INFORMATION TO USERS

This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted.

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.

1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity.

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacen, frame.

3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.

4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced.

5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received.

University Microfilms International 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 USA St. John's Road, Tyler's Green High Wycombe, Bucks, England HP10 8HR 77- 24,599

BOLES, Joann Ferguson, 1940- THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NAVAHO RUG, 1890-1920, AS INFLUENCED BY TRADER J. L. HUBBELL. (VOLUMES I AND I I )

The Ohio State U niversity, Ph.D., 1977 History, United States

Xerox University Microfilms,Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106

@ 1977

JOANN FERGUSON BOLES

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NAVAHO RUG, 1890-1920,

AS INFLUENCED BY TRADER J. L. HUBBELL

Volume I

. DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate

School of The Ohio State University

by

Joann Ferguson Boles, B.S., M.A.

*****

The Ohio State University

1977

Reading Committee;

D r . Lois Dickey

Dr. Mathew Herban

Dr. Mary Lapitsky

Adviser Department of Textiles and Clothing r ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

An effort the size of the present study, which spanned two years and thousands of miles of travel throughout the United States, would not have been possible without the physical and emotional help

and support of many. The researcher wishes to thank those who made

this study possible:

• Museums and archives mentioned throughout this study with

special thanks to the staff of the Hubbell Trading Post

National Historic Site and the University of Arizona Library,

Special Collections, Clint Colby, Archivist.

• Colleagues and administrators at Virginia Polytechnic Insti­

tute and State University, College of Home Economics with

special thanks to former Assistant Dean, Dr. Mary Quam.

• Committee members at The Ohio State University with special

thanks to major advisor, Dr. Lois E. Dickey, Professor of

Home Economics and Head of the Department of Textiles and

Clothing; committee member, Dr. Mary Lapitsky, Professor

of Home Economics; and minor advisor, Dr. Mathew Herban,

Associate Professor of Art History.

• Friends, with special thanks to Janet Noble and Marjorie

Newman.

• Family, with special thanks to her mother, Ruth Ferguson,

whose constant and consistent help truly sustained the re-

siearch, and her late father, Donald Ferguson, who did not live

to see the finished product but whose belief in it lived on.

ii VITA

1962 ...... B.S.H.Ec., Ohio University, Athens, Ohio

1963-1964 ...... High School Teacher, Wasatch Academy, Mt. Pleasant, Utah

1964-1965 ...... Rehabilitation Home Economist, Goodwill Industries, Akron, Ohio

1966-1968 ...... Teaching Assistant, Home Management House, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio

- 1968 ...... M.A., Kent State University, Kent, Ohio

1968-1969 ...... High School Teacher, Munroeville High School, Munroeville, Ohio

1969-1973 ...... High School Teacher, Brookside High School, Sheffield Lake, Ohio

1974-1975 ...... Teaching Associate, Department of Textiles and Clothing, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

1975-1977 ...... Instructor, Department of Clothing, Textiles and Related Arts, Virginia Polytechnic Insti­ tute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia

1977 ...... Ph.D., The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: Textiles and Clothing

Studies in Social Psychological Aspects cf Clothing. Professor Lois Dickey

Studies in Historic Costume and Textiles. Professor Mary Millican

iii Minor Field: Art History

Studies in 19th Century Art and Color. Professor Mathew Herban

Studies in African Textiles. Professor Okechukwu Odita

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... ii

VITA...... iii

LIST OF F I G U R E S ...... vii

LIST OF P L A T E S ...... viii

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

The Problem...... 3

Limitations...... 5

Definitions of Terms Used...... 5

Organization of Presentation ...... 6

II. PROCEDURE...... 7

Preliminary Research Trip to Washington, D.C...... 7

Transitional Research Trip to A r i z o n a ...... 9

Final Trip to Arizona...... 12

III. RUG STUDIES AT THE HUBBELL TRADING POST...... 15

Painters of Rug Studies...... 16

Models for the Rug Studies...... 18

Dates on Rug Studies...... 19

Number of Rug Studies...... 22

Color Analysis of Rug Studies...... 22

v Chapter Page

Design Analysis of RugStudies ...... 37

Findings Related to Rug Studies, Objective One...... 66

IV. NAVAHO RUGS WHICH REFLECT THE INFLUENCE OF RUG STUDIES ...... 69

Color Combinations...... 70

Design Motifs...... 72

Borders...... 79

Format ...... 81

The Exceptional Copied Rug Study ...... 86

Findings Related to Navaho Rugs which Correspond to the Rug Studies, Objective Two...... 88

V. HUBBELL'S CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING RUGS...... 91

Rug C o l o r s ...... 92

Rug Designs...... 104

Fibers Used in Rugs...... 114

Construction of R u g s ...... 119

Uses of R u g s ...... 123

The Rug B u siness...... 125

Findings Related to the Analysis of Correspondence, Objective One ...... 132

VI. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS...... 134

APPENDIX

A. FIGURES...... 140

vi LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. RUG FORMATS ...... 82

2. RUG COLORS MENTIONED IN CORRESPONDENCE BY HUBBELL AND BY CUSTOMERS...... 101

3. NUMBER OF VARIATIONS OF COLOR COMBINA­ TIONS FOR RUGS AS RECORDED IN CORRES­ PONDENCE BY HUBBELL AND CUSTOMERS...... 103

4. NUMBER OF CUSTOMER REQUESTS FOR COLOR COMBINATIONS IN RUGS...... 105

5. RUG SKETCHES SENT TO HUBBELL BY BUYERS...... 112

6. DESIGN ANALYSIS CHART FOR ON SITE EXAMINATION OF RUG STUDIES...... 141

7. NAVAHO RUG SKETCH I ...... 142

8. NAVAHO RUG SKETCH I I ...... 143

9; NAVAHO RUG SKETCH III ...... 144

10. NAVAHO RUG SKETCH I V ...... 145

11. NAVAHO RUG SKETCH V ...... 146

12. NAVAHO RUG SKETCH V I ...... 147

13. NAVAHO RUG SKETCH VII ...... 148

14. NAVAHO RUG SKETCH VI I I ...... 149

15. NAVAHO RUG SKETCH I X ...... 150

16. NAVAHO RUG SKETCH X ...... 151 r i 17. NAVAHO RUG SKETCH X I ...... 152

18. NAVAHO RUG SKETCH XII ...... 153

vii Chapter I

INTRODUCTION

The first native United States tapestries were created by the

Navaho Indians. The Navahos learned to weave after arriving in what is now the southwestern United States. Their rugs, originally called blankets, are a unique American art form in a land so often considered as an extension of Western "old world" culture.

Three centuries of weaving experience have enabled the Navaho weaver to progress from producing tapestries or rugs at the rudimentary utilitarian level to a level as a highly developed technical craft and to a visual art form. In the early stages of development the weaving produced by the Navahos resembled that of their teachers, the Pueblo

Indians. Later, the weavers' technical skill improved and their pro­ ducts began to be original in design. Today, Navaho rugs are of a high technical and design quality and bring a fine price and prestige to the weaving artist.

Navaho rugs, both old and new, are sought by many. Private collectors seek to broaden their collections or add to a specialized area of a collection. Weavers who are seeking inspiration or giving recognition to fine craftsmanship choose rugs of high technical skill and outstanding design. Museum curators seek both old and new Navaho rugs for their galleries. Finally, the tourist buys many of the Indian rugs.

1 2

The trader, the buyer, and the Navaho weaver had leading roles

in the development of the Navaho rug during the three decades between

1890 and 1920. During this period the weavers (Navaho women) no longer sold directly to their buyers; instead, the rug was merchandised by the trader.

Traders played an important role in promoting the saleability of the Navaho rug. First, they helped the weaver by interpreting the type of rug the buyers were interested in and in so doing they also interspersed their own ideas. Secondly, they taught the buyers to understand and appreciate the Navaho aesthetic. An important trader was J. L. Hubbell, the most successful of the nine major traders on the Navaho reservation in the late 19th century and early 20th century, which was known as the trader period of the rug business.

According to George Wharton James, omitting the name of Hubbell when talking about the development of the Navaho weaving art would be similar to leaving out the name of Edison when talking about the phonograph.

It was Hubbell who was responsible for greatly increasing the visibility of the Navaho rug. His method of communication about Navaho rugs was both verbal and visual. His use of the written and spoken word was augmented by paintings known as rug studies. The paintings or rug studies depicted fine rugs which he commissioned to be painted.

^George Wharton James, Indian Blankets and Their Makers (Chicago: A. C. McClurg & Co., 1914), p. 204. 3

The buyers also had a substantial impact on the development

and use of the Navaho rug. Most often white, they lived in all regions

of the United States and purchased Navaho weavings, primarily for use

as rugs for their post-Victorian homes. As a result the blanket nomen­

clature was discontinued and the product was referred to as a rug to

reflect its end use.

The final role, one of integral importance, belongs to the

Navaho woman who produced this native American tapestry. Her skill and

form of aesthetic expression were assimiliated from other cultures.

However, the product always had the distinctive signature of the

Navaho and eventually the modern Navaho rug evolved.

When the literature was reviewed little if any information was

found in regard to the evolution of the important changes which occurred

in the Navaho rug during the period 1890 to 1920. Specifically lacking

were documented evidence of Hubbell's influence on the Navaho rug and

the extent of the impact of both the buyers' requests and the buyers'

and traders' suggestions on the evolution of the Navaho weavings. Also, what was the impact of economics, fashion and technology?

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The purpose in the study was to extend the historical knowledge

of the development of the Navaho rug, a truly American art form, between

1890 and 1920. Numerous questions were raised prior to the finaliza­

tion of the research objectives. Questions related to the trader, the buyer and the weaver. 4

The Trader

1) What were the sources for his suggestion to the weaver?

2) What evidence exists that his design suggestions were in­

fluenced by economic interests?

3) To what extent were his suggestions to the weavers verbal

or visual?

The Buyer

1) To what extent did his design suggestions influence rug

styles?

2) How much influence did his purchases exert on rug styles?

The Weaver

1) How did she use the suggestions given to her by the trader?

2) How was the Navaho aesthetic retained?

As a result of the above questions the following objectives were formu­

lated to give direction to the study:

1) Document the development of the Navaho rug, including

Hubbell's influence from the standpoint of style, aesthetics,

economics and technology through rug studies at the Hubbell

Trading Post and Hubbell correspondence.

2) Determine the extent of the relationship between Navaho rugs

and the rug studies or paintings.

The impact of home furnishing fashions and technological developments in

dyeing, fibers, yarns and fabric construction was included in imple­ menting the two objectives. 5

LIMITATIONS

The limitations of the study were in the area of resources.

The limitations were:

1) No written documentary evidence from the Navaho.

2) Incomplete cataloging of relics.

3) Destruction of some of the written Hubbell papers (1892-

1897) due to weather and improper storage.

DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED

The following working definitions have been used to clarify this research:

Rug— The product of Navaho weaving. Rug gives consistency to the reading of the research since the period selected for study was one in which the blanket became a rug.

Rug studies— Paintings of Navaho rugs commissioned by J. L.

Hubbell. A term used in the Hubbell correspondence by E. A. Burhank, one of the artists.

Trading Post— Store located on the reservations which sold supplies to the Indians, and bought and sold their crafts.

Trader— Man licensed by the United States Government to own and operate a trading post.

Dealer— Man who operated a store selling Navaho rugs off the reservation. He bought many of his rugs from the trading post.

Honalchadi— The Navaho word for the chief’s blanket (rug) with lengthwise stripes and diamond motif, used as a shoulder wrap. 6

Biil— The Navaho word for squaw dress and the subsequent design of the two blankets (rugs) that comprise it.

Moki— An antiquated word for Hopi: the word was used extensively by Hubbell during the period of study.

Navaho aesthetic— Beauty as it is interpreted by the Navaho.

Format— Layout of surface design on a Navaho rug.

ORGANIZATION OF PRESENTATION

The remainder of the study was organized to present an analysis of the rug studies and the correspondence, literature which has recently been made available to researchers. The findings are presented in three chapters: an analysis of the rug studies, Navaho rugs which show the influence of the rug studies, and an analysis of Hubbell's correspondence regarding the rugs. Each of the three findings chapters is patterned as follows: presentation of background information, , analysis of relics and documents, and a summary of the findings. The final chapter includes the researcher's conclusions based on the over­ all findings. Chapter II

PROCEDURE

The study was designed to increase historical knowledge of

Navaho rugs (1890-1920) by examining the influence of J. L. Hubbell, the Indian trader, on the development of the rug. The procedural steps followed were accomplished through four research trips. The first trip, to Washington, D.C., was a preliminary investigation in which relics, documents, and secondary sources were examined. The second and third trips were transitional trips to Arizona in which evidence was sought to meet the objectives of the study. A fourth trip was to New York City to examine museum relics. In addition, a gallery show of Navaho rugs was assembled by the researcher from pri­ vate collections which provided an opportunity to examine additional relics.

PRELIMINARY RESEARCH TRIP TO WASHINGTON, D.C.

Washington, D.C. was selected for the first phase of the study because of the fine collection of Navaho rugs at the National Museum, of Natural History, the document collection on Indian affairs at the

National Archives, and finally the resource material available at the

Library of Congress. The methods of research utilized at these insti­ tutions are defined in the following paragraphs.

The Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural His­ tory, is one of the finest and largest repositories of Navaho rugs in 1

8 the world.^ The museum was visited to examine rugs and photographs and to compile data on Navaho rugs. The anthropological archives at the institution were utilized for photographic information. The procedure used to examine and record information was as follows:

1. Data compiled on bordered Navaho rugs were reviewed rele- 2 vant to style, 1890-1920. Information recorded for each relevant bordered rug included donor, place of purchase, and specific stylistic description from data provided by the Smithsonian.

2. Rugs were examined and specific information was recorded in a systematic fashion. All bordered rugs which were dated between

1890-1920 were inspected. The systematic examination of the selected rugs included identification of the color using the Munsell system of color notation, the border design and size, the type of weave, and the type of tapestry joining. Information was recorded on charts.

3. Photographs of each of the examined rugs were ordered.

4. The Navaho photographic collection at the anthropological archives was studied. Photographs, dated between 1890-1920, were ordered.

At the Textile Museum the same procedure used at the Smithson­ ian Institution was followed with the exception of the anthropological archive search. In addi^'on, a visual comparison was made of Navaho

^Dr. Joe Ben Wheat, Anthropologist, University of Colorado, telephone conversation, July 1975. 2 Specific attention was given to bordered rugs because initi­ ally the research study was focused on the bordered Navaho rug. 9

and Oriental rugs. Charts were completed for both the Navaho and

Oriental rugs in the same manner as was done at the Smithsonian.

Historians and manuscripts at the National Archives were con­

sulted. Historians specializing in Indian affairs and in foreign

trade were specifically consulted. Information from manuscripts about

foreign trade was sought to determine movement of Moroccan rugs into

the American Southwest. Indian Affairs records were consulted in re­

lation to J. B. Moore and J. L. Hubbell.

Secondary source material and the manuscript collected at the

Library of Congress were examined. The secondary source material re­ vealed information previously unknown to the researcher, such as the O J. B. Moore Navaho rug catalog dated 1911. The manuscript collection

revealed no important manuscripts for the period 1890-1920 on Navahos or their rugs. The Library's 20th century historian aided in locating

indexes which revealed important manuscript repositories; this informa­

tion influenced the choice of the transitional research trip to Arizona.

TRANSITIONAL RESEARCH TRIP TO ARIZONA

Tucson, Arizona became the focal point of the second research

trip. The reasons for selection of this location were the pertinent manuscripts held at the Arizona Historical Society and the proximity

to rug repositories in nearby cities. Initial work at the Arizona

Historical Society revealed that the complete collection of Hubbell

-’J. B. Moore was the Indian trader at the Crystal, New Mexico trading post and one of the most important traders of the rugs. 10 papers was at the University of Arizona Library and that the restora­ tion of the Hubbell House at Ganado, Arizona was under way. Thus, two important components of the study were located— the documents and the relics.

The original focus of the study, the development of the bordered Navaho rug from 1890-1920, was changed to examine the influ­ ence of J. L. Hubbell on Navaho rugs, 1890-1920. The second research trip became a transitional stage of the study for evidence was identi­ fied to develop the specific research objectives.

Pertinent information available at the Arizona Historical

Society included catalogs, newspapers, photographs, and files of papers belonging to various individuals in the 1890-1920 period. The cata­ logs (Sears, Roebuck and Montgomery Ward) were examined for possible design ideas that may have influenced rug design. The newspapers, from

Tucson in the 1890's, were inspected for visual design ideas or articles pertaining to rugs. The Navaho picture file was viewed for rug pic­ tures dated in the research period. The files of the papers belonging to various individuals of the period were examined and a file belonging to J. L. Hubbell was found which contained an inventory of items in a ledger. Upon inquiry as to the location of the ledger, the researcher was told that the entire collection of Hubbell papers was at the Uni­ versity of Arizona Library and that the Hubbell house at Ganado,

Arizona, was being restored for use by researchers. 11

Thus, the transition research trip provided evidence to plan

the focus of the study and to begin data collection from Hubbell docu­

ments and relics as the basis for the present research.

The Hubbell House and the Hubbell Trading Post are located in

the central portion of the Navaho Indian Reservation at Ganado, Arizona.

Permission was obtained to photograph the rug studies; tour the Hubbell

house; and study the Hubbell correspondence, rug catalogs, and rug

studies. The rug studies were paintings of Navaho rugs executed

shortly after the turn of the century. The paintings (rug studies)

• hang in the rug room and Hubbell's (at present, the curator's) office

at the trading post, just as they did in the past. The house was being

restored and was scheduled for completion the month of the initial

visit; therefore, arrangements were made to return at a later date.

Duplication of a very small portion of the Hubbell correspondence was

on file at the trading post and these files were studied for informa­

tion pertaining to rugs 1890-1920. Finally, two C. N. Cotton catalogs

and two Hubbell rug catalogs were studied for the pictorial and

written evidence they contained on rugs.

Study of the Hubbell papers was continued at the University of

Arizona Library, Special Collections. The researcher, with the assis­

tance of the archivist, selected the following correspondence from the

papers to study: (1) all of the outgoing Hubbell correspondence 1890-

1920, (2) incoming correspondence from Fred Harvey during 1890-1920

since he was a very large and important retailer of Hubbell rugs;

(3) incoming correspondence from E. A. Burbank, 1890-1920, the major 12 painter of the rug studies at the Hubbell Trading Post; (4) incoming

correspondence from George Wharton James, author of Indian Blankets and

Their Makers; (5) letters that J. L. Hubbell's sons, Roman and Lorenzo, wrote to each other (1930-1942); and (6) a portion of the letter books of C. N. Cotton, a trader who owned the Hubbell Trading Post, 1885-1895. ’ S All of the correspondence for 1890 to 1920 was studied for information relating to rugs. The Roman and Lorenzo Hubbell correspondence, 1930-

1942, was checked without success for a letter that the former curator of the Hubbell Trading Post recommended for a discussion of the rug studies.

FINAL TRIP TO ARIZONA

The final research trip was made to Ganado and Tucson, Arizona.

This trip, an adjunct, to the previous trip, was necessary to complete the process of reading the Hubbell papers, to obtain adequate photographs of the rug studies, and to see the completed restoration of the Hubbell

House.

At Ganado, the rug studies and the rugs in the collection were photographed and information recorded on the charts for analysis.

Photographs of the rug studies were successfully taken by an experi­ enced photographer engaged by the researcher. The information included on the chart for analysis of the rug studies included Munsell delinea­ tions of color, bordered or unbordered designations, and size of the rug from which the study Was made (see Appendix A, Fig. 6). 13

At the University of Arizona Library, Special Collections, the

remainder of the incoming and outgoing Hubbell correspondence was in­

spected in a systematic manner and the archivist was consulted. The

correspondence was systematically consulted for the time period (1890-

1920) and direct and indirect documentary evidence leading to informa­

tion on sources of influence on the Navaho rugs. The direct evidence was recorded in reference to the rug by color, fiber, construction, de­

sign, rug studies, and size. The indirect evidence was recorded in

reference to J. L. Hubbell by family background, business, friends,

reading materials, and travel. Both types of evidence allowed for the

recording of pertinent miscellaneous evidence which may not fit in the

defined categories. Finally, the Hubbell family geneaology and business

information were reviewed with the archivist of the Hubbell papers.

In addition, information was gathered from the photographic collection of the Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation in

New York City. Photographs of Navaho rugs that would serve as similar

examples of rug studies were obtained. The actual collection of rugs

was unavailable from December 1975 until January 1978.

A group of Navaho rugs was assembled from private collectors

in Blacksburg, Virginia for a show at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and

State University. These rugs were also utilized as corresponding

examples of rug studies in the research.

The analysis of data was handled in a descriptive manner.

Interpretation of the results is presented for each objective. 14

Chapters Three and Five contain analyses related to objective one, the rug studies and the Hubbell correspondence. Chapter Four contained analyses related to objective two. Chapter III

RUG STUDIES AT THE HUBBELL TRADING POST

Paintings of Navaho rugs that hang on the walls of the rug

room and the curator's office of the Hubbell Trading Post at Ganado,

Arizona, are visual evidence of a trader's influence on Navaho rug

designs. The paintings, referred to here as rug studies, have hung

on the walls of the trading post since the beginning of the twentieth

century. Although most of the writing on the development of the

Navaho rug includes the influences of J. L. Hubbell, only brief men­

tion is made of the rug studies. Since it was J. L. Hubbell who

commissioned the rug studies it seems strange, indeed, that such pri­ mary visual evidence should be overlooked by writers in regard to

the Navaho rug. James, in his book, Indian Blankets and Their Makers,^- has given more coverage to the subject of the rug studies than others.

For 76 years, Indians, tourists, writers, and researchers have been exposed to the rug studies, yet they have not been closely examined by scholars. Thus, some questions to be answered are: Who painted

the studies? What was the origin of the study model? When were the paintings executed? How many paintings were there?

^George Wharton James, Indian Blankets and Their Makers (Chicago: A. C. McClurg & Co., 1914), p. 125.

15 16

PAINTERS OF THE RUG STUDIES

Information regarding the rug studies which had been previously recorded indicated that there was some agreement as to the identity of o the painters. Amsden credited E. A. Burbank with painting the rug O studies. Anderson found the rug studies at the post were signed by

E. A. Burbank, Bertha Little, and someone whose signature could not be deciphered. Later,,McNitt^ gave support to Amsden’s identification of Burbank as the painter. McNitt found that Burbank painted 50 to 60 of the studies.

The designation of the artist who painted the rug studies was determined through examination of the signatures on the studies and from further information found in the correspondence. Of the 74 studies examined, 35 were signed by E. A. Burbank, 5 17 by B. Little, 6

2 Charles A. Amsden, Navaho Weaving (Santa Ana, California: The Fine Arts Press, 1934), pp. 189-190.

^Lowell E. Anderson, "Factors Influencing Design in Navaho Weaving" (unpublished Master’s thesis, University of California, Berkeley, 1953), p. 77.

^Frank McNitt, The Indian Traders (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1962), pp. 209-210.

■*E. A. Burbank was a Chicago artist best known for his red head portraits of American Indians commissioned by J . L. Hubbell.

