The Early years of Native American art history: the politics of scholarship and collecting 9780295972022

Table of contents :
Frontmatter
Preface (page ix)
Chapter One Introduction: The Formative Years of Native American Art History (Janet Catherine Berlo, page 1)
Chapter Two Franz Boas, John Swanton, and the New Haida Sculpture at the American Museum of Natural History (Aldona Jonaitis, page 22)
Chapter Three New Questions for "Old Things": The Brooklyn Museum's Zuni Collection (Diana Fane, page 62)
Chapter Four Louisa Keyser and the Cohns: Mythmaking and Basket Making in the American West (Marvin Cohodas, page 88)
Chapter Five "The Artist Himself": The Salish Basketry Monograph and the Beginnings of a Boasian Paradigm (Ira Jacknis, page 134)
Chapter Six Lila Morris O'Neale: Ethnoaesthetics and the Yurok-Karok Basket Weavers of Northwestern California (Margot Blum Schevill, page 162)
Chapter Seven Marketing the Affinity of the Primitive and the Modern: René d'Harnoncourt and "Indian Art of the United States" (W. Jackson Rushing, page 191)
Contributors (page 237)
Index (page 239)

Citation preview

THE EARLY YEARS

OF NATIVE AMERICAN ART HISTORY:

THE POLITICS OF SCHOLARSHIP | AND COLLECTING

THE POLITICS OF

SCHOLARSHIP AND

COLLECTING

Edited by Janet Catherine Berlo

A McLellan Book

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON PRESS

SEATTLE AND LONDON

UBC PRESS VANCOUVER

atlve

> a, f

History ’“?4

amoo ———— > ;.A>j a2.7 eS . ° 8 — =—vre ———— .

a—© Zz *, es. a ar np SS ee Gs sigs =a

.. oe He De Na Gy epeirrias BATES LB ES a Se ne Peek ORG CRA IOS a . Ch oT

- a - a | — . a. a . co |

LOOSE eGMe VOTa SS es ES ou UESoea Ce . : ae: Seana esear es ee cl aoe ce Sh ie CO a FOIN SUTOON CTE OSE SSH Oa a Oe Oa ee A eS ed Bice Reeeer ... sels eee ieGas ae SN) ie SRG OCACO at Oe

ee EG ee LN OCWONG Ss AN ec Snes gta ae eeaeaues iy SEL as EG von a aa eeDON BORE OHRearRave OeyeONG RNOOPAs a Desiae POROUS ee og eee Pe. SER ‘ i as*Ia, : BONS NOTING NCESe ee PO 24 OAS a a cg

Da a ASEGee Aa Ea, seMecoperene. itaG DANG OeVUES uh : i a el Ss a caneGHiEO aeSAN aE IN Oa Uae Oe rN Se a LARS OR ENG ne CMTS REE nee e a Ce es LUO CARSA OO . . a. . : | TR 1 . Avon C i . cae a oe i. i ae RGSS Se Seay CO Sey OeOAR CRON3)BOARS ROC OUORCAS Se Retin oo ey a . NS ee ee ae TMi Gee ee hanes Ceo) TS aS aaa Reh an ER any De ah ET aa GR Daas Tea DE Mt Ge es SO UN ee ONG ee ae ORO T ORR ON NORMA EAN ei ue nee: Ree noni Pees Cy

Bea Oe:aeaSEEN ER ee ee CEN Re Ce Be ROR OIE eee Saa,UD Rae ou Voag Soe ONG Ns a aeA oeiOC ue aE Sea Se POSNite sens eae Ans ee oanECS | a en aR a een4 De ONees eae POM OSESSe os EG Se OR AGOe seOn ae IEO PUA Oe ERNE es CO

ANA oa ee_ORS PS UG NORE Cae A) se RS ee Se a.| TUES aNOy DSMY een as: oe oo ooNUR _ oo oo) Feae. eee CDnen LENO i oy ae acas To SSoo WRN ea ERO |ee ae ae a a oo a :Ly oo aiN oF CO one ueeeayCa a ahaSIRs CO CC pesso IEEE ee Y MaBe FT ROG aah Oy ees ESSE GG BOE C8 RTA ON HEHE MI Re) AR ae FRAO SG GEA eae as Maca ZA Go) LEUNG A ee Aa a Sa OU ayes ie aN One MNii: . a a a _ a .

ee A ee | _ a le oo. oo oe. a | oe ae a. . oo a c. Gg oo ioo. aoe .a.oe oo iOe asae oe a. Ce neoo . |a i a|oe a.aeoo. ee oeoe llay Loe ee ee oe|. es oo .. oe a | |.eeaeee ae >. ) a oo oe a ee Co Ce-.Ce i aoeOR «esoo. .CSONIN! — me iaoo aeee OO aOe ak ee ee a... . cooe Ne as ll cs oa Lea Lee = oo aaLae Co DN nen i. a.up . oe oe CO aoe VO ey CeOe aLe aS Ok ae a| :_a| oe oe a... elA. aan) Oe a.aLe oa a. aa oo oes aOe Ve oes oo ae ee oe Wy i. a ae LOO aoo a oooe ce .a. oo oe oT Or ee CS GAIA iCD See aie a ae ae es ae a |Oe . _. a |Ce _)CC oo oe a Fh fo. oC a ee ee oo ee ee Oe ee a TE a 7. oo a. Rn Se aa FEO aae aoe OO SEGy DON VOOR SS Sr USE. eon:ee OI eseee Ge .. aOme a ie oe LAE BST CO oo a oe a.as ee ee os oe ooaoe Oe a. Ca eea |Pea8oe7.... a . a oe — a L oo Uhm ie oe eo hl Ca. ee a a Ce a co co) oo i Co Oe os ea a es Ce a eee Le a HOR ae Os ae a pee a ae AEROS NG Oey a OS ve ey Oy oo es ai or oe | oe a i oo” : oo YE oo oo a aoeoC yak aa... : eC i oy ee ..oooea oo . oe . a || Ee Pe SG ee YONG oe oe Case Se Da HINTON TORS See an DN coe OTE i oe Tee scans DER ine This: TON SHE COM INT Ag ee ea A I na CROSSE

. : y et ( ae CO I GNG i ee ea eg aly Se Ene Tee a TaN EEO INE DONE RV OS? ns OMENS Oe Cn SME NER ORG Gs CO oo

a / coe ay aEU iene eG PAIS Ce ne Ae vain! ae NaSoa ERSG AUPe EOOS ui SO OO Oe CRAs iors SO cy) RE cy ee aUS PeROG OORT! Po aa EO eeSie eee eaeLU FOS OMCEOS en OS ncrann Oe es heoo ORO eh SHR IGaUy Mieaiag: 7 WN asSEE OM iene) INR aay FN CEN Be POM Oe TO Dee UE eeses BREN ESR INR OE EeOV NOTRE Ln Sy, SeLO II SE

ae SEN aeae oo es, eG sven OL NG:heoS ER PAO oe SACO ON Ne TOS Peal ee aaaas SSAC! oo : |... Oe oo eyeeasaesEUaietaeoy oeOeoo — oeee— a ae . aoo a. Ce oo ee FEO SOOO SON Ce. Cw ON oo Read RONRealy ey OG Soe ieoe CT ROCA RCOOe HRS WAAR a AG: Oe CO aN

he NaN RG SC aS Catal Ree Ge ony TR ES OSs ad ee ae sy es an SANS hae LE AGS aa ae a UN EG a NER eG a , SNe Moen | te

_|. 7.oe ...

SRBARSS: eis SOR a) nah ae DRE I ee FUSING es SSE ak PRN EE Aaa GG eH My a Rea RS HE aN a Lv a Oa ee Ra OS MOSSE a oH oe SONG Ce owe OT aneeth esOT GNFOES Ne OVE ae oy BS CO hy aaia LUN OC RNG |NY a, NG as oo Ane aS Te PeSC LO aa ee OR . a a es COG ay ST SHOR OEae aeeOn OO te OOO Rae aeoN HE UT, ae oo al pe Isbin PAM Te Ca ae INGEN BUSY ORa) RORY Le oy)Oe OOLOGOS ORE CAN Sete SHOU OU HBS ray mR ea A ene nine SE aa eeCo ae a . a a

8oo ee ewe OEE) oS a: ee ee eeee CHO NRG :oo aaCae CeGese Aes RRSN GT ON Oeee DN Pa eu RRR rane: ara eka ia Teee et a eae MC DOORS Ose LOA aNe TON CU ENING re| |... -a ee aa Oe ies) DO Uae OOO OE IRR Cr aoeuy aTONG ey oo atas Le ae ae as a,Oe ne es CC ieaCOIN Oe :es CO oeaSa ME OG OR oe a oo a aay oeoe oo oo. -NITORU Co .aoneal 7ooTooaains aa a. |... Oe aOoooeeAGED aaaeee CON a... .... CO es FO RSNN Cee RSSaneRG SU, ee OUoo eaMe Syaye oe SOC Ca ace ooee| oe aaLeg oe eG Eg RENE EO Oe NN OnRae Ta OSM: ue ae a OTR i Lae

7|HItII

F Boas Fj gure ranZ bo1858-1942). (

American Museum of Nat Natural Histor y, 2A

J itis

. | a os 0 . amAoo. : | a . oo oo. ,oe | .ame7noe:.yeoF ae oF a Me anee on ve .onmG a : me pe Ca a i /oe .a.uooS hs ne .oe oF. ee a ._.! a:aos ae Co MP .‘Ce|:a,Ue:ue:i _. |. :ae -oeaaco . .:So|oe. ne : ooo

. 7a ae ) - L. et Ue oo oe a hateae a a ey oC we : Nay, ys -

oo Pe i. | aaeySo aae. oF “a ne a: ae a ee oe Me : ce iy

ee ss RONG a a Gy s ‘ RK . aX La ‘ -i aLaasewy : Oe. NK Ce a oy ::x ROK a ae Wane

aa77;a oe . a ~9 ;: ,| : :. :. ae _: |co | i.:6.-4: oF oe oe.. .ae a-oo oe aaooae ao: oo :Ny y.aeee .Oe aoe a7We ee say ae oo oy ..7oe aa Oo ueue _|aes oaoe oo oo 1ee7: a|Doe _:ne Go oS oe a ee a oe ci a .:oo2 a a a Le . i — ee oo :ia Ce _. OA oy as sania a a oe ae oe ‘ oo 0 oo a — ce a) a — ae a .a,Z co ave aae. 4oo .8ae :aaeoo oo we :|.iaay Oe ots |aooNe o oe co oo a . ce Deo ses Roe ae ee ee aiM oe a5ia-“ ae. 4.|ta'i:e:|Na “i|oo. :4:3|: . . oo oo, a ee a Bay .yA:a:|30|.aiooS ne ne i . ee ee Sy a a a te os a oe :-aaS an a oy a a a ee co ce Ne aL a oy ae ne oo a ae i oea i“ ae Ue y oe oe) a we oe A oF CG ee oe a ee a: aeie er oe alaaCe eeen Loe seBe ae_)‘i):.ae;'ie ::

. eo oe —_— a yi ta,a oo a_.Su tae ey . ,a_:._:| :: :oo 7 _ oo ce . on, ::. # : . vg oS os : a a am ) : | oo . oo oT oo ; ‘ | | i ax},.a : oo) a a a ae — : , | 2 2 : ; ‘ile a a |. . g , ; 3 : ) aiuae -1a _7 a2ico a— ‘ a. oe Me ie— oa oe By Oe x0eas ee | : : 22aa ooaae oei7 Lee ae He ie Mea -aame a nasSe_ cooo i ;Ke . ae : os Le ybe ]:ee Co .oe ee aaee :ae oo eo ie eal ee iG a:| a|:a: aae :ae aoe aae aeeoe ce We :.oe nioe ue oe .of ioe ae a— ee ae Le oe ie oe on er;es ae coe aoeers. aie8Co.see ses. :ooe /.oe _.37ay aaP| ae |uit |-ae ce 2.aeee oo ee awe ee ceiC -ae _::os._ ::oo ::oo oe .ls oo aoe ee ee oN coe Se oe _oo a% i.er ie oe ok a:::ae i“a a Ey B oe a oe . . ee : oo a = oe ee : ee Be ae a _ a. @ i. . ie oes ae he ee a ee aE — oo Gy — .“S oo Ceo Ao cae ee oe ee LS ue _. ae _ Bx ae ee a .:.aCo .ae ae oo a oo _. ae Oe a ee Be ee ee ae oF ae : _ | i a a i . oe 8 se me . De Bos oc _. a a . es: eS ee aes 2 Es as es ae Lo oe | | a 7 a ‘Ee :ie .|ie|,;oe-)|.| .:|:2|, :: | |: , .og a a a . Oe es ce ee oes BAS . oo ee | OM . oo a Re oe Bay a ae a ae a2|,i:ce ae |oe oe ae :ened te 2oe ae oe gs oe ae ene .ae: oFLe ney oy «ie:Ne a.:_aa-aye vy 7— :oo a ae eere oe ace ieee eee Boe ae oe oe aBe , ae Sh 8oe ees oiSs ee arae ee ioe ee se ae :— ee ee ce|. eo .a—. anh :i:oeoecoos ae oe afeaeee .ue aES .Peaohae a.™ oe oe ce ae ice ue eo aa.ceooe a.He :eas ;:‘: oo eo ee as eS cc oo | ae i | mi aa uy a.:oo ‘e.Be aee aa ae ae ce .: os a_ aoo :oS :Le :Ae |:: |::i:|a ;; .4 L, ue ._— ae My ee a2oe ue8Lee Bee ee He ee ey ee Be aaa_. |aBey aie oo 8:A “, :Ons :ao:2.: : ;oe a.Lo aBs -_ oF fee aae vee aes Be es es aae . 7nee .a Oo of sue ohne Ks ee a.|:_|« ee oe Le ee ee _ .. ue _ .oo es ee Os ee ee ae ee .. a . | a _ a 7 . ae ae a ee Hes oe ed aS as oe a ae | : : : 3 : . a|oe». or ee | ae L* ae Boe oe OG oe oe ee oe Ae ee oe : Lo. an a . ee | : | | | : _ se coe he Ae . pee a 8 . : ! y : : ) 2 ,|::||oo|a::2|,i4|.:| a— y . : ee ae oe ao 2 oo. “a — ee os ve . a . a Ka x ma 28 ee hs ae oe . . i a : : ae es oe oe -. fe. . r | : | a es ~* |.oo a ae a.ae iea eS ce oeoe Bae Boe 8 Soe oo a.|ae — OS oeoo 2 Danes a |:._“ce ee ae Oo oe a ee Hs Le oe ae _ ; : : | i A Me oe (a 2 a a . is ‘i , : : a oo es ee oe LasaES oe . i|cc i ,— 37 :ay | :|eu : ,:ie | 2: ae | eeHes eyoo oe a oo ee UES —.. hae ae De a oe8.a2.ae an,ae a:ae We .eS.a eeoeoe a. — a 4 ce co Be Coe Beat ea ee aek Hae ee ee ae ee oe n | pl . y ie LO re a Kes a é oo Ke . cM Ny co . oe

ysior, 77(.C ii. er oe .7oo~— _of '3'.|,; :|oo ae a— ooae oe _|| ||:/; ~_ ye )ee }||: a aoeeye : : ne | , | a| 7aao| ,oa

oe aoy |aowe Lo aaoo oo Ls _.— |di E ||u||,: a3 ’7_/ ‘>» aion a“a aa— -we "_.—. | ae a-.,0ae oS :;:,|)::|| oo _oe—. ,-Oe :e._ae .i.aiy 87,;'. :y.ie oO * a . | oe .~ 7ef 3|2:_G ; :,:,|ae 8 | ae _ 2 ey A — wali | 3 | .a_.oo11My Ne ey aoe 7. es ee Ca ae ae| .ace_f eS wie .1|n|>||an: .Ae 2| a| i,2_ i. .oe a .a5.. a:ee oo ne ne ’_oe 7oea—a—oeiooaa_.i|eeooDeeeVe 7veaoeooaea_aysoo 7aa_aaeyae,a,Ge a_7..BscoCei.aeMik iooaNooae7:oN on Aa aOG 7oO . a. Layate _L ae nea Tee: a—, ). |oie :‘ho : |2e|oO |oe oe .: zl oe ee ee Hey ne . .3oe :LS a |cs oF oeee|ah;:A,7 ice oe aoome a. oe as a. eeee :: |ae : : aoue " ce ||.‘LG :us : a:aoy :ueaa oe oo aae apo le oeoo aae oeos aa_aee ay ea.aoo ‘—. .:8 hy aoe —Me oe“oe oO os ZN ae oye ne : pe : ae ,. |iocal,.fe | 4oo _ooa—oo A 7ae2.Ne ooMiaAs aco |. .has :awe oe os eR aa iN Sie Lo aa)ae aoo ue oo a.x oe ws ,Vale :oaN ,oa|.oo.: oeoe ~~ ob oe ay Co | sn 7aWe HG ae aae ooaes .ae eos

a a/ee ~—. ae a) aoeAo He _oe Loos a ce nas _q 2ie mt aa_aece~ . oe Lo ee . oS aveyy Re A — . oe oo oo . % a i ve eee if oo |a ee oe Beoe a .a_ a Ne oo. oo A|_i,Ke Ne . :.:| |io :,| |ae * 2 oo | aay, _ . £ , : a i — 8 a . 7 a : ' : | 2 oee. a7 _| ..ooa .aNi weye. He a we 7 aeoeaSaei aooie7- -| _oo: ‘/.: ie : ) ,a:ye ‘ | a| |.|| a, . . a) y ae oe Be oS co _ a TG cD Hs cay a vie o. LN oF a Oe ue nS way oo ee a oy a Be ae wy o aNd

a. a ez ion a a, aLo ae a aaeee oFMea ny ai anNe an Hs oo My. aoo. i ce byooaauAsie - _ 8 mi a oe . )eoh eRRN‘ aiyNos Ne . . eee a . ii oe 4 Ny eyae a 4 ie 7 WN, hie it oooy ss ie AS a) Le : aaPES a a ae a Heaae 7. : Ho a a ie ys a on ae oo aaea5aoea He ) . i oe Se aon_ aOy i on os Ce Ge s a. 4ae oo. an ) a 8 Ae a oe a a _ ce oo . i oo oe ee _ Le .. Bay ae aay Gn So . _ ) . . Bo a cc uy ie iis ; | : | e o nae | Mie ee pale ee 8 oy ne os ne a a ao . K oo % oe _ a as ae Nae ae ae aa

Lo a et ae ae “ : : f | : | : oe 8 oF oe | | : oe oo . # 2 a oe a J oe é : | oe — é i| .Se _8ee /a ,. §f=._.[ ::a os . 2 Pe . . i . a .eeae 7oo|. aanO ai:aoo37a.Us aaaaae a‘aaa:oo co __2;nee:a:L _ane aooioe_. 7.4 a| oe i)|.aaoo |.a::0)& .|- :|;:os :. :|:| asalt : a aK a oe oe a \ 2 i. ‘ J 5 Ace . |. oo when on oe ny ae ae a) ie i | sme Lo aee ..|.>.Oe :7.ioe: cc ae a 2wag” |a .ai|& ‘a oaos _i| aa aaie aa 7. aue ») a—_ Leoy a.re..6a.:ne al aoe fee .__. a.. 0a Ae a eee iG oy _ ae . ae : oe og — a 4 | . 0 . . a a : a : Te oo 7 . a a a = : | . . coe oF oo oo Le a :eGa .as or :aa M ,i oS :a )ieaceye ae a oa .a — oF :—a| yia-oo:.; |a|: BS: oeaeae Ue) oo_ se i. ne one _enSax ae oe ae a oeaoo Doe 2. . ae a Se oe ae‘ Be “— é os . ceoo oo .ce | :a;ee se |a, 0|-, -a/ on |ee : 2}a|.,.,| :My : || ,: !:oo :| : oo —. ae . aCe : oF EN a aee oe— oF ioo a ne

po aHe iaayaaeB Ve oo caee i.aoe a,- :aSe 3P ) -.\* es 3oo 5a eeae oe on oe oeae 4_ yo coe a aeae ao i veaaiea io ae aee oF 4ae. aee|[4 e5oo o|aee i oo .Me ioo "oo :onve Ra — co oO .— A. an aooLe ‘oY 4aoe a«aaewe :: oe _. oF 8 a — He : . « a oe o & ae . 1 aoo de 8 a eC i oo Ay Es i a a a ve oo 7 : : | ‘ : .| ed a a -2ne| ye a fF _ i. Ce Nee a. aoy :::a a ; ah p ae ione ‘ee-::Le :By :._.ES aa_a_|foce | |aoaya.ee ‘ . & ee a : : : a _. ae a le o a ae os of ae t. o : . : oe a So ae aey.aan aNN |i“ oo :iaeoa| aeace | fe:: i:Oa ,oy3oF ees veGas 4i aoea iDs oe INa ea : aaaeaee M, iea ohaioo 7a|aNG 72is3aSh ok a) a: at7se:aeoS We Gs ceao ae a a oe aaTa a7 oe vay a aED ee oS ee oo.ai 2ooieoe oo.pie as Oe a Lo) es Bk he ae va ee i a-_ is oo aoeKG BXa oe anaae ye ita TG(oN fa Hn ae oo ooi aaNv HR S aeA oe Hat . | |. 2Os: Lo . : 'ol| :Mh : : ws | pe s ie we

ae ae . 7 _. . . | : | oe oe i a es _. oe

3ooeeoe a ma Dak . a Ce an ys oe ne‘pat o. PlOY a _.aoe Heoaan i eioF a on ie Me He a: a_ i.7| he oe Ch oe oe es ee ) EN Heats oo Tae 5 a Ae np Sa oeny vecoe aah oe Ke _ Bae a x ee cioe a iH ae

ar : | | yg r | cn Aa a co ase ao a oe ‘ a ee ve ‘ a oo _. ae ) aS Oe) 3 an es oe 7 oo _. eC ; 7 4 : a } . : ua : ‘a oo . ae Ue oy | _. a " oa as i CC a : Co | : oo . Ls i oo 1 ‘ . oo ae . a a _ a : |, oF oi . ce a oT oo \ . . _ a _ Oe M a a a a . oe 7 lo ao oo a ea |

» eo a > oo oo ae ae i. a ae ne a8 ::eee oe Co Ou : _ A _ oo os i a ( oo i os i a. a « von ae oe oe — oe 8 _ a — :oo:LY |‘aie ;a ooae|=_SU |:.aey, 'a;a,.aaGy “a aAe |ae .— Lae :|ay NG _ou a-”,|oe:— a,,:|:|:_a:-:::: _es oo ie agai oo Ml ee 4 . : i a ‘ : : Z m | i . : : aoe .oo Lo ee oO Le a a 4 . Le ee a oe . boas | .ia oo _ ho a re oy WS a oe OM Os ee . ae es og Lo * oN vs oo ca DA ae a a a Ve a aa . ce 7 a : a CoG : a a ne ae a me ce u u ae :is:::'a:a. '|‘io o. 77Le |aea) |:GeoS aue oo . .oe Te oo aA oF co .aoh.::a..a:2iie .aoS ao \ . a . a Do roe oo . : . — oo a co On ye Lo oe oe oF : a : i ee .A eaw ow ae ae ou a.oF ve oeoo Oh oeae Be re|oe .oe oe iUs on ae sh .a a i oN a a oF ane a a ‘ ao : ca ae oo oo oo 7 i ce a a a ee oo oe : : 2 : ae a a Ce a o a oo) a Oe ao ae | |?-ue |: _:}oo '“i: :oe oo aeil a:. oS a_iG Cve aeoe | De a|a oe ae ee Le a. ane ae ao | -oe Gg ae )_. a,: ioe ee _: a|gooao| a.a:awa — eei ‘ae |_ oe aa hee aoeBe . : , a. : .A:aoo og aoe Me —Ve a7 me oo. a :aSe ae iaacoo cL a —_ BON Be . aa Bo aesae,os oeeeoe Ae a oe A oo Coa oeve oo aLe aoe oo a oy o ee : a,a |doo | .,a40aa :a._.:- 2 @ oo aoe a oo oe aoo. || 7oo | aco oo aS aae. ae .,.oF a a (oy co . a oo a es oe : . rl a oO i . "(eae ,: - :a .,ee sy ce oeLe :| aes .Se :S ae ae ay ee 3aaea-Ba |_ a ieZ ae x4 st , , : 7 a oe vee a ee 8 o i a a i : a .io.:oeoo—ceae:iG|aea/-,::oooo-:.:-ioe|:ace:iQ:aae:fmeoO |a aasrqnD|a.i..pos |aeoFooB-a. usaalt:ed‘iaOe,|eee _.aisae-_oowe‘. :,Vee oesADe aoea5:oy2-aae aéar,:oeJ4:.o.:md | a;:a ) a: co:ee oeae :a_\cou > cy :7aoS _aae : oe |aoe aa ceoe ae ae ::oo ei-2 ;||oo. _My .ee ia :-oe ioo _oe o:aaoo iG ay ;:: am ,||: |.Cay ee :ae ae

| Cl oe . oo ae_.co aesaoo_. aoo. :a Ss aaaa:..oooo. ce iaui aSs ae Hee . oea a _a aN oo ol on aMS - |Us:=oe | co :oa,. ”:se4 aaeyae yaeoo aoF-aaeyy ce : : : .a 0 a |oe.a ‘ia ‘7 La on HS ; ey ee , f ce oF co Soe Co oe i e a) eeee eo 3 oo. oF oy ae us oe oy ae Lae ee, y aa ee . es oe a a ee i a oe sy Oe ae Sa on ne CN) oo RG a a _ a oa ee a a 0 oe

ee co . . a a aS ae oe hy 8 aD Ne Ma _ sae ae oo a oe a C oo Me _ ok a y 1 oo oo ie . ay

ee Lo 4 oF _ a . a & 1 a fe a af : oe ae oe iy nee Nas yy A a oe ee co Me ee a . oe

aes es aeLoe yy . aeeal|.ey oeakSn : ‘oo oFOG ce) iNecsFN y ee aeayioo a me i aiSeu aoo a ca Ha . .ee.‘ _. “a .a7ol ON —3EAN oeay a oe Oe5Ve CONG eeaDaa oN an( aaOe oy nN:oN es acen au Hail oe oy «.@ ioo BA uioy oo u!oe Cu —. Hat ae BN VR oe % ve ee eoaSoe oo EN ee .a-:aae io a2: a|| |a

oo . ee aeae os ioyyses 3a ioe i:Oyoe ra ae aaie aoeoe i) AN aaeco - i Gy, a(os Ne — .Bes . a)a;ndiSa| Ce Le oo asAes oSyaaaNy 3- aa:. aOr awa oe.AGE a aCo a oo a AN Lo . ae —ae4 ’a :i. :| _oe i eeBe oSBUST ea ce aN DS nS iS Oy .oo , a.ee

Wee oo es AE oe . ae ; f oe oe a a a ue ON ok ‘\ ie : oo, ce a ae oe Ay oe , | es oe ox ae va er :

ww :ee Oe a Day Lo Oe . osaLe ao oPyy Osi) .: a2ee aaoF - aeae . We ae oo i.a oO oe 7y oe ay 4aoer Ss rae neaeaooLe aES oo oeoeaey ao_. |.. co :oe:aeLo. voa ;coe ie oeoe .. ie 4: aa: eae ee: — oo) oe. .;

. . ae ; : He oR| ce onoe as oe : oD a a ea — Ue aeco oe a oeaoene a :/ fs S co G iz=:7 wy ioo. mee :i : -Be a. oy . eeoaQ a : oo57 7 o a oe oo yaoeay on a«oo _oe ( | aaSoOs De oo oeaaS vou MS . ]| OM i Za NA oe i: : a ee ee g cae ee mee EOS OS io a) ON Ca ay, Es i a _ pe _ Cah ss Ne oS Ce Rs RG oo oe _ :

4__aoe— :: oe oo Le . aoO a. Cc Re _: aeseee oo ayeSus ae t oe : oeoe Be ies oeu oy ::ON osae ve A Dae TRESS SRS _iee a2 .ee oe oeoe yee ae a : aeee LS -cf::ee a‘ Ato @ a&eo ce ee :We :‘ee5a. ae co ie e: aaLe Me of a.ue ee ee oe qaeeDe yeeae Oe o. ae-7. :aoe aAAa a.oak ae: .coae oe aee _isoo : cS: a. |Die| "oo a:| a as ;ae oe 2) Me ee a,we oa sfao aS aa;aeck 8:ae a|i |oy |ae Coo :oe ie oe @ .of rySoe _a a.i be - oo ,aee _Le :48oey.:Yaaae co | .oy ls bots xi.onit -AoFcaaa oe alllee ee oe:ee pes ayeS :oo eee eee ;Be 2ae oo ae 7oe:aeee :. -oe -— Fe aLe:’:woe .aOo tee, ome le ca | 2oo oe oe ee MA) oo SESE ae : aee i _| aeee ee ee LO aSe |oe: Sp eeSe |)fe : rete ee eeTO ieon BLiaean Ueee RSMeo Oe ACN SG ae ee Pe)oe . EIR eee Bea pei .ed

rl oe 7. f | Cee . ” oe re ee ee OO NCU a EOIN a Fal aan | es Sey 7 ae el wr: ; of : TENORS RCT AYPe ang) aN SARan ORD: = a ee ae ae ise ewe Bone Mats 5) RENO EI NS eee anak ie bilge TN 8:iggaeST iteagiSRG NOLS wana .es aN eReay US, ee aieis AARON as OE CO rr oe ONS Leeoo. a ae a) NEOe SeOn SO EN ..EG OraLON ECs SONY I a oo ey oo fas a NS SO NO COA SAN aea ea | WR cas ON. PCa SON nai Lae oe CR oo _oo iOkos aAAD ane .Se |ENPeoe ST i. Oatod ..Co Oy ee oe aeOC >ERG So iCae aUACO Oe aco Le oo oe oe a aNun LOG ooSOG DOS OU iOk. 2 Loae fsoeOs SS eyRN OE ae BO ENCN oy oe aes oo ES oo. iMae

ae | oe Ce Ln .Cenaea_| eeeeoo a-—eeaaea ee aee) De oe. ORE ae eoOES. . eineOT: ae CC SOR oy a LOS ona ae a i ae Cee dunt a SCes esoe ER CLI LNG OOO ae: eaeeo LeSs Aas De SS, Na Uae Gi i. ye Ce oe) CM / Son) BAA, ee. So ae CO oo PO ae ey oN aECO ise sRee LeiUe eG. NN 7s oe ee Wa . EV NH GNaNAS RG,hao ESA . ay oeDSRS Oa og.a a RNG CO OGOe aa PG UESae RSSS We Oe Gs eae oe) aaAU Ee PO Doe CE EN, PCAs RSS aes Coe Ce es as a nyce OCOy ae UR DE Clay BA OO vA DONNA es ESE LEON ea ae Dee — NSS On, ss SNE iat ee sina Rei SERN Perna as, EN EONDe ATEN CUO JOSee FO GS RON) Se OES: HASNT ONS Cee ROU SNns oe ins Oe aN oeSateen a PG: ON asRNooEGAIR I COCORA, aeeeS| . DONG! AY) SHON OENRE Duin ee Dy Sy, LUNGS Te COE UTNE Py ANNE ee aBeal. MESSeS sie yes ae OSie Ks Keoeeee oo RG SN SOR GG ee KO AEN ieaeON AN SN ek Oe Oe as oe eS) aOe Ne aT

