Euro-American terms. Hopi - Tewa Relations 45 Characterizations of the Hopi as conservative are often presented in terms of their relationship with the Tewa immigrants. In an extensive study of the Tewa living at First Mesa, anthropologist Edward P. Dozier found that the internal dissention and social distinctions which characterized the relationship of the original Tewa refugees and their Hopi hosts have become incorporated into the oral histories of both groups, and are still evident in present-day Hopi and Tewa ideology (Dozier 1966). The village referred to in English as "Hano", originating from the Spanish designation "Tano", which was originally applied to Tewa people living in the Galisteo Basin, east of the Rio Grande, is known to First Mesa residents as "Tewa Village" (Stanislawski 1979:601). While the designation "Hano" is still used by outsiders, it was officially changed to "Tewa Village" at the request of village residents when the Hopi constitution was drawn up in 1936. Although two groups living in such close proximity inevitably exert influence on one another,17 it is clear that the Hopi and Tewa made conscious and concerted efforts to preserve many aspects their separate identities. Certain religious practices, for example, have been closely guarded. According to Dozier, "the Tewa were not permitted in the important Hopi Winter Solstice ceremony at Walpi, and the Hopi were likewise refused admittance to the similar Tewa ceremony" (Dozier 1966:26). 1 7 Parsons outlines the complexities of Hopi and Tewa ideologies, and ways in which each system came to be influenced by the other (1936:XLIII-L). 46 Other aspects of this mutual resistance to integration have also been carefully maintained. Despite conflicting constructions of the nature of Hopi and Tewa relations, it is clear that in terms of ethnicity, the two groups have remained adamant. Dozier describes the situation in the twentieth century: Intermarriage with the Hopi in recent years has probably made the Hano more Hopi than Tewa in blood. Yet this knowledge, if the Hopi and the Tewa wonder about it at all, appears to present no anomaly. A Tewa is a person born at Hano of a mother whose maternal lineage runs back unbrokenly to the original Tewa colony. There is no deviation from this rule: "What your mother is you are." A person born of a Tewa father and a Hopi mother is Hopi, not half Tewa and half Hopi; similarly, the child of a Tewa mother, regardless of the father's ethnic affiliation, is Tewa (Dozier 1966:24). While, as Parsons points out, "as soon as inter-marriges began between the immigrant Tewa and the Hopi, changes in the Tewa system were bound to occur" (lbid.:xlv), and that "In 1893 the population of Hano was 163. There were only six out of sixty-two children whose parents were both of Tewan descent" (Parsons 1936:xxv), distinctions between the two groups were clearly defined. Marriages between Hopi men and Tewa women were far more common than marriages between Tewa men and Hopi women in Nampeyo's day, suggesting that the Hopi were less accepting of Tewa husbands relocating to their wives' homes. In describing one "unusual" marriage of a Tewa man and a Hopi woman, Stephen commented that although the young husband reluctantly took up residence in the Hopi town of Walpi, he seemed to "dread meeting the Walpi youths" (ibid.: 148). 47 While the Hopi have been consistently described as inherently peaceful, pastoral, and spiritually oriented, the Tewa, in contrast, have been portrayed as aggressive, warlike, and pragmatic (Dozier 1966:30). Although this romanticized racism gradually became less overt, Hopi and Tewa stereotypes in popular and scholarly literature have remained in place. Prior to their migration to Hopi lands, the Tewa had extensive encounters with Europeans, and were therefore viewed as less representative of an "untainted" ancestry than their Hopi hosts. In the case of the Tewa at Hano, however, these stereotypes require careful manipulation. According to Dozier, for example, the minority status and social segregation of the Tewa resulted in tensions that continued unabated until increasing relations with Euro-American society in the late nineteenth century initiated a greater degree of cooperation and integration between the two groups (Dozier 1966:2). Dozier states: The unfavorable position of the Tewa on First Mesa induced them to cooperate more readily with whites....Tewa success with these economic activities brought about reduced tensions and emulations from their Hopi neighbors on First Mesa, which in turn paved the way to greater interdependence and cooperation, particularly in social and secular activities (lbid.:30). Thus, although it is seldom discussed, the Tewa have been constructed in terms of a symbiotic relationship with the Hopi. Characterized as more aggressive, gregarious, and willing to accept foreign influences, it is inferred that the Tewa represent an almost ambassadorial role for the Hopi in their dealings with Euro-Americans. These characterizations have given both Hopis and Tewas "room for 48 maneuver", while maintaining a space for Euro-American stereotypes of untainted, unchanged "Hopiness" to remain in place. In this sense, Tewa individuals such as Nampeyo have created "roles involving meetings with outsiders, or in fulfilling responsible positions distasteful to the Hopi" while remaining "traditional Tewa...not considered to be deviants or outstanding persons by the inhabitants of Hano" (Dozier 1966:27-29). In the following chapters, this context will be important in identifying Nampeyo's historical significance in originating a successful curio art style. 49 Chapter Three Introduction to Hopi Pottery: Chronology and Historic Context In the previous chapter, it was shown that despite abundant evidence throughout Hopi history that demonstrates change and interaction, Hopis are widely characterized as conservative and isolated. Hopi pottery has been similarly described as "unique in that ceramic developments of the Protohistoric and Historic periods continued the regional trends...and displayed very few significant changes" (Dittert and Plog 1980:109). In this chapter, it will be argued that the Euro-American imagining of the past has required notions of stagnation in Hopi ceramics. This is particularly evident in discussions of the years prior to the development of the Sikyatki Revival. Although the upheaval caused by the political and economic context in the mid nineteenth century is reflected in ceramic production, characterizations of this period as technically and aesthetically inferior and conservative have been over-emphasized. Since this type of generalization conflicts with the visual evidence provided by Hopi ceramics, it is useful to review the history of Hopi ceramic production as it has been reconstructed in anthropological and archaeological literature. Although ceramic sequences are often used to indicate temporal, geographical, and cultural change or variation, they are also subject to the continuous interpretive revision of Euro-American scholars when other 50 archaeological criteria are involved. American archaeology has emphasized the concept of "types", including the "type-variety" system, developed during the late 1950s as "a systematic framework for creating, describing, and naming widely comparable historical-index classificatory units" (Rice 1986:282). The type-variety system includes the concept of "wares", a broad level of classification usually referring to surface colour or a combination of surface and paint colours, rather than changes in style. While this sequencing of ceramics may be accurate, the divisions into types often have more to do with ideological constructions than with natural breaks. In discussing Pueblo ceramics, Dittert and Plog comment that "Often the distribution of a ware defines an area that archaeologists have identified as a discreet cultural area on other grounds. Sometimes, however, a large area may be characterized by a bewildering variety of wares." (1989:73). Thus, ceramic sequences which have been based upon a "rudimentary and inferential" (Wade 1980:55) scheme of "artificial types" (see Rice 1986:283-285) are increasingly problematic as the number of types continues to grow. In the Southwest, pottery is constructed without the use of a potter's wheel. The principal method of manufacture among the Anasazi or Pueblo peoples was, and still is, coiling. Decoration is applied to both painted and unpainted ceramics. On unpainted culinary vessels, potters often corrugated or textured the surface of the clay while still in a plastic state. On other wares, painted decoration was applied after drying in the form of clay suspensions, or slips. Among painted 51 ceramics, bichromes ~ primarily black-on-white wares, and secondarily black-on-red wares - predominated among the Anasazi for several centuries. Experimentation with coloured clays, slips, and firing techniques gradually led to regionally varied polychromes which utilized the range of orange colours of the clay bodies themselves (Bartlett 1977:2). The development of pottery-making in the Southwest was the result of interaction between Southwestern groups -- the Anasazi, Hohokam, and Mogollon -- and northern Meoamerican peoples. Anasazi practices spread from the four corners region including Chaco Canyon in northwestern New Mexico, Mesa Verde in southwestern Colorado, and Kayenta, in northeastern Arizona. Hundreds of Anasazi pottery types have been identified, and although discussion of these is beyond the scope of this study,18 some general characteristics will be outlined in order to highlight the dynamism of ceramic practices in the Hopi region prior to the inception of the Sikyatki Revival in the late nineteenth century. In northeastern Arizona, the wood-fired Tusayan White Ware produced by the Kayenta branch of the Anasazi began with Pueblo I (A.D. 750-900) wares such as Kana-a Black-on-White. These exhibited arrangements of angular bands of fine lines and solid triangles. The use of fine lines was replaced in Pueblo II (A.D. 900-1100) by wider line-work with motifs of interlocked scrollwork, as on Black Mesa For a more detailed analysis of Pre-Hispanic ceramics see Dittert and Plog 1980. 52 Black-on-White. Although black-on-white wares continued to dominate, in the Kayenta area similar, as well as distinctive designs were applied to black-on-red wares. The trend toward heavier designs continued, and by Pueblo ill times (A.D. 1100-1300), large areas were heavily covered in black (fig. 2). The resulting negative effect, in which the white background frequently appeared as the design, is referred to as the Kayenta Style (Dittert and Plog 1980:81). On these Tusayan wares, designs were composed of contrasting elements. Some characteristic motifs, particularly on Tusayan Black-on-White (fig. 3), were circular scrolls and frets. Also applied to Tusayan wares were opposed pairs of fine, barbed lines, bands of small solid triangles with interlocking hooks, and areas of black hatching and negative white squares with black dots, as on Flagstaff Black-on-white. From approximately A.D. 1000 to A.D. 1300, polychrome wares, on which black, red, and sometimes white pigments were applied to a red or orange background (Ambler 1977:40; Dittert and Plog 1980:93), became increasingly popular. After 1300, with the exception of Bidahochi Black-on-white, a ware produced in a very limited area, polychrome vessels predominated, and black-and-white pottery types were no longer produced in northeastern Arizona (Dittert and Plog 1980:81; 136). 53 Pueblo IV: Hopi The elaboration of such polychromes coincides with the gradual arrival of diverse groups and clans to form the people known as Hopi. These large population shifts and convergence of peoples facilitated exchanges of technical and stylistic ideas, as well as new clays and pigments. While these shifts remain the subject of much dispute, radical design changes such as those found on Fourmile Polychrome in the Little Colorado region to the south (fig. 4) may also have influenced new Hopi polychrome design concepts. The introduction of coal as fuel was also an important factor in the development of orange and yellow wares. Potters began producing a yellow ware made from a lighter coloured paste which contained little or no temper. These new wares, such as those now designated Jeddito Black-on-Orange and Jeddito Black-on-Yellow, were characterized by numerous variations in form, painted design, and colour schemes. On Jeddito Black-on-Yellow bowls (fig. 5), potters began to divide interior areas into two or three sections, a design feature which became characteristic of later Sikyatki Polychrome vessels. These wares became popular as items of trade, and are widely distributed over areas of the Southwest that were occupied at that time (Dittert and Plog 1980:109). The transition from Jeddito wares to Sikyatki Polychrome is often referred to as the beginning of the "Golden Age" of Hopi ceramics (Fewkes 1919:217; 54 Douglas 1933). It is also indicative of the constant change, well documented through comparison with ceramics of a century earlier, which took place in pre-Hispanic times. From the fourteenth to the mid-sixteenth centuries, Hopi pottery was characterized by major technical and stylistic changes, as more groups migrated to Hopi lands, especially from the south. These innovations are associated with ceramics excavated at the First Mesa village of Sikyatki, and are designated "Sikyatki Polychrome" (figs. 6, 7). Technological improvements characteristic of Sikyatki Polychrome vessels include higher firing temperatures and a lighter coloured paste, which was either untempered or lightly tempered with finely ground, low-fired sherds (Wade and McChesney 1981:20). The fine, almost white clay body facilitated an exceptionally smooth surface for polishing and painting. As with the preceding Jeddito Black-on-Yellow ware, firing temperatures much higher than any previously attained resulted in a stronger finished vessel and rich, oxidized colours ranging from a light, creamy yellow, to brownish-pink. Technical experimentation in articulating design flourished during this period.19 New decorating techniques including stippling, spattering, and drybrush, added texture and depth to the decorated surface; scraping or engraving produced fine negative lines by cutting away the slipped painting. Major changes also took place in form, with the appearance of shallow bowls with in-curved rims, and low 1 9 Such experimentation is not limited to one medium. Pueblo III and early Pueblo IV Black-and-white and Black-and-yellow ceramic designs are also found on textiles, and late Pueblo IV designs are shared with mural painting at Awatovi, as well as Pottery Mound and Kuaua, in New Mexico. 55 jars with flared shoulders and truncated necks. On such jars, decoration was applied mainly on the flattened top section, extending to a point slightly below the shoulder, allowing the entire decorated area to be surveyed at once. Viewed from above, this field is presented in the form of a broad ring, with the small opening, or mouth, in the centre (Bunzel 1929:38). The preference for sweeping, asymmetrical designs contrasts sharply with the more rigidly symmetrical compositions of Jeddito Black-on-Yellow ware. Each part of a Sikyatki composition combines geometricized elements with tapered, curvilinear lines. In addition to "rain clouds", "stars", and "sun symbols", a proliferation of plant, animal, bird, insect, reptile, and human motifs are combined with abstract patterns. Butterflies and moths appear frequently, as well as isolated human hands, legs, and heads. Some designs on Sikyatki Polychrome are thought to indicate the appearance of the katcina cult in the area (Dittert and Plog 1980:109). Another recurring Sikyatki design has been interpreted as an abstracted bird form with head, wing, and tail, and some ceramics depict a headless bird. Characteristic tails are spiralling, tapering hooks, with feathers enlarged and made into repeating forms (figs. 6, 7). The appeal of such designs t Western tastes is evident in the proliferation of studies from the time of Fewkes' arrival in the late nineteenth century to the present. This "Golden Age" of pottery production has further been related to a "Golden Age" of Hopi culture -- a final 56 florescence of pure, unaffected artistic and cultural achievement before the arrival of Europeans (Benedict 1934:57). Post Conques t Ceramics Discussions of this period also illuminate the problematic nature found in reconstructions of early colonial domination. Dozier suggests that Spanish presence, and the subsequent disruption of Pueblo burial practices, seriously threatened not only the Sikyatki Polychrome style, but the continuation of pottery-making in any form: Before the Spanish period pottery manufacture was an important occupation in all of the Hopi villages. The craft died out completely after the first century of Spanish rule. Some say that this was because pottery, as the chief article of tribute, was so identified with Spanish oppression that the Hopi stopped making it because it reminded them of that period of suffering (Dozier 1966:29). Dozier's statement is indicative of romanticized misunderstandings and misinterpretations of Hopi history. Although Dozier's study relies on information from contemporary Tewa individuals, who are clearly aware of the effects of Spanish colonization, he does not take into account the visual evidence which conflicts with notions of "vanishing Native culture". Such generalized constructions are not only factually inaccurate in many instances, but portray Pueblo peoples as unable to withstand the pressures of colonial domination. Contrary to Dozier's statement, there is no evidence that the "craft died out completely" among the Hopi during any period of colonization. This is clearly demonstrated in Wade and McChesney's analysis of historic Hopi ceramics, which includes a large selection 57 from the period in which Dozier states that ceramic production ceased. According to Wade (1980:57) although the Franciscan fathers' opposition to the Hopi practice of using ceramics as grave offerings imposed a concept of secularism in ceramic production, pottery-making continued. Wade also states that while "pots were not buried during the late historic period...early twentieth-century photographs of Hopi burial cliffs do reveal numerous pottery bowls, tucked between stones, holding nourishment for the departed" (ibid.:9). Furthermore, contrary to Dozier's statement, because of its fragility and the difficulties of transportation, pottery was never collected as tribute, as were textiles and grain, from any of the Pueblos (Batkin 1987:15). Hopi history has been documented by scores of Euro-Americans since the arrival of the Spanish, yet Hopi pottery from the fifteenth to the late nineteenth century has been a topic of considerable obscurity. While antiquity has long been the central focus of archaeological studies, the lack of interest in this lengthy period of ceramic development is also related to an unwillingness to deal with styles imbued with European influences, which are viewed as "inauthentic". It may be argued that the many changes which took place in the production of ceramics from the "Mission Period to the nineteenth century "revival" are not simply indicative of degeneration and decline, but also of innovative strategies which the Hopi employed. 58 Many of the visual changes in Hopi ceramics of this period were related to changes in available materials and technological practices. Following the introduction of sheep by Spanish colonists, dung replaced coal as the principal fuel used in firing (Brew and Hack 1939:8; H. Colton 1939:63). Dung was advantageous in providing a mobile and readily available source of fuel which retained more even temperature during firing, and eliminated the labour-intensive gathering of coal (H. Colton 1936:1; Shepard 1974:76). However, the lower firing temperature and shorter firing time of dung may have impacted negatively on the product. Vessels required thicker walls to compensate for softer paste, and the reappearance of temper, which created the coarse texture characteristic of polychrome wares produced after the arrival of the Spanish (Hodge 1904:581; ) resulting in less- refined surface decoration. Changes also took place in form and decoration. Potters began to produce Spanish-derived forms such as candlesticks, cups and saucers, bowls, pitchers, tiles, and drain pipes, indicating that the Franciscans were also using these products. Also introduced into Hopi pottery styles were Spanish-derived designs, including curvilinear floral motifs, rosettes, and eight-pointed stars. These wares are referred to as San Bernardo Polychrome, named after the mission at Awatovi. In addition to Spanish influences, other Pueblo groups also had a profound impact on Hopi ceramic production. With the arrival of Rio Grande refugees in the 59 aftermath of the Pueblo Revolt of 1680, Tewa and Keresan ceramic influences become apparent in a shift toward a pan-Pueblo style, the Hopi variant of which is called Payupki Polychrome (fig. 8). The population movement which took place following the Spanish reconquest in 1694 further intensified trade relations between the Hopi and other groups, facilitating the exchange of aesthetic and technological ideas. Payupki Polychrome has been a subject of some debate. Although Keresan influences are most pronounced (Wade and McChesney 1981:84), there have been numerous arguments as to which group of immigrants founded the village of Payupki and actually made the pottery.20 Design characteristics of Payupki Polychrome include small geometric solids or outlines of geometric figures with black and red, which was used to fill the background spaces. Feather motifs are abundant, and compositional arrangements are reminiscent of Keres designs. In contrast to the freer layouts which had been of primary concern to Sikyatki and San Bernardo artists, Payupki Polychrome compositions were carefully controlled and divided into separate panels, which were filled with elaborate designs. Slip colours ranged from orange, which predominated, to yellow or cream. While Spanish motifs were limited in Payupki compositions, they became more pronounced near the closing years of the eighteenth century. 