^Bertha Little was a teacher at the Presbyterian College at Ganado and an artist. 17

4 by H. G. Maratta,^ 1 by H. B. Judy,® and 17 were unsigned. The

correspondence from the artists revealed no information conflicting

with the signatures. Information from the correspondence did reveal 9 that a Miss Bonsell was paid 30 dollars by Hubbell for painting two

rug studies, and that one of the rug designs she painted was red and

one was blue.^ Bertha Little offered the services of a Miss Pierson

to paint studies although further correspondence revealed nothing more

on this offer.H Further examination of the unsigned rug studies re­ vealed a message written underneath one painting: "Please return this

draught" (Appendix B, Plate XXVII). The rug study also had a fold line

down the center of it. This led the researcher to conclude that the

study was included in a letter sent to the trading post and used to

describe a rug being ordered through the mail. Several letters examined

by the researcher mentioned the inclusion of pictures of rugs being

^H. G. Maratta was a Chicago printer, photographer and artist. The letterhead and catalog of Indian goods by J. L. Hubbell were printed by him.

O ■ H. B. Judy was an artist from Brooklyn who had visited Ganado and did some painting. 9 Miss Bonsell was an artist friend of Stewart Culen, an archaeologist. They were both employed by the University of Pennsylvania and this is where Culen secured her services.

^•^Hubbell Papers, Correspondence, University of Arizona Library, Special Collections

■^Hubbell Papers;. (To J. L. Hubbell, From B. Little, March 24, 1904). 18 ordered. Since the picture was separate from the letter (not drawn in the body of the letter), it had not been retained with the correspon­ dence.

The researcher was able to identify five artists who had painted the majority of the rug studies. In the case of one of the unsigned studies, the painting was probably sent to the Post as a visual description for a rug order.

MODELS FOR THE RUG STUDIES

Information pertaining to the models for the rug studies was 12 sketchy and vague. James attributed the source of the models to a

Hubbell decision based on acceptance by the buying public. In a later 1 ^ work, Amsden credited Burbank with selecting old Navaho rugs and using them as models for the studies. However, McNitt-^ agreed with

James that Hubbell had selected the models for the rug studies.

The researcher was able to further define the origin of the rugs utilized as models for the rug studies from her examination of the Hubbell correspondence. J. L. Hubbell furnished many of the model rugs to the artists for the rug studies. Burbank, in a letter to J.‘ L. Hubbell, stated that he was always looking for "good, old

Navaho designs" for the rug studies but that good designs were

12 James,_p. 203.

Amsden, p. 189.

1AMcNitt, pp. 209-210. 19

scarce.-*--* Burbank also spoke in his letters of copying rugs belonging

to Mr. Ayers of Chicago and Lake Geneva. He indicated that some of

Mr. Ayers' rugs had been purchased from Hubbell in 1887 and some from

other traders; Burbank noted that he had copied some very beautiful

ones."^ A contractor located near Ganado wrote to Hubbell that he had a beautiful old serape that he thought Hubbell would like to see.

He had heard that Hubbell was looking for good designs to copy.^.

Thus, the researcher documented evidence that both J. L.

Hubbell and Burbank selected many of the models of good, genuine

Navaho design, and that there were others, such as S. F. Owens, who were aware of Hubbell's search for good design. In addition, evi­ dence was found that a buyer of a rug had mailed a design to Hubbell and that it was later framed as a rug study.

DATES ON RUG STUDIES

Neither James, Amsden, nor McNitt made any attempt to date or record estimated dates of the rug studies. The researcher esti­ mated the date of the execution of the rug studies by the use of several different techniques.

^Hubbell Papers (To J. L. Hubbell, From E. A. Burbank, March 10, 1902).

16Ibid.

^Hubbell Papers (To J. L. Hubbell, From S. F. Owens, Aug. 8, 1902). 20

Gilpin,^ in a photographic study of the Navaho, included a photograph_of the rug room at the Hubbell Trading Post at Ganado.

In this photograph, 14 of the rug studies may be seen hanging on the wall. The photograph is undated, however, Gilpin identified one per­ son in the photograph as Roman Hubbell, a son of J. L. Hubbell. Roman died in 1957 and Gilpin stated that she began taking pictures on the reservation in 1936; therefore, the photograph could be dated between

1936 and 1957.

An examination of the studies revealed that the artist, H. B.

Judy, had dated his work as 1905 (Appendix B, Plate I). None of the other studies was dated by the artists; however, a 1904 Vroman photo­ graph‘d was used to date 29 studies before 1904 (Appendix B, Plates

VI, VII, X, XI, XVII, XVIII, XX, XXI, XXIV, XXV, XXXII, XXXVII,

XXXVIII, XLII, XLIV, XLVIII, XLIX, LI, LII, LIII, LIV, LV, LVII, LXIII,

LXIV, LXVII, LXVIII). The Vroman photo contained 54 rug studies but many were not identifiable because of the glare of glass coverings and the darkness of the photograph. In addition, some of the rug studies in the Vroman photograph were not among the

1 8 Laura Gilpin, The Enduring Navaho (Austin: The University of Texas Press, 1968), p. 89. 19 Vroman Photographs, Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, History Division (V-1738, 1904). 21

rug studies that are held today at the Hubbell Trading Post. A 1906 20 Huff photograph was used to date one more rug study (Appendix B

Plate XXIX) before 1906.

Finally, scrutiny of the Hubbell correspondence made it pos­

sible for the researcher to identify upper and lower execution dates

by the artists. Two unsigned studies should be dated 1902 since Miss

Bonsell received a check for her two unsigned studies in December, 21 1902. A. Burbank wrote his last letter concerning the rug studies 22 in 1902, thereby dating most of his studies sometime before 1902. 23 Bertha Little's last letter concerning the studies was dated 1904. 24 Finally, J. L. Hubbell spoke of his 100 rug studies in 1909. Thus,

the rug studies may be dated anywhere from 1897, the date of Burbank's

first visit to Ganado, to 1909. The majority of the rug studies probably were executed in the first five years of the 20th century.

20 Hubbell Collection, Hubbell Trading Post National Historic Site (H7P-PP-11).

^^Hubbell Papers (To J. L. Hubbell, From S. Culen, Dec. 12, 1902). 22 Hubbell Papers (To J. L. Hubbell, From E. A. Burbank, March 10, 1902). 23 Hubbell Papers (To J. L. Hubbell, From Bertha Little, March 24, 1904). 24 Hubbell Papers (To Sam Porter, From J. L. Hubbell, February 2, 1902). 22

NUMBER OF RUG STUDIES

2 s McNitt stated that Burbank painted 50 or 60 studies; how­

ever, other authors mentioning the rug studies made no reference to

total or even partial numbers of studies. The researcher estimated

between 74 and 100 rug studies existed at one time. This conclusion was drawn from the following information: (1) the Hubbell Trading Post

had 74 studies in their collection as of June, 1976; (2) the catalog

of the studies, compiled in the early 1970's by former curator David

Brugge, had a list of 74 studies; and (3) J. L. Hubbell stated in a 26 letter that he had about 100 studies.

COLOR ANALYSIS OF RUG STUDIES

The researcher’s physical analysis of the 74 rug studies in the

Hubbell Trading Post collection was the firs t such analysis of these

relics. A portion of the analysis was at the site of the relics, the

remainder of the analysis was confined to five by seven inch color

prints which had been taken of the rug studies in natural light. Of

the 74 existing rug studies the on-site analysis was recorded on only

68 paintings because six of the rug studies were at Harper's Ferry being repaired and were not examined on the site.

25McNitt, pp. 209-210. 26 Hubbell Papers (To Sam Porter, From J. L. Hubbell, February 2, 1909). 23

The following analysis utilized 68 rug studies in two instances

and 74 rug studies in the remaining sections. The reason for the 27 difference was directly related to Munsell color designations which were completed on-site at the Trading Post with the 68 available rug

studies. The two sections in which analysis of 68 rug studies was completed were "Munsell Color Designations" and "Ground Color in Rug

Studies." The remaining sections of the color analysis included all

74 rug studies.

Munsell Color Designations

Munsell color designations were used to obtain consistency to color reference and to provide an accurate method of referring to color for future readers. The system denotes three aspects of color: hue, value, and chroma.

Hue is the crlor name and refers to hue position on the 100 hue circuit. Hue is designed by both letter and number. The letters, such as R for red, indicate the name of the color and the accompanying num­ bers indicate position, such as 7.5. Thus, 7.5R is red one-quarter of the distance between red and yellow-red on the color circuit.

The value of the color is listed after the hue notation and refers to the lightness or darkness of a color. Value is indicated numerically. Thus, value may range from 10.(the lightest value and

97Munsell Book of Color, Neighboring Hues and Matte Finish Edition (Baltimore: Munsell Color Company, Inc., 1967). 24 abolute white) to 0 (the darkest value and absolute black). In addition to hue and value notation, the Munsell system indicates chroma which is the "degree of departure of a given hue from a neutral grey of the same 28 value." Chroma may range from 2 (very greyed) to 12 (very little grey). The chroma follows value in the notation and is separated from value by a slash (8/12). Thus, a chroma of 1/12 indicates great strength of color with very little grey present. Using the examples stated, a red denoted as 7.5R 5/12 is a very slightly yellowed red, a middle value between the lightest and darkest of the hue, and a chroma indicating very little grey present.

Data were analyzed to determine the prevalence of color designations in the 68 rug studies. The data are reported by hue.

Black and white. The two neutrals, black (which contained no light) and white (which contained no darkness), occurred 68 times. Black alone occurred 20 times, white alone occurred four times, and in combination, black and white occurred 44 times. All absolute neutrals are desig­ nated N V/0.

Red. This hue occurred 60 times. Fifty-nine of the 60 reds carried a hue notation of 7.5R which is only slightly yellowed. All of the values for the hue 7.5R ranged between 4/ and 6/; of these, 43 were in the middle value at five, 8 were 4/ and 8 were 6/. The chromas of this red were also very consistent since all were between /8 and /12.

28 Ibid., p . 1. 25

Thirty-nine of the chromas were designated as /12, a strong red. Only

one designation was 5R 5/12, translated as red with a middle value and

a strong chroma.

Blue. This hue occurred in 36 rug studies. Although there were five

separate hue notations, 33 studies contained only two hues: 5PB and

7.5PB. Five PB is purple blue located half-way between purple and blue on the color circuit; 20 blues were designated 5PB. The values of the 20 5PB's ranged between 2/ and 5/. Fourteen of the 20 were evenly divided between 3/ and 4/, thus, the majority of them had a value toward darkness. All except one 5/ value were in the dark half of the chart. The chromas of the 5PBs ranged between /4 and /10.

Fifteen of the 20 5PB's were divided between /6 and /8; therefore,

the majority were medium greyed chromas.

Thirteen blues were designated 7.5PB which is one quarter of the distance away from 5PB moving toward purple. The value range for the 7.5PBs was 2/ to 4/, with 9 of the 13 having values of 3/. Thus,

7.5PB values were in the dark half of the chart. The chromas of the

7.5PBs ranged from /4 to /I2. Eight chromas in the 7.5PB hue were

toward the strong color (less greyed) portion of the chart. The re­ maining blues, of which there were three, were designated as follows: one 2.5PB 4/4, that is, a hue one-fourth of the distance from purple blue toward blue on the color circuit with a slightly darker than middle value and a more than medium greyed chroma; one 10B 7/4, that is, a hue halfway between purple blue and blue with a light value, 26 and a more than medium greyed chroma; and one 5B 8/4 translated as a blue hue with a light value and more than medium greyed chroma.

Grey. This hue occurred 27 times. In 25 studies grey had no other hue overtones. In two studies the grey had a bluish cast. In the first instance, the 25 truly neutral greys ranged in value from 4/ to 8/, with seven greys having a value of 5/ and ten a value of 6/. The re­ maining eight greys were divided between values of 4/, 7/, and 8/.

The two greys with a bluish cast were designated as N5 8/PB, 0.2, a very weak or greyed light purple blue. Thus, the majority of the greys, 17 out of 27, occurred in the middle value range of neutral.

Yellow. This hue occurred 11 times in the 68 studies. Seven of the

11 yellows had a hue notation of 2.5Y which is one-fourth of the dis­ tance away from yellow towards yellow red on the color circuit. The values of 2.5Y ranged from six to nine with one 6/, five 8/, and one

9/. Six of the seven 2.5Ys had very light values. The chromas of

2.5Y ranged from six to ten with two /6, one /8, and four /10. The majority of the chromas for 2.5Y were relatively strong in color or only slightly greyed. The remaining four yellows were as follows: one 5Y 9/6, yellow with a very light value and a slightly greyed chroma; one 5Y 9/8 which is very similar to the preceding description; one 7.5Y 9/6, a yellow red hue with a light value and a medium greyed chroma; and one 5YR 6/12, a yellow red hue with a medium value and a strong or non-greyed chroma. Thus, the 11 yellows were highly varied and ranged from a light yellow to brown to orange. 27

Green. This hue occurred seven times, all in green yellow classifi­

cations. In three studies this hue was 5GY, located halfway between

yellow and green on the color circuit with the following values and

chromas: one 4/4, a dark value with more than a medium amount of grey; one 6/6, a middle value with less than a medium amount of grey;

and one 6/8, a middle value with only a slight amount of grey. In two

rug studies, green was 2.5GY, located one-fourth of the distance from

green yellow toward yellow on the color circuit. Both 2.5GY's had a

value and chroma of 7/8, a lighter than middle value and a slightly

greyed chroma. The remaining two greens were as follows: one 7.5GY

5/6, a hue one-fourth of the distance from green yellow toward green

with middle value and a medium amount of greying, and one 10GY 5/6,

a hue halfway between green yellow and green with a middle value and

a medium amount of greying. Thus, the only consistency of the greens was that they all belonged to the area of the green yellow hues on the color circuit.

Summary of Munsell designations. Consistencies of color in the rug

studies were as follows:

1. All blacks and whites were absolute.

2. Most reds were slightly yellowed with middle values and

strong chromas.

3. Most greys were neutral and of middle values.

4. Most blues were purple blues with dark values and strong

chromas. 28

5. There was considerable variety in the hue, value, and

chroma for yellow.

6. All greens were green yellows with much variety in value

and chroma.

7. Other than the neutrals of black, white and grey, the

most commonly occurring hues were red and purple blue.

Ground Color in Rug Studies

The term ground color, as used in the present study, refers to

the color appearing in voided areas; that is, the areas surrounding the design rather than in the design itself. In most cases the ground color appeared in a greater amount than did the other colors. The

identified ground colors in the 68 studies included striped, red, grey,black, and white; each ground color is described.

Striped ground. Twenty-five of the 68 studies had striped grounds in the areas surrounding the design. The researcher took license with the void ground in describing it as striped which, of course, is a design reference rather than a color reference. However, since the stripes were formed by the predominating colors in the rug and formed a background for the design, the term striped ground seemed appropriate.

Justification for defining the stripes as ground colors came from the

Hubbell correspondence in which both J. L. Hubbell and buyers referred to the predominating colors as ground colors in both the striped and non-striped rugs. In analyzing the rug studies, the striped ground 29

colors were divided by color as follows: 11 were blue and black, six

were grey and black, six were blaGk and white, one was red and black,

and one was brown and black.

The blue and black striped ground was a "Moki"^ ground. 30 Amsden spoke of Hubbell's perpetrating this stripe combination in

Navaho rugs. The number of rug studies utilizing the blue and black

striped ground and the fact that one of the other trading posts'**-

operated by Lorenzo Hubbell, oldest son of J. L. Hubbell, was located

on the "Moki" reservation provided support for Amsden's observation.

The blue and black striped ground in the rug studies had two rather

consistent characteristics: the stripes were narrow and the blue

was very dark in value (Appendix B, Plates XXI, XXIII, XXV, XXVI,

XXIX, XXXVII, XL, XLIX, LII, LXII, LXIII, LVIII). However, there

was one rug study which was an exception to both of the identified

characteristics: the stripe was wider and the blue was lighter in

value than in the other rug studies (Appendix B, Plate XXI).

Grey and black striped ground occurred five times (Appendix

B, Plates X, XV, XX, XXIV, LVI). The characteristics common to the

ground were the small stripes and the medium to light values of grey.

29"Moki" is an antiquated word for Hopi. The researcher chose to use the term in her work because it was used exclusively in primary sources of the research period.

^Amsden, p. 189. 31 *■ During his lifetime Hubbell and his sons operated seven trading posts. The trading post at Ganado was operated continually and his home was attached to it. 30

White and black striped ground occurred six times on "Honal-

chadi"32 studies (Appendix B, Plates XIV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX,

XXII). In four instances the stripes were side and minimal in num­ ber (Appendix B, Plates XIV, XVI, XVII, XIX), while in the other two rug studies there were many narrow stripes (Appendix B, Plates XVIII,

XXII). The black and white stripes were an example of a well inte­ grated ground and design.

Red and black striped ground occurred only once (Appendix B,

Plate XLII). The stripes were small but could be clearly distin­ guished. The red was of medium value.

Brown and black striped ground occurred only once (Appendix B,

Plate XXVII). The brown was of medium value and, in combination with black, formed stripes which were small and numerous.

Red ground. This ground color occurred 13 times and was of slightly yellowed hue 7.5R (Appendix B, Plates I, XXVIII, XXXVII, XXXIX, XLI,

XLVI, XLVIII, LIV, LV, LIX, LXI, LXIV, LXVI). All were of medium values 4/ or 5/. Twelve rug studies with red ground were of the strongest chroma, /12, while one was of the more greyed chroma, /8

(Appendix B, Plate LXI).

32 "Honalchadi" is the Navaho word for chief and designates a rug of specific design; the characteristics are a ground of black and white, and the use of whole and half diamonds. 31

33 Grey ground. Grey ground color occurred 13 times and included

neutral hues (Appendix B, Plates II, III, XXX, XXXI, XXXII, XXXIII,

XXXIV, XLIV, XLV, L, LI, LIII, LX). The ground colors in two rug

studies were value 5/0 (Appendix B, Plates III, XLIV), three were

value 7/0 (Appendix B, Plates II, LX, XXXIII), while the remaining

eight were value 6/0. The values of the grey ground studies were

skewed slightly toward the lighter end of the Munsell chart.

Black ground. The ground color black occurred nine times (Appendix

B, Plates IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, XI, XII, XIII). The black was

identified as an absolute neutral. For each of the rug studies, black

occurred as a solid band in the center of the rug between smaller

outer bands. The accompanying outer bands were red and blue. With- 34 out exception the black ground studies belonged to the "biil"

design classification which will be discussed under the section,

Design in Rug Studies.

White ground. This ground color occurred eight times (Appendix B,

Plates XXXV, XXXVI, XLIII, XLVII, LVII, LXV, LXVII, LXVIIl). All whites were absolute neutrals.

33 Grey, white, and black were referred to as colors because both trader and buyer referred to them as colors in the correspon­ dence . 34 "Biil" is the Navaho word designating squaw dress, the derivation of this design. One of the characteristics of biil design is a large center section of solid black. 32

Summary of 68 ground colors. The identified ground colors were striped, red, grey, black, and white. The ground colors were consistent within a narrow range in hue, value, and chroma. For instance, colors not mentioned, such as yellow and green, did not occur as ground colors.

Ground color was difficult to separate from design; therefore, the researcher used a design designation, stripe, as one of the cate­ gories for ground color. The stripes?, when divided into varying com­ binations of color, could also be classified as design combinations; for example, blue and black as "moki" and white and black as "honal- chadi." Finally, all black grounds were "biil" rugs which will be discussed in the design section.

Color Combinations in Rug Studies

Twenty-four different color combinations appeared in the 74 rug studies (68 on-site studies plus the six additonal studies from

Harpers Ferry). Over one-half of the studies were in five color com­ binations and 12 studies had color combinations that were unique, that is, appeared only once. The researcher organized the presentation of color combinations according to frequency of occurrence; thus, the most commonly occuring color combinations are presented followed by combina­ tions occurring for only one rug. To simplify the explanations of the

12 color combinations occurring only once, the 12 studies were combined by number of colors in the combination, that is, two colors, five colors, six colors, and seven colors. Analysis of the color combinations in­ cluded some comments regarding design in order to identify consistencies in the use of color and design. 33

Red, blue, black, white combination. Ten of the studies contained this

four-color combination. Seven of the ten studies in this category also

belonged to the "moki" ground non-bordered classification (Appendix B,

Plates XXV, XXIX, XXXVIII, XL, XLIX, LII, LXII). The other three

studies in this category showed no particular design relationship to

each other or to the preceding seven (Appendix B, Plates XXII, XXXVII,

XXXIX).

Red, grey, black, white combination. Nine of the studies contained

this four-color combination. Consistencies occurring in the classifi­

cation were as follows: seven of the studies were bordered (Appendix

B, Plates XXVIII, XXXI, XXXIV, XXXVI, XLVI, XLVII, LI), two of the studies were non-bordered (Appendix B, Plates XXIV, LVI).

Grey, black, white combination. Ten of the rug studies contained this three color combination. Consistencies occurring in the classification were as follows: eight of the studies were bordered (Appendix B,

Plates XXX, XLIII, XLIV, XLV, LIII, LXV, LXIX, LXXIII), two were non- bordered (Appendix B, Plates L, LX).

Red, blue, black combination. Seven of the rug studies contained this three-color combination. All seven were consistently non-bordered and had a large center section of black as is characteristic of the

"biil" design (Appendix B, Plates IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, XII).

Red, grey, black combination. Seven of the rug studies contained this three-color combination. Consistencies occurring in the classification 34

were as follows: six of the studies were bordered (Appendix B,

Plates I, II, III, XXXII, XXXIII, LXXI); and studies in which the swastika motif was used were found in the bordered group of this color combination (Appendix B, Plates I, II, III, LXXI). One rug study was non-bordered (Appendix B, Plate XLII).

Red, black, white combination. Four of the studies contained this three-color combination. Consistency occurring in this classifica­ tion was that three were non-bordered (Appendix B, Plates XLI, LIX,

LXIV). One of the studies was bordered (Appendix B, Plate XLVIII).

Red, blue, black, white, green combination. Four of the rug studies contained this five-color combination. All four were non-bordered and were of the "honalchadi" design with black and white ground

(Appendix B, Plates XIV, XVI, XVII, XIX).

Red, blue, grey, black, white combination. Three of the studies con­ tained this five-color combination. All three were non-bordered with "moki" grounds (Appendix B, Plates XXIII, XXVI, LVIII).

Red, blue, white combination. Two of the studies contained this three-color combination. The only shared characteristic of the two studies was the color combination (Appendix B, Plates LIV, LXI).

Red, blue, grey, black, yellow combination. Two of the studies con­ tained this five-color combination. Both of the rug studies were 35

35 non-bordered, and "Honalchadi" type format with "moki" stripes (Appen­ dix B, Plates XV, XXI).

Red, black, white, yellow combination. Two of the studies contained this four-color combination. Both were consistently non-bordered

"serape"^ style designs (Appendix B, Plates LV, LVII).

Red, blue, white, black, yellow combination. Two of the studies con­ tained this five-color combination. Both of the rug studies were non- bordered, one with a "Honalchadi" format and the other with "serape" format (Appendix B, Plates XVIII, LXXIV).

Unique two-color combinations. Three of the studies contained unique two-color combinations. Those combinations were as follows: one black and red unbordered "biil" design (Appendix B, Plate XIII), one black and white bordered rug (Appendix B, Plate LXVII), and one . blue and white bordered rug (Appendix B, Plate LXVIII).