OSs ONE ENS CON es EON IN se Gl ye VAR Te We ee r-.tr—CisSC ee a. SEN RONG UNCON ROG SON Bua ORS aN ERO ED ae es ME eG He iN SOE el

| oe Yo, a oo ~~, 4x er. oo oo . oo LD AUSUe .. ARR EES,GR ea ROCs oa _POO ee Ge at ees CSN peer CUNO assey, OS We ESN SOS ONG Seay a) AENS LANES Sa AEN Nia OROS a Le oO Ge CGON ATG Te Ma SSeSZN: es |"NSS GRas, US EN: a oa EON RN Peatsoo a nt oe TsGtOs Sg ne OSES SESS nS ....BUN cana . . aSere .. Soe ae ew. es ROSEN: oe eeRO OeOr OeOeOSA Hr oeSe a SaNani CG eR SE ENN ROTC Lee RN ta aN) AR OER SIN a NG OH ONIN Ae ey bee RUNS ee Bee a Haney ARR Nes UENO ONE ON SO : LE RONG PRO IEN ONAN ia NN ae Sec aa hanes SUN A oo . a

Pe. ANG Reo Cas AIRS VS CRO SO)ee Ba SC ee 1 PCN ENS DUS i CE on On SIUay, He LO oo OSae eeNR ORs eeOG DUR aOE ate ee oeOG oeee Vo aes SC) aDe cu LE LO oeoaeens CeaCe ee ei iDG: Nir iy EG oo aROU - |_eae aGs EES SGN an A, Oe ON PO ON oo ee aN es oe aANE Gnhas Re oe A SR SOR .aei,EACeye Es BEAN oe ae Cun oeCO a At A AO aihae Os Le Pe iOa aes: ak OE EO See ieCe ae LENE ¢.Ss a CO ak EON EGOe MOONS DONS Ce a Oe oo Oe See BS ON Oy Oe De aoa a

oe a a Oe oe Ge te ae Oe a Fae Ny LO . ie oo vs Ca OSG a

Oa .Out ee ee Ce -_Ney . NS »* a a_Ts ON: euae aetoy IN cee eeBOG oo ha TC aoe ae.oe ae oe co — | Ps) Oe a... aSO aaeae co oo Looo os OAS KG ae altLa. Cee gee a. oo iet eS COG ES ANB Oe a| CO i oe oeA HN eeoo OyoT Lk)aye — a. oe OG Aka Oe aa oe _es oo Cs aeoo oe aaCe.oe Oe Cc aaLO Oe) Oe ee ee oe a oe aOe) Ce ae onoo a. : |. Ce a . ~— ae ee oe ae a o . a on oo | Nn ee a a a ROG eG | ee ce . co a oe oe ae Oe ie COO ae EO ae wy a. ee oo co aGiSo a OS oe aie. Te VW Ce .. ee ae as iM ion Sane ey Oe NS Oo ll oo RG OUR ONS Ea a OG oy a Se ee OG ens a a EE: Pe i AS Ges Ne ah Ce STERN Oe OG oe: ee ee ae Se oe oe ee OUR oy ee a ce a - ... oe cn oo oe ee a a a oo Ce ee oe a : co. a. os we ooaa Se Os DNR a a OCI SO PACU Vesa A an CN Tage aa ey eee Oe NS ee Co ee PCA aa SR ROS NO Sa SAIN see RO SUR GRR Ce SOMONE FINNIE FR RI Be SE Reus Ta eR SNR Rse rN ae Es tee ee iM

aoo an ay :oo. a Dee eeoe oo, ee ae Ge Ce aoyOO — ao M Co. Ge ONG RU: ay, eos. POs ee Seeoe Os Le MRoe Co ee ayaaa ee ae DSU LS Ne ae Oa oe CA a Lo oo. . oe at a... a ae Oea oeoe ey i aCsGk oo eensoo RNs Fea, ROSGNEGG Eby CGS? PONE HS ease UE PRUENAROR Veo PEN aN OS Te nee cepa BeNUS OAS ANS BOE es ees sal ee NER Oa LOS . Seen RU OU Gn anCOE BeOSaa sn LU SALON Fa ene a oo Te MeO Nay SN Ae ER ENG NasON, RO ae BN TES OMEN SOON ain OREO x SO Oa a iLESSON PS A UH OBC a esRRR Aayen PVE OGRCA EEN, Oa LS Seat:

aCY NS ok Coe oS a.aSeoiNGOCI . a|aeLoCow oe oe | ae ya Oey OO NN EON a ae i oe oe oe. es ee LOGE i aaa anyo Paco) GME ROT OT UOiINS Ta FOUR a HOY ee ny oe ooa ee, oe aeas OeVA ooSS avieee eeee yeoo a_a. Se Oo oeoo oeooa ck ae! A i ee — oe PS ee ee Es ee ae.oo a...CE ee Ee os aeoe UOoe Oey . ae OOS POUR ESN Sea a NR SANG Nes GEES Ua Dee oe EE GEES? Seas RES Rey ONE POON Ra oe at ae Cae ee eee Ry Me en OSG TR ae US a: ay OG Os oo Os ee aan!

AO SEIS es DONE SO OURO OO SNES Oat OGY stalls cia Wee EEO ee ee eae a RONG Pal ee oN see BE Bice SN Hae a SAUCE Sst REND ERENCE Oe, iy Sea TNE ae eae Nes CUE Be OO ale COG a| aa Co eee ey SAES y SU a PA Sag Pa Be Oe Ie pene SeGaN ORE RUN TOR ENG vas SEIN Sea Sa UBIO Hewat LICR iE GanePe SACRA See)Ss SSyeUe SRO) EON Sato seh Cae is HT AoePeep ine eeOURS Ns ast a Oana eR ONS any SEE HGH NAS ON a Bias UN Nee SRG MRS DUeae ae BORN Fre a He Su ease SON ONIN ESae NG: SON aNOU aeRapes ral atonal aia) EES SS eee Seesar. eanAe FNC IN He Uyaee aPON Se, ere ee) eaPCa SN Rags USES: PONG ADA ARO Rae AUG OU ENG ae)

Lo aeCIES i iesee ee iOe oo TL -. .a eeak oeBaae |Dae re ae Ae oe oo neeeie i en See os BN aoo a ee as oe. escee EES aaPONG ON Nt SUA TaN SN Oe EE oo LORS oe Pe eA aoe oe LS es ee .. eee eesERS nM CeCl UO IGS LE, Ne ee nA Aa CNY Le a‘ak eSCo oe |Ce aeeee FON aeeey oeOOS Co Le ae AeeSo) a)OnOR oe i oe ey neeeoe oe

ee oa ee : ee a Lee a oo — - oe oe Co oo OG a . oo ONG ae a hl i oe a es IaS eer Scale eesome ue AAC iioe Vo — ES— ES ARMA. ON NG aM aaHa > oo ee Le aayeaTG ee EG Ol. co i oe Leee CC eo oe LC a See ee oe ooes. Ce Ca vee|) —. ee Os Oe ae Oe a aNe my Bia a ee ooaes a a ins aes aeGk HO: tO Ge | TT GaN .. oo ee .oe.eeee ue et PRGA: eee CON) .AsPA ee "SOHOR iPON Oy aeses ae ae Ne 1a oo on Hs oo oo oeeee ee Ee ee ae ae TOR ee(CO a ._ oo SeSee econ AoeNG PAN aa .AENR ll |

Bhat oo Pe an a ES on: es oo ne EE eee Aes Pe ae NON 2 i oy ee ee ME ae Rca eS: eo Oe Sc GAN Ua A ona os Pan Oe. A Re aN ans Ce Sls ea es eae AA OAs) aoN‘ Ge ye ee ce COats, eas pieree eeeSes eee Ase % Bee ee eee ee a diene HWANG SNe AG se LOO AADAC KeaLO DS SaaS SEOOR AN oo AN aeyeSN ueNaieea ees PoeSeyret ee yaa eeeslepoePes a ea) a, SS: cana UeOeRS eeSNR BaLey SUE Oae CeO Losaitaes PENROSN COE if ea: i. eas eee UES aahLo a STG Le iaUR as Hy aeCoFRAN Gilli jing Eee ee ey eee eeeeSeer Seaees: oe eee ee)ESS CAS ON ana Gia ROEOD. LOAD ANGER UsGNOG vaAON ee aig easUN Ps ieGSR atAu ii aHy ost ens eel og aie eee LSSoCO OE See ulue aes SOON TRU Nae ENS SOE NaN ONG Ha oo Ny HES LR eG al a aise siaeeaeHii en uae Se eas LEE cee ees)ANE OOS Ee RUINS Una CRE PAN TO RS e Mitelak weeG is |Paes aiN Apala Ae Nitia LORNA a ES Gs BO Ree .ees SSeS RON Pe ean Bae Ene, SCR POU Cian Ta OE) Hee iSAGER AN Seyatae ee a ae ea HAS ae ae(ea raeTe aees ae: Agee Sing oRvMNE ess 2 soe saea Benes Taipei SoeCapea Ses ce)2G oe pore SreeSeen Nee Sn: DO Nee aNs Peat SN ea PANT Ree AG: a CO CeOR ORNs RAND PANN

Da GAG ae Os ae oo Hite Nae nie AC Mie eesES Pee eae ae Meaenee Eales eee SS RUE SoM EN SN SSO I : enya ae: IS HENS a ASU eanAA Mh TNs INS EGS LORaENT Soa NIN) sie FAAS DES eaeEee Snape ea asBeet ee Bees eee Be hammeron Beae | a oOo. BaAUN ceSEG aes oo aRD) Te PGR BU Sai NORE SIROOS ROUOE HES OSs OC NY REPOEUN nels ARest esoN Le NGS) a CON ioooe aiesa eta eni ete See ayosiee seaI:EE ee DO eeee iG Pinel oe ee LU ASOG ROR Na SRO OOO anal iso NaNOR, a GY - eeMa Gale Gs oN EE ane ee ang iLeeSce eee ee Co AES a) OER CNG, ERS RIES: an Ue ON AO STON LAN a

AR NURS Or, ne. ge SU sity iran ata it eae AN Hillam Sioa Ie ay Fae Pati eae sien eat at Bab AL Pies ie oe SSS NORE a we SUN lien: eee ee paeteneeee eanensce ee NE CSTE ORO DOS ean SUSE ER ora ORS ahr GEN Saiies SOMERS Da RO Care A siya

a a ie i. 7. ey es. aae ieeoo ee —. i)Cl oo Le aa esa& al. ee oe aea. okiMW oeee Mic oeapee aa Ce Ue es ao aoo oeee Can oe as aoe i ee oo oo. oe eeee ae Lo ee aeaae oSs es BES aoe Cyae (oo. ee ee CO ee a _. oe ee a vO ae a ~~ eee a oo a as oe 7 ae i.ew | A at i) a a Ceoo aa oo7otoo Oy Oa a a|.neo eeoo ee Se |... aaeee eeaeee .oo 1 FOaa .Sooo oo cy | . 0 . es : ee a oo 2 oo Le a oo oo. ‘ a. ee oe rs a. aaa Eee oo i a. a ee oe oo Oo es Boe ee oa i. pco aa4 .ee en ee ee le ee Mey ie ee. ee a Ga ne: Te OG | OOS Oe) ee eee At lh a ee ae au ee aa Uae ee a Co a a oe oo oo. a es oo oo. a oo a oo oe oo ae oo oo ae TES i a ae a oe Gl Woe 0 ae RO a: i oo Dea ene Ce Cayo Lek a a a ea Nate con lind TER Gs: Se RAN ae NAGI ME ANG Pienaar tale saul Ny REA ue Cea US BAe Nia De Ht eo Gah eee iaaar arene tae TAN LON AEST Ee DANN a US aor piente Hi eae RG NG a Cae uae RS PG GRE SE ANE (BSN UN Oi EEA) HW ee Re , aeai ierTae ee SO Feat ei Sea genesSoane Beast ee ae ON se LN aOG SeesON ERS SEG Be SNe AeOGD FORESEN, RANSie SAIS MO VES RS Hes Se Taee aa ii Os a. 4-aiAh Rae oeseaaca i eorene vias CoOe SEs BEE! Loeeeeh OO OEBee OG Uae eG ees oe oo iy De a ee a SRS MO Seenaes ateses ANAIEN AO CORO Co ee ONG SEs GO Ny ie ENS! ale eeleON ees csNE eepast oo. Ler Ev Ne) salen AN eee 8ee a SO CA AURA AN se ee eeng:econ HOSS EOS |)| SE. She ee a Ce Fone ee eRe nyaaleanPe. iohySan as ieSePraeses aac: as ae ic: SGN eeiei)EES UE a RANG, Aas Os SOON . reeeAGRA SeaHNN aes pa ahieBoa AeAM DEES eeENPU aSie ala

Oe Sind Ge, iet SeEe : es) OaaOo ssaeOs ae La He TaOMAR aSub ieneRann ath ae eeoeaeponents ee aaa ae eee Peete SERRE ee CS ANG a.ON, eseeetaae Naa Le ‘a Sah FS se A an ESN aeLa, eu esa Sai Mg |) Eons |)oo|) ee SOA LOG GI eeOE Peis EEE ee pera we NGA Pon ‘ea oeoa oe eos Re hil EN ee OeCa rns Sena ae ee SISESs a On SMe Ce aaSine? uN atenAe SH aaa ae aPia ieee beara ST ee Ni, ee an Ee ON aeniaAea|i ay oo Ce va as ee eee oo isooGa eeMe. eea)es a ee ue A Snpeer Nia RE Se Seen SUES tan? aNoe Gn, olaes ey aAas Se Hes SA nyea HNHa) ees At NG uaaes Siae Gaeta aEE aSay ee Siees, A eeeBee sae Been) Hany esaspecs: eeeSe pees SON Hana Te SNeRe oe0AUS: Tees COGS oo Leal a iesaOa Sit EO Ce nna aAWale SNS il WM ee pee EN VN ia ieBi oo Hay a ee ianiet aay i i:EG aePneaSeoo ea neoea eaCo ss oe ooPeaayeaeoeas eae a Fie eae|| sates peepnerne raa ee oo oo oeCO CeSeoo iestasoeRegine a LGN ‘I oo pevea Ua ae Cue OUTaSeSeooN OnGAN Oa LOTT WM oe ne CO eeNeR Bs OG. Rate perenne 5 rraeEs, neeAUG Aa aieee MG) oo pe FUR ON ECS, ee SPN NaN Soe Se aaaetOU a So etre aresones Sees aa it a a le labia eaeaOER a

oo CS oo oo oe iaoe oo ee oeTee.alySo a cay oe oo oe oo aae .oe oo aaooCo oo. a oe oeNe ee oo iaoe a, ae LO a ee Ce oe oe a oe . eoa oo a aa.a iloeeea RO: we eeoo Uias a ae ae aN SN Un ayaa a iat aa ia ciTER as tea oieHaat nue ene NASER Si Urey MyGs a ey SSBC Tian GS a eyOA \ ees ESR PN Psa He NieesSRomer Ae DUES eae ree ae is aeaa aHee BROW eR)a, ae WeHE yee a neaneh a gaa a ailON NySRE ae a Te peice SOs aesOaDON Heae aiNy, TaFO SeOe SAARC CO ei OTe Nae aetise Pastis se aN Nea oe La aNGea ne ee iss ON DSi vase aaa ANE en) es Oe,Oa Ae Dae Nae Na HERS Cea aa ee ORO ON CE ai gtea nic aay See Ce ac SOG Fassett es Ney: Ha

ee co INES aR a! es yeu Fgh Gas ae i a Pe PIR Oe a EG ea RG HO EN COE BOs eae a Oe ane een ae ee uN a au

ea iat a i TE ee Bua acne UR ae ee ‘ a CUR Te eal ea eee a AG IRL a a SORES ON SAE AO eal Ua aN PSU TR ANG Oa, PRL ON eS CRAM Sa Ry Sha a UN Nal, Oe Sea Le SEN Ti ReO GOR Shere

vi a as th NG ai a ry be Se GaN Seth GINO We eat IG } Ba RHO Sco SN ON Sans De Onn is uh AOA NN ON TCO DOSES Le He es seg Ge a A iN laa eH ae

aiiyNh ieee ae Gs Oo oF aeOnt aROSS i Poa: asane oe Ce Lan ei oo oo etPas coa oeae oo ooacne aioe oy ae Co LOO aa Ley Lae ae ey eye HEN osiee ‘iaae Pe aee oo el ea oo ainea Pa ae Se eal ee iGe SSN oa es isce ee aas Rear ee) EINES LS ee) a RRB Co Oe as oOo nees ae ioe Te as Ce AOR Pe es AE Mi aee SR oA Ge Se a RRC te Ooh eeoo Di Se aS ae oe ne oeae oe ee cS xaRAReeoe Lo) de a) aa Target ial a Haeas aaa a ANm4 ee uN aan OS ROA Pes PO AI GOSH TNS Oe Rosi CER FS a se a oo ie CONG PUGOG Se SUC nS SO Rh ee hh ae Ce— Ass

a URS Wee a es SGCa es ih ee: Cn SOee CNOC Hd eun mH Sn Uae Oe N a RUAN Gia PO CEN ENG MEY: a AEA, ROSUS OG EOS es Ss eoCO ae a aN el alone LN UNSanta ana Hs oo Hil ooingPana oees Ee inn Ook ueilenek DW: COOUA SAE CoaSSe SAC a EEAaGSR RR a eG einLEoeeeeDOR

a ee oo ie oe Le Co ok i a ee eas, Pe oe i oe a i ae a oe oo a EN ey le lt ee a es a aa ... CI SSG DSUs NS Sa Ce Oe UN a ees ese Naa ae OR Os ea ake Ae Ce ne a aoooe eoaeaaesoe oe — oo oooe Seeeoe ee es oe Se oe oeoe eo .yooe oe ieSo a a7Co oo ey a oo oo ce oo. nyOe aOUT, ae oo ooeae ed ee ae Es Cs ns oy Ce a Os OE oo aoy a. Cie I es oe Pee Tea AE, GtaHete aay EeLs Re aCo ¢oo OO ‘eoe iLo unco easoo ‘oe: i ACD Paoa. eE Lint A ue aaTUN ee i a Cs oe LO Os ea ok Oo, ee ee ae Ps a a ae oe Ceo . aees 2i lekeooa, eefaeCo, ooaaayaLloete oo. ooaeeaOe he —. Cae ee coe a " a oo Co i One ee a Ne Sa ey ILIA ee a ae Liou varaa) oo Tip an Nees SNE ON ais in Tora PUAN Cee SUSCO MB NS RY eon ROAR) SECU ice Wurst SU antee LO AeA oo. aa Su ia als a eS Aa ae Gane as et‘ Cas eeSOG BnTeoe aa,Caanaus Does SOE aa Hee CeBSESOO TEMnSs Pet POON eR INLO ne aN ia al

aSgOe aOE Met a pees) Da Nat is oe ‘8 ES A SEU ASS IS Re Ssa) HE ahOK aeSnLa aN i aCet x Hani eG Pee NAM i:as a he SeSHEN Rae ACRRA OER Ae EeAG ie Ss ae Gee anee inh NS Nae DROS EN UUSaal aN en ase AON raihEN ve Ne aOe Neat Ona: aah DE He i: on NR Ne NoHnel eal OO a an sgn Neee Aan RG UR Bey Sa atAK Rae SST POMC SEG SOS SON CECANON ea) OAS a: a,SE Se EG ee SNeEN SEins aeat Hi Fe aeDy ee ORIN IGN ey aaay aon CS avn ES Oaaae OSG Ke SSDA ANS ES Unse te ROT OU ISN Oa Oa PE One ie)aaeM oa OM aoe iN oe oe) aneon ae oo aeae oo oe ee aoe oe ok CO) es ey ee 7ey ne Oa ae iSe om oe oy oa aeyeasoi of Oe) a ae ia aa aeeea ein OG ea ae aie ye aaGi A ORE OREN a aLo ans RC Rs oo eaas SS) Ge OVE Oo ee EO SN aa He ee i eea AO ESSA ieal aceaaN Se ee aeaco aBea ET aeae eatINVOUN OEY oeoy ERR se EIN Cena Ce eles AEE ey Bane Pesesh Cains HS aELoa Naas EASA SE NOSE UN ROOT ON isCe PENS) SO HIG SS EOE SINS PE AN asOe Le Ge NS HoeeaTea iaESS alCe Paa NNN ieey IAIN nay es ialia ae Ce TC aa ea Sa Iene Cea UA, RE Ey GON asaia Le ONG REI Ay as DES, SNM as MAU AUae liat2 olaaGS nueOSES a Fe eaaeeeks oeTau oe ORD: ICE PeLE OCR CU ha A CEMA NS SENG LA CO na aING ANG BN One Ret EeAN Be NEO VG TGA Fiana TA aa aN Seals ae a til neeS Heh vasieen SMES SSAne ae Orhan COOHUN ee Utean SaLOSS SGU TCO IO athe CDR aSTec ae EO aNTOE A BG ) a Nea i HaeDsoeTey a Se AGES al ae ae ae naeAsie SR EO ANE eG HehONG din) SSN ISN: NUR ieeeDORR ORENSORES. SO NR OI Ge,CON a OGcan aS iy VO)ROSIN AON Ma ianaeajnet ee aan OsUR

Eh GU Fie)AMM Nile aN aaSa OS ee a HOE ceaER SeaRae SNTSRON POONA CRINGE PN ROOTS eaeLeasI ONES aN REN NN TON EatGAGA HRS SG TORE DAN Oe. eeeaANN Po eee aa Ha a ealSUN Tee ih TEie Ne Paes ie Se a IeALeeee ill NG MEA OORT eer aeRBisa Oe aa Ve ON: uBR ae ORRON LARD CEO OTE UIE UA AR ean) SCH ORG PUA RCA RG ee te a NEY, eG AES ie Avan

TO AL gage — ee EA ae ATEArete AI TSA as SaaS ayaNa ONG AMERR Le A IE SERs ee NE aa ORES Mie EGE ASN TOGe HDDABS Aiea NO CNM a SUS CheAUER AA NOSO SUE OES anea HOPES aS)ogeeelit aaeee LeniHt CnHole ARR PEND RGlh soa Bees A! aes asSE Le Hey AYAS PBN Ae SN FON ion SOV aDSN OA UCU CeNa Tagua ae ea Hiv TY SE anAHollie ETS i aeeNe atUAT HNPO a ae LOAN eaGea di eRe ON ea eS LON Oe PO EER SU Oke EN, a DaPate SS EN ES DETR aa: tH asl ay eeTS On aeRUG La Ce Ses Sh OUNANG at oo aN ee ee De tee ah Ny Flee a ial ie aN IS Ne. Noes SCO UNG Ae ae HOMERS CONG: Pee SO yee! re a Ny Ss Cy ee Ue ee he a Laie aan TNs A a ON } ee Sea Lela ay Huei on en Ash Ta a a ea ast: na) TET oe eons Ps CE INCU MUA RAE BNO APM Hae CN ae PR aM LON NE PROS Anit aN OR Gia He ls ee a: ia CNR a TH es cay EAsi ee SEO, Py HANGAR Aad SOME eae Say POS ine NEENON RIN KEaINON eas Osee eeaT LCA TE sil al eaeut es ae ORs eae Ma ae aFTE OEaaOS ete:a Le eRSEN EY Se ecaNianae ES I Oe Sa aeaeiaOy MEN RGRess OeyUIE TONER: Fy UNIS OaOA CnSaal an Rc se Say OE iHn TOSsata ll HG GO yal a es FAI RY AEN SUG RG, ae NN a Hane Ne ES CUM PA ne Be DENN ISN UONG VIS SON CO ARRON FSA, eee SIN Seen a ey Ne ae ose TC wl Seana the at HOE tialDa Oak Ce i ae iO Mie FNa iosMG CeNe Hane he weMND Oe oo. Ne AOU sa MeEine Pee Ne ae aan ReaCNOA Mi A SONS See eau ee Lean Na ROS AS ANoe Ss ey SatAa.DREN eh Tas SE Hee ae SOR Hn,Asta ne alt Tae CaS ie SS nORUE SN Mees Ma OBE Sve SO as re MEM NEI SS OHIRO npr Hine oo ecalaine SaDaina enn ATES Sanaa ese oo ISE Seas FeO OS ANS TASS GR) aHe LO SS Ne AOlh IOne aPOS AN ANS aNMa Sine DN hy Done pena CMs eens Teer SING ES ANY NENT Ali hyetl OT ails aes IR NAH Aa aSIs eke il ae aeti a’a ah: eG Hoy RD es ieee TeeasyHa) AT a) oe ia eunel FE aUne taal) MeN: SC CN Gol SEOST ATO a) ESR AsO ae Na OCR NE AAG) BGA RE ACORON HOE aah SS eR ea nN NG, Mii lsrah UH Pon NM oo eG yy ST Gy tes Selly Hae Nie CO he DSO PUG Ua apa a ON Lees TO ROG NTU ROI a UN ty ae Sone nae NS OG SMG ay CC a etCE aii Cy ae TSN a aie a Tea as senna Sn RTE Wate ai} eRe Pea TRO si COG ae HS aa PRA ae Lae TESS Pai SEP PO NGI Beara RUAN GURUS Ae Ms ay SEAS Fanaa a se eal Ri ai Svea OG:eaeosSia eeHeae eea ea OeLEST os LS CE teenie TSTe OAC CTE Gaay LSS Baan: PS RU anaiatae Tot eae aNK OnA Pn RaaN CeaeON Oat SnaEN SOO rei eat HEE en ce eR een LE SaCe TS NaeDN Le eal HA a TORU he eeee AE Ree aN Me Se ele SeA ame! POG SU ee ee UL LOG Net ea aahOU tant Ane NG, ea ect a Han US Cee Ts aa ES: ae Ra as Se aS OeNBR esCOENEN eee IC Se mie AOD On a! ieASIN On aan: Ns atPFRes RS

EN Nea iMoo PONGa Se a eo EN: ENG nea oe ES ee TER eseOe antCoy Oa is Saneey Ry RS EO IS SNC Lesa STN LHe Se Deni ie PRN Set HONEA ee aOO oe oe oe Ce oe oN aaNTSN aoe Co aasae oa oe aes aLNaeLon a oe SNE UE ae oe oe aaePE8Loe. re ee Ca Ve re ee ae aa ae iaealCe Ay lsae ee 3 en loa cen ae ai ae AAs! ANG DON ae SS PHON Nh Sua ay aOe SA OGOMEN Pea eeent Le Ae Sty A i: He TE eae Ma Meek aeBak Gsae eeee, SeRela aeeon CE: Ena Cy OgSUH AA EESOON Me ahoo FeaSana ei SNe tony a a. Se Oe aae. es ias Sa! Pe oo ES FUANT sas! Dy a EN CESENR aveelinens eas OR Shy eG aia: ane Cy Ca NsAOE SAGO Ca ait aae Ee oo ueSees thoe) ee UAH Niet LO. Es Pee) SO Te My ee siae Ou at CiONES Cay aAeas Ni! ee i Cae. oe . ee aCo ' yOO _a ioe Loe akosSN aa AS aA“hh Hes oe le Ay oe oe a aee AN ae Oey ON Je AAA a ARGH OUaieae OVes i oeoe Co aaBes) a NS Se ae GN, oe Sa SN CER 0oo a i ee aN Sis ooLe Doeoo aol a ou ay oe a con Le Na ee Ce a ae oe a oe a. Sey ae Es le ao oy a a ‘| oo. i. es Co 7 A we oe Se Se oo ae ee ne oe oe oo oo a a ooassCs i aN oe oo ee :eae oe oo ‘Hao ara eR oo oF aae oo one iae iNeoe oo oo. ve oe otoo es oo ae ‘i, aoe ae oe ane a. el on aaCy aa oeoe Oe oo. aoo aoe aoe oe aae a. i: a. Co ae Ce es aaN, aee oe aERs) a oo .ee aa eeae oo oo aa ao Oe aaPeeves aaoe Ce as ES OG ae eS as is aae ai se Se eS Sain eteLe aee ae Seoa NG eG Na oo oe as ee a LO Gy aos ie Pa ah ae he ina ae aee aoe eae oa of oo. aaPea ae iLoe aaee aoo eas Ae oe o| oo a-lsen Co ae ae oN CO en ge oN te LUG ee aoeWe ay oe oe oa es ee oe aais ai eeCo Oa anes ae aa SN OC as Se eA aoo HON ee oy esa ES ini aSs ae ae ee) TORU esaeae aa asie CO ceDUNNO a— OA 8yaoe HS see ea eG OC ass NE Ca eeoneSeite SU eg HEN ea ieiaGin oo a aMa ee aPON ah ey oe ee Co a aOe anne aRoane eePeES Ce ie aLOa) aGn iG ai aleasae el. LOSE Sen cA Oona ‘i ae Fen Brie. ey RU SANA EUR GsSS Aae De aeee A aee ea aoe os a eya) a Ns Dea aOM CHER) onaiaTecan aah i, es ee Nea PICOAG ENe Cees oleDAN DUNGEON A aks SiaSNR a TRPNR: SSN NON NEO HEE eR ah RS PeatN AIO SOU eG esol eae aN eesAh Laine SsAaeUna Hel dM eI GR) ef Meea inal a vi aa ie ie ne CNFcbah olaeaase Teen GON SAP a SSGages AES Be CatsMc ie oe enea Oe ERS We RaiSOI ee CSPERRR ORO ERUE NaHasek Ce Wels eMVee a Nan Raassh NOs