20Hubert (1937) and BartJett assert that Payupki was settled by Tewas. Montgomery, Smith and Brew (1949), Reed (1952), and Sando (1992) argue that it was settled by Tiwa speakers from Sandia. Wade (1980:56) states that Payupki Polychrome was derived from the Zia type Puname Polychrome. By 1740, most of the Rio Grande refugees, with the exception of the Hano Tewa, had returned to the east, and around 1760 another pan-Pueblo stylistic shift took place when the predominant feather motif was replaced by more curvilinear Spanish-influenced designs. The Hopi variant (fig. 9) is called Polacca Polychrome (1780-1900). The earliest of these vessels were similar to Payupki Polychrome, but soon became more globular in form, with a small, outflaring rim (Wade 1980:60). Beginning in 1820, and again in 1850s and 1860s, a series of droughts and epidemics forced the Hopi to migrate to Zuni, and Hopi potters became strongly influenced by Zuni Polychrome form and designs. Bunzel was of the opinion that the style characteristic of Hopi ceramics at this time was "so very similar to the contemporary ware of Zuni that there is no doubt that there was some close historical connection" (Bunzel 1929:80). Wade (1980:56) has further divided Polacca Polychrome into distinct periods of influence: The first clusters around 1820-1840 when Hopi pottery closely resembles the Zuni type Kiapkwa Polychrome (1770-1850) and the second around 1869-1870 when Polacca Polychrome jars, bowls, and ceremonial objects imitate Zuni Polychrome (1850-1920) forms and designs. A brief period of pronounced Spanish design influence is seen in early Polacca Polychrome (1800-1830s). During this period, the cream coloured slip was abandoned in favour of a Zuni-like greyish-white kaolin slip, characterized by numerous fine lines, referred to as "crazing", which appeared during the firing process. Wade and McChesney state that "with the exception of native clays and pigments, some Hopi pots are identical copies of Zuni vessels" (Wade and McChesney 1981:119). Such were 61 the Hopi ceramics being produced at the time when Nampeyo is supposed to have learned pottery-making skills from her Hopi paternal grandmother at Walpi between 1870 and 1875 (Stanislawski and Stanislawski 1974:14). In contrast, in the late nineteenth century the Hano potters specialized in plain cook pots and water carriers, which were considered to be "the best" of their type on First Mesa. It has been suggested that these Tewa were in fact responsible in some way for the perpetuation of pottery design among the Hopi (Hubert 1937:2). It has been further asserted that the Tewa vessels were popular items of exchange with other Hopi villages, where pottery-making had all but ceased, and what little that was produced was of "poor quality." (Colton and Colton 1943:43; Hough 1917; Bunzel 1929). Official U.S. census data of 1890, however, states that pottery was still being made by more than 360 Hopi and Tewa potters in all seven existing villages (Donaldson 1893:45). The decline in production on Second and Third Mesas, therefore, took place in later years as pottery became associated solely with First Mesa -- due in part to the proximity of First Mesa to the trading posts at Polacca and Keams Canyon, and in part to the association of the "revival" of Hopi pottery-making with Nampeyo.21 Indeed, from the time of his first excavations at Sikyatki, Fewkes was particularly aware of the predominance of 2 1 While pottery has been produced on Second and Third Mesas during the twentieth century, it has not met with commercial success. Second Mesa pottery is rarely referred to, and Third Mesa pottery is considered inferior to that of First Mesa. A typical observation published in Museum Notes Museum of Northern Arizona asserts that Third Mesa potters "do not take as much care in firing as First Mesa women" (anonymous 1936:2). 62 pottery-making on First Mesa, but viewed this as a potentially disruptive factor in his archaeological survey of pre-Hispanic ceramics. The Sikyatki Revival and Its Context The 1880s and 1890s have been described as "a period of pre-commercial modification of Hopi ceramics by Euro-Americans...marked by increased standardization of designs and mass production of new forms." (Wade 1980:56). Experimentation also occurred with pre-Hispanic shapes and motifs, including the incorporation of black-on-white, Jeddito, Payupki, and Sikyatki elements into Polacca Polychrome (lbid.:60). Brody states that "some revivals had begun well before any collectors made their appearance." (1990:10). However, since these developments, which mark the transition from Polacca Polychrome to the "Sikyatki Revival Style" have been associated primarily with the influence of Euro-Americans, it is useful to review the social and political situation which provided the backdrop for such pronounced changes in ceramic production. Westward expansion in the late nineteenth century caused a number of changes which greatly affected Hopi pottery production, both directly and indirectly. Increased Euro-American presence brought about a rapid transition from utilitarian ceramic production to commercialized wares. The collecting expeditions, which literally stripped some Pueblos of ceramic objects, both antique and contemporary, removed valuable design sources which were tangible links to Hopi heritage, but 63 also helped, through the interest demonstrated by the collectors, to generate necessary income through pottery-making. Railroad construction resulted in the settling of new towns in Arizona, the development of tourism, and a thriving curio trade, which, on one hand altered the Hopi way of life, but in turn provided a market for Hopi ceramics and affected the ensuing shift to a cash oriented economy. While the curio trade may be seen as a key factor in what has been perceived to be the degeneration of technical quality and design in ceramics, serious interest in indigenous arts was also generated when the philosophy of the Arts and Crafts movement spread across North America. World's Fairs across the country reinforced stereotypes of "Indianness" but also created a more direct awareness of Native cultures, and increased interest in Native arts. All of these occurrences influenced how pottery was made, and created new incentives for change. Individual traders also responded to this new market, functioning as intermediaries between Native populations and Euro-American markets, and bringing industrialized goods to Native peoples, in exchange for objects of Native manufacture, which were freighted to more populated areas or sold to museums. Beginning in the 1870s, the opportunity to trade pots for these goods, and occasionally for cash, had a significant impact on the number of pots produced. During this period, Thomas Keam established the first permanent trading post twelve miles east of First Mesa. As tourism and collecting expeditions stripped 64 Pueblos of both antique and contemporary objects, museum buyers relied increasingly on traders such as Keam, who developed close working relationships with Native artisans, and were able to influence production according to specific 7 Euro-American tastes. A new pottery style, developed for sale, was characterized by radical changes in design and form as well as in its use of space, line, and colour. It began with the incorporation of selected elements from Sikyatki and Payupki designs, and layouts reminiscent of Sikyatki bowl interiors, while maintaining many characteristics of Polacca Polychrome. The earliest of these pieces were made from the same paste, pigment, and crazed slip characteristic of late Polacca Polychrome, and differed only in vessel shape and decorative motif. Forms became reminiscent of the low-shouldered jars and shallow bowls associated with Sikyatki (fig. 10). The transition to the style which came to be known as "Sikyatki Revival Ware" involved the rejection of this slip in favour of red-slipped, unslipped, or self-slipped surfaces (Wyckoff 1983:69). Wade.and McChesney (1981:455) descibe this as Polacca Polychrome "Style D"; Wyckoff uses the term Sikyatki Revival "Style A (1983:73). As described by Sikorski: the greatest transformation was in the layouts. From Sikyatki the potters took the idea of the conventionalized bird in T-shape, spiral, curved profile, or spiral and band. The color scheme of red and black on yellow replaced the older one of red and black on a white slip. Among design elements, the borrowing included broad tail feathers, stippling, dots, ticking, and large irregular shapes representing heads or wings (1968:22). 65 Brody asserts that by the 1870s, sacred motifs, particulartly images of katcinas, were regularly applied to ceramics, both for domestic use, and for the tourist market (1990:49). Many such images appeared on tiles, a popular item of trade (fig. 11), which were apparently introduced into the Hopi ceramic repertoire by Keam (see chapter 4). The impetus for this transition, which has typically been attributed to the influence of Fewkes beginning in 1895, has recently become a subject of debate. This dialogue began with Frisbie's convincing argument that the relationship between Fewkes and Nampeyo "was quite different than what published sources and 'common knowledge' would have us believe" (1973:231). Wade (1974:18) suggested that in addition to Fewkes, trader Thomas Keam was also closely involved with the inception of the Sikyatki Revival in the mid 1890s. In subsequent publications, Wade and McChesney revised this date, asserting that as early as 1880, Keam commissioned several potters to produce seven copies Sikyatki and San Bernardo designs, suggesting that this trader first encouraged their use on contemporary ceramics (1980:60). However, since Wade and McChesney also acknowledge that it is unclear as to whether potters were already experimenting with these designs when Keam arrived, it is possible to conceive an even earlier date of inception, which occurred independantly from any specific Euro-American influnce. Wade and McChesney state that several pieces in the Keam collection were "bought new and not commissioned as reproductions; yet they nevertheless 66 show strong Sikyatki influence" and that "other collections, both public and private, have examples of this Revival Polacca style" (1981:455). The questions raised by these studies have no clear answers. However, it is reasonable to assume that no single influence was responsible for the inception of the Sikyatki Revival. Furthermore, other questions are raised which have not been sufficiently addressed in these recent revisions of historical data -- to what degree were the producers involved, and why have their actions been excluded from these revisions? Certainly, the potters were aware of the abundance of sherds in the vicinity of uninhabited villages. Wade and McChesney refer to documentation of the many uses to which they were put (1981:9).22 Stanislawski and Stanislawski (1974:14) also report that "copying potsherds from nearby sites, a long important Hopi, Zuni, and Acoma learning technique" was common in Nampeyo's day. In an extensive study of Pueblo ceramics conducted in 1924-1925, anthropologist Ruth Bunzel interviewed Nampeyo and many other potters from First Mesa, Zuni, Acoma, and San lldefonso regarding design sources and other aspects of pottery manufacture. In a comparison of contemporary Hopi ceramics with a selection of pieces excavated from Sikyatki, Bunzel remarked: 2 2 Pot sherds were re-used in the manufacture of ceramics during the firing process, and also re-worked into tools and pendants. 67 Fewkes reports that he found no two Sikyatki pieces exactly alike. The same might almost be said of modern Hopi ware. In a collection of several hundred pieces on the shelves of the trader's store, it would be difficult to find any duplicates, and although several variants of the same general form might be found, these variants will show considerable diversity (1929:55). Bunzel concluded that although pottery fragments from Sikyatki were "a particularly rich source of inspiration on First Mesa...the copying of Sikyatki pieces is by no means as slavish as is claimed by ethnologists" (1929:55-56). Despite these well documented examples of potters working independantly, there remains a tacit assumption that Euro-Americans were the principal agents of change during the period of transition from Polacca Polychrome to Sikyatki Revival Ware. According to Wade (1980:60), the transition from Polacca Polychrome pottery to that which is. now known as "Sikyatki Revival Ware" was well established by the last decade of the nineteenth century. Some of these early vessels, purchased by the Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, and the American Museum of Natural History in New York, were collected from the Tewa village of Hano by George Pepper in 1903-1904. However, as late as 1912, Fewkes reported "the surface of the modern pottery is coated with a thin slip which crackles in firing" (Fewkes 1919:279), indicating that the slipped Polacca-style vessels were still being produced (Wyckoff 1983:68-69). By 1924, when Bunzel surveyed the ceramics produced in the area, she found that "the Hopi potters do not use a white slip, but make their pots of a clay which fires to various shades of 68 cream and yellow., the new style has within a few years completely displaced old types of ware and ornament" (1929:42;88). The transition from slipped to unslipped wares, while difficult to trace, has become pivotal in discussions of Euro-American influences on Hopi ceramic production. This transition was associated first with Fewkes' work at Sikyatki in 1895. More recently, Keam's earlier commissioning of pre-Hispanic wares has been cited as the original impetus for change. However, Nampeyo's early work was virtually undocumented, and her earliest experiments with pre-Hispanic designs were not considered to be significant enough to identify them during her lifetime. In anthropological literature, therefore, it was the actions of Euro-Americans, rather than those of the Native producer/s that were emphasized. This was the case throughout the United States, and particularly the Southwest, which, beginning in the 1880s, became the focus of what J.J. Brody refers to as "a variety of survival, revival, and preservation schemes" (1976:70), which may be drawn together under the somewhat ambiguous term "curio trade". Figure 2. Kayenta Black-on-White bowl, circa A.D. 1250-1300. (From Beauty From the Earth: Pueblo Indian Pottery from the University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. J.J. Brody 1990. PhiladelphiaThe University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology). Figure 3. Tusayan Black-on-White jar, circa A.D. 1150-1300. (From Generations in Clay: Pueblo Pottery of the American Southwest. A. Dittert and F. Plog. 1980. Northland Publishing). Figure 4. Fourmile Polychrome bowl, circa A.D. 1300-1400. (From Beauty From the Earth: Pueblo Indian Pottery from the University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. J.J. Brody 1990. Philadelphia:The University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology). Figure 5. Jeddito Black-on-Yellow bowl, circa A.D. 1325-1600. (From Plateau 1977. 49(3):4. K. Bartlett. Flagstaff: Museum of Northern Arizona). Figure 6. Sikyatki Polychrome bowl, circa A.D. 1400-1625. (From American Indian Art Magazine 1991. 16 (2):66. J.J. Brody). 74 Figure 7. Sikyatki Polychrome jar, circa A.D. 1400-1625. (From Beauty From the Earth: Pueblo Indian Pottery from the University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. J.J. Brody 1990. Philadelphia.The University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology). 75 Figure 8. Payupki Polychrome jar, circa A.D. 1680-1780. (From America's Great Lost Expedition: The Thomas Keam Collection of Hopi Pottery From the Second Hemenway Expedition, 1890-1894. E. Wade and L. McChesney 1980. Phoenix: Heard Museum). Figure 9. Polacca Polychrome jar, circa 1860-1890. (From America's Great Lost Expedition: The Thomas Keam Collection of Hopi Pottery From the Second Hemenway Expedition, 1890-1894. E. Wade and L. McChesney 1980. Phoenix: Heard Museum). Figure 10. Sikyatki Revival Polychrome jar, circa 1890-1900. (From America's Great Lost Expedition: The Thomas Keam Collection of Hopi Pottery From the Second Hemenway Expedition, 1890-1894. E. Wade and L. McChesney 1980. Phoenix: Heard Museum). 78 Figure 11. Polacca Polychrome (Sikyatki Revival) tiles, circa A.D. 1885-1900. (From Beauty From the Earth: Pueblo Indian Pottery from the University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. J.J. Brody 1990. Philadelphia.The University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology). 79 Chapter Four Euro-Amer ican Involvement in the Development of the Sikyatki Revival In the previous chapter, it was argued that Hopi ceramics have undergone a process of continual change resulting from diverse influences, and that the events leading to the inception of the Sikyatki Revival during the closing years of the nineteenth century were a continuation of such influences. This chapter will focus on specific events, and on the varied but interconnected motivations and strategies of several individuals who were involved. The commercialization of First Mesa ceramics was not the sole result of Euro-American actions, nor was it, conversely, the sole working of artistic genius, but was instead a complex process of interaction and exchange. As Brody has pointed out, (supporting theoretical discussions on ideology referred to in chapter one), "those who selected and collected the objects and recorded information about them did so for complex reasons that may have had little or nothing to do with the concerns of the potters" (Brody 1990:4). Despite these complex -- and separate -- reasons, all the players in this process were dependent upon each other to achieve their objectives. Following this line of thought, it will be argued that the legend of Nampeyo is entwined with legends of Keam, Stephen, Fewkes, and others who in turn, form part of an even larger narrative which includes the mythology of the Western Frontier. Although for purposes of clarity these individuals are discussed separately and in roughly chronological order, the events in which they participated 80 may be drawn together as essential elements in the development of twentieth-century First Mesa ceramics. Thomas Varker Keam He was something of a paradox: a squaw man equally at ease, and voluble, in an Arizona hogan as in calling upon a Washington big-wig; disliked and feared by some officials of the Indian Office; generous host or informed friend to stray wayfarers and scientists; an outspokenly honest and intelligent partisan of Indians, a foe of self-serving political humbuggery. An Englishman, he was one of the ablest, best-known traders in the Southwest (McNitt 1962:124). As this colourful description demonstrates, Thomas Varker Keam was more than simply a frontier trader. During his lifetime, numerous references to Keam's hospitality and invaluable assistance appeared in geological and census surveys, scholarly reports, and the diaries of travellers, and accounts of his activities were published long after his death. These accounts attest to Keam's place as an important figure in the development of the Southwestern Frontier. Biographies of Keam were written by Richard Van Valkenburgh, who based his short biographical sketch on interviews with individuals who had known Keam, including his son, Thomas Begay (1946:9-12), and Frank McNitt, who compiled a detailed account of Keam's activities in the Southwest prior to the establishment of Keam's Canyon (1962:124-141). Although these sources are at times contradictory, particularly concerning dates, they provide valuable insights into Keam's early activities. 81 Keam (1846-1904) was born in a small coastal village in the county of Cornwall, England. As a youth, he sailed to Australia in the merchant marine, but his career at sea was brief. After reaching San Francisco in 1861, he remained in the United States, and enlisted for military service. During this period, Keam served at several locations in California, Arizona, and New Mexico, including Fort Sumner, New Mexico, where in 1864 he participated in the Navajo "Round-up" and internment led by Kit Carson (Van Valkenburgh 1946:9). Following the Civil War, Keam spent another eighteen months in the military, first as a second lieutenant under Carson, then as company commander at Fort Stanton (McNitt 1962:124). After leaving the army in 1866, Keam made several attempts at trading before settling near the Hopi communities in northeastern Arizona.23 In 1869, Keam was appointed to a position with the Fort Defiance Agency as a Spanish interpreter for the Navajos released the previous year from their imprisonment at Fort Sumner. 2 4 During this period, Keam married a Navajo woman, Astzan Lapai (Grey Woman), with whom he had two sons, Thomas Begay and Hastin Lapai (Van Valkenburgh 1946:10).25 The marriage was met with opposition in the Indian 2 3 Keam obtained a license to trade with the Capote Ute in New Mexico, but was unsuccessful in this venture. 2 4 Fort Sumner is also known as Bosque Redondo. 25 McNitt states that in 1876, Keam was "separated from his Navajo wife, who, with their children, had returned to live with her Navajo kinsmen" (1962:164). According to an interview in 1940 with Keam's eldest son, Thomas Begay, "My father received a letter from his old mother in England. He was gone over a year. 82 Department, and apparently terminated any opportunity for advancement. He was discharged from his position in 1873 by W.F.M. Amy26, who reported that Keam was "living with a Navajo squaw, and thereby exercising undue influence on the tribe" (ibid.: 10). Keam, however, became an experienced and effective mediator with Apaches, Utes, and in the increasingly bitter and often violent disputes involving Navajos and Puebloans.27 In recognition of his skills as a mediator, he was promoted to the position of "special agent" (McNitt 1962:129). Shortly before his dismissal, Keam, acting as the "Navajo interpreter" accompanied Amy and Major James H. Miller, agent to the Navajos, to Zuni to "settle some...difficulties" that had arisen from the "constant warfare" between the two groups (Seymour 1941:203-204). My mother thought he was not coming back. So she moved up on Black Mountain and married another man." When he returned to Arizona, Keam maintained relations with his sons. Begay described such visits: "He would welcome us and say 'stay with me boys. I'll take care of you.' Then he's give us grub and clothing. He recognized us as his sons" (qtd. in Van Valkenburgh 1946:10). Keam never remarried, and left his former wife the sum of $25,000 in his will (Lowell and Boyer 1989:427). " Described by McNitt as a "hypocritical rascal" who "boldly set in motion a scheme to defraud the Navajos of the best part of their reservation", Amy would become Keam's nemesis. 2 7 The ineffectiveness of Indian Agents is described by McNitt, who states that by 1871, tense relations between Navajos and Pueblos escalated into "the reopening of a bloody feud", which the Pueblo agent blamed on "stupid Indian officials and villainous Indian traders," as well as on the Navajo agent's inability to keep "his" Navajos confined to the reservation (McNitt 1962:126-127). 83 In 1875, following an unsuccessful bid to trade on the Navajo reservation,28 Keam, with his younger brother William,29 established a small trading post near the eastern head of a canyon some thirteen miles from First Mesa. "Keam's Canyon", as it came to be known, was sheltered, provided an abundant supply of wood and fresh water, and was ideally located along a main trade route that linked Navajo and Hopi lands (McNitt 1962:186). In June of 1876, Agent Alex Irvine reported that Thomas Keam was operating a trading post just outside the boundary of the Navajo reservation, about one mile south of the agency, and William was overseeing the Keam's Canyon post (ibid.:164). Keam's activities and interests during the following decade were diverse. Although his original intention was to develop a cattle ranch, his plans were terminated when the Hopi Reservation was created in 1882, preventing him from adding to his original 640 acres. His home nevertheless functioned as a visitor centre, and Keam often acted as interpreter and guide. As a trader, he exchanged manufactured goods and food for livestock, pelts, wool, artifacts, and objects of contemporary manufacture to be transported to markets away from the reservation. 2 8 The license was refused by Amy, who reported "the surities of the bond are ample, but..Thomas V. Keams and his brother William are not proper persons to be here..." (qtd. in McNitt 1962:145). 2 9 According to McNitt, William, who is seldom mentioned by Keam's biographers, resided in the area for approximately three years. 