Unique four-color combinations. Five of the studies contained unique four-color combinations. The combinations were as follows: one red, blue, yellow, black unbordered "serape" style study (Appendix B,

Plate LXIII); one red, blue, grey, black unbordered "biil" study

Format refers to the entire layout of the rug rather than specific ground or design motif. It is a term borrowed from journal­ ism to give clarity to the research presentation. 36 Serape is a Mexican word for shoulder blanket with stripes interlaced with diamond motifs. 36

(Appendix B, Plate X); one red, blue, green, black unbordered "biil"

study (Appendix B, Plate XI); one red, green, green yellow, white un­ bordered "serape" style study (Appendix B, Plate L) : and one grey, black, white, and brown bordered study (Appendix B, Plate LXXII).

Unique five-color combination. Two of the studies contained a unique

five-color combination. The combinations were as follows: one red, blue, gold, brown, black non-bordered striped study (Appendix B, Plate

XXVII); and one red, grey, black, white and brown bordered study

(Appendix B, Plate LXX).

Unique six-color combinations. Two of the studies contained unique

six-color combinations. Those combinations were as follows: one red, blue green, yellow, gold, white, black bordered study (Appendix B,

Plate XXXV); one red, blue, yellow, grey, black, white non-bordered

"honalchadi" study (Appendix B, Plate XX).

Summary of color combinations. Much variety existed in color combina­ tions. Twenty-two different color combinations were found in the 74 studies; however, 48 of the studies had only seven combinations. The following summations were taken from the seven combinations (48 studies):

1. Red, blue, grey, black, and white were the predominant

colors. Six of the seven color combinations included three

or more of the five colors.

2. Color combinations were related to design in the following

manner: 37

a) Red, blue, black, white were used in seven out of ten

rug studies and were combined in the "moki" style

ground and in a non-bordered presentation.

b) Red, grey, black, white combination in seven out of

nine instances was presented in a bordered format.

c) Grey, black„ white combination in eight out of ten

instances was presented in a bordered format.

d) Red, blue, black combination in seven out of seven

instances was non-bordered, "biil," with black

ground.

e) Red, grey, black combination in six out of seven in­

stances was bordered. Among the five bordered

studies in this combination, four of the studies

had the swastika as the major motif.

f) Red, black, white combination in three out of four

instances presented the non-bordered format.

g) Red, blue, black, white, green combination in four

out of four instances was presented in non-bordered

format with the "honalchadi" style and black and

white ground colors.

DESIGN ANALYSIS OF RUG STUDIES

The preceding color analysis led directly to the design analysis of the 74.rug studies since the researcher found that most of the consistencies in color combination were design related. The 38 following analysis proceeded from an examination of interior design motifs, then to the border motifs and finally an examination of the overall format.

Interior Design Motifs of Rug Studies

The examination of analysis of all designs on the rug studies, exclusive of the border, are presented in this section. In the analysis of the interior designs the following motifs were identified: stripes, diamonds, crosses, and swastikas. Other motifs were grouped together as unclassified designs. Each of the design motifs is discussed.

Stripes. Stripes are defined as parallel bands from edge to edge, either in a horizontal or vertical direction. Stripes were con­ sidered first in the analysis because they are representative of the earliest attempts at design by Navaho weavers. The rug studies which had stripes as a primary motif were classified according to total de­ sign as "biil," "honalchadi," and "serape."

The "biil" design emanated from rugs which were used for squaw dresses. The classic "biil" rug was longer than wide and two rugs were joined at shoulder and side seam to underarm to form the dress.

The design was formed by bands from side to side, with a large solid black area in the center and red and blue figured bands at the top and bottom.

Ten of the studies were in the "biil" design striped category

(Appendix B, Plates XI, XII, XIII, VI, V, IV, VII, VIII, IX, X). The 39 first three in this category were most representative of the classic definition.

1. Plate XI: The rug study has a row of blue outlined motifs

in both top and bottom panel. The motif is a combina­

tion rectangle and two sides like a diamond. Zigzag

rows form the top and bottom bands; in addition, small

green stripes were incorporated.

2. Plate XII: In the rug study zigzag figures from side to

side were used on the top and bottom with the added varia­

tion of terracing the zigzag.

3. Plate XIII: The rug study was similar to the previous

two with the added unique features of figures in black

instead of blue on the red banding and the addition of

the cross to the points of the zigzag.

A consistent change was apparent in. the other "biil" designs; that is, lengthwise bands were used.

4. Plate VI: Dots were used to form blue zigzag design in

the red lengthwise bands.

5. Plate V: There were terraced blue zigzags in the red

bands, two rows of unconnected blue" crosses in each outer

band, and a row of unconnected diamonds in the outer

bands. The diamonds were comprised of two triangles with

one leg of each parallel with the other. The outer sides

of the diamonds were comprised of small parallel lines

in the comb pattern. 40

6. Plate IV: The terraced zigzag edge was used on the outer

bands; in addition, a contrasting band was placed beyond

the band on the outer edge. A row of disconnected

terrace diamonds was centered in the red bands.

7. Plate VII was similar to Plate IV in overall appearance

except that the red bands had straight edges and a row

of disconnected outline crosses down the center of the

band.

8. Plate VIII was like Plate VII except that the edges of

the red bands were in the terraced zigzag style.

9. Plate IX was like Plate VIII except that the center of

the red bands had two centered blue zigzag lines facing

each other.

10. Plate X differed from the preceding plates in regard to

the central band. The band was comprised of grey and

black stripes arranged in a large central black stripe

with the smaller alternating grey and black stripes on

each side. Each red band had a comb-edged blue zigzag

in the center with a very narrow blue band on each of

the two outer edges.

Thirteen of the studies had in common a resemblance to the

"honalchadi" or chief style. The style was characterized by a central band of narrow stripes with three superimposed designs, one at the center and one at each end. Between the central band and the half 41 bands were wide black and white stripes. For each of the following plates, the unique features or adaptations of the characteristic

"honalchadi" style are described.

1. Plate XIV: Pairs of concentric squares were used as the

superimposed motif.

2. Plate XV: Pairs of rectangles, each containing concen­

tric squares, were used as the superimposed motif.

Narrow black and grey stripes were used in the area

in which wide black and white stripes were usually

placed.

3. Plate XVI: Concentric diamonds with cross centers were

used as the superimposed motif with all four diamonds

touching the sides so that they appeared halved. The

corners contained quarter diamonds. The central diamond

had a small cross superimposed on a small terraced dia­

mond at the points toward the lengthwise edge. The two

crosses were located in a white stripe.

4. Plate XVII was very similar to Plate XVI but the motif

was simplified by the omission of the terraced cross motif

in the white stripe and by the use of one less concentric

diamond within each diamond motif.

5. Plate XIX: The innovations included under Plate XVI were

also true of this rug study; in addition, there was a

change in the shape of the halved superimposed diamonds 42

on width ends and in each corner. The diamond became

an elongated rectangle with pointed ends as shown [ ' > ].

Small diamonds composed of small squares were located

in each white stripe in the width direction of the rug

study.

6. Plate XX differed from the preceding plates in that the

end points of three diamonds touched in the width direc­

tion. Also the large black and white stripes were re­

placed by narrow grey and black stripes. Diamonds were

of the concentric terraced style.

7. Plate XXI was similar to Plate XX: the only differences

were that the concentric diamonds were comb-edged and

partial, straight lines were located on the central and

outer band. The outer band of the diamond was of the

same color as the stripe on which it was located.

8. Plate XVIII differed from Plate XXI in that partial

lines in the central and outer bands varied in length

and became longer as they reached the edges of the band

and thicker toward the center. The points of the diamonds

did not quite meet. The outer three bands of the diamond

were terraced while the inner three were comb-edged.

The black and white stripes were narrow.

9. Plate XXII differed from all previous "honalchadi" motifs

in that the half and quarter diamonds were turned inward. 43

the outer half diamonds on central band were no longer

diamonds but elongated rectangles with points at each end

as shown [ s ~ ~ ~ \ ] •

10. Plate XXV was the first of four rugs that had bands in

the width direction. Half and quarter figures on the

outside stripes were elongated rectangles with points

[>3. The unfigured stripe incorporated color from

the central band and vice versa.

11. Plate XXIII: Small comb designs were incorporated on

central and outer bands. The comb—edge was repeated as

the central band dipped into unfigured bands at points

of terraced diamonds. Through the middle of the usually

unfigured bands was a crisscrossed stripe of central

1 band colors.

12. Plate XXVI: The consistent ground stripes were narrow

and were black and dark blue. In this rug study the

stripes were in the background and were not highly

integrated with the superimposed diamonds. Narrow con­

trasting bands crossed the rug study in three places.

The cross in the center of the diamonds had fluted ends

created by two tiny squares, one on each tip.

13. Plate XXIV, like Plate XXII, had the half and quarter dia­

monds turned inward, at least those placed across the

width of the rug study. The concentric terraced diamond

\ 44

was again used with a fluted cross in the center and

with the addition of a tiny contrasting square at the

intersection of the two poles. The entire ground con­

sisted of a narrow black and grey stripe.

The final group of stripes used in the rug studies were identi­ fied as representing a "serape" concept. The "serape" style was characterized by stripes across the width of the rug, often interlaced with diamonds. The last four rug studies in the "honalchadi" group included the "serape" concept as described; thus, there was some over­ lap of design motifs in the different styles of rugs. It was the varied use of a few design motifs that brought about the con­ sistencies in the work of the Navahos, allowing them to improvise on borrowed items yet remain Navaho in visual force. The "serape" con­ cept was identified in the following rug studies.

1. Plate LXIII: Straight stripes in large bands were com­

prised of alternating blue and black stripes with smaller

bands of red with lines of yellow on each side. Plate

LXIII shows a rug study with a very straightforward pre­

sentation of stripes.

2. Plate LXII: The ground was the same as seen in Plate

LXIII, that is, black and dark blue stripes. Plate LXII

also had figured stripes. At the top and bottom of the

rug study were bands with red terraced zigzag. A center

band of red contained two parallel rows of terraced 45

zigzag with crosses at each point. The design was a

variation on themes already seen in "bill" designs.

Halfway between the red bands at the center and ends

were stripes of concentric diamonds which were separated \ from the center and end bands by concentric squares.

3. Plate LVIII: The rug study had a central band with one

whole and two half serrated concentric diamonds reminis­

cent of the "honalchadi" style. Underlying all the designs

were the basic dark blue and black stripes with contrasting

red and white striped bands between the center band and

the edge. Broken white and grey lines were spaced

throughout the design.

4. Plate LVI: A very straightforward design was formed of

three wide red bands containing an outline terraced zig­

zag on the two outside edges and in the center. The

remainder of the rug design was filled with narrow black

and grey stripes.

5. Plate LV: Many of the designs previously seen were in­

corporated in this rug study: half and quarter dia­

monds on the outer width edges, rows of concentric ter­

raced diamonds opposing groups of parallel terraced zig­

zag, and stripes containing parallel diagonal lines.

6. Plate LXIV: The rug study was square in shape with a

solid red ground and rows of zigzags composed of small 46

squares. The rug was not symmetric in appearance for it

had fringe on one edge; on the opposite edge, two rows of

opposing zigzag lines formed one row of diamond motifs.

The remainder of the rug was covered with parallel zigzags.

7. Plate LVII: Three large white bands, one at each end and

one in the middle of the design formed a distinctive

motif. Each of these outer bands contained an incomplete

zigzag line. The central band contained opposing zig­

zags. Between the outer and central white bands was a

band of narrow red, yellow, and grey stripes.

8. Plate LXXIV: The striped division of this study was

very "honalchadi" in that two sections of large black

and white stripes flanked a central band with outer

bands matching the central one. The central and outer

bands carried zigzags.

9. Plate LXVI: The rug study design was composed of red

ground with a narrow green stripe at the top and bottom,

and evenly spaced narrow white stripes. There were twelve

serrated green diamonds surrounded by a white border in

rows of three. The design appeared to be one devised

especially for the Christmas season.

Diamonds. The diamond motif was most prominent in the following group of rug studies. In analyzing the designs it was apparent that the 47 group of rug studies with diamond motifs overlapped the stripe group of the rug studies. The striped studies included diamonds and the diamonds helped to define the stripes; however, in the following cases the diamond and striped motifs were not integrated designs.

1. Plate XXVII: The diamond in this design was concentric

comb pattern with a central diamond of alternating

blue and black triangles. A "moki" narrow striped

ground was overlaid with narrow crisscrossed bands.

All of the design elements of the rug study had

been used in "biil" or "honalchadi" rugs already

examined.

2. Plate XXIX, like Plate XXVII, is a rug study which had

one central diamond. The diamond design was concentric,

terraced, and included a central fluted cross. The

placement of diamonds reflected the "honalchadi" style

of rug design.

3. Plate XL: An allover diamond and partial diamond pat­

tern was used. The red terraced diamonds with fluted

cross centers were arranged in the "honalchadi" style,

but the points were connected forming four more com­

plete diamonds with blue and black "moki" ground.

4. Plate XXXVIII was very similar to Plate XL except that

the center of the diamond was a square. 48

5. Plate LIX: The design was comprised of diagonal lines

intersecting at 90° angles which created an overall dia­

mond pattern; parallel horizontal lines in contrasting

colors bisected the diamonds. The ground was red.

6. Plate XLII, as in all the previous plates in this sec­

tion, was a non-bordered rug study. The ground was of

narrow black and red stripes. The primary motif was

three horizontally elongated grey diamonds with cross

centers.

7. Plate LXI: The rug study had an overall terraced dia­

mond pattern with zigzag center band.

8. Plate XXXVII: The design was comprised of four dia­

monds formed by opposing zigzag lines in the horiztonal

direction. The stripes on the pairs of diamonds were a

"honalchadi" style grouping. The ground was solid red.

In the following group of rug studies, the underlying stripe format was eliminated and the diamond motif was often placed on a solid ground. The presentation of the following diamond motifs in the rug studies proceeds from a single motif to multiple motifs.

9. Plate XXVIII: One central diamond motif was outlined in

black and was surrounded with a grey terraced area on a

solid ground. Inside the diamond was a serrated square

with a cross outlined in grey. The border repeated the

diamond motif. 49

10. Plate XXX: The design was composed of the serrated out­

line diamond with a fluted interior cross. On the tip of

each serrate was a small square. The entire motif was

on a grey ground. In each of the four corners was a

unique motif that was described by the catalog at the

Hubbell Trading Post as having the appearance of a

saguaro cactus. A straight border was used.

11. Plate XXXIII: The primary motifs were two concentric

serrated diamonds on a rectangle surrounded by six

partially outlined crosses. The entire design was

surrounded by a border.

12. Plate XLI: The rug study was composed of a central band

of small crosses with a terraced diamond in the upper and

lower portions. Each diamond was centered by a cross

with a contrasting square at the point of intersection

and at the tips of the poles. The diamond was flanked

on each side by a fluted cross.

13. Plate XXXII: Two terraced diamonds with central fluted

crosses in a bordered format formed the motif; the

ground was solid.

14. Plate XXXV: As in Plate XXXII, the design motif was com­

posed of two central crosses on a bordered format and

solid ground. The terrace-edged diamond also had a comb-

edge. Inside of each diamond was a very thick outlined 50

cross containing another comb-edged diamond. The cross

had many strategically placed serrates around it and one

of the poles had multiple triangular extensions. The

solid ground area had several different filling motifs:

a teepee arrangement flanked by chevrons from border to

point where two diamonds met; an hour glass motif be­

tween end points of diamonds and border; and a zigzag

motif with a straight line through it near each corner.

Not only was the rug study unusual for the abundance of

motifs in the design, but also for the use of water

colors rather than oils to execute the painting.

15. Plate XXXIV: Two central diamonds that appeared to have

been executed by placing -many "T" squares in a diamond

formation comprised the primary motif. Six crosses with

triangular fluted points were placed in the solid ground.

A border surrounded the entire design of the rug study.

16. Plate LXIX: Two terraced diamonds with squares on the

outer angles and crossing saguaro cactus figures in the

center formed the primary motif. A solid ground was

used with saguaro motifs as secondaries in the corners

and between diamond points on each side. A border

surrounded the designs.

17. Plate LXX: Two concentric terraced diamonds with cross

centers formed the primary motif. The six secondaries 51

were terraced forms in the four corners and between the

points of the diamonds on each side. A bordered format

on a solid ground was used.

18. Plate XXXI: The rug study contained two central, con-'

centric, serrated diamonds with a bar of contrasting

opposing zigzag inside each diamond. A solid ground

was used and six of the identical zigzags from the center

of the diamonds were placed on the ground. A bordered

format was utilized.

19. Plate XXXVI: A concentric straight-edged diamond

flanked by two similar half diamonds formed the primary

motif. The ground was solid and undisturbed. The

entire design was placed in a bordered format.

20. Plate XXXIX: The rug study contained a row of five

concentric, outlined, serrated diamonds in the length­

wise direction. The ground was undisturbed solid, all

in a bordered format.

Crosses. The following group of eleven rug studies contained crosses as the primary motif.

1. Plate LII: Ten plain crosses were used with a con­

trasting square center. Two opposing concentric zig­

zags extended the full lengthwise direction of the study.

The format was unbordered with a "moki" blue and black

background. 52

2. Plate XLIX: The rug study contained two central, con­

centric, outlined crosses on a "moki" ground with no

border. Interlacing zigzags flanked the crosses.

3. Plate XLIII: The primary motif was one outlined, con­

centric cross centered on an undisturbed solid ground

with a bordered format. Eight tiny squares were located

on the corners of the cross poles, one on each corner.

4. Plate XLVIII: Two large, concentric, outlined primary

crosses with eight small crosses surrounding them formed

the primary motif. All of the crosses were on a solid

ground with a bordered format.

5. Plate XLVI: The rug study had two concentric, out­

lined crosses. Eight comb motifs with central diamond

and outer triangles were positioned around the crosses

the same as the outer motifs in Plate XLVIII: All

motifs were on a solid ground with a bordered format.

6. Plate XLVI: Like the preceding two plates, the primary

design had two central crosses on a solid ground

surrounded with a bordered format. Eight small swastika

motifs were spaced on the ground.

7. Plate XLV: The rug study had two central crosses on a

solid ground with a bordered format. The poles of the

cross in the width direction were longer than those in

the length direction. Four combs with.diamond centers

and triangle ends were placed in the solid ground. 53

8. Plate XLIV: Two central diamonds in a solid undis­

turbed ground with bordered format formed the primary

motif. Each cross had a center rectangle comprised of

four alternating black and white triangles. Concen­

tric, terraced chevrons were placed on the solid ground

pointing between the crosses.

9. Plate L : The design was divided into four triangles by

parallel terraced diagonals. Each triangle contained

one cross fluted with squares.

10. Plate LI: The design contained five equal sized line

crosses, one of which was centered and the others were

placed toward the four corners. Each cross had a con­

trasting square in the center of the flute at each

point. The background was solid and the study was

bordered.

11. Plate LIII was abstract in that an interlacing cross

motif was used: one was placed in the center and six

half motifs were placed in various locations near the

border.

Swastika. The central motif for the following four studies was the swastika. The swastika was a good selling design on the Navaho rug in early 20th century, as may be seen in the section on correspondence related to the rug (page 110). The swastika was first used among the

Navahos on jewelry and may have been repeated on rugs. Sand paintings 54 of the Navahos often included a whirling log design that resembled 37 the swastika. Reichard said the Navaho weaver referred to the design as a turning cross. All swastika studies were a combination of red, grey, and black.

1. Plate I: A central swastika with four smaller ones in

each corner on a solid ground with a border was utilized.

2. Plate II: One large, outlined swastika in the center of

the study on a solid ground with a border was utilized.

3. Plate III: One large, outlined swastika on a larger out­

lined square on a solid ground with a border was

utilized.

4. Plate LXXI: One large, outlined swastika on a larger

outlined square surrounded by six triangle formations

on a solid ground with a border was utilized.

Unclassified. Seven rug studies could not be classified according to the previously mentioned primary motif. Instead, the primary o£ ,main motif in each of the studies was one that had been a lesser or secondary motif in the other rug studies.

1. Plate LIV: Inside the apex of each of two terraced tri­

angles were two curved lines. Curved lines were and are

extremely rare in Navaho rugs.

^ d a d y s Reichard, Weaving a Navajo Blanket (New York: J. J. Augustin, 1936), p. 181. 55

2. Plate LX: The rug study was an unbordered design with a

grey ground, divided crosswise by a slim dark bar. Above

and below the central bar were two terraced zigzags, one

singular, the other multiple. Small terraced chevrons

were also used.

3. Plate LXVII: A serrated bar on a solid ground ,was the

major motif; the rug study had a border. Black and

white were the only colors used.

4. Plate LXVIII was identical to Plate LXVII except that

the colors were dark blue and white.

5. Plate LXXIII was an elaboration of Plates LXVII and

LSVIII. A central bar was surrounded by fret and also

by a larger concentric fret rectangle which was identical

to the border.

6. Plate LXV: A central motif based on triangles was

created. Crosses and zigzags were used as secondary

OQ motifs. Reichard noted stacked triangles symbolized

clouds to the Navaho weaver.

7. Plate LXXII: The primary motif was hour glass shape

with a cross surrounded by a diamond in the center.

Four similar smaller figures occupied the corners with

zigzag along the sides. A cross was located between

^Reichard, p. 181. 56

the two small hour glasses on each of the short sides

. of the study. The entire design was on a solid ground

surrounded by border.

Summary of interior design motifs. Primary and secondary design motifs were identified and the variations on each motif were utilized in describing the rug studies. A summary of the interior design motifs is presented according to motif.

1. Stripes occurred as primary motifs and integrated other motifs into the striped format. Varying widths and combinations of widths occurred throughout the paintings, from the slim blue and black

"moki" stripes to the wide central panel on the "biil" studies. Con­ trasting colors were used to define stripes with-the greatest con­ trast composed of black and white and the least to minimal contrast composed of dark navy blue and black. Stripes were used in both the lengthwise and crosswise direction of the rug studies.

2. Diamonds occurred both as primary and secondary motifs; in both instances their structure was similar. The sides of the dia­ mond varied from either straight to terraced, terraced with dots at the outer points, T formed, serrated, or comb-edged. The shape of the diamond was either equilateral or elongated. Eacl? motif was either a singular or concentric form; that is, diamond within diamond. The central partion of the diamond was often filled with other motifs such as crosses, stripes, rectangles, and zigzags; other times the central portion was solid. 57

3. Crosses occurred both as primary and secondary motifs.

In both instances their structure was similar in that the

poles of the cross were straight. The shape of the cross

was either equilateral or elongated. The cross motif was

a singular solid; singular outline; or multiple con­

centric form (cross within cross). Variations occurred

as follows: pole ends were fluted with squares or

triangles, centers contained contrasting squares, two

outlined crosses of contrasting colors were interlaced.

One final variation was a pole cross with partial out­

line forming two diagonally opposing right angles.

4. Other motifs were more often secondary than primary.

The saguaro cactus was utilized once. The zigzag ap­

peared both as a primary and secondary motif. Varia­

tions in the zigzag were as follows: straight-edged

concentric; opposing zigzag with straight line between;

singular with line through; interlaced; and terraced.

Chevrons occurred as secondary motifs only. Variations

in chevrons were straight and terraced lines. The

swastika appeared both as a secondary and a primary motif.

Variations in the swastika were singular plain and

singular outlined. The triangle appeared both as a

secondary and primary motif. Variations in the triangle

were stacked triangles and graduated diagonal rows. 58

The final motif was a combination of a two-ended comb

with a diamond in the center and a triangle on the sides..

It appeared only in secondary positions.

Border Motifs of Rug Studies

The rug studies included both bordered and non-bordered rugs.