DO Ee Es en TaN eas Or sine Dee Oe a Oa Ry Ga ey TO Baek AOAC Cat eae Neca ei) ON DSS aCe LE aU TRAN EN SA OO Se Ce a) AA enact ees NG seal Danie Kees RGN FSi a NG ese aa SNe

SE OO aaA aaes CCM AEG Pie Hani oy esSeargh Pao apd ae ED cap pastes a The BEE Ne LORS cbuGteee aSeRNG PB Ua acaUN Ha CVA Hen pees La Sas AianAaa ianA4anAGE HEAR eatTRE Tee aaa HRSA ai ENR Cee aa oe Ce) RRA Sant) SPN eG ana LER Noa Iaeaease eenWo SOR SEESUR SeeNOU La Mea Moat CUS REN aaaa ASSEN SISa aaHe CORE a Tua DE a HA SEALO CUN ee aHae iM URGNaN MeDoCS PayAN esETNH Me SOOM RSE OSS A SAS SaaN, Rane an GACNM Sei UG tdUri HANAN ise an NER ENDOR NyNC eS AU ASLO SAS ten? A OE ciORG: Sali CaS EN Aa! CEG! HI AUG i aHAR Pty

aCONN oeioeao a _Ae aoeaesy oo a Ce oo Oe ol aeesee SC aoF ae oe oe-en ee aee leae Ca oe oe oe a. oe ne ise eoe oeNG me Ky eae oe Bes EU eh aee eea| Ono Biaaoo yee a aa a le. Pe aeeOn aens . aae ooon esoo Deco aSe i aiy ies esCOG is aii|ae sateGRAD nahSeay Foe aae ah aPU ND SUMAN HINER Iee sOUe CO NeTa OD Lea ei Ni muvee) ie iesSO PASS MES NGee SSS BERR WER): Pn) ea ev ettials LEeeaaa ae es ONES aa Tealge HG Ne TaN Seine Oi aa Tada iSah ae et se eee ON Oe GeSNR aeAamak SEN ENON eiBO ae Sa: esas SN eae aaaaie SR SH Lh HUNG est TG ae ya dik ey alas: no PO ea tsee: CO TOO CONN NC aGE CORO ae Pe STR Nai: OE AN Gace eaRS Ee ESO ast Ny EeLa esLe Vanesa aNany OP Cee aM Naaae ea SiGe aa es ee ee eA Le a Fas eae Ce eeUE 5aAES EN ON Adee FASE EON ONS iass ays NIWe ean aso Lui se eyeT STA aSUR Ae AnH Nantes tie ttn ROUEN. ROR age Te USN my cele aie Eaves ee a ae et CSUN) SL ee Wes Na Ny SINT Sa anon one Uns SG Ss Neat a ee) STUN ANG Ne Da ae EN Oe ete oes anoles ne ae ees i: val ee i: oh ee

seeSR ea Peg ee OTE ee NNhsAOe ae th Mea Sn a vail anaCS TAS ee ST es oe aa ISP a OMAabs CC aR SOU Nahas Ry ETN A ait Hyea SGUG he isi SHSa al oa Te oe Ue Uni: Cy ae ecoa aueRtCONS) a, ee i ae eaaaRe OTetAa AES eeAAye RODS, ae NG UhLOA aes cae MeN De SN ia Hee can aa ia HENS oe eeTG aaRsTosa OE GR! ea he ate aINS Saee en vl aHSiSMO oo Pe ARSE eset a ih Hae Fi Laas ae te TON Be) el Nie oogenHue ie ee es Se aaa ooi Hea aiee iSU Sn Melia vcuaae ee ea oe Ue PAU OE ees SH es SONG 0)CG HN ae ieANE aA ssNena et ae Hee ana LON SG Se a ae Lent EO PePh) aee SO AU Pe sy SihPein a et Cae iay PS yi Ne TRE Sse Tian ooSECO eawi PINES UR Se1a iegp NE, CS eae a eRe aN Me Pen Ha Tenant eae au eh Sisal eau Sc Daneel aN eleeHie Ca, eee asibel A Le lia Pecan SR Pa: TESans Lote Rae NaN i Tesease De La Fe SCM Hie a Tina a Oca ‘a oeie ae aANG LO, esis AoeSY ena: ie aaneevee oeeS an Se ONG DON Oa Fe ORE NG: aean CE La: aan aN oe ae et a

aes ea aN inN) ee aUN ae ueinal a HH GaeeSa ae Rae aETE Ce STR EN Ona SO eG ee ny AGN Sat ye eas aa ee NE Ni aie eae atoy SE ONE sth bia Sates AG ea ASO naa Ts CE RAO Ny ea Oa: Ae ee Oa aSane RN eC a SNS aaa Poo ACo Del a ie Ge Ble eaa. Cee aePay A DCO Aa nie ac aSali PaPe aisns ey Hens Hanae HR Ye Less SS at taal a COs FSos ie Ns NURS a Sean ae BAN ANS Sanaa aie DA ae NsSeNi ooaRNY NN aVise AN My ae San, ie) Sn | Sa ane aN Biba NOS Oe aude

fie :wee “ Re ere i.3| Le MaaGt Si Bae RES . So re ae oe fi .Migs Neon ve eg ° ;ee a eae ae baseiee :Sere apice oe 0SARIN shgle Seraeteiety 18oe| |.OG aeaeoi. ee Pee :yo aaa fae Vice eet 4ae a RAG sos fCRRA ay :vitoeangus =aigen Log PeeeSal roe Y. ee oe ee ul— T Sai, iee ae 2ooeroe ‘ re eecae wigs eee ie mycee kets eoreeHe Renan cane -ye }i|ia |.eee Ps Lo. HUE Stas Bis igSG. 2 aNNh oe aeeHiyihte: ees saa ie oaae CePe Vesta nl ge ia CAGE: a aie st otheSSRs ange ve Se x eee catereeRpthey Resins Shae ee eee, REE ae BOOS, eobeert ase SeBaer ee ae aoe oe Ne -_ ANSE eecere oe wee ili eo Les a ai Ne i assHeEAN NOSa oe anoeaeAen SS:Abi RIES: seeneeeoee EEN Sadiesah beOE eenNee reas ee eae SESS LOTSA eee prre: *. 2 oa ee ee

Ly 7 Be xeas: ma ee ai eee a Sse Es Bigs ae Seti lie hn Pe ae ee . TEBE SENG ES Peed ie Sa fete aa en eae eet ee os Geene! toe eee x oo. | Bat oa: een: Loa shee i east oe: sete estrone ee ee Pe: % * "32 a aie 5

! : Fo

. Sa

bose ee aeae ing anesi. e ee!eSAvia ee Bae gh: o,ERE ie cpr ohaaSS.ake : Bae eae ifera gee eack = cee a“ane SAMENESS pense . ; |1|

0 y >mI 3 II }0Vv‘i¢ unSeHing cronies a ne vie coat cusps aren :é e

Xa p |: sued °: l es ; -= 0nd

, and fa

1¢C

EE

et

=,

2 | .atio ines . |*g ”~ e

]]

n°S

4 | Marvin Coh odas

spected in Carson City as Nevada’s leading physician, also fabricated information for the catalogue of his Indian collection, and added to the legend

of “Dat so la lee” when she was on her death bed. This legend continues to have a powerful hold over popular culture in western Nevada, and it is repeated intact (Mack 1946; Cerveri 1962, 1968; Ewing 1983) despite attempts to dispel the fictions (Gigli 1967; Cohodas 1982; Stern 1983). Amy Cohn as Patron

One of the most puzzling aspects of the Emporium literature is the role of Amy Cohn. Mason (1904:467) specifically credits his information on Louisa Keyser and Washoe basket weaving to Amy, and the photographs sent to the National Museum around 1900 attribute the Indian collection to her. Since Amy was concurrently volunteering ethnographic data to Mason, she must have enjoyed recognition for her active interest in Washoe culture and art. Yet as Washoe basketry became commercially successful, and Louisa Keyser achieved widespread recognition, Amy ceased to be acknowledged as patron or promoter. Emporium pamphlets instead credit Abe Cohn with the discovery and management of Louisa Keyser and promotion of Washoe basketry sales, as do the newspaper articles that appeared from time to time throughout Louisa’s career. While photographs of Abe Cohn often illustrate articles on Louisa Keyser and Washoe basket weaving, Amy is never shown. In contrast to this public image, the archival materials, such as letters, photographs, ledgers, receipts, and pamphlets produced by the Emporium, all demonstrate that the major responsibility for patronage of Louisa Keyser and promotion of Washoe basket weaving rests with Amy Cohn.’

Baskets were never more than a sideline for Abe Cohn, whose major commodity until 1928 was men’s clothing. Nor did basket weaving constitute an avocation, as his spare time was divided between mining interests

and the accumulation of animals for the Emporium Zoo. His contribution to the basketry department of the Emporium appears to have been in pricing, advertising, and long-distance sales. His most intense involvement in promoting the basketry trade came near its inception: in March 1899, on one of his semiannual trips to San Francisco to buy clothing stock, Cohn took some cartons of baskets for display and sale in F.]J. Sloan’s department store. To add local color, he took seven Washoe men with him, but they were cited for loitering on the street.° The exploitation of Washoe men seems typical of Abe’s approach. During the Christmas Louisa Keyser and the Cohns | 95

season of 1898—99, he set up a display of live birds with baskets in the win-

dows of the saloon next door. The display included a “live Indian sitting in front of his wigwam” (Nevada Appeal, December 25, 1898).

Amy pursued the display and promotion of Washoe baskets more vigorously and with much more success than Abe. In 1900, she took Louisa Keyser with a display of baskets to Tahoe City for the summer.’ The ex-

hibit attracted so much attention that she was invited to bring it to the California State Fair in Sacramento that August, and then to the Nevada State Fair in Reno in September. This wide exposure brought Louisa Keyser’s work sufficient acclaim to be featured in a long article in a San Francisco magazine (French 1900). In 1903, Amy returned to Tahoe City with Louisa to open a permanent curio store, the Bicose, and she continued to manage it with Louisa at her side every summer until her death in 1919. Amy also explored the possibility of'a winter outlet for the baskets, taking a selection with her to Pasadena in December 1906, but this venture was not continued.® Louisa and the basket display accompanied the Cohns to St. Louis in 1919 to the Industrial Arts Exposition. They were accompanied by a young Washoe woman, Frances Brown, who appears to have been friends with both Louisa Keyser and Amy Cohn. Until her death, Amy Cohn was also responsible for most of the promotion and documentation on Washoe basket weaving. Comparison of handwriting on signed letters reveals that it was Amy who wrote the certificates issued with each basket, including the lengthy interpretation of

symbolism on the reverse, and it was Amy who devised and kept the unique ledger of Louisa Keyser’s baskets (see below). Amy is also credited with commissioning most of the photographs of Louisa Keyser and the Emporium basket collection. The first of these, taken before March 1899, is the famous portrait photograph of Louisa Keyser with her earliest baskets, entitled “Queen of the Basketmakers,” which was published by both Mason (1904: pl. 181) and James (1909: fig. 56). Amy is also credited with the next known photograph of Louisa, taken in 1900, probably at Lake Tahoe. It shows her in a tent hung with blankets, weaving the basket now known as L.K.24 or “Migration,” which was included in the appendix James added to revise his text (James 1909: fig. 340). Analysis of Amy’s literary style, as revealed in letters, on the certificates, and in the 1909 article, demonstrates that she wrote all the important Emporium pamphlets on which the legend of Louisa Keyser is based. Letters written by Abe show that his education was insufficient for this task. Amy

was not only better educated, but she had also dabbled in writing fic96 | Marvin Cohodas

tion (Nevada Appeal, June 22, 1898) before turning her talents to promoting Washoe curios.

Amy worked continually to promote Louisa’s basket weaving by lecturing in Carson City and on tour throughout southwestern Nevada. Her 1909 lecture to the Leisure Hour Club of Carson City was published as an article by the Nevada Historical Society (Cohn 1909). The Leisure Hour Club was typical of the late Victorian women’s club movement in its devotion to promoting culture, primarily through literary study and recitation, as well as contributing to the Arts and Crafts Movement by cultivating a taste for beautiful, handmade objects of household decoration (Boris 1986:100). Amy’s lecture to the Nevada Federation of Women’s Clubs in Carson City, October 1913, led to a lecture tour of women’s clubs in southern and western Nevada in the spring of 1914,’ Amy’s talent at thrilling her audiences in these lectures is unanimously acclaimed. She would dress in the fringed buckskin of an “Indian Princess” to recite myths and legends in a stirring manner, and poetically explain the symbolism she divined in the basketry designs displayed to the audience. Even at her Tahoe City curio shop, her energy and enthusiasm were deemed noteworthy (Keller 1910). By contrast, Abe was much less impressive as a basketry authority. In his letter to Grace Nicholson in 1906, C.E. Van Loan describes Abe’s explanation of the basketry by noting that “he can talk for an hour and every time he goes over it he uses the same words and the same gestures. I strongly suspect that he has the whole thing learned by rote.” ®

Abe and Amy Cohn also differed in the way they handled the Emporium fabrications. For example, in one of her pamphlets (ca. 1905), Amy mentions that Louisa appears to be going blind and may never complete another major basket (Emporium, n.d.B). Abe Cohn was well known for telling stories to anyone who visited the Emporium, and he appears to have embroidered heavily on this one. Van Loan reported of his conversation with Abe that Louisa had been to many oculists who despaired of saving her sight, and that her sister-in-law, Scees Bryant, had already gone blind (Van Loan 1906). We do not know the extent of eye problems either

weaver may have had at that time, but we do know that neither went blind, and that both created several basketry masterpieces subsequently. Amy’s association with the Washoe and their basketry was both earlier and deeper than Abe’s. Local residents have suggested, and her obituary confirms, that she was noted for making a hobby of studying Washoe culture (Nevada Appeal, December 19, 1919). The ethnographic information she Louisa Keyser and the Cohns | 97

volunteered to Mason at the National Museum reveals the breadth of her interests. Amy also became friendly with several Washoe women, including Frances Brown, who accompanied the Cohns to St. Louis, and Alice Tom Washoe, who demonstrated her affection by naming her daughter Amy (Lana Hicks interview with Amy James, 1984). When Louisa was hired to do the washing in the Cohn home (Van Loan 1906), Amy must

have been the one who supervised her work, because Abe was tending the store. Given Amy’s prior interest in Washoe culture, it is likely that she was also the one who first became aware of Louisa’s remarkable talent for

basket weaving, not Abe as the Emporium propaganda asserts. Amy’s ledger of Louisa Keyser’s baskets gives further indication of their

close relationship. Entries show that Louisa often presented finished products to Amy as a kind of gift, whereas Abe was rarely the recipient of such attentions. Amy also kept a special collection of miniature baskets, which was not for sale. Since virtually every small piece that Louisa wove went immediately into the “Amy Cohn Miniature Collection,” Louisa must have had this destination in mind from the start. By contrast, although Abe considered Louisa’s larger masterpieces his property, he worked hard to sell them. He only hit on the idea of building a museum to display these works when it became clear that they could not be sold for anything near his perception of their value.’ Promotion and documentation of Louisa Keyser and Washoe basket weaving declined noticeably in quality after Amy’s death, in 1919, and Abe’s marriage to Margaret Jones a year later. Lengthy pamphlets were

no longer produced; the records in the ledger became sloppy and inconsistent; and some pieces from the Amy Cohn Miniature Collection were sold. According to some residents of Lake Tahoe and Carson City in those years, Louisa and Charlie may have been poorly cared for after Amy’s death.

What roles did Abe and Amy Cohn actually play as patrons of Louisa Keyser and promoters of the Washoe curio trade? Amy’s Emporium publications claim that Abe was Louisa Keyser’s sole patron, that he discovered her talent, and decided to befriend, support, protect, and promote her. Abe’s actual role may have been twofold. First, he took care of many business aspects of the curio trade, such as pricing and advertising. Second, he attracted attention to the Emporium basketry department and Louisa Keyser through his gregarious personality, drawing in visitors and regaling them with humorous stories. The major newspaper articles on Washoe basket weaving derive from the special relationship Abe had with 98 | Marvin Cohodas

the local editors. The articles are really about Abe, and are illustrated with photographs of him. Nevertheless, Amy deserves the major credit for promoting Washoe basket weaving, through her patronage of Louisa Keyser, her documentation on certificates, ledgers, and photographs, her public lectures, and her promotional pamphlets. The paradox is Amy’s responsibility for her own lack of recognition. Whereas she had taken credit for the basketry collection, photographs, and ethnographic information in her early (1899-1900) correspondence with Mason and James, she later gave all the credit to Abe in her pamphlets and lectures. Why did this vital and creative woman erase herself from the picture just when Washoe baskets were becoming a commercial success and Louisa Keyser was gaining a national reputation? Possible explanations will be explored in a later section.

The Ledger of Louisa Keyser’s Baskets

The ledger, begun by Amy Cohn and continued after her death by both Abe and Margaret, is the most accurate and indispensable form of documentation surviving on Louisa Keyser and her art. Each basket is given a consecutive number, with the dates recorded on which the piece was begun and completed. Each has an interpretation of design and a title. Most also have some circumstance of the basket’s acquisition by the Cohns and, if sold, a record of the purchaser. To this information is added a column of statistics, including dimensions and weight, materials and weaving technique, stitch count, and the number of days in manu-

facture. This amount of information is striking for the era, when little attention was paid to documentation of individual Native artists. However, despite its apparent objectivity, this ledger cannot be used without understanding its limitations and falsifications.

The ledger gives the impression that it was begun as soon as Louisa started weaving baskets for the Cohns. The first basket is recorded as having been started November 1, 1895. However, the compilation was not begun until at least twenty years later: references to sales as late as 1914 are included as part of the original entry on baskets woven long before that date. Amy appears to have begun the ledger in early 1918, less than two years before her death. Changes in the details of information, neatness, and spacing indicate that entries for baskets through 1917 were copied from certificates, while later entries were recorded as each piece was obtained. Louisa Keyser and the Cohns | 99

The compilation of ledger entries from certificates does not in itself cast doubt on their veracity. But additional evidence demonstrates that much ofthe information is either incorrect or purposely falsified. For example, the dates on which major baskets were said to be completed often contradict other, more contemporaneous forms of information. Van Loan illustrates an Emporium photograph of the degikup numbered L.K.43 in a Los Angeles newspaper article (Van Loan 1906) published September 16, 1906, only eleven days after the basket was supposed to have been completed, according to the ledger entry. In fact, Van Loan probably obtained the photograph when he visited the Emporium and Bicose in August, before the recorded completion date. Local Carson City newspapers often note when Cohn put a newly finished Louisa Keyser degikup on display

in the Emporium window, and these dates seldom accord with ledger entries. We must assume that the dates Amy recorded were estimates. In the case of L.K.43, the basket Van Loan illustrates, the recorded weaving dates are from September 6, 1905, to September 5, 1906, or precisely one calendar year, evidently an approximation. Because Amy did not introduce the Emporium certificates until 1900, the ledger entries on Louisa Keyser’s earlier works are incomplete. Of the first twenty-one entries, measurements are included only for the four baskets (L.K.1, 2, 3, 20) that remained in Carson City. Since Amy had no

hope of reconstructing the order in which these early pieces had been woven, she began the ledger with three baskets that had been woven at different times, purchased by the Cohns’s friend Dr. S.L. Lee, and were among those remaining in Carson City. Baskets numbered L.K.4 through 16 are more haphazardly ordered. Amy then recorded without number, and apparently as an afterthought, four twine-covered whisky flasks that she claimed in Emporium pamphlets had been among Louisa’s first products. The entries for degikup L.K.18, 19, and 20 appear to be in the correct order. Because they were the first of Louisa’s individual and spectacular style, were illustrated by Mason (1904: pl.180) and James (1909: figs. 119, 304), and were the most recently completed before the certificates were introduced, they were best remembered. But the entry following these more accurate records is completely out of place. Amy records as L.K.21 the goblet-shaped basket that appears with other early works in the “Queen of the Basket Makers” portrait. James (1915:37) suggests that this basket was among the first pieces of Louisa Keyser’s work purchased from the Emporium, and it must have slipped Amy’s mind until she was reminded of it by the photograph. Unfortunately, another early basket by 100 | Marvin Cohodas

Louisa Keyser, which may have been sold from Sloan’s store in 1899, was

at all in the ledger.” |

never photographed and remained forgotten, so that it does not appear Both the absence of certificates before 1900 and the resulting incorrect order of the first twenty-one baskets in the ledger are understandable. But Amy needlessly falsified the beginning and ending dates for weaving each piece. The spans indicated are simply rounded or averaged numbers: most are recorded as thirty days, while the others add up to either thirty-five or forty days, equally approximate. More important, Amy treated these - hypothetical spans of time for weaving, and the fictitious order in which they were recorded, as if both types of information were accurate. On the basis of these estimated intervals, she fabricated specific calendar dates for the start and finish of each basket. By this method, she carried the patronage of Louisa Keyser back to November 1, 1895, which we now recognize as another fabrication. The actual date cannot be reconstructed, but the certificate/pamphlet issued by the Emporium in 1900 suggests that Louisa began weaving her first baskets for the Cohns in 1896 or 1897 (Emporium, n.d.A). Such unreliability seems odd to us, for we think ofa ledger as the best means to keep records straight and avoid distortions produced by faulty memory. But in the context of collecting Native American art at the turn of the century, these exaggerations and falsifications may not have been exceptional. The journal of his basket collection kept by Dr. Lee may have an even higher proportion of inaccuracies and fabrications.”

Emporium Propaganda: 1900-1925

The details of Louisa’s life and career appear in pamphlets issued by the Emporium to advertise the collection, and in newspaper articles based on them. The first pamphlet (a combined pamphlet, certificate, catalogue, and vocabulary) was issued early in 1900, and contained a descriptive text entitled “The Queen of Basketry: Louisa Keyser” (Emporium, n.d.A). This description is more straightforward and less exaggerated than later ones, and it is the only one that refers to Louisa by her English name. Most of the fabricated context for Louisa and her baskets is presented in two later pamphlets. One, issued probably in 1905 (Emporium, n.d.B), has a text entitled “How the LK. Baskets Are Made,” while the next, issued in 1911-12, is called “Indian Art” (Emporium, n.d.C). The 1909 publication of the Leisure Hour Club lecture (Cohn 1909) contains

, Louisa Keyser and the Cohns | 101

similar information and was an equal source for newspaper articles. The points contained in these publications are amplified and further exaggerated in the three articles that McNaughton based entirely on information supplied by the Emporium (1903, 1912, 1915).

In general, the Emporium propaganda was designed to make Louisa Keyser’s art appear exceptional and yet traditional, and to make Louisa seem as colorful as possible. Its elements were contrived to present an image consistent with the whites’ view of the Washoe as Indians. A discussion of this propaganda follows in three sections, and examines the exaggerations of Louisa’s life and career, the falsifications surrounding the degikup, and the negative aspects of her appearance and personality. Louisa’s Life and Career

Emporium propaganda generally treated Louisa as an anachronism, a symbol of the superiority of Native life before white contact. This approach required exaggeration of the quality of Louisa’s art, and obfuscation of her originality. Thus whereas Louisa introduced fine stitching as part of the transformation of Washoe basketry to a curio art form, and this innovation was imitated and even exceeded by other weavers (Cohodas 1979), the Emporium claimed that Louisa’s technique was unique, that she was the “last of the great weavers,” and consequently that true quality in Washoe art would die with her. To exaggerate her capability, Amy claimed that Louisa could split a single willow branch into twelve to twenty-four threads. In fact, there was no shortage of willow to inspire such virtuosity, and in my experience the three-strand split still practiced by the Washoe is by far the most efficient. In order to further exaggerate her uniqueness, and suggest that as a traditional native artist Louisa was resistant to change and technology, the literature claims that Louisa accomplished this multistrand splitting by using her teeth and fingernails, with only a broken knife blade or bit of glass for cutting. The reader would have to be very gullible to believe that Louisa would not accept a new knife if it made her task easier. To reinforce her appeal as a traditional weaver, Emporium literature repeatedly describes Louisa trudging over hills and mountains to collect her weaving materials. When this description first appeared (Emporium, n.d.B), it may have been accurate. However, it was consistently repeated to enhance Louisa’s status as a symbol of traditional Washoe culture even when it no longer held true. Several Washoe interviewed believe that Louisa had other weavers bring her the materials, which seems 102 | Marvin Cohodas

likely in view of her eventual year-round residence with the Cohns. Many

commented on her inactivity, partly the result and partly the cause of her extreme weight. For example, in describing Louisa at her weaving, Keller noted: “She had a cane with which she hooked material. What she

couldn’t reach with the cane she asked us to hand her” (Keller 1910:75). Although Louisa is supposed to have been filmed in the process of collecting materials in the movie Abe had made of her in 1922, it was probably the only time in her later life that she attempted such an expedition. The Cohns also exaggerated the prices paid for Louisa’s baskets in order to reinforce the concept of her unique superiority. Claims that in 1888 her baskets sold for $50 apiece (Emporium, n.d.B), or that in 1906 they refused $2,500 for “Beacon Lights” (L.K.41) (Van Loan 1906), are patently false. In fact, the Cohns were thrilled to sell this piece for $1,400 in 1914.

In this sale, G. A. Steiner bought over sixty additional baskets from the Emporium, bringing the total bill to $1,950.'* However, the Cohns slyly

suggested to the newspapers that the single basket had been sold for nearly $2,000 (Carson City News, April 1, 1914). Characteristically, this exag-

geration was quite unnecessary. The true price paid for the basket was just

as extraordinary for that time, and reporting it would not have changed the public’s enthusiasm. A more puzzling example of misleading statements occurs only in the pamphlet of ca. 1905 (Emporium, n.d.B). After lauding “Beacon Lights” (L.K.41) as the finest example of basketry art, Amy notes that Louisa might

never complete another masterpiece because of failing eyesight. Unlike other propaganda statements, this one was not repeated in later Emporium publications, and may thus have had some truth to it. As mentioned above, Van Loan, who interviewed Abe Cohn in the summer of 1906, repeated the assertion with additional embroidery (Van Loan 1906:5). However, Van Loan’s private letter to Grace Nicholson gives quite a different impression. He attributes the impending cessation of weaving to “regular drunkenness.” Were the Cohns attempting to cover up the possibility of Louisa’s career ending in alcoholism by suggesting the more acceptable fate of blindness? Unfortunately, Van Loan’s letter is also not entirely reliable. The negative comments on Abe Cohn as well as Louisa Keyser may derive in part from the antipathy Grace Nicholson held for them: she resented the Cohns’ elevation of prices on Washoe baskets and their monopoly of Louisa’s works. Amy’s ledger provides a third source of information on this crisis in Louisa’s career.'* “Beacon Lights,” the masterpiece Louisa had completed Louisa Keyser and the Cohns | 103

in 1905 that was illustrated in the Emporium pamphlet issued shortly thereafter, was almost twice as large as Louisa’s previous works, and thus took twice as long to weave: fourteen months. From time to time, Louisa

put this monumental work aside to weave small baskets that could be completed rapidly. This pattern of creating minor works while large baskets were still in progress continued for the remaining twenty years of her career. Abe later noted to Henrietta Burton: “She would make just one large basket a year and she needed much coaxing and encourage-

ment. She spent the rest of her time in idleness or weaving miniature baskets” (Burton 1932:7). We may note also that Louisa’s artistic approach was undergoing profound change at this time. In 1905, after weaving varia-

tions of the same pattern on all of her baskets for six years, she began introducing on the minor pieces the design arrangements that would later (after 1915) dominate her weaving until the end of her career. We might expect some aspects of disorientation to correspond with these changes of direction. What then was the real source of the Cohns’ anxiety? Was it merely that Louisa put off finishing her major baskets to take up the minor ones? Did Louisa take up the weaving of minor baskets to resist some pressure to continue the standard pattern on major works? Did she find that weaving larger works strained her eyes more than weaving simpler works? Or did she resort to liquor when uncertain about the direction of her weaving, or when eyestrain made it impossible even to create minor baskets? We may never know the real reason. However, this discussion illustrates a problem consistently encountered in reconstructing Louisa’s life and career: the sources rarely corroborate each other. Each point of view Seems to arise from a separate reality, producing small bits of information too disconnected to complete the puzzle. The Degikup: History, Function, and Meaning

In contrast to the refined baskets of the twentieth-century curio trade, Washoe weaving at the end of the nineteenth century had been dominated by a coarse, utilitarian approach. In the late 1890s, adaptation of coiled basket weaving to the curio trade required Washoe weavers to achieve greater sophistication in both technique and design. Some weavers attempted to improve the aesthetic quality of their basket weaving while remaining within the parameters of traditional Washoe shapes and designs (Cohodas 1983 :17-20). In contrast, Louisa Keyser adapted stylistic traits of nonutilitarian basket weaving from the Pomo and Maidu of Cali104 | Marvin Cohodas

fornia to create anew Washoe form: the degikup (Cohodas 1982:132-36). By steadily increasing the fineness of her weaving technique, and by explor-

ing the degikup form as a medium for the highest expression of Washoe basketry art, Louisa earned the Cohns’ life-long patronage. By 1900 other weavers were making degikup, and by 1915 it had become the preferred shape for coiled basket weaving. Louisa’s innovations of fine stitching and two-color patterns were likewise adopted by other weavers to form the foundation of Washoe curio style. Furthermore, these Washoe weavers not only utilized designs Louisa had borrowed from Californian wares, but they also borrowed or invented new designs on their own. Louisa

Keyser thus deserves credit for originating the popular curio style of Washoe fancy basket weaving, both because she introduced the finely stitched, two-color degikup and because she inaugurated individuality and innovation for others to follow. Emporium propaganda about Louisa’s degikup was designed to obscure

its recent, nonutilitarian origin and proclaim it a traditional form. Each new fabrication seems to have required another to support it, fulfilling the warning in Sir Walter Scott’s poem Marmion: “Oh, what a tangled web

we weave, / When first we practise to deceive!” It is possible to reconstruct a general sequence for these fabrications that accords with the dates on which they first appeared in Emporium publications or articles by McNaughton based on information from Amy Cohn. For brevity and clarity, these are presented below in the form ofa hypothetical dialogue between a customer (the questions) and the Cohns (the answers). QUESTION: Why haven’t we seen any degikup before 1897?