84 During this period, Keam travelled to Washington to intervene when an attempt was made by Amy to appropriate a valuable tract of Navajo land. On several occasions, the Navajo requested Keam's presence as interpreter and negotiator in land and other treaty disputes, and finally, Navajo leaders requested that he replace Amy, whom, they felt, did not adequately represent their interests. This request of the Navajo to have Keam appointed as their representative provides an interesting conterpoint to Amy's complaint that Keam's relations with the Navajo would result in undue influence, and was grounds for dismissal. In a petition drafted in 1875, the Navajo entreated President Ulysses S. Grant to "send us an Agent who will talk less and do more, give us less show and more justice. We believe Thomas Keams to possess all we ask for" (McNitt 1962:156). The incident in Washington brought the feud between Keam and Amy to a direct confrontation. Amy filed criminal charges against several individuals, including Keam and his brother William. After several postponements, the charges were finally dropped in 1877 (ibid.:163-165). Although his ambitions to become a government agent were repeatedly thwarted by Amy and other officials who disapproved of his lifestyle and politics, Keam prospered as a trader. The main difficulty, however, was transportation. According to McNitt: During his first six years in the canyon Keam depended for his supplies upon the Santa Fe contractors and government freighters, sending his wagons to meet theirs at Fort Wingate or, if he were lucky, at Defiance Agency. A trip one way in good weather might take 85 five days, a month if arroyos were flooded or snow covered the land (1962:188). The railway, then, was a crucial factor in expanding his business interests. By 1882, the railway lines were running through Gallup, the recently established towns of Holbrook and Winslow, and on to another new town at the base of the San Francisco Peaks that eventually became the city of Flagstaff. Keam began to develop his business by sending wagonloads of goods on a two and one-half day journey to Holbrook, seventy miles to the south. As his business expanded, Keam built storerooms, stables, carpenter and blacksmith shops, and accomodations for employees and visitors. By the mid-1880s, Keam's Canyon held twelve to fifteen buildings (McNitt 1962:189). Several of these buildings were under construction when John G. Bourke visited Keam in 1881. According to Bourke's description, Keam's living quarters were "tastily decorated with fine Navajo blankets, sheepskin rugs, Moqui pottery, and Smithsonian photographs" as well as "chemical re-agents, test tubes, and blowpipes" (Bourke 1884:82). Keam also developed a working relationship with museums and private collectors. From the 1870s, he was host to virtually all of the major scientific expeditions travelling through northeastern Arizona, particularly those of the Bureau of American Ethnology (Wade and McChesney 1980:13). Col. James Stevenson and his wife, Matilda Coxe Stevenson, who collected Pueblo ceramics for the 86 Smithsonian Institution in 1879, were frequent guests, and friends of Keam. Fewkes and his wife also visited the canyon during the 1892 Hemenway Expedition, when the Keam Collection was purchased, and during the 1895 excavation of Sikyatki. It is around this period that Keam began excavating uninhabited Pueblo villages. Accompanied by Alexander Stephen, he "explored every foot of neighboring Antelope Mesa and -- long before pot-hunting became illegal - dug into the ruins of Awatovi and lesser abandoned sites of the Jeddito Valley" (McNitt 1962:190). In an unpublished catalogue of Keam's collection30 written during the 1880s, Stephen states: For many years Mr. Thomas V. Keam...has been collecting relics of the Ancient Builders throughout Arizona and the San Juan region on the southern confines of Colorado and Utah. These have been exhumed from burial places, sacrificial caverns, ruins, and from sand dunes in the locality of ancient gardens (Stephen, qtd. in Wade and McChesney 1980:18). These excavations of uninhabited villages and burials, including Sikyatki (Wade 1985:171), while unacceptable by contemporary standards, were not uncommon at the time, and many of the objects recovered from such enterprises were subsequently sold to museums. 3 0 Stephen's manuscript is now at the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 87 Keam's activities also included direct dealings with Hopi potters. Unlike other traders in the area, such as Lorenzo Hubbell and John B. Moore, Keam did not concentrate on Navajo weaving (McNitt 1962:191), but apparently focused his interests on ceramics. Stephen's catalogue states: The most important class of relics consists of a unique collection of Ancient Pottery. A few of the specimens were obtained from the Mokis. The women, in whose possession they were, preserved them as a sort of heirloom. [As] the traditions of their exhumation extend back many generations, [it required] delicate negotiations to effect their purchase (quoted in Wade and McChesney 1980:18). Keam's interests were not confined to antiquities, and he also dealt directly with potters from the nearby Hopi Mesas. According to Laura Graves Allen, "the effect Thomas Keam had on the production of Hopi pottery can never be measured" (1984:18). She suggests that Keam was "the primary figure in the transition from utilitarian ceramic production to an economic-based production" and that "jars with sharp shoulders, shallow bowls, vases, globular jars in yellow clay with standardized birds, tails, and wings, were the styles encouraged by Keam. He also encouraged the production of ceramic tiles (fig. 11) in a number of geometric and kachina face designs" (ibid.: 18) and imported wooden molds to increase production and consistency of shape. Wade and McChesney (1980; 1981) argue that Keam's influence on products made for sale were central to the development of an innovative ceramic movement which would only later be referred to as the "Sikyatki Revival." 88 Although Keam was not recognized for his influence upon Hopi ceramic styles until much later, the ramifications of his activities are now being linked to an increasing range of academic concerns. Wyckoff reiterates recent assertions that Keam "...forged the link between craft and cash" and "was pivotal in bringing both tourist curios and art pottery to the tourists and collectors visiting the now accessible West at the end of the nineteenth century" (Wyckoff 1985:72). Her study also underscores Keam's influence on ceramic production at First Mesa by contrasting it with that produced at Third Mesa, where "the pottery they manufactured differed in style from the Sikyatki Revival ware Keam first encouraged First Mesa potters to make" (1985:72). Wyckoff concludes that "Keam's association with First Mesa potters who sold their wares through his trading post put First Mesa in a position to control the manufacture of Hopi pottery" (ibid.:72). Wyckoffs study suggests not only that the pottery produced at First Mesa was stylistically distinct, but that the dynamics in which the Sikyatki Revival was implemented were the result of interaction between Keam and a group of potters who were interested in the economic opportunities afforded through innovative strategies. In their study of the Keam Collection and cataloguing data compiled by Stephen, Wade and McChesney have uncovered considerable evidence to support their theory that Keam was involved in changes in Hopi pottery production from an early date. This includes references in Stephen's notes (Stephen n.d.:166) that 89 around 1880, Keam commissioned seven reproductions of damaged Sikyatki and San Bernardo vessels that he had excavated from local sites. Wade and McChesney found no references as to why the pieces were commissioned, but speculate that they were "intended as scientific specimens, not artworks": Perhaps it was an experiment to see if the potters could reproduce the old shapes and designs or to provide reconstructed facsimilies of badly damaged originals for museum collections he was commissioned to make. In any event, this new evidence compels us to revise the date of the inception of this tradition to the 1880s (1981:455). This study of the Keam Collection has revealed not only Keam's involvement, but also that of the potters who were independently incorporating pre-Hispanic designs. Wade and McChesney refer to: ...a number of jars in the Keam Collection bought new and not commissioned as reproductions; yet they nevertheless show strong Sikyatki ifluence...Other collections, both public and private, have examples of this Revival Polacca style (1981:455). These "stray pieces", as Wade and McChesney point out, raise questions that are open to interpretation: "Were they also the products of Keam's influence, or were other potters already experimenting with the new styles before 1894?". Wade and McChesney speculate that "premium prices were paid for superior tiles, so it is likely that good commissions were given for the reproductions as well" (ibid.:455). The names of the potters who were commissioned to make the reproductions were not recorded. Wade and McChesney suggest that although Nampeyo may have participated in the project, since "the quality of workmanship varies...it appears that more than one potter was involved" (ibid.:455). They add that several of these pieces "blend Polacca traits (white-slipped upperbodies with red underbodies) and prehistoric features (vessel shapes and design motifs). Others are quite faithful to the ancient ware, even to the degree of experimenting with nonslipped surfaces" (ibid.:455). The latter point suggests that some potters were already familiar with a variety of techniques when Keam commissioned the pieces. These reproductions also suggest that although he was working closely with Hopi potters in the early 1880s, Keam was experimenting, rather than formulating a plan to exploit a particular style of ceramics, or to promote Nampeyo over any other potter. I would also suggest that from Keam's perspective, the commercial possibilities of First Mesa ceramic production were confined to a relatively "local" market prior to increased rail services in 1882. In 1889, Keam sold the original Keam's Canyon buildings to the federal government to be converted into a Native boarding school, and built a second house and trading post two and a half miles down the canyon. By 1890, he had assembled a large collection of Hopi material. In 1892, he sold approximately 4,500 Hopi objects, mainly pre-Hispanic pottery, to wealthy Bostonian Mary Hemenway for the sum of $10,000. This collection, purchased by Fewkes on Hemenway's behalf, is housed today in the Peabody Museum of Harvard University. Keam also supplied a number of other museums, in the United States and abroad, with collections of both contemporary and pre-Hispanic pottery --y 91 including the Ethnological Museum in Berlin, the Field Columbian Museum in Chicago, and the National Museum in Finland (Wade and McChesney 1980:9). By the mid 1890s, Keam was apparently pursuing other interests. Stephen had died in 1894, following a lengthy illness. Although his business dealings had made him wealthy and his support of Native rights brought him respect, Keam had been unsuccessful in becoming an Indian Agent, and his own health was beginning to fail. The last trading license issued to Keam expired in 1898. While the store continued to operate, perhaps leased to another trader,31 Keam travelled to Washington to explore the possibility of mining in the area (McNitt 1962:198). In 1902, Keam sold his business to Lorenzo Hubbell and returned to Cornwall, where he died two years later. Thus, although Keam was particularly active during the early years of the Sikyatki Revival, he was not actively involved in trading during Nampeyo's most productive years after the turn of the century. It has been little more than a decade since Keam was first recognized as a central figure in the inception of the Sikyatki Revival.32 Positions have changed, as efforts to uncover details obscured through time threaten to shatter a 3 1 Keam apparently hired managers to oversee the trading post on several occasions. One of these managers was Godfrey Sykes, whose wife Emma wrote a detailed account of their stay at the canyon during the summer of 1895 (Lowell and Boyer 1989:417-443). 3 2 Wade, who began a study of the Keam Collection in 1975, states that for a variety of reasons the major part of the Collection was virtually ignored after 1899, when it was accepted by the Peabody Museum, and that "by the mid-1970s probably less than a dozen scholars knew of the collection" (Wade and McChesney 1980:12). 92 comfortable narrative of (primitive) genius and (civilized) patronage. Brian Spooner cautions, however, that historical revisions must be approached with care: "Our interpretation and reinterpretation of the sources available to us may become ever more sophisticated and ingenious, but only in the service of our own needs" (1986:200). Thus, the recognition of Keam's involvement in the Sikyatki Revival is linked to several past and current agendas, including a desire to trace the use of pre-Hispanic designs to the earliest possible date as a means of increasing historical value and "authenticity"; a belated attempt to recognize the agency and participation of Native artists; and current interests in and acceptance of the commercial aspects of Native art movements, including "curios" and "tourist arts", and the role played by traders and other dealers in promoting Native artists. Keam was one of the earliest Euro-Americans to show a more benign face in the possible relations of Native peoples with the political and commercial side of the United States. The Navajo recognized that Keam's genuine interest would provide a greater "room for maneuver" in their relations with the government if he were appointed Indian Agent. Similarly, his interests in promoting the commercial aspect of Hopi ceramics introduced the inhabitants of the Mesas to new forms of economic thought in the area of ceramics that were motivated by his own social interests, but which also provided an avenue for the realization of the "...genuine wants, needs and desires..." (Eagleton 1991:45) of the Hopi, reinflected in their own particular ceramic idiom. 93 In summary, Keam could be described as a liason between First Mesa potters and the Euro-American public. On one hand, travellers and scholars became interested in the contemporary ceramics they saw at his trading post/visitor centre, and on the other hand, Keam communicated Euro-American tastes to the potters, through his own preferences, and the higher prices he offered for particular styles and higher quality pieces. As the first permanent trader in the Hopi area, Keam clearly provided many of the ideas, as well as the intitial economic stimulus for the Sikyatki Revival. Alexander McGregor Stephen Keam was joined in these enterprises by Alexander McGregor Stephen (18507-1894). Little is known of Stephen's life prior to his arrival at Keam's Canyon. In his native Scotland, he had studied metallurgy at the University of Edinburgh before emigrating to the United States. He enrolled in the New York militia in 1861 (Parsons 1936:xx), and following his discharge in 1866, travelled west to become a mining prospector in Nevada and Utah (Bourke 1884:80), where he searched for the lost Merit Silver mine (McNitt 1962:170). From his arrival at Keam's Canyon in 1880 until his death in 1894, Stephen resided for part of the time at Keam's Canyon, but a great deal of his time was spent living with various families on the Hopi mesas (Parsons 1936:xxii). In his association with the trading post, he learned to speak Navajo. According to Elsie Clews Parsons, editor of Stephen's journals, the Navajo language was Stephen's first medium with the Hopi, 94 and afforded unusual insights into Navajo and Hopi relations (ibid.:xx). Stephen subsequently undertook a study of Hopi ethnography, and was supported in this endeavor by Keam. The two men established a close rapport, and co-operated on several projects. In 1882, Stephen participated in a study of Pueblo architecture conducted by Victor Mindeleff, who commented on Stephen's "unusual facilities for the work, having lived for a number of years in Tusayan and possessed the confidence of the principal priests" (Mindeleff, qtd. in Parsons 1936:xx). From this experience, Stephen began to record in detail his observations of Hopi ceremonial and daily life, which Parsons noted were "written in pencil so clearly that seldom is a word illegible. Even the notes made in the obscurity of a kiva or outdoors under stress of weather are usable" (ibid.:xxi). His lengthy journals and catalogue of the Keam Collection contain some of the earliest and most extensive documentation of Hopi history and nineteenth-century conditions. In addition to his work with Mindeleff, during the decade before he began his contract with Fewkes, Stephen worked and corresponded with scholars such as Washington Matthews, James Mooney, James Stevenson and his wife, Matilda Coxe Stevenson, and John G. Bourke (Wade and McChesney 1980:13). These contacts were undoubtedly facilitated through Keam's "visitor centre", and were in part, perhaps, the circumstances under which Stephen's interests turned from 95 prospecting to ethnology. As with the excavations of Antelope Mesa, the exact date of Stephen's catalogue manuscript is unknown, but Wade and McChesney mention a letter he wrote to Fewkes, dated January 11, 1894, in which "he corrects himself on a statement found in the catalogue which he refers to as having been written ten years previously" (ibid.: 13). Stephen's method of cataloguing the Keam Collection was based upon the evolutionary models characteristic of late nineteenth-century thought. According to Wade and McChesney, Stephen was aware of, and utilized then-current theoretical frameworks as they were applied to ceramics, including H.H. Holmes' Origin and Development of Form and Ornament in Ceramic Art of 1886. They state that "his sequence for the development of Hopi society and culture is nearly identical to Holmes' broader Southwestern schema" (ibid.:13). This evolutionary model is evident in Stephen's typology, which organizes Hopi ceramic development into categories ranging from the earliest stages, which he designated "Primitive Ware" to "Polychrome", which he considered to be the highest stage of development, to its subsequent decline, which he called "Transition Ware" and "Modern Productions" (Wade and McChesney 1980:19-99). Anticipating Fewkes' later assessment of nineteenth-century Hopi pottery, Stephen wrote that "The lack of nicety and finish in the modern vessel is common to all the modern productions when compared with the better classes of the ancient ware" (Wade and McChesney 1980:26). 96 The absence of dating techniques in the late nineteenth century precluded any serious attempt to organize a stylistic or technological chronology, and the aesthetic criteria upon which Stephen based Hopi ceramic sequences are obviously problematic today. In Stephen's typology, generalizations of the evolution of ceramic traditions from simple to complex to decline were related in a broader sense to notions of a rise in Hopi culture from a state of barbarism to near-civilization, followed by decline: "The highest condition to which these people arrived cannot be placed above barbarism" (Stephen, quoted in Wade and McChesney 1980:37). Wade and McChesney point out that although Stephen succeeded, through archaeological and ethnological research, in reconstructing a "broad cultural history...it was a history devoid of any time reference" (Wade and McChesney 1980:13). It is not surprising, then, to find seventeenth-century unpainted utilitarian vessels classified as "Primitive Ware", while decorated vessels now known to have originated in the same period or earlier are considered by Stephen to be contemporaneous with the most advanced, and therefore much later "Polychrome" that he described as being of the "highest excellence". Within the "Polychrome" classification, Stephen included pottery types ranging from Sikyatki Polychrome (A.D. 1375-1625) to "a few stray Polacca Polychromes" (A.D. 1780-1900) (Wade and McChesney 1980:42). However, while Stephen's theoretical model and lack of scientific dating methods impose severe limitations on his catalogue of the Keam 97 Collection, his detailed descriptions not only of the vessels themselves, but of background information such as the locations from which they were excavated, opinions and interpretations of function, iconography, and technology by nineteenth-century Hopi potters, and the inclusion of recorded stories, which he admittedly understood as "a medley of legends, disjointed and contradictory" (Stephen, quoted in Wade and McChesney 1980:14) provides an unprecedented degree of documentation. In 1890, Stephen became a member of the Second Hemenway Expedition: under Fewkes' direction, he served as researcher, informant, and finally, field director. For this work, he received a small stipend. Wade suggests the extent of Stephen's contributions exceeded the recognition he received for his work: ...it was Stephen's expertise and penetrating insights into Hopi life which provided the direction of the actual field research, guiding it to unravel Hopi religious thought and practice. It also served to screen erroneous or premature information concerning the intricacies of Hopi culture from Fewkes' overly zealous commit-to-print professional attitude (1980:10). As Stephen worked independantly from institutional affiliations, he may be regarded as a "collaborator". Indeed, Parsons states that from 1891 until his death in 1894, the bulk of Stephen's systematically recorded notebooks dealt with First Mesa activities, the area in which Fewkes' research was centred, and that "Some of these records were published at once by Dr. Fewkes under his name and Stephen's, and others, after Stephen's death, under his own name with 98 acknowledgement of Stephen" (1934:xxi). Furthermore, Parsons states, Fewkes edited Stephen's material "to satisfy his own taste or preconceptions, or to meet conditions imposed by the Bureau of Ethnology" (ibid.:xxi). Stephen's journals, upon which Fewkes relied so heavily, were unpublished until 1936 -- forty-two years after his death. These detailed observations reveal something of Stephen's relationship with the Hopi. Parsons (ibid.'.xxi) states that at the time of his death, Stephen was learning the Hopi language and: Had his accomplishment in the language continued, he would have been distinguished in interpreting the ceremonials as well as recording them. As it is, as far as he goes, and he goes farther than Voth, his only rival in the field, his understanding is reliable. During his fourteen years in the area, Stephen lived with both Hopi and Tewa families on First Mesa, participated in daily life and, like Keam, acted "discreetly, against the injudicious activities of Government agents" (ibid.:xxii). While Fewkes and other institutionally sponsored anthropologists, constrained by the limitations of their professional obligations, were unable, in their brief summer expeditions, to penetrate the unpredictable intricacies of First Mesa daily and ceremonial life, Stephen was an active participant, able to develop and sustain personal relationships while sharing in the activities of the people among whom he made his home. Although historically, his connection with the Sikyatki Revival has been even more tenuous than Keam's, his work at First Mesa provides valuable insights into contemporary Hopi ceramics. While Keam acted as an intermediary 99 between First Mesa potters, scholars, and the Euro-American public, his participation in the development of twentieth century Hopi pottery was based upon his role as a trader. Similarly, Stephen fulfilled a role as intermadiary between potters, traders, and Euro-American scholars, but his activities were more closely associated with academic interests. Stephen, though a marginal member of the Euro-American community during his life, nonetheless played a role in the Hopi ceramic innovations which emerged from "cross-cultural relationships" (Graburn 1976:31). He played a much more important role, however, through his texts, in relation to the ideological competion between Europe and the United States. As the United States lacked a "Greece" through which it could trace its heritage, the intellectual community required an important cultural legacy through which it could agrandize the American past. Euro-Americans used Native peoples in an attempt to develop a distinct national identity equal in complexity to that of their European brethren. The Puebloan cultures provided the most complex of civilizations, deemed to have moved from savagery to barbarism. Stephen's notes provided Fewkes and other scholars with the earliest detailed records of the social and ceremonial activities of the Hopi, which became an integral component in the process of constructing their pre-modern "purity". 