The border, like a frame, enclosed all four sides of the rug and was

part of the overall design or format. Bordered rugs were introduced

after 1860 and became important designs around the turn of the cen­

tury. Since the border became a significant part of the overall design,

the rug studies were analyzed according to the border. However, rugs with no border (non-bordered) composed a significant group of the rug

studies.

Nonbordered. Of the 74 rug studies 46 did not have borders. The non-

bordered studies were stripes except for two studies (Appendix B,

Plates L, LIV). Both of the exceptions had design motifs on a solid

ground.

Bordered. Bordered rug studies numbered 28. The grouping by border motif was as follows: plain straight, zigzag, combination, and fret.

Eight studies utilized plain straight borders; however, three

contained several variations. Three rug studies had two contrasting

straight bands; the outer border was black and the inner border was of

a lighter hue (Appendix B, Plates XXX, XXXI, LXX). Two studies had three

straight contrasting bands: black, white, black (Appendix B, Plates 59

XXXIV, XLIV). Two studies used only the singular outer border (Ap­ pendix B, Plates LXV, LXIX). One study had three straight bands in the width direction and two in the length direction (Appendix B,

Plate LXXII). All of the plain straight borders had an outer black band.

The zigzag borders included two types: straight lined zig­ zags and terraced zigzags. The straight lined zigzag border on two rug studies were in solid black (Appendix B, Plates III, LXXI) and another study had a triple zigzag border: black, white, and black outlined with white on each side (Appendix B, Plate XXXIX). Terraced zigzag borders appeared on two studies (Appendix B, Plates XXVIII,

XXXIII). One of the borders was a black terraced zigzag facing a red terraced zigzag; the other study had two opposing rows of black terraced zigzag filled in between with red. The red gave the appear­ ance of being a row of terraced diamonds.

Twelve rug studies had borders which included two types of . designs: plain zigzag and straight line borders, or, the terraced zigzag and straight line border. Two studies had a straight border in the width direction and a plain zigzag in the length direction

(Appendix B, Plates LXII, LXVIII). Another study combined an outer straight band with a contrasting inner plain zigzag band (Appendix B,

Plate XXXII). Three studies had two contrasting plain zigzag bands in the lengthwise direction and two straight bands in the width direction (Appendix B, Plates XLV, XLVI, XLVII). A combination 60 straight and plain zigzag band in the lengthwise direction was inter­ mixed with four straight bands in the widthwise direction to form the border on one study (Appendix B, Plate XLVIII). Three straight bands and one plain outlined zigzag in the lengthwise direction was used with four straight bands in the widthwise direction to complete the border of one study (Appendix B, Plate XXXVI). One study combined plain zigzag and an intersecting straight line (Appendix B, Plate

XXXV). Three studies had a combined terraced zigzag and straight bands in their borders (Appendix B, Plates I, II, XLIII).

Two bordered studies utilized the fret border (Appendix B,

Plates LIII, LXXIII). Following a summary of borders the inter­ relationship of the entire format will be examined.

Summary of border motifs. More of the 74 rug studies were nonbordered

(46) than bordered (28). Most (44) of the nonbordered rug studies were striped. Of the 28 rug studies which were bordered, certain consistencies were observed in the border motifs: a) nine borders were a combination of straight and zigzag bands; of these, seven were straight bands and plain zigzag bands, and two were straight bands and terraced zigzag bands; b) nine studies had zigzag borders; of these, five were plain and three were terraced zigzag borders; c) eight studies had straight band borders; and d> two studies had a fret border. 61

Overall Format of Rug Studies

Finally, the rug studies were examined to determine consis­

tency and uniqueness in the overall format. The relationship of the

parts in forming the overall design contributes to that which is

distinctly Navaho.

For analysis, the rug studies were designated as distinctive

old styles ("honalchadi,” "bill," "serape"), transitional styles

(unbordered but design not integrated by stripes), and new styles

(bordered rugs). The three styles of design formats include both unique and common components. However, it is the commonalities within

the change in format that allowed the weaver to create a distinc­

tively Navaho rug.

Old style format. The distinctive old style formats were known by

their own names: "biil," "honalchadi," and "serape." The three old

style rug studies had in common a striped format with the design motif

carried in the stripe. For each style, the basic format is described

and those rug studies which are true to the basic format are identi­

fied. Those rug studies which include an innovation on the basic

theme are also identified.

The "biil" or squaw dress format was one that utilized a very wide central band of black in the width direction: and above and below

the black band were red and black or red and blue bands. Three

studies correspond to the basic description and utilized the following

motifs: zigzags, plain stripes, polygons, terraced zigzags, and 62

crosses (Appendix B, Plates XI, XII, XIII). The remainder of the "biil" designs utilized the lengthwise direction for the banding and some­

times included another dark band near the outer edges. The motifs of the "biil" designs which were unique or innovative included all that I were mentioned above with the addition of diamonds and comb-edges on zigzag and diamonds (Appendix B, Plates IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI,

XII, XIII).

The "honalchadi" or chief’s blanket format was one that util­ ized five distinctive bands in the lengthwise direction; the center and two outer bands were similar in that the design motif was carried in them and the small stripes within the band were moderately con­ trasting. The remaining two bands contained wider black and white stripes. The motif (generally a diamond) was whole in the center with four half motifs centered on each edge and a quarter motif in each corner. Three of the four rug studies fit this classic description while ten were variations on the theme.

The three classic rug studies in "honalchadi" format include the following motifs: plain stripes and concentric diamonds containing crosses (Appendix B, Plates XVI, XVII, XIX). In one study the motif was varied by the use of concentric rectangles (Appendix B, Plate XIV). Two

studies showed variation in that the lengthwise wide black and white stripes were narrow and the lengthwise half and quarter motifs were

turned inward (Appendix B, Plates XVII, XXII). Three rug studies showed format variation in that the wide black and white striped bands were narrowed and the color combinations were less contrasting (Appendix B, 63

Plates XV, XX, XXI). The remainder of the "honalchadi" format varia­ tions (four) were striped widthwise rather than lengthwise (Appendix

B, Plates XXIII, XXIV, XXV, XXVI).

The "serape" style format has been described as stripes in the width direction and may or may not have the motif carried in the stripe. Twelve rug studies are included in the category (Appendix B,

Plates LXIII, LVIII, LV, LVII, LVI, LXVI, LXIV, LXII, LXI, LX, LIX,

LXXIV). They vary from plain stripes to thick and thin stripes with a superimposed allover diamond pattern. All of the design motifs are ones already described for the "biil" and "honalchadi" formats.

Transition format. The transition style formats were those in which the old designs and stripes were used in the rectangle of the rug but the total format did not appear striped. Transition formats were a drastic change in the use of space within the rug. The transition formats were divided into repeated overall design; spaces divided in­ to halves, thirds, and quarters; and distinctive central motif.

Three studies have used repeated overall design (Appendix B,

Plates XXXVIII, XL, LII). All of the motifs came from old style for­ mats .

For six rug studies the space of the rectangle was divided into parts. In each case, the background seemed separate from the fore­ ground and some motifs have become primary while others have taken secondary positions. Three rug studies have the space divided into 64

halves with two primary motifs (Appendix B, Plates XXXVII, XLI,

XLIX) . One study has the space of the rug divided into thirds by

repeating the primary motif three times (Appendix B, Plate XLII).

Two studies have the space of the rug divided into quarters by either

repeating one primary design four times or repeating two primary

designs twice (Appendix B, Plates L, LIV). All of the motifs uti­

lized were old style except for one in which curved lines were used; 39 this may be attributed to the skill of the weaver (Appendix B,

Plate LIV).

The final two rug studies of the transition group have uti­

lized a single focal point with a central primary diamond and narrow

striped background (Appendix B, Plates XXVII, XXIX). One of the two

studies also utilized corner quarter diamonds as had the "honalchadi"

(Appendix B, Plate XXIX). The preceding format of central diamond and corner triangles with the addition of a border and elongation of

the central diamond has become one of the most common formats of modern Navaho rugs.

New style format. New style formats have solid backgrounds as op­ posed to the striped background of the old style and some transi­

tion style rugs. With the addition of a border new style formats used

primary and secondary motifs as did the transitional style. New style

39 Curved lines are the most difficult technique to execute in tapestry weaving and probably represent the individual more than the culture. 65

formats were grouped as follows: overall primary, single primary,

double primary, and row of primaries.

In one study designated as overall primary, the motif was

repeated five times within a border (Appendix B, Plate LI). Eight

studies utilized the larger central primary motif (Appendix B, Plates

I, II, III, XXVIII, XXX, XLIII, LII, LXVII, LXVIII, LXXI, LXXII,

LXXIII). Secondary motifs in these were often smaller primaries, portions of primaries or other motifs. New motifs included the

swastika and the saguaro cactus. Two of the central primary bor­

dered group utilized corner secondaries already mentioned in the final group of transition style formats (Appendix B, Plates I, XXX).

Ten studies in the new style bordered group utilized the double primary motif (Appendix B, Plates XXXI, XXXII, XXXIII, XXXIV,

XXXV, XLIV, XLV, XLVI, XLVII, XLVIII). Seven of the ten utilized

the secondary motif in the four corners and between the two primary motifs (Appendix B, Plates XXXI, XXXIII, XXXIV, XXXV, XLVI, XLVII,

XLVIII, LXIX, LXX). The preceding arrangement is a very common for­ mat in modern Navaho rugs that is discussed in the next chapter.

One new motif, a rectangle with two opposing zigzag edges and two

opposing straight edges, was used as a secondary motif.

The final group of new style bordered format had a single row of primary motif down the center of the rug study. Three rug studies belonged to the above classification (Appendix B, Plates XXXVI,

XXXIX, LXV). The format is also common on modern Navaho rugs and is described in the next chapter. 66

Summary of formats. Format information on the rug studies is com­ piled in the following summary.

1. Old style formats were alike in that they were unbordered, were striped, carried motifs in stripes, were well integrated overall, and had specific names referring to use. The specific names were

"biil" or squaw dress, "honalchadi" or chief's blanket, and "serape" or Mexican shoulder blanket. The format of the rug studies differed in the direction, size, and contrast of stripes and in use of other motifs.

2. The transition style formats were alike in that they were unbordered, had distinctive backgrounds, and had distinctive primary and secondary motifs. Three differences in the transition style for­ mat were categorized: allover designs, designs divided into equal spaces (2, 3, or 4), and a single centra primary motif.

3. The new style format had borders with distinctive back­ grounds and primary and secondary motifs. The differences in the new style format were identified as those studies with an overall design, single central primary motif, double primary motifs, and a single row of primary motifs.

FINDINGS RELATED TO RUG STUDIES, OBJECTIVE ONE

The rug studies in the Hubbell collection were analyzed to docu­ ment their origin and characteristics. The following summarization includes the principal findings for a portion of the first research obj ective. 67

1. Five artists were identified as having painted rug studies: E. A. Burbank, H. G. Maratta, Bertha Little, H. B. Judy, and Miss Bonsell. Other artists were known to have painted studies but were not identified by name.

.2. Models for the rug studies were found to include the following: rugs chosen and furnished by J. L. Hubbell, rugs selected by E. A. Burbank, rugs secured by others who were aware of Hubbell’s search for good design, and pictures that came in correspondence to the Hubbell Trading Post.

3. The rug studies were rendered between 1897 and 1909.

4. Between 74 and 100 rug studies were painted.

5. The most commonly occurring hues in the rug studies, other than black, white, and grey, were red and purple blue.

6. Ground colors were divided among the studies as follows:

25 were striped, 1 red and black, 1 brown and black; 13 were red;

13 were grey; 9 were black; and 8 were white.

7. Six of the seven predominant color combinations included three or more of the following colors: red, blue, grey, black, and white. The following combinations more often appeared on bordered rather than nonbordered rugs: red, grey, black, white; grey, black, white; and red, grey, black. The following combinations most often appeared on nonbordered rugs: red, blue, black, white; red, blue, black; red, black, white; and red, blue, black, white, green. 68

8. Interior design motifs were categorized as follows:

stripes which appeared as primary integrating designs or as secondary

grounds; diamonds,, crosses, zigzags, swastikas, and triangles which

appeared as both primary and secondary motifs; the saguaro cactus,

chevrons, and combs with diamond centers and triangles on each side which appeared as secondary motifs only.

9. Borders occurred on 28 of the 74 studies while nonbordered

studies numbered 46. The 28 bordered studies were subdivded as fol­ lows: eight had?straight band borders, nine had zigzag borders, nine had combination straight band and zigzag borders, and two had a fret border.

10. The overall format revealed the following consistencies and differences. Unbordered formats occurred in old style and transi­

tion styles while bordered formats were in new style rug studies.

Totally integrated formats were present in old style rug studies while

formats in transition and new style rug studies had distinctive back­

grounds, primary and secondary motifs. The total format changed from

striped in the old style to overall design; division of rug into two,

three or four equal spaces; and a single primary motif in the transi­

tion style to over all design, single central primary motifs, double

primary motifs, and a single row of primary motifs in the new style

rug studies. Chapter IV

NAVAHO RUGS WHICH REFLECT THE INFLUENCE OF

RUG STUDIES

In determining the influence of J. L. Hubbell on the Navaho rug the researcher based much of her consideration on the rug studies.

Justification for the procedure was based on the long term visibility of the studies, over 70 years at Hubbell Trading Post, and the fact that

J. L. Hubbell commissioned the studies himself. The remaining step in a demonstration of Hubbell's influence was to identify Navaho rugs based on, or reflecting the influence of, the rug studies.

Evidence to demonstrate Hubbell’s influence on the Navaho rug is presented in this chapter. The sources of the evidence were as follows: the rug collections from the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History; the Hubbell Trading Post; the Museum of the American

Indian, Heye Foundation; private collections assembled for a gallery show on Navaho rugs at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State

University; catalogs of Navaho rugs produced by the traders C. N.

Cotton and Lorenzo Hubbell, son of J. L. Hubbell; photographs from

Arizona Historical Society; a brochure from a gallery show at the

University of New Mexico; periodicals, New Mexico Magazine and

Arizona Highways; and secondary source books.

69 70

Since the Navaho weaver was notorious for not copying even her

own work, the influence of the rug studies was examined by focusing on

the various visual aspects of the rug: color combinations, design motifs, borders, and format. In addition, the exceptional copied rug

is discussed.

COLOR COMBINATIONS

The most commonly occurring color combinations identified in

the rug studies were the bases for the examination of Navaho rugs to determine similarity. The following color combinations were observed:

red, grey, black, white with either a red, grey or white ground; red, grey, black with a grey ground; grey, black, white with a grey ground; and red, black, white with a red ground.

Red, Grey, Black, White with a Red Ground

Two rug studies had this color combination (Appendix B, Plates

XXVIII, XLVI). Corresponding examples of this color combination were

three undated rugs from the Hubbell Collection (Appendix B, Plates LXXV,

LXXVI, LXXVII), and one 1976 rug purchased at the Hubbell Trading Post

(Appendix B, Plate LXXVIII).

Red, Grey, Black, White with a Grey Ground

Three rug studies were in this color combination (Appendix B,

Plates XXXI, XXXIV, LI). The corresponding examples in which this

color combination was used were one undated rug from the Hubbell 71

Collection (Appendix B, Plate LXXIX), one 1976 rug purchased at the

Hubbell Trading Post (Appendix B, Plate LXXX), and three rugs dating between 1951-57 belonging to Gilbert Maxwell.1

Red, Grey, Black, White with a White Ground

Three rug studies were representative of the color combination

(Appendix A, Plates XXXVI, XLII, XLVII). The corresponding example was a 1950 pictorial rug shown in New Mexico Magazine (Appendix A,

Fig. 7).2

Red, Grey, Black with a Grey Ground

Four rug studies were representative of the color combination

(Appendix B, Plates II, III, XXXII, XXXIII). The corresponding example came from a private collection dated circa 1915 (Appendix A, Plate

LXXXI).

Grey, Black, White with a Grey Ground

Five rug studies were representative of the color combination

(Appendix B, Plates XXX, XLIV, XLV, LIII, LXXIII). The corresponding

^■Gilbert S. Maxwell, Navaho Rugs (Palm Desert, California: Best-West Publications, 1963), Plates 28-30.

^Mark Nohl (photographer), "The Rug That's a Picture," New Mexico Magazine, LIV (February 1976), p. 23 (lower left). 72 examples were two undated rugs in the Hubbell collection (Appendix B,

Plates LXVI, LXXXIII), and one rug pictured in the early Cotton 3 Catalog.

Red, Black, White with a Red Ground

Four rug studies were representative of the color combination

(Appendix B, Plates XLI, LIX, LXIV, LXVIII) . The corresponding example was one undated rug in the Hubbell collection (Appendix B,

Plate LXXXIV).

Summary of Color Combinations

Twenty-three of the 74 rug studies examined were in six color combinations of the typical red, black, grey, white. Sixteen corres­ ponding examples of Navaho rugs were identified in the six color com­ binations. The identified Navaho rugs were from collections, early catalogs, current periodicals, and secondary sources.

DESIGN MOTIFS

Twelve design motifs had been identified in rug studies and corresponding examples were sought in Navaho rugs. The Navaho rugs were examined to determine the use of these design motifs: one whole and two half diamonds; whole diamonds in a row; terraced diamonds;

^Hubbell Collection, Hubbell Trading Post National Historic Site (C. N. Cotton Co. Catalog, circa 1900, p. 6, File folder (HTP-M-44)). 73

concentric terraced diamonds; concentric serrated diamonds; diamonds in quarters; double diamond flanked by zigzag; concentric zigzag; interlaced motifs, interlaced terraced lines; stripes with diagonal lines in stripes; "T" formed outlines; and stacked triangles.

One Whole and Two Half Diamonds

One rug study had this motif used in a primary manner (Ap­ pendix B, Plate XXXVI). Five rugs were corresponding examples; the motif had been utilized in a primary manner similar to the rug study.

The corresponding examples were two undated rugs from the Museum of the American Indian, the Heye Foundation (Appendix B, Plates CIX, 4 CX), one undated rug pictured in James (Appendix A, Fig. 8), one 5 pictured in Kent (Appendix A, Fig. 9), and one c. 1915 rug was from a private collection (Appendix B, Plate LXXXI). In all rugs, the inner diamond was repeated within the central diamond, as in the rug study, and in all rugs except the c. 1915 rug the half diamonds were re­ peated within the half diamonds, as in the rug study.

Whole Diamonds in a Row

Two rug studies showed the motif used in a primary manner

(Appendix B, Plates XXXIX, XLII). Eight rugs were corresponding

4 George W. James, Indian Blankets and Their Makers (Chicago: A. C. McClurg and Co., 1914), Fig. 236.

^Kate P. Kent, The Story of Navaho Weaving (Phoenix: Heard Museum, 1961), Plate 24. 74 examples; the motif was used in a primary manner similar to the rug study. The corresponding examples were comprised of three 1900

Smithsonian rugs (Appendix B, Plates LXXXV, LXXXVI, LXXXVII); one undated rug at the Museum of the American Indian, the Heye Foundation

(Appendix B, Plate CXI); one undated rug from a private collection

(Appendix B, Plate CII) ; one undated rug from the Hubbell Collection

(Appendix B, Plate LXXIX); one rug purchased in 1976 at the Hubbell

Trading Post (Appendix B, Plate LXXXVIII); and one undated rug g pictured in New Mexico Magazine (Appendix A, Fig. 10). Four of the corresponding rugs (Appendix B, Plates LXXXV, LXXXVI, CXI; Appendix

A, Fig. 10) had three central diamonds in a row as did one rug study

(Appendix B, Plate XLII), while one rug (Appendix B, Plate LXXXVIII) had five diamonds in a row as did one rug study (Appendix B, Plate

XXXIX). One corresponding rug had six diamonds in a row (Appendix

B, Plate CII). Two corresponding examples (Appendix B, Plates LXXIX,

LXXXVII) had two rows of diamonds. Four rugs (Appendix B, Plates

LXXXV, LXXXVIII, CII, CXI) had smaller diamonds centered in the larger outer diamonds as did one rug study (Appendix B, Plate XXXIX), while four examples (Appendix B, Plates LXXIX, LXXXVI, CXI; Appendix A,

Fig. 10) had crosses centered at the larger outer diamonds as did one rug study (Appendix B, Plate XLII). Two rugs (Appendix B, Plates

LXXXVII, CXI) had the same type serrated outer edge as did one rug

^"Major Regional Styles," New Mexico Magazine, January/ February 1974, p. 27, upper right. 75 study (Appendix B, Plate XXXIX), while the other five examples had varying edge treatments. All diamonds on both rug studies and corresponding rug examples were elongated in the width direction of the rug.

Terraced Diamond

In two rug studies the motif was used in a primary manner

(Appendix B, Plates XXX, LXIX). Four rugs were corresponding examples since the motif was utilized in a primary manner. The corresponding examples were two undated rugs in the Hubbell Collection (Appendix B,

Plates LXXV, LXXXIX), one rug from the c. 1925 Cotton Catalog (Ap­ pendix A, Fig. 11) and one undated rug from the Arizona Photographic

Associates (Appendix B, Plate CIV). One of the corresponding rugs

(Appendix A, Fig. 11) had a single, centered, terraced diamond and inside the diamond was a cross with two small squares at the end of each pole, as in the rug study. Two corresponding examples (Appendix B,

Plates LXXV, LXXXIX) each had two terraced diamonds with small squares at each corner of the terracing as in the rug study motif.

One example had "L" shaped at each corner of the terracing.

Concentric Terraced Diamond

Three rug studies were representative of this motif used in a primary manner (Appendix B, Plates XXIV, XXXVIII, LXX). Six rugs were identified as corresponding examples. The corresponding examples were comprised of two undated rugs from the Hubbell Collection 76

(Appendix B, Plates LXXV, LXXXIX), two c. 1960 Two Grey Hills rugs

from private collections (Appendix B, Plates XCIX, Cl), one rug

pictured in James^ (Appendix A, Fig. 12), and one undated Two Grey

Hills rug from Robert Nugent Photographer (Appendix B, Plate CIII).

Five of the corresponding examples contained one centered concentric

terraced diamond. One example contained two such diamonds (Appendix

B, Plate CIII).

Concentric Serrated Diamond

One rug study was representative of this motif (Appendix B,

Plate XXXIII). Three rugs were identified as corresponding examples; one undated rug from the Hubbell Collection (Appendix B, Plate XC), one undated rug from the Museum of the American Indian, the Heye

Foundation (Appendix B, Plate XCIV), and one 1970 rug from a private collection (Appendix B, Plate C).

Diamonds Divided in Quarters

Three rug studies had this motif used in a secondary manner

(Appendix B, Plates XXVII, XLIV, LV). Two rugs were identified as corresponding examples: one undated rug from the Hubbell Collection

(Appendix B , Plate LXXXII) and one 1915 rug from a private collec- tion (Appendix B, Plate LXXXI).

^James, Fig. 236. 77

Double Diamond Flanked by Zigzag

This motif was used in a primary manner in one rug study

(Appendix B, Plate XXXVII). Three rugs were identified as corres­

ponding examples: one 1904 rug from the Museum of the American

Indian, Heye Foundation; one undated rug from photographic collec­

tion of Ray Manley; and one undated rug from the photographic collec­

tion of Robert Nugent (Appendix B, Plates CVI, CVII, CXII).

Concentric Zigzag

Two rug studies had used the concentric zigzag motif in a pprimary manner (Appendix B, Plates LX, LXI). Two undated rugs from

the Hubbell Collection were corresponding examples since the motif

was used in a pritjary manner as in the rug study (Appendix B, Plates

XCI, XCII).

