Indian Den Blog

Frog Woman Hallmarks - how to identify

Print the article

This entry was posted on 3/5/2006 4:28 PM and is filed under Pueblo Pottery.

FROG WOMAN Hallmarks

Paqua Naha, Joy Navasie and family

by Dennis June

 

Affectionately known among her family and villagers was the original FROG WOMAN, Paqua Naha. She was born about 1890 in the Hopi First Mesa village of Hano, a Tewa stronghold established through Hopi invitation centuries ago as a protective barrier against marauding Navajo raiders

 

Paqua, (whose name means ‘frog’) was an active potter as early as 1910 until her passing about 1955. As with most Hopi, Paqua was a gentle soul, busily rearing her family and providing trading post goods with the sale of her pottery. She was known to produce traditional jars, bowls and cylinder vases in a wide range of color combinations including redware, black on red, black & white on red, and black & red on yellow.

 

Paqua participated in two major features of Hopi pottery history; first, she developed her wildly popular FROG WOMAN hallmark and, second, she and her daughter, Joy Navasie, collaborated on perfecting the black & red on WHITE combination.

 

Traditional Hopi pottery wants to emerge from the pit firing kiln with a warm, inviting golden-orange color. Paqua and Joy learned to create pearl white vessels. The process of producing white pottery has been such a well guarded secret that, for years, any white Hopi pottery was automatically assumed to be Frog Woman.

 

It is not exactly known when Paqua started using a FROG hallmark on her wares, but her marked pottery is well represented in private and corporate Hopi collections as well as the Museum of Northern Arizona and Heard Museum in Phoenix (among others). Documented sales of Paqua Naha pottery in recent years range up to, $7,500 with Paqua’s popular 6” jars, in good condition, selling $1,000-$1,500.

 

Because Paqua spawned a family heritage with her unique FROG trademark, it became incumbent upon youngsters to add their own twist. As a result, there are ‘numerous Frog Woman potters,’ chief among them Paqua’s daughter Joy Navasie whose potting skills are recognized among the best in Hopi history.

 

Joy differentiated her work from her mother’s by producing a Frog Woman hallmark of her own. It differed in a number of subtle ways from that of her mother, more amorphous, lacking a simple combination of shapes, utilizing flowing lines instead.

 

Paqua’s hallmark, for instance, began as an inverted bell shape with a narrow protruding dome atop. The legs sprouted from the bell and eyes were set atop the dome. Earlier Paqua hallmarks show well separated lower legs. The frog body is decorated with a “stippling” inside the frog body, likely applied with a chewed yucca leaf. Paqua typically applied the stippling in an orderly line fashion, angling from lower right to upper left.

 

Joy stippled her hallmarks similarly but typically in a more horizontal fashion (sometimes stacked). Joy must have influenced Paqua, as Paqua’s later vessels often share this horizontal format.

 

The shape of Joy’s frog hallmark could be viewed as a modern interpretation of her mother’s, lacking the round-ish body and protruding head, Joy’s frogs were fashioned deftly with a more pointed nostril and an even, flowing transition from head, across shoulders, to the bulging body. Joy’s frog arms are more defined than those of Paqua (which are just parallel rounding curves).

 

Significantly, Joy’s frog hind legs are more generous in bulk, with flowing lines that nearly join together at the crotch, where Paqua’s frog hind legs were smaller and set wide apart. Interestingly, in Paqua’s later years, her frog hind legs began to merge, like Joy’s, so much so that many experts would agree that it takes more than a quick glance to differentiate Joy from Paqua in later years.

 

To her credit, Joy added a ‘J’ to differentiate her hallmark from her mother’s. In early years, the ‘J’ was obscured by serving as a platform for the frog, floating below it, always with a subtle hook underneath, (signifying the ‘J’). Later, the initial migrated to a place alongside the frog hallmark.

