Talk:Native American pottery

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, which collaborates on Native American, First Nations, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet been rated on the assessment scale.
Suggested article edit guidelines: To help us prioritise our workload, and in readiness for Wikipedia:1.0, we need to assess our articles for Quality. If this article is Unassessed, please assess it. See the Article Classification for instructions. If you disagree with a rating, you can change it or discuss it at Article Classification. Before assessing this article, be sure to check the existing Archive of assessments made under the previous system (used until July 2006), and feel free to help in migrating the existing comments besides from adding your own evaluation. After assessing this article's quality, please make sure it to add it to the Lists at Article Classification, following the grading scheme detailed there.
Please rate this article and leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents 1 1.1 Possible image for future use: 2 Racial identification 2.1 Disclaimer on Mexican Influence 3 Catawba pottery

[edit]

From my talk page:

Looks like you connected with my start of a type of "bridge" article between art and anthro. I'm a beginner -- so will try to do as little damage as possible. If you have advice on things I do on the page, please leave me a message on the discussion segment. I'm not yet officially logged in. Suspect I will once I feel more comfortable with the environment. W

I've been planning to do this article for a while, so now I've got some books out of the university library and will try to take a crack at it. silsor 21:01, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

W. -- sorry about that, it wasn't aimed at you. -- Curps 17:51, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please note: -W. (an anon) signed in as WBardwin, on 02-17-05.

[edit] Possible image for future use:

[edit] Racial identification

Juan Quezada is not Native AMerican, he's Mexican 209.203.94.34

A person can be Mexican in national origin and still a Native American. So -- do you know if Quezada is of 100% European origin, a mestizo, or 100% native origin? Source please? WBardwin 21:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I do not have to give a source, I'm not the one claiming he is native american, the person claiming he is native american should have to provide that. I know for a fact that Juan Quezada is of hispanic origin.

Source: Cahill, Rick. "The Story of Casas Grandes Pottery." Bodjum Books, 1991, ISBN 0-9630853-0-1

"Credited with the modern revival of Casas Grandes ceramics, Juan Guezada pursues the vocation of his ancestors. Dark and handsome, his Indian heritage can be seen in his strong features....." p. 34.

The source above deals with the Casas Grandes Valley, state of Chihuahua, and ancient and modern pottery traditions. Although Cahill never otherwise mentions race, he points out the the Quezada family are self-taught rural people in the region and that they continue a pottery tradition from the ancient city of Paquime, which traded pottery as far north as New Mexico and Arizona and throughout northern Mexico. Chihuahua's people are almost all mestizo - descended from both native americans and Europeans, and they are all hispanic. Very few of these people are 100% European descent, and I have no evidence that the Quezada family is among them. Some of my relatives by marriage are from this region, and they would be appalled if anyone tried to deny them their native heritage. I would not insult Quezada by doing so. If you can show a 100% Hidalgo/European heritage for Quezada, please do so. If you can show that he has denied any affiliation with native ancestry, please do so. But, I am putting him back on the list. WBardwin 06:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

There are established rules as to who is considered a Native American artist so just anyone with a remote indian ancestor cannot claim to be a Native American artist. The Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990 states that an Indian is defined as a member of any federally or State recognized Indian Tribe, or an individual certified as an Indian artisan by an Indian Tribe.

I think if you want to claim him as a Native American you should be able to at least say what tribe he is from, not just generally that he is Mestizo and therefore is considered Native American. His pottery has never been marketed as Native American pottery, you are making broad assumptions here.

Native American artists are not, by definition, citizens of the United States -- nor is the article confined to pottery of the United States. In addition, the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990 is a US civil code dealing with US commerce, and does not apply to Quezada as a Mexican citizen. How he chooses to market his work -- as hispanic or native -- is his own business. Many other native potters, even today, are not recognized as commercial artists, but make pottery for their own use and the use of their communities, so commercial restrictions may have little relevance for their inclusion as well. So, if a modern person of Native American ancestry -- north, south or central America -- produces pottery on any scale, they can be included in the modern section here. Should you wish to create a separate article on the US civil code and its restrictions on US artistic sales, that would be appropriate. WBardwin 21:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Relying on an act legislated by the United States Government seems to me

counterproductive. We can't legislate art anymore than we can legislate morality. To attempt to do so with American Indian art is arbitrary and bureaucratic, and it slights all of the rich native American art from Central and South America. Nor is it in accordance with usage. Tony Gonis is a responsible and knowledgeable trader, a stickler for artistic quality and for accurate representation when marketing art. In his upcoming Native American Arts & Antiques Show at the Carr America Conference Center, Pleasanton CA, October 8-9, he defines native American art to include art from Mata Ortiz and the rest of Latin America.