100 Jesse Walter Fewkes Since the early years of the twentieth century, Fewkes' name has been associated with Nampeyo and the inception of the Sikyatki Revival. Until recently, the popular account of Nampeyo's visit to Fewkes' excavation at Sikyatki in 1895 and copying prehistoric designs from excavated vessels was cited as a key point in the "renaissance" of Hopi pottery production (Brody 1971; Dunn 1968; Underhill 1944). Although at the time, Fewkes expressed little interest in contemporary Hopi ceramics, he has been credited with providing both inspiration and encouragement for Nampeyo's early experiments, which led to the formulation of the Sikyatki Revival style. While the veracity of this account has been repeatedly debated, it remains the cornerstone of the Nampeyo legend. Jesse Walter Fewkes (1850-1930) was born in Newton, Massachusetts. Although remembered principally for his archaeological and ethnological work in the Southwestern United States, like many of his contemporaries in the newly developing field of American anthropology, Fewkes' formal training was unrelated to his later career. After receiving a doctorate in marine biology at Harvard University in 1877, he secured a position as a curator at the Museum of Comparative Zoology. Described as a dedicated scientist and prolific writer, Fewkes produced some seventy papers on the subject of invertebrate zoology (Judd 1967:28), and became Secretary of the Boston Society of Natural History (Wade 1980:8). His earliest encounter with Pueblo peoples reportedly took place 101 in the spring of 1887, while returning from a collecting trip in southern California (ibid.:27). Apparently, this experience marked the beginning of Fewkes' interest in the Southwest. His career as an anthropologist officially began in July of 1889, when he replaced Frank Hamilton Cushing as director of the privately funded Second Hemenway Southwestern Archaeological Expedition. Like many of his contemporaries, his Natural Science training provided the framework for his archaeological and ethnographic research. Fewkes received his first appointment in the field of anthropology as director of the second of two expeditions funded by Mary Tileson Hemenway (1820-1894). The First Hemenway Expedition had been directed, with mixed results, by the flamboyant and rather eccentric Frank Hamilton Cushing, a protege of Major John Wesley Powell of the Smithsonian Institution. This first expedition was well-equipped, and well organized, with funds and policy administered by a Board of Associates, and with field personnel which included physical antropologist Dr. H.F.C. ten Kate; historian Adolph F. Bandelier; secretary F.W. Hodge; and topographer and general field manager Charles A. Garlick of the U.S. Geological Survey (Wade 1980:8). Cushing was apparently single-minded in concentrating on his own theories at the expense of all other research, and his temperament made him unpopular with the field personnel. Much of Cushing's research was centred among the Zuni, which he believed to be the best living example of ancient Pueblo culture (Brody 1990:28). Although Cushing is well-known for his work at Zuni, he 102 also supervised the excavation of several prehistoric sites, compiling a substantial collection of archaeological material which was subsequently transported to Boston. When Cushing was forced to resign in 1888 due to poor health and escalating administrative difficulties, his projects were abandoned, and with Fewkes' appointment, the focus of the expedition shifted toward newer "scientific" approaches. In contrast to Cushing's direct inquiries into the personal lives of the Puebloans, Fewkes apparently remained reserved and did not develop personal relationships with his informants. Although Cushing was experienced, and has been described by scholars such as Franz Boas and Claude Levi-Strauss as "a genius" and "brilliant", he was also given to wildly imaginative and unsubstantiated theories (Hinsley 1981:193). Fewkes, on the other hand, was inexperienced in the field, but able to produce data in a form that was considered appropriately professional. In the summer of 1890, Fewkes travelled to the Southwest, where he made sixteen wax cylinder recordings of Zuni songs. Fewkes did not, however, continue to work at Zuni, reflecting, perhaps, a desire to distance himself both personally and academically from any association with Cushing. By the following summer the expedition had moved to northeastern Arizona to begin a series of projects among the Hopi. From 1891 until 1894, when the Hemenway Archaeological Expeditions 103 were terminated following the death of Mary Hemenway, Fewkes, working with Stephen, studied Hopi mythology and ritual practices. In 1895, Fewkes joined the staff of the Bureau of American Ethnology, and left almost immediately to conduct archaeological fieldwork in Hopi country, beginning with a partial excavation of Sikyatki. He would later supervise excavations of the southern Arizona site of Casa Grande, and at the site of Mesa Verde in southern Colorado. Fewkes was also interested in the Hopi Snake Dance and other ritual practices, and wrote extensively on these subjects. These studies made him one of leading ethnological authorities of his day. Following his appointment as director of the Bureau of American Ethnology in 1918, Fewkes concentrated on administrative duties. Although it appears that Fewkes had met Nampeyo between 1890 and 1894 while still director of the Hemenway Expedition, he made no mention of either the potter or her work until the 1895 partial excavation of Sikyatki for the Bureau of American Ethnology. In his preliminary report, Fewkes commented: The best potter of the East mesa, an intelligent woman from Hano, named Nampio, acknowledged that her productions were far inferior to those of the women of Sikyatki, and she begged permission to copy some of the decorations for future inspiration. The sight of this dusky woman and her husband copying the designs of ancient ware and acknowledging their superiority was instructive in many ways (1896a:577). 104 This early reference to Nampeyo suggests detatched observation. Like Stephen, Fewkes viewed contemporary ceramics as inferior to those of the past. Indeed, his comment that Nampeyo acknowledged the inferiority of her own work in comparison to the vessels Fewkes was excavating, may indicate the potter's diplomacy in negotiating with Fewkes for permission to study his findings. While Nampeyo's motivations are as much a matter of speculation as Fewkes' it is not unreasonable to suggest that this encounter involved such strategic positioning on her part. Fewkes later recounted his meetings with Nampeyo, and made other comments about the potter, mainly in the form of ancedotes which appear from time to time in his scholarly reports. According to his recollection of the episode at the excavation site, both Nampeyo and her husband Lesou copied designs with borrowed pencil and paper, choosing from among the approximately 500 exhumed vessels (Fewkes 1896b: 159). Unlike Walter Hough of the Smithsonian Institution, who was present when Nampeyo and Lesou were copying designs, Fewkes demonstrated little enthusiasm for then-current ceramic practices. Indeed, it was Hough who openly expressed admiration for Nampeyo's work (1915; 1917), and in 1896 acquired several examples of Nampeyo's early "Revival" pieces for the United States National Museum. Describing her work as "full of promise", Hough commented that Nampeyo's pottery had "attained the quality of form, surface, fire change, and decoration of the ancient ware which gives it artistic standing" (Hough 105 1917:323). Hough was of the opinion that although Nampeyo's earlier work may have involved some copying of designs, it became increasingly innovative as she mastered the style that became known as "Sikyatki Revival". This recognition of a living Native artist, and the purchase of contemporary wares by a museum not only served Nampeyo, but contributed to the legitimization of contemporary Native art. In contrast to Hough, in his capacity as an archaeologist and ethnologist, Fewkes' interests were not at that time directed toward validating contemporary production, and there is no reason to expect that he should have done more to promote Nampeyo or contemporary Hopi ceramics. Indeed, as Hough described a later visit to First Mesa, Fewkes attended a Flute Ceremony at Walpi, at the same time that Hough had "an appointment to pry into the secrets of Nampeo, the potter" (1915:76). By 1898, Fewkes' neutral, almost disinterested attitude appears to shift toward disapproval. Although he did not mention Nampeyo by name, in a footnote to a paper entitled "Archaeological Expedition to Arizona in 1895", Fewkes issued a terse warning that "Since the beginning of my excavations at Sikyatki it has come to be a custom for the Hopi potters to dispose of, as Sikyatki ware, to unsuspecting white visitors, some of their modern objects of pottery. These fraudulent pieces are often very cleverly made" (1898:632). He made no mention here of the use of Sikyatki or other designs marketed simply as contemporary 106 ware. Later in the same paper, he implicated Nampeyo more directly in what he considered to be unethical conduct: The most expert potter at East Mesa is Nampeo, a Tanoan woman who is a thorough artist in her line of work. Finding a better market for ancient than for modern ware, she cleverly copies old decorations, and imitates the Sikyatki ware almost perfectly. She knows where the Sikyatki potters obtained their clay, and uses it in her work. Almost any Hopi who has a bowl to sell will say that it is ancient, and care must always be exercised in accepting such claims (1898:660). Some twenty years later, long after the Sikyatki Revival had been accepted as a vital movement in its own right, and Nampeyo was hailed by Euro-American museums and private collectors as its initiator, Fewkes still considered Nampeyo's work to be "clever copies" of Sikyatki ware. His attitude regarding the commercialization of Hopi pottery is also revealed in the paper "Designs on Prehistoric Hopi Pottery", published in 1919, the year after he was appointed director of the Smithsonian Institution's Bureau of American Ethnology. In this report, he refers to Nampeyo in both the introduction and in this passage: (in 1895)...there was a renaissance of old Sikyatki patterns, under the lead of Nampeo. In that year Nampeo visited the excavations at Sikyatki and made pencil copies of the designs on mortuary bowls. From that time all pottery manufactured by her was decorated with modified Sikyatki symbols, largely to meet the demand for this beautiful ancient ware. The extent of her work, for there was a large demand, may be judged by the great number of Hopi bowls displayed at every Harvey store from New Mexico to California. This modified Sikyatki ware, often sold by unscrupulous traders as ancient, is the fourth, or present, epoch of Hopi ceramics. These clever imitations, however, are not as fine as the productions of the second epoch. There is a danger that in a few years some of Nampeo's imitations will be regarded as ancient Hopi ware of the second epoch, and more or less confusion introduced by the difficulty in distinguishing her work from that obtained in the ruins (Fewkes 1919:218). 107 From this statement, it becomes clear the Fewkes was more concerned with archaeological considerations than with encouraging contemporary developments in Hopi pottery. Revivals were contrary to his aim of promoting the value of archaeology. From this academic perspective, he was suspicious of these new developments, and saw little scientific value in this "fourth epoch" of Hopi ceramics. In the conclusion of "Designs on Prehistoric Hopi Pottery", Fewkes asserts that Nampeyo began to incorporate Sikyatki designs as a result of his influence by stating that in 1895, the year of his excavation, "a return was suddenly made to the ancient type through the influence of Nampeo. At that date she began to cleverly imitate Sikyatki ware and abandoned de toto symbols introduced by Hano and other Tewa clans" (1919:279). "The origin of this transformation", he asserts: is partly due to the author, who in the year named was excavating the Sikyatki ruins and graves. Nampeo and her husband, Lesou, came to his camp, borrowed paper and pencil, and copied many of the ancient symbols found on the pottery vessels unearthed, and these she has reproduced on pottery of her own manufacture many times since that date (Fewkes 1919:279). This shift reflects Fewkes' ambivalent attitude toward the commercialism of contemporary Hopi ceramics. Clearly, his interests were focused on the impressive archaeological finds that were generating so much excitement among eastern institutions and wealthy private collectors alike. There is no evidence that Fewkes provided any form of encouragement, as he later suggested, beyond allowing Nampeyo access to the intact vessels being excavated at Sikyatki. His comments on the revival repeatedly demonstrate his resentment toward "unscrupulous" 108 traders and dealers, and of the commercialization of Hopi pottery, of which he was clearly and repeatedly critical: The modem pottery referred to is easily distinguished from the prehistoric, inasmuch as the modern is not made with as much care and attention to detail as the ancient. Also the surface of the modern pottery is coated with a thin slip which crackles in firing" (ibid.:279). Regardless of his motivations, however, readers became suddenly and profoundly aware of an individual, and "the Native artist", previously relegated to some unknown past era, was given a name. His brief comments on Nampeyo and contemporary Hopi pottery introduced her to a substantial number of eastern readers, and although his acknowledgement of her work was qualified by an open disapproval of commercialization, Nampeyo's reputation undoubtedly benefitted from his academic authority. Fewkes' later discussions, I would suggest, were not so much intended to assume a greater degree of recognition for supporting her, but were based upon his memories of her in response to a growing interest in contemporary Hopi pottery, it is not surprising that, as the leading authority on Hopi archaeological ceramics, Fewkes was expected to demonstrate equal expertise on the subject of contemporary productions. In addition to the direct effect such exposure had on her career, it contributed to a legend which continues to shape both popular and scholarly conceptions of Sikyatki Revival Ware. 109 However, while it is clear that Nampeyo received a considerable degree of recognition during her lifetime, most of the information appearing in literary accounts, beginning in the 1930s, relied heavily upon the fragmentary comments provided in Fewkes' archaeological reports. From dealer lore to academic studies, the story of Fewkes and Nampeyo was taken up and embellished as a means of fleshing out the paucity of biographical data available, which was transformed into a metanarrative of modernization. Even during her lifetime, at the same time Nampeyo was celebrated as a great "artist", she continued to be subordinated through the imaginary racialized and gendered artist/patron relationship with Fewkes. By the time of Fewkes' death in 1930, his name was inextricably linked to Nampeyo's. Perhaps because the first Pecos conference of 1927, and the concurrent triumph of relativism in anthropology undermined Fewkes' archaeological contributions, the value of his work began to rest more heavily on his relationship with Nampeyo. J. R. Swanton and F. H. Roberts wrote in an obituary of Fewkes that he had been responsible for "the beginnings of a renaissance in Hopi pottery making" and that his "encouragement and advice" to Nampeyo had brought her so much success that "other women turned to the ancient wares for their inspiration" (quoted in Frisbie 1973:239). These comments were the basis for further expansion of the Fewkes/Nampeyo story. A three-page essay published in 1936 by an anonymous author infers that Fewkes alone was 110 responsible for inspiring Nampeyo's use of Sikyatki designs. The following year, Virgil Hubert (1937:3) also referred to the Nampeyo-Fewkes story, suggesting that she was "no doubt" offered "considerable encouragement" from Fewkes. A contrasting aspect of Fewkes' treatment of contemporary ceramics recurs in his references to Nampeyo. He saw Nampeyo, the only contemporary potter to be mentioned repeatedly in his papers, not only as an individual of the twentieth century, but also as a living representation of her ancestors. In describing the influences of the seventeenth-century Tewa immigrants on Hopi ceramic styles, he stated "It began with the influx of Tanoan clans...being represented in modern times by the early creations of Hano women, like Nampeo."(1919:266). He continued this discussion of "the third epoch of Hopi pottery, commonly called modern Tewa and manufactured up to 1895" with another reference to "Nampeo, a Hano potter" (ibid.:275). Fewkes was clearly aware of Nampeyo's presence in the development of contemporary ceramics, but could not reconcile such a presence within the context of the evolutionary framework of the time. His only recourse, therefore, was to situate the potter and her work in some conceptualization of the past. Fewkes was important for the development of Hopi ceramics, but not for the reasons that have been historically ascribed to him. In order to maintain the construction of the Hopi as a conservative, unchanging people, the innovative 111 movement which came to be known as the "Sikyatki Revival" had to be credited to a Euro-American with academic authority. This conservatism had to be maintained in order to justify the the agenda of assimilation, in which Euro-Americans were to be the agents of change and advancement. The role ascribed to Fewkes in this new Hopi "tradition" was invented, as Stewart (1991) suggests, in order to maintain coherence in the ideology of assimilation. The earlier history of Keam indicates that the Revival had commenced before Fewkes' arrival in the vicinity. Fewkes' own writings reveal that while his presence had important ramifications, he cannot be credited with an intended influence on the Sikyatki Revival. Rather, he was influential in the academic legitimation that he provided to the ancient wares in which, much to Fewkes' consternation, the Hopi quickly saw the economic potential. Harvey Company, Grand Canyon The extent of her work, for which there was a considerable demand, may be judged by the great number of Hopi bowls displayed at every Harvey store from New Mexico to California (Fewkes 1919:218). The twentieth century witnessed marked changes in Euro-American perceptions of Native peoples. While Native peoples were still considered to be inevitably "vanishing", the settled "frontier" regions beckoned as never before. The phenomenon begun in the nineteenth century was expanded upon, with an ever-increasing interest in travelling to the West, and in exploring American heritage. Railway companies continued to capitalize on earlier ideas, exploiting 112 Native artists as a premier attraction. Advertising campaigns included detailed tourist brochures portraying Southwestern Natives as gentle savages, quaintly following ancient customs and producing traditional crafts. World's Fairs in the Midwest, in which Native peoples were exhibited in mock villages, following their daily routines, had invoked the interest of city-dwellers, the more adventurous and affluent of whom boarded trains heading to the West. Side trips, day excursions, and comfortable food and lodging ensured maximum comfort and exposure to Native communities, with a minimum of effort for the traveller. Among the first, and ultimately one of the most eminent entrepreneurs to recognize and profit from the development of tourism in the Southwest was Fred Harvey, who founded The Fred Harvey Company in 1876 to operate a chain of eating houses and later, dining cars, in conjunction with the Santa Fe Railway. Before Harvey's death in 1901, the company was beginning to investigate the possibility of dealing in Native crafts. The curio trade had become a lucrative business, and the Harvey Company's association with railway passengers afforded a singular opportunity to meet the demand for souvenirs. In 1899, Herbert Schweitzer, a former news agent who became head of Harvey's news department, began commissioning Navajo silver jewellery to suit the "lighter" tastes of tourists from eastern states (Harvey 1963:34). 