ANSWER: When the Paiute defeated the Washoe around 1860, they forbade the Washoe to weave any fine or ceremonial baskets (McNaughton 1903:436). QUESTION: If the Paiute prohibited weaving such baskets, why does Louisa Keyser make them? ANSWER: Abe Cohn has promised to protect her from Paiute reprisals (Emporium, n.d.B |ca. 1905]). QUESTION: Why didn’t other weavers immediately take up degikup

when Cohn offered his protection? ANSWER: Only Louisa had inherited the right to weave degikup (Emporium, n.d.B).

QUESTION: What made her special? Why don’t other weavers have the right? Louisa Keyser and the Cohns | 105

ANSWER: She was the daughter of the leading Washoe, a chief, and she inherited the position of medicine-woman from her mother (McNaughton 1915:14). QUESTION: How could Louisa remember the process of weaving degikup during all those years of Paiute prohibition? ANSWER: She continued to weave them, but to protect her, a relative destroyed them all (McNaughton 191¢:14).

Viewed diachronically, these fabrications show increasing emphasis on fabricating details of Louisa’s life before contact with whites and before working for the Cohns, making her life and art appear more traditional. These invocations of tradition and history can be easily disputed. In explaining the absence of the degikup by means of Paiute prohibition, the Emporium was adapting a popular story to a new purpose (Cohodas 1982:124-25). Although the Paiute had neither defeated the Washoe nor imposed a prohibition, Powers had used the same theory in 1875 to explain why the Washoe had not adopted the horse, unlike their Great Basin neighbors the Paiute and Shoshone (Fowler and Fowler 1970:124). Claims of special status for Louisa Keyser through her father are also false. The Washoe had not adopted the Plains Indian form of ranking, so they did not recognize chiefs or other permanent authority. Those who emerged as spokesmen for the Washoe in relations with white authority were Called “captains,” and Louisa’s father was not one of them.” The purpose of these fabrications is to take the credit for developing the degikup away from an individual in order to attribute it to the tribe. Whereas

individual innovation suggested rapid change and present times, tribal origin placed the degikup in a changeless, traditional past. This shift was necessary to the curio trade, because buyers craved an aura of tradition to satisfy their nostalgia for a calmer and nobler past. To compete with the mortuary function ofthe Pomo and Maidu spher-

oid baskets that had been Louisa’s inspiration, Amy Cohn claimed a similar function for the degikup. She described a fictitious burial tradition

in which a large storage basket was placed on the chest of a deceased male, his prestige demonstrated by the fineness of the degikup buried or

burned with the body; a woman was only supposed to have a burden basket inverted on her grave to show that her life’s work was done (Cohn 1909:76; McNaughton 1903:581). Anthropological sources reveal instead that Washoe tradition specified only the burial of the dead person’s be106 | Marvin Cohodas

longings, and the desertion of the house in which that person died. Such destruction prevented the potentially harmful ghost from returning to the living by way of the path of familiar property (Freed and Freed 1963:45). Washoe men used only a few objects made of basketry, such as the fish trap, while women made most basket types for their own use. Thus in a traditional Washoe burial we would find most baskets thrown into the grave of a woman, and almost none in the grave of a man, precisely the reverse of Amy’s fabrication. Emporium propaganda recalled the actual Washoe burial tradition only once, and long after the Washoe themselves had ceased conforming to it. Louisa’s last degikup, requiring only a few more rows for completion, was buried with her. Abe Cohn reported to the papers that Louisa had requested this sacrifice in order to conform to tribal law. However, on two earlier occasions (1908 and 1918) Louisa had ignored this tradition by finishing baskets other weavers had left incomplete at their deaths. She actually finished two baskets begun by Scees Bryant, her brother’s wife, a woman whose close kinship represented great potential for harm to Louisa if she had returned as a ghost. There must be another reason for the burial of Louisa’s basket with her. - Many explanations could be suggested, but we have so little reliable information on her personality or beliefs that it is impossible to make an intelligent judgment. On the other hand, attributing the decision to Abe Cohn would be consistent with the Emporium approach of elevating Louisa as a symbol of traditional Washoe culture. For example, in opposition to Louisa’s stated preference for her English name, the Cohns distinguished her from all other Washoe weavers by using the Washoe name, Dat So La Lee. For the same reason, Amy pushed back Louisa’s birth date to 1834 (McNaughton 1915:14), falsely placing her in the period before the first contaminating white contact, and Amy also exaggerated the beginning of their patronage arrangement to 1884 (Emporium, n.d.B). Further fabrications were necessary to make the designs on Louisa’s degikup appear traditional. As Merriam,” Barrett (1917:22), and others have

noted, the designs that characterized Washoe coiled basket weaving in the twentieth century were of recent introduction, primarily from California styles. To counter this, Emporium pamphlets consistently asserted that Louisa’s designs represented a kind of family crest she had inherited. As a corollary, it was claimed that no weaver from another family was allowed to copy her designs. The reader of this propaganda would have Louisa Keyser and the Cohns | 107

to have been very distant or very unobservant, since a quick look at the basketry display in the Emporium or Bicose would show that virtually every weaver imitated Louisa’s designs!

The Emporium pamphlets also consistently mention that weavers never repeat the same design on another basket. This is first mentioned in the 1900 pamphlet, when Louisa had not yet produced the same combination of shape and design on more than one piece. That her approach was worthy of specific comment may derive from its opposition to the conventional view of basket weaving as a repetitive craft. However, in the miniature baskets, which Louisa first began weaving in 1905, she often produced duplicate combinations of form and pattern, and other

weavers followed suit.'’ Rather than abandon the assertion that such duplication did not occur after it ceased being true, Amy repeated it more vehemently, now supporting it by invoking tribal law as sanction (Cohn 1909:76). In Emporium propaganda, invoking a fantasy of the past to obscure changes in the present requires that reality and fiction must draw increasingly apart. Emporium propaganda asserted not only that the degikup designs were traditional but that they were symbolic. In a 1902 letter to Nicholson’s buyer, C.S. Hartman, Amy wrote: “with each individual basket we give catalogue numbers, history, and description or definition of the symbols

or hieroglyphics on them, and in every way endeavour to make each article an interesting relic.” '* In particular, Louisa was called the tribal historian, and her designs were said to encode the legends, history, and traditions of her people, in part to keep them from being forgotten. The contradictory evidence that the designs were of recent introduction, and even the denial of meaning by Louisa herself (Keller 1910:75), did nothing to dampen popular enthusiasm for the symbolic interpretations emanating from the Emporium. Furthermore, despite her claims that these designs recorded Washoe tradition, Amy applied the same vocabulary to baskets of other tribes sold in the Emporium. Amy’s approach to the interpretation of symbolism in basketry design may be reconstructed from the explanations she wrote on the certificates, especially those for Louisa Keyser’s major works. Amy made numbered sketches of the motifs on the blank side of the certificate, and also wrote out identifications for each. In these identifications, she followed a strict vocabulary of her own invention, involving a standardized meaning for each motif. While designs made up of simple motifs, lacking in variation, could be explained simply, Amy felt constrained to account for any 108 | Marvin Cohodas

variations of a single motif with much more complicated analyses. For example, she sketched four variations of the “flame” or “sunlight” motif on L.K.s0,”” called “The Signal Code,” and she explained these variations (fig. 19).

In addition to these sketches and explanations of motifs, Amy sometimes provided an invented background in the form of an ethnographic record. Such descriptions always emphasize men’s activities, ceremonials, inheritance, and status. Perhaps the most elaborate was occasioned by Louisa’s innovative adaptation of the form of a twined burden basket to the coiling technique in the work numbered L.K.51. As with the degikup, Amy had to counter this introduction of a new form with a weighty defense of its traditional origin and function. Her colorful fabrication appears on the reverse of the certificate: Burden or carrying shape or form, a style of basket in this stitch made only by the favorite relative of the Chief; who was a good weaver in fact the most expert weaver of his family. Used in ceremonials preceding great or important undertakings or expeditions. It was placed in the center of the circle near the council fire. As each brave or person connected with the expedition passed the basket as they circled in their ceremonial maneuvers or dances, a gift or propitiatory offering was cast into it to gain success from the “GreatGood-of-All.”

These offerings became the property of the officiating Chief. The burden-basket shape symbolized the laying of their burdens or sorrows, fears and hopes, into the will of their spiritual Chief.

On the front of each certificate, Amy referred to her interpretations of basket meanings with a short title, and sometimes with a long sentence composed by stringing together the identifications of each motif from her vocabulary. For example, an explanation appears on the reverse of the certificate for the coiled burden basket L.K.s1 (Fig. 20). From these identifications, Amy created the long title for this basket, recorded on the certificate front (Fig. 21): “Our men camped beside the roads and rivers, then assembled around the campfires, praising and extolling the shrewdness and skill of their hunters in obtaining game.” Amy also abstracted from this long title a shortened form, “Extolling the Hunters,” which appears on both front and reverse of the certificate, and by which the basket is now known. The intent of these interpretations is evident from the vocabulary and Louisa Keyser and the Cohns | 109

:

. as hd AA N

,» NV\ 2

C. | |N

[\

~AS LA,

D. b | Figure 19. Certificate for L.K. 50. Amy Cohn’s analysis of motifs:

A. Building a fire in the daytime, covering it with a blanket, then raising it, making the smoke swirl in many forms, each one a recognized symbol.

B. Building a fire at night, propping a blanket up on supports, or building in front of it a barricade of brush, and making the flames form signals.

C. Attaching cloths to sticks on poles and waving them in the sunlight. D. Hanging cloths on the limbs of trees to wave signals. 110 | Marvin Cohodas

SO OyRUD Ce a OeORE be ee0ee aa | ..llrlhlr,t 8 oo aeerae eeI Sn eeede eeSSeeeee ee eseee ae: a=oe ee. yo oo : iyea oSeee TM CUE oo io ee i i veehen sii seessacsnepeisingeanan “EEE B. te siihaiigeermmeayasaiaicngemcinin 7B ce a snoitese ‘ é

ieeaCorm eeeeiOe = a ae| :ese | i ..lrrts~—CC—CSiSCzSS Meat lalatst nce a Cr —iCO*isCOCiCC i

i; a i. _ CASO ATI An Ee Co ee ae a 8 .. oe 50SEC ES SES Ness ion adresse esitimtnttecreerge SE a |... ... 4

slr TDC RU ER BCE 'ee a Ce adesee es ae :eeaoe oat i} Bo OO oe Wa sg 8 ( ee oo ce icee Oper ee =Ce eeae oo aa = ae Wes abetee sca “egg dolly me wx | key OTE es cs ia t2... Oe eeaog yyOS BeEEGE See Ge ea oe a.2... a . oo SERENA OR SEINE OP Cas |. : |... a a4 wn cy aT , asceryry ’ | 2. a Zz| _. oo a | i MERA OLE A RT Ie « : i oe — ,. oo a

| sence nansirimanntacaiacicsnieencginine "Ag sai‘ ‘éia.eCttwWw ; es aeeeee rts [ARN sinninninioiguenionieoenroens i a4: 2 ee OO|gINOUE oieistertinentierenterinnie 8 weuahoce” wba “aa Cis eiamnmadl Aka ee eee ee een eT rN UMMM |GHE”

TO RU een te ‘ : : Fen eee ee eR CGM, > ts Me eee eee eee eee MEY MORO USS CONG ee ena Uap SLRRaaialy canter tiah suas) oe dieaines aieumelistie © 2 RC a SSE ES UES CR Ra MES FGETS O NN SRR SSE ASE so ca

Teese soe tees regents tea teas a naan iasaeSentn ten setae Be eee¥ ART ae an One Cee aed ane SPDR AN pee " ] sear wwii aie hraine ese tsb Dn eis hee Gi wich eo en NN HD aA etgeansit A Ala hbo MEAD Aaa eaeeisieC REE

2° : :oeTe ,Oeaee|) ,ee ee! oa. can ee ea ae ‘ i a } ' 8 jo ?

®a #| bMS teBos Be wl keA7©Register A,ofWER SRE RORETE Dee coc cccocccmmmnsecachainmtmilamactincs esi Beker apaceGE a ee ee lees ee » hoeute, e088, Gcgindity design, erumtarel Jone, mewber of devi coated Je Ai coentrection, melbrichialty, ae twoEPS hemeSo wae) gluhe

ee ee ee ek PO ee Me ee eo me ee ee ee eee ee ae ore? eae"Mew aeest ltEe BRO RE Ae gai Holdated tihetcieed Oieas naeacoso ees sa 3eae ; pier Wha “haath, Bag CEN caerate iheeee, otf ae PRE Lew, grlliatie Sia Ena, HE ae oA"Eed banat uate seo eeiaSesae oon . #patie ra tite tals giao taste" soos

i. % “ pe - aéee=ee feinMnnine: es,ae uleMGT Ee rad fe iy# i er lle cca

a fe fy =z “ ae|. #goA/

pty eeel Bees Eee BERGER i woe wf { UNE SRO aie SENOS ORS ACRE CORA aa ee OS

¥ Few lovkeveasbert fan cg thd Oo Boe i ee PClotniy eho Aeelee a we neta it abe isabel eae

We as? ; ‘wet a8 Wey Ee Uievecdebinn ae Wu ase Baie a=8,Albee nd :Fis_cuspokrts pos Pn is# a ( |. i Miaterplece 4fi. wel ‘yl, Ean ie le:ceile ed At Wy we aaheyy EP os UO god Gag . ey DERE OSS UGS . asede ee G0wee Poe RAE Se a + ‘sfShae ki agi ies as easesPay i} * eee? ON A) le ara! se wy ae Oe asaicat S Neeuetouek backhe, fe fe , gee

Piaute ee’ag —Scag _ i a iCe Black Pterks Aqailinions Pi bcgeitagt dl ee AEM es : « 3name fF wh ‘eer2xia 4s OL ng WERE oP" ge BP ror wheere obbadresd 0 a tthe ee hE Eons ccm ite White coe Balin, White Lo ede aliee aba RI Ta Wet tan aoriA ABOWillow RNC BEC - late ay Sy 1k ww He TOMI: e a ardCTLATRECTR irs Se Gs es AR a OoOA a arKEP eC AELOR. caer a eeGCALIPORNTA rat ae an eae ete MUMEMEEIR CINDY

Fiigure Certificate for L.K.tor 51,L.K. written by Amyy Cohn. Four of 0Louisa’s 20. Certificate §1, written Y Conn. Four uiSa S$ major major bask Das ets

t to G.A. Steiner i inIn the hope that would purch ld were Sent tO U.A. oteimner In I91§ tne ope that he wouhe purcnase at least two, an

9e

thereby finance Abe’s plan for a useum museum0of basket t. Steireturned the Daskets oeWashoe Da eury art. einer ul ept the certificates.

°ee°

(Courtesy Kennedy Mill Farm C tion)

e*«

the pseudo-etnnograpnic explanations. ° First, bdthe references are only to a supposed traditional past, not to the present reality of Washoe life. Sec-

ond, there are no references to any aspects of life that ou ave Deen O concern to the women who made the Daskets and used them 1n nurturJ

their fi ili 0] t d, th ti fh dw fcul d

Ing their tammies.” instead, the mentions O unting an ar, OI cults an

e e e e°°ee

rituals, refer speci cally to male action and Status. [ne same emp aSIS Nay

beted i Amy’s fabricati t tradition for thetordegikup. noted in S faDricat1on Of fa MOY uary raqdition the eg up. Iin

both situati the femini IVOI DaS f bask otn situations, the feminine, creative aspects etry are Inv inverteddto

latethem them with destructi titi dan ige. Third associate with male male destruction, competion, prestige. Ird, alt oug the certincates an pamp ets claimed that Louisa was record-

ing th yth d traditi fh l fe k Wash

Ing em S and (raqglvions Of ner peop e, references to known Wasnoe

>? .e seeee e e°

yth d tabl b t. Th y fe hiefs’

m S and ceremonies are nota ya sent. e many references to cnieis

compacts, (trl councus, and signal nres recall the 1dealized and roman-

ticized vision whit t this ti held of the Plains Indi d hi traditiona! culture.

e defeat of the Flains Indians wno ha eTOlCcally resisted wnite enCcroac ent, and their subsequent humiliating connhnement on reserva,

tions, may be at the heart of th talgia that fed th io trade in th Louisa Keyser and the Cohns | 111

arene om caoryny ope Pore a LK Sl a a cle pele tae ey, wel Wn, brn Wreawer. 5 fhe y 1

| pamcls | . ,

eat PoaatasAS wilh v!-; PRY O natal. yo&iit 6 | oe Or): ie caLe oe oo oCa ea — . ae oe aoe| 77ek a ie.Se :. — oe Co le |Se aonoooe :at aaoo oe ._. oe __ . ee — . — Ff oo ee oo ce oo oe oo o oo :aoe — | es a a. Ny oe ae a ae} oo a ui oe a | mee a me . oF oe Nie Ne a me ee eee PEE _ me oo sete > es WK Woe i ie ae on a. oo — -_ ye Bs -. oS : ee oo oo aoees aa. ooee abs oa aeoy en oeHe a aoe Te ke oo ie _aSo a|.a ee ie . ae |.ae iHueooee Te ee es One " oe woe 4oo ya eve Oe oy Oe AN oe7 oF asaees re oo Berea 2es a. eo) Os Be Ros oa es asAk OsNN ooHt —a... oe sth oooo : ae ..ee a)aaony 7| i_ion |._.. a| ee Se oCoo Os RU RNY oO ve.oo ie: Co uae : aaaes ae sy oF ooacy a aBe a _oe»esle 8oe oe ee sal se ih —.BN Ben Ae ee os i .Ae . oeae a ene ae oe aaN ‘ .Ny De a va ae oeRe .RO oe RN rises Rae — Ss ooIse aoo Oy 1aSa Ae aeHs ai ace ra Pr SahBS ‘Pa ce ao, oo ll he csiDes 8iines so neaee LOAN Re See eLe ee cee ee Hain Se Seee oe a.a. ss 7.Oa, aie S ORNS oa "aa NN we Can val an BaA Bias: a Oui _ Me :)ue oeAue ae eS oo.-NS ife Syoo aS Lo ay oN ae) ty TN aa a. ay aHe |ge canes one oe GR ANG a. eh ae Co ee Tee) loeeee aN EN Oe— : Se oS . NOR TNO ee et ae .eae Bes oe aVe oa Cas oF oo a oo co : ok -A oOO aN aee NE es uh) ataneTOES oy i HN oo Be: tea aeeSONS ie eet a LA‘aoe He) ORG SRA Heo es Fooe ANG eS OR a ieoo oe Reh ON Dee Penn aes es Eeeoe Dee ee REN on oeane A ie afaa oy ah eei siee CaeaeyoN Big Ri oe hie ait oe aiti in Coe Dae at) 0HeHas aeBoie . aetin |aeoe oe ueSERS he ae oef erscsAe eeONES oe Cg ae on ayLyeLo ah ae sie ee oo Sagres La AS Wi a a. TG a oe » me oo ie Ree Co @ aN oe My oe oe ee oe ae A Tsae one oo SSD a. .oo esGe »ae a oonae! ‘i —oS EGER: Hess Ges a i oN oe .ee teee aoe See Be % ® aesSoOG aa oe ioes‘ioy He ee ae a ee oSbine _eeen i aa—ue ae os . oe ueaeesavol ie eyae on aoeue oooeoe.ae Ds oo Co H) ye hoe eeBe aaes Co acn)|. ay aeeeae ees Bees ee _..ae a ig one ooee ehiCue ne oe ee es os Pe ve eS aeean ey asy Vee a oe oo aa oo oe oe a aoe aae.oo)— es a i a. oe . oo 8 RAY oo oo a ie SE en) he oo Hees — SN a oe Coe ee Be: oo oo . -. Ma ba 1s oo ae a a oe ul Ge MN a ee oo. Ae Dy ee oe _ oe oo oe Pn en oe oA . a A aes oo —. canes 7. oi Se . % a. ol) oo Ln os ee oe | a0) ee ane oe ae nee sade by, oe a ay Sa ‘5 co a COR ue .) oe oo ee Ae Con ie eaeeoo Wwe i i FE oe i‘ i Hs eas aee vontia Fea He nelae eteee i ie ee ages RONG ooee an aaBe SN ooGt He sy ai. . ee Loe.— Pee: aos ey nea Loic aaHon Co eeoo cyeoay ons seaSe Co atsiSs Cee o& |_ee nd Mit heen oe ae oe! Oia aoy aeGas aOS tu es_a Ao . eG Ca ee an a -.aHiae oe akses ee aeae aySAU oa (ONG a aesaeHO Lo aCo oh he1ayee . i oo ‘ a : ae a Oe a a, oo. A oo . es) ae fo. (oes ie Se y oo Cae ae eth oe Cae oo Gh ee ne oe yes . Coe oy ey cy Oe | pone Boy ee sage erg oo A nee oo (oa —a i.Ore a _oothieee) Coss, hesPsaeae0sey i. Res ae SHOEN ae sie A ee oe aesue Suen PiesANG Hason Sie‘aae a Ha ny aSol oowire aa cee ees GOR oeee 7 or ON eu ee pense oe ena ee ewan Nee ee HR GU ee am Henaes a ae a

..|ae, oooooSaa — eee ok .aeoeaaa.Aya.aeaod-ee .aoeoe ae ey oo _= aee aaoa — oe.oyae ae a ‘Y oo oo ue a-.aa. .oe — Pea —— _eea_ i— oe o ae oo He ieee— OS | 7; oe. i oec ie yo fa oO sees asus peo seek:| — ©So ._ Dey oa ceia. ane Paes oe — ee Oe on a Ve a we Coane pee ene OR a oe Co ee ae ae _— Aaa fe ents asin — | a i i. oa ae oy a | . os os ON ee ea Ss 4 oe ae De BY oe OM Ps) a Re ie tis mites so ee ae Nn ae Aas a ke SESS oe

e oe ee ae a . oo ae or oe ae ae i a ea Wolk a he oe a ne Se be a Rae ie ae Ags oe Os a. ao Co ae ats as - one a. og ee fees Se

:— oe ..:ee oo ve .eee oo oo a aee a1% ae oe iLat aoeHi aoeoe oe ia oe ee oe oS |— oseaLa aaon iM et ee pee ee EO Nee Pe Ra Aye eo oo. Pea va .Rae aiaut neaey K oea 8— ae out oooo Nee ksee oe). Nt Uh oo oN oo cee Sah ae .aoo — oe oe aoo ne ieeaoo oe ce aaeaio .oy |aaae ay |ON ee Re oe PeA oe aee -oa.Scones ata_ae7ae boioaes cake 4.aets Be PNG oe— .7—. _— | oo - Fe : “4 ne Co Se | Paes :-... ao ae Ww)LN oo —oo oe _— . ntff a Ctoo « ,a7,a4 'a4uy - Syyry i a. ee rr oe E ve oe .— aeosoo|og .on . | ae _,: — Sa- :4 |. . ,. . . | De EM oe a | ls ae oo . _ | 7 o : .

a .eea ia| Baia Syne isi oe a oeee i OS ae HNaON) Bae UN, PONS CON oa Co ae ae? eea ES oe |.. a a.| .a8 Res oe eoas as ae aHe ee HG se ee LN ee ::- .J :.a.coMa a| oeMh io eS |:Co a eeee csoS oe ee«. oe co oe ae ee Oe oe ai)ey,.oe a aeen aaaallHi oo oy — .BaBe :one _. |aOS es |eG La aON re oe ec .aoeSOG |‘oe ,SE ;— :a. _a Ae: Baa He DN ae oo oo es iaan )aosnae CG .| ey Hl sah -— | GI koe — Be oS a4 ee uh NS oe eeoo co) oe aA ER Rey Looo eee oe Nae es ahas Oa ao a.ee ae .a Eee a. ee Boe | eae ie eece Hla AAUS, ae i oy ea aNSa ape ee! SOLON ORR AY Heat ee Cea Co AVN ae ay a. ae :ay |& ceaeae oe yeaiSe oone_ a. re ee ae we ee Tas .La, a ee as TaN aaaeaaaen Hs AA? ieaco .TERS FZ Bt a ae a see ae Leia oe i Fo EO oe a. || oe On oo -g oe _ i |. . Hae — eS aN — Ei Ls “ ye a an Coo le ict ey Ta co ae a ae. uae Lon a HG! ae FONG Sg ae oo ae ay co i.“ A SA se a oo. . DR | i . ale ei: Eo a ne PON ane ye Ce ee ea ae Dee Gaye ee ue Co. Ne oe ee Hela ion a en uh eae Tes lL Ss oy a 2 Me oo. a Mia: | ae ne a ea NO i Dae oe aN We es Tae Kaa ANG Plt Pea Le ie ones Att a He a ao Hes Adah oo es ON ay ve a .4-. .os voe | ia.a.ee eae i aon i ese Ce ae eeoe - GS La oy en as ee ae a) tenet oeaoe aoe oy . oY _. ¢g oe ae oa ae ot ee ae ee ae a oO oe oe ou co a ey oe _ ,Ss | | : | . : ay le oo uh _ HO OS ee ny vie oo He oe area ie a. Bae oo 8a... oy oS oo oo8hoe | SON SE a), Oa a ie as i Tie A Bile ae Dea ea aaSee ae oo Syoo ga . LsLL a_— .aa oe t)= & oo mh oe aSe Pha aeoe aToa ca44 _ ne — @ oo oe he Beas oo ae .esAe aPeek isaoe aat.araoeaeh oe |;reSats ae |oe Co os aaaeRN ee ‘Gh . TataaasyaasaLn oo Hh aCi :xBA .a7.Aa ..eS Waa ee Co aeoO oe ad oe Uae oo eS oe aa on ae.ay ee aLe ean Be .aoe a.LeBie FF 4isesdey: tte oe oa has .aSe :aNytTees — :Sea ;.aooaaaaa— = aeoo S ee ae . :Co ee |a... ee oea ee Le ial iG ala aeDes eeoo. he :Ba / .a(es --Nae: or OS aon nats ia|un enNe ae oa aaa -ve eG Dh BARE A aa aaeeae auu a ce aa.- oe > oo : Oe oa | a . a _ ah oo GN 8.-| CONG ae ee |. NN a ee eet . a es ONG i a ae Se — a ae Boi ee | oe ony i Ga oe ee aster ee Lo Denes oe. oa a . cH oe ee . a Oe NG a FF oo ni ee — : a . Ae Se Re) oo. |. ae Ae Ss oo ae a ieeyLos aN Sas Aaa oo oe oo ye aaosAes —-— a eae a feNe ee oo a :Sl|. IEE Le Dane a es . ee RR ee i Nan ut ae a ay alain . PG ue) ade eo oo oo oe — oe a SON oO — «@ _ Gia oC a) oe . a @ a_ aS et HO .oo GuAnT as ee eeSa aeia Hh ct Dah ae Saat aeeaoo :aRA: o|;| :.|oe|:oo :Le|-ee-,|ve ION ae .— oo ee) eeoe — ce -— ;:,uO ae ;|RAN fae .— aDas . DM lee Si - af ye I Sat Hane aM ul aa Fae thoe ae aoo .EN .. esi esa Neeel oes .Asai Nae NN -say I,ay -.a. me ee ion See Pee asen Co oeDa: i si aeoeed oe.. oo ae 2LeWa ae ne Cae Co oo . i) oo a . a Lo ae ae oo. Lo oe a — !:a .|oo :.: :?:* 7 [ — EK WN oo NE a ay os — Ee) ng ae A oo. |ON :A |:_,a. a. ae at SURG an a — . : Aah a nee . ae es ase a Ui aot it . ean Anise es Swit Hail i oo a& _ ae | — Ff uy _ a. oe ee ae He ae ae aie —) |oo. A ee a ee — HUN oe a. anH i ea Re oo oh Oa at .eeVeh oe a.|— | aaidCo |ee aOG ae a.ue oo ey oOSES we De -aja,Ff — ee — saeK AAe eeoS ao oC ae |eae oo a— - aa-aa.a|. . oo aan -g oo Ee aa ay Le oo aPeal a) oN oe_ -— | .7|Vay ae ie.He ea ae nat eae Lo ae oe Lea EAN an]a. oe pa .A Co A ae .|LO His ea Ss oo Be i'. Ce eeCe a | oe oy he one. ne::oo Poaoe ae| — asNS ae ea_ee ee nees TO aes aeas ie eka | : fg a rr. _ a Lo % iee |.ny .oo oo My a ys a— ro oe oe an oe enn Bo — .a_. Ce soi ee CC My aN Oe a. Da Oe LO ie |..oe Re ee on) |.oo! Ae oe olae :ae -i;_ . -2ae :ee :._4:7..: a_7.ea. ais_|aoo aoo aCo ee oo aaeee o|ea:/Ce ee Ce .ueee—aanee ane -ae oe a.Lie Co a_Ce a:Z ao aOe a7Ce .Be Oe oo ae oo Cg aN |.aM aoe. — a[-on |.oe _a.oo _.Ee7a.|4See i“ea ws ee eis oo ioo AN aHO Asi |o -a: ja—_ aeae “Hu ieine eeOeoe ee) aTea bona ,at 7. Ri . aa. aeees :ae : ve ee“2 ; ae osres GG Coae Res aneee ene BS % EER ONG RRS OS by a aa Ii Ne y Paes Be ane Re ees ) eae oo se EI ai a sali oo Pia Hea So NA How TN « SEN Pia Ne ay LE ee a ‘ah te sin . a

|.

a ae| — ctFeeee Hetty — _a. -yea—. . LC sf est Une 2 ue | 6 CO wo le ie BEES _ | oo. . a Bn Se aeiae Oe .Ne oe FF eee aa A .oo. .aoe|._.oe .— _oe __G@ sag iea.eS ie 8.oerove ~——r—. .|.| :es -:CN -,|-a .;— ;£.oo oo ee aie es ao iis anen De ee : a a . a. ae — ol Co AEN Heh Sg —. )Ba a oo a i oa ah ns a a ae oo aa Au a x ue oo ne a a. oo — a et ec ae . . a Bee es . ae ae Oo i oo a oo |. Sy . . a. S . . | . « ey Aaa a cae He | oe a a Dien. a Hee ee | a a. oe) iG aa ey wy i Co .aa.. ae Hoa Ny 0Tees aef38 Neen .ne . eas . aia. oo Lo Ce a .ee .a .— . |Pa -a... oo | ;::.4:2 ie iDl th iaaseals ae Ne :|.,aee|.:::ohe:Leas |es :a.aaee :aaoe | _ oo co oe [_ Oy ie Co a MN is ae i, oe ey, oe a :Ne Se . oo | . ae oo oo — ee vail a iM oe a EP oe a:|..Ne |a i.. iak a Ha ele eth ea ae a ia Ce a ea oe ie aai. SPS .Uh . oo oo ah a a ey a ae : 7 . 2 to 2. ee oe oo a a. Oh — .NOEs as Vs ee an oh i oe ae oC . ..:.].-: a oe ve aa oo ae oe oo | 7 | : : 7 Lo oe a oe a ee _ _ nee . as ay ns os a co Lee oe . oi ae — .»we —. cone aOs es ee ah ch | Neale oo Ce ... a vei a .. -— oo. . o . a 3 DOO . . _ .. ae ... i oo. | oe a .. . . | a RI oa — . — | ee a a : oo ee ae . SAR) .oo. |.Ce — . oe. ....ee oe ee seee oeaoe ee oe Sy |.oo oe .... _a_ . VIO — os. oo ea a .oF i.

