San Ildefonso Pottery; Maria Martinez?

I found this piece at a thrift store not knowing anything about this type of pottery but it spoke to me. During my research I came upon Maria Martinez and found out that she did not sign her early pieces until 1923; could this be one of her very first pieces. It is well used on the base. It is approximately 7 inches tall. The very black picture is one of her signed pieces in the similar shape which I found online.

 

Attributing this to her would be a stretch. There is a lot of unsigned work that is not hers.

 

It is nice, but not the Maria Martinez quality I am used to. The colour is not right for her either imho.
It could be black pottery from Mata Ortiz, Mexico, which is Pueblo style pottery inspired by Mogollon designs from Casas Grandes, an archaeological site just south of New Mexico. It could even be black pottery from Oaxaca, Mexico.

 

Thanks Any Jewelry. I'll look into these options.

 

It's not Maria's work. As Any Jewelry pointed out, the quality just isn't there, nor was it from a successful firing. It should have been as black as the pot in the last photo.

But I don't think it's Mexican. Mata Ortiz pottery wasn't made before the 1970s, and this looks older...at least pre-1960s. Plus Mata Ortiz pottery is rounded on the bottom, polished on the bottom, and has different design patterns.

The clay doesn't look right for Oaxacan pottery, which is also typically polished on the bottom.

The form itself is typical of some 1930s era Santa Clara pots.

I think what you have is either someone's attempt to create a pot "in the style of" typical pueblo pottery, or more likely, an experienced Santa Clara or San Ildefonso potter's pot from an unsuccessful firing. (Keep in mind, though, that black on black pottery was also made by Santo Domingo potters, plus in Romania, China, and Central and South America.)

 

I'd be interested in knowing if the other pot is signed, what the signature looks like. Like Brad said, there's a lot of unsigned pottery out there, but in addition, there's also a lot that's signed as Maria's work, but isn't her signature, and a lot of pottery that's signed by Maria, that she didn't make herself.

I don't think it was her attempt to deceive in any way, it was more a case of not wanting to claim traditional San Ildefonso pottery styles as hers alone. She felt that if it helped other potters sell their work, she would sometimes sign pots they brought to her with her name. And if it made tourists happy, she would sign their unsigned pots, too, (in pencil) when they brought them to her.

Since she didn't decorate the pots she made, most of her signatures indicate who did, either Julian, Santana, or Popovi. But there are a few signed "for her" by her sister Clara. So the best way to identify her work is actually to learn to recognize her style and work itself. Unfortunately, that can't really be done online. There are just too many pots out there that are misidentified as hers.

Unless one can do that, or buys only from a reputable dealer who specializes in her work and will guarantee it, I'd say it's best to assume it's not her pot, and pay accordingly.

 

This used to be a black piece at one point because it is visible on the handle. Someone has used it to the point where it's worn out. I love the piece and just want to know it's origin.There is a white calcium lining on the inside which is a sign of water being in the pot and it's also lined in dirt. Great post Taupou.

 

Thanks for the additional photos. I would think these more accurately represent what the pot actually looks like.

The first photos looked more tan, instead of lighter black or gray on the design area, which would be more indicative of a firing problem.

Now I'm more inclined to think this is possibly from Santo Domingo Pueblo. I'm not aware of a specific potter there who may have made it, but the design pattern does point more toward that, than to typical Santa Clara designs.

Santo Domingo potters also had a problem with getting a really black finish, and their polishing tended to be a little streaky. That, combined with contact with water on the part of the owner, could easily result in the way the piece looks now.

 

I agree with Taupou, your second set of pictures gives a better impression, and Santo Domingo is certainly a possibility.
Whatever the origin, it is a very nice pot.