Featured Good Afternoon All! I Hope You Are All WEll. Is This Pendant Zuni? TY

Well Komokwa You and a few people on this site and they know who they are, where/are consistently the first ones who showed me love and support. So your opinion and what you have to say does matter. I say that with all honesty because I where my heart on my sleeves as they say. Sorry that you feel that i don't value your or anyone else opinion on this forum, but as you say you are far from calling yourself expert, but I came in with baby eyes and I take every word seriously. you might call your self far from being an expert, but in my eyes you are and trust every single word you say. As I stated before that I am not trying to disrespect anyone on this forum and if I did I sincerely apologize to you all. So you all take care and thank you for all your help that you have given me in the past and I wish you all and your family to be safe, happy and continue to stay healthy. that is what is more important.

 

I was tagged on this so I’ll throw my 2cents in on pretty much everything that was already stated. You’ve asked that those that aren’t 100% on the origin of your piece not comment so theoretically there should be NO comments. These is no way in Hades to identify your piece so if you’re selling on line it’s a Southwestern Double Sided Sterling Silver Turquoise Coral Cross. Period. My opinion? Yes I think it’s Zuni as it’s really well matched good quality stones with really clean workmanship but we don’t know that as it could, in theory, be a talented SW silversmith. (Not likely IMO). It’s about protecting yourself from the very strict US laws protecting NA arts as well as being a moral seller.

As others have said, listing it as Southwestern pretty much tells all of us who collect that we’ll find NA pieces that are not signed. You have a very nice cross but it’s not the NA piece of life. I don’t own one of those either but I do own a museum quality 50s Navajo huge concha belt and ya know what? If I were to sell it online it too would be listed as Southwestern Vintage 50s Silver Turquoise Concha Belt and it would only go to a serious collector of vintage Navajo belts. I’d have no fear of attracting the right buyer.

With the exception of serious museum quality names (e.g. Loloma) no one needs artist names if they’re not signed. As you said, with rare exception is the vintage good stuff signed. IMO you’re wasting your time even trying to attribute that piece. Just list it as Southwestern.

 

Now that is honest! your opinion and what you feel is safe by law as for my piece. A bit harsh, but I can take it and respect it. Thank you for your input and stay safe.

 

Stay safe too. BTW my intention is never to be harsh which IMO has a negative vibe but for sure I’m blunt when there is a definitive answer to a question that’s gone back and forth without resolution.

 

Good morning ezee.
It is a beautiful pendant, I would have bought it in a heartbeat.

I agree. It is an Art Deco inspired style, which was started by the Dishta family (Zuni), but also made by others.
Zuni style jewellery with small cabochons in a double surround (mount and ring) is often called snake eye jewellery.
Unfortunately, without a maker's mark or clearly documented provenance, there is no proof that your pendant is by a member of the Dishta family or any other Zuni.

As the others said, tribal attribution without a maker's mark has become a legal issue in the US.
So now it is not a matter of whether it is Zuni or not, it is a matter of whether it is marked or not. Strange, but true.
Some sellers don't know of this law, others don't seem to care. On Antiquers we could never encourage you to break the law.

Regarding the implications, these are the observations of someone outside the US, so you may think I am out of order in saying this:
The Act was intended to protect present day Native artists and craftspeople, but it was crudely drawn up, without thinking of the implications. It does not take tradition and identity into consideration. It dismisses several generations of excellent NA artists and denies their work the historical and cultural context it was made in.
In effect it also legally denies several Nations the tangible link with the work of these artists, which is part of the cultural heritage of a Nation.
That Act requires fine tuning, to say the least.
But for now, it is what it is, and no one wants you to get in trouble.

 

Brilliantly stated as always AJ. I agree that it’s one of the worst written US laws around and makes NA collecting on the internet a pain in the ass as we’re are forced to scroll through tons of junk. As you said it also takes away from the artist. The good news is that most quality pieces are signed today but I know I would never buy an attributed piece without a sig unless I was buying it for the piece itself and felt it was priced accordingly as any attribution is no more than hearsay.

 

As always Thank you for explaining in such details. I appreciate it very much. Enjoy your day!

 

You are welcome, as always, ezee.

You too!