Whilst carrying out some research on Horace Iule and knifewings, I stumbled across this and thought some members here may enjoy, I certainly did!
It was listed through Bradford’s Auction Gallery as Horace Iule’s footlocker, that he used during his time at the Phoenix Indian School in the 1920’s. It sold for $960 in 2022.
The hand painted embellishments, especially the knifewings, I feel are fantastic. It would be easy to believe that this indeed did belong to Horace, but who can know. Really neat regardless!!
I thought it would make a great display cabinet for @AC’s Knifewings and Rainbowmen!
Wow @Ravenscry…what a fabulous Box (Footlocker)! What’s really interesting is the painted designs on the sides and top: they appear to be paintings of multistone inlay knifewings and butterflys.
Here’s my quagmire: it is believed that Teddy Weahake created the first inlay pieces in1932. Evidently Horace Iule learned blacksmithing when he attended Phoenix Indian School in the 1920’s, then learned silversmithing after graduation. Per Toshio Sei in “Knifewing and Rainbowman in Zuni Jewelry” p.23, Iule created the first knifewing figure in 1928, then Weakhake created an inlay knifewing in 1932.
So during the time Iule was in school, and learning silversmithing, inlay knifewing patterns could not have been painted on this box since it hadn’t yet been developed. This certainly could have been his footlocker, and he or someone else painted the inlay designs at a later date (?)
Regardless it’s a cool and interesting trunk. Thanks for sharing this;I find this stuff so interesting!
I see what you mean about the painted designs, but I’m not sure we can deduce that painted renderings of Knifewing and butterfly, like those on the trunk, chronologically derived from jewelry. It’s entirely possible that painted forms precede silver craftsmanship. Frank Cushing’s 1883 account of life at Zuni included a color plate of Knifewing. And historic Zuni pottery had painted butterflies on it.
Yep…thanks for pointing that out; makes perfect sense. It’s logical that painted forms preceding creation of inlay forms were used to decorate a variety of vessels, etc. My incorrect assumption was that the paintings on