 

After Paqua’s passing in the mid-50’s, Joy abandoned the ‘J’ using the frog hallmark as she had otherwise designed it. And, when her own children began applying the frog hallmark on their work as well, each distinguished hers with the initial system Joy herself pioneered with Paqua.

 

The main distinguishing feature of Paqua’s hallmark is that her frogs seem to have ‘fingers,’ whereas Joy’s (and other’s) frogs seem to have web feet. No initialed frog hallmark can be attributed to Paqua, only to her progeny.

 

A very nice tribute to Paqua, Joy and her ‘Frog Woman family’ can be found in numerous books, pamphlets, flyer and publications; honored recently in the following:

Schaaf, Gregory, Hopi-Tewa Pottery, 500 Artist Biographies, CIAC Publishing, Santa Fe, 1998.

 

I hope to learn how to add photos of some hallmarks to help others identify PAQUA Frog Woman pottery. Additional input, elaboration, correction and comment from knowledgeable specialists is welcome.

 

 

Hopi Frog Woman Hallmark samples (differentiate between Paqua and Joy)







 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
Trackback specific URL for this entry
  • No trackbacks exist for this entry.
Comments

    • 4/2/2006 5:41 PM Dean Cameron wrote:
      I really appreciate the insight regarding the Hallmarks of this family. Are there any other resources that would help distinguish the Hallmarks of "other" artists?

      Many times an item is stamped with initials. How does one determine if "JC" is only one person or are there several?

      Did counterfeit pieces ever go to the lengths of copying initials?

      Is there such a thing as a reference book that would show some of the works of the artists along with a visual of their Hallmark?

      Lots and lots of questions....
      Reply to this
      1. 4/2/2006 6:54 PM Indian Den wrote:

        Thanks for the inquiry - yes, there are a number of publications that enumerate and describe hallmarks, especially for jewelry, but also some for pottery.

        Jewelry with similar hallmarks can usually be distinguished by style, type and skill level. Typically two artisans utilizing the same 'JC' hallmark would not duplicate one another's ability or style. Also, recognize that silver stamps wear out quickly, so it is common for a silversmith to have several different hallmarks during his/her career.

        Counterfeit hallmarks and signatures are uncommon, almost non-existent. Fact is, most collectors and experts readily identify items well before actually examining for signatures. Sometimes signatures are a minor part of the equation as there are many identification features in Indian art that have nothing to do with a hallmark. As in most other art forms, style, character and physical presentations trump hallmarks.

        Hallmarks are a twentieth century phenomenon in Indian goods, a response to an anglo view of artistic ownership. After all, what would a Picasso be worth without a signature?

        Among Pueblo potters, however, an Acoma pot is an Acoma pot, regardless of who made it, so personal identification is needless (and, at one time, frowned upon).

        Among Pueblo Indians, the idea of personal identity was foreign. Most potters consider their creations somewhat spiritual, devoid of personal attachment. Never-the-less, design elements were often associated with a matriarchial family unit that others dare not copy. Just about everything a potter produced was typically subject to village scrutiny, and everyone reveled in the successes (and failures) of the artisans. Seldom is a pottery firing uncovered in private, it often signals a celebration!

        Also, consider that most historic Pueblo Indian pottery was of a utilitiarian nature, including water jars, canteens, bowls and ladles. And, due to the fragile nature of pottery, a great deal of decoration was abnormal, almost useless. It was not until the outside world showed interest that designs flowered, although there were many village baroque periods as evidenced by ancient pottery digs. Never-the-less, despite the fact that many fine potters took great pride in their individual achievements, design elements arose to designate village origin. Once you figure out the combinations, it is not impossible to differentiate otherwise identical pots made in Acoma from those made in Zuni or Zia. Of course, the clays are the real root of identity, but we won't get into that here.