Interlaced Motifs, Interlaced Terraced Lines

One rug study had interlaced motifs (Appendix B, Plate LIII).

Two rugs were identified as corresponding examples: one c. 1910 rug

from the Smithsonian Collection (Appendix B, Plate XCIII) and one

1915 rug from Arizona Photographic Associates (Appendix B, Plate CV).

The rug study utilized interlacing cross motifs while the corres­

ponding rug examples utilized an interlacing cross and terraced dia­

mond motif. Another rug study had interlaced terraced lines (Appendix

B, Plate XLIX) and one undated rug in the Hubbell Collection utilized

the interlaced terraced lines (Appendix B, Plate XC). 78

Stripes with Diagonal Lines in Stripes

One rug study (Appendix B, Plate LV) was representative of

, this motif. One undated rug from the Hubbell Collection was identified

as a corresponding example (Appendix B, Plate XCII) and one undated

rug from the Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation (Appendix

B, Plate XCVI).

"T" Formed Outlines

One rug study had the "T" motif in the outline of the diamonds

(Appendix B, Plate XXIV). Two undated rugs from the Hubbell Collec­

tion comprised the corresponding examples; however, the "T" was used

in or near the. borders (Appendix B, Plates LX, LXXXIII).

Stacked Triangles

One rug study had this motif used in a primary manner (Appen­

dix B, Plate LXV). One 1952 rug pictured in Maxwell® was identified

as a corresponding example; the stacked diamonds were used within

the primary motif (Appendix A, Fig. 13).

Summary of Design Motifs

Forty corresponding rug examples were identified in which 12

designs motifs had been used in 17 rug studies. The Navaho rugs

which utilized the design motifs formed in rug studies were dated

from the early 20th century to the mid-seventies.

^Maxwell, Plate. 28. 79

BORDERS

Five categories of borders in the rug studies were identified

and corresponding examples were sought in Navaho rugs. The border

categories were single, plain, straight band; double, plain,

straight bands; all around plain zigzag; all around terraced zigzag;

and lengthwise zigzag with widthwise straight bands.

Single, Plain, Straight Band

This border was used in two rug studies (Appendix B, Plates

LXV, LXIX). Six rugs were identified as corresponding examples: one

c. 1915 rug from Arizona Photographic Associates (Appendix B, Plate

CV); one 1957 rug pictured in Maxwell^ (Appendix A, Fig. 13); one undated rug pictured in James^ (Appendix A, Fig. 12); two undated

rugs from the Hubbell Collection (Appendix B, Plates LXXV, LXXXIX);

and one 1976 rug purchased at the Hubbell Trading Post (Appendix B,

Plate LXXXVIII).

Double, Plain, Straight Bands

Three rug studies had this type of border (Appendix B, Plates

XXX, XXXI, LXX). Three rugs were corresponding examples: one undated

-- - ■ ' - - - w

^Maxwell, Plate 29.

■'■^James, Fig. 236. 80

rug pictured in New Mexico Magazine*^ (Appendix A, Fig. 14); one 12 1957 rug pictured in Maxwell (Appendix A, Fig. 15); and one c. 1960

rug from a private collection (Appendix B, Plate Cl).

All Around Plain Zigzag

This type of border was used in five rug studies (Appendix B,

Plates III, XXXII, XXXIX, LI, LXXI). Four rugs were identified as

corresponding examples: two undated rugs from the photographic col­ lection at the Arizona State Historic Society (Appendix B, Plates 13 XCIV, XCV); and one undated rug pictured in Reichard (Appendix A,

Fig. 16). The four corresponding rug examples and three of the rug

studies were similar in that the zigzags were wider and fewer in the width than in the length direction (Appendix B, Plates III, XXXIX,

LI) ,

All Around Terraced Zigzag

Four rug studies had this type of border (Appendix B, Plates

I, II, XXXIII, XLIII). Two rugs were corresponding examples: one undated rug from a Cotton Catalog‘d (Appendix A, Fig. 11) and one

^"Major Regional Styles," p. 27, upper right.

■^Maxwell, Plates 28-30. 13 Gladys Reichard, Navajo Shepherd and Weaver (New York: J. J. Augustin, 1936), Plate XV.

14c. N. Cotton, "Navajo Rug Catalog" (Gallup: circo 1900), p. 6. 81

c. 1930 rug from a private collection (Appendix B, Plate XCVI).

Lengthwise Zigzag with Widthwise Straight Banding

Seven rug studies had this type of border (Appendix B, Plates

XXXVI, XLV, XLVI, XLVII, XLVIII, LXVII, LXVIII). Three rugs were identified as corresponding examples: one rug purchased at the

Hubbell Trading Post (Appendix B, Plate LXXVIII); one 1974 rug from the photographic collection of Ted Hill (Appendix B, Plate CVIII); and one c. 1970 rug from a private collection (Appendix B, Plate C).

Summary of Borders

Eighteen rug examples were identified in which the border categories corresponded with five categories of borders used in 18 rug studies. The Navaho rugs which were examined were from the 20th century.

FORMAT

The format of the rugs and rug studies was defined as the overall appearance of the design, that is, the division of space and placement of design within the rug. Formats of the rug studies which were identified were sought in Navaho rugs. The format cate­ gories as shown in Figure 1 were: a) five primary crosses, one centered and one in each corner, with border; b) a row of primary diamonds placed widthwise, with zigzag border; c) primary diamond and two half diamond motifs, with border; d) single diamond primary motif, with 82

g

FIGURE 1

RUG FORMATS 83

border; e) central primary diamond with secondary motifs in each

corner; f) two primary motifs with chevrons between with border;

g) two primary motifs, secondaries in four corners and between pri­

maries, with border. The corresponding examples in each case were

only representative examples.

Five Primary Crosses, One Centered, One Each Corner, with Border (Fig. la)

One rug study (Appendix B, Plate LI) was representative of

this format. One 1950 pictorial rug shown in New Mexico Magazine^

(Appendix A, Fig. 7 ) was identified as an example of a corresponding

format.

A Row of Widthwise Primary Diamonds with Zigzag Border (Fig. lb)

One rug study was representative of the format (Appendix B,

Plate XXXIX). One undated rug pictured in Reichard^-^ (Appendix B,

Plate XXXIX) and another undated rug from a private collection

(Appendix B, Plate XLVI) represented the corresponding examples.

One Whole and Two Half Primary Motifs with Border (Fig. lc)

One rug study was representative of the format (Appendix B, ‘ s . Plate XXXVI). Five rugs were corresponding examples: one undated

15Nohl, p. 23 (lower left).

^Reichard, Plate XV. 84

rug pictured in Lorenzo Hubbell Jr.'s rug catalog^ (Appendix A, 1 ft Fig. 17); one undated rug pictured in C. N. Cotton's early catalogxo

(Appendix A, Fig. 18); one c. 1910 rug from a private collection

(Appendix B, Plate LXXXI); two undated rugs from the Museum of the

American Indian, Heye Foundation (Appendix B, Plates CIX, CX). The

latter two examples had borders in the width direction only.

Single Diamond Primary Motif with Border (Fig. Id)

One rug study was representative of the format (Appendix

B, Plate XXVIII). One undated rug pictured in the later C. N.

Cotton rug catalog‘d (Appendix A, Fig. 11) presented an example of

a corresponding format.

Central Primary Diamond with Secondaries in Each Corner (Fig. le)

One rug study was in this format (Appendix B, Plate XXIX).

Seven rugs were corresponding rug examples: one 1957 rug pictured 20 in Maxwell (Appendix A, Fig. 15); one undated rug pictured in

"^Lorenzo Hubbell, Jr., "The Story of the Navajo Rug" (Chicago: Hollister Bros., 1933), Fancy Grade Rug. 18 C. N. Cotton, "Navajo Rug Catalog" (Gallup: circa 1900), p. 10.

■^C. N. Cotton, "Navajo Rug Catalog" (Gallup: 1925), p. 5.

^Maxwell, Plates 28-30, Fig. 29. 21 New Mexico Magazine (Appendix A, Fig. 16); two 1976 rugs purchased at the Hubbell Trading Post (Appendix B, Plates LXXVIII, LXXX); one undated rug from the Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation

(Appendix B, Plate CXIII); and two modern Two Grey Hills rugs from private collections (Appendix B, Plates XCIX, Cl). Although the central diamond in the rug study was small in comparison to those of the corresponding rug examples, the researcher looked at the area of the background which created a larger elongated central diamond.

Two Primary Motifs with Chevrons Between with Borders (Fig. If)

One rug study was representative of the format (Appendix B,

Plate XLIV). One c. 1905 rug from the Smithsonian collection pre­ sented an example of a corresponding format (Appendix B, Plate XCVII).

Two Primary Motifs with Secondary Motifs in Four Corners and Between Primary Motifs with Border (Fig. lg)

Six rug studies were representative of the format (Appendix

B, Plates XXXI, XXXIII, XXXIV, XXXV, LXIX, LXX). Seven rugs were corresponding rug examples: two undated rugs from the Museum of the

American Indian (Appendix B, Plates CXIV, CXV); two modern rugs from the photographic collection of photographer Robert Nugent (Appendix

B, Plates CII, CVII); one modern rug from the photographic collection

^"Major Regional Styles," p. 27, upper right. 86 of Arizona Photographic Associates (Appendix B, Plate CIV); one modern rug from the photographic collection of photographer Ray

Manley (Appendix B, Plate CVI); and finally one c. 1970 rug from a private collection (Appendix B, Plate C).

Summary of Formats

Twenty-four rug examples were identified in which the format corresponded with 12 rug studies representing seven formats. In three formats one rug corresponded to one rug study, while in four formats the following comparisons were found: one format (Fig. lb) was used to compare one rug study to two corresponding rugs, one format (Fig. lc) was used to compare one rug study to five corres­ ponding rugs, one format (Fig. le) was used to compare one rug study to seven corresponding rugs, and one format (Fig. lg) was used to compare six rug studies to seven corresponding rugs. The extent of influence of the rug studies on the sample of corres­ ponding rugs may not reflect the actual influence because of the unsampled wide dispersement of Navaho rugs in both public and private collections.

THE EXCEPTIONAL COPIED RUG STUDY

The researcher stated in the introductory remarks to this chapter that the Navaho weaver was not inclined to make exact copies, even of her own work. Even when she was commissioned and paid to 87

reproduce a design, the rug she wove may be very close to the

original design but it was usually not an exact duplication. How­

ever, examples of direct copies were discovered by the researcher.

During the research trip in June 1976, the researcher had to borrow

two rug studies from the weaving room at the Hubbell Trading Post

to be photographed. Both rug studies (Appendix B, Plates XXIII,

XL) were being copied on commission, but as the anthropologist for

the National Park Service remarked, close examination revealed

slight differences in the rugs from the rug studies. The only exact

copies of rugs or rug studies known by this researcher were the

replacements made for the floor rugs in the Hubbell House so that

the originals might be stored for research and be protected from

further wear.

One additional rug pictured in a 1904 Vroman photograph

(Los Angeles County Museum, V-738) was either a copy of or a model

for one rug study (Appendix B, Plate LXII). Since J. L. Hubbell

furnished most of the models for the rug studies and since the rug

had been made prior to 1904, the rug was probably the model for

the rug study rather than the reverse. FINDINGS RELATED TO NAVAHO RUGS

WHICH CORRESPOND TO THE RUG

STUDIES, OBJECTIVE TWO

The objective was to determine the extent of relationship between Navaho rugs and the rug studies. The following summation includes the principal findings for the second research objective.

1. In the area of color combinations, 16 corresponding rug examples were identified from 24 rug studies. The color com­ binations were: red, grey, black, white with either a red, grey or white ground; red, grey, black, white with a grey ground; and red, black, white with a red ground.

2. In the area of design motif, 40 corresponding rug examples were identified from 19 rug studies. The design motifs used In the corresponding rug examples and the rug studies were: one whole and two half diamonds; whole diamonds in a row; terraced diamonds; concentric terraced diamonds; concentric serrated diamonds; diamonds in quarters; double diamonds flanked by zigzag: concentric zigzag; interlaced motifs; interlaced terraced lines; stripes with diagonal lines in stripes; "T" formed outlines; and stacked triangles

3. In the area of borders, 18 corresponding rug examples were identified from 21 rug studies. The borders used on the corres­ ponding rug examples and the rug studies were: single, plain, straight band; double, plain, straight bands; all around plain zigzag 89

all around terraced zigzag; and lengthwise zigzag with widthwise straight banding.

4. In the area of format, 24 corresponding rug examples were identified from 12 rug studies. The formats used in the corresponding rug examples and the rug studies were: five primary crosses, one centered and one each corner with border; a row of widthwise primary diamonds with zigzag border; primary whole and two half motifs with border; single diamond primary motif with border; central diamond primary motif with border; central primary diamond with secondaries in each corner; two primary motifs with chevrons between with border; two primary motifs, secondaries in four corners and between primaries, with border.

5. Two Navaho rugs and two rug studies were nearly identical in color combination, motif, border and format. Such replication of the total design is the exception rather than the usual procedure for the Navaho weaver.

6. Two rug studies (Appendix B, Plates XXXIII, XXXVI) were 22 referred to in all four areas of analysis, while seven rug studies

(Appendix B, Plates XXX, XXXI, XXXIV, XXXIX, XLII, XLIV, LI) were referred to in three of the four areas of analysis; 11 rug studies

(Appendix B, Plates II, III, XXVIII, XXXII, XLV, XLVI, XLVII,

'The four areas of analysis were color, design motif, border and format. 90

XLVIII, LIII, LXV, LXXX) were referred to in two of the four areas of analysis; and 19 rug studies (Appendix B, Plates I, XXIV, XXVII,

XXIX, XXXV, XXXVII, XXXVIII, XLI, XLIII, XLIX, LV, LIX, LX, LXI,

LXIV, LXVII, LXVIII, LXX, LXXI) were referred to in one of the four areas of analysis. Chapter V

HUBBELL'S CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING RUGS

The entire collection of Hubbell papers was on permanent loan

from the National Park Service to the University of Arizona Library,

at Tucson, Arizona. Although the University has had an archivist work­

ing full time on organizing the collection, completion is still in the

future. However, the correspondence was sorted and in useable order.

The researcher was allowed to make an extensive search of

the correspondence for information related to the Navaho rugs and

rug studies. Prior to the present study, the total collection of

correspondence had not been available to researchers. Thus, the in­

formation gained from the overall study of the correspondence in

regard to the rugs and rug business has not previously been analyzed

and presented. The researcher was granted special permission to

search the papers by the Hubbell family and the University because

of the impersonal nature of her study. The limitation placed on the

researcher was that passages from the letters were not to be quoted.

However, the researcher used the descriptive phrases of the writers

in reporting her findings, such as the value terms of "good," "bad,"

"nice." The collection includes the correspondence of all Hubbell

family members and employees. Both personal and business outgoing mail was duplicated and saved by Hubbell, he also saved incoming mail.

91 92

Missing letters were those from the early 1890's. Letters during that period of time had been stored in the generator room at the

Post and were destroyed by rain; other letters were actually thrown out.

The researcher collected both direct evidence and indirect evidence'*' from the correspondence in regard to Hubbell's influence on

the Navaho rug; however, only the direct evidence was recorded and presented in the present study. The direct evidence included informa­ tion related to rug color, rug designs, fibers in rugs, construction of rugs, uses of rugs, and the rug business.

RUG COLORS

Color was one of the most frequently discussed items relative to Navaho rugs in the Hubbell correspondence. Customers were free to comment on color and even asked for color combinations which were not used by Indian weavers, such as blue and green. Hubbell recog­ nized that some of the color combinations were not used by Indian weavers and was very concerned with the authenticity of color combina­ tions and the quality of colors in the rug.

Information regarding color was organized by the researcher according to chronological order, and within each time period the color combinations were identified according to a) number of colors, b) combinations of red, black, grey, and white, c) other color combi­ nations, d) ground color only, and e) general color comments.

Indirect evidence included possible influencing factors such as friends, travels, reading materials. 93

The designation of ground color only was used by the researcher when the correspondent mentioned only the most prevalent color. General color comments were those in which colors were described, such as bright, rather than by name. Finally, the total number of requests from which the color information was taken was noted. In addition, the number of requests for the various combinations was recorded to give a general idea of the distribution of the requests.

Hubbell's and Cotton's Comments on Color

2 Cotton 1886-1888. In the Cotton Letter Books seven colors and eleven color combinations for rugs were mentioned. The seven colors included black, white, red, blue, yellow, green, and grey. The two-color combinations most frequently mentioned were black and white, red and black, blue and white, white and red. The combi­ nations for three colors included red, yellow, and green; yellow, green, and white; and blue, black, and grey. The four color combi­ nations were red, white, blue, and black; and white, black, grey, and red. The only five color combination was red, yellow, white, blue, and black.

Cotton ordered yarns in yellow, red, and green to be sold at the Post.-^ The yarn orders were usually for those colors not other­ wise attainable by the Navahos. Yarn was available to the Navaho

2 Hubbell Papers, Correspondence, University of Arizona Li­ brary, Special Collections (Cotton Letter Books, 1886-1888).

^Hubbell Papers (Cotton Letter Book, #97, June 6, 1885). 94 weaver in the natural colors of sheep wool— grey, white, and black and in blue from indigo dye.

Hubbell’s 1902 Catalog. The only J. L. Hubbell catalog of items at the Trading Fost was printed in 1902. Five colors were indicated as the available colors for rugs: red, grey, black, white, and blue.

There were six color combinations included: a) two-color combination of black and red; b) three-color combination of grey, red, and white; c) four-color combination of blue and black ground with red and white; red ground with blue and black and white; and black and white ground with blue and white and red; and d) a five-color combination of grey and black ground with white and blue and red. Hubbell, by his own admis­ sion, always mentioned ground color first; therefore, two colors and the word "ground" indicated a striped ground of two colors.

Hubbell’s 1909 Correspondence. The only Hubbell correspondence which included color comments about the rugs between 1905 and 1910, was in the year 1909. The timing might be explained by the outdatedness of the 1902 catalog and Hubbell’s political duties. The same five colors

(black, white, grey, red, and blue) that were mentioned in the 1902 catalog were d„iscussed in the letters of 1909. All but one color combination was a form of red, grey, black, and white in contrast to the number of other color combinations in the 1902 catalog. The rugs shown were in eight variations of the red-grey-black-white color com­ bination. The only combination including blue was a black ground with red, white, and blue. Hubbell commented to buyers that the color combination with blue was one of the most artistic blankets he had 4 seen. Grey was first introduced into the old style blanket by J. L.

Hubbell.5

Customers' Comments Regarding Color

Pre-1900. Prior to 1900 the mail order business was in the develop­ mental stage, thus, evidence of specific customer suggestions was

limited. In addition, the correspondence between 1892 and 1897 was

lost.

The only specific color combination request was in 1892 for a

rug in grey, black, red, and white. Two other requests were less

specific; one was for a red blanket with bright colors, and one for a white blanket with designs in colors. In 1899, a Chicago art dealer wrote that the colors used by Indians in their rugs were not popular because they seemed to overpower other objects in a room.

1900-1905. Color statements in the correspondence for this period began in 1902. Statements relating to color included eight colors:

red, grey, black, white, blue, brown, yellow, and green. In two in­

stances the red was designated as Turkey red, a dark red originally

found in Turkish carpets and a very popular color used in Victorian

furnishings. \

4 Hubbell Papers (To Hays, From J. L. Hubbell, March A, 1909).

5Hubbell Papers (To B. H. Whalen, From J. L. Hubbell, April 13, 1909).

^Hubbell Papers (To J. L. Hubbell, From Deakins Art Gallery, April 12, 1899). 96

There were six color combinations which included two or more of the colors black, grey, red, and white. Seven other color combinations which were specified in the correspondence were grey ground with blue and black; blue ground with red and white; red ground with grey and blue; red ground with black and blue; black ground with white, red, and brown; brown ground with red; and red ground with white, yellow, black, and green. There were four ground colors only: red, grey, white and blue.

In many cases the customer relayed a more general color de­ scription than specifying color names; thus, Hubbell had to interpret and select the colors. For instance, a general color description in an order was for a rug in bright, good, and loud colors.

The color analysis of the rug orders from 1900 to 1905 was compiled from 33 orders or request statements. In descending order, the number of requests were as follows: 13 for red, grey, black and white; 10 for other color combinations; 10 for ground colors only; and three for general colors.

1905-1910. Color statements in the correspondence during this period included nine colors: red, grey, black, white, brown, blue, orange, yellow, and green. For these colors there were 14 combinations com­ prised of two or more colors from red, grey, black, and white. There were 13 other color combinations and the ground colors are noted first in every set: grey, brown, and white; blue, white, and red; red, white, black, and blue; grey, brown, and black; black, red, and blue; grey, white, red, blue, and orange; grey, white, brown, and black; black 97

and brown; blue, white, black, and red; and red and green. The ground

colors only were the same as those from 1900 to 1905; grey, blue, white,

and red.

General color comments were expressed by the buyers in both

positive and negative terms. Buyers wanted rugs that were well colored,

contained clean white, and had colors that were nice, bright, old,

subdued, undesignated, and harmonious. Buyers also indicated that red

helped sell rugs and that fine grade blankets never contained bad

colors. Buyers also knew what they did not want. They did not care

for greys which did not sell well; ugly yellows and lavenders; flashy

colors like orange or red; yellow-red; too much white, dyes of red,

yellow, green, or blue; or loud and screaming colors. Thus, a color

such as red could denote both a liked and disliked color, depending on

the buyer's personal taste and the part of the country in which he

lived.

The color analysis of 1905 to 1910 was compiled from 107 re­

quest statements. Requests were as follows: 59 for red, grey, black, white combinations; 23 for general color comments; 18 for other com­ binations; and 17 for ground colors only.

1910-1920. Correspondence during the time period included reference

to eight colors: red, grey, black, white, brown, blue, orange, and

green. There were 19 combinations either wholly or partially of red,

grey, black, and white. The nine other combinations were as follows:

red, white, and blue; red, blue, and green; blue and brown; blue, black, white, and red; brown and grey; brown and red; black, white, 98 blue, and red; grey, black, blue, and red; and grey, white, red, and orange. The ground colors only were red, grey, and brown.

General color comments were expressed in both positive and negative terms. Buyers wanted colors of Hubbell's choice, bright colors, dark red, red, natural wool colors, fancy colors, and native colors. Buyers also knew what they did not want. They did not want grey blankets which were hard to sell because of their cold color; greys, white, and browns which were hard to sell; and no reds which were not native colors.

The color analysis of 1910 to 1920 was compiled from 88 re­ quest statements. In descending order the number of statements are as follows: 52 for red, grey, black, and white combinations; 14 for ground colors only; 13 for general color comments; and nine for other color combinations.

Dyes

The importance of color in rugs was further demonstrated by

J. L. Hubbell's concern about dyes. The following discussion of dyes was taken from the correspondence and is presented in chronological order.

Prior to 1900, information compiled by the researcher con­ cerning dyes was based on orders for various dyes to be sold at the trading post. Orders for indigo dyes were noted as early as 1885.

The remaining pre-1900 dye orders were for Cardinal dye which was an aniline dye mixed with a mordant. Analine dyes were ordered in scarlet, red, dark red, and green. 99

Between 1900 and 1905 Hubbell and a dye chemist, Dr. Karl

Schlatter, corresponded extensively about experiments to improve the

dyes used in Navaho rugs. The process of dyeing at the Post and the

equipment needed for such an operation were discussed as well as dye

fastness. Schlatter, whose company had developed a fast black dye,

promoted his product as well as artificial indigo and cochineal.

