Silk and cotton brocade weaving on cotton; Guatemala; 1875-1890

1931 Descrition: Panel (from a skirt?). silk and cotton on brown cotton. Darning stitch. This panel is approximately similar to T.33-1931.

1975 Description: One panel of a huipil from Totonicapan. T.33 and T.34-1931 are not panels from a skirt but are two halves of an Indian blouse (huipil) from the village of Totonicapan or the surrounding area. They would have been sewn together with a hole cut out for the head and slits left in the side seams for the arms. It is not uncommon to have the two halves of a huipil as different in size as these two are, as they were woven separately. A similar garment made up of two such different sized panels is illustrated by L M O'Neale in Textiles of the Highlands of Guatemala plates 95a and 95b; see also p.304.
Plain weave ground made of natural, undyed cotton known as CUYUSCATE or IXCACO (Gossypium Mexicanum). This cotton has always been highly valued by local weavers. The woven design is both single faced and double faced brocade weaving done with white and mauve silk and several colours of cotton. Several pattern wefts are used together in each pick so the pattern stands out from the ground cloth. These pieces are woven on a backstrap loom and therefore have 4 selvedges each.

Dye Analysis (Carlsen & Wenger, undertaken 1988, published 1991):
The red cotton isdyed with Alizarin.
The red wool is dyed with cochineal.
The purple cototn is dyed with purpura.

Technical Details (1995)
Warp: 46 threads per inch; brown cotton; Z-spun, unplied.
Weft: 24 threads per inch; brown cotton; Z-spun, unplied.
There is some red cotton weft (Z2S) loosely spun which has relaxed and looks like 2 parallel threads along the lower and upper edges. There are loosely packed weft threads about 1" from the lower edge as numbered.
Lower Edge: 9 passes of red cotton.
Upper Edge: 10 passes of red cotton.
Brocading: 8 different types/colours of thread: red cotton (Z7S); yellow cotton (Z5S); yellow floss silk (faded to cream); light green cotton (Z7S); dark blue cotton (Z4S); purple cotton (S3Z - probably machine spun, tightly and regularly twisted); light purple floss silk; white floss silk.
Note: the number of threads plied together does vary and suggests that the weaver used whatever combination took her fancy.

Possibly these two panels were not intended for the same huipil as there is a difference not only in the size but also in the deisgn, number of colours, types of thread and ground colour. But perhaps it didn't matter to the purchaser.

Bequeathed by Alfred Percival Maudslay

Registered File no. 2743/1931.

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.'

This panel comes from a huipil, a blouse-like garment that forms part of the traditional dress worn by Guatemalan women. Huipils are hand-woven by the women themselves, usually on a portable 'back-strap' or 'belt' loom, which is secured around the waist of the weaver, enabling her to continue weaving when opportunity and time permit. Huipils are very simply constructed; they consist of a woven cotton or wool rectangle with an opening left at the top for the head, much like a tunic. The weave is either plain or brocaded, which can then be embroidered or appliquéd if further decoration is desired. Patterns are often particular to the weaver's village or region and are therefore a useful clue to the huipil's origins.

T.34-1931