        Maria was, perhaps, the first known signatory of Pueblo Indian pottery. Still, she seemed perplexed by the need to 'sign' a pot. She was known to sign many pots 'Marie' (with an 'ie' rather than with an 'ia'), because she was told that the anglo world more readily recognize, appreciate and accept (buy) the 'ie' than the 'ia'. Also, Maria was not immune from signing a fellow villager's pot to help stimulate a little more income into the village. It is doubtless there are San Ildefonso pottery specimen bearing Maria's signature in which she did little more than sign her name. It is sometimes difficult to tell a pottery collector that, "yes, your pot bears Maria's signature, but she did not make the pot." If you look up the word 'conundrum' in the dictionary, there will probably be a picture of Maria . . .

        Pueblo Indian pottery production was at a low ebb in the early 1900's. Many villages had almost abandoned the practice when modern cookware arrived in the Southwest. Those potters who discovered pottery could be sold (especially at nearby railroad stations) rejuvinated the industry and hallmarks were born.

        Many early potters, especially among the Hopi, opted for symbolism rather than written names. Acoma potters did likewise. Other villages, like Zuni and Zia continued making pottery to sell but seldom marked their works, preferring instead for their works to be of village origin rather than individual. Consequently, many great potters are known, but their works are 'attributed' rather than signed. It takes an expert to make such attributions, so much misinformation and a minor amount of fraud are part of the pottery industry makeup.

        Greg Schaaf has written a series of high-powered (read that expensive), large format hardback books on pottery of the various Pueblos. He includes, literally, thousands of potters. Sadly, some of these books are fairly weak in construction, so if you intend to use these as resource, be prepared to own more than one copy.

        Schaaf's Hopi Pottery book represents one of the best efforts so far at identifying hallmarks and their owners (it is also the most expensive book in the Schaaf series, but worthwhile).

        For jewelry, there are a number of books that link hallmarks with silversmiths. Here are a few bibliographical references for you to consider:
        Schaaf, Gregory, American Indian Jewelry I, CIAC Press, Santa Fe , 2003  
        Wright, Barton Hallmarks of the Southwest, Schiffer Publising, Alglen, PA 1989 & 2000
        (also: Bell 1976:24; Schiffer 1990:98, Bassman 1992:14, Ostler, Rodee & Nahohai 1996:92-94, Anderson, ed. 1999: 168, Wright 2000:59, 191, 266).





        Reply to this
    • 4/2/2006 9:08 PM Dean Cameron wrote:
      Can you elaborate on the publications that would enumerate the Silversmith/Artists?

      I would really like to research the items that I have. I have several pieces of Turquoise Jewelry that I would like to know the maker, their history and Tribe etc.

      I enjoy the history and stories behind the art as much as I do the art itself.

      Thanks,

      Dean
      Reply to this
      1. 4/3/2006 12:34 AM Indian Den wrote:

        Dean - below are a couple of bibliographies I have handy along with some author names of other good Indian Jewelry resources.

        You get a lot of good use out of old Arizona Highways magazines. Auction catalogs are another good resource and a surprising amount of that information is accurate, even erudite.

        Dennis

        Schaaf, Gregory, American Indian Jewelry I, CIAC Press, Santa Fe, 2003

        Wright, Barton Hallmarks of the Southwest, Schiffer Publising, Alglen, PA 1989 & 2000

         ( also: Bell 1976; Schiffer 1990, Bassman 1992, Ostler, Rodee & Nahohai 1996, Anderson, ed. 1999, Wright 2000).


        Reply to this
    • 7/15/2006 8:43 AM Craig Oettinger wrote:
      The most scholarly source for early identification marks on Hopi and Hopi-Tewa pottery is a Spring 1976 article by Stanislawski, Hitchcock & Stanislawski published in the MNA magazine Plateau, Vol 48 Numbers 3&4 (combined into one publication), pages 47--65. The marks of 33 potters are indicated, with a 11 pages of discussion of the development & organization of the identification mark tradition.

      I have a copy of the article and could make copies (at cost) to send to those who provide contact information.

      Craig
      Reply to this
    Leave a comment

    Submitted comments will be subject to moderation before being displayed.

     Enter the above security code (required)

     Name

     Email (will not be published)

     Website

    Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.