Schlatter also informed Hubbell that cheap dyes were brilliant but not

fast. Hubbell's orders were for Schlatter dyed yarns in black, blue,

red, and white.

After 1905, comments in the correspondence regarding dyes

were more sparse than in the preceding years. However, customers were

becoming conscious of dyes and their relative merits. One customer wanted no more red, yellow, or green dyes used in his rugs,^ while g another customer did not want dyes of yellow, green, or blue.

Fred Harvey, one of Hubbell's biggest buyers, wrote in 1905 that he 9 wanted no more aniline dyes but rather preferred native dyes. In 10 1908, Hubbell ordered navy dye from Cotton, while in 1909 he ordered 11 both black dye and black yarn.

^Hubbell Papers (To J. L. Hubbell, From J. H. Sharp, July 27, 1908) .

^Hubbell Papers (To J. L. Hubbell, From M. F. Holland, Sep­ tember 28, 1908). 9 Hubbell Papers (To J. L. Hubbell, from Huckel & Harvey, April 29, 1905).

^Hubbell Papers (To J. L. Hubbell, From C. N. Cotton, March 11, 1908). 11 Hubbell Papers (To C. N. Cotton, From J. L. Hubbell, March 7, 1909). 100

In the period of time following 1910, a few customers were

still asking for native, natural dyes and Hubbell continued to try

to improve the quality of dyeing done by the Indians. Roman Hubbell,

son of J. L. Hubbell, apparently wrote to Cotton asking why the colors

of the dyed wool were so uneven; Cotton replied that the Indians were either not stirring the Cardinal dyes enough or were not including 12 enough water in the dye bath.

Hubbell's concern for the quality of dyes proceeded from the use of Cardinal aniline dyes in pre-1900 to the use of an improved dye by an Eastern dye chemist in the early 20th century. Later,

Hubbell worked with the Navahos to improve the original aniline dye.

The researcher suspects that the high cost of the Eastern dyes was

the reason that the use of the Schlatter dyes was not continued. Cus­

tomer complaints regarding dyes fostered and encouraged the continued

efforts to maintain quality dyes in the rug.

Summary of color

Study of the correspondence between Hubbell and his customers revealed that the predominating colors throughout the period from pre-1900 to 1920 were red, grey, black, and white (Fig. 2). In addi­

tion, blue was suggested by Hubbell and requested by customers except

for the period predating 1900. Green was requested by customers in

each time period except the pre-1900; in contrast, the pre-1900 period was the only time it was mentioned by Hubbell or Cotton. Yellow was

12 Hubbell Papers (To Roman Hubbell, From C. N. Cotton, April 15, 1912). Hubbell Customer

Pre 1900

1900 - 1904

1905 - 1909

1910 - 1920

FIGURE 2

RUG COLORS MENTIONED IN CORRESPONDENCE BY HUBBELL AND BY CUSTOMERS 102

mentioned by Hubbell and Cotton prior to 1900 and by customers from

1900-1909. Customers mentioned brown from 1900-1920, and orange was requested from 1905-1920. Before 1900, the colors were more fre­ quently suggested by Hubbell and Cotton than by the customers; however, in the 20th century the colors suggested by both Hubbell and his customers were probably of equal influence.

The predominant color combinations mentioned in the correspon­ dence were those that included two or more of the following colors: red, grey, black, and white. The number of references in the corres­ pondence to such color combinations increased during the time span of

1890 to 1920. In the period between 1910 and 1920, there were 19 variations of the combination of red, grey, black, and white. The number of color combinations mentioned by customers which included colors other than red, grey, black, and white were most frequent be­ tween 1905 and 1909. In contrast, Hubbell mentioned other color com­ binations more often prior to 1900. The number of ground colors only requested by customers showed some consistency throughout the study as the number varied by only two colors between 1885 and 1920.

As shown in Figure 3, the greatest increase in requests by customers for specific color combinations were those that included two or more colors of red, grey, black, and white. The greatest de­ crease in suggested color combinations for rugs was in Hubbell's other color combinations. Thus, the customers' requests for specific color combinations brought about the businessman's acquiescence to their preferences. 103

20 19

15 14 13

10

8 T

4 1 3 T 2 T 1 i i 7 0 H L_ I _L JJl Pre 1900 1900 -1904 1905 - 1909 1910 -1920

Time Periods

Customeri red, grey, black, white combinations Hubbell: red, grey, black, white combinations

Customer:- other combinations Hubbell: other combinations

Customer: ground colors only Hubbell: ground colors only

FIGURE 3

NUMBER OF VARIATIONS OF COLOR COMBINATIONS FOR RUGS AS RECORDED IN CORRESPONDENCE BY HUBBELL AND CUSTOMERS 104

As indicated in the correspondence, the mail order rug busi­ ness increased from 1885 until it peaked in the 1905 to 1909 period.

Prior to 1900, the total number of color requests was three; 36 between

1900 and 1904; 116 between 1905 and 1909; and 88 between 1910-1920. The decline of requests from 1910 to 1920 may be attributed to the circum­ stances of World War I.

The distribution of customers’ requests for specific color combinations in rugs during the time period of 1890 to 1920 is shown in Figure 4. The requests were as follows: 1) combinations of red, grey, black, and white: one prior to 1900, 13 between 1900 and 1904,

59 between 1905 and 1909, and 52 between 1910 and 1920; 2) other color combinations: zero prior to 1900, 10 between 1900 and 1904, 18 between

1905 and 1909, and 19 between 1910 and 1920; 3) ground colors only: two prior to 1900, 10 between 1900 and 1904, 17 between 1905 and 1909, and 14 between 1910 and 1920; 4) general requests: zero prior to

1900, three between 1900 and 1904, 21 between 1905 and 1909, and 13 between 1910 and 1920.

RUG DESIGNS

Design was discussed frequently in the correspondence; however, the comments were in very general terms by both Hubbell and his cus­ tomers. Although the customer had general ideas about the design for the rugs, much of the design choice was left to Hubbell. A search of the correspondence yielded some pictorial evidence that gave specificity to design requests. 105

120

100

80

60

40

20

0 Pre 1900 1900 - 1904 1905 - 1909 1910 - 1920

Time Periods

•Total Red, grey, black, white combinations Other combinations -Ground colors only General Comments

FIGURE 4 NUMBER OF CUSTOMER REQUESTS FOR COLOR COMBINATIONS IN RUGS 106

Hubbell's and Cotton's comments on design and customer's com­ ments on design are presented separately. The comments by Hubbell and

Cotton are in chronological order while the customer's comments are topically ordered with chronological consideration within each topic.

Hubbell's and Cotton's Comments on Design

Cotton 1886-1889. The only references in the correspondence prior to

1900 were between 1886 and 1889. Most of the rugs were sold by the pound and even the trader seldom talked about the artistic values of the rug. The comments that Cotton made were primarily to an Eastern market which he was trying to build at the time. In 1886 he commented on a multi-colored saddle blanket with white figures, and in 1887, he referred to stripes which appeared to be the most common design motif among his rugs. Also in 1887, he specified that large rugs had designs that were very unique ahd pretty. In 1889, he referred to dia­ mond patterns in rug designs. Since information from part of the

1890's has been lost, the researcher Is forced to leave a blank between the generalities of the 1880's and the specifics of the 1902 catalog.

Hubbell's 1902 catalog. J. L. Hubbell's only catalog became the major source of design information available to customers in the early 20th century. The catalog was written and designed by H. G. Maratta, one of the rug study artists and a Chicago printer. The Navaho rugs were described as possessing the strength of design equal to Persian and

Indian rugs. In this same section of the catalog, Hubbell was reported to have taken great pains to perpetuate old patterns in his rugs. 107

The remainder of the design information in the catalog was in the form of rug photographs. The designs pictured were the chief's blanket, the old style blue and black stripe, the common coarse native blanket, the squaw shawl and dress. The design of the chief's blanket was composed of two sections of wide lengthwise black and white stripes with outer and inner sections of darker stripes, a central diamond, corner quarter diamonds and half diamonds located in the center of each of the four sides (Appendix B, Plate XVII). The old style blue and black stripe was similar to the chief's blanket except the ground stripes were consistently narrow, the colors of navy and black were used, and diamonds were terraced (Appendix B, Plate XXVI). The common coarse native blanket had three end stripes widthwise and three large serrated zigzags lengthwise from striped end to striped end. The dresses had wide bright widthwise borders at the top and bottom and a large plain dark central panel. The motifs in the top and bottom sections were crosses and zigzag (Appendix B, Plate XI). True to his word, Hubbell had promoted exclusively old style designs in his catalog.

Hubbell's 1909 correspondence. By 1909 Hubbell found it necessary to write letters describing the rug design for his catalog no longer de- . scribed available designs. Hubbell's comments included both general k. and specific statements.

Hubbell's general statements regarding design were initiated when a correspondent asked him which Indians had the most beautiful designs and he answered that the "Moki" (Hopi) Indians had the most artistic designs as could be seen on their pottery. Although Hubbell 108 held back beautiful rugs at this time to show his weavers, he always told buyers that it was almost impossible to ge a weaver to totally duplicate a rug. The relationship between design and price was impor­ tant because Hubbell could pay the Indian a higher price for a beauti­ fully designed rug and sell it for a higher price. Also, Hubbell said that rugs with border designs sold better than rugs without borders.

He also admitted that rug designs were hard to describe verbally.

Hubbell's more specific statements about design included comments on both color and design. He said that he had rugs with nice borders and grey grounds with white figures; rugs with white grounds and black and grey figures; rugs with grey grounds and red, black, and white figures; and rugs with grey grounds and neat figures in black and white with nice borders. Hubbell never specified design motifs but rather saw them as figures integrated with color. On the other hand, sometimes customers were more specific than Hubbell in regard to design.

Customers1 Comments on Design

Customers' comments were categorized as to general descriptions and specific descriptions in the section that follows. Chronological order was observed in reporting within subtopics.

General descriptions. As specified in the correspondence, between 1900 and 1905 customers wanted fancy patterns, good design, a desired design, and black and white figures. By 1905 customers were expressing their likes as well as dislikes. Between 1905 and 1910 buyers wanted attractive 109

patterns; lots of red patterns; nice figures; good patterns; patterned

and bordered rugs; good design as well as good selling design; odd, as

opposed to conventional design; attractively figured rugs; characteris­

tic Indian designs; neat, nice, desirable figures; and pretty patterns.

Buyers did not want old designs or rugs with medallion centers. Be­

tween 1910 and 1920 buyers wanted prettier patterns, nice patterns with borders, good patterns because they were well stocked on ugly ones,

simple patterns, handsome designs, and rugs with pretty borders and

centers. One buyer also wrote in 1913 that he had heard that Hubbell had the best designs on the market.

Specific verbal descriptions. Customers frequently indicated that they wanted specific designs in the rugs. The descriptive terms varied in specificity. Specific descriptions included striped designs, saddle blanket designs, crosses, swastikas, zigzags, borders, and diamonds.

Under each specific design chronological order was maintained.

Prior to 1900, the requests for striped designs were for the old patterns and ,rbiil” designs. Between 1900 and 1905 the designs requested were Indian patterns, striped rugs, old cheap style with black and white stripes with a red diamond, and many "honalchadi" style rugs. In 1905 there was a request for "biil" design and a com- v ment by the Fred Harvey Company that the shawl designs did not sell 13 well. Between 1906 and 1909 there were again numerous requests for

"honalchadi" designs as well as a similar request in 1914.

13Hubbell Papers (To J. L. Hubbell, From Fred Harvey Co., November 30, 1905). 110

Requests for saddle blanket designs proceeded from general de­ scriptions to more specific descriptions. Saddle blanket buyers in

1905 wanted blankets with figures and with small red swastikas. In

1906, a blanket was requested with no stripes but with designs and figures. In 1910, prettier patterns were desired and in 1916 stripes repeated in groups of threes was requested. Interest in designs other than stripes on saddle blankets was prevalent between 1900 and 1910.

Saddle blankets, whether historic or modern, are most frequently the striped design.

Between 1907 and 1914 there were numerous requests for swas­ tika motifs. In 1905 buyers wanted double saddle blankets with small red swastikas and rugs with a grey and black border with a red swastika in the middle. In 1907 buyers wanted rugs with grey and white borders with a grey swastika in the middle, a rug with a black border and a grey ground with a black outlined red swastika in the middle, and a grey rug with a swastika. However, in 1909, two buyers wrote that they did not want swastika designed rugs. Again, in 1913, a buyer wanted a red, black, and grey rug with a swastika. Finally, in 1914 came the last requests for swastika designs. In the correspondence the swastika was most often requested as the primary central motif, colors commonly mentioned were red, grey, black, and white. The four rug studies utilizing the swastika as primary motif reflected these considerations

(Appendix B, Plates I, II, III, LXXI).

Other specific designs included the cross, zigzag, border, and diamond. In 1905 buyers asked for a small Germantown rug with black in crosses and a red ground with white and black zigzag and black crosses.

In 1902,one buyer asked for a rug with red ground with a lightning design while another requested that he be sent no more rugs with zig­ zag design. In 1904, a customer asked for rugs with red borders. In

1904, a customer requested a Germantown rug with star motifs. In 1911, another customer requested a rug in diamond design in red.

Specific visual descriptions. Sketches with the correspondence were not always preserved, especially when they were on a separate sheet of the letter. As has been noted in the analysis of artists of the rug studies, one of the rug studies included the notation "please return this draught" and may have been a sketch included in a letter (Appendix

B, Plate XXVII). Nine sketches were found with the letters: four from

1903, two from 1905, two from 1906, one from 1912, one from 1914, and two undated ones. The sketches are shown in Figure 5 and are described as follows:

1. A 1903 meander border rug had six internal crosses with four in the corner and two in the middle (Fig. 5a). The design was much like that in a rug study (Appendix B, Plate LI).

2. A 1903 elongated rug was probably the popular hallway rug.

The design was a lengthwise row of crosses with the central cross larger than the two flanking each side (Fig. 5b).

3. A 1903 rug design was formed by two rows of zigzag and a serrated border (Fig. 5c) .

4. A 1903 rug had a central diamond flanked on each side by two half diamonds (Fig. 5d) . The design was much like that in a rug study (Appendix B, Plate XXXVI). 112

T O C1 fh

4

8

FIGURE 5

RUG SKETCHES SENT TO HUBBELL BY BUYERS

■‘■Hubbell Papers (To J. L. Hubbell, From Frohman, September 19, 1903). ^Hubbell Papers (To J. L. Hubbell, From Fred Harvey, November 30, 1903). ^Hubbell Papers (To J. L. Hubbell, From C. M. Dennison, October 7, 1905) ^Hubbell Papers (To J. L. Hubbell, From Dickens, February 11, 1906). ^Hubbell Papers (To J. L. Hubbell, From A. A. A. Walling, May 4, 1906). ^Hubbell Papers (To J. L. Hubbell, From A. B. Dickie, February 13, 1912) ^Hubbell Papers (To Parker, From E. H. Gregory, February 5, 1914). 8Hubbell Papers (To Mr. Hubbell, From J. Gibbon, No date). 113

5. Two 1905 rug designs were formed by two primary crosses with corner motifs, of either crosses, or swastikas (Fig. 5e).

6. A 1906 rug design with a central diamond and four corner quarter diamonds (Fig. 5f) was much like a rug study (Appendix B,

Plate XXIX).

7. A 1906 double saddle blanket design had fancy stripes

(Fig. 5g).

8. A 1912 rug had interlacing cross and terraced diamond with terraced zigzag border (Fig. 5h). The primary design was like that observed in a rug at the National Museum of Natural History (Appendix

B, Plate XCII).

9. A 1914 rug had an all-over diamond pattern (Fig. 5i).

10. A sketch on an undated letter had two primary diamonds flanked top and bottom with zigzag (Fig. 5j). The design was much like a modern Ganado rug (Appendix B , Plate XCIX).

Summary of Rug Designs

The following statements represent the major findings regarding design:

1. Hubbell's and Cotton's comments on design were made be­ tween 1886 and 1889, in the 1902 catalog, and in 1909 correspondence.

2. All designs in the 1902 catalog were «old style unbordered designs.

3. Hubbell's 1909 design statements reaffirmed verbally his appreciation of Hopi design. 114

4. Hubbell’s 1909 letters reaffirmed the fact that he col­

lected and kept good designs to show his weavers.

5. Hubbell’s 1909 correspondence included comments in which he admitted that bordered rugs sold better than unbordered ones.

6. Customers were inclined to request rug designs in general terms throughout the entire time period.

7. Customers* specific verbal design requests during the en­ tire study period were more definitive when asking for old style de­ signs.

8. The most specific visual design evidence was the 1902 catalog and the sketches in the correspondence.

9. Three of the nine sketches included in the correspondence

(Fig. 5a, d, e) were similar to rug studies (Appendix B., Plates LI,

XXXVI, XXIX).

FIBERS USED IN RUGS

The fibers referred to in the Hubbell correspondence included three major natural fibers: cotton, wool, and silk. The reference to silk in the correspondence as a possible warp fiber was of great interest for it had not been mentioned as a fiber used in the Navaho rug in either primary or secondary sources, in museum catalogs, or by museum curators.

Fiber information which was obtained from writings by Hubbell and Cotton was organized chronologically into three major subdivisions: pre-1900, 1902 catalog, and 1909 correspondence. Individuals providing 115

information were referred to as correspondents on fibers because both

the buyers of Navaho rugs and the sellers of fibers had comments. The

correspondents’ section was subdivided topically into native wool, com­

mercial wool, cotton, and silk. Information included in each sub­

division was considered chronologically.

Hubbell's and Cotton’s Comments on Fibers

Prior to 1900 all of the fiber statements were written by

Clinton Cotton in 1886 and 1887. At one time Cotton borrowed money

from his father to buy sheep and land for he believed that all of the

rich men in the area were in the sheep business. In reference to the

rug, Cotton said that the Indians made common coarse wool rugs from heavy wool from their own sheep. He further stated that each rug weighed five to seven pounds and would outlast any other American-made

rug.

After 1900, statements about fibers were written by Hubbell

in either his 1902 catalog or in the 1909 correspondence. In the 1902

catalog Hubbell's only comment in reference to fiber was of rugs being made of native wool. In 1909, Hubbell's comments about fibers con­

cerned Bayeta, Germantown yarn, goat hair, and cotton fibers. In 14 regard to Bayeta, Hubbell said that only a few weavers were making

Bayeta rugs when they could get the materials. ' Germantown y a m , which

Bayeta was a type of red wool fabric imported by the Spanish from Manchester, England into Mexico and sold by the Mexican to the Navaho. The Navaho ravelled the cloth for the red yarn and then un­ twisted the y a m and respun it. It was a method to obtain red y a m for a rug. 116 was a purchased three- or four-ply commercial yam, was misused because

the weaver used too many colors together. In addition, the weavers had a tendency to use cotton warp when the Germantown yarn was used.

Hubbell answered a correspondent in 1909 that there was no such thing

as a goat hair rug. Since Reichard^ wrote extensively about the

goat hair rug in the Ganado area, the researcher concluded that both

the goat herds and use of mohair in rugs developed between 1909 and

1936.

Correspondents1 Comments on Fibers

Native wool. The requests for natural or native wool spanned the time between 1902 and 1920. In 1902 and in 1905 Fred Harvey requested that

the rugs sent to him were to be of native wool. Also, in the early

days when native wool was requested, correspondents asked for hard

twist y a m and no Germantowns. Native wool warp was also requested five

times between 1909 and 1919. Thirty requests for native wool were re­

corded.

Commercial wool. Dr. Karl Schlatter, an Eastern dye chemist, tried to perfect colors for Hubbell's rugs and furnished commercial y a m as a base. Schlatter and Hubbell discussed the pros and cons of Nevada and

Chinese wool, and the weight loss in wool during .scouring and dyeing.

Schlatter also sold Hubbell 900 pounds of commercially prepared wool yarn, three- and four-ply Germantown yarns, and three-ply woolen warp.

^Gladys Reichard, Nava.jo Shepherd and Weaver (New York: J. J. Augustin, 1936), p. 150. 117

The advantages and disadvantages of Germantown yarns were re­ flected in the requests for such rugs. The advantages were the even­ ness and fineness of yarn and the fastness of color. The disadvantages were poor multiple color combinations and' the use of cotton warp with them. Five customers between 1892 and 1909 indicated that they did not want any Germantown yarns included in their rug order. Nine customers between 1903 and 1920 indicated a desire to have Germantown yarns in­ cluded in their orders. One buyer indicated that although most customers preferred native wool, he received orders for Germantowns on special occasions.

The Bayeta rug had also become a special occasion rug. In 16 1903, James ordered a Bayeta. An anthropologist named Culin from the Museum of the Brooklyn Institute of Arts and Sciences ordered two strips of Bayeta weaving for a Zuni Shield he was preparing in 1903."^

Cotton. Cotton fiber warp yarn was used by the Indians when they began using commercial wool as weft in the latter part of the 19th century. Commercial cotton yarn was used by the Navaho because it was cheaper, less time consuming to warp, and because it did not have to be spun. Cotton was disliked by the customer because the rug did not wear as well as wool; also, the wool weft did not adhere to the cotton warp yarn as it had to the wool wapp because cotton lacked the scale covering of the wool fiber. In addition, the cotton rug was lighter

"^George W. James, Indian Blankets and Their Makers (Chicago: A. 0. McClurg, 1914).

■^Hubbell Papers (To J. L. Hubbell, From Culin, July 7, 1903). 118 weight than the all wool rug. In an effort to improve the cotton fiber

Schlatter suggested the use of mercerized cotton, either Sea Island 18 or Egyptian. Some customers confused hard twist merino wool warp with cotton. Many cotton warp rugs were returned to the trading post between 1902 and 1914. One buyer commented that most of the rugs sold in Los Angeles were cotton warp rugs; however, he requested native wool.

Silk. The use of silk fiber in Navaho rugs has not been mentioned in the literature. Apparently Schlatter discussed with Hubbell the pos­ sibility of the use of silk as warp in 1903. Schlatter had perfected the use of silk noils in silk yarn and could sell it to Hubbell for 20 the same price as wool. For the rug warp, Schlatter suggested either 21 the use of three-ply silk or mercerized cotton. Whether Hubbell actually used silk in his rugs remains an unanswered question, but the possibility was discussed.

Summary of Fibers

A summary is presented of the major findings about fibers used in the rugs as was determined from the correspondence.

18 Hubbell Papers (To J. L. Hubbell, From Dr. Karl Schlatter, April 3, 1903). lq Hubbell Papers (To J. L. Hubbell, From E. F. Scattergood, November 10, 1909). 20 Hubbell Papers (To J. L. Hubbell, From Dr. Karl Schlatter, April 13, 1903).

^Hubbell Papers (To J. L. Hubbell, From Dr. Karl Schlatter, May 1, 1903). 119

1. Bothpre-1900 and post-1900 rugs were made of native wool and commercial wool yarns and cotton yarn.

2. Goat hair was not used in Ganado rugs before 1909.

3. Native wool seemed to be preferred by customers in the early

20th century.

4. Commercial wool in the form of Germantown and Bayeta was re­ quested in special instances by customers in the early 20th century.