113 Under the direction of Harvey's son-in-law, John Frederick Huckel, the "Fred Harvey Indian Department" was founded in 1902 -- the year Keam sold his trading post. Both Huckel and Schweizer were intensely committed to the promotion of Southwestern and other Native arts and crafts. On behalf of the Harvey Company, Schweizer diversified this rudimentary collection, and individual members of the Harvey family formed and contributed personal collections according to their own tastes and interests. While the vast majority of museums and private collections were located in the east, the major part of the Fred Harvey Collection, and later museum (initially called the "Indian Room"), remained in the Southwest. Also in 1902, Huckel hired architect-designer Mary E.J. Colter, who later incorporated objects from the collection into her architectural designs for Harvey Company hotels and other buildings, including Hopi House, a reconstructed Oraibi Pueblo dwelling, a short distance from the El Tovar Hotel at the Grand Canyon. Through their collections and displays in Harvey Company businesses, Huckel, Schweizer, and Colter became involved in a major promotion of Southwestern Native art. In 1904, the Harvey Company received an award at the St. Louis Exposition for its exhibit of Southwestern baskets and blankets, and when the popular El Tovar Hotel opened at the Grand Canyon in the same year, the display and sale of Native arts became a lucrative endeavor. According to a Harvey Company tourist brochure, the three-storied Hopi House, constructed by Hopi builders, was 114 conceived as a "miniature Indian pueblo", where Grand Canyon guests could observe: ...the most primitive Indians in America...Hopi men, women, and children...decorating exquisite pottery...spinning yarn and weaving squaw dresses, scarves, and blankets...making 'piki', twining the raven black hair of the 'manas' in big side whorls, smoking corn-cob pipes, building sacred altars, mending moccasins -- doing a hundred un-American things (Black 1909). The first floor consisted of showrooms in which tourists could purchase a wide variety of Native arts and crafts. Demonstrations by Hopi and Navajo potters, weavers, and jewellery-makers were held to educate and entice visitors. The second floor housed the permanent Harvey collections, shown by appointment only to selected guests, and the third floor provided accomodations for staff. Visiting Native artists and their families occupied quarters on the first and second floors. Although Huckel was the founder and supervisor of the Indian Department, Schweizer was the principal collector (Harvey 1981:7). Schweizer's attitude was puzzling to many dealers, and it appears that his instincts as a collector were in perpetual conflict with his interest in profit. Under Schweizer's direction, many objects which were considered to be rare or of particularly fine quality were not offered for sale, but were carefully stored in a vault. Schweizer acquired both individual objects and entire collections, most of which were from the Southwest, but which also included significant quantities of objects from the Plains, Northwest Coast, and Alaska. The collection received academic credence when George Dorsey, of the Field Museum, was hired to catalogue it. Schweizer consistently 115 opposed the sale of "his" collection, which he called "the reserves" (ibid.: 11), and argued at length with Huckel that these should remain intact. Apparently on the recommendation of the Navajo trading post operator Lorenzo Hubbell, who had purchased Keam's business in 1902, Nampeyo, accompanied by her family, was hired by the Harvey Company to demonstrate pottery techniques at the 1905 opening of Hopi House, and again in 1907. According to Barbara Kramer, whose source was the Fred Harvey Company correspondence in the Hubbell papers,33 Nampeyo's husband, Lesou, was hired to perform traditional Hopi dances (Kramer 1988:48). Other family members included Nampeyo and Lesou's eldest daughter Annie Healing, Nellie, Wesley, Fannie, and Annie's husband Willie and daughter Rachel. The circuitous journey from First Mesa to Grand Canyon included a wagon trip east from Keam's Canyon to another trading post owned by Hubbell in Ganado, where the group spent the night. The following morning, the wagon continued east to Gallup, where the group travelled on the Santa Fe Railway west to Williams. From Williams, they transferred to a spur line that ran north to the rim of Grand Canyon. In addition to their personal belongings for a three-month stay at Hopi House, the family carried all supplies necessary for Nampeyo's demonstrations, and Lesou's dance regalia. The agreement with the Harvey Special Collections, University of Arizona Library, Tucson. 116 Company included room and board, and payment for the items they produced in demonstrating at Hopi House. A photograph of the potter and her family was used in a promotional brochure for the Harvey Company, with the caption: These quaintly-garbed Indians on the housetop hail from Tewa, the home of Nampeyo, the most noted pottery-maker in all Hopiland. Perhaps you are so fortunate as to see Nampeyo herself (Simpson, quoted in Kramer 1988:49). When Nampeyo and Annie discovered they hadn't brought enough clay for three months' steady production, and rejected an offer of local materials, the Harvey Company had a quantity of First Mesa clay sent via the same lengthy wagon and rail route the family had taken (Kramer 1988:49). In her demonstrations, Nampeyo made an unusual series of round plaques, approximately fourteen or fifteen inches in diameter. Kramer (ibid.:49) speculates that the potters had trouble either with the clay, or with firing conditions, for several pieces were broken. The Harvey Company, however, seems to have taken an interest in these pieces, and two years later commissioned Nampeyo to make more of the plaques, with "her best old designs", as well as a series of ten-inch square plaques for the Company's new location at Ash Fork (ibid.:49). Since Nampeyo did not customarily sign her work, the Harvey Company placed small black and gold promotional stickers reading "Made by Nampeyo, Hopi" on all of the pieces to be sold to the public. This marketing strategy was particularly effective in familiarizing easterners with Nampeyo's name. Although 117 Nampeyo did not adopt this practice permanently, her daughters later began to sign their own work, as well as some of the pieces they co-produced with their mother. While the pottery sold well, Kramer reports that relations between Nampeyo's family and the Harvey Company were uneasy, and characterized by a series of misunderstandings. The family was unhappy in the foreign environment, and wanted to return to First Mesa earlier than planned to plant corn (Kramer 1988:50). Huckel, worried that Hopi House would be without craftspeople, wrote to Hubbell in a hasty attempt to find replacements, and to make arrangements for the Nampeyo family's journey home. The family nonetheless refused to wait for their replacements, and Huckel was left temporarily without Hopi demonstrators. According to subsequent correspondence, the Harvey Company was unimpressed with Nampeyo's "independance", and complained that the family was "spoiled" and "would do nothing unless paid for it" (ibid.:45). Despite this tension, the family was asked to return, and negotiations for another stay at Hopi House began almost immediately. According to an anecdote related by Hopi Edmund Nequatewa, Nampeyo cancelled her agreement on at least one occasion.34 Schweizer, who took over the negotiations in 1907, A transcript of this anecdote, narrated by Nequatewa in 1943, is in the library of the Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff. 118 requested a group of "men, few women, and no more children than absolutely necessary" (Kramer 1988:45), but Nampeyo's party was comprised of at least four men, three women, and seven children. Again, the family returned home early in April, due, they said, to illness at home, although the date suggests they had prepared this excuse in advance, and were once again leaving to plant their corn (ibid.). This exposure to the Euro-American public was perhaps the most significant promotion of Nampeyo's career. Tourists, collectors, and scholars increasingly sought Nampeyo out at First Mesa, and the demand for her pottery increased steadily. Her work was sold locally by Tom Pavatea in Polacca, Lorenzo Hubbell, Jr. in Keam's Canyon, and Don Lorenzo Hubbell, Sr. in Ganado. These traders also wholesaled large quantities to the Fred Harvey Company, and other merchants, who were not given permission to buy directly from the Hopi mesas until 1910 (Kramer 1988:50). Nampeyo's relationship with the Harvey Company provides a subtle example of the dialogic relationship, inherent in any dominant ideology, that makes it internally inconsistent (Eagleton 1991). In creating Hopi House, the Harvey Company was exploiting the construction of the Hopi as a primitive people, but in order to make the venture a commercial success, the company required the participation of real people. This requirement resulted in the transfer of a degree 119 of power to the Native people they employed, and the necessity to negotiate or acquiesce, in turn, to the needs of Nampeyo and her family to return home to plant their corn. At the same time, however, it cannot be denied that the Harvey Company did "intervene in the consciousness" (Eagleton 1991:45-46) of Nampeyo and her companions, who were obviously there for economic reasons introduced by Euro-Americans for their own dominant ideological needs and desires. It was also during this period that a new form of individuation was introduced to the Hopi, in the form of labels which the Harvey Company placed on each of Nampeyo's ceramic pieces, that later came to be accepted by First Mesa potters through the use of a personal mark or signature. In conclusion, the analysis of the roles played by Keam, Stephen, Fewkes and the Harvey Comapny shows that no individual can be given the honour of having inspired or created the Sikyatki Revival. It cannot be denied, however, that each of these individuals played a significant part in the process of developing the interest and market for the production of these ceramic objects. What analysis has revealed is that the Sikyatki Revival arose from a complex set of simultaneous agendas and actions derived from ideological positions based upon the social interests of both the dominant and subordinate parties and individuals involved. Keam, by working directly with the potters and setting up a trading post, acted as a liasion between Native producers and Euro-American consumers. Stephen assisted Keam in the above endeavours, but more importantly, he provided the 120 original texts that became the source for future constructions of Hopi society. Fewkes drew attention to the Hopi communities and provided the academic authority necessary for "serious" interest in contemporary and historic Hopi ceramics. Furthermore, by naming Nampeyo as a significant potter, Fewkes inadvertantly provided the first instance of a Western form of artistic individuation in the area of Hopi ceramics. Together, these actions contributed to the future narrativization of Nampeyo's life, and to the legend of the first "famous Hopi potter." Nampeyo's activities during the period discussed in this chapter is an example of "oppositional behaviour" (Chambers 1991), in that she did not challenge the power in place, nor did she openly question the constructions that were developed as to her Hopi lifestyle. However, she did make use of the circumstances that became available to her through the ideologically divergent activities of Euro-Americans. Even today, these circumstances have not lost their oppositional possibilites, as Nampeyo's descendants continue to capitalize on the constructions that have their roots in this earlier period. Chapter Five Nampeyo - Life and Myth 121 From the onset of her popularity in the 1890s, and beyond her death in 1942, Nampeyo's name was increasingly recognized in connection with Pueblo ceramics, and her work was sought by museums, private collectors, and the general public. Throughout this century, references to Nampeyo have appeared in academic studies, collectors' journals, and colourful accounts intended for casual readers, all of which are indicative of her appeal in relation to scholarship, connoisseurship, and popular culture. Indeed, the story of Nampeyo's involvement in the Sikyatki Revival, constructed as a renaissance of Hopi pottery-making, and her purported relationship with Fewkes, have become "common knowledge" to anyone interested in Pueblo ceramics. As we have seen, this seamless narrative has been subjected to questioning in recent years, revealing underlying currents and conflicting agendas of late nineteenth and early twentieth century Euro-American ideology. However, because a great deal of this material is now beyond the realm of verification, questions concerning which data is "true" or "false" are severely restricted. Rather than attempting to construct a "factual" biographical narrative and assessment of Nampeyo's contribution to the "Sikyatki Revival", this chapter will take the position that "although whichever propositions are true may depend on the data, the fact 122 that they are candidates for being true is a consequence of an historical event" (Hacking, quoted in Rabinow 1986:237). Interpretations and re-interpretations of the actions of those involved with the Sikyatki Revival are, as Brian Spooner points out, "a question of approach rather than documentation" (1986:211). On the subject of dealer lore and objects "divorced from their social context", Spooner writes: Our desire for authenticity prompts us to reconstruct that context. We do it mainly by seizing on the information that comes incidentally with them, which it must be said does serve our immediate purpose. But at the same time such information enables us to deceive ourselves about what we are doing; because of the inherent distortion and paucity of information, we are easily able to make it fit our needs, instead of being constrained to fit our ideas to the information (1986:199). It is necessary, then, to look at ways in which specific events were constructed and how they conflict in order to complicate our understanding of Nampeyo's career, and her participation in the Sikyatki Revival. Beginning with a close reading of these familiar texts, this chapter will analyse which particular information was selected as pertinent, and demonstrate ways in which this material was manipulated to cohere with ideological constructions of the "traditional" Hopi, as well as with the market-authenticating legend of Nampeyo. Biographical Narratives Despite Nampeyo's legendary status, very little biographical or documentary information was compiled during her lifetime. Instead, the majority of biographical data pertaining to her was pieced together in two obituaries published concurrently 123 in a 1943 issue of The Museum of Northern Arizona's publication Plateau - half a century after the central events occurred. The first of these tributes, a chronological narrative of Nampeyo's life, was related by Edmund Nequatewa, a Hopi employed at the Museum of Northern Arizona (Nequatewa 1943:40-42). The second took a more academic, interpretive approach, and was written by the Museum's founders and directors, Harold and Mary-Russell F. Colton (Colton and Colton 1943:43-45). Based upon popular lore, the recollections of First Mesa informants and a few brief references from various museum publications, this material provided the foundation for future studies. Little is known of Nampeyo's family history, however, and the reconstruction of her early years has been a subject of considerable speculation. In the following discussion, Nequatewa's biographical data, and the Colton's article which followed it in Plateau, will be compared with other supplementary references as a means of illuminating ways in which narratives of Nampeyo's life have been constructed. The Colton files at the Museum of Northern Arizona reveal that part of the impetus for writing these biographies came from outside sources. In a letter to Colton, dated October, 1942, Matthew W. Stirling, Chief of the Smithsonian Institution Bureau of Ethnology remarked on the brevity of an obituary published in The Masterkey. It seems to me that Nampeyo had become a sufficiently famous personage among Indians that her passing deserves a little more than a mere notice. In this connection I wondered if it might be a good idea for someone to obtain a fairly full account of her life while 124 the memory of her is still fresh and while she has relatives living...Her feat of reviving the ancient art styles and putting them into effect in the tribe was probably the first instance of the type of thing that is now becoming so popular as a movement among all Indian tribes...It occurred to me that if they have not already thought of doing so, someone in contact with the Hopi might be interested in doing this. Possibly Nequatewa would be a good one for the job. I have no other interest in this than that I felt it would be a ioss to posterity were it not done. Colton replied on October 28, that although Plateau had been in press at the time of Nampeyo's death, the Museum was planning "a short biographical note" for the January issue. Colton further stated: At your suggestion, I am sending Nequatewa out to First Mesa over the week end. He will interview her descendants, Fanny, Douglas' wife and Mrs. Healing. Mrs. Healing, her oldest daughter, ought to be able to give much information....As the revival of the older design proved financially profitable, she did all she could to perpetrate them and set the pace for a host of the other less talented. As Colton expressed it in a later letter, the information was intended to "form a basis for a more complete biography of Nampeyo at some later date" (letter from Colton to Stirling, dated November 25, 1942). Although some "factual" errors regarding what had previously been considered "common knowledge" were brought to light in the resulting accounts, a close reading of this material reveals numerous conflicts and inconsistencies. It is particularly significant that Nequatewa's text was heavily edited,35 probably by one A typewritten transcript of Nequatewa's original text, with extensive handwritten editorial comments, is in the library of the Museum of Northern Arizona. 125 or both of the authors of the second article, Harold S. and Mary-Russell F. Colton. This procedure was frequently employed in Nequatewa's numerous essays on the Hopi.36 Harold Colton explained this form of collaboration in Nequatewa's obituary: When he came to the Museum, he was writing down the clan stories his grandfather had told him and carried a little pocket dictionary to aid him in spelling English words. To speed up the process, the Museum staff came to his assistance and arranged to have him dictate the rest (Colton 1969:155). Stylistic shifts in Nequatewa's text do reveal considerable editorial influence. This is immediately demonstrated in an editorial footnote attached to the title, which states that information gathered from Nampeyo's "family and friends" by Nequatewa during "a special trip to Hano...is incorporated in this article" (Nequatewa 1943:40). Although a transcript of Nequatewa's original narration still exists, there is some indication that even this version was slightly altered. While it is not possible to determine the extent to which the Coltons influenced the types of questions Nequatewa asked at First Mesa, several considerations must be taken into account in reviewing the complexities of this material. It is reasonable to assume that in addition to the passage of time, individual agendas -- including possible variations in Hopi and Tewa interpretations, and the final editorial "filtering" of events and details would result in some degree of creative reconstruction. Furthermore, at the time these interviews were conducted, the in addition to numerous short papers, Nequatewa (ca. 1880-1969) authored Truth of a Hopi and Other Clan Stories of Shung-opovl, (Nequatewa 1936). Presented in a format similar to the essay on Nampeyo, this was edited by Mary-Russell F.Colton. 126 legend of Nampeyo was well established, and some of the information compiled by Nequatewa was undoubtedly influenced by this construction. Nequatewa's account, therefore, incorporates several Euro-American biases, and reflects a concerted effort to construct a seamless chronology from limited data. Nequatewa's narrative style is clearly conveyed in the opening paragraph of his published text: In the year of 1859 or 1860, a baby girl was born on First Mesa in the Village of Hano, to Qots-vema and Qotca-ka-o. Qots-vema was a member of the Snake Clan, so according to Hopi Indian customs, the grandmother of the child,the father's mother, named the little baby Tcu-mana (Snake Girl), but instead, her own people of Hano called her Nampeyo in their Tewa language, which means the same thing (Nequatewa 1943:40). The convoluted nature of the information is revealed in at least two passages, which suggest Nequatewa's perspective contrasts sharply with those of the editor. The first of these passages concerns Nampeyo's age -- a detail of considerable significance to the Euro-American audience. The voice of the editor is again heard in a second footnote, referring to a discussion which had taken place immediately following Nampeyo's death the year before. Indeed, a series of letters in the library of the Museum of Northern Arizona indicate that discussions regarding Nampeyo's age began at least as early as 1940. In a letter to Katherine Bartlett of the Museum of Northern Arizona, dated May 20, 1940, F.H. Douglas, director of the Denver Art Museum, referred to a photograph of Nampeyo taken in 1875 by William Henry Jackson (fig. 12) as a clue to her age, and added that C.S. 127 Thompson, who had worked for Keam between 1898 and 1901, remembered that at that time Nampeyo appeared to be between 35 and 40 years of age, and had "a grown daughter." Bartlett's response, dated May 19, 1940, expressed doubt: "...that would make her present age about 80, which I hardly believe is true -- for that is very old for a Hopi. She could be between 70 and 75." The debate continued. In another letter, addressed to Harold S. Colton, dated November 25, 1942, Stirling also referred to Jackson's photograph and Holmes' comments about Nampeyo, and concluded that the potter "must have been well over 90 years of age when she died." The issue continued to be debated in published form. In the brief Masterkey obituary published shortly after Nampeyo's death, anthropologist F.W. Hodge had estimated that the potter was approximately 75 years of age when she died (Hodge 1942:164). This was disputed by Douglas, who once again asserted that Jackson's 1875 photograph of Nampeyo indicated that she was, in fact, several years older (Douglas 1942:223). Colton finally settled on Douglas's estimated date, and referred to this in the footnote to Nequatewa's article. Establishing Nampeyo's age would later lend support to arguments that the Sikyatki Revival began at an earlier time - prior to extended Euro-American influence. Increasing the age of the potter enhanced the authenticity/antiquity, and therefore the value, of her pottery. 128 In another conflicted passage, Nequatewa clearly distinguishes between Hopi and Tewa ethnicity by referring to Nampeyo's "own people" and "their Tewa language" (Nequatewa 1943:40). Nequatewa's perception of Nampeyo as Tewa conflicts with the essay's title, "Nampeyo, Famous Hopi Potter". While Nequatewa makes this distinction clear at the onset of his article, the Euro-American construction of Nampeyo as a Hopi potter is evidenced by the conflation of Hopi and Tewa identities. The Colton's article, in contrast, is more carefully entitled "In Appreciation of The Art of Nampeyo and Her Influence on Hopi Pottery", but the text, although it mentions "Hano, her native village", makes no other direct reference to her Tewa background. Why was this distinction not made in the case of Nampeyo? The authors were certainly aware of the significance of this distinction in other aspects of Hopi and Tewa ethnicity. The origins of the Hano Tewa were well-known, as were cultural and linguistic differences between Hopi and Tewa peoples. Stylistic differences between Tewa and Hopi ceramics were also known, and were discussed by Fewkes and other scholars, including Colton (Bunzel 1929; Colton 1935). Yet even when Nampeyo's Tewa identity is referred to,37 she is still most often described as a Hopi potter. What motivated this distortion? 3 7 A s for example in Hodge's brief obituary in 77?© Masterkey, (1942:164) which states "Although often regarded as a Hopi because she was born and lived all of her long life in one of the Pueblos of Hopiland. Arizona, she was really a Tewa." 129 Perhaps the most straightforward response to this question is that Nampeyo worked in a ceramic style identified with the Hopi. To portray her as a Tewa potter working in a Hopi style raises several complex issues which could not be easily contained within the accepted relativist construction of ethnicity. The notion of an "outsider" initiating a renaissance of "authentic" Hopi pottery would seriously undermine the construction of the Hopi people as one of the most isolated and "pure" of all Native societies; nor were such ambiguities marketable in the curio trade, which relies on reductive constructions of ethnicity. It was therefore necessary to portray Nampeyo as a paragon of Hopi culture, a task that was not difficult to rationalize through Euro-American sensibilities: Nampeyo's father was Hopi, and in 1881, she married Lesou, a Hopi man from Walpi, with whom she had five or six children - although the couple lived in Hano, the marriage provided another link to a Hopi identity. Her home was on the Hopi Reservation, and she was closely identified with Fewkes, an anthropologist who was a leading authority on the Hopi people. Whether she considered herself to be Hopi or Tewa was lost in the midst of a desire to construct a popular image of "Hopiness" identifiable to a Euro-American market; hence she demonstrated at "Hopi House." Souvenirs must make a clear ethnographic reference, and the ambiguity of a Tewa producer of Hopi ceramics had to be erased in order to "authenticate" the pottery she produced. 