1975 note: one panel of a huipil from Totonicapan.
Rosario de Polanco, Directora Technica of the Museum Ixchel de Traje Indigena, Guatemala City (personal communication September 1989): 'This huipil was either made in the Cakchiquel area for the wealthy women of Totonicapan, or was made in San Antonio Aguas Calientes.'
Krystyna Deuss, Director of the Guatemalan Indian Centre, London (personal communication July 1995): 'Panels T.33 and T.34-1931 cannot be from Totonicapan as their huipils at the turn of the century were red or green ground with weft stripes and jaspe blocks and each panel was woven with a long plain white area at either end to tuck into the skirt (see Eisen's 1902 Collection). Maudslay's two panels are either from San Martin Jilotepeque or San Antonio Aguas Claientes - two villages whose work remained very similar up to the 30s'
Ed Carter, freelance researcher (personal communication July 1996): 'In general terms, geographical attribution of huipils of the vintage is a perilous business, and will only be resolved when and if unassailably attributed pieces are found - which is unlikely - or when irrefutable photogrpahic evidence emerges. On the one hand, Totonicapan may have been either or both a centre of production and export, or a major centre of textile marketing. On the other, while it was once the dominant fashion among textile scholars to attribute all such early pieces to San Antonio Aguas Calientes, it now seems almost de rigeur to insist upon a San Martin Jiloptepeque origin.'
Ann P Rowe, Curator of Western Hemisphere Textiles, Textile Museum, Washington DC (personal communication 1997): 'There is a similar huipil in the Museo Ixchel published in the Japanese magazine Textile Art (number 28), there attributed to San Antonio aguas Calientes, I am not sure on what basis (it would certainly be useful to know). There are documented San Martin Jilotepeque huipils in the Eisen Collection collected in 1902 and now at the Hearst Museum of Anthropology in Berkeley, published in Margot Schervill's book 'Maya Textiles of Guatemala'. Since San Martin huipils are common in other early collections and sometimes also turn up as being worn in other villages, it looks to me as if they were being made for sale and were influencing the weaving of other villages. The fact that the Maudslay panels are not made up into a huipil suggests that they might have been made for sale. My theory is that about this time San Antonio copied the huipils of San Martin. This theory would explain the confusion here.'
ecrm:P3_has_note
1975 note: one panel of a huipil from Totonicapan.
Rosario de Polanco, Directora Technica of the Museum Ixchel de Traje Indigena, Guatemala City (personal communication September 1989): 'This huipil was either made in the Cakchiquel area for the wealthy women of Totonicapan, or was made in San Antonio Aguas Calientes.'
Krystyna Deuss, Director of the Guatemalan Indian Centre, London (personal communication July 1995): 'Panels T.33 and T.34-1931 cannot be from Totonicapan as their huipils at the turn of the century were red or green ground with weft stripes and jaspe blocks and each panel was woven with a long plain white area at either end to tuck into the skirt (see Eisen's 1902 Collection). Maudslay's two panels are either from San Martin Jilotepeque or San Antonio Aguas Claientes - two villages whose work remained very similar up to the 30s'
Ed Carter, freelance researcher (personal communication July 1996): 'In general terms, geographical attribution of huipils of the vintage is a perilous business, and will only be resolved when and if unassailably attributed pieces are found - which is unlikely - or when irrefutable photogrpahic evidence emerges. On the one hand, Totonicapan may have been either or both a centre of production and export, or a major centre of textile marketing. On the other, while it was once the dominant fashion among textile scholars to attribute all such early pieces to San Antonio Aguas Calientes, it now seems almost de rigeur to insist upon a San Martin Jiloptepeque origin.'
Ann P Rowe, Curator of Western Hemisphere Textiles, Textile Museum, Washington DC (personal communication 1997): 'There is a similar huipil in the Museo Ixchel published in the Japanese magazine Textile Art (number 28), there attributed to San Antonio aguas Calientes, I am not sure on what basis (it would certainly be useful to know). There are documented San Martin Jilotepeque huipils in the Eisen Collection collected in 1902 and now at the Hearst Museum of Anthropology in Berkeley, published in Margot Schervill's book 'Maya Textiles of Guatemala'. Since San Martin huipils are common in other early collections and sometimes also turn up as being worn in other villages, it looks to me as if they were being made for sale and were influencing the weaving of other villages. The fact that the Maudslay panels are not made up into a huipil suggests that they might have been made for sale. My theory is that about this time San Antonio copied the huipils of San Martin. This theory would explain the confusion here.'