: . _ Fl . aN a .} er! n a.=. a/ | aa ] e aN

ES | oat Ca a aoe arahe UR — oe a-ooaear : |—oe aWan Hi! ico aa oe ieee a.a ne :a :— Rea ens Sr ae Laat as ...7a-_Laie Da MOONY .aa panes =a:oo ° .EEE -.sien .ca -leh -_.oe TSS clea Ma Be ay a: SUES -.. .— oa:ee Cn i: Ee) a|.iDs.oo aaaa a.aa Be : Mh OAT aA ee iIetLa ee Co _. -. aa. Oe |oe |.oN oe ee aCae .Hie pas clea slelake ES .a: ES HE .i isi!ee eliP ok -_ a: : aoo ae | a ee a ae a _ . ee ea | ‘4 . os a oo ye oF ae me a es a a _ | : . a oe mi oe oe oe Sen Hi — a eh ns eat se ah i ae MeN eb a, a Oe Hee Ati bain a ei CO i oe a ale —

‘ . |. 7a aue | male oe Leathe ieee Vash OH aE on Ned TR _ s Ee : .a aoo sain NNoe ss ae GNae sen ae Mua peat ee oo.HN Oi) Sa Lees ot ava ooSN RaeSaal a aleMi oeDeen GINS DY eS ee aaa aassek ey i. .— . Hy TeHa oooe ae oo i Ns oaAooNG ae aoo—

: / Ae -BOGE | -: :(o oo .Oe Oe oo. a Se Hey oe ae ae Ha iN avlan ae al en sean He -sity ee eS MR Bae aeahs me aa) DNA oo A . oe iWea aieioe ea _— ud a eal es ae Han aNO HNN Ai A ea Ler Hai Leah Caan alii ee A coral Ae Fe oei_ | |be SOs GY —_— He aSK asSis uN at oe i) es ee ay __ Riese AS DO eeae ea iBh eS aee eee eu ean EAN Boat .2 _ite cc4 Le .Paes oo |— oo oo on aa en es iien Te eae aoooo :oows ee el ele Ee oo UN: itHava oe Ne nh _a.a.NE ; ah .ee : ee),oo :eeieoes .aeCees Aone ane a. Meet aAlt ne ine aHe cee . _Neely .aie .:s!oe ae ae ae a a. a a Bid eat ey an ie . Le ::aeis _rea :ee oe a a a a ie) ay ad . oo. _, fe .: .:Ne een aia i Oe oe i LOO a He HS Coe ne en . oo Oi eee se oe! . oe Ne ee Ge oo ae ae Bie a ae . oo eee Pat ae SO a. Ce oe . . — oa . ca eS ae, ne GeRO en A oe 4 oo Ns oh es _ . .haya oe oo oe . LEN at ceneoo oe ooae Le oe a . a Me 7 aeva Sa ee agi:

°SCANS Re pr di lle] oo oo oeesa -. .| ° es oe m: Lag undoed ed . e A mM ce x08 i Se | -.,ve Select

. oe.Ia)Yl a °esoe C ao $ocid TO . a: IC oe >

20, Amer

“ erican Opoilo 9 thropological

More important for our concerns, he advocated that primitive art be studied in the same manner as the art of so-called civilized societies: individually and biographically. In a classic passage for the emerging paradigm of primitive art studies, he wrote: “We tend too much toward conceiving the art of'a primitive people as a unit instead of considering the primitive artist as an individuality. It is necessary to study how the individual artist solves specific problems of form relations, of the combination of figures,

and of spatial compositions in order to understand what is typical of an art style” (1918:263—-64).

Evidence of Boas’s interests at the time and of his direction of the project can be found in his correspondence. Concerning the personal distribution of designs among the women of Puget Sound, Boas wrote to Haeberlin in 1916:

What I should like to know, is, of course, what designs are made by each particular woman and how do they criticize designs, and how do they instruct the young girls in the making of basketry and basketry designs. I also wish that if you have the chance to observe basketry making by an expert basket-maker, you would try to observe as carefully as possible the regularity and speed of her movements, how many stitches she makes per minute, and how far the piercings and pullings, etc. is |sic] done with great regularity. The question in my mind is, particularly, what relation there is between the regularity of movement and the regularity of appearance of the finished work.”” Here we see Boas seeking empirical evidence for his theory that art comes from the formal rhythm and regularity of'a virtuoso craftsman, as well as for the way artists regard and describe their work and that of others.

Earlier that same year, Boas wrote to his colleague Berthold Laufer, curator of anthropology at the Field Museum, requesting photographs of specimens:

All that is required at the present time is to have the form and the design sufficiently clear, so that the Indians can recognize the basket and can tell us where it was made, and if possible who made it. One of the points we want to get is personal contact with the makers of the baskets, in order to solve certain points in regard to the relation between technique and decoration, and for this purpose the fullest possible collection will be necessary.” “The Artist Himself” | 147

Boas summed this up for Sargent in 1918: “. . . the essential part of the report will be a study of the collections. Mr. Teit has, however, given information on the peculiarities of individual basket makers that will be of

very great importance.” When Haeberlin died, Boas, though greatly saddened, lost no time in finding a replacement so that the basketry monograph might soon come to fruition. He chose a young woman who had been working in his office, Helen H. Roberts (1888-1985). Though trained as a concert pianist, she had become interested in archaeology on visits to New Mexico, and in 1916 came East from Chicago to study with Boas. After completing a museum study of Apache basketry (not published until 1929) and working on the Salish basketry paper, she became one of the leading ethnomusicologists of the interwar years (Frisbie 1989).” The final manuscript was the product of many hands: it was written by Roberts, based on the field notes of Teit (who had died in 1922), and the museum and field studies of Haeberlin, under Boas’s direct supervision. After four years of concentrated work, the manuscript was completed by mid- 1919 and sent to Washington, with the exception of some illustrations and additions on rhythm and symmetry.” However, the BAE staff dragged

their feet, out of their general antipathy toward him, claimed Boas, and not just for the stated lack of funds. After several years Boas withdrew the paper, and it was accepted for publication by the Field Museum. Later it was returned to the BAE, but in the process the plates became separated from the captions, and it took much time and effort to correct the situation. In the end, some plates had to be omitted because they could not be identified. After twenty years of gestation, the work was finally published in 1928.

The Salish Basketry Monograph Coiled Basketry in British Columbia and Surrounding Region fol-

lowed the standard pattern ofthe time for monographs on basketry, especially its explicit model, Emmons’s The Basketry of the Tlingit (1903). After a

historical introduction came chapters on the gathering and preparation of materials, techniques and structure, and forms and proportions. The discussions of decoration consisted of sections on methods of ornamentation, design fields, design elements, application of the design to the held, and the interpretation of geometric designs. The study concluded 148 | Ira Jacknis

with a look at basketry of the neighboring tribes of the Thompson Indians, the principal subject, with final remarks by Boas. This monograph is without doubt the most thorough study of American Indian material culture made up to that time (and perhaps since). Including such supplementary information as trade, care, and repair, presented in great detail, the work contains new kinds of data, such as complete Native terminology, a museum study of working methods as seen in proportion and applications of designs to the field, and the selection of designs. All this was based on extensive interviews with informants, with a series of informant biographies, centered on “proficiency, variety of patterns used, so-called personal designs and devices” (O’Neale’s review, 193%0:306).

This new kind of study was emphasized in Boas’s preface: “The problem that I set myself'was an investigation into the attitude of the individual artist toward his work. Much has been written on the origin and history of design without any attempt to study the artist himself’ It seemed to me necessary to approach the problem from this angle” (p. 131). This focus was explored primarily in three aspects: technique, form, and the selection of decorative motifs. For all the emphasis on the individual artist, however, there is much of the older historical model in this work. The report opens and closes, in the sections written by Boas, with studies of distribution and suggestions of possible history, and it contains much of the older evolutionist problem of the relative priority of realistic versus geometric designs. Throughout the technical description are statements about informants’ differing on definition and criticism, such as the comment that experts “occasionally criticize work as being too rigid, though asa rule this is considered a ‘good fault,’ except in very small pieces, flexibility being more often the reason for disapproval” (p. 163). Moreover, an attempt is made to describe the skills of different weavers, bearing on Boas’s interest in the virtuosic origin of design (e.g., on beginners, p. 159). For instance, some forms and techniques are restricted to only a few skilled, creative individuals (pp. 176, 179, 190).

Haeberlin’s formal analysis of the burden-basket is very instructive, for he compares informants’ statements of correct proportions to the actual proportions. Haeberlin found definite evidence of the force of tradition, for most baskets conform to a fairly narrow range. Yet informant opinion varied widely, and many informants had no conscious standard. “Further“The Artist Himself” | 149

more, some of the most obvious proportions between dimensions have never been observed by the people themselves, and in regard to others the claims of the makers are contradicted by actual observation” (p. 212).

As Boas had long noted (in 1903), these secondary, conscious rationalizations were of great psychological interest. Here the authors noted: “... there is psychologically a vast difference between the ability to appre-

ciate the proportions of a finished product and the faculty of analyzing such proportions and defining the principles upon which they should be judged” (p. 213). This evidence of unconscious patterning, so strong in language, was also found by Ruth Bunzel in her study of Pueblo potters (1929:53) and noted by the linguist Edward Sapir in his review of her book (1929). The basketry monograph is thus one of the first discussions of what later became a topic of debate in anthropological aesthetics—the issue of the “unvoiced aesthetic” and its relation to a formal and explicit

critical tradition (Sieber 1973 :428). |

Haeberlin had conducted a museum study of the inevitable problems weavers encountered in applying design elements to the decorative field (fig. 25). For instance, often they would start a design and run out of space for it. The solution “furnishes material for a most interesting and instructive study of inventive faculties, resourcefulness, and artistic taste of these Indians” (p. 259). Some women paid more attention to these matters: “There are undoubtedly some standards of taste to which all the basket makers adhere as closely as they can, but naturally considerable variation occurs in the abilities of different women, such as would occur among ourselves, and each woman is likewise free to exercise her own ingenuity in working out the adaptations of her design to its field” (p. 260). The section showing the greatest attention to individual creativity is “The Selection of Designs” (p. 300):

The individual woman plays no small part in the establishment of the basketry style of her tribe, especially if a certain degree of liberty is allowed her to follow her own inclinations, and this seems to be the case in the Thompson region. The women are not restricted in their selection of designs but make any number; most of them from time

to time undertake patterns with which they have previously been unacquainted; others invent variations of old elements which they have used before, and some do both. During a woman’s life-time certain designs and variations may perhaps be considered to belong to her in a sense that they are her particular inventions, but knowledge 150 | Ira Jacknis

so: ; .;“: os eneos neh iHSia ee Tesh anna age ee :OOO I hte jg: en oer Songs, on : ; : : :

puligie : Fseeaehe | aiiiaee a :4eijgivin ;: : raga : Cepia,

maony aeeS aeeeeo Pose: pos ooS i Cees eee 2 eee een , z |Sain oe i: _eeee jeee ee: eele! cee i Siinagihe Seeman oe: i ' ;a Pe hl =F as ok ( 1 : Pe : | Le to eae Peg on Se 7 a ae , oe an, ‘oxi? fi Fea Pha Germ ee RN Shane edie eae es He oe gE ey, Oe ¢ee aie 4 ny : | — te a. ts a ee |, “| [ ae ong i 2 eee cg elt i ee i ale ee i Coe ag P t ( , — i. el ee rl ee”, es: : ok A) eee, eee a;a A i | . _ Canale i SSM oS le a come : ok. ney 4 de none ; f sae oe oF a oe ae Be a : a oo Lae i oo wore : i: le “Wade EP .a wg Os i : eo i a oe ne “4 ae ee a eee oe a i GO AS gi TT eee eee ere ee int. a. a J : post a ee ee a ee ae ee eee es Be eee oe a! \ bond = | | | FF. a i poe err ai ee ov .en i oF I ia SS oe Te OO aeee igGee | ee aa fkMS ene ee : anS’ ,|i\‘tr Ce oe CO te aa|oe ee) aome aa asee aeSees Bc Ia OoVe: ee a oe aee Bear Doi ps ee aee Ly geMe Tp MNase 58 co] aeoe eeae Ms ae Tae . ;CNTR ee aaee ee oe eee eeres ee eee are a ee i,eee oe ee

ha py wy i :—_ eet o ta eee 8) ee aaes ee isee na he pe fta:ee . ee | Ce Boe ‘|aey oe 2esGee 7ee a.eae pees: ikee Be a) eee remy tae Be ee! ae |an ee eee eeaeee aes tee cee TE e| 2en EN S: ye (oe mob vip es | oe as ee |Gee. eeeee Fees eee oeIe .ee, —ee eee ty JrDy ms. oo eee eee, eee ee A ea ees ee eee a)=ape aa |ae ||'

eR |eer | oea ee Oehl} a aWOK ae i. |. gla ea oe i ere (ialLo | ee

i.i oa wey : ee SS wees of eee eAMM aeCri [a eySeana eee ee eees. 3ee ', ie ee ORi‘ RR‘coi Cae NogiilNe ne ee ne ai De ES sei aaaaalike: Wea SUN ek INasGN oe a Sees . | (oe

Le TE I:a §& Cae ME woe eeeeeee eeeaoeeee eeoo i‘ ;ies Nie : ( inn ; hi UeOe Sag iog i iee 1B a ee A a|ome, ce 7ee i‘[ee : ee ww wy |onoe ee ooo ry ‘ Wy 4 ie | Ck) ae ee 2 a | ook 1 we a 8 cee ee ee aihe ae (ee, ee ‘ oo er ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ge ae ee a ea Bae eh ee hllU ee 2 me ee.aeee taee a 2ee eee ee bs ce ee AEy 7en OU IO oe de aposs hy Ne le” Ue ee ee aWee ales esaSSSIMI an aORR oe |i|ee ‘ieead acM Rt oi es 7 ane ee a Oe En na, eee a ie ee Dic Nea ' llc a, ee ee, ene 0 TS ili EE CIS Ng Oe ee eee LN elit alsa ot eee | BOSSES AS iene a a ea ee eee a ee oe a ae ST Se: eM a oN ME 25a | Bee oe SME) Oe OO oo a Be : Seige aie ee re a F Ny a SARs IB ame (A a ae yee al ee Cee | ee ee oy i ig ie aee 2 es 4 Bi) aaa | aaa ee re ee aa ee Be, & fe eee 3 eee eee MS SOMES CRISES US ORM Mme i | reed saeee cy cee | i ov a fC Sl Uh = UhlULhlUrCUC Ce akoy eae ek 1, | Sees raeAM ee gees Saree eeRR ‘ ee en es | ce ie Beabil ijagic ES cS RSIS RMSe NM a, in u | a. Oe a) ae ee Sle 2S | I SR aeeooee aie ....SMoeey heer ir”st— OO EO CGE a ee ee eee BEES nSyha ; ;oe CC EE, EE EE GME: GexPees ne BEER pee: :Be Ae, i isi i ent aan GATING bees ieee ees se oot ee ceo. ; ae eae SEARS RRR ee ee ese : : 7 io : en : pear ee : ; ; : .

| COoe ON Te Ne INI cA ie tlce aSi OO I ee ee ee oe a oo ee a. CCC CCC cE a i ice EE OO ee i ES Se Cl i: OO Oe Oe Fe ee eee eee ea Ee ee aa CO re ON Ee aa I oa CE Oe Foe eee rear ee ee san a ee aCCC ee ee a ONS ahi) CC Ce CO i ee TCA iy EE enCe a Po ees eC Gea i llr LL rr”: ee ee CO OO ie ee CO ee OO ee nl OO a OO OO a O_O GN a cal OO LL TG a OO Se oeO_O ee eee TO ial ag Tl a ee OC ls a.ee aCC TN US EM Se ee: ee ee Nn . hh ee | a oo er a Ee ee ee a Oe OS NOC Se EC ee Oe a a. ,rr,,tr”tr”:t~—~ts” ae a ie ee ee ee ee nt: OAC EECA ai Os hmm! ey a |. ee ee eee ee Oe O_O LO avian ee ee oo aOO i ae a 7 ee oe oo OO el ay ee CS ee a, a OE ee OO a Oe OO ee ee en ee eee eT | a... CO CO | ee oo C—O ee a ae ae a a eer OC O_O lll a eo OO |... |... eo iOO |. |. ee ee Oy os |oo le |. |. |. |... .......... oo oS .... OO OO OE Oe CO .. |. |... a ea Fo ee ae OO ... . . Ce a OO Fe ee ee OM ee ia, ky Oe ,rtrtttttsti‘CséséséiésssS hr Cee ee Ce ll 4 ee SE ee . a. . Oe ee hl, Oe oe ee OO a. a OS I CG ae a ee Oy rts a oe. CO Se CC GS EE Ne ea il OE ETE a A TSN TOSS Roe eee eee ae oa : OO I ISN Gaoe NG eTteal i iiINican Vneit,ee HCO Gee UE GTC ooONG alae Se.eeSees, Pole : OG Teee CaS nat a ee il ma Oeee I ne Ok ie SL RO SNE iCNG SAUDIS NURSE 8 Rea AR Poe aAe a SeSCee eee ee FoeGIS eS ESSGER oene ae

SF OV SC OO NEES CMU OREO MOCUUUGIES EAU CNG TAU a GM Fe ee eee ET ae He LES SG TAR UNS SOIS Oa AOS EASE Oa LRG ED AUN ce ae ot RE A : SOLS +

ee ie |ee }#}.. .EMS.ee .Ci}.} . LOO Ve oo. oe eeBie: a;Ic.i ON aamily 7ESS q oeteJEe i—Pa ee eeece ee mE ee ee a_ eeTe. ee Re OOS nn Uei Gi Ain OM GN CUA ee” oer Fe eee eo aah Os OO aee aoe LO eeaatoee s:— Oe. ee aes oeNORM ee eeeeaee eG ni eC Gis Games Cals OO: oe2a2 Fe i ee SE Onc ORO SON NTGa ny.i oo Nia Min MGs niere lllBR cgi. OO aca! SC UCI, Fe acini can uareoe ee

ESN GsNOUS FE NESCANN 2: Aee eeIN Sal OE OO ON RRSATMia ea.. ae : TO OEE CE a LOO TOC Se MIM Cnn lish Be ee ne Nc ee eee ee ee Tee a AUG eS OngSua MIMO NEMEC D ASM Gi SO ON Gs aewoe ia iOO CeCES i os aOCGACONT COMO IU AUs MIMD NU TIMING DCO CONS EON ELSONO ee, SNR Se TE a MO eae iEGT ST ce ai aL eMC en ee eae Le TE UC SO nea Na)OR: a Le aiaik: ee iG. os

SO IN ES TC a au He Ca a On ise a ie ne ee a ie a a ae a Bes

OOie CN ie CCGos mi Se maaanAaa a ttSE I SanaaNcals aS itty iil OO ee ee bec TRTE ECONO conae a Se a, FENa MN OI WIEN SCSeae ata aLO ih aes, cnn MI TiC ee eee eeMARE Sy aaaayy! OE Rann a ae Ea OC IGEES ssl eT Eo ee il: a Tn AMO a ae VC cen aN i ANSE cal A Te iat MEN, ENES eS UEGE AM ee RA! ENS ESE ca i i aNSs

eeOOS eee eee ee aLaNE Mi nl) eeFeIEC eeROE ee i Re eeeeee ee ee agit Ce aee LL NN, Se Aces) Se |i Hak ee LO Se Can aiaee nyaa ia ee a TO es aan) i easa ees oy eenee ETS MCCA NO CC OE Sa aFeOe a_ ua SBeTOra Pee ee ueORS nM LNacai sia Han eeTnieTSS aaa HE eeee eeLy aLS eeeLOO ee eteAE atiGe RiEE Fee eeSn eee ee eseseats ee ee EneT NOT ea EE LAS NNhyNEE eesit aa ain

LEMS ORES Ay GS NE EN MiMi econ R eS SONA ITO He MRA iia ee Nee Ta EO ae CL UNM NMS Ma NE NaC ERD Mea tb Fe eT eS Et iS ALE NIGH UD aire a

Maia all CO a Onan Me Seeeeaeeeeae Fe eS EE sea ai CCC _ ee EEE EEE __ ______ eee. OO CC Gs COGENT ae Fo Ce En ae ESCS eC cre Ce Fe ee ee eo eeIEI, eee ea ee eee eee ee ee EOE nTFe Fe eee eeeeeeee mnSe ai ILN NE Aa GONNA SOURCES MOM ROUEN HT OM tn i aii Ne Te NOU OA ADT a Ge HBr a iii a ARH SG NS SES Aet Tn NENG ane NA FG: LO tai aE MHA EM Sy i I nla

FOS UN ES IES A Ss 1 aa LT ee DT i ENR ian! EE Osa Tg LE CSM SE GG Fee ee Se a COTE en eee ee a eae |... |...UI a ttrttsts”si“‘“‘“‘“‘i‘i‘i‘i‘i‘i‘i‘ai‘CSSCWSCSC*;”;:;:*@S”®@”*;*;:;:;”;*”*”*”*”*:;:;@”;*;CS;C@zs”S Fe ee ee eS OE a aE a ee aN EAT Fe ee TS a TT Na ae Tee a ea Nees EE aS En BH a STUN SME MM US es Janta

OE ON En ORR G eal ales a i SO Sn EST ne aati, EG A NGI: OI ee MMMM icclvalles inne CO a ee a ey ie Ce ee aa a a nt Oe I et

Oe aee ee TE au cae at Ceo ee ae eee ee eTaaieyo uA hy) Rn SAHe SSI LO CSN OUMNH TER NE OSC EE CS aE isk a.EES Ua! aeeaNURe eo eee ee ee eeTGOn NC SN NS cue ee EG DO aa aoee SUES Re SAS I Oe Oe cae? CON eR MN NNT Na NMA iD ee OS nNEGON MI ERNE Ciei ne TEN NG AO Te ee aaeR ae TMC aEEN TTagERS ST SEN REN ee Se aGR Tne OT SN eeCG MI Ne GSES oneaeOsT ecuSN GlNt SND Me Seer AOR ana Guin! FE aN a Neaaa seni LA ee TTCE aEGCN: eG ee te 7a

oy ee Eeeee eeeeiO CO) a aTRG a EELS EE aN ESOas: a Nei eee OSOe Lae CE en neoo OO|. LS He MASS MONIC Ot uN TM Mecu nS gHtE Msn RAMeR IGE SRM A Anh Mie ania MO a Nea Se Se SIN aH a. UNGER ANSARI NUE AAA Gan Se Ne RCM i OA nite a abn Ue Serna Dace ae a nN La ORONO MONT NK NORT Se aN A aS ENT TU AH Fe AA ASC UA SSI GE UE MUR no LO as CeO AO eT AEH Pe SIS SSNS Macs CER ea CAb SN ee On OS Essie Ne MI cna aN a i

Bo) SOAOA OdCAE ee TSCONGO EN one ney) EM LODUs ANS GS aSOLOS ST EN NUR Re as! Deee NNN aN DAS Ea naiMasa ces MEA Gate nA Oe See OPCS oa miaAEST oe cea lalcnAUG hue“N PeCERN TEINCia OSCE cn iy Hen ee: He ea ee ie OT LO ane

OO NCO RISES UI e an CS MAN MUSE aie: Fe el, ino oo ae—.CLUmtsrsts—“—sts—sSOSON ee eG eun AUG UO OO Ce ee BETES EE RT SS OG|.SEONG OE EE SSNs oh cee ee I eR .EE Le ee | °° °°}ue }»}§}§.—h—hCl —..... Fe et eee ee iu TE ME i Um elee enRG eesET ene ee eS aeIM Re Reae ee EE ea ih MES Cra sOSUNG GmMaN Eta aN Ue aon Neeee|Co NN aTn eseeTe Nels FEM aNINES. TaN Sr Se et eG SOOOS ne MOOT essCST oe SUS EE Sea. lai EO Mesa eaTi Re !eee aTc:eeON TS Foe eeaan eee ee eraaeFe DS NTT SOR Nis a (GNC EN SON Ccnn TE OM } ae UNS ae Fe eee eee eee ee ee eC Cuesta TURING ae Vase mn EMEDIA COCR cam ER aaa asin Fe Ne eset Nei aaa ae Sa Ru Oe LU Bas EG Tied asi

Lo oe — oy C—O | oe oO oo. 8 oF ce | oe ae a OVO NE AO a RRO E MIN ii i) CA GCA UNUM aPKC ON ONIN RSU Ie: BE RCo GaN eGR gene GAGE ac BUSH Ay ee ee ee CRRA M CEC RD TEGO MRM aca Pe a TT AOE NUM gibt oy Pee eee Husa UUW TICES CEERI G CDR CSI A Ma A AT Ae teers cae eran tesre BS IOEOU ST AER EATE SOUR OEE ASI SIEG UG OSI Eu KeAsAROeOe Cle nC ee RRO Oe ENCE UN EEE

:oe OEae Saeees ose In:TNT a ss UE Ce SeisMe Cee ONES as ie aOAee aM OO ae foe Seae PCOS CO a aON I oe Se ea NIeseeSOGs all aOO TIneEE OE UO eee ee eo a UE TRU Ae ih FE GNSRE ee ee eee RN CCG NT AN ia Sadia PEO AUS onafammratnavet Re CS GHC MAB MIRON aac 0 Cae reg RUA eeeiarFee Fh OM ER CROUTONS AEA eee CT Es a as Ena

,r,,.Drmr,,.”r”:”:”:~”C~OCOCS CO aea eei a ,rrtr””:”:r”,CCdtssrsti‘CSCOCOCOCOCSCSS:séiési«sézaee

Bese ee EME CU IMATE A ERNE RN OCMC co FE ee eee ee eee I SE ne te ane nS en EON NOE TAs iin Nn nC TI Maat SAAS ULES UID SETA REE ee Ci UPON RUDI ola SOs GNI i PURSUE, AS ALM RE S uaieay cans a POTS GM TT Oe Non aS ONCE SSCA OS ROU GT SO Gis OSC aI eM teu MUG SOL a a Manan aie Ma a MUR ne RIES OIIIMIO BN GHC aos Cxsese Oe UU CAR NOS RRC ae erate Brea I ETean nae RRR rer NNT OCD ST EA SGU at Oe OT MH EE

Ne a OO EG aL Un GnGaaii cant Gn CE I Ge Ue Ot TG NE TC SOM MC OUD iG ida Sar cck aN oe ee ee ee a A a

Se CO NOES MOM CS an na aan NH ia ee Oe a i SE NE EO nN SIUC UN SSSI ON SI AG unin a TO ORI ORO ES a Oe a

-..l,,r”:~”~:”~—”C«C:«sts«

. ’ 64

{e °{ tC b t ” if d | 1 fe d b t f b t a

.