130 Descriptions of Nampeyo The creation of Nampeyo's image is particularly evident in physical descriptions of the potter, who was portrayed as an idealized "Moqui princess". This construction may be seen in the earliest published reference to Nampeyo, which appeared in the October 1st, 1875 edition of The New York Times. Written by E.A. Barber, a naturalist and special correspondent to the Times who was accompanying a United States Geological Survey party, the article made no mention of Nampeyo's skills as a potter, but included a detailed description of "the modest and beautiful Num-pa-yu": ...She was of short stature and plump, but not unbecomingly so. Her eyes were almond shape, coal black, and possessed a voluptuous expression, which made them extremely fascinating. Her hair was arranged in that characteristic Oriental manner, peculiar to her tribe, which denoted her a maid. It was parted in the center, from the front all the way down behind, and put up at the sides in two large puffs, which although odd to us, nevertheless seemed to enhance her beauty. Her complexion was much lighter than that of her family, and every movement of her head or exquisitely molded hands and arms or bare little feet was one of faultless grace... (quoted in James 1974:198). Barber's lengthy description of Nampeyo's exotic, "Oriental" attractiveness connotes a fascination with the physical which, in the context of late nineteenth-century sensibilities, borders on erotica. While Barber's encounter with Nampeyo pre-dates her fame, his admiration of her physical attributes and "modest" demeanor are echoed, although for the most part less overtly, in several later accounts, in which the recognition of her skill as a potter is accompanied by descriptions of her beauty as a young woman. The emphasis on Nampeyo's 131 beauty and pleasant demeanor, for example, coincides with constructions of Hopi more than Tewa, thereby creating and promoting a persona which appeals to Euro-American sensibilities. The ambivalence of this characterization is exemplified in anthropologist Walter Hough's 1915 account of Nampeyo: Nampeyo is a remarkable woman. No feeling of her racial inferiority arises even on the first meeting with this Indian woman, bare-foot, bonnetless, and clad in her quaint costume. For Nampeyo is an artist-potter, the sole survivor in Hano of the generations of women artists who have deposited the product of their handicraft in the care of the dead (Hough 1915:76). Barber's 1875 description of such features as her "lighter complexion" and "voluptuous expression" were not only appealing, but would become part of a fabricated persona. Nampeyo was photographed on the same day by another member of the survey party, William Henry Jackson (fig. 12). According to M.W. Stirling of the Smithsonian Institution, the party was so taken with Nampeyo's beauty that Jackson painted her portrait in oils.38 Jackson's photographic image of Nampeyo, published in his 1877 Catalogue of Photographs of North American Indians describes "Num-payo. Harmless Snake" as "A comely maiden," and in a 1929 volume of photographs entitled Pioneer Photographerwould later help scholars to approximate her date of birth. Jackson's son wrote in 1947 that his father became aware of Nampeyo's growing fame as a potter in 1891, from a 3 8 Letter from M.W. Stirling to Harold S. Colton, dated November 25, 1942. Museum of Northern Arizona library. 132 conversation with "Navajo Jake", who related that Nampeyo was considered "the best pottery-maker among the Moqui (Hopi)" (Collins 1974:9). Although these references to Nampeyo construct her as a typical representation of Hopi ethnicity, in fact her visibility was derived, in part, from an early family distinction from other Hopis and Tewas. Nampeyo's brother, Tom Polacca, was a successful livestock owner, operated a store, and constructed a Western-style house at the government administrative settlement below First Mesa, which has become the town of Polacca. Euro-American visitors stayed with Polacca, and used him as a translator and informant. He also acted as a Hopi representative at important conferences, including a delegation of Hopi chiefs who travelled to Washington in 1890 (Dozier 1966:27;29). Like her brother, Nampeyo was perceived as a Hopi representative, despite the fact that both were "traditional Tewa". "The fame of these two" writes Dozier, "is due almost completely to their popularization by American friends" (ibid.:29). The Euro-American conflation of such distinct ethnic identities underscores the ambiguity of a "Moqui princess" who was also a "famous individual." This last construction of Nampeyo effectively disregards, negates, and finally absorbs her ethnic identity in order to make her conform to the romanticized Euro-American metanarrative of the Southwest. Euro-American erotic notions would also appear to inform Nequatewa's account of Nampeyo's first marriage, which reportedly took place in 1879, but 133 lasted only a short time (Nequatewa 1943:40). Her husband, Kwi-vio-ya, is said to have refused to live with her because he feared that some other man, attracted by her beauty, would "take her away from him" (ibid.). (In the draft version of Nequatewa's article, the editor added that Kwi-vio-ya was from Hano, but this information was not included in the published text). That such details were said to have been recalled after 64 years had passed suggests that Euro-American concerns of the earlier date were incorporated into a construction of Nampeyo that pre-dated her fame as a potter. Training The image of Nampeyo as Hopi was further advanced by emphasizing that as a child, she learned the techniques of pottery-making from her Hopi grandmother. According to Nequatewa, Nampeyo observed her grandmother and other Hopi potters working in the Polacca Polychrome style. Following Pueblo tradition, it would be assumed that she was encouraged to mold her own miniature pots in order to master the techniques of pottery-making, but not, in Nampeyo's case, under the watchful eye of her Tewa mother, who is seldom mentioned and never discussed in her biographies, or by other Tewa women, some of whom were presumably active in the production of the fine utilitarian vessels which the Tewa 134 were known to produce. Rather, all that is recorded of Nampeyo's training is that she learned with the instruction of her paternal Hopi grandmother.39 Although there are few biographical references to Tewa influences, it can be assumed that Nampeyo observed Tewa techniques, particularly since undecorated Tewa pottery was considered to be among the best of its type and desirable as an item of trade. Furthermore, the Zuni influences that had made their way into Hopi pottery designs during the droughts and epidemics which took place between 1820 and 1860 may have influenced her early work.40 This indicates that Nampeyo was exposed, from an early age, to several very different approaches to pottery-making. Although the Coltons mention Tewa utilitarian ware and "Zuni elements" (1943:43), these early Tewa and Zuni influences have been neglected, in part perhaps, because in later years, traders and collectors were not fond of the undecorated Tewa vessels, or the Zuni-influenced vessels. Another crucial issue, alluded to by the Coltons but left unreconciled, is revealed in the statement: "In 1892, even before the excavation of Sikyatki by Fewkes and Hough, she and her husband, Lesou, were gathering prehistoric pot sherds as inspirational material for her pottery work, thus laying the foundation for her future career" (ibid.). Despite the intriguing reference to the agency demonstrated by Nampeyo in her independent 3 9 Collins (1974:8) corroborates this view, stating that two of Nampeyo's daughters, Fannie and Nellie, informed him that their mother had learned from her Hopi grandmother. Stephen (1892) recorded only that she had learned to decorate pottery from the Hopi women (1936:1020). 4 0 Wade (1981:17) classifies Hopi pottery produced during this period as Polacca Polychrome Style B (1820-1860). 135 development of pre-Hispanic designs, neither the Euro-American public nor scholars have been particularly interested in her work prior to the "transition" date associated with Fewkes's excavation of 1895.41 This statement conflicts with Colton's earlier and clearly distorted comment that "I do not think the initiative came from her efforts, but from Drs. Fewkes and Hough" (letter from Colton to Stirling, dated November 25, 1942). The absence of known pre-Sikyatki Revival pieces is indicative of a desire to totalize a concept of "Hopiness" which of necessity must avoid dealing concretely with change among the supposedly changeless. Nampeyo's identity as a Hopi potter was further established by Nequatewa's informants, who reported that in addition to her own work, Nampeyo decorated her Hopi grandmother's pottery. As "a young maiden" she was described as having been "as good a potter as any in Walpi" (Nequatewa 1943:40). Her work, which was "among the best" and commanded "good prices" at the trading posts, was at this time, according to Nequatewa, in the style of "the old Hopi or Walpi designs, which she had learned from her grandmother" (ibid.) Not surprisingly, such reconstructions tend to emphasize that artists were always recognized as "the best" among their peers, and this was also the case in both popular and academic biographies of the San lldefonso potter Maria Martinez, and other prominent artists. 4 1 See MNA Museum Notes vol. no.1 1936:2 on Hano Ware: "these common utility vessels have never been considered by the traders to be of any commercial value". 136 It should be noted, however, that Stephen's journal entry of December 13, 1892, mentions a conversation with some Walpi women, who informed him that "the best potter in Walpi, or at least the best pottery decorator, the best painter" was a woman named Kwa chakwa. The women interviewed by Stephen did say that Nampeyo was "the exception" in Hano, because she had learned pottery-making from the Hopi women (Stephen 1936:1020). Transition to Sikyatki Revival Style at First Mesa During the decade following her marriage to Lesou in 1881, Nampeyo continued to produce ceramic vessels, and as we have seen, her work from this period, while virtually unknown today, was later presumed to be "outstanding" (Colton and Colton 1943:43). The central, and most problematic elements of Nampeyo's story begin in the mid 1890s. Fewkes' 1919 reports of Lesou and Nampeyo copying potsherds were perpetuated in both Nequatewa's and the Coltons' accounts of 1943. In the summer of 1895, according to both articles, Lesou had been one of twelve Hopis employed by Fewkes during his partial excavation of the village of Sikyatki, three miles from Hano. In contrast to the Colton's additional reference to Nampeyo's earlier experiments, Nequatewa states simply that "While helping there, excavating, Lesou became very much interested in the designs" and "thought that his wife surely would be interested too," and that: Lesou thought that if his wife used a different design on each jar that she made she might get more money for her pottery, so he used to go to Awatovi looking for more different kinds of designs, and he also 137 made some trips to Tsu-ku-vi (Tsukuvi), Pa-yup-ki (Payupki) and to many other ruins on the reservation (1943:41). Several points have been obscured in this version of events in order to maintain Fewkes' central role. There is nothing in Nequatewa's account, for example, to suggest that Nampeyo had used potsherds as design sources prior to Fewkes' arrival. However, in addition to the Colton's information, Stanislawski (1975:13) has documented ways in which broken pots and potsherds were used by the Hopi, and Wade and McChesney add that Jeddito, Payupki, and Sikyatki sherds, as well as forms, were commonly used as visual references: "The Hopi potter had an encyclopedic history of ceramics to draw upon - potsherds, heirloom vessels, trade wares - and she did so frequently" (1981:143). The popular assertion that Fewkes was responsible for initiating Nampeyo's use of pre-Hispanic designs is also contrary to Stephen's journal entry of January 9, 1893, two years before the Sikyatki excavation, in which he compares Nampeyo's skill with that of another potter, (referred to only as the wife of We he): She does not approach Numpeyo the distinguished Tewa potter in artistic skill. Her lines are very uneven and her designs lack symmetry. Like Numpeyo she tells me she makes her designs after some she has seen on ancient ware, but knows nothing of their significance (1936:130). Nequatewa's story infers that Nampeyo's experiments developed from fortuitous circumstances -- Fewkes' excavations and Lesou's initial help and 138 encouragement. Stirling,42 however, had provided Colton with a slightly different interpretation of these events, which were not included in Nequatewa's article: The general impression around here seems to be that Nampeyo got the idea herself of reviving the old pottery designs. According to the recollection of several present and former members of the Bureau group, Nampeyo came around to look at Fewkes' Sikyatki pottery, and after spending a considerable time studying the designs, asked permission to copy them and was furnished with a pencil and the necessary paper for so doing. This is probably a matter of not very much importance, the main fact being that she accomplished it. No doubt the ultimate success in completely changing the pottery-making art of the tribe came about as the result of the encouragement she received from interested whites and customers, (letter from M. W. Stirling to Harold S. Colton, dated November 25, 1942). While Fewkes' role was embellished and Nampeyo's activities marginalized in this account, Keam and Stephen were eliminated altogether. It is clear, however, that this omission was not the result of a forgotten relationship between Keam and Nampeyo. In 1940, Katherine Bartlett of the Museum of Northern Arizona received a letter from F.H. Douglas of the Denver Art Museum: Several days ago a man came to see me who had worked for Tom Keam between 1898 and 1901. His name is CM. Thompson. In the course of his visit he described how Nampeyo used to be in and out of the store. Despite these references, the commercial aspects of the Sikyatki Revival were avoided. Traders and financial motivations were not, apparently, considered to be important or desirable in creating a narrative of a great artist. Keam was not 4 2 All correspondence referred to in this section is from the library of the Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff. 139 mentioned by name in Nequatewa's article, and trading activities were kept vague. A brief reference to trading prior to the Sikyatki Revival was included in Nequatewa's article, which states: When the stores were established on the reservation by the white traders, she was doing a good deal of pottery work, so that when the stores began to trade for pottery, her work was among the best, and she was getting good prices. With high hopes she decided to do her best and to improve her work. Of course at that time she was still using the old Hopi or Walpi designs, which she had learned from her grandmother (1943:40). This passage, which suggests that stores were established in the vicinity only after the creation of the Hopi Reservation in 1882, effectively obscures Keam's earlier involvement with First Mesa potters. It also reinforces the notion that Nampeyo did not experiment with pre-Hispanic designs prior to Fewkes' arrival. No further reference was made to commercial activities until Fewkes' influence had been thoroughly established, and then only briefly: "This new type of design, of course, appealed to the traders very much" (ibid.:41). While some of these events, as described by Nequatewa, may have been accurate, others were marginalized or eliminated, and dates were reconstructed according to Fewkes' work at Sikyatki. Furthermore, since these events had to be manipulated in order to coincide with what had become "common knowledge" of Fewkes' "central role" in initiating a "revival", Keam and Stephen, whose activities with Nampeyo and other First Mesa potters had taken place earlier, were necessarily removed from the story. 140 In Nequatewa's chronology, then, Nampeyo's supposed activities become confused in establishing a relationship with Fewkes, revealing conflicts and inconsistencies which tend to be ignored. The term "Sikyatki Revival" had been coined specifically in relation to Fewkes' excavations at Sikyatki, and the effects of his alleged influence on Nampeyo.43 The association with Fewkes thus became a convenient reference point for descriptions and chronologies of Nampeyo's work, while at the same time, the assumption that the movement was derived from Euro-American influence and patronage could be advanced. Once this had been established, however, it was necessary to recover an aura of individual artistry for Nampeyo. Toward the end of the article, Nequatewa states, "her designs were not all Sikyatki, as so many people thought" and "it was Nampeyo and her husband Lesou who started this work" (ibid.:42). According to this questionable sequence of events, the Sikyatki Revival began with Fewkes' initial influence, Lesou's encouragement, and finally, to a less significant degree, with the enthusiasm expressed by unidentified "traders". Hidden Conflicts and the Creation of the Artist By the early years of the twentieth century, Nampeyo's reputation as a Hopi potter of distinction was growing, and the Sikyatki Revival was well established. The success of this new style was not without conflicts, however -- conflicts which were not recognized in Euro-American discourse until after Nampeyo's death, and See Hough, 1917. as yet, have not been fully addressed. Nequatewa reports that other First Mesa potters became jealous of Nampeyo's growing reputation with Euro-American collectors and in particular, of the resulting material benefits at the trading post. While this conflict was, according to Nequatewa's account, conveniently resolved when other potters adopted Nampeyo's techniques, it was also explained that the Hano potters were at a disadvantage during the initial stages of the transition: because the vessels they customarily produced were undecorated, their early efforts in painted designs were criticized by the Walpi potters, who found them to be clumsy and poorly executed (Stephen 1936:1020; Nequatewa 1943:41). The long-standing frictions between the Hopi and the Tewa, which may have provided further insight into this "jealousy," were never mentioned in discussions of Nampeyo, nor of First Mesa ceramic production, and the extent to which they affected relations between Hopi and Tewa potters is a matter of speculation. This conflict, which for the most part has been eliminated from popular stories of the potter, occasionally finds literary resolution with the report that Nampeyo generously instructed both Tewa and Hopi potters in her innovative painting techniques. However, while other potters were recognized for their abilities, they were never similarly promoted in the literature. As early as 1936, the Museum of Northern Arizona had published an article promoting Hopi pottery which asserted "Today there are many other fine potters whose work is quite as distinctive as Nampeyo's ever was and they should be recognized by those who 142 appreciate beautiful Indian work...many of these women have developed characteristic styles which are as easily recognized as the works of famous painters."(Colton 1936:2). Although the article named several artists, including those mentioned later by the Coltons in their 1943 tribute to Nampeyo,44 none had received recognition as Nampeyo had through her well-publicized association with Fewkes and her subsequent commercial interactions with traders, particularly the Fred Harvey Company, and none were described as "an artistic genius" (Douglas 1933). Thus, the singling out of the name "Nampeyo" continued, despite the Museum's efforts, to function as a synechdoche designed to retain the notion of "pure" ethnicity. The schism between commercial interests and the academic community, alluded to in Fewkes' reports but, until the inception of the Sikyatki Revival, otherwise omitted from academic writing, was of little concern to First Mesa producers. Regardless of the motivations of either traders or anthropologists, the economic prosperity of First Mesa was greatly enhanced as a result of Nampeyo's commercial recognition. Despite Fewkes' concerns, Nampeyo's popularity increased steadily towards the end of the nineteenth century. Her work, and her story, were promoted from both commercial and academic perspectives (and later, 4 4 The potters named were Sadie Adams, Poli, Tewanginema, and Paqua (Colton and Colton 1943:44). 143 at times, a combination of the two), which contributed significantly to her widespread recognition and popularity. Travel and Promot ion The first major promotion of Nampeyo to be mentioned by her biographers, apparently forgotten until after her death, suggests that while some effort was made to recover and document early events, the veracity of the resulting data is questionable. Nequatewa's article contained the information, obtained by Harold Colton from Herbert Schweizer of the Harvey Company, that "in 1898 through the efforts of Dr. G.A. Dorsey, then Curator of Anthropology at the Field Museum, and a missionary, H.R. Voth, the Santa Fe Railroad brought Nampeyo and her husband Lesou to Chicago, to make pottery at a Santa Fe Railway Exhibition held in the Coliseum" (Nequatewa 1943:42). In a letter to Colton, dated October 31, 1942,45 Schweizer stated that he remembered Nampeyo "very well" and that he had a large portrait of Lesou, "which was done by a Chicago artist at the same time." This early trip, however, has recently been disputed by Kramer (1988:47), who found no evidence of such an exhibition in Chicago in that year. Although it is possible from this information alone to suggest that promotional campaigns and media coverage of this early event were not yet fully developed, Kramer further 4 5 A copy of this letter can be found in the Colton Collection, library of the Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff. 144 asserts that Schweizer was not apparently employed by the Harvey Company until 1899 (ibid.). Perhaps Schweizer's recollections of events which had taken place nearly half a century earlier had become confused. While there is no reason to suggest that Colton intentionally manipulated this information, the assumption that Nampeyo was initially recognized and supported by the academic community is significantly altered. If, in fact, the 1898 Railway Exhibition did not exist, Nampeyo's first major promotion was not instigated by academic patrons. Rather, it was a trader, Don Lorenzo Hubbell, who purchased Keam's trading post in 1902, who was responsible for Nampeyo's first commercially motivated journey to the Harvey Company's Hopi House at Grand Canyon in 1904.46 Although she did not, as Nequatewa stated, demonstrate there "for one year", this was a significant step toward public recognition. As the Coltons expressed it, the Harvey Company became interested in Nampeyo through "the publicity that she received through Fewkes, Hough, Dorsey, and other eminent anthropologists", and subsequently "exploited her pottery and created an excellent market for her work" (1943:44). When she returned to Hopi House in 1907, Nequatewa reports, "her reputation was established and she was very well known to the outside public" (1943:42). This was clearly the case, since the Harvey Company printed brochures which not only 4 6 4 6 Nequatewa mentions Hubbell by name, but does not refer to him as a trader. See Nequatewa 1943:42. 