5. Use of cotton for the warp y a m was a controversial choice in the early 20th century.

6. Customers returned some cotton warp rugs.

7. Hubbell tried to improve cotton warp so that it would be acceptable because it was easier for the weaver to use than wool, especially native wool.

8. The use of silk as a warp yarn fiber was discussed by Dr.

Karl Schlatter and J. L. Hubbell.

CONSTRUCTION OF THE RUGS

The construction of the rug was the primary responsibility of the Navaho weaver. The customer and the trader were able .to control the price they paid for various qualities of work, thereby affecting the work being done on the rug.

The section on construction of rugs, based on the analysis of correspondence, is organized into statements by Hubbell and Cotton and customers' comments. Hubbell's and Cotton's statements were more specific and numerous than those of customers. 120 * 1

Hubbell's and Cotton's Comments Regarding Construction

The statements by Cotton in the Cotton Letter Books in the late 19th century referred to the closeness of the weave and how the weaving was done. The closeness of the weave was either referred to as common coarse construction or fine woven. At one time Cotton de­ scribed to a customer how a squaw worked many months to weave a rug because she worked one yarn at a time. He also explained to another 22 customer that washing and carding a rug would improve the appear­ ance 100 percent.

In the 1902 catalog Hubbell described his concerns regarding the construction of the rugs produced at the Hubbell Trading Post.

He explained that the buyer could receive genuine reproductions of old weaves from him. He further described how he unravelled old rugs to show i.j.s weavers how the old patterns were made. One of the cri­ teria on which the price of the rug was based was the fineness of weave.

In his 1909 correspondence Hubbell further extolled the quality of his own rugs, which he said were the finest grade on the market, and defended some of the construction methods used by the weavers. One customer must have complained about several perceivable horizontal con­ struction lines on a rug. Hubbell explained that sometimes on a long rug the finished weaving was turned down thereby giving the appearance of a seam, but when such a rug was laid on the floor those seams

22 Although Cotton used the word "rug'1 here, the researcher interprets the statement to mean fibers for only fibers are carded in preparation for spinning. 121 disappeared visually. He also defended blemishes as a selling point on a handcrafted item as opposed to the mechanistic look of a machine made product. He further assured Schweizer of the Fred Harvey Company, that the finest choice weaves he received were set aside for his 23 order. The Fred Harvey Company was one of the biggest buyers and sellers of the Hubbell Navaho rug.

Customers' Comments on Construction

Customer comments on construction are subdivided into those concerned with the handling of yarn prior to weaving and those con­ cerned with the weaving process.

Cleanliness of yarn was a major concern of the customer between

1902 and 1910. They wanted rugs clean and free from grease. In 1910, the Bureau of Indian Affairs was contemplating the establishment of scouring and dyeing plants at convenient locations on the reserva- 24 tion. In 1910, after the establishment of his wholesale business in Gallup, Cotton sent a rug carding frame to the trading post with the suggestion that Hubbell put it to use immediately before the

Indians began to hang their saddles on it, as they had done with the last one he sent. 25

Many of the customers' comments relating to weave were also

reflected in the ultimate use of the product. Rugs to be used as

23 Hubbell Papers (To Schweizer, From J. L. Hubbell, February 23, 1909). 24 Hubbell Papers (To J. L. Hubbell, From W. R. Griffiths, August 2, 1910). 25 Hubbell Papers (To F. M. Parker, From C. N. Cotton, October 8, 1910). 122

26 portieres or curtains were requested to be woven closely enough so that light did not come through. Couch covers required a soft and flexible weave while blankets were described as flexible yet heavier than couch covers. Saddle blankets were requested in single and double weave and in a lighter and less coarse weave than they had previously been produced. Rugs were ordered in hard woven or close weave and to be thick, smooth, and straight pieces.

Buyers' general comments usually related to low price for ..he best weave. Complaints by buyers related to rugs that arrived and were irregular in shape.

Summary of Correspondence Regarding Rug Construction

A summary of the findings from the correspondence, which re­ lated to the rug construction, is presented.

1. Prior to 1900, the traders differentiated between coarsely woven and finely woven rugs.

2. In the 1902 Hubbell catalog, the primary construction em­ phasis was on fine old weaves.

3. In 1909, J. L. Hubbell revealed that he kept back the technically finest rugs for the Fred Harvey Company.

A. Customers wanted weaves that were compatible with the final end use of the rug.

5. Customers wanted clean, grease free wool in their rugs.

26 Curtains hung in interior doorways in Victorian style decora­ ting. 123

USES OF RUGS

The use of the Navaho rug as discussed in the correspondence,

ranged from the most obvious use as rug or blanket to that of table

runners and portieres. The uses explored here are those suggested by Hubbell and Cotton in correspondence, recorded in the 1902 catalog, spoken gjout by customers in letters, and viewed by the researcher in the restored Hubbell house.

Use information provided by the traders was organized chrono­ logically ending with uses of rugs in the Hubbell house. Information provided by customers was organized topically proceeding from wearing the rug to using it as a floor rug.

Hubbell*s and Cotton’s Comments on Uses of the Rugs

Information in the Cotton Letter Books prior to 1900 recom­ mended that the Navaho rug be used as a floor rug, saddle blanket, curtain, lap robe, camp blanket, and as a portiere. In reference to

floor rugs, Cotton noted that he had rugs as large as six feet by nine feet. In referring to the use of the rug as a blanket, Cotton stated

that it was not as big as the American bed blanket but would last four

times as long. He recommended the rugs be used as blankets by miners and cat tlemen.

In the 1902 catalog, the recommendation was made that the pro­

duct of the Navaho weavers could be used as a rug, blanket, or as por­

tieres. Parlor and dining room rugs were available insizes ranging

from 8 x 9 feet to 12 x 12 feet. 124

The Hubbell house, which has been authentically restored by the National Park Service, utilizes Navaho weaving for floor rugs, . couch and chair covers, table covers, trunk covers, and bed covers.

In 1909, Hubbell remarked that rugs of an appropriate size with white ground and black figures were selected for use in bathrooms.

Customers- Comments on Use of the Rugs

Although the very early use of the Navaho rug had been as wear­ ing apparel, orders for such use were scarce during the research period.

In 1907 a white man ordered a blanket to wear for a special club ini­ tiation and in 1916 a northern Indian chief ordered one to wear at ceremonies.

The Navaho rug had been used by the Indian as a bed blanket.

The use of the rug as a bed blanket was imitated by whites, Mexicans, and other Indians of the Southwest. Easterners were more inclined to use it as a bedspread rather than a blanket, or as a decorative cot cover.

Portieres were made from Navaho rugs since they were in fashion and the rug offered doorway privacy. The Fred Harvey Company encour­ aged the sale of Navaho rugs as portieres.

Saddle blankets were sold as a utilitarian item. The beauty of the saddle blanket encouraged some buyers to use the double blanket as a rug.

Other uses of Navaho rugs by customers were as couch covers, pil­ low tops, table runners, and auto robes. Couch and chair covers were 125 requested between 1906 and 1912; pillow tops were requested between

1908 and 1915, and table runners were requested between 1911 and 1915.

With the advent of the automobile the Trading Post received its first 27 request for an auto robe in 1911.

The primary request was for the Navaho rug as evidenced by the orders in the correspondence from 1903 until 1920. Although the

Navaho rugs were used in every room, the majority of requests were for hall, porch, bathroom, and dining room.

Summary of Uses of the Rug

A summary of the major uses of the Navaho rugs as presented in the correspondence is as follows:

1. The traders recommended the use of the Navaho rug for floor rug, curtains, saddle blanket, camp blanket, and portieres.

2. The customers requested the Navaho rug for use as bed covers, curtains, and portieres, saddle blankets, couch covers, pil­ low tops, table runners, auto robes, and floor rugs; a few requests were received for a rug which was to be worn.

3. Neither traders nor customers spoke of the rug as a wall hanging.

THE RUG BUSINESS %

The rug business experienced the rise and fall of sales, com­ plaints and compliments from customers, and advertising expenditures

^Hubbell Papers (To Lorenzo Hubbell, From R. L. Hogue, November 26, 1911). 126 as did other businesses. The following section includes information from the correspondence which is relevant to the rug business, Hubbell's and Cotton's comments on the business, customers' comments on the busi­ ness, and advertising. Advertising was included for it was an im­ portant factor in increasing the Hubbell rug business according to the written documentary evidence available for the present study.

Hubbell's and Cotton's Comments on the Rug Business

In previous sections of the present chapter, reference to

Cotton was 1) as a trader at the Hubbell post prior to 1900, and

2) as one of Hubbell's many customers after 1900. However, in pre­ senting the findings concerning the rug business, Cotton's comments are placed with Hubbell's comments on the business for both periods, pre- and post-1900. The assumption was made that the relationship between Hubbell and Cotton was very close in a business sense even after Cotton went to Gallup and established his own wholesale busi­ ness in Indian goods. This assumption could not be substantiated with legal business documents; the assumption was determined from reading the extensive correspondence in the Hubbell collection from which was gained the feeling of respect between the two men. Since

Cotton's wholesale house was located next to the Santa Fe Railroad in

Gallup, New Mexico, it appeared in many instances that Cotton received goods that would eventually go to Hubbell. At times customers ques­ tioned Hubbell as to whether they were dealing with him or with Cotton because they were instructed to mail packages to and from Cotton. 127

Cotton's comments relating to the rug business spanned the years from 1907 to 1920. His rug sales appeared to have reached a peak in 1907 and the business began declining after 1914. Cotton boasted in 1914 that he was the largest handler of Navaho rugs in the country with a stock worth over $50,000. Periodically Cotton com­ plained of the high price he had to pay the trader for rugs and he

Occasionally returned rugs that did not meet his quality or price standards. In 1912, Cotton bought a rug from a Mexican. He sug­ gested that Hubbell's Mexican teamsters were probably stealing his 28 merchandise in transit.

J. L. Hubbell's written comments on the rug business were from

one year, 1909, as had been his other rug statements. He noted that

nothing at the post was paying as well as the Navaho rugs. In writing

to his son, J. L. reminded him that a poor quality rug must be pur­

chased for a lower price so that high standards could be rewarded

and the rug business might remain their best investment. Hubbell's

best rug customer, the Fred Harvey Company, was assured that any sug­

gestion Harvey gave regarding the rug business was given prompt atten­

tion. Hubbell lamented that although he had sold rugs all over the

United States, the Eastern South was his least successful area. The

Southern attitude, as reflected in not purchasing Navaho rugs, was

probably a conservatism in decorating. At that time the use of Navaho

rugs was innovative, ethnic decorating.

28 Hubbell Papers (To J. L. Hubbell, From C. N. Cotton, Septem­ ber 20, 1912). 128

Customers on the Rug Business

Both the growth and limitations of growth of the rug business concerned buyers throughout the entire study period. In 1902, one buyer believed that the increase in number of Easterners coming to New

Mexico should be reflected in an increase in the rug business. An

Eastern dealer in 1903 complained that very few customers in Phila­ delphia understood the value of the Navaho rug. A customer wrote to

Hubbell that a Phoenix company was starting a mail order rug business which might cut into Hubbell's trade. In 1905, a New York dealer was able to interest Marshall Field and Company and Abraham Strauss in purchasing Hubbell's Navaho rugs. That same dealer in 1906 also sold rugs to Preston of Boston. Of course, no dealer affected the wide dis­ tribution of Hubbell Navaho rugs as did the Fred Harvey Company which had concessions in all of the Harvey Hotels along the Santa Fe Railroad line. Hubbell was well aware of the importance of Harvey and was quick to give personal attention to this buyer's orders. Harvey also had various weavers from Ganado transported to his shops for months at a time to demonstrate weaving. One of the Ganado style rugs in the re­ cent local collectors' show in Blacksburg, Virginia was purchased by the donor's grandparents at a Harvey House in El Paso, Texas (Appendix

B, Plate XCVI). Several museums throughout the United States owe much v of their fine Navaho collections to donations from the private Harvey collection.

Shipping rugs from the post seemed a concern of many of the buyers. Apparently when rugs were shipped they were covered with 129 burlap and were dirty when they arrived at their destinations. Between

1903 and 1913 dealers suggested that Hubbell wrap rugs in paper and then cover with burlap. Moths also caused problems in shipping, either in transit to dealers, in shops, or on a return trip to the post.

The price of rugs was also an item of concern. Dealers wanted the best weave, the best yarn, the best pattern, the best color, and the largest size for the lowest price. Dealers often made comparisons of Hubbell rugs to other rugs. Mrs. J. B. Moore said that she and her husband, the trader at the Crystal Trading Post, thought their Navaho 29 rugs were surpassed only by those of Ganado. Dealers enabled their customers to compare Navaho rugs to Turkish and Persian rugs by selling 30 several styles of rugs in their shops. Finally, one buyer commented that Navaho rugs made in New Mexico were not as good as those made in

Anzona.a * 31

Advertising the Rug Business

Aside from personal letters and contacts, Hubbell's most impor­ tant advertising was his 1902 catalog. The catalog was printed in

Chicago by H. G. Maratta, one of the rug study artists. 32 A Maratta letter to Hubbell includes extensive

Hubbell Papers (To J. L. Hubbell, From Marion Moore, August 13, 1908). 30 Hubbell Papers (To J. L. Hubbell, From S. M. Matter, Febru­ ary 21, 1909).

■^Hubbell Papers (To J. L. Hubbell, From E. J. (illegible) , October 18, 1915). 32 Hubbell Papers (To J. L. Hubbe'll, From H. G. Maratta, August 9, 1902). 130 descriptions of his work on the catalog. He photographed the curios

Hubbell sent to him for the catalog and wrote the introduction to the rug section in the catalog. Maratta also stated that he had organized the catalog according to his own ideas. He believed that the catalog was much better than the one produced earlier by Keams for the Kearns

Canyon Post. Maratta said that the common coarse blanket in the Hub- 33 bell catalog had been incorrectly labeled. Maratta mailed the finished 34 catalog to Hubbell on August 30, 1902. The correspondence included the information that Hubbell had advertised his catalog in American

Monthly, the magazine of the Daughters of the American Revolution, Out

West Magazine, and the Globe Theater program in Boston.

Another form of advertising was through the use of letterheads on business stationery; at the turn of the century these letterheads were very decorative and pictorial. Hubbell's letterhead generally included a rug and a weaver at her loom. As well as printing the catalog, Maratta printed much of the Hubbell stationery in Chicago.

In the same city, E. A. Burbank, another rug study artist, took some of the rug studies to a color printer so that they might be 35 reproduced for customers or made into postcards. There was no evi­ dence demonstrating that Burbank's efforts were ever carried out.

33 Hubbell Papers (To J. L. Hubbell, From H. G. Maratta, Sep­ tember 19, 1902). 34 Hubbell Papers (To J. L. Hubbell, From H. G. Maratta, Au­ gust 30, 1902). 35 Hubbell Papers (To J. L. Hubbell, From E. A. Burbank, May 23, 1912). 131

36 James, the author of a book on Navaho blankets, considered the use of dealers' names in his book as advertising. He planned to conclude the book on Navaho rugs with a chapter on "Reliable Dealers."

He wanted to include Hubbell as one of the dealers for a fee of $150 37 a page. James justified the $150 as a form of advertising. Although the published book contained the Hubbell information, the researcher found no written record of Hubbell's payment to James.

Other forms of advertising were expedited by friends. For instance, Burbank and Maratta took rugs from the reservation to Eastern cities to sell. Schlatter, the dye chemist, asked for rugs which his son took to Europe to sell. The venture was unsuccessful because

Europeans could buy Turkish rugs much cheaper.

Hubbell had only one agent in each of the major cities. The agent was able to advertise that he was the exclusive dealer in Hubbell

Navaho rugs. He usually said that the Hubbell rugs were the best in design and quality. Thus, the use of an agent was another way in which

Hubbell's rugs were set apart from others.

Summary of the Rug Business

A summary of the rug business as presented in the correspondence is as follows:

1. Hubbell and Cotton maintained a close business relationship throughout the period which this study included.

36 George W. James, Indian Blankets and Their Makers (Chicago: A. 0. McClurg, 1914), p. 204. 37 Hubbell Papers (To J. L. Hubbell, From G. W. James, March 17, 1913). 132

2. Hubbell believed that of his many business ventures, . the

rug business was his best.

3. The Fred Harvey Company was Hubbell's best and most influ­

ential customer.

4. Hubbell's 1902 catalog was a major source of direct adver­

tising from 1902 to 1909.

5. Friends of Hubbell took rugs on consignment to various parts of the United States and Europe to sell.

FINDINGS RELATED TO THE ANALYSIS OF

CORRESPONDENCE, OBJECTIVE ONE

The first research objective included, in addition to an analysis of the rug studies, an examination of Hubbell papers to pro­ vide written documentary evidence of J. L. Hubbell's influence on the development of the Navaho rug. A summary of the principal findings

follows:

1. Red, grey, black, and white combinations, which included

two or more of the colors, were the most frequently requested combi­ nations by customers and the colors most often suggested by Hubbell.

2. Since design requests from customers tended to be non­

specific, design selections were often made by Hubbell.

3. Throughout the study period Hubbell reinforced his pre­

ference for old style designs but acquiesced to a bordered format for

adaptations of old designs because they sold better.

4. Fibers used in rugs were found to be wool, both native and

commercial, cotton, and possibly silk. Hubbell strove to improve the rugs and eventually eliminated the controversial use of cotton warp. 133

5. Concerning rug construction, Hubbell again emphasized to his weavers the superior quality of the fine old weaves; however, the customer was more concerned with the compatibility of end use and weave.

6. Hubbell recommended the use of the Navaho rug for floor coverings, at windows and doorways, as a bed cover, and for horseback riding. Customers wanted the rugs to wear, as bed covers, at the windows and doorways, for horseback riding, as couch covers, pillow tops, table runners, auto robes, and floor coverings. Neither trader nor customer indicated that they wanted them for wall hangings.

7. The rug business was Hubbell's best business and he main­ tained it by paying weavers for high standards, patronizing good customers, advertising, and establishing a network of influential and helpful business acquaintances. Chapter VI

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The concluding remarks of the researcher in regard to the in­ fluence of J. L. Hubbell on the development of the Navaho rug were or­ ganized in the following manner: Hubbell's relevant experiences, his contribution to the development and promotion of the Navaho rug, reasons why his suggestions worked, and implications for Hubbell's influence on the rug on other parts of the reservation beyond Ganado.

A man's aesthetic sense or taste is made up of his past ex­ periences and Hubbell was no exception. He was the son of a pioneer­ ing Swiss immigrant father and a Spanish mother. He grew up in the area which is now central New Mexico. Secondary sources have said his use of red was related to this background, but the researcher will show further along in this section that other considerations probably contributed to his use of red.

Hubbell left home when he was seventeen, after ending his edu­ cation, and went to Utah where he spent some time with the Indians. He moved on to Arizona and took a job in the trading post at Fort Defiance on the Navaho reservation. From there he went to Ganado, Arizona, where he lived with the Navaho and operated a trading post from 1873 to 1930. Thus, his knowledge of the Navaho spanned many years. His understanding and respect for them was returned and ultimately expressed for he was buried in the Hubbell plot on the reservation beside his very dear friend, Ganado Mucho, a Navaho leader.

134 135

His business success was only one of his many successes for he had also been a successful sheriff and state senator. Hubbell’s tremendous personable quality with people can be understood by read­ ing the Hubbell correspondence. His business success did satisfy many of his personal needs for he had the money which allowed him to live comfortably and entertain lavishly. Business success also allowed him to promote Indian artwork in the form of the Navaho rug and give his friends, the Indians, financial and artistic success.

Hubbell was a man who was motivated by dual needs: the need for business success and the need to promote fine native American artwork. Out of these needs came specific indications of direct in­ fluence on the development of the rug. Customers' suggestions and willingness to buy influenced Hubbell's moves. Both the customer and

Hubbell were displeased with the bleeding effect of aniline dyes.

Hubbell tried to find other dyes and to control the manner in which the Indians used the dyes. Both of these efforts had only limited success. He began to encourage the use of a limited number of dyes which, in most cases, meant only red because black, grey, and white were natural. The red not only pleased Hubbell but also pleased the white customer and, most importantly, the Navaho weaver; and, in com­ bination witTi black, white, and grey it presented a striking and sim­ plistic color combination.

Hubbell always encouraged the use of the old designs, but in the end he compromised aspects of the design that sold success­ fully. Hubbell's encouragement of old designs was successful 136 in terms of motif but he had to compromise his "moki" striped back­ ground for a bordered rug which contained variations of the old motifs.

The border was preferred by the white customer for he utilized the

Navaho blanket as a rug.

Hubbell expressed his ideas and presented some of his sugges­ tions concerning the Navaho rug through his rug studies. The rug studies were hung on the wall of his trading post to be observed by both weavers and buyers. He expressed his ideas verbally through personal contact with weaver and customer. He expressed his sugges­ tions through the written word in correspondence and catalog. He also expressed his ideas through his selections for his customers and finally by the price paid to the weaver.

The Navaho was able to assimilate and moderate Hubbell's sug­ gestions because of the nature of the comments. The researcher will demonstrate the success of Hubbell's suggestions with the weaver through the examples of the use of red and the border for rugs. The red, in combination with grey, black, and white satisfied the aesthetic need of the Navaho for boldness and simplicity. The rug border requires a more complex explanation but it is also related to the aesthetic needs of the Navaho. Generally, the weaver has four or five main motifs with which she works but never totally duplicates in another rug.^

She may borrow parts of the design from others and incorporate these

^Lowell Anderson, "Factors Influencing Design in Navaho Weaving." (unpublished MA. thesis, University of California, Berkeley, 1953), p . 62. 137 into her own repertoire. The border was only a part of a design, thus she could incorporate it into her rug without sacrificing her own aesthetic expression. The researcher believes that the accept­ ance of the border lies even deeper in the Navaho aesthetic.

Prior to 1890 rugs seldom had borders and were seldom used as rugs; the major use was as a blanket. Since a border on a rug serves as a closure or frame, the researcher will demonstrate that

.1 the original use of the blanket facilitated closure without a border or frame. The uses of the early blanket were as a blanket, a door hanging, and as a garment. In these three dimensional uses the striped blanket had closure or framing. When the bed blanket was wrapped around the individual the stripes formed a closure of the design; the shoulder blanket met in front and the stripes closed; and the squaw dress had upper and lower striped borders around the entire body. The door blanket had the natural frame of the doorway as closure. The two dimensional use of the blanket as a rug had no closure; therefore, a border was not only desired by white customers but needed by the

Navaho for visual closure.

The only problem the bordered rug had for the Navaho aesthetic was complete closure; that is, it did not provide an opening. All of the old blankets had closures that could be opened as the door blanket, the shoulder blanket separating in front, the squaw dress with side slit and neck opening, and the bed blanket which opened down the cen­ ter. The weaver solved the problems of complete closure of the bor­ dered rug by running a contrasting thread through the border to the edge 138

of the rug. This yarn provided a visual opening and was known as the

spirit pathway. Therefore, the Navaho's ability to assimilate both

the be-rder and the red, grey, black, and white color combination was

related to the Navaho aesthetic and the ability to accept portions of

design within the framework of the rug.

The influence of Hubbell's suggestions was and is obvious at

Ganado. However, it was his ability to merchandise the product that brought his Navaho rug to the white man as the Navaho rug and also affected rugs on other parts of the reservation. It is this further influence on the Navaho rug to which the researcher would like to ad­ dress her final and most important remarks.