-

The first was that Indian and other so-called primitive art provided the best opportunity for studying the role of art in the economic, social, and religious life of a community (d’Harnoncourt to Douglas, September 30, 1939: IACB 36). The second was the unity of technique, raw material, and form in a work of art. D’Harnoncourt felt this was an issue of public concern, and yet it was one “very difficult to grasp in the machine age, when

the majority of the people are unfamiliar with the original raw material used and with the complicated production methods employed.” The section that focused on Indian contributions to modern decorative arts was, according to d’Harnoncourt, the single most important and vital part of the entire exhibition. To him, the enrichment of contemporary culture was Indian art’s “concrete contribution” (d’Harnoncourt, December 1940: IACB 32). He was convinced that the public would realize the value of contemporary Indian art when they were shown that it harmonized with the artistic concepts of modernism (d’Harnoncourt to Newmeyer, June 17, 1940: IACB 34). Thus the objects and displays were co-

ordinated to demonstrate that “the modern Indian .. .can produce artistic things whose beauty and utility are keyed to modern life” (d’Harnoncourt in Art Digest 1941:17). Once again, d’Harnoncourt designed model interiors showing that Navajo rugs and blankets, Pueblo pottery, Eskimo carvings, recent Indian painting, and even Cherokee wastepaper baskets “fit perfectly into the contemporary scene” (Douglas and d’Harnoncourt 1941:197). Some of these objects, he explained, “find a place in our houses and wardrobes simply because of their decorative value, but many combine utility with aesthetic merit” (p. 198). Along with displays promoting the use of Indian art as home furnishings, d’Harnoncourt’s exhibits also suggested its use as personal adornment and fashion accessory. The former was easily accomplished with an outstanding selection of Navajo silver jewelry, but d’Harnoncourt’s solution to the latter was far more innovative. He supplied Swiss fashion designer Fred Picard with articles of Indian manufacture to be used

in Picard’s line of women’s wear, which was featured at the exhibition (d’Harnoncourt to Picard, October 21, 1940: IACB- 34). Picard responded by using an Osage beaded and braided belt made in Oklahoma as trimming on a short evening cape. Also exhibited was an after-skiing suit designed by Picard that incorporated Seminole cotton patchwork and Navajo buttons of hammered silver (Douglas and d’Harnoncourt 1941:206-7).

But d’Harnoncourt did not believe it necessary to insist on the funcMarketing the Affinity of the Primitive and the Modern | 215

tional value of all the art exhibited. In one portion of the first floor he displayed works of “such high aesthetic quality that they could be used as objets d’art, even though they were not intended for this purpose by their makers” (d’Harnoncourt to Douglas, September 30, 1939: IACB 36). Thus “Indian Art for Modern Living” was both contextualized, stressing function and adaptability, and aestheticized, making contemplative objects of

material that originally had utilitarian or perhaps ceremonial function. And despite all these creative efforts to generate a market demand for contemporary Indian art, “Indian Art of the United States” (unlike the exposition in San Francisco) did not offer retail sales of contemporary Indian arts and crafts. D’Harnoncourt felt that more long-term benefits would be derived by introducing Native arts and crafts into New York stores that would continue to carry the merchandise after the exhibition closed than by a temporary sales room at MOMA. In fact, by July 1940— well in advance of the opening of the exhibit—he had secured promises from private individuals allowing IACB-sponsored Indian organizations to use office space on Fifth Avenue for a wholesale center. It was his intention to use the interest sparked by the exhibition to develop “permanent

business contracts with established New York firms” (d’Harnoncourt, July 26, 1940: IACB 4, 140.2).

The Catalogue: The Critical Reception

The critics, including those who wrote for the popular press as well as for art magazines, agreed without exception that “Indian Art of the United States” was an unqualified success. According to Newsweek, the “fashionable opening-night throng which . . . wedged itself four-

deep around the dramatically lit showcases testified to the brilliance of the exhibit” (1941:58). Frank Caspers, writing in the Art Digest, called the exhibition “the most significant recognition to date of the aesthetic gift of American Indian artists” (1941:27). La Farge noted in the New York Times

that it was “a new chance for the real Indian—and a chance at last for the East to discover the realities of Indian civilization” (1941b:9). In Parnassus, a publication of the College Art Association, the show was described as the

“largest and most representative exhibition of its kind ever assembled” (1941:77). Similarly, Art Digest also understood it to be the “definitive exhibition of Indian arts and crafts” (1941:17).

In reviewing the book-length catalogue of the exhibition, which was written primarily by d’Harnoncourt,* Florence Berryman noted in the 216 | W. Jackson Rushing

Magazine of Art that it was a superb exhibition, the most comprehensive revelation ever of Indian art (1941:218). She rightly observed that more

than mere accompaniment, the book helped to prove the exhibition’s thesis that Indian art was both vital and adaptable to modern life. Caspers, too, felt that the book, Indian Art of the United States, was the “most complete on its subject ever written” (1941:27). For him, it was a “compact, vital and absorbing record of America’s indigenous civilization.” Thus the book was itself'an effective instrument for changing the public’s perception of Native American art. So, too, was the abundant critical discourse that flowed like a textual river around both exhibition and book, reinforc-

ing and extending d’Harnoncourt’s ideas. Therefore, the book and the critical response to the show must be discussed together. Since America was struggling in 1941 to emerge from a crippling economic depression and at the same time was being drawn inexorably into a European war, it is hardly surprising that d’Harnoncourt and the critics saw Native America’s vital strength, resilience to adversity, and ability to adapt to change as a resource for the nation’s future. Indeed, there were undeniable ideological and political rewards to be reaped from making Indian art generically American. To that end, d’Harnoncourt sought to link, in the public’s mind, the power and élan vital of ancient America and the nation-state known as the United States of America. Thus he wrote:

“This publication, as well as the exhibition on which it is based, aims to show that the Indian artist of today, drawing on the strength of his tribal tradition and utilizing the resources of the present, offers a contribution that should become an important factor in building the America of the future” (Douglas and d’Harnoncourt 1941:10). Neither d’Harnoncourt’s genuine appreciation of Indian art nor his

commitment to the Indian’s cultural rehabilitation and right to selfdetermination are denigrated by recognizing that the qualities of Indian art he stressed in the book could be described as quintessentially American: basic soundness, vigor, strength of tradition, unexplored wealth, and close relationship to the land (p. 197). Indian art was used, therefore, to remind the American public that what had made and would continue to make the nation strong was a constant ability to renew itself in the face of challenge by exploiting untapped resources with new technologies. D’Harnoncourt cited, for example, Navajo silversmithing and Plains horsemanship as evidence of the Indian’s willingness to seize the opportunity to transform traditional culture. He found it only “natural that a new appreciation of these values by the authorities and by part of the Marketing the Affinity of the Primitive and the Modern | 217

American public is now bringing to light in many places traditional customs and traditional thinking” (p. to). While reflecting on the success of “Indian Art of the United States” relative to the “Exposition of Indian Tribal Arts” (1931), La Farge extended

d’Harnoncourt’s idea of associating the values of Indian art with the United States. La Farge believed that the public’s response to the earlier show was diluted by the fact that, unlike African art, Indian art in 1931 had not yet been endorsed by Paris (1941a:181). Likewise, he wrote that if the Awatovi murals had been discovered in the Old World, they would already be well known in America because the French would have valued them, thus “it would have been aesthetically respectable, even necessary, to appreciate them.” It was important for La Farge to devalue Europe as a standard of cultural achievement, for he insisted that there were aspects of Indian civilization, “some material, some intangible, ... that can stand comparison with skyscrapers or the present apex of white civilization in Europe.” Furthermore, he recognized that Indian art was “the only art original to this land” and that its abstract forms equaled those of European art (1941b:9). In contrast to the exposition of 1931, the “double pleasure” of d’Harnoncourt’s exhibition for La Farge was in seeing that Indian art was “still vigorous, still evolving” and that the public was finally waking up to the gifts of Indian art and culture. He noted that the great strength of Indian art was its ability to change and that this was its relevance for contemporary America (1941a:182). The American aspect of the exhibition was also noted by Jean Charlot, who wrote in The Nation that the patriotic atmosphere then current in the United States would encourage recognition of Indian artists. In fact, he called them the “hundred-per-centers of American art, beside whom even Thomas Craven’s roster of Americans acquires an immigrant flavor” (1941:165). Similarly, Vaillant, in his review of the exhibition, wrote chauvinistically about “the art of our own Indians.” Yet he also described experiencing the exhibition as being in the presence of a “truly continental American art, one which we may hope some day to rival.” As American

art moves into the future, Vaillant wrote, it must seek its roots in the native environment of which Indian culture is such an important part (1941:167—69).

In the book, just as in the exhibition, d’Harnoncourt tried to synthesize contextualization, recontextualization, and aestheticization of the objects. In the first case, he explained that art-for-art’s-sake was an un218 | W. Jackson Rushing

known concept in Indian cultures and that “the close relationship between aesthetic and technical perfection gives the work of most Indian artists a basic unity rarely found in the products of an urban civilization” (Douglas and d’Harnoncourt 1941:13). Likewise, he found the term primitive—in both its literal and popular usage—unacceptable as a description of Indian art. Instead, manifesting an understanding of folk art consistent with the anthropological literature of the 1940s, he stated, “Traditional Indian art can best be considered as folk art because it is always an inextricable part of all social, economic and ceremonial activities ofa given society” (ibid.).*°

This emphasis by d’Harnoncourt on the complete integration of art and culture in Indian society underscores the fact that in the catalogue and in many critical reviews of the exhibition one often encounters a layman’s version of C. G. Jung’s idea of a consciousness, both collective and archaic, still manifest in primitive art and folk traditions. This is hardly surprising, since Jungian interpretations of “primitive” and primitivist art were commonplace in the early 1940s (Rushing 1986:273-75).” For example, d’Harnoncourt stated in the catalogue that Indian art was created “within a collectively established scope of forms and patterns and always

serves . . . a spiritual purpose accepted by the entire group” (Douglas and d’Harnoncourt 1941:12). Pueblo art, in particular, was cited as an art tradition determined by centuries of collective activities and concepts. Indeed, the concepts of the individual Pueblo artist were said to be identical with those of the group. Even contemporary Indian arts and crafts, d’Harnoncourt wrote, continued to fulfill a variety of collective needs, especially economic and religious ones (p. 197). Ideas similar to these were expressed in various reviews. Lowe, who saw in totem poles symbols of the unconscious mind, wrote that traditional Indian art “always served a definite utilitarian or spiritual purpose

accepted by the entire group of which it was an expression” (1941:7). Furthermore, she stated that because tribal groups used repeatedly the same combinations of form elements, it was “possible to define their collective concepts and art styles.” One of the most poignant aspects of the exhibition for Lowe was the display of Northwest Coast masks. The con-

temporary audience, she wrote, could relate to the collective concepts and psychological implications of such objects. In his review Charlot expressed the hope that contemporary artists would see the spiritual content of Indian art as a balance between the subjective needs of the indiMarketing the Affinity of the Primitive and the Modern | 219

vidual artist and the constraints of the tradition in which he worked: “the

Indian artist manages to assert his greatness within an accepted frame of his tribal norms” (1941:166). La Farge, too, revealed an awareness of certain aspects of modern psychology in his comments in the New York Times about the exhibition. For example, he felt that d’Harnoncourt’s show was bringing Indian art “to the surface of our reluctant consciousness in a new and compelling way.” And his description of Indian art as the result of the evolutionary process was perfectly compatible with the evolutionist component inherent to Jungian psychology. He explained that “it took a long while to develop the culture that produced” the objects on display. Likewise, he assigned “the rich complexity of pueblo life as we know it today” to a long, smooth evolutionary process. One result of such an evaluation was that America acquired a cultural antiquity, previously lacking, comparable to that of Europe, for as La Farge noted of the works exhibited, “The America out of which they came is 20,000 years old” (1941b:9). The process of aestheticization—that is, the authoritative validation of

the objects as intrinsically fine works of American art worthy of modern consideration—actually began with their placement in what Caspers referred to as “Manhattan’s sleek Museum of Modern Art” (1941:27). As for decontextualization, influenced, no doubt, by formalist theories of modernism, d’Harnoncourt insisted that one could conduct “an aesthetic evaluation of the art of any group without being much concerned with its cultural background” (Douglas and d’Harnoncourt 1941:11). He further stated that a “satisfactory organization of lines, spaces, forms, shades and colors should be self-evident wherever we find it.” But in the cata-

logue no less than in the exhibition, d’Harnoncourt sought to modify this decontextualization by offering a variety of contexts—religious, utili-

tarian, technical, and social—for the objects. In a certain sense, however, d’Harnoncourt’s insistence on contextualization emphasized the audience’s aesthetic experience: “Yet we know that increased familiarity with the background of an object not only satisfies intellectual curiosity but actually heightens appreciation of its aesthetic values” (ibid.). And although he admitted that the art on display issued from regional cultures, this knowledge apparently served as a defense of the catalogue’s overt refusal to interpret specific symbols. Indeed, while Douglas’s lengthy captions for the illustrations provide a plethora of information about the history, function, style, composition, materials, and techniques associated 220 | W. Jackson Rushing

with objects, there is almost nothing that could be construed as iconography, let alone iconology. Like his installations on the first floor, d’Harnoncourt’s discussion in the catalogue of contemporary art was clearly intended to stress its com-

patibility with modernism. He characterized the best of the new work as having an “economy rather than complexity of design” (ibid., p. 199). Furthermore, echoing the modernist dictum that form follows function, he wrote that “the close relationship between function and form are [sic| what bring Indian work so near to the aims of most contemporary artists and make it blend with any surroundings that are truly of the twentieth century.” In particular, he saw the new Indian painting as being closer

to the concepts of modernism than traditional art because it “replaced functional value with aesthetic ones” (p. 200). Although it was perhaps not intentional, reviews of the show also con-

tributed to the aestheticization of the objects by evaluating and praising them with the principles and language of modernism. Lowe, who found parallels between Surrealism and the totemic art of the Northwest Coast, claimed that the ancient Woodland banner stones exhibited were “as bold in shape and as simplified as any form that ever entered the head of Brancusi” (1941:8). She described the Nootka house painting (fig. 34) as a “fascinating abstraction on the essentials of form.” Similarly, she found some Indian masks “almost a pure abstraction of form,” while

others were reduced to an essential form, making them comparable to much contemporary sculpture. In his review, Caspers spoke of a spirit as modern as Paul Klee, which “designers are adapting to the demands of present-day fashion needs” (1941:27). Several critics, including Charlot, compared Surrealist, Eskimo, and Northwest Coast art. For example, he reported that “orthodox surrealists”

praised “the distorted spirit masks of the Eskimos,” which were made under the influence of drugs or the stimulation of fasting (1941:165). Max Weber, one of the first American painters to appreciate American Indian

art, wrote to Barr that the magnificent exhibition proved that “we have the real Surrealists right here in America” (Weber to Barr, February 1, 1941:

IACB 34). Vaillant, who knew well the important collections of Eskimo and Northwest Coast art at the American Museum of Natural History, wrote that the small Eskimo masks chosen by d’Harnoncourt embodied “the imaginative concentrate of surrealisme” (1941:168). Before the exhibi-

tion opened, d’Harnoncourt had himself wondered how modern artists Marketing the Affinity of the Primitive and the Modern | 221

who had seen Eskimo art could go on exhibiting: “There is really very little that the good Eskimo leaves unsaid in the line of whimsical conventionalization” (D’Harnoncourt to Miller, June 21, 1940: IACB 35). Charlot was not surprised that MOMA would host such an exhibition, since “Indian crafts are one of the sources of our own modern style.” In-

deed, he claimed that it was “a fact that Chilkat blankets were admired by early Cubists as the living tradition on to which their own plastic inventions were grafted.” He also quoted French painter and theorist Ameé-

dee Ozenfant, who playfully exclaimed that the Indians were imitating Picasso. And, comparable to the swings between abstraction and realism that had characterized twentieth-century Euro-American art, Charlot credited Indian artists with the “amphibian gift of moving at ease among abstract as well as realistic pursuits.” In spite of this, he realized that “the deepest thrust of the Indian mind, the language it chooses to exalt its clan pride, wield magic power. or address the gods, is the language of abstract art” (1941:165).

Charlot also explained that even though each generation of avant-garde

modernists might “flirt with what in the vast and complex body of aboriginal art approximates its fancy,” the best Indian art always transcended

“such modish standards” (ibid.). Concerning this relationship between modern and aboriginal art, the Washington Star quoted d’Harnoncourt as saying in an interview that because the affinity between traditional Indian art and modern art could not be explained by actual contacts, “we must

concede the existence of human concepts that find expression in specific art forms.” Modernism, d’Harnoncourt explained, had rediscovered

forms that the Indian artist had never discarded. Thus the interviewer concluded that in some aspects modern art was completing a cycle begun by Indian artists (1941: IACB 32).

Conclusion

There was, then, in the exhibition, the catalogue, and the accompanying criticism, a lack of resolution between what appear to be conflicting conceptions of Native American art as either universal and understood aesthetically or culture specific and functionally responsive to societal needs. In retrospect, the weight of the evidence proves that d’Harnoncourt actually sought the rich provocation inherent in this paradox. If “Indian Art of the United States” could demonstrate that these conceptions were not mutually exclusive, then the potential audience for 222 | W. Jackson Rushing

Native arts and crafts, and commercial consumption of them, would increase. Furthermore, the complexity of the exhibition as an experience, as well as the catalogue’s content, was in direct proportion to the intensity of d’Harnoncourt’s belief that the rehabilitation of the Indian artist was a national moral responsibility. He was equally convinced that the slow and delicate process involved in staging such an exhibition was warranted by the enrichment of American life that it would engender (Douglas and d’Harnoncourt 1941:200). Partly because of the elaborate interplay of contexts, including decontextualization, recontextualization, and aestheticization, the exhibition was extremely well received at all levels. One of the strongest indications of the exhibition’s success is that it helped shape artistic practice. As I have demonstrated elsewhere, “Indian Art of the United States” had a profound and immediate impact on the development of avant-garde art in New York (Rushing 1986:273-91). The show was particularly popular with a number of incipient Abstract Expressionists, such as Jackson Pollock, who visited the exhibition often and expressed his fascination with the display of Navajo sand paintings (fig. 39). Partly as a result of seeing the exhibition, he incorporated into his paintings specific Indian images, such as the semi-abstract figures of Pueblo pottery, as well as dramatic Northwest Coast masks. Perhaps more important, his revolutionary drip paintings of the late 1940s owe much to the ideas, processes, and purposes associated with Navajo sand painting. Like Pollock, Adolph Gottlieb and Richard Pousette-Dart also made paintings in the early 1940s that responded to d’Harnoncourt’s displays of pictographs and totemic sculpture. There can be little doubt that the quality of d’Harnoncourt’s installations, the depth of the catalogue, and the stature of the Museum of Modern Art were integral to the final results: in 1941, “Indian Art of the United States” was the most outstanding and unquestionably the most popular exhibition of Native art in American history. And yet the positive reception of the exhibition is inseparable from d’Harnoncourt’s anticipation of the audience’s “horizon of expectation.” That is to say, “in its moment of historical appearance,” the exhibition demonstrated an awareness of the audience’s previous cultural, ethical, and aesthetic experience in relation to Native America.” D’Harnoncourt’s acute awareness of the audience’s “current expectations”—their readiness to have certain themes explored, certain questions answered, and certain beliefs revised—was an essential, if somewhat less tangible, element in his remarkable achievement. Marketing the Affinity of the Primitive and the Modern | 223

aco> .i . Le ees Oni

Shs, |. a-om oe ao ai oF oe Lo oo a ee oo) ae as |. wie . oo oo. uw

i an oe oy wai

i)i _ Ce\ ee ~ ;se_ a .aaoe. .aee. : ey a : Be NG SA Dee GENS Oe ehoes x ONS Sy es Se Co SUH

. io, acoioO oyoe oo niweLh i.aeeee . 2|. oe ae :a.ee ye ikoe oe .yD Vis eo ae ogee ee eeaaaBe IRS _oe oo aNone 2aeao oe oo .. ie aae Re Se ee SSeee aiae-uy oe ae ne 8 : oy —. oe cee aoeWhigs acoe ee Nh aNing NeAM aeauy oo A eae ae oe ae i,a ne oo a0as aeae Ttee ee BS esoO aaCS scopic OPEN . es ese ay Ce —sl ee eee ioe aoa as Ce 8Eee: MOEN TT Te oe i ae oe es oo z: i eee ee Be ‘oes ‘ee oe _.— .ioo auniincl oe ie oF E _ i a a De: ee oo ee ee C8 ai aes ae ‘Gi ES Cs oe — a ve _ a ae a Aes se oo -ee =oe on .ee oy ee a ae ae Aa So ei . _ | oo Woe hy, ae ae as aee ae oe wince a oo a a y _ vy a ae Coe ae oe ik, ee .i ee .aoeee ee eaeoe esSE ahoe.aaii SINE ue iao ee HER ca ee ae SO Ee As Re: Be he an ge oren oess 4Se OSes BOR Be ne ihn etaaN oe ean Ne Heat a aey caenn ei A SO ae esnes BSbe ae EDoo ee et!) snl ile: Oe oo2 oo. ou) Be Bae Oe ek a ee a hae mae a) aSBe aTSN ay aai eo |. ae ae un ES: >a)oo a Doss ioo aPe OR . . ee . a.41so) aONG oteeeS _oeoe al cyge aaah aeHioe isila ST : ieoy 2 —— i aoo 5MN _.Soe ssOo a Co eeee‘ieiatech oe oe ae a ea Hie oe oy, Me ae é2ie — Wie Se a |oS C a aes ee yates Lo)eA_ De eoWeel an oe a aeoeoo_BSCe

Me oe oS ae Nee eeoo aia oe ee ee eee RSE eS eae eeOY ee oo esi:NO we ee oe eeBe pes eees ESee2Bsoe Lee : oeBees ines . oeos ohae oe aeosa. i:ou|AN ae Paeemui asoe#NG ooos>... aioeaegis ee ee aeeeee

i _ i oe ae aes 1 Te = e it oo a 8 oe wes LC a . JY Po _. i oS aoe | | — . ft 4 3 u oo i oo pe oe as i .. a4 a 8 aN ie | ih — i | . ers ick Val ee ee: ee os en ae Ge fo a | es a. | | i 7. oe 8 ie Aeaaea. :we | ay a|ae2: oe co. 7 gale oe ees a a7.oe .we a8

a. o Co. co oe 3 foe a ene a Be ao 2 . — _ a:ee ioea— :aa. Nise . ee a.ain ae ee ae _... _._oe_ia CC a . Ss ee a co} ae . aae aa.oo. aene a. ioe ss~~ a oo DW .Eos oeoe _. a . — x —_ . oC 2 Se a a aoe :oo a ~ | _ oe spain a i i oe — a aa oan Oa Geoe oe oe wy . a oe oo ao oo Benes ee oo uN Pe ae see . i— heoe ooaoe i)oa oo oo Ni, a i ie ae oo ae Na _o oc aan EN oe eee . oat . . — oe oo ae 4. i oe sal ee a oe | ae ss a a a i oo 1 _ _ oo. . i oo ae ee G: _ ‘oo 4 oi a a oe ” ao ae Lo. 4 a i: oo oF a oo . _ _ . _ .. . ae Nea LOey ) OG | ees ae jail oe ceseele iy ii oo oe Oe ie iToe a eeea oe ee Eee SHENG Ge ue we oo eee — oe a oe ie .ao magHeeGooeeHes ti) aa Neoya ane a a he oa Oa: De oe oe | Re. oe ee es ot

ia A Sa eh on Ml ae ve_i.atDN a :iiHone imM eeeeaoe ooean ON mt eleei"ieno oe SNMi nies - ee A oo Rs a aon eis Me AES aMe eS ne aes ie esmet oo oo rr an 0 et oo. : ees ae iCe a ae Ms an aa es ei au Ml .eh coa iM qi aed a ai a oea ..eee oe are. oo ee eeoe) Ses r aLO es : ae, ie: eS Lo ae a oe Cees eeBOS aaiee oo _Eee >oooe|.LEE oS ee pecs Bh SN aa oo as iaeaeeioe —eeaoe - .oe ere ae ae PG BON .lee . We . aeae a aoo a a ae a a aaie ee aiN ih a aMing aQu oe a.isu oe aeAS Sa — Oe. ae S.Cee ONG Lo ey | AN Rae 3 G6 es ee ae a ath a Mia ee Dake ah i a Hani i a ea bins iN ioe nau an AN ee sl a, Hel ath iN eat Mt ae Mga i a) LGA esas SE oe : ee Ne es Me Cl Oo . . i He — vn vn aN Hh oo i va (ee oe he al a ene a eee is nay ee.) ne ie oe a Se SS ee os S es PO . — ae ee |ae oo Hy be oeOy ee Ieyeeu mn a aa oo Ce My a iy sua PONS ik — a . .Se eosee ee oo . ee| oo : oo a Se co ee aeaaye) CaoeleaehuoaaaeeeiGanH ane oeaeon2 eet ae ii oe nasaiecske4 i eae vna ae a iieNe . .6

Co co CAs a . _* iy ae) a) . 7. He ae Hy Co Nie San oh . a oo ui . oe a et re ea ee Bae . eee oe _. iS Ons a a

TT a a eo lv) Pc aygitel we oN | _ CF ae og ic oo a_a2FF a ca oS iaN | Dy.. la_a oeoy oo oo .. Oeoe.oe— .8 i oo. nee oo owoo. a cm a— a we

neeaWee ibea. ae oeiii a oea Boni) SeMe ee8 iea i ctWes ai stela esasoe See Ga aHos Ma Ny aoo Lasoo ne 5 Petae es eee ee .. :i on AM oe ze om ae oo . .oy :—oe .eeeeee es esBs ee. oo aoe. oe aoo)MM ae ae oo ia|ok._|oeOOSae _Sees aer thaae a ee ansoe Se a.aHsNene aneg oo aeoeaBae yg apaia0) nee BORN oe utai:ae a Nea ae ay:aAN ooNO es ae ae Bh Be eeeoo oe aie a val ne et ca AA eg . 2 ee ae —— _ ue a oo i : a on chat a | lig a a a 7 oo Lo a oo Le gill mS ax Co oo Be _sce

oo auy Rte ty oev».ee es eS ee! oe Nal biBN Fo ola4! oe ays oo eehe oe OG aa_Oy ay

eC CW a oo “ee oo i aa moe os oF > oo oes :SORES 5aES : cy.:oe:Se oe ae a.eeoe as A oes oo _. .2oo oo G oo. |eeSARS es oo. avaLeme: PSE oe -oo rae ome acoe es aoo an 7oo :1ee.:es :oe .: See: oe Bans HH .oe oo ao oe ae : a i : oo : oo : oe ee D See es vito ::::foe BsDiss i:ae Hil a oe ee ioe aae °ee : hy See ae aes ee es som oo ae . .|a. .oO ee ie ee om ees ee ye i a oo : : BSS — eos oe 4 Ae ee yOCES: : Mere 0) oo ie : : : : : : coe — aN aa.Ne ee ae : a es, ees oe oe .oe Ges EERE es Bees : + ae ae eh a. . : Bas ae cee ae a _ -. yalaie Ss ie aei yet on TE Cc.He oe oo ae “age eee: SEG es See Lee ee oe acoCo | .Ce Gsee Ee: ee ae oy iin oepees OES SEES ee . SER : ee SE Ny eeic ee —_ ae oe.ee Be Le ed 2 Lees lee Boe :| eee oe es tc a Be -ae | cd .ae see .aieee aae oo on i: Beran ae SOR ¢ :Sg : PRS es _ee ae. 8oo aRee 7 ee Ae aee aWee 7Aha Be aek 2. ae Oe oat ‘elite a:oo ae eee ee ie a — 7be . ees : ae oS oe cS oe og .. ee 4 ae aes oe oe Seats SS Pa ee : a iat oe ae . }|.oeLe—oe ot ile — . eoee oe — -POEs «a oo._|ae€Sa Co. .oe :ae: sees ae: =egSES hgeen S: a ee ‘Gs a : 8 es ee -bee a oe Pie LOE>JHE ;ae : : Ae ooi AK ae 6 ee oo — a ie a ee 7 lis z a coe ce SO on ey we a oy ae ae ee oo pee oe es a oe > ae

ee 2ee aan . Bs| aCoe oe ae oe ae ree oaeaae Ryoe eeee On aie. =oy. Se Os oe . ae aOy a | Ni oc Wile Oo ae sees EeOe ese ae Ein) oe ae eeSis Oe coe oe iee Nayaoo. co Mae CO | Ny _ oe Ce a. eS ..| ee ut ie ea eg) aeee a we eeene oF SEN Feee i poeaian ONSae @a) Cass Neer S as Pee Neue oy aad . a)a Gi ee a a oo a a co as Nees 0 ae ae a | — oe .wee og ei isihe any aaah oo aHONS a.ay as aN 0aeae Cs ae Asa a oe aas Nh We |.aoS co Pai a.eeis ia = | AN _ Tea oe — ae vy) ° oe is gee os . . o oe ae i oo a — OG . ae ep ee ce Ve oy oe oe =ee|a Cee ae _. -_ f i ~~. . . oy) oy : cu oes 8 ue a es Co ee eee ae fr ee . a : oe i oO ee eo UN a ee ea a|.oo oe ae wee : ee Ce . a ~~ oe oo ee a — oe | — . yee ae pos ee Sees ae ee ee ee ae Myatt a ih i ae ve at ais Ne ~ a oe SN O88) KS i oo nae A) SC | . :Hoe ;:-.:seee ee ee aaaoo Oe i.:.oe ae Oe aae oo oa 1— os oo Ele. :sig .ee : ee2 Ee cae oe ee |on ae oeog ou iaiNG ioo Oo |. SEES nn Le Noe oe me a:oo aou 0ee nee OMe aee oti ee .oe ae — a_ he :IsBe Ce us aoe ol oe _.. aee we Sus — cee ‘s a.Mees SG LR eeMS ane cu on a oe neoe pee - .aN . os |.oF a. oF 2ioa A ee oo. ie ge ae” ignsoie® oo Sue a[| ee . a. .| oy oe Po ae Hh a. iae Bahy: ee Bee LL Ne ae) ie.— o.‘a..|| Bo Vi i ES ae a De ae a poe ees ae i ie coe a — Y eee ee DAE, on wr * SEES es ee ee os oe ae a oe ne . oe EMER Ae: aPy eae oe ee Re!ees ae ee neeaeeee ee.poaaeete os Soe aeee i ENG ee ol a —a ... a oe OG ee esol noeSs,s Ce 8 : ae Goce See Beataei UES aoe ee i. a) my Ouuk eeak as| cae