145 mentioned Nampeyo by name, but included a photograph of the potter and her family at Hopi House (Kramer 1988:49). When Nampeyo and her family travelled to Chicago in 1910, her reputation preceded her. According to Kramer, Nampeyo and Lesou were the only Native artists mentioned by name in the newspaper account of the event. The Chicago Sunday Tribune reported in November of that year: Nampeyjo, squaw, regarded as the greatest maker of Indian pottery alive. She is frequently consulted by the eminent scientists of the country with reference to what she knows about pottery making (qtd. in Kramer 1988:51) After their participation in this exposition, Nampeyo and her family returned to First Mesa, and there is no record of further travel. Despite this withdrawal from the public eye Nampeyo remained a prominent figure. Her work appealed to a broad range of markets, selling locally in trading posts, and even from her home on First Mesa. Nevertheless, a relatively steady flow of visitors reached Nampeyo at First Mesa until tourism in the United States was abruptly halted with the onset of World War I. Because of Nampeyo's growing popularity, however, by that time Hopi pottery production had became associated exclusively with First Mesa (Bunzel 1929; Colton and Colton 1943). V i s i o n and Identity 146 Popular accounts following Nampeyo's Chicago trip of 1910 mention that her sight began to deteriorate. This issue has generated considerable discussion, which appears to have been manipulated according to varying interests. Nequatewa states only that "when Nampeyo's eyes had gone bad" Lesou painted her pottery until his death in 1932, and that "he was a good as his wife" (Nequatewa 1943:42). Numerous accounts published during the 1920s and 1930s indicate that scholars and tourists visited her at First Mesa, but documented few personal details. Several accounts estimate that the potter became totally blind between 1917 and 1920. According to Frisbie, the last publication to discuss Nampeyo's carreer without mentioning her blindness was written by Hough in 1917; Judd (1951:92) stated that when he visited her in 1920, she was nearly blind, if not completely so; and Bunzel commented that when she conducted several interviews with Nampeyo in 1924-25, the potter was totally blind (1929: 236). Collins, however, reports from interviews with her daughters that Nampeyo never completely lost her sight (1974:20). Other accounts, published after Lesou's death in 1932, do not mention his painting, and state only that one or more of their daughters took over the decorating. The Museum of Northern Arizona publication Museum Notes (Colton 1936:2) states of the aged Nampeyo in 1936, after Lesou's death, that: "Much pottery is still sold under her name, and though she does mould some of it, it is decorated by her daughter Fanny Polacca, who is a master artist like her mother". These disputes over Nampeyo's blindness are clearly related to the issue of painting her pottery. Such an issue arises when what is basically a 147 household-oriented production must be marketed under Euro-American constructions of the artist as individual. The problem of attribution arises from the same issue. Since Nampeyo's daughters had presumably learned from their mother, and were working in the same "Revival" style, often with more than one person involved in producing a piece, their work may be difficult to distinguish from Nampeyo's. From the family's perspective, however, the name "Nampeyo" simply guaranteed a higher income, and it was therefore in their best interests to so present any work they produced. Thus, it may be suggested that a vessel purchased by the Museum of Northern Arizona in 1934, signed "Nampeyo-Fannie", which Collins (1974:21) interprets as an indication that Nampeyo was still working at this time, is perhaps more significant in that it indicates the family's recognition of the value of the Nampeyo name. Reports of Lesou's participation also generate questions of authenticity. It is generally assumed that during the 1880s, men did not participate in pottery production, and there is no documentation of exactly how or when Lesou came to acquire this skill. Mary-Russell Colton wrote that "The men are the weavers, the moccasin makers.and the jewelers; the women are the potters and the basket makers" (1930a). Based upon these assumptions, it is difficult to place Lesou's role in popular lore. Although he accompanied Nampeyo when she demonstrated 148 pottery-making at various locations, he was promoted as a dancer, and not as a potter (Kramer 1988:49). Kramer speculates, therefore, that he was less involved in pottery production than is usually asserted (personal communication: 1991). Another interpretation suggests that Pueblo sentiments regarding the division of labour may have caused men to be somewhat reticent in discussing their participation in pottery-making, and that prior to 1900, few Puebloans acknowledged that men participated at all (Batkin 1987:20). This situation is further complicated by Euro-American ideology, which categorized ceramics as "women's art", and because of this assumption did not examine men's roles in pottery production prior to this time. Lesou, however, was not reported to have made pots, but only to have painted them, and since painting is understood by Euro-Americans as "men's art", his participation in pottery production becomes somewhat more acceptable to the Euro-American audience. In following decades, such partnerships became commonplace, especially, for example, that of Maria and Julian Martinez of San lldefonso, beginning in 1917. Since there are no early references to Lesou's involvement in pottery painting, it may be suggested that the well-known and highly popular Martinez partnership was later used as a model for the construction of a similar relationship between Lesou and Nampeyo. 149 There is also some ambiguity regarding the current use of Nampeyo's name. In accordance with the Euro-American convention, the census of 1937 listed "Nampeyo" as the potter's given name; her surname reads "Lesso" (Hutton 1937:101). Sikorski (1968:22) wrote that her name was "Sadie Nampeyo", but no such reference is found in other discussions of the potter. The market value of the Nampeyo name must have been clear to the family, and "Nampeyo" was used by her daughters as a surname. Today, the name is immediately recognized in connection with the most highly valued Hopi pottery, and several members of the Nampeyo family have achieved national and international recognition as artists. The use of the Nampeyo name has led to conflicts regarding names, particularly relating to the rights to designs. The animosity generated by such claims continues to be an issue with First Mesa potters (Eaton, Linda B. personal communication, 1991), and the Nampeyo family has apparently taken steps to deal with this situation. Collins (1974:12) reports that an elderly relative informed him that Lesou obtained permission from the oldest member of the Coyote Clan, who had rights to Sikyatki, for Fewkes to excavate there, and for Nampeyo to copy the designs. This, it is explained, is how Nampeyo acquired "rights" to the designs for her own use. Collins further reports that: One of Nampeyo's granddaughters says that the designs that she and the other Nampeyo descendants use are theirs and not free to be used by others. They have established a kind of copyright by publishing in the papers that these designs are theirs and not to be used by others (ibid.: 12). 150 While this explanation provides an interesting justification for the Nampeyo family, it certainly is not indicative of Nampeyo's supposed generosity in sharing designs with other First Mesa potters. Were the original reports of such cooperation between Hopi and Tewa potters fabricated, or has this situation arisen in recent years? Whatever the case, ceramic "tradition" has clearly undergone considerable change in adapting to Euro-American socio-economic conditions and ideological expectations in the twentieth century. The 1920s - Anthropologists and Marketing By the 1920s, the concept of Hopi "art pottery" was well established. The Museum of Northern Arizona, founded by Harold S. and Mary-Russell F. Colton, based a great deal of its early collection on the work of Nampeyo and other contemporary potters, much of which was purchased by Mary-Russell Colton. The Museum refused, however, the "pretty little candlesticks, flower baskets, etc." of the curio trade, which Colton felt were "only half Indian" (M. Colton 1930b:2). These were also marginalized by Bunzel, whose 1924 text provided a benchmark for defining "authenticity" in Pueblo ceramic production. The Museum of Northern Arizona employed a strategy termed by David E. Whisnant as "systematic cultural intervention", in which "someone (or some institution) consciously and programmatically takes action within a culture with the intent of affecting it in some specific way that the intervenor thinks desirable" 151 (1983:13). This form of "intervention" was conceived by Mary-Russell Colton, who had trained as an artist, and was Curator of Art and Ethnology at the Museum. Her immediate concern was with what she perceived to be "the dying traditional arts and crafts of the Hopi people" (Eaton n.d.:4). Colton's approach involved strategies for preservation, as well as "the goal of positively affecting the acculturative process for Native Americans." While Wade perceives the Coltons' actions as "the most vigorous campaign waged against the traders" (1985:180), Linda B. Eaton of the Museum of Northern Arizona, who has written of the history of the Museum, asserts that their idea was to both "save and improve" Hopi art forms, and to "encourage innovation with traditional Hopi designs in new media and materials" (ibid.:5). According to Eaton, Colton took a practical approach, recognizing the importance of the market, and writing extensively for a variety of newspapers and magazines, as well as in the Museum of Northern Arizona's publication Museum Notes. Under the Coltons' direction, the Museum established the first annual sales exhibition in Flagstaff, called "The Hopi Craftsman," in 1930. This exhibition, which has been held annually, except for a brief hiatus during World War II, epitomizes the ambivalence of Euro-American perceptions of the Hopi as unchanging, while incorporating notions of individuality and innovation in art. As a direct result of Nampeyo's popularity, the market for pottery and other Hopi products as aesthetic objects for sale to outsiders had long since been established. From this 152 perspective, the Museum had had little involvement in or control over items produced for popular consumption. New trading posts had opened at First and Third Mesas between 1900 and 1915, and the steady increase in tourism ensured a thriving market. It was noted, however, that quality had declined as potters struggled to keep up with the demand. Bunzel put much of the blame on Tom Pavatea, himself a Hopi, who operated the trading post in Polacca. Pavatea, she charged, would purchase anything offered, and throw away the worst (Bunzel 1929:56-57). The Hopi Craftsman exhibit was Colton's way of establishing what she considered to be high standards of quality by awarding cash prizes for the "best" pieces. In an article promoting the first of these annual exhibits, Mary-Russell Colton wrote: The Indian artist must find it worth his while to produce a superior article of artistic value. He is keenly aware of artistic quality. It is the Museum's aim to put the craftsman in touch with a public which will appreciate an always limited supply of rare American handicraft (Colton 1930a:24). This situation was presumably faced by Nampeyo as well as her contemporaries: as the demand for her pottery increased, she began to make smaller pieces in larger quantities, and family members became closely involved in assisting her in various aspects of pottery production (Kramer 1988:50). Because they were producing for a variety of markets, from the curio trade to museum collections, quality varied considerably, and Nampeyo's characteristic style was undoubtedly obscured at times by hasty production. This makes it nearly impossible to identify a potentially large body of her work, which tends to be 153 ignored in any event as irrelevant by scholars and collectors, who are typically interested only in "museum quality" or "fine art" pieces. This attitude is apparent in Bunzel's statement "she made no worthless trifles", but only "dignified pieces in the best traditional style" (Bunzel 1929:68). Mary-Russell Colton also stated that "There may be a small exhibit of antique Hopi goods whose revival the Museum wishes to encourage" (M. Colton, quoted in Eaton:9). Such statements have elicited criticism from contemporary scholars, who find Colton's patronage a reflection of Euro-American dominance and market control (Wyckoff 1983; Wade 1985). However, Eaton points out that while Colton "pounded home to the public the eminently marketable theme of Hopi conservatism in arts and crafts, she exerted a steady pressure toward the change she saw as needed to build a corpus of art salable to American consumers" (Eaton n.d.: 35). Thus, although the Coltons did not apparently set out to reward or especially encourage works in the Nampeyo style, Eaton points out that: Nampeyo's name stands out primarily because it was with her that the reclassification of Hopi pottery from "craft" to "art" in the minds of outsiders seems to have begun, and it is in and by her family that the classification has been most consistently maintained...it is rare to find a living descendant of Nampeyo who does not somehow incorporate the name "Nampeyo" into a pottery signature (ibid.:6). The Museum also encouraged potters to "put his or her mark or name on every piece of their work" (M. Colton 1931:8-9). Such a notion of individual identity and self-promotion was foreign to the potters, and the practice was slow to be taken 154 up. Although small stickers, printed by the Harvey Company for Nampeyo's demonstrations at Hopi House, had been affixed to the pottery she made there, signatures did not become widespread until the time of Maria Martinez of San lldefonso. Clearly, the name "Nampeyo" was enough to guarantee the sale of a piece. However, although the use of an individual name as a marketing strategy was not unfamiliar to the Nampeyo family, they were not the first potters at First Mesa to sign or mark their products. Prior to the first Hopi Craftsman Exhibition in 1930, at least four potters were identifying their work: Paqua Naha, Sadie Adams, Zella Cheeda, and Hattie Carl (Stanislawski, Hitchcock, and Stanislawski 1976:56-57). Bartlett notes, however, that in general, potters did not immediately adopt the practice (1977:17). Indeed, a 1976 study showed that of a miminun of 250 potters working between 1930 - 1976, only 33, or 13 percent, identified their work in some way, and that in 1976, fewer than half of the potters were doing so (Stanislawski, Hitchcock, and Stanislawski 1976:57). Numerous popular and scholarly references to Nampeyo were published during the final decade of her life, indicating that people continued to seek her out on First Mesa, but the majority of these reports were focused on her early career, and in particular, on her association with Fewkes. The familiar stories of Nampeyo's skill and innovation, revolving around Fewkes and his excavation of Sikyatki, were repeated and embellished, and while Nampeyo remained a legendary figure, nothing new was added, and no further "landmark events" were 155 reported. Her later years, like her early ones, have become a matter of considerable speculation. Long before her death on July 20, 1942, the legend, it seems, had been developed to everyone's satisfaction. Conclusion The ideological shift in constructions of America's Native peoples which took place in the late nineteenth century is exemplified by constructions of Nampeyo. How could a member of a "primitive" people be viewed as an artist on a par with those of the "civilized" Western world? One possible explanation that could overcome this ideological conundrum is that Nampeyo was an exception. But even as an exception, and presented as the founder of an art movement, Nampeyo's achievements were qualified by asserting that she was guided by Euro-Americans who commissioned, suggested, or in other ways influenced her aesthetic choices. Nampeyo, as the subordinate member in a colonial relationship, could not be characterized as an independent innovator. The most significant example of this was the purported relationship between Nampeyo and Fewkes. Fewkes has been characterized as the source of inspiration for Nampeyo's work, and is also seen as having lent a paternal eye that guided her in her choices of design. The commercial aspect of her career was virtually eliminated from this academic lore, while the description of her as an artist was kept vague. She was constructed as a Hopi potter, and in popular accounts, was perceived as one of the 156 best examples of this "pure" ethnic group. Outside influences, including those of other Native groups, were down-played to create a neat picture of "Hopiness" which could be related to notions of authenticity. However, that any degree of recognition was given to a Native individual reflects a subtle shift in perceptions. The construction of Nampeyo as an artist and an individual reflected a changing ideology -- an ideology that reluctantly recognized the agency of the Hopi people and their ability to manipulate the circumstances within which they were forced to operate. Nampeyo conceived of survival tactics on Euro-American terms by developing an art form which was simultaneously acceptable by internal standards. This suggests that Nampeyo was finding "room for maneuver" in her relations with other Tewa, and with the Hopi, as well as with Euro-Americans. Clearly, Nampeyo lived during a time of tremendous upheaval in Pueblo society. The Hopi and Tewa were forced to adjust to changes brought about by increasing numbers of Euro-Americans: from trading posts, tourists, settlers, and a cash economy, to anthropologists and government officials -- all of which represented a plethora of conficting agendas. It was, perhaps, this struggle for dominance between various interest groups that afforded individuals such as Nampeyo the opportunity to enact survival strategies which would ultimately affect the ideological stances of all involved. 157 As demonstrated in this discussion of Nampeyo, despite an abundance of popular and academic literature, reliable data relating to her life and the context in which she worked is sketchy, and many well-known "facts" are questionable. It is necessary to analyze not only what is left out of these historical constructions, which can be very revealing in themselves, but also ways in which information is manipulated according to an author's ideology and personal agenda. As we have seen, the story of Nampeyo and the Sikyatki Revival was fashioned from changes in these ideologies and personal agendas, which were subtly embellished over time. Fewkes* evaluation of Nampeyo's ceramic style, for example, although it has continued to influence analyses of her work, was not shared by many of his contemporaries. In Hough's view, after some initial copying, Nampeyo's work was evocative rather than imitative, and eventually came to reflect a conceptual mastery of the original Sikyatki style. Bunzel concurred with the latter part of this assessment, stating that "she did not copy Sikyatki patterns, her imagination recreated the Sikyatki sense of forms" (1929:88), and that "There is no doubt that it was Nampeyo and not the traders and ethnologists who was responsible for the revival of the Sikyatki style". Such interpretations were not readily incorporated into an established view of Nampeyo until after her death in 1942. In his earlier correspondence with Stirling, Harold Colton had privately expressed skepticism regarding Nampeyo's role in initiating the "revival". A short time later, however, in published form, the 158 Coltons also rejected the notion of direct or literal copying, and offered a similar interpretation of Nampeyo's use of prehistoric designs: Nampeyo in her early days, may have made replicas of Sikyatki pottery, though this is extremely doubtful, as the Indian artist rarely makes an exact copy. However, it is certain that the vessels that came on the market were not mere copies but had a living quality of their own. She caught the spirit of the old Sikyatki potters and used her own rare good taste in making compositional arrangement (Colton and Colton 1943:44). The problematic representation of Nampeyo as a Hopi potter, if dealt with at all, is rationalized with misleading statements such as "the Hopi-Tewa have learned pottery making techniques from the Hopi, and now make pottery in styles that are indistinguishable" (Stanislawski and Stanislawski 1974:5). The elision of Hopi and Tewa identities has become increasingly commonplace, as in descriptions of Nampeyo as "Hopi-Tewa" -- a categorical impossibility in the minds of the people being described. While many aspects of the originally strict separation between the Hopi and Tewa at First Mesa have lessened over time, ethnic distinctions have been maintained. Although, as Dozier suggests, Nampeyo contributed significantly to Hopi and Tewa integration, by Pueblo standards, she remained a member of a minority group, and therefore faced the task of gaining both Hopi and Euro-American approval. Following this interpretation of Hopi and Tewa relations, Nampeyo may be viewed as possessing, from her background and privileged social environment at Hano and Polacca, an ability to deal assertively with Euro-Americans not shared by 159 her Hopi contemporaries. Such assertiveness was not referred to in early biographical accounts of Nampeyo, and even today this aspect of the potter's personality is seldom developed, perhaps because it tends to cloud the legend. Rather than developing Nampeyo's "independence" authors tend to favour a portrayal of her as "gracious and quiet in temperament, unable to read, write or speak English but always willing to demonstrate her craft and pose for photographs" (Kramer 1988:47). One final point must be made. Although Nampeyo has become the icon of twentieth century Hopi ceramics, she was not the only potter involved in the development of the Sikyatki Revival. It was through the skillful use of her name and position that other potters were also able to enter into a new economic sphere. These other individuals were not publicly "jealous" of the construction of Nampeyo as a singular innovator, and did not, to any great extent, try to individuate themselves by marking their work until the 1960s (Stanislawski and Stanislawski 1976). The potters recognized the value in not disrupting the Euro-American construction of the Hopi, to the extent that a mass move towards artist individuation might make them appear to be departing from their ethnic identity. At the same time that this failure to adopt the Euro-American construction of individuality served economic ends, it also helped to maintain internal constructions of ethnicity. It was not until the valorization of Native ethnicity, beginning in the 160 1960s, that the practice of marking ceramics became widespread once other Hopi cultural practices were no longer threatened from outside. In re-viewing the story of Nampeyo and the Sikyatki Revival through the actions and agendas of various individuals and institutions, this study has attempted to reveal some of the ways in which historical constructions are a product of ever-changing ideologies. That Nampeyo's own views were never recorded has ultimately contributed to the "inherent distortion" of contextual reconstructions of her "story," allowing us to select the information we consider pertinent and "make it fit our needs, instead of being constrained to fit our ideas to the information" (Spooner 1986:199). While many of the questions raised here will find no clear "factual" answers, they have been posed as a means of exploring the multi-layered historical constructions which have been drawn together to form the legend of the "first famous Hopi potter". 