J. B. Moore, the trader at the Crystal, New Mexico Trading

Post from 1898 to 1912, has been credited with the influence of today's 2 Two Grey Hills Navaho rugs. The researcher would like to demonstrate

that the most commonly used formats in today's Navaho rugs have come directly from Ganado and resulted from J. L. Hubbell's influence.

Moore's designs may be seen in his 1911 catalog and in portions repro­ duced in the January/February, 1976 issue of New Mexico Magazine and it is evident that they do correspond directly to Oriental rugs, as pointed

out by Katina Simmons. The similarity of the Oriental rug to todayfe

Two Grey Hills rugs is in the edge of motifs which were tendrilled

2 An area of the reservation in New Mexico, northeast of Ganado, where the finest of today's Navaho rugs is produced. O Katina Simmons and Carol Stout, "East Meets West," New Mexico Magazine LIV (February, 1976), pp. 50-52. 139 and more elaborate. On the other hand, the two most commonly occurring formats which represent the total package of the Two Grey Hills rugs are the bordered rug with central motif and four corner secondaries and the bordered rug with two central motifs, four corner secondaries, and two intervening secondaries (Fig. le, g, p. 82). These two formats were also the main formats of the bordered rug studies and the most commonly seen formats at Ganado today. The format as the basic struc­ ture of the rug design is the strongest -statement of the rug and also in the case of the Two Grey Hills rug the strongest statement for the influence of J. L. Hubbell on this fine type of Navaho rug.

The researcher cannot allow closure of the present study with­ out an opening for a statement or two about the Navaho artist. Al­ though this study has been concerned with influences on the Navaho rug, especially those of J. L. Hubbell, the Navaho weaver deserves the final word. Her artwork, the.rug, from beginning to end is a totally assimi­ lated product, but its statment is entirely Navaho. The strength of that Navaho expression could only have been influenced by a person, such as J. L. Hubbell, a man who understood, respected, and loved the

Navaho and her aesthetics. APPENDIX A CHART I

DESIGN ANALYSIS

Size of Rug (inches)

Warp Filling

Border

Bordered Nonbordered

Colors Munsel Designations

Date______

Museum Cat. No._

Research No.___

FIGURE 6

DESIGN ANALYSIS CHART FOR ON SITE EXAMINATION OF RUG STUDIES 142

FIGURE 7

NAVAHO RUG SKETCH 11

^New Mexico Magazine, February 1976, p. 23, Lower Left. 143

FIGURE 8 2 NAVAHO RUG SKETCH II

2George Wharton James, Indian Blankets and Their Makers. (Chicago: A. C. McClurg 6c Co., 1914), Fig. 236. 144

FIGURE 9 3 NAVAHO RUG SKETCH III

3Kate Peck Kent, The Story of Navaho Weaving (Phoenix: The Heard Museum, 1961), Plate 24. FIGURE 10

NAVAHO RUG SKETCH IV4

t

4New Mexico Magazine, January/February 1974, p. 27, 146

FIGURE 11

NAVAHO RUG SKETCH V

’’"The Use of Navajo Blankets as a Home Decoration" (Gallup: C. N. Cotton Co., c. 1925), p. 5. 147

❖

❖ ❖

FIGURE 12

NAVAHO RUG SKETCH VI'

’James, Fig. 214. FIGURE 13

NAVAHO RUG SKETCH VII7

7Giblert S. Maxwell, Navaho Rugs (Palm Desert, California Best-West Publications, 1963), Plate 28. FIGURE 14

NAVAHO RUG SKETCH VIII8

Q "Major Regional Styles," p. 27, upper left. 150

FIGURE 15

NAVAHO RUG SKETCH IX9

9Maxwell, Plate 29. FIGURE 16

NAVAHO RUG SKETCH X10

■^Gladys Reichard, Weaving a Navaho Blanket (New York j. J. Augustin, 1936), Plate XV(a). 152

FIGURE 17

NAVAHO RUG SKETCH XI11

■^Lorenzo Hubbell, Jr., "The Story of the Navajo Rug" (Chicago: Hollister Bros., 1933), Fancy Grade Rug. 153

FIGURE 18

NAVAHO RUG SKETCH XII

12C. N. Cotton, "Navajo Rug Catalog" (Gallup: c. 1900), p. 10. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NAVAHO RUG, 1890-1920,

AS INFLUENCED BY TRADER J. L. HUBBELL

Volume II

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate

School of The Ohio State University

by

Joann Ferguson Boles, B.S., M.A

A A A A A

The Ohio State University

1977

Reading Committee:

Dr. Lois Dickey

Dr. Mathew Herban

Dr. Mary Lapitsky

Department of Textiles and Clothing TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPENDIX Page

B. LIST OF P L A T E S ...... 154

BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 271

ix LIST OF PLATES

Plate Page

I. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER.2 7 7 3 ...... 155

II. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 2793 ...... 156

III. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 2764 ...... 157

IV. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 2788 ...... 158

V. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 2770 ...... 159

VI. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 2811 ...... 160

VII. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 2791...... 161

: VIII. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 3529...... 162

IX. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 3525...... 163

X. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 2805 ...... 164

XI. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 2758...... 165

XII. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 2780...... 166

XIII. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 2765...... 167

XIV. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 2 7 9 4 ...... 168

x Plate Page

XV. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER.2800 ...... 169

XVI. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER.2781 ...... 170

XVII. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER.2778 ...... 171

XVIII. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER.2797 ...... 172

XIX. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER.3527 ...... 173

XX. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER.2776 ...... 174

XXI. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER.2757 ...... 175

XXII. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 2812 ...... 176

XXIII. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 2804 ...... 177

XXIV. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 2760 ...... 178

XXV. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 3 5 2 6 ...... 179

XXVI. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 2799 ...... 180

XXVII. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 2771 ...... 181

XXVIII. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 2775 ...... 182

XXIX. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 3522 ...... 183

XXX. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 2790 ...... 184

xi Plate Page

XXXI. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 2798 ...... 185

XXXII. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 2769 ...... 186

XXXIII. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 2803 ...... 187

XXXIV. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 2801 ...... 188

XXXV. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 2784 ...... 189

XXXVI. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 2808 ...... 190

XXXVII. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 2 7 8 7 ...... 191

XXXVIII. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 2325 ...... 192

XXXIX. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 3 5 2 3 ...... 193

XL. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING P08T, CATALOG NUMBER 2756 ...... 194

XLI. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 2782 ...... 195

XLII. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 2779 ...... 196

XLIII. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 2806 ...... 197

XLIV. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 2809 ...... 198

XLV. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 2796 ...... 199

XLVI. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 2777 ...... 200

xii Plate Page

XLVII. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER.2755 ...... 201

XLVIII. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 2792 ...... 202

XLIX. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER.2759 ...... 203

L. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER.2762 ...... 204

LI. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER.2761 ...... 205

HI. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER.2813 ...... 206 k

LIII. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER.2763 ...... 207

LIV. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 3521 ...... 208

LV. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 3524 ...... 209

LVI. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 2786 ...... 210

LVII. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 2 8 1 0 ...... 211

LVIII. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 2802 ...... 212

LIX. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 2789 ...... 213

LX. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 2783 ...... 214

LXI. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 2772 ...... 215

LXII. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 2766 ...... 216

xiii J

Plate Page

LXIII. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 2767 ...... 217

LXIV. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 3 5 1 7 ...... 218

LXV. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 2768 ...... 219

LXVI. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 2774 ...... 220

LXVII. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 2807 ...... 221

LXVIII. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 3528 ...... 222

LXIX. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 3520 ...... 223

LXX. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 3518 ...... 224

LXXI. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 3515 ...... 225

LXXII. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 3516 ...... 226

LXXIII. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER. 3514 ...... 227

LXXIV. RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST, CATALOG NUMBER 3519 ...... 228

LXXV. NAVAHO RUG, HUBBELL COLLECTION I ...... 229

LXXVI. NAVAHO RUG, HUBBELL COLLECTION II ...... 230

LXXVII. NAVAHO RUG, HUBBELL COLLECTION III...... 231

LXXVIII. NAVAHO RUG FROM BOLES PRIVATE COLLECTION...... 232

LXXIX. NAVAHO RUG, HUBBELL COLLECTION IV ...... 233

xiv Plate Page

LXXX. NAVAHO RUG FROM FERGUSON PRIVATE COLLECTION...... 234

LXXXI. NAVAHO RUG FROM FU PRIVATE COLLECTION...... 235

LXXXII. NAVAHO RUG, HUBBELL COLLECTION V ...... 236

LXXXIII. NAVAHO RUG, HUBBELL COLLECTION VI ...... 237

LXXXIV. NAVAHO RUG, HUBBELL COLLECTION VII...... 238

LXXXV. NAVAHO RUG FROM THE SMITHSONIAN NATIONAL MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY CATALOG NUMBER 383745 ...... 239

LXXXVI. NAVAHO RUG FROM THE SMITHSONIAN NATIONAL MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY CATALOG NUMBER 204803 ...... 240

LXXXVII. NAVAHO RUG FROM THE SMITHSONIAN NATIONAL MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY CATALOG NUMBER 357381 ...... 241

LXXXVIII. NAVAHO RUG FROM NOBLE PRIVATE COLLECTION. . . . 242

LXXXIX. NAVAHO RUG, HUBBELL COLLECTION VIII ...... 243

XC. NAVAHO RUG, HUBBELL COLLECTION IX...... 244

XCI. NAVAHO RUG, HUBBELL COLLECTION X ...... 245

XCII. NAVAHO RUG, HUBBELL COLLECTION X I ...... 246

XCIII. NAVAHO RUG FROM THE SMITHSONIAN NATIONAL MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY CATALOG NUMBER 408195 ...... 247

XCIV. NAVAHO WEAVER FROM ARIZONA HISTORICAL SOCIETY COLLECTION, NUMBER 4667 ...... 248

XCV NAVAHO WEAVER FROM ARIZONA HISTORICAL SOCIETY COLLECTION (NO NUMBER) ...... 249

XCVI. NAVAHO RUG FROM WILLIAMS' PRIVATE COLLECTION 1 ...... 250

xv Plate Page

XCVII. NAVAHO RUG FROM THE SMITHSONIAN NATIONAL MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY CATALOG NUMBER 411773 ...... 251

XCVIII. NAVAHO RUG, HUBBELL COLLECTION XII...... 252

XCIX. NAVAHO RUG FROM GORSLINE PRIVATE COLLECTION...... 253

C. NAVAHO RUG FROM O'REILLY PRIVATE COLLECTION...... 254

Cl. NAVAHO RUG FROM KLINE PRIVATE COLLECTION...... 255

ClI. NAVAHO RUG FROM WILLIAMS' PRIVATE COLLECTION I I ...... 256

CIII. NAVAHO RUG FROM PHOTOGRAPHER ROBERT NUGENT I ...... 257

CIV. NAVAHO RUG FROM ARIZONA PHOTOGRAPHIC ASSOCIATION I ...... 258

CV. NAVAHO RUG FROM ARIZONA PHOTOGRAPHIC ASSOCIATION I I ...... 259

CVI. NAVAHO RUG FROM PHOTOGRAPHER \ RAY MANLEY...... 260

CVII. NAVAHO RUG FROM PHOTOGRAPHER ROBERT NUGENT I I ...... 261

CVIII. NAVAHO RUG FROM PHOTOGRAPHER TED HILL...... 262

CIX. NAVAHO RUG, COURTESY MUSEUM OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN, HEYE FOUNDATION, 16/5018 ...... 263

CX. NAVAHO RUG, COURTESY MUSEUM OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN., HEYE FOUNDATION, 25/151 264

CXI. NAVAHO RUG, COURTESY MUSEUM OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN, HEYE FOUNDATION, 15/9864 ...... 265

xvi Plate Page

CXII. NAVAHO RUG, COURTESY MUSEUM OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN, HEYE FOUNDATION, (NO N U M B E R ) ...... 266

CXIII. NAVAHO RUG, COURTESY MUSEUM OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN, HEYE FOUNDATION, 22/8894 ...... 267

CXIV. NAVAHO RUG, COURTESY MUSEUM OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN, HEYE FOUNDATION, 9/1928 268

CXV. NAVAHO RUG, COURTESY MUSEUM OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN, HEYE FOUNDATION, 23/2058 ...... 269

CXVI. NAVAHO RUG, COURTESY MUSEUM OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN, HEYE FOUNDATION, 22/9190 ...... 270

xvii APPENDIX B PLATE X

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 2773 PLATE II

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 2793 PLATE III

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST * CATALOG NUMBER 2764 PLATE IV

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 2788 159

PLATE V

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 2770 PLATE VI

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 2811 PLATE VII

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 2791 PLATE VIII

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 3529 PLATE IX

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 3525 PLATE X

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 2805 PLATE XI

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 2758 PLATE XII

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 2780 PLATE XIII

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 2765 PLATE XIV

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 2794 PLATE XV

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 2800 PLATE XVI

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 2781 PLATE XVII

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 2778 PLATE XVIII

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 2797 PLATE XIX

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 3527 PLATE XX

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 2776 PLATE XXI

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 2757 PLATE XXII

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 2812 PLATE XXIII

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 2804 PLATE XXIV

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 2760 PLATE XXV

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 3526 PLATE XXVI

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 2799 PLATE XXVII

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 2771 PLATE XXVIII

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 2775 PLATE XXIX

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 3522 PLATE XXX

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 2790 PLATE XXXI

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 2798 PLATE XXXII

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 2769 PLATE XXXIII

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 2803 PLATE XXXIV

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 2801 PLATE XXXV

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER.2784 PLATE XXXVI

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 2808 PLATE XXXVII

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 2787 PLATE XXXVIII

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 2325 PLATE XXXIX

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 3523 PLATE XL

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 2756 PLATE XLI

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 2782 PLATE XLII

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 2779 PLATE XLIII

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 2806 198

PLATE XLIV

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 2809 199

PLATE XLV

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 2796 PLATE XLVI

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 2777 PLATE XLVII

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 2755 2Q2

PLATE XLVIII

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 2792 203

S -

I i I

PLATE XLXX

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 2759 PLATE L

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 2762 PLATE LI

BUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 2761 PLATE LII

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 2813 PLATE LIII

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 2763 PLATE LIV

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 3521 PLATE LV

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 3524 PLATE LVI

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 2786 PLATE LVII

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 2810 PLATE LVIII

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 2802 PLATE LIX

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 2789 PLATE LX

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 2783 PLATE LXI

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 2772 PLATE LXII

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 2766 PLATE LXIII

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 2767 PLATE LXIV

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 3517 PLATE LXV

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 2768 PLATE LXVI

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 2774 PLATE LXVII

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 2807 222

4— ------

PLATE LXVIII

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 3528 PLATE LXIX

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 3520 PLATE LXX

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 3518 PLATE LXXI

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER.3515 PLATE LXXII

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 3516 PLATE LXXIII

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 3514 PLATE LXXIV

RUG STUDY, HUBBELL TRADING POST CATALOG NUMBER 3519 229

PLATE LXXV

NAVAHO RUG, HUBBELL COLLECTION I PLATE LXXVI

NAVAHO RUG, HUBBELL COLLECTION II PLATE LXXVII

NAVAHO RUG, HUBBELL COLLECTION III PLATE LXXVIII

NAVAHO RUG FROM BOLES PRIVATE COLLECTION 233

PLATE LXXIX

NAVAHO RUG, HUBBELL COLLECTION IV PLATE LXXX

NAVAHO RUG FROM FERGUSON PRIVATE COLLECTION PLATE LXXXI

NAVAHO RUG FROM FU PRIVATE COLLECTION 236

PLATE LXXXII

NAVAHO RUG, HUBBELL COLLECTION V PLATE LXXXIII

NAVAHO RUG, HUBBELL COLLECTION VI PLATE LXXXIV

NAVAHO RUG, HUBBELL COLLECTION VII 239

PLATE LXXXV

NAVAHO RUG FROM THE SMITHSONIAN NATIONAL MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY CATALOG NUMBER 383745 PLATE LXXXVI

NAVAHO RUG FROM THE SMITHSONIAN NATIONAL MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY CATALOG NUMBER 204803 241

t

PLATE LXXXVII

NAVAHO RUG FROM THE SMITHSONIAN NATIONAL MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY CATALOG NUMBER 357381 PLATE LXXXVIII

NAVAHO RUG FROM NOBLE PRIVATE COLLECTION PLATE LXXXIX

NAVAHO RUG, HUBBELL COLLECTION VIII PLATE XC

NAVAHO RUG, HUBBELL COLLECTION IX PLATE xc i

NAVAHO RUG, HUBBELL COLLECTION X PLATE XCII

NAVAHO RUG, HUBBELL COLLECTION XI PLATE XCIII

NAVAHO RUG FROM THE SMITHSONIAN NATIONAL MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY CATALOG NUMBER 408195 PLATE XCIV

NAVAHO WEAVER FROM ARIZONA HISTORICAL SOCIETY COLLECTION, NUMBER 4667 PLATE XCV

NAVAHO WEAVER FROM ARIZONA HISTORICAL SOCIETY COLLECTION (NO NUMBER) PLATE XCVI

NAVAHO RUG FROM WILLIAMS' PRIVATE COLLECTION I PLATE XCVII

NAVAHO RUG FROM THE SMITHSONIAN NATIONAL MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY CATALOG NUMBER 411773 252

NAVAHO RUG, HUBBELL COLLECTION XII PLATE XCIX

NAVAHO RUG FROM GORSLINE PRIVATE COLLECTION PLATE C

NAVAHO RUG FROM O ’REILLY PRIVATE COLLECTION PLATE Cl

NAVAHO RUG FROM KLINE PRIVATE COLLECTION PLATE ClI

NAVAHO RUG FROM WILLIAMS’ PRIVATE COLLECTION II PLATE c m

NAVAHO RUG FROM PHOTOGRAPHER ROBERT NUGENR I PLATE CIV

NAVAHO RUG FROM ARIZONA PHOTOGRAPHIC ASSOCIATION I PLATE CV

NAVAHO RUG FROM ARIZONA PHOTOGRAPHIC ASSOCIATION II PLATE CVI

NAVAHO RUG FROM PHOTOGRAPHER RAY MANLEY PLATE CVII

NAVAHO RUG FROM PHOTOGRAPHER ROBERT NUGENT II PLATE CVIII

NAVAHO RUG FROM PHOTOGRAPHER TED HILL PLATE CIX NAVAHO RUG, COURTESY MUSEUM OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN, HEYE FOUNDATION 16/5018 PLATE CX

NAVAHO RUG, COURTESY MUSEUM OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN, HEYE FOUNDATION 25/151 265

PLATE CXI NAVAHO RUG, COURTESY MUSEUM OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN, HEYE FOUNDATION 15/9864 PLATE CXII

NAVAHO RUG, COURTESY MUSEUM OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN, HEYE FOUNDATION (NO NUMBER) PLATE CXIII

NAVAHO RUG, COURTESY MUSEUM OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN, HEYE FOUNDATION 22/8894 PLATE CXIV

NAVAHO RUG, COURTESY MUSEUM OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN, HEYE FOUNDATION 9/1928 PLATE CXV

NAVAHO RUG, COURTESY MUSEUM OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN, HEYE FOUNDATION 23/2058 PLATE CXVI

NAVAHO RUG, COURTESY MUSEUM OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN, HEYE FOUNDATION 22/9190 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

271 272

American Fabrics eds. Encyclopedia of Textiles. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972.

Amsden, Charles Avery. Navaho Weaving, Its Technic and History. Santa Ana: The Fine Arts Press, 1934.

Anderson, Lowell E. "Factors Influencing Design in Navaho Weaving." Unpublished Masters thesis, University of California, Berkeley, 1953.

Arizona Highways. July 1974.

Batigne, R. and Bellinger, L. "Significance and Technical Analysis of Ancient Textiles as Historical Documents. Am. Philos. Society Proceeding, December 1953, pp. 670-680.

Bennett, Noel. Genuine Navajo Rug— Are You Sure??? Santa Fe: The Navaho Tribe and The Museum of Navajo Ceremonial Art, 1973.

Bennett, Noel. The Weaver's Pathway. Flagstaff: Northland Press, 1974.

Burbank, E. A. Burbank Among the Indians. Coldwell: The Caxton Printers, Ltd., 1944.

Chiao. Chien, Ph.D. Continuation of Tradition in Navajo Society. Monograph Series B. Mo 3. Nankang Taipei, Republic of China, 1971.

Cotton, C. N. "Navajo Rug Catalog." Gallup, Circa 1900.

Cotton, C. N. "The Use of Navajo Blankets as a Home Decoration." Gallup: Circa 1925.

Friesen, Maria. "The Influence of the Early Culture of New Mexico on the Contemporary Fashions of that Area." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1961.

Gilpin, Laura. The Endurine Navaho. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1968. 273

Hubbell, J. L. "Navajo Rug Catalog." Chicago: Hollister Bros., 1902.

Hubbell Correspondence. Hubbell Papers. University of Arizona, Special Collections, Tuscon, Arizona.

Hubbell, Lorenzo, Jr. "The Story of the Navajo Rug." Chicago: Hollister Bros., 1933.

James, G. W. Indian Blankets and Their Makers. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1914.

Johnston, Denis Foster. An Analysis of Sources of Information on the Population of the Navaho. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1966.

Kahlenberg, Mary Hunt and Berlant, Anthony. The Navajo Blanket. New York: Praeger, 1972.

Kent, Kate Peck. The Story of Navaho Weaving. Phoenix: The Heard Museum, 1961.

Matthews, W. "Navaho Dye Stuffs." Smithsonian Inst. Annual Report of The Board of Regents. Washington: 1891, pp. 613-615.

Maxwell, Gilbert S. Navajo Rugs. Palm Desert: Best West Publica­ tions, 1963.

McNitt, Frank. The Indian Traders. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1962.

Moore, J. B. Navajo Rug Catalog. Crystal: 1912.

Munro, Thomas. Form and Style in the Arts. Cleveland: The Press of Case Western Reserve University, 1970.

Munsell Book of Color. Baltimore: Munsell Color Co., Inc., 1967.

Navajo Photographic Collection. Arizona State Historic Society, Tucson, Arizona.

Navaho Photographic Collection. The Smithsonian National Museum of • Natural History: Anthropological Processing Laboratory. Washington, D.C.

Newcomb, Franc. Hosteen Klah Navaho Medicine Man and Sand Painter. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1964. 274

Newcomb, Franc. A Study of Navaho Symbolism. Cambridge: The Peabody Museum, 1956.

New Mexico Magazine, February, 1976.

New Mexico Magazine, January/February, 1974.

Pendleton, Mary. Navajo and Hopi Weaving Techniques. New York: Mac­ millan Publishing Co., Inc., 1974.

Reichard, Gladys Amanda. Navaho Religion, A Study of Symbolism. New York: Pantheon Books, 1950.

Reichard, Gladys Amanda. Navajo Shepherd and Weaver. New York: J. J. Augustin, 1936.

Summers, Katina and Stout, Carol. "East Meets West," New Mexico Magazine, February 1976, pp. 50-52.

Utley, Robert M. The Reservation Trader in Navaho History," El (Palacio), 1961, pp. 5-27.

Vroman Photo. Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, 1904.

Wheat, Joe Ben. Telephone Interview. Boulder: July 29, 1975.

Wheat, Joe Ben. "Three Centuries of Navaho Weaving," Arizona Highways. July 1974, pp. 13+.

Wilken, Robert L. Anselm Weber, O.F.M. 1898-1921. Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Co., 1953.