Articles by hdavis

You are currently browsing hdavis’s articles.

John Bradford Moore and the Crystal Trading Post

November 13, 2013 in Native American by hdavis

A Navajo Crystal weaving, two shades of brown and cream, with two large diamonds at center, surrounded by four large diamonds and a sawtooth border.In 1896, Texas-born John Bradford Moore, the former mayor of Sheridan, Wyoming, purchased the seasonal trading post at Narbona Pass in New Mexico. He erected a permanent log building and established the Crystal Trading Post.

By the turn of the twentieth century, Moore’s post was flourishing, particularly in the sale of Navajo weavings. Like other trading post operators, Moore saw the value in adapting his product to meet the needs and desires of his eastern customers. Thus, rather than producing Navajo blankets meant to be worn, Moore’s weavers wove rugs meant to be used on the floor. He thus used quality wool and employed only highly skilled native weavers (though he apparently paid them little).

Beyond changing the function of the weavings he sold, Moore further modified them by blending traditional Navajo design motifs with those already known to non-native customers, most importantly, designs inspired by oriental rugs, which were booming in popularity. His weavers incorporated borders and central medallions into their weavings, giving way to popular patterns such as Crystal, Storm, and Two Grey Hills.

The Crystal Trading Post acted as an important mediary between east and southwest, not only from a design perspective, but also from a sales and marketing perspective. In 1903, Moore published his first mail-order catalog, thus allowing easterners to purchase his Navajo weavings without the necessity of traveling to the reservation. His second catalog, published in 1911, was larger, and included far more weavings that blended Navajo and oriental rug designs.

Shortly after publishing his second catalog, Moore left Crystal, and sold the post to his manager Jesse Molohon, and the Crystal Trading Post continued to market oriental rug-inspired Navajo rugs into the 1930s.

Word of the Week: Linsey-Woolsey

November 11, 2013 in Textiles/Clothing/Accessories, Word of the Week by hdavis

A circa 1805 needlework sampler, "Nabby Fowler," reportedly Salem, Essex County, MassachusettsLinsey-woolsey is a fabric that is exactly what it sounds like: a combination of linen and wool woven together to create a coarse, durable fabric, sometimes woven plain or as a twill (for twill, think the diagonal weave pattern often seen on denim). “Lin” is an old term for flax, the plant whose fibers are used for linen. Occasionally, it’s referred to as “woolsey-linsey” or by the blending of the two terms, “wincey.”

Linsey-woolsey as a term has been in use since the 15th century, although the fabric itself was used much earlier (even making an appearance in the Old Testament where its blended nature made it forbidden) and it gained popularity in the American colonies in the early years when wool was not as common as it was throughout Europe. Its rough nature made it popular as a utilitarian fabric, as it was cheap, wore well and was heavy enough to be warm, but for these very reasons, it also had an association with poverty and lower classes. It appears to have been used primarily for clothing, blankets and as a foundation for needlework (like the one pictured above).

The term has become somewhat diluted as it is often applied to a form (coverlets), to other coarse blended fabrics, including those of wool and cotton, or simply to the rougher “homespun” goods of the 18th and 19th centuries.

All in the Family: Norton Stoneware Pottery

November 6, 2013 in Pottery & Porcelain by hdavis

J. and E. Norton, Bennington, Vermont stoneware [salt-glazed pottery] jug with double pheasantsOne of the most iconic objects from 18th- and 19th-century is stoneware, particularly pieces with cobalt decoration, and few people did cobalt-decorated salt-glazed stoneware pottery better than the Norton family of Vermont.

The Norton pottery dynasty actually predates Vermont’s statehood, founded as it was by Captain John Norton in 1785, although stoneware was not what was initially manufactured. Unmarked redware pieces were the earliest offerings and salt-glazed stoneware soon followed, with utilitarian wares being offered throughout the region. The stoneware pieces from this period were marked “Bennington Factory,” and while the occasional piece seems to have had some simple incised or cobalt decoration, most pieces were just “decorated” with a cobalt script number, if at all.

By 1812, Luman Norton, Captain Norton’s oldest son, joined the business and in 1823, Captain Norton had left the company in the hands of Luman and his brother John. Pieces with “L. Norton & Co.” date from the brothers’ era, an era that was short-lived as Luman was in business by himself by 1828, when he marked pieces simply, “L. Norton.”

Julius Norton, Luman’s son, would join his father in business in 1833, a fact reflected in the mark, “L. Norton & Son,” which was used until Luman’s retirement in 1841, at which point Julius managed the pottery solo under “Julius Norton.”

Four years later, in 1845, Julius Norton took a partner, his brother-in-law, Christopher Fenton, but again, the partnership of “Norton & Fenton” was short-lived, lasting only two years until 1847, when Fenton left and Julius again operated as “Julius Norton” until the end of the decade.

The 1850s ushered in a new partnership and what would be the pottery’s golden age. Edward Norton, a cousin, began to work with Julius in the management of the firm, now marking wares as “J. & E. Norton.” It was during this period that the detailed cobalt decorations Norton became known for, the ones often seen as most desirable among collectors today, were produced, particularly pieces with deer, elaborate birds of various kinds, and scenes with buildings like schoolhouses. (Like the impressive example pictured above.)

The firm changed structure – and marks – again in 1859, when Julius’s son Luman Preston Norton came on board, an era in which the pieces produced were marked “J. Norton & Co.,” but in 1861, Julius died and Luman Preston Norton and Edward Norton continued working as “E. & L.P. Norton,” in a partnership that would prove to be one of the most stable in Norton history.