161 Figure 12. Nampeyo, 1875. Photograph by William Henry Jackson. (From Pioneer Photographer. William Henry Jackson. 1929. New York: World Book Company). 162 Figure 13. Nampeyo, 1900. Photograph by Edward S. Curtis. 163 Figure 14. Sikyatki Revival Style jar, by Nampeyo, circa 1901. (From Harmony By Hand: Art of the Southwest Indians. P. Houlihan et al. 1987. San Francisco:Chronicle Books). 164 Figure 15. Sikyatki Revival Style bowl, by Nampeyo, circa 1900. (From Beauty From the Earth: Pueblo Indian Pottery from the University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. J.J. Brody 1990. Philadelphia:The University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology). 165 Figure 16. Sikyatki Revival Style jar, by Nampeyo, circa 1910. (From The Arts of the North American Indian: Native Traditions in Evolution. E Wade, ed. 1986. Tulsa: Hudson Hills Press). 166 Figure 17. Sikyatki Revival Style jar, by Nampeyo, circa 1910-1915. (From Museum of New Mexico, Santa Fe. Cat. # 18838). 167 Figure 18. Sikyatki Revival Style jar, by Nampeyo, circa 1910-1920. (From the collection of the School of American Research, Santa Fe, New Mexico). 168 Figure 19. Sikyatki Revival Style jar, by Nampeyo, circa 1915. (From the collection of the School of American Research, Santa Fe, New Mexico). 169 Bibl iography Adams, E. Charles. 1989. "Western Anasazi and Western Pueblo Ceremonial Architecture: Contrasting Patterns in Form and Function A.D. 1000 to A.D. 1500" In Seasons of the Kachina: Proceedings of the California State University, Hayward Conferences on the Western Pueblos, Sylvia Brakke Vane and Lowell John Bean, eds. pp.41-50. Hayward: Ballena Press/California State University. Allen, Laura Graves. 1984. Contemporary Hopi Pottery. Flagstaff: Museum of Northern Arizona. Ambler, J. Richard. 1977. The Anasazi: Prehistoric People of the Four Corners Region. Flagstaff: Museum of Northern Arizona. Anonymous. 1931. "The Hopi Craftsman." The Masterkey. 5 (3):87. Los Angeles: The Southwest Museum. 1936. "How to Appreciate Hopi Handicrafts." Museum Notes 9 (1):2. Flagstaff: Museum of Northern Arizona. n.d. Hopi: The Story of Our People. Hopi Tribal Council, Arizona. Appadurai, Arjun ed. 1986. The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bancroft, Hubert Howe. 1889. History of Arizona and New Mexico 1530-1888. San Francisco: The History Company. Bartlett, Katharine. 1934. "Spanish Contacts with the Hopi, 1540-1823." Museum Notes 6 (12):55-59. Flagstaff: Museum of Northern Arizona. 1977. "A History of Hopi Pottery" Plateau 49 (3):2-13. Flagstaff: Museum of Northern Arizona. Batkin, Jonathan. 1987. Pottery of the Pueblos of New Mexico: 1700-1940. Colorado Springs: The Taylor Museum of the Colorado Springs Fine Arts Center. 170 Benedict, Ruth. 1989 (1934). Patterns of Culture. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Berkhofer, Robert F. 1978. The White Man's Indian: Images of the American Indian from Columbus to the Present. New York: Random House. Berlo, Janet Catherine, ed. 1992. The Early Years of Native American Art History. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Black, W.J. 1909. Hotel El Tovar: Historical Review, Grand Canyon of Arizona. New York: Norman Pierce Company. Bourke, John G. 1984 (1884). 777© Snake Dance of the Moquis of Arizona: Being a Narrative of a Journey from Santa Fe, New Mexico, to the Villages of the Moqui Indians of Arizona. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Brew, John 0. 1949. "The Excavation of Franciscan Awatovi." Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Papers 36. Cambridge: Harvard University. Brew, John 0. and John Tilton Hack. 1939. "Prehistoric Use of Coal by Indians of Northern Arizona." Plateau 12 (1):8-14. Flagstaff: Museum of Northern Arizona. Brody, J.J. 1971. Indian Painters and White Patrons. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. 1976. "The Creative Consumer: Survival, Revival, and Invention in Southwest Indian Arts." In Ethnic and Tourist Arts. Nelson Graburn, ed. pp.70-84. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1990. Beauty From the Earth: Pueblo Indian Pottery From the University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. Bunzel, Ruth L. 1972 (1929). The Pueblo Potter: A Study of Creative Imagination in Primitive Art. New York: Dover. 171 1929-30. Introduction to Zuni Ceremonialism. 47th Annual Report. Bureau of American Ethnology. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Chambers, Ross. 1991. Room for Maneuver: Reading (the) Oppositional (in) Narrative. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Clifford, James. 1988. The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth-Century Ethnography, Literature, and Art. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Collins, John E. 1974. Nampeyo, Hopi Potter; Her Artistry and Her Legacy. Fullerton: Muckenthaler Cultural Center. Colton, Harold S. 1935. "Stages in Northern Arizona Prehistory" Museum Notes 8 (1):1-7. Flagstaff: Museum of Northern Arizona. 1936. "Hopi Coal Mines" Museum Notes 8 (12):59-61. Flagstaff: Museum of Northern Arizona. 1939. "Primitive Pottery Firing Methods" Museum Notes 11 (10):63-66. Flagstaff: Museum of Northern Arizona. 1955-58. "Pottery Types of the Southwest" Museum of Northern Arizona Ceramics Series. Nos.3A-3D. Flagstaff: Museum of Northern Arizona. 1969. Untitled, Obituary for Edmund Nequatewa. Plateau 41 (4): 155. Flagstaff: Museum of Northern Arizona. Colton, Mary-Russell F. 1930a."The Hopi Craftsman." Museum Notes 3 (1) Flagstaff: Museum of Northern Arizona. 1930b. Untitled Press Release for Hopi Craftsman Exhibition. On file at Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff, Arizona. 1931. "How to Run an Indian Arts Exhibition." On file at the Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff, Arizona. Colton, Mary-Russell F. and Harold S. Colton. 172 1943. "An Appreciation of the Art of Nampeyo and Her Influence on Hopi Pottery." Plateau 15 (3):43-45. Flagstaff: Museum of Northern Arizona. Comaroff, John and Jean Comaroff. 1992. Ethnography and the Historical Imagination. Boulder: Westview Press. Conkey, Margaret W., and Christine A. Hastrof, eds. 1990. The Uses of Style in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cordell, Linda S. 1984. Prehistory of the Southwest. San Diego: Academic Press. 1989. "Hopi Prehistory: Overview and Issues" In Seasons of the Kachina: Proceedings of the California State University, Hayward Conferences on the Western Pueblos, 1987-1988, Sylvia Brakke Vane and Lowell John Bean, eds. pp. 1-16. Hayward: Ballena Press/California State University. Courlander, Harold. 1972. The Fourth World of the Hopis. New York: Crown Publishers, Inc. Deitch, Lewis I. 1989. "The Impact of Tourism on the Arts and Crafts of the Indians of the Southwestern United States." In Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism. Valene L. Smith, ed. pp.223-236. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Dippie, Brian W. 1982. The Vanishing American: White Attitudes and U.S. Indian Policy. Middletown, Conn.: Wesleyan University Press. Dittert, Alfred E. and Fred Plog. 1980. Generations in Clay: Pueblo Pottery of the American Southwest. Northland Press. Dockstader, Frederick J. 1961. Indian Art in America: The Arts and Crafts of the North American Indian. Greenwich, Connecticut: New York Graphic Society. Donaldson, Thomas. 1893. "Moqui Pueblo Indians of Arizona and Pueblo Indians of New Mexico." In Extra Census Bulletin: Moqui Pueblo Indians of Arizona and Pueblo Indians of New Mexico, Eleventh Census of the United States. Washington, D.C.: United States Census Printing Office. 173 Douglas, F.H. 1933. Hopi Pottery. Pasadena: Esto Publishing Company. 1942. "The Age of Nampeyo the Potter" The Masterkey 16 (6):223. Los Angeles: The Southwest Museum. Dozier, Edward P. 1966. Hano: A Tewa Community in Arizona. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 1970. The Pueblo Indians of North America. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Dunn, Dorothy. 1968. American Indian Painting of the Southwest and Plains Area. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Eagleton, Terry. 1991. Ideology: An Introduction. London: Verso. Eaton, Linda B. n.d. (1991). "The Hopi Craftsman Exhibition and the Creation of the Art of the 'Other'." On file at the Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff, Arizona. Eggan, Fred. 1950. Social Organization of the Western Pueblos. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1989. "Great Basin Models For Hopi Institutions" In Seasons of the Kachina: Proceedings of the California State University, Hayward Conferences on the Western Pueblos, Sylvia Brakke Vane and Lowell John Bean, eds. pp. 17-40. Hayward:Ballena Press/California State University. Euler, Robert C , and Henry F. Dobyns. 1971. The Hopi People. Phoenix: Indian Tribal Series. Fane, Diana. 1991. "The Southwest" In Objects and Others: American Indian Art at the Brooklyn Museum. Diana Fane, Ira Jacknis, and Lise M. Breen. pp.45-161. Brooklyn: University of Washington Press. Fewkes, Jesse Walter 1896a. "Preliminary Account of an Expedition to the Cliff Villages of the Red Rock Country and the Tusayan Ruins of Sikyatki and Awatobi, Arizona in 174 1895." pp.557-588. Smithsonian Institution Annual Report for 1895. Washington: Smithsonian Institution. 1896b. "The Prehistoric Culture of Tusayan." American Anthropologist. 9:151-173. 1898. "Archaeological Expedition to Arizona in 1895." 17th Annual Report. pp. 519-744. Washington: Bureau of American Ethnology. 1919. "Designs on Pre-Historic Hopi Pottery." Thirty-third Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution 1911-12. pp.207-284. Washington: Government Printing Office. Frazier.Kendrick. 1986. People of Chaco: A Canyon and Its Culture. New York: W.W. Norton and Company. Frisbie, Theodore R. 1973. "The Influence of J. Walter Fewkes on Nampeyo: Fact or Fancy?" In The Changing Ways of Southwestern Indians: A Historic Perspective. Albert H. Schroeder, ed. pp.231-244. Glorieta: The Rio Grande Press, Inc. Graburn, Nelson H.H., ed. 1976. Ethnic and Tourist Arts: Culture Expressions from the Fourth World. Berkeley: University of California Press. Hackett, Charles Wilson. 1937. Histohcal Documents Relating to New Mexico, Nueva Vizcaya, and Approaches Thereto, to 1773. Publication 330, vol.3. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington. Hammond, George Peter, and Agapito Rey. 1929. Expedition into New Mexico made by Antonio de Espejo, 1582-1583; as revealed in the journal of Diego Perez de Luxan. Los Angeles: Quivira Society. Hanson, Allan. 1989. "The Making of the Maori: Culture Invention and Its Logic." American Anthropologist 91:890-902. Hargrave, Lyndon L. 175 1931. "First Mesa" Museum Notes 3 (8): 1-7. Flagstaff: Museum of Northern Arizona. 1932. "Oraibi: A Brief History of the Oldest Inhabited Town in the United States" Museum Notes 4 (7): 1-8. Flagstaff: Museum of Northern Arizona. Hargrave, Lyndon L. and Harold S.Colton. 1935. "What Do Potsherds Tell Us?" Museum Notes 7 (12):49-51. Flagstaff: Museum of Northern Arizona. Harlow, Francis H. 1978. An Introduction to Hopi Pottery. Flagstaff: Museum of Northern Arizona. Harvey, Byron. 1963. "The Fred Harvey Collection, 1889-1963." Plateau 36 (2):33-53. Flagstaff: Museum of Northern Arizona. 1981. "The Fred Harvey Company Collects Indian Art." Phoenix: Heard Museum. Hinsley, Curtis M. 1981. Savages and Scientists: The Smithsonian Institution and the Development of American Anthropology 1846-1910. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. Hobsbawm, Eric. 1983. "Introduction: Inventing Traditions." In, The Invention of Tradition. Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger, eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-14. Hodge, F.W. 1904. "Hopi Pottery Fired With Coal." American Anthropologist n.s. 6 (4): 581-2. Hodge, F.W. 1942. "Death of Nampeyo." The Masterkey 16 (5): 164. Los Angeles: The Southwest Museum. Holmes, Henry H. 1886. Origin and Development of Form and Ornament in Ceramic Art. Fourth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology. Washington: United States Government Printing Office. 176 Hough, Walter. 1915. The Hopi Indians. Cedar Rapids, Iowa: the Torch Press. 1917. "A Revival of the Ancient Hopi Pottery Art." American Anthropologist, n.s., 19 (2):322. Hubert, Virgil. 1937. "An Introduction to Hopi Pottery Design." Museum of Northern Arizona, Museum Notes. 10(1): 1-4. Flagstaff: Museum of Northern Arizona. Hughes, J. Donald. 1978. In the House of Stone and Light. Denver: University of Denver. 1937. Indian Census Roll: Hopi Reservation, as of December 31, 1937. Jackson, W.H. 1877. Descriptive Catalogue of Photographs of North American Indians. Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey of the Territories. Miscelaneous Publications, No. 9. Washington: Government Printing Office. Jackson, W.H., and Howard Driggs. 1929. Pioneer Photographer. New York: World Book Company. James, George Wharton. 1904. The Indians of the Painted Desert Region: Hopis, Navajoes, Wallapais, Havasupais. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company. James, Harry C. 1974. Pages From Hopi History. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press. John, Elizabeth A. H. 1975. Storms Brewed in Other Men's Worlds: The Confrontation of Indians, Spanish,and French in the Southwest, 1540-1795. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Judd, Neil M. 1967. The Bureau of American Ethnology: A Partial History. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. 1951. "Nampeyo, An Additional Note." Plateau 24 (2):92-93. Flagstaff: Museum of Northern Arizona. 177 Kramer, Barbara. 1988. "Nampeyo, Hopi House, and the Chicago Land Show." American Indian Art Magazine. 14 (1):46-53. Lavie, Smadar, Kirin Narayan, and Renato Rosaldo, eds. 1993. Creativity / Anthropology. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Linne, Sigvald. 1946. "Prehistoric and Modern Hopi Pottery" In Ethnos 1 (2):89-98. Lowell, Susan, and Diane Boyer. 1989. "Trading Post Honeymoon: The 1895 Diary of Emma Walmisley Sykes" In The Journal of Arizona History. Malone, Michael P. and Richard W. Etulain. 1989. The American West: A Twentieth Century History. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. McCoy, Ronald. 1985. "Nampeyo: Giving the Indian Artist a Name" In Indian Lives: Essays on Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century Native American Leaders. L.G. Moses and Raymond Wilson, eds. pp.43-60. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. McNitt, Frank. 1962. The Indian Traders. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Montgomery, Ross, G., Watson Smith and John O. Brew. 1949. "Franciscan Awatovi: The Excavation and Conjectural Reconstruction of a 17th Century Spanish Mission Establishment at a Hopi Town in Northeastern Arizona." In Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Vol. 36. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Nequatewa, Edmund. 1936. "Truth of a Hopi and Other Clan Stories of Shung-Opovi." Mary-Russell F.Colton, ed. Museum of Northern Arizona, Bulletin no.8. Flagstaff: Northern Arizona Society of Science and Art. 1943. "Nampeyo, Famous Hopi Potter (1859? To 1942)." Plateau, 15 (3):40-42. Flagstaff: Museum of Northern Arizona. Parsons, Elsie Clews, ed. 178 1936. Hopi Journal of Alexander M. Stephen. New York: Columbia University Press. Peckham, Stewart. 1990. From This Earth: the Ancient Art of Pueblo Pottery. Santa Fe: Museum of New Mexico Press. Phillips, Ruth B. 1989. "What Is 'Huron Art' ?: Native American Art and The New Art History." The Canadian Journal of Native Studies, 9 (2): 161-186. Rabinow, Paul. 1986. "Representations Are Social Facts: Modernity and Post-Modernity in Anthropology." In, Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography, Clifford and Marcus eds. pp.234-61. Berkeley: University of California Press. Reed, Erik, K. 1952. "The Tewa Indians of Hopi Country" In Plateau 25(1): 11-18. Flagstaff: Museum of Northern Arizona. Rice, Prudence M. 1986. Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ridge, Martin. 1991. "Frederick Jackson Turner and His Ghost: The Writing of Western History." In Writing the History of the American West. Ridge et al, eds. WorcestenAmerican Antiquarian Society. Rosaldo, Renato, Smadar Lavie, and Kirin Narayan. 1993. "Introduction: Creativity in Anthropology." In, Creativity/Anthropology. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Rushforth, Scott, and Steadman Upham. 1992. A Hopi Social History: Anthropological Perspectives on Sociocultural Persistence and Change. Austin: University of Texas Press. Said, Edward. 1978. Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books. Sando, Joe S. 1979. "The Pueblo Revolt." In Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 9, The Southwest, Alphonso Ortiz, ed. pp. 194-197. Washington D.C.:United States Government Printing Office. 179 1982. Nee Hemish: A History of Jemez Pueblo. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. 1992. Pueblo Nations: Eight Centuries of Pueblo Indian History. Santa Fe: Clear Light Publishers. Schrader, Robert Fay. 1983. The Indian Arts and Crafts Board. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Scully, Vincent. 1972. Pueblo/Mountain, Village, Dance. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Seymour, Flora Warren. 1941. Indian Agents of the Old Frontier. New York:D. Appleton-Century Company. Shepard, Anna O. 1974. (1956) Ceramics For the Archaeologist. Publication 609. Washington: Carnegie Institution. Sikorski, Katherine A. 1968. Modern Hopi Pottery. Logan: Utah State University Press. Smith, Valene L., ed. 1989. Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Spicer, Edward H. 1962. Cycles of Conquest: The Impact of Spain, Mexico, and the United States on the Indians of the Southwest, 1533-1960. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press. Spooner, Brian. 1986. "Weavers and Dealers: The Authenticity of an Oriental Carpet." In, The Social Life of Things. Arjun Appadurai ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stanislawski, Michael, B. and Barbara B. Stanislawski. 1974. "Hopi and Hopi-Tewa Ceramic Traditions." Paper presented at 73rd Annual American Anthropological Association Meeting, November 21, Mexico City. 180 1975. "Ethnoarchaeology of Hopi and Hopi-Tewa Pottery Making: Styles of Learning." Plateau 42 (1):27-33. Flagstaff: Museum of Northern Arizona. Stanislawski, Michael, B., Ann Hitchcock and Barbara B. Stanislawski. 1976. "Identification Marks on Hopi and Hopi-Tewa Pottery." Plateau. 48(3-4):47-66. Flagstaff: Museum of Northern Arizona. Stanislawski, Michael B. 1979. "Hopi-Tewa." In Handbook of North American Indians. Alfonso Ortiz, ed. Smithsonian Institution. 9:587-602 Stephen, Alexander M. 1936. Hopi Journal. Elsie Clews Parsons, ed. 2 vols. New York: Columbia University Press. n.d. (1885-1890). Catalogue of Keam's Canon Collection of Relics of the Ancient Builders of the Southwestern Table Lands. Unpublished manuscript, Peabody Museum Archives. Stewart, Susan. 1991. "Notes on Distressed Genres." Journal of American Folklore, 104: 5-31. Thomas, Nicholas. 1992. "The Inversion of Tradition." American Ethnologist, 19 (2): 213-32. Truettner, William H., et al. 1986. Art in New Mexico,1900-1945. New York: Abbeville Press. Turner, Frederick Jackson. 1893 (1990). "The significance of the frontier in American history." In The Significance of the Frontier in American History. Harold P. Simpson, ed. New York: Continuum. Underhill, Ruth. 1944. Pueblo Crafts. Phoenix: Education Division, U.S. Indian Service. Van Valkenburgh, Richard 1946. "Tom Keam, Friend of the Moqui." The Desert Magazine. 9 (9):9-12. Voth, Henry R. 1905. "Traditions of the Hopi" In Anthropological Series 8, Publication 96. Chicago: Field Columbian Museum. 181 Wade, Edwin L. 1974. "Change and Development in the Southwestern Indian Art Market," In Exploration 1974, David Grant Noble, ed. pp.16-21. Santa Fe: School of American Research. 1980. "The Thomas Keam Collection of Hopi Pottery: A New Typology" American Indian Art Magazine 5 (3):54-61. 1985. "The Ethnic Art Market in the American Southwest: 1880-1980." In Objects and Others: Essays on Museums and Material Culture, George W. Stock Jr., ed. pp. 167-191. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Wade, Edwin L, and Lea S. McChesney. 1980. America's Great Lost Expedition: The Thomas Keam Collection of Hopi Pottery from the Second Hemenway Expedition, 1890-1894. Phoenix: Heard Museum. 1981. Historic Hopi Ceramics: The Thomas V. Keam Collection of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Peabody Museum Press. Waldman, Carl. 1985. Atlas of the North American Indian. New York: Facts on File Publications. Walker, Willard, and Lydia L. Wyckoff, eds. 1983. Hopis, Tewas, and The American Road. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Waters, Frank. 1963. Book of the Hopi. New York: Viking Press. Whisnant, David E. 1983. All That is Native and Fine: The Politics of Culture in an American Region. Chapel Hill and London: The University of North Carolina Press. Whitely, Peter M. 1988. Deliberate Acts: Changing Hopi Culture Through the Oraibi Split. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press. Winship, George Parker. 182 1896. "The Coronado Expedition, 1540-1542: Translation of the Narrative of Castaneda." pp.470-546. Fourteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution,1892-93, part I. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. Wright, Barton. 1979. Hopi Material Culture: Artifacts Gathered by H.R. Voth in the Fred Harvey Collection. Flagstaff: Northland Press, and The Heard Museum, Phoenix. 1986. "Pueblo Cultures." Iconography of Religions: Section X: North America. Th. P. van Baaren et al., eds. Groningen: Institute of Religious Iconography: State University, Gronigen. Wyckoff, Lydia L. 1983. "The Sikyatki Revival." In, Hopis, Tewas, and the American Road, Walker & Wyckoff, eds., pp. 67-94. 1985. Designs and Factions: Politics, Religion, and Ceramics on the Hopi Third Mesa. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Fine Arts
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
For non-commercial purposes only, such as research, private study and education. Additional conditions apply, see Terms of Use https://open.library.ubc.ca/terms_of_use.
Graduate
Nampeyo and the Sikyatki Revival : Creating a legend with Hopi ceramics
Text