I’m sure you are correct, @mmrogers. To be honest, I didn’t even look at this belt very closely. Examining it now, I see it was made by non-native “architect and sculptor turned jewelry designer”, Arnold Goldstein. I have no idea why he is reproducing this belt buckle.
No comment on this particular belt, or it’s putative creator.
Generally speaking I’ve seen a lot of knockoff jewelry, and knockoff artists over the years. Typically opportunists knocking off other peoples valuable work, especially those they consider to be unable to, unwilling, or too unsophisticated to defend themselves for any variety of reasons, is almost always the exclusive province of opportunistic Sociopaths seeking personal and economic self aggrandizement. Especially when they go as far as putting their own name on works someone else actually created
Almost to an individual they’ve never had an original thought or inspiration in their lives, are artistically, constitutionally and spiritually incapable of creating original work, and equally artistically, constitutionally and spiritually incapable of owning up to the fact they’ve simply taken the fruits of someone else’s labor, and put their own name on it.
What you say here is so interesting. I have a nephew who took a job a few years ago as an ICE agent in NM. We visited him this summer, and because I was planning on shopping for some Native American jewelry, he told us about a case he inherited when he moved to NM. He ended up working on one involving the sale of fake Native American jewelry; I believe regarding stuff coming out of Asia (not sure cause he couldn’t say too much). The case was frustrating because in the end it’s so hard to stop. People will lie and cheat to make a buck regardless of who they hurt.
I get and respect the point of view about individual artisan creations being exploited. This is just a different sort of comment about how designs circulate in traditional cultures vs. modern commercial trade. The notion of copyrighted work in design, whether hallmarked or not, is late to folk societies, an outside-influence situation. Slender Maker didn’t do it, the original Pueblo potters didn’t do it, in fact nobody did it while the objects were made by and for the community of origin. It wasn’t a valued activity to mark something in a proprietary way when the buyer was a neighbor or relative or acquaintance and therefore shared the same aesthetic concepts and likely knew the maker personally. This still exists in some traditional environments.
Among NA artists, incorporating recognizable elements from material culture is a way of carrying forward a beloved and vital aesthetic identity. Ambrose Roanhorse or Roger Skeet, or Perry Shorty and so on, dip into a certain visual vocabulary on the solid grounds of doing creative work within a tradition; they don’t have to be fully “original” in conception to still be doing great, valuable artistry.
The trickery and lack of ethics in the marketplace, though, is real and problematic.