By 1881, twenty years later, however, perhaps Luman realized that stoneware’s role in the marketplace was dwindling, but whatever the reason, he left the pottery and Edward Norton continued work as “E. Norton & Co.” for another two years before selling half of the business to C.W. Thatcher of Bennington, the first “non-family” owner the business had had in nearly a century. Edward Norton died two years after this in 1885, at which point his son Edward Lincoln Norton took over his portion of the business. From 1883 on, pieces were manufactured by “The Edw’d Norton Co.,” but the company continued to decline. Efforts were made to diversify and for a time, the firm sold glass and other forms of pottery wholesale, but the heart of the business, the stoneware manufacturing, continued to decline steadily. By the time of Edward Lincoln Norton’s death in 1894, stoneware production had ceased and while C.W. Thatcher would carry on selling similar wares into the 20th century, the Norton family dynasty had ended.

Norton pottery pieces remain popular with stoneware collectors today, and unlike some potteries where price is driven by the rarity or unusual nature of the form, since the majority of Norton wares were traditional utilitarian objects, value is predicated on the quality and subject matter of the decoration. Pieces with elaborate, intricate decoration command strong prices, and the strongest Norton prices are reserved for pieces with atypical subject matter: houses, horses, and less frequently seen birds like peacocks, pheasants, and hawks.

Norton Pottery Marks:

L. Norton (1828-1833)
L. Norton & Son (1833-1841)
Julius Norton (1841-1850)
Norton & Fenton (1845-1847)
J. & E. Norton (1850-1859)
J. Norton & Co. (1859-1861)
E. & L.P. Norton (1861-1881)
E. Norton & Co. (1881-1885)
The EDW’D Norton Co. (1885-1894)

Word of the Week: Pietra Dura

November 1, 2013 in Decorative Accessories, Word of the Week by hdavis

Pietra dura (also pietre dure) is an Italian phrase, with pietra meaning “stone” and dura meaning “hard” or “durable.” While pietra dura is the preferred term (at least according to The Getty’s Art and Architecture Thesaurus at http://www.getty.edu/research/conducting_research/vocabularies/aat/), the terms micromosaic or Florentine mosaic are occasionally encountered. (Some find “micromosaic” to be a little objectionable, applying only to the “rougher” forms of the art produced for the tourist trade.)

Pietra dura is derived from the Byzantine art of mosaic work, although mosaics vary slightly in two important ways – grout is typically used in the creation of a mosaic, but more importantly, pietra dura creations are usually portable, while mosaics tend to be larger works, often done on walls or floors. Both are, of course, an art, with pietra dura being referred to as “painting with stone.”


Italian pietra dura plaque, signed G. Montelatici, 20th century, depicting a bust-length portrait of a smiling monk, framed.

Montelatici pietra dura portrait of a monk. (p4A item # D9807400)

Pietra dura is considered an Italian art, with roots in 14th-century Rome, developing into an art form in Florence, supported by the patrons of the Renaissance and flourishing in the 16th and 17th centuries, and with a later period of popularity in Naples. However, some of the finest works of pietra dura appear in the Taj Mahal in Agra, India, indicating that Indian artisans had perfected the skill by the mid-17th century as well. With the extensive presence of parchin kari, as the art is known in India, in the Taj Mahal, the skill continues to be practiced in Agra, producing lovely, delicate works for the tourist trade.

A late 19th century Italian micro mosaic picture, Cani in guardia ardente (Guard Dogs on Alert)

Italian mosaic plaque with two dogs. (p4A item # D9788305)

Word of the Week: Tumbaga

October 28, 2013 in Ancient Artifacts, Word of the Week by hdavis

The origins of the word “tumbaga” are obscure and complex, but the general consensus seems to indicate the word is a Malay word that means “copper, brass.” This is a little misleading, because tumbaga is actually a mixture of copper and gold. (Cesium is the only other “colored” metallic element – all other metallic elements are achromatic, greys and whites.) Today, the word is typically used to describe materials from pre-Columbian Central and South America.

Tumbaga is harder than copper, and like gold, it can be manipulated in a variety of methods – cast, hammered, engraved, etc. The mixture of the alloy varies, with some as high as 97% gold while others are as much as 97% copper. Some samples have traces of up to 18% of silver, other metals or impurities. It is believed that tumbaga objects were finished with a method of “depletion gilding,” likely being burned to oxidize the copper present on the surface and then treated with an acid wash to remove the oxidation, leaving a shiny surface that appeared to be pure gold.

A tumbaga double spiral ornament for ceremonial use, from Tairona; circa A.D. 1000 to 1500.

A tumbaga ornament from the Tairona culture. (p4A item # D9925866)

In fact, some scholars have speculated that the use of tumbaga led to the legendary accounts of the South American cities of gold carried back to Europe by early explorers in the region, while others believe that tumbaga may have been orichalcum, the metal referred to in a number of ancient texts, including those with accounts of the fabled lost city of Atlantis.

Sadly, the depletion gilding process typically creates microscopic pitting on the surface of tumbaga objects, contributed to their eventual deterioration, as this pitting leaves the surface vulnerable to further oxidation. A terrific discovery was made in 1992 when a shipwreck was discovered in the Bahamas. Tumbaga objects plundered by the Spanish were typically melted down for transport, and then the tumbaga bars themselves were melted and separated back into their basic elements (gold, copper and silver) when they reach Europe. As a result, the 200 bars of tumbaga recovered from the shipwreck are believed to be the only bars in existence.

« Older entries § Newer entries »