2» a. ae ae Ee ee MeeeShIEe oa JSS . Whee os ia— oe a. :eae a a OSES wae eea Ay le Bos aN aet) ieae ooih.. ENG oF HSE eee Oa : bea settsee ee : ie : eee eeePy Bee ye coe eas AER aN Ae he) : oo : ::ae psa : : ae AR PeWi 2oeON EDEos | 2 me uhesoany— iG ENN SasbeASe ae BS one Be gers trl - : : zaes eees : sPS aig ee in sg sa eee‘ae Sony oe wo on. es ne ee slice ie te Nk a aeeecae SES Sees: 7. :ee : - es we oan — ee“ses oe cee Ses NG: uaa eSeee ae in 4 7:Sees z eae aA cousoooe: oe a. Oe geeWee : : ee : :pe SES co wee eS ees oe oe o—

|Seoe.a Ve a heBos ;Leg ui oeee:gegen : =foe eeSehr oe paren et eeaeieE hy, eal. | if.— : 0)aj ae —i ce : : ee : ae :*ST i7 s aeee Lee att : ae:oN ve ue coy i Soeae Ge ° “sh 5 , SOE s : aie Sets- SOR Bes :a Nets ie cc e eae oo Y a ate SE ; oy : A : at age ee peel, ego et serps age : ant «destin CESS E ign coe Meee en 28 Es eas Be cae ee é_a .o. oo. EES ee Leeeae ee sot ee ee fees ete :fee hore ee gee ing a Ne oC oeoe oa aOO Se ; esig eeoe areeee er ee es spare i. Oe oF . es oe aaCor . eeaeCee ee Oe oe SOMES ae es : : ee ghee gare eafoa — eSey eeoepence S Co

aooa |.. oe es aae. ee oeeae Soe : _S . icoe ae Ns .oe EN ee Be ee Bee ee rsLee fsClee |ee oepc =Le ae are eee oe — os aa Ss 2es ee oe Se Eee ee Eee oo ee _a. &.a_ee é.. | . oe So eee oe ge Ey pee Bec ease Ses oe ee oe EES i2ee ge eee =ee oo ee Ae ae Es ee aes fs oe . :wee. eo eos ee Ss oe ae, Ca ee ao Ces 2ES a— oe ee Bes ee is gees ee a:oe ES SOS ao e pee ay gee: :ee aoo eeeee See ES ee Seee be ee pee ee eeeeee| ne a On ee . on oo Ses pees Bess ee ee eS anes Ser gue: feet ee 2 ee i oes OEE. Co - ae oo ue Fo Se Oe A e ee ss ee nee ee Be ee : Pe % Goa ask rc ts ee ee aes “aberce Scat saree ee es ee _.. —

: : : ' as ve. :. . os ee e

ee GGoo . ieHee eee Eas OSoes ee, =Pee ae Seat Loeee Me ae pearesre essen eee:“ae yo eee re ee eae eee ae me fa_~ oeREE ONPaw oe Oy ooaeGs Ges : oe eeSeater eee bees ene tees eseee. ee. Le ee

Ba es ee ee

: oo _Oeee ee EES eee ae CE ee ee poe eaeCee i Sone fe oer Soaeae secre SE: ear ee Cp Ear oe a a Coes oeeS es creaea DEES SE SEOs ae SEE i:RSS rs 5 ee ee PE ag meEES ore: seoes OBA tee ie Sess SS iteoe ee> . oe Hoos eg SOE oe ase Sil: Le oes yee ae a OI Saie oeeeceao

“ eeIE Beaneee Paes EES eeteee SOEs real 5aRENEE eat aea Pees a iG eSala a i)Wrens eeoe oseieee en ee ee aeses as aeee ss Sy eae SR, oe Sh eee oShe esBer a. ee cee So. fepees :ae seal eeeseee ee Ee OS Loe Be ..eee pe ee ree Se I oh SS ee es Ne Es tee aes 7eee ae oe oo a aaOIE SES SS 2Roane ee oe Pe ie ee ee Bone ee 3oy ieee oe asSige os Se ieeg | eae pone OES oe ie beroeatee ee eeee SOE eee Sa CA ok eee ee ee -ss ee ee ol 8a Hala cae aes Be esta: ee eee (eis PUN es oS se oe eee Lee! Cee asree ae eee es ee _es.eae oe ae eehe = Vee SrPee te eesre eee es RESO: oe OE eee pein eae Bee Aa osRee aoN PO: i.a Aes eee EES eepe ee ete perce Serie eke EES ae SN SR Ree ene oer AN eee ee i:es ee ° oe es oe a eo Pe ae ae ee sin ORES ae ane ee oo oo ee Oe oo ey oe Le _onOe:anOSS we .aeaeeeCo ae oo .oF ee oe — SP one seen eat ae fee OOS aeeaQEe Bee Re oe a eee. oeou oF ene 7ee oe Bes RNS peer Ee ae oS — ke oo. oe ee as oe ee aN : ee ae a, hoe ce ae es oe S o . ee URES eee oepoe oe Mee _— ee aRS oe©a: LgSven BPS Par (eeoepee Fetes aoe ee seeaepee ee es, Bes ea )oe oo es e Ss oeFee enone rae 7aeS ieoe ye oo ee oe eS PMR ceae aeA oe oeos aN . eee pee Bes ee| ee NS eeLe fee ss ae ee.Cee Sage Ss ees oy) ee 39eoes oo eeEES | ao‘ Patents a SS .ee.aOG ve |OeoO oe =ooBo oeaeoo —— aoo a

a mee oe

tesy in 2D eeEES es es mf os a:Q oes eo éLe AA ee oe oeoe oe ae. We aoO — foe SS ISaas | gers ] f0CC Ioe 1gae ee oaMe aee [o oo aoo ae °eyAPELs oo. oe a2oe >ee = oe éM aint i eo. Oe .aae eeey ao .os Si.e.-

. t n _ |. oe | es oF 9 oe ee oe se Ho tat0Hd’ Mmm es ae oe COoS ode ie rm Ar OSS7. 7].

atue9‘. e° 7

.]

. { und Ocul°:renjo“* ce ve y(visu €E u pre It|nN ) mes e I emiss r audienc 169 40 of th nce's en Sus with rew ev ian zon nation e United thatewetoot be to me need ut St ntiethnolo c gy e 1 fe to t ri f in h orld” lves “ e exhi cult ever, | 8 Indi 2[IndiI9yinga Am d iti stre , S C time {“O a Faru wn nly i

a 1¢a, Ir obs inent j en Am eric.rtj,cc , restu erl P tan yi g c thTV , ecoinr il fr 1Canl I ‘ u ‘ 3 Our im se ot t I : 2 1 } 1thro re ACCO W ° ue’y.ac 6aor Ta 10sition rob as orob!1 its d’H day of. pe ftra sens arn yOo cO10n pp 10n ne Uiople ec isg totra ;the our e

In in g ises to ]venti

rob i 10N or

n Rushi gt an . Jacks othe r5 ra Wrou th tren h e

(Douglas and d’Harnoncourt 1941:10). This statement’s polyvalence reflects both the exhibition and the catalogue. For although he was speaking ostensibly about Native American peoples, he was thinking, perhaps, about the racial oppression then occurring under totalitarian regimes in Europe. And since this nation’s future just then was clouded by the darkness of fascist violence, it is plausible, even likely, that d’Harnoncourt was speaking about America itself, urging its people to find in Native American values a sense of inborn strength and identity. Finally, when considered as an ideological construct,” “Indian Art of the United States” is necessarily understood as a manifestation of cultural primitivism. The call for a national aesthetic based on Native American art, frequently heard in the critical responses to the exhibition, underscores the fact that it was organized by a government agency and funded by powerful corporations. Thus, as a nationalist project, itis one of many examples of nation-states, in the period following rapid industrialization and urbanization, seeking to salvage and incorporate the traditions of their rural folk cultures. Such salvage projects had at least three components. The first was related to a romantic need to preserve—as with endangered species—a “primitive” state of cultural development, usually associated with agrarian life, which had not been tainted by the ill-effects of capitalism and secularization. The second component was a function of the first—a desire to provide a new, more stable economic base that

would halt the disintegration of these traditional cultures. It was important, therefore, to develop markets and marketing techniques that would create a need for the objects outside the community of origin. D’Harnoncourt, as this essay has demonstrated, was extremely adept at fulfilling this aspect of his bureaucratic responsibilities. Furthermore, as his activities indicate, in this stage of interaction between Native (American) artists and their patrons (the IACB), the out-group consumer actually functions as a “form-creator.”” And third, the folk or “primitive” culture, in this case Native American, and their aesthetic creations were appropriated and used as emblems of the nation-state itself* In this context, d’Harnoncourt’s statement that denying a people the “opportunity to grow .. . through the acquisition of values from other races is to rob it of its future” may be seen as a defense of the political instrumentality inherent in the nation’s colonial appropriation in 1941 of Native American art.

| Marketing the Affinity of the Primitive and the Modern | 225

NOTES 1. The Museum of Modern Art was founded in 1929. This essay is derived from Chapter 5 of my doctoral dissertation, “Native American Art and Culture and the New York Avant-Garde, 1910-1950” (University of Texas at Austin, 1989). An earlier

version of this essay was presented as a paper in a session on “Institutions and the Aestheticization of Primitive Art,” chaired by Cecelia F. Klein at the Annual Meeting of the College Art Association in Houston, February 1988. I am grateful to Professor Klein for her support of my research on this topic. I also wish to acknowledge the gracious cooperation of the following individuals: Myles Libhart of the Indian Arts and Crafts Board; Richard Crawford of the National Archives; and especially Janice Ekdahl, assistant librarian at the Museum of Modern Art. 2. For a troubling defense of the continued use of the term primitive, see Rubin (1985: 5-6, 74, n.1). For an opposing point of view see Clifford (1985:176, n.1). My

use of the term in this essay should not be construed as a tacit acceptance of its disturbing historical connotations, but rather is intended to maintain the language of the period under consideration. 3. For an illustration of this object, see Douglas and d’Harnoncourt (1941:72). 4. Ibid., p. 174. 5. Ibid., p. 96. 6. Ibid., p. 45.

7. Monroe Wheeler had a long and distinguished career at the Museum of Modern Art. At its founding in 1929 he was named, along with Elizabeth Bliss Parkinson, Edward M. M. Warburg, Lincoln Kirstein, Philip Johnson, and Nelson Rockefeller, to the Junior Advisory Committee (Rockefeller 1981:13). As director of exhibitions in 1941 he must have assisted d’Harnoncourt and Klumb with their rearrangement of the museum to accommodate “Indian Art of the United States.” Later in his career Wheeler was both creator and director of the museum’s publishing program, as well as a trustee. 8. All of these exhibitions were documented with scholarly publications: Holger Cahill, American Sources of Modern Art (New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1937; reprint ed., Arno Press, 1969); James Johnson Sweeney, African Negro Art (New York:

Museum of Modern Art, 1935; reprint ed., Arno Press, 1969); Leo Frobenius and Douglas C. Fox, Prehistoric Rock Pictures in Europe and Africa (New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1937; reprint ed., Arno Press, 1972); Roberto Montenegro with Nelson Rockefeller, Twenty Centuries of Mexican Art (New York: Museum of Modern Art and

the Instituto de Antropologica e Historia de Mexico, 1940; reprint ed., Arno Press, 1972); Ralph Linton and Paul Wingert in collaboration with René d’Harnoncourt, The Art of the South Seas (New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1946; reprint ed., Arno Press, 1972); Wendell C. Bennett and René d’Harnoncourt, Ancient Art of the Andes (New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1954: reprint ed., Arno Press, 1966; and William Rubin, ed., “Primitivism” in 20th Century Art, 2 vols. (New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1985). Concerning the controversy surrounding the latter, see Hal Foster, “The ‘Primitive’ Unconscious of Modern Art, or White Skin Black Masks” (1985 :181-208); Hilton Kramer, “The Primitivism Conundrum” (1984:1-7): 226 | W. Jackson Rushing

Thomas McEvilley, “Doctor Lawyer Indian Chief: ‘Primitivism’ in 20th Century Art at the Museum of Modern Art” (1984:54-60); William Rubin et al., “On ‘Doctor Lawyer Indian Chief: “Primitivism” in 20th Century Art’ At the Museum of Modern Art in 1984,” part 1 (1985:42-51) and part 2 (1985:63-71); James Clifford, “Histories of the Tribal and the Modern” (1988:164-77, 215); Yve-Alain Bois, “La Pensée Sauvage” (1985:178-88); and Kirk Varnedoe, “On the Claims and Critics of the ‘Primitivism’ Show” (1985:11-21). 9. Fora review of the historical consensus that “Indian Art of the United States” effectively changed the public’s attitude toward Indian art, see Jonaitis (1981:4). 10. John Sloan and Oliver La Farge, eds., Introduction to American Indian Art (New York: Exhibition of Indian Tribal Arts, Inc., 1931). The “Exposition of Indian Tribal

Arts” is discussed at length in Chapter 5 of my dissertation (see note 1 above). 11. Excerpted from the Indian Arts and Crafts Board Act of 1935 (Schrader 1983 :299). I am indebted to Schrader’s study for drawing my attention to archival materials that have been invaluable in preparing this essay. 12. Rockefeller and d’Harnoncourt, who shared a passion for Mexican folk art, met in Mexico in the mid-1930s (O’Neill 1986:2). Rockefeller was voted president of MOMA’s Board of Trustees in 1939 (Rockefeller 1981:13), the same year the museum invited d’Harnoncourt and the IACB to organize “Indian Art of the United States.” It is inconceivable that Rockefeller’s admiration for d’Harnoncourt and his position at the museum were not prime factors in the decision to host the exhibition. D’Harnoncourt had received Carnegie support for his curatorial activities as early as 1928 (MOMA 1968 and d’Harnoncourt 1969:2). Keppel was instrumental in securing Carnegie funding for d’Harnoncourt for the IACB’s “Exposition of Indian Arts and Crafts” at San Francisco’s Golden Gate International Exposition (d’Harnoncourt to Keppel, August 1938: IACB 12, 036). Once the plans for the 1941 exhibition were under way, d’Harnoncourt was able to assure MOMA director Barr that he had “talked again with the Foundation’s people and found their reactions so enthusiastic and encouraging that I have little doubt that we can obtain what we need” (d’Harnoncourt to Barr, October 20, 1939: IACB 19, 534). D’Harnoncourt was confident enough of these personal connections to write his collaborator Douglas, concerning the loan of objects from the Field Museum of Natural History: “I have not sent this request yet and will not

do so until I see some of the New York people, because I have a hunch that I can get word to certain key trustees through influential friends, which would, I imagine, help more than any amount of official correspondence” (d’Harnoncourt to Douglas, September 6, 1940: IACB 34). And, indeed, Clifford C. Gregg, director

of the Field Museum, responded that although they did not normally loan the material in question, they would be glad to cooperate on this particular occasion (Gregg to d’Harnoncourt, November 11, 1940: IACB 35).

13. For example, d’Harnoncourt wrote to Barr concerning his own first sketches of the floor plan, expressing a desire to simplify the layout “to eliminate some of the sudden changes in direction that are apt to give the visitor a feeling of confusion and restlessness.” The entire plan, he explained, had been designed “in terms of visitor’s vistas.” Thus he included a series of sketches, each representing Marketing the Affinity of the Primitive and the Modern | 227

“a vista seen by the visitor standing in the circle with corresponding number and looking in the direction of the arrow” (d’Harnoncourt to Barr, November 8, 1939: IACB 34).

14. The lone exception appears to be a minor complaint about the lighting made by Jean Charlot (1941:165).

1¢. According to Ira Jacknis, former research associate in the Department of African, Oceanic, and New World Art at the Brooklyn Museum, when the museum was reconstituted as an art museum (1931-33), Spinden redefined and reinstalled ethnographic material as masterpieces of primitive art (pers. comm., 1986). Spinden’s papers at the museum bear this out. For example, in 1934 he wrote that “a carefully considered plan of reinstallation on the ground floor of the Museum provides for a coordination of the fields of primitive art in the Old World and New, with special emphasis on Ancient American Art” (1934:1). And of his efforts in 1935 he observed: “The principal event of the year as regards this department was the opening of the series of halls devoted to primitive art and the early American civilizations . . . to emphasize scientific and educational values. .. . But over above

all this the problem was to find installation methods which would pick out the artistic merits of the individual specimens and broad effects in fresh color which would pull the entire exhibit into an esthetic unity” (1935:1). 16. Wheeler observed that d’Harnoncourt’s “installations were world famous” and that he “established juxtapositions and sequences that illuminated certain universals and interrelationships between one culture and another, and inheritances from generation to generation.” Wheeler added that “this method, which all exhibition directors now practice, but in which he pioneered and excelled, was especially applicable to themes shows” (MOMA 1968). 17. Concerning the Mexican folk art revival, d’Harnoncourt recalled “trying to

help some of the craftsmen to try to keep on doing quality work in spite of the decadence forced on them by the tourist trade” (1969:1). 18. The Metropolitan Museum accepted the Mexican show only after a great deal of pressure was applied by Keppel at the Carnegie Corporation and by the American Federation of Arts. D’Harnoncourt remembered that one of the Metropolitan curators described the folk art as “the most atrocious lot of truck” ever seen and that it was feared that the exhibition would destroy the museum’s reputation. It was on this visit that d’Harnoncourt first met Keppel, whom he referred to as his American godfather (1969:3, 8, 13).

19. This job in broadcasting and d’Harnoncourt’s immigration visa were obtained through Keppel’s good offices (d’Harnoncourt 1969:13—14).

20. On d’Harnoncourt, Nelson Rockefeller, and the politics of cultural exchange with Latin America in the late 1930s and early 1940s, see Klein (1989:4).

21. For early consideration of the aesthetic value of Native American art, see Berlo, Jacknis, and Schevill in this volume. Despite the early ethnoaesthetic studies that they document, this was still a relatively limited area of study, as d’Harnoncourt suggests. Detailed scholarly investigations of the economic issues relevant to artistic production were not undertaken until recently. See, for example, Brody 228 | W. Jackson Rushing

(1976:70-84); Parezo (1983); and Edwin L. Wade, “The Ethnic Art Market in the American Southwest, 1880-1980,” in Stocking (1985:167—91).

22. Cultural primitivism and twentieth-century Euro-American interest in Native American art are discussed in chapters 1-3 of my dissertation (Rushing 1989). For a definition and discussion of cultural primitivism in more universal terms, see Arthur O. Lovejoy’s comments (Lovejoy and Boas 1935:6-—9). 23. For a discussion of the IACB exposition at the San Francisco fair in 1939 see Schrader (1983 :163—98).

24. Eleanor Roosevelt noted her enthusiasm for d’Harnoncourt’s models for the San Francisco fair in her column “My Day,” in the Washington Daily News, Monday,

February 28. In a letter to Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes, Fair Commissioner George Creel observed that both President and Mrs. Roosevelt were deeply interested in the Indian arts and crafts exhibit that d’Harnoncourt was planning (Creel to Ickes, February 25, 1938: IACB 9, 300.33). 25. The text Vaillant produced was the well-known Indian Arts in North America

(Vaillant 1939). The Carnegie grant also funded pamphlets, lectures, salaries for exposition guides, and installation personnel (Schrader 1983 :181). 26. For an illustration of d’Harnoncourt’s floor plan of the exposition, see Schrader (1983 :187).

27. This appears to have been more a matter of ideology and political expediency than personal conviction. D’Harnoncourt was perfectly willing to exhibit historic Indian art made by Canadian tribes. Furthermore, he had insisted on occasion to George Heye that “political frontiers are meaningless in the definition of Indian cultures” (d’Harnoncourt to Heye, October 9, 1940: IACB 35). 28. On September 30, 1939, d’Harnoncourt made a detailed outline entitled “Outline of the Content of the Exhibition Indian Art in North America” (1939: IACB 34). The first documented use by d’Harnoncourt of the title “Indian Art of the United States” appears October 21, 1940 (d’Harnoncourt to Fred Picard: IACB 34). In December 1940, however, he referred to the show simply as “Indian Exhibit, Museum of Modern Art, New York City” (IACB 32). And as late as June 17, 1940, in correspondence with MOMA’s Publicity Department, he again referred to the “Indian Exhibit at the Museum of Modern Art” (d’Harnoncourt to Sara Newmeyer: IACB 34).

29. According to Jonaitis, “Indian Art of the United States” was motivated as much “by the political concerns of the United States government” as it was by any “sudden awareness of an intrinsic esthetic merit in the art itself” (1981:6). This is true, as is the fact that d’Harnoncourt was clearly aware of the ways in which the exhibition might serve national political interests. However, it is equally true, as this essay demonstrates, that his awareness of Indian art’s aesthetic merit was long-standing. 30. Mrs. Roosevelt acted in d’Harnoncourt’s behalf in submitting a request to the president that he sign the foreword to the catalogue (d’Harnoncourt to Eleanor Roosevelt, December 19, 1940: IACB 34, 300.36). Although the president declined, d’Harnoncourt was pleased that he was willing for the first lady to do so Marketing the Affinity of the Primitive and the Modern | 229

(d’Harnoncourt to Eleanor Roosevelt, January 2, 1941: IACB 36).

31. For an illustration of this reproduction, see Douglas and d’Harnoncourt (1941:23).

32. See Fred Kabotie to d’Harnoncourt, November 12, 1940: IACB 34; and d’Harnoncourt to G. Warren Spaulding, October 9, 1940: IACB 34. D’Harnoncourt

felt that the rather free manner of copying used by the Hopi artists was compensated for by the fact that “their pictorial tradition has survived almost without change.” Furthermore, Brew supplied the original drawings of the excavated murals and other information that helped “insure authenticity of color and design” (d’Harnoncourt to Barr, November 8, 1939: IACB 34). 33. See Douglas and d’Harnoncourt (1941:114). 34. There was a good deal of interagency conflict about who would pay for which particular aspect of the expedition. And there was much to be paid for, including special cameras. The Department of the Interior carried the WPA team of six artists to the brink of the canyon, but because the canyon had been washed out, it was necessary to go the last five miles of rough terrain on foot with the equipment (lumber for scaffolding) on pack horses. Furthermore, the nearest drinkable water was some distance from the site itself, so arrangements had to be made to have water hauled in by the Civilian Conservation Corps. 35. There are two documents that indicate that d’Harnoncourt was probably the principal author of the book. The first is a letter written by d’Harnoncourt to Herbert J. Spinden of the Brooklyn Museum stating that Douglas was to write the “captions in the catalogue” (July 27, 1940: IACB 35, 300.36). The second is a planning document entitled “Collection of Material for Publication,” including an incomplete page-by-page list of contents, which shows d’Harnoncourt to be the author of the introductory essays, “Tribal Tradition and Progress,” “Indian Art,” and “Indian Origins and History” (IACB 34). The point of view expressed in the last section, “Indian Art for Modern Living,” is unquestionably d’Harnoncourt’s. Furthermore, based on Douglas’s entries in the catalogue’s bibliography, it is not unreasonable to assume that while he contributed to the discussions on ethnography, material culture, and artistic technique, d’Harnoncourt was responsible for those on aesthetics, cultural tradition, and world view. This is again supported by the documents cited above and by Barr’s recollection that it was d’Harnoncourt who planned the catalogue (MOMA 1968). Ira Jacknis observed that Douglas was trained as an artist and knew artists’ materials quite well, but was not interested in anthropological theory (pers. comm., 1986). Thus, with this evidence as a guide, all the quotations used in my discussion of the catalogue may be attributed to d’Harnoncourt quite safely. 36. D’Harnoncourt’s concept of folk art and culture is perfectly compatible with Robert Redfield’s 1947 characterization of the folk society “as small, isolated, nonliterate, and homogeneous, with a strong sense of group solidarity” (1947:316). Redfield explained that among such societies, such as the Papago Indians, “All activities, even the means of production, are ends in themselves, activities expressive of the ultimate values of the society” (p. 325). Furthermore, Redfield observed that folk societies have a tendency to regard objects as sacred. This latter is predi230 | W. Jackson Rushing

cated on the fact that in the folk society cultural activity is a unity of experience that does not differentiate between sacred and secular (pp. 325, 319). As Elman R. Service pointed out, Redfield was defining “a polar, ideal construct having characteristics opposite to an urban society” (1971:504). More recently the notion of folk culture has been associated with rural, peasant villages which are subcultures of urban cultures (ibid.). Thus, d’Harnoncourt’s characterization of Indian art as folk art was theoretically correct in 1941. Whether such a definition of contemporary “traditional” Indian art is accurate today remains open to question. For a discussion and bibliography on the recent radical critique of the current art-historical use of the term folk art, see Wanda Corn (1988:205-6). 37. See also the in-depth discussion of this phenomenon in my article, “The Impact of Friedrich Nietzsche and Northwest Coast Indian Art on Barnett Newman’s Idea of Redemption in the Abstract Sublime,” Art Journal 47 (Fall 1988): 187-95. 38. On the Surrealist’s primitivism and interest in Native American art from the Northwest Coast, see Cowling (1978:484—-99), Jonaitis (1981:8, 13-15), and especially Maurer (1985:541-84).

39. The idea of a “horizon of expectations” derives from Hans-Robert Jauss’s description of an “aesthetics of reception and impact” (1970:9). My comments follow Susan R. Suleiman’s discussion of Jauss (1980:35-36).

40. Similarly, La Farge wrote that Indian art “is very much our own, but we have not yet made it part of us.” He also argued that since America was not going to be given back to the Indians, “perhaps we shall have sense enough to give the Indians back to America” (1941b:23).

41. Thomas McEvilley has written persuasively about the idea of art exhibitions as ideological constructions: “The exhibition appropriates the viewer into its mute but focused system of definitions, implications, and propositions. The appropriation of the viewer is performed not strictly by the artist or other maker of exhibited objects, who may have been articulating an individual sense of selfhood without appropriative motives, but by the exhibition organizer or curator, who transposes the objects . . . to [the] exhibition space, from private to public sphere, positioning them for their entrapment of the viewer” (McEvilley 1989:8). 42. On consumers of Native arts as “form-creators,” see Brody (1976:71).

43. According to Nelson H.H. Graburn, among modern nations there is an “almost universal proclivity . . . to collect and display the art of their present and past minority peoples as symbols of national identity” (Graburn 1976: 28).

BIBLIOGRAPHY Note: All references to the Records of the Indian Arts and Crafts Board (IACB) appear at the end of the Bibliography. Art Digest

1941 “All-American Art,” Art Digest, January 1, p. 17. Marketing the Affinity of the Primitive and the Modern | 231

Berryman, Florence 1941 “Indian Art of the United States,” Magazine of Art 34 (April): 216, 218. Bois, Yve-Alain 1985 “La Pensée Sauvage,” Art in America 73 (April): 178-88. Brody, J. J.

1976 “The Creative Consumer: Survival, Revival and Invention in Southwest Indian Arts,” in Ethnic and Tourist Arts, Nelson H. H. Graburn, ed., pp. 7084. Berkeley: University of California Press. Caspers, Frank 1941 “Indian Art of the United States,” Art Digest, March 1, p. 27. Charlot, Jean 1941 “All American,” The Nation, February 8, pp. 165-66. Clifford, James

1985 “Histories of the Tribal and the Modern,” Art in America 73 (April): 16474, 255. 1988 — The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth-Century Ethnography, Literature, and Art. Cam-

bridge: Harvard University Press. Corn, Wanda 1988 “Coming of Age: Historical Scholarship in American Art,” Art Bulletin 70 June): 188-207. Cowling, Elizabeth 1978 “The Eskimos, the American Indians, and the Surrealists,” Art History 1(4):

484-00. Crawford, M. D.C. 1941 “Exhibit of Indian Art,” Women’s Wear Daily, January to, p. to. Denman, Leslie Van Ness

1936 “A Presentation of Indian Cultures and Their Arts,” Women’s City Club Magazine to (July): 14~15, 31.

d’Harnoncourt, René 1939 “Indian Exhibit at San Francisco World’s Fair Nears Completion,” Indians at Work 6 (November): 10-12. 1941 “Living Arts of the Indian,” Magazine of Art 34 (February): 72-77. 1969 — René d’Harnoncourt Oral History. New York: Columbia University Oral History Research Office.

Douglas, Frederic H., and René d’Harnoncourt 1941 Indian Art of the United States. New York: Museum of Modern Art. Foster, Hal 1985 — Recodings: Art, Spectacle, Cultural Politics. Port Townsend: Bay Press.

Frankenstein, Alfred

1940 “The Art of the Indian,” San Francisco Chronicle. [Undated clippings in IACB 20]

Graburn, Nelson H. H. 1976 Ethnic and Tourist Arts. Berkeley: University of California Press.

232 | W. Jackson Rushing

Jauss, Hans-Robert 1970 ©‘“Literary History as a Challenge to Literary Theory,” New Literary History 2:7-37. Jonaitis, Aldona 1981 “Creations of Mystics and Philosophers: The White Man’s Perceptions of Northwest Coast Indian Art from the 1930s to the Present,” American Indian Culture and Research Journal 5(1):1-48.