For whatever my degree in art history from Princeton might be worth, Tony Gonis’s approach makes more sense to me than the legalistic one. Since when do we define art by looking to the civil codes? What I personally mean when speaking of American Indian art is simply that it shows some degree of continuity from the precolumbian art tradition rather than its derivation being mainly from Europe or elsewhere. And if the artist has some Indian ancestry, so much the better. We tend to like that. But that only tells us something about ourselves; it really doesn't tell us about the art.

Juan Quezada's father, José Quezada, was born in Santa Barbara Tutuaca, in the south of Chihuahua, and his mother, Paula Celado, in nearby San Lorenzo. Juan himself was born in Tutuaca in 1940 and accompanied his parents to Mata Ortiz as a child. Tutuaca and San Lorenzo are situated in what once was Raramuri (Tarahumara) country before those living there were pushed west into the Sierras, and the majority of local geographic features still bear Raramuri names. The Raramuri returned seasonally to the area to work the harvests (each family with its traditional camping area); consequently, Don José spoke Raramuri for exactly the same reason that a Texas rancher along the border might speak Spanish. In visiting Tutuaca with Juan, I noted that, to my eye, at least, his father and all of his uncles (who were all accomplished craftsmen--saddle makers, soap makers, etc.) had the appearance of being pure Spanish. Juan's mother and his aunts, on the other hand, when we visited San Lorenzo, had darker and (again to my eye) Indian features. They were attractive women. Those in the next generation back, moreover, had all been potters, making unpainted utilitarian ware (tesguino ollas, etc.) in much the Raramuri tradition. None of these women tried to disguise the fact that they were mestiza, but they did not seem to have any remembered linkage to an Indian group.

So there is no question in my mind that the blood circulating in Juan Quezada's veins has an Indian component. But does that really have anything to do with art? Had Juan been raised in Paris rather than Mata Ortiz and gone into art (as opposed to, say, medicine, to which he was also strongly drawn), he would have excelled at art of a wholly different kind.

With a very few, minor, and temporary exceptions, Mata Ortiz art has never been marketed as “Indian” or "native American" art. But if it were, I wouldn't see any problem with that except that it would upset Indian traders in Santa Fe and Scottsdale--which is the reason it has never been so marketed. American Indians in my experience are fully accepting of Juan Quezada. I was present at Idyllwild when Lucy Lewis first saw him work with clay. She was silent for quite a while, and when finally she spoke, she said to her daughters in Acoma (which was later translated to me) that Juan was Indian--meaning that anyone would have to be Indian to handle clay that way. After another long stretch of silence, she turned to them again and said he was Acoma; surely, he must be descended from the young Acoma women that their priest so many years earlier had sold into slavery in the mines in northern Mexico in exchange for the church bell that hangs today in Acoma. Lucy Lewis's daughters subsequently studied with Juan in Mexico. From Indians themselves, I have never in my personal experience known anything but admiration and acceptance.

As a matter of interest--but again of what relevance in defining art, I don't know--is the fact that Juan Quezada was brought up in, and has lived, a life style more like that of traditional North American Indians than that of many, perhaps most, Indians living in the United States today.

I have no problem grouping Juan Quezada with native American artists. I have a problem with those of a legalistic mind-set who would define art according to statutes promulgated by politicians in Washington, D.C. to accommodate their lobby groups made up of many--but not all--of the non-Indian wholesalers and retailers operating in the Indian art market.

Spencer H. MacCallum

[edit] Disclaimer on Mexican Influence

I feel a need to point out that none of the cultures of the Southeastern United States were significantly influenced by Mexico in the prehistoric era. That is an old idea which has been discarded. Today most archaeologists of the region (myself included) feel that the artistic styles of the Southeast developed independently. Arguing that the Olmec influenced Poverty Point is particularly weird, since Poverty Point mound building and its immediate predecessors significantly predate any mound building in Mesoamerica. If anything, the influence went the OTHER way, with Olmecs picking up the idea from Louisiana Native Americans. I will go remove the offending statements about Mexico now. Please contact me if you disagree. TriNotch 22:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Catawba pottery

The Catawba Tribe is the most famous for native american pottery.

The first paragraph currently contains a new edit that states: "The Catawba Tribe is the most famous for native american pottery."

Though I doubt there is any dispute over the assertion that they are known for their pottery, it strikes me as a little over the top to suggest they are "the most famous" given the many other tribes involved in pottery making and particularly the international the collectability of southwestern pottery.

Can anyone substantiate that the Catawba are "the most famous"? What are the supporting resources for the statement? Joekoz451 13:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I moved the comment here for discussion -- a subjective statement at best and certainly hard to prove. WBardwin 06:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)