Klein, Cecelia

1989 “Gaining Respect: Native American Art Studies and the Humanities,” Native American Art Studies Association Newsletter 6:3—6.

Kramer, Hilton 1984 “The Primitivism Conundrum,” New Criterion 3 (December): 1-7. La Farge, Oliver 1941a “Indians at the Museum of Modern Art,” New Republic, February 10, pp. 181-82.

1941b “The Indian as Artist,” New York Times, January 26, pp. 9-10, 23. Lovejoy, Arthur O., and George Boas 1935 Primitivism and Related Ideas in Antiquity. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.

Lowe, Jeanette 1941 “Lo, the Rich Indian: Art of the American Aboriginals,” Art News, 39 (February 1): 7-8, 20. McEvilley, Thomas 1984 “Doctor Lawyer Indian Chief: ‘Primitivism’ in 20th Century Art at the Museum of Modern Art,” Artforum 23 (November): 54—60.

1989 “Opening the Trap: The Postmodern Exhibition and Magicians of the Earth,” Journal of Art 1 (June/July): 8-9.

Maurer, Evan 1985 “Dada and Surrealism,” in “Primitivism” in 20th Century Art, vol. 2, ed. William Rubin, pp. 541-84. New York: Museum of Modern Art. Miller, Arthur 1939 “The Art Thrill of Last Week,” Los Angeles Times, April 23, p. 8. Museum of Modern Art 1968 René d’Harnoncourt 1901-1968: A Tribute. New York: n.p. (Contributions by Alfred H. Barr, Jr., Monroe Wheeler, et al.) Newsweek

1941 “20,000 Years of Indian Art Assembled for New York Show,” Newsweek, February 17, pp. 57-58. O’Neill, Annie 1986 “Nelson A. Rockefeller: The Collector,” in The Nelson A. Rockefeller Collection of Mexican Folk Art, pp. 1-6. San Francisco: Mexican Museum.

Parezo, Nancy 1983 Navajo Sand Paintings on Boards: From Religious Act to Commercial Art. Tucson:

University of Arizona Press. Parnassus

1941 “Indian Art of the United States,” Parnassus 13 (February): 77-78. Marketing the Affinity of the Primitive and the Modern | 233

Redfield, Robert 1947. “The Folk Society,” reprinted in Readings in Anthropology, ed. Morton Fried, pp. 311-31. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1971.

Rockefeller, Nelson 1981 The Nelson A. Rockefeller Collection: Masterpieces of Modern Art. New York: Hud-

son Hills Press. Roosevelt, Eleanor 1938 “My Day,” Washington Daily News, February 28. Rubin, William, ed. 1985 “Primitivism” in 20th Century Art. 2 vols. New York: Museum of Modern Art. Rubin, William, Kirk Varnedoe, et al.

1985 “On ‘Doctor Lawyer Indian Chief: “Primitivism” in 20th Century Art’ at the Museum of Modern Art in 1984,” part 1, Artforum 23 (February): 42-1; part 2, Artforum 23 (May): 63-71. Rushing, W. Jackson

1986 “Ritual and Myth: Native American Culture and Abstract Expressionism,” in The Spiritual in Art: Abstract Painting, 1890-1985, pp. 273-95. Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Museum of Art.

1988 “The Impact of Friedrich Nietzsche and Northwest Coast Indian Art on Barnett Newman’s Idea of Redemption in the Abstract Sublime,” Art Journal 47 (Fall): 187-95.

1989 “Native American Art and Culture and the New York Avant-Garde, 1910-— 1950,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin. Schrader, Robert Fay 1983 The Indian Arts and Crafts Board: An Aspect of New Deal Policy. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Service, Elman R. 1971 Profiles in Ethnology. New York: Harper and Row.

Spinden, Herbert J. 1934 “Annual Report of the Department of Primitive and Prehistoric Art,” Brooklyn Museum Archives. 1935 “Annuai Report of the Department of Primitive and Prehistoric Art,” Brooklyn Museum Archives. Stocking, George W., Jr., ed. 1985 Objects and Others: Essays on Museums and Material Culture. Madison: University

of Wisconsin Press. Suleiman, Susan R. 1980 =. “Varieties of Audience-Oriented Criticism,” in The Reader in the Text, ed.

Susan R. Suleiman and Inge Crosman, pp. 3-45. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Vaillant, George 1939 —_ Indian Arts in North America. New York: American Museum of Natural History.

1941 “Indian Art of the United States,” Art Bulletin 23 (January): 167-69. 234 | W. Jackson Rushing

Varnedoe, Kirk 1985 “On the Claims and Critics of the ‘Primitivism’ Show,” Art in America 73 (May): 11-21. Washington Star

1941 “Back to the Indian,” Washington Star, February 23.

Records of the Indian Arts and Crafts Board (IACB) (National Archives Record Group 435): Collier, John 1939 (Press Release) Letter to Harold L. Ickes, February; box 20. Creel, George 1938 Letter to Harold L. Ickes, February 25; box 9, file 300.33. d’Harnoncourt, René

1936 “Notes on an Exhibit of the Arts and Crafts of the American Indian at the New York Fair of 1936”; box 9, file 300.35.

1938 “Projects of Research in the Indian Arts and Crafts”; box 4, file 140.2. “Notes: Indian Defense Association”; box 32. Typescript of notes for San Francisco Exposition; box 9, file 300.33. Letter to Joseph Allen, December 6; box 11, file ozo. Letter to George Creel, January 31; box 9, file 300.33. Letter to Frederick Keppel, August 19; box 12, file 036. Letter to George Creel, August 21; box 21. Letter to Frederick Keppel, n.d.; box 32. 1939 “Outline ofthe Content of the Exhibition Indian Art in North America,” September 30; box 34. “Proposed Activities for the Fall and Winter,” July 26; box 4, file 140.2. “Report on the Activities of the Indian Arts and Crafts Board for the Fiscal Year 1938-39”; box 4, file 140.2. “Suggestions for Future Activities of the Indian Arts and Crafts Board,” September 21; box 4, file 140.2. Letter to John Collier, July 6; box 9, file 103.1. Letter to Frederic H. Douglas, September 30; box 36, file 300.36. Letter to Alfred H. Barr, Jr., October 29; box 19, file 534. Letter to Alfred H. Barr, Jr., November 8; box 34. Letter to William Wright, November 29; box 14, file 119.

1940 “Collection of Material for Publication”; box 34. “Indian Exhibit, Museum of Modern Art, New York City”; box 32. “Report on the Activities of the Indian Arts and Crafts Board,” July 26; box 4, file 140.2. Letter to Joseph Y. Barnett, January 12; box 4, file 140.2. Letter to Young, April 5; box 4, file 140.2. Letter to Thomas C. Parker, April 8; box 34, file III-A-4.

Letter to Sara Newmeyer, June 17; box 34. , Marketing the Affinity of the Primitive and the Modern | 235

Letter to Miller, June 21; box 3s. Letter to Herbert J. Spinden, July 27; box 75, file 300.36. Letter to Frederic H. Douglas, September 6; box 34. Letter to G. Warren Spaulding, October 9; box 34. Letter to George Heye, October 9; box 34. Letter to Fred A. Picard, October 21; box 34. Letter to Eleanor Roosevelt, December 19; box 34, file 300.36. 1941 Letter to Eleanor Roosevelt, January 2; box 36. “Indian Exhibit, Museum of Modern Art—New York City,” December; box 32. Letter to M. Dietrich, December 23; box 36. Gregg, Clifford C. 1940 ~—Letter to René d’Harnoncourt, November 11; box 35. Kabotie, Fred 1940 ~=— Letter to René d’Harnoncourt, November 12; box 34. Kroeber, Alfred L. i939 —_ Letter to John Collier, February 28; box 9, file 300.33. Taylor, Francis Henry

1939 Letter to Rene d’Harnoncourt, September 26; box 76. Weber, Max 1941 Letter to Alfred H. Barr, February 1; box 34.

236 | W. Jackson Rushing :

CONTRIBUTORS

Janet Catherine Berlo is professor of art history at the University of Missouri-St. Louis. She received her Ph.D. in the history of art at Yale University (1980), and has taught at Yale, the Rhode Island School of Design, and UCLA. She is author or editor of several volumes, including Art, Polity, and the City of Teotihuacan (in press, Dumbarton Oaks), Mesoamerica After the Decline of Teotihuacan (Dumbarton Oaks, 1989), The Art of Ancient Mesoamerica: An Annotated Bibliography (G. K. Hall, 1985), and Text and Image in Pre-Columbian

Art (BAR, Oxford, 1983). She has also published on Inuit and Plains Indians graphic arts.

Marvin Cohodas is associate professor of fine arts at the University of British Columbia. He received his Ph.D. in 1974 in the Department of Art and Archaeology at Columbia University. A specialist in Maya art and archaeology as well as Native American basketry, he is the author of The Great Ballcourt at Chichen Itza, Yucatan, Mexico (Garland, 1978) and High on the Rivers: The Basketry Art of Elizabeth Hickox (Southwest Museum, 1990), as well

as numerous articles on Maya art and Native American basketry.

Diana Fane is curator of African, Oceanic, and New World art at The Brooklyn Museum. She was educated at Radcliffe College and Columbia University, where she received an M. Phil. in art history. She is coauthor (with Ira Jacknis and Lise M. Breen) of Objects of Myth and Memory: American Indian Art at The Brooklyn Museum (University of Washington Press, 1991).

Ira Jacknis is associate research anthropologist at the Lowie Museum of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley. He is the author of The Storage Box of Tradition: Museums, Anthropologists, and Kwakiutl Art, 1881-1981

(Smithsonian Press, forthcoming) and coauthor of Objects of Myth and Memory: American Indian Art at The Brooklyn Museum (University of Washington

Press, 1991). His special interests are art and aesthetics, visual anthropology, museums, the history of anthropology, and Native Americans (especially Northwest Coast and California). Aldona Jonaitis is vice president for public programs at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. She has published extensively on Northwest Coast Native art, including Art of the Northern Tlingit (University of Washington Press, 1986), From the Land of the Totem Poles: The Northwest 237

Coast Indian Art Collection at the American Museum of Natural History (American

Museum of Natural History and the University of Washington Press, 1988), and Chiefly Feasts: The Enduring Kwakiutl Potlatch (American Museum of Natural

History and the University of Washington Press, 1991). In press is A Wealth of Thought: Franz Boas on Native American Art (University of Washington Press).

W. Jackson Rushing is assistant professor of art history at the University of Missouri-St. Louis. He received his Ph.D. in art history at the University of Texas at Austin (1989) and taught previously at the University of Maine. His essays and art criticism have appeared in Artspace, Art New England, Art Journal, New Art Examiner, and several exhibition catalogues. His study of modernist primitivism is forthcoming: Native American Art and Culture and the New York Avant-Garde, 1910-1950 (University of Texas Press). His current book project is entitled Tradition and Transformation in Native American Art Since

1960 (forthcoming, University of New Mexico Press).

Margot Blum Schevill is an anthropologist, musician, and weaver. She specializes in New World ethnographic textiles, as well as writing about women anthropologists who specialized in textiles, and about women fiber artists. Schevill was assistant curator at the Haffenreffer Museum of Anthropology, Brown University, and is currently senior museum scientist at the Lowie Museum of Anthropology, University of California at Berkeley. Her publications include Evolution in Textile Design from the Highlands of Guatemala (Lowie Museum, 1985) and Costume as Communication (Haffen-

reffer Museum, 1986). She has just completed the manuscript of Maya Textiles of Guatemala, based on the Gustavus A. Eisen Collection in the Lowie

Museum of Anthropology.

238 | Contributors

INDEX

Boldfaced page numbers refer to photos and illustrations.

Aboriginal American Basketry (Mason), 6 “salvage ethnology,” 27-28, 46, 49;

“Alaskan Needlecases” (Boas), 138 investigation of Haida by, 28-39, 46, American Federation of Arts, 196 49; resignation of, from American American Museum of Natural History, Museum of Natural History, 43-44; 2, 8, 15, 22, 39, 136; Native American “evolutionary” vs. “psychological”

art at, 40, 45-48, 51; educational vs. “historical-diffusionary” views

mission of, 43-45, 48-52 of; 136-42, 149-51; investigation of

Amsden, Charles, 12 Salish, 142; work with Teit, 142-44; Antko, Lucy, 143 work with Haeberlin, 145, 147—48; Argillite carvings, 54n17 influence of, on O’Neale, 168-69; Arnold, Matthew, 42 support of women students, 183n11 Art and Archaeology, 14 Brenner, Anita, 152-53 Arts and Crafts Movement, 89, 90, 97, Brew, J. O., 208

125, 129n22, 142,165 Briggs, Charles, 156n7 Art Through the Ages (Gardner), 14 Brooklyn Institute, 77 Brooklyn Museum, 2, 15, 64

Baird, Spencer F., 66 Brown, Frances, 96, 98 Barbeau, Marius, 16n5 Bumpus, Hermon, 43 Barr, Alfred H., Jr., 193 Bunzel, Ruth, 3, 135, 150, 152, 155n4; Barrett, Samuel, 157n18, 164 and ethnoaesthetics, 169; work with

The Basket (James), 91 Zuni, 10

Basketry, 151; degikup, 4, 92, 93,94,101- | Bureau of American Ethnology, 2, 66, 25, 110, 112; in curio trade, 90; Salish, 134, 136, 144, 148

141-55; in Arts and Crafts Move- Bureau of Indian Affairs, 122

ment, 142; study of, by Kroeber, Burton, Henrietta, 122 164; of Klamath River Native Americans, 166-78, 172, 174, 175, 177. See California Academy of Sciences, 169

also Hickox, Lizzie; Hickox, Louisa; California Indian Library Collections

Keyser, Louisa project, 185n24

The Basketry of the Tlingit (Emmons),148 Canadian Geological Survey, 144

Begay, Harrison, 214 Carnegie, Andrew, 47 The Beginnings of Art (Grosse), 6-7 Carnegie Institution, 17

Benedict, Ruth, 154, 169 Caspers, Frank, 216, 217, 221

Berlin, Brent, 180 Charlot, Jean, 219, 221, 222

Bernstein, Bruce, 16n9 Chilkat Blanket (Emmons), 138 Berryman, Florence, 216-17 Clifford, James, 26, 55n27 Boas, Franz, 3, 6, 7, 22—23, 24; inter- Coe, Ralph T., 127 est in artistic individuality, 9; and Cohn, Abram, 8, 184n16; entry into

239

Cohn, Abram (continued ) Dark, Philip J.C.,181 curio trade, 92; and Louisa Keyser, Dat So La Lee. See Keyser, Louisa 92-93, 98-99; business practices of, Davidson, Robert, 54n19

95-96 Dawson, Lawrence E., 178

Cohn, Amy, 8,184n16; correspondence “The Decorative Art of the Indians of with ethnographers, 91; and Louisa the North Pacific Coast” (Boas), 7,

Keyser, 92-93, 95-101; marriage 9,137 to Abram Cohn, 92; propaganda Degikup basketry. See Basketry; Keyser,

written by, to sell Keyser’s baskets, Louisa 101-25; image and impact of, 125-28 | Denman, Leslie Van Ness, 201

Cohn, Margaret Jones, 98, 125 d’Harnoncourt, Rene, 63; and “Indian

Cohodas, Marvin, 164 Art of the United States” exhibit, Coiled Basketry in British Columbia and Sur- 191-236; exhibition design and rounding Region (Haeberlin et al.), 10, strategy of, 194-95, 199, 206-16, 218,

134, 148-55; influence on O’Neale, 220; early career of, 196-97; and

168-69 Golden Gate International ExposiColer, Bird S., 45 tion, 200-6 Collecting: destabilizing influence DiMaggio, Paul, 40 of, on Native American design tra- Dockstader, Frederick J., 127

dition, 3; factual vs. material, 3; Dolores, Juan, 180 commissioned work and creation of | Dominguez, Virginia, 27 “ideal types,” 5, 6, 39, 49; of sacred Dossetter, Edward, 36 objects, 73-74; private vs. scholarly, Douglas, Frederic H., 63,191, 201, 7~9, 89. See also Curio trade; Museum 206, 220 Age; “Salvage” ethnology; names of individual anthropologists, merchants, and Edenshaw, Charles, 22, 23, 29, 30, 36,

Native American peoples 37, 52; work representing “authenCollier, John, 193-94, 197 tic” Haida sculpture, 5, 31, 39, 49; Contributions to the Ethnology of the Haida commissioned carvings of, 32-34,

(Swanton), 6, 34 33, 35; and Swanton, 32

Cootswytewa, Victor, 210 Emmons, George T., 8, 138, 148, 192

Cotton, C. N., 8 Ethnoaesthetics, 168-69, 181-82 The Craftsman, 90 Evolution in Art (Haddon), 6-7

Culin, R. Stewart, 65; collecting among —_ Evolutionism. See “Salvage” ethnology

Zuni, 4-5, 64, 71-75, 77; and Cush- “Exposition of Indian Tribal Arts” ing, 68-69; “inventing” Zuni art, 78 (New York, 1931), 13, 62, 193 Culture and Anarchy (Arnold), 42

Curio trade, 89; sustained by idealized —_ Faure, Eli, 14

Native American past and degraded Field Museum of Natural History, present, 111-15, 116-18, 121. See also Chicago, 29, 147 Keyser, Louisa; “Salvage” ethnology Fremont, John C., 122 Cushing, Frank Hamilton, 65, 69, 70, Furst, Peter T. and Jill L., 127 72, 192; “inventing” Zuni art, 66—67;

performance of “authentic” Zuni Gardner, Helen, 14 past, 67-69; and Culin, 68-69 George, Chagron and Dewey, 183n10 240 | Index

Goddard, Pliny E., 170 logue, 216-22; and long-term sales of Golden Gate International Exposition Native American art, 216; influence

(San Francisco, 1939), 200-6 of modern psychology on reception

Gottlieb, Adolph, 223 of, 219-20; and “salvage” ethnology, Gramsci, Antonio, 23 225. See also d’Harnoncourt, René

Grosse, Ernst, 6 Indian Arts and Crafts Board, 63,

Gwaytihl, 36 191, 197

Indian Basketry (James), 7, 126

Habermas, Jurgen, 26 Indian Blankets and Their Makers (James), 7

Haddon, A. C., 6 Industrial Arts Exposition (St. Louis, Haeberlin, Herman, 144, 146, 149-50, 1919), 96,126 154; interest in artistic individuality, Industrialization: and romanticizing of 9-10; work with Boas, 145, 147—48 Indian past, 89, 90. See also “Salvage”

Haida, 38; argillite carving of, 5; inves- ethnology tigation of, by Boas and Swanton, The Influence of Technique on Decorative 28-39, 46, 49. See also Edenshaw, Style in the Domestic Pottery of Culhuacan

Charles; Gwaytihl; Robson, John (Brenner), 152-53 Hastings, O. C., 36

Hemenway Expedition, 8 Jacknis, Ira, 43, 228n15, 230n35 Henderson, Alice Corbin, 13 Jacobs, Mary, 175

Herskovits, Melville, 152 Jacobsen, Filip, 54n13 Hickox, Lizzie, 171, 172, 173 James, George Wharton, 7, 91, 126—

Hickox, Louisa, 171 27,142

Hillers, John, 66 Jameson, Frederic, 28 Hinsley, Curtis, 16n3 Jesup North Pacific Expedition (1897Histoire de |’ayt (Faure), 14 1902), 22, 28, 32, 144

Hodge, F. W., 144 Johnson, Pauline, 129n21

Holm, Bill, 29 Jonaitis, Aldona, 229n29 Holmes, William Henry, 6

Hopi: changes to pottery design fol- Kabotie, Fred, 13, 210, 210, 214 lowing trade with whites, 7-8; artists | Karok. See Klamath River Native Ameri-

at “Indian Art of the United States,” cans; O’Neale, Lila Morris 210, 210. See also Kabotie, Fred Kay, Paul, 180

Howe, Oscar, 13, 214 Keam, Thomas, 7, 8, 73 Hubbell, Lorenzo, 8,75 Keppel, Frederick P., 194, 228n18 Hunt, George, 32, 142 Keyser, Louisa (Dat So La Lee), 4, 5, 8, Hupa. See Klamath River Native Ameri- 80n5, 93-94, 94, 184n11; degikup bas-

cans ketry, 4, 92, 93, 94, 101-25, 110, 112; as symbol of “traditional” Indian

Ickes, Harold L., 204 past, 5, 106-7, 115-17, 119-25; and the “Indian Art of the United States” (Mu- Cohns, 88-133; ledger kept of basseum of Modern Art, 1941), 2, 13, 15, kets made by, 99-101; life and career 63, 191-236; exhibition strategy, 206- of, 102-4, 107, 121-25; appearance 16, 218, 220; as vehicle to promote and personality, 115-21 nationalism, 207, 217-18, 224; cata- King, Jonathan, 4, 27, 48 Index | 241

Kiowa (of Oklahoma), 5 Mooney, James, 5 Klamath River Native Americans: bas- Moore, J. B., 8 ketry, 166-78, 172, 174, 175,177; study Museum Age, 64

of, by O’Neale, 166-78 Museum of the American Indian, 15

Klumb, Henry, 191 Museum of Anthropology, 169 Komoyousie, Herbert, 210 Museum of Modern Art. See “Indian Kroeber, Alfred L., 10-11, 138, 152, Art of the United States” 170, 171, 173, 183n11, 203; study of Museums: effect of setting on viewer, California basketry, 164; work with 23, 26-27, 48-51; role in gathering

O’Neale, 165-66 and disseminating ethnography, 23, Die Kunst der Natur-Volker und der Vorzeit 26-27; classification of, and public

(von Sydow) perception, 39-43; compared to

world fairs, 41, 43; as instrument of La Farge, Oliver, 193, 216, 218, 220, 224, elite, 41-42, 51-52; natural history

251n40 vs. art, 43; as monuments to expan-

Laufer, Berthold, 147 sionist movement, 45-46. See also

Lears, T. Jackson, 47 names of individual museums and exhibits Lee, S. L., 94-95, 100, 122

Leipziger, H. M., 45 Native American art: and destabilizing Lévi-Strauss, Claude, 5 influence of collecting activities, Loloma, Charles, 210 3; and miniaturized replicas, 5, 50; Lowe, Jeannette, 219, 221 commissioned work as “invented Lummis, Charles F., 142 art,” 5, 31, 38, 49, 73, 74-75, 77, 171, Lyotard, Jean Francois, 26 172; changes to design following trade with whites, 6, 7-8, 13, 170,

McEvilley, Thomas, 231n41 172, 176, 178; and artistic individu-

Macnair, Peter, 29 ality, 9-12; aestheticization of} 12-13, McNaughton, Clara, 116, 126 14; and modern art, 14-15, 197—

Martinez, Maria, 13 200, 207-8, 221, 222-23; growth of Masks: Northwest Coast, 34, 212, 219; popular interest in, 13; effect of mu-

Zuni, 78, 79 seum displays on, 23, 26-27, 48-51;

Mason, Otis T., 6, 91, 127 “authentic” past invented by colMatthews, Washington, 6 lectors, 27, 32-39, 46-49; collection

Maynard, Richard, 36 of sacred objects, 73-74; “evolu-

Mead, Eugene, 91 tionary” vs. “psychological” vs.

Mead, Margaret, 145, 154 “historical-diffusionary” approaches “The Methods of Ethnology” (Boas), to, 136-42. See also names of individual

141 artists, art forms, and exhibits

Metropolitan Museum of Art, 41 Navajo, 8, 12

Meyer, A. B., 44 Navajo Shepherd and Weaver (Reichard), The Mind of Primitive Man (Boas), 141 12,152 Modern art: and Native American art, Nicholson, Grace, 103, 114-15, 142, 171 14-15, 197-200, 207-8, 221, 222-23. Northwest Coast Indians: artwork in See also names of individual artists and “Indian Art of the United States,”

exhibits 212, 213, 219, 221, 223. See also Haida: 242 | Index

Hunt, George; Salish; Teit, James Reid, Bill, 54n19 Alexander; Thompson Indians; names _ Roberts, Helen H., 148

of individual artists Robson, John, 29, 32, 36 “Notes on Pottery Making in Highland Roosevelt, Eleanor, 201, 207, 210

Peru” (O’Neale), 179 Roosevelt, Franklin D.: New Deal patronage of arts, 194, 207

Objects and Others (Stocking), 26 Ruben, a 174, 175

O'Keeffe, Georgia, 14 Rydell, Robert, 41 O’Neale, Lila Morris, 11, 135, 151, 152,

162, 163, 164, 168; influence of Boas .

on, 10; education of, 165-66; work St. Louis World’s Fair (1904), 5 with Kroeber, 165-66: fieldwork Salish: basketry, 141-55, 153; work among Klamath River Native Ameri- among, by Boas, 142 cans, 166-78; work with Guatemalan “Salvage” ethnology, 3, 46-47, 63-64,

and Peruvian Natives, 179; work 28; and “authentic” works com-

with Papago language, 180; legacy of, pepe ie ; - ni a Osborn, Henry Fairfield, 44 and neglect of contemporary culture, 5; and “authenticity,” 27, 170; and Swanton and Boas, 27-28; and

Parezo, Nancy, 81n8 . notion of material progress, 47; and Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Zuni, 71; idealized past vs. degraded

2, 8, 208 oo present, 90, 106, 113-14, 116-18:

Photographs: use of, in studies of and degikup basketry, 106-7, 111-17,

material culture, 157018 119-25; as justification for exploit-

Pollock, Jackson, 223 ing Native Americans, 118-19; and Pousette-Dart, Richard, 223 “Indian Art of the United States,” 225

Powell, Israel, 36 Sand painting, 12, 224 “Primitive Art” (Boas, 1904), 137 Sapir, Edward, 144, 150, 154 Primitive Art (Boas, 1927), 37, 137, 139 Sargent, Homer Earle, Jr., 134, 142

“Principles of Esthetic Form inthe Art gent, Irene, 90 of the North Pacific Coast” (Haeber- Sculpture, 212, 213, 219, 221, 223

lin), 145 Sloan, John, 193

Pueblo: art at “Indian Art ofthe United grnithsonian Institution, 2, 3, 80n2. See States,” 208-11, 209, 210, 215, 214, also Bureau of American Ethnology 219. See also Hopi; Zuni The Social Organization and Secret Societies of The Pueblo Potter (Bunzel), 10, 152 the Kwakiutl Indians (Boas), 6

Putnam, Frederic Ward, $5n26 Society of Independent Artists in New York, 13

Rattles, Northwest Coast, 54n12 Spinden, Herbert J., 78

Rau, Charles, 66 Steiner, G. A., 103, 111, 115 Redfield, Robert, 230n36 Stevenson, James, 66

Reichard, Gladys, 10, 11-12, 135, 152; Stevenson, Matilda Coxe, 6, 66, 68,

and ethnoaesthetics, 169; investiga- 73-74

tion of Navajos, 12 Stocking, George, 26, 154 Index | 243

Swanton, John, 6, 23, 25, 34; and “sal- Wallace, Fred, 80n5 vage” ethnology, 27-28; research on _—_ Wallace, John, 80n5, 207

Haida, 28-39, 46, 49 Washburn, Dorothy, 11, 168 Washoe, 92. See also Keyser, Louisa

Taylor, Francis Henry, 206 Weaving, 12 Teit, James Alexander, 9,141, 143, 168, Weltfish, Gene, 181

176; work with Boas, 142-44 Wheeler, Monroe, 193, 228n16 Textiles of Highland Guatemala (O’Neale), | Wolf, Eric, 16n9

179 World fairs, 41, 43. See also St. Louis

Thomas, Martha, 165, 166 World’s Fair

Thompson, Robert Garris, 16n10 “Wrapping.” See Jameson, Frederic Thompson Indians, 139,176; basketry, Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of

135. See also Teit, James Alexander Ethnography (Clifford and Marcus), 26 Trachtenberg, Alan, 41 Traditionalism. See “Salvage” ethnol- Yurok. See Klamath River Native

ogy Americans; O’Neale, Lila Morris

Tsatoke, Monroe, 214 Yurok-Karok Basket Weavers (O’Neale), 152,

Tsireh, Awa, 13 163-64, 178, 181 Tyler, Stephen A., 26, 50

Zuni, 69; destabilizing influence of

U.S. National Museum, 91, 136 collecting activities among, 3; and University Museum, Philadelphia, 71 Cushing, 65-77; dance shield, 76;

Vaillant, George, 201, 212, 224 exhibition at Brooklyn Institute, 77; Van Loan, C. E., 97,100, 103, 121 mask, 78, 79; and “salvage” ethnol-

Vanderwagen, Andrew, 71, 73-74 ogy, 78

von Sydow, Eckart, 14 Zuni Folk Tales (Cushing), 71 Vroman, Adam Clark, 142 The Zuni Indians (Stevenson), 6

244 | Index

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

The Early years of native American art history : the politics of scholarship and collecting / edited by Janet Catherine Berlo.

p. cm. “A McLellan book.”

Includes index. ISBN 0-295-97202-5 (alk. paper)

1. Indians of North America—Art. 2. Indians of North America —Museums. 3. Indians of North America—Historiography. 4. Ethnological museums and collections—United States—History. 5. United States—Antiquities—Collection and preservation. I. Berlo, Janet Catherine. E98.A7E27 1992

704'.0397'007073—dc20 92-8955 CIP

Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data

Main entry under title: The Early years of native American art history Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-7748-0433-5

1. Indians of North America—Art—Historiography. 2. Indians of North America—Historiography. 3. Indians of North America— Museums. 4. Ethnological museums and collections—United States —History. 5. United States—Antiquities—Collection and

prevention. I. Berlo, Janet Catherine.

E98.A7E27 1992 704’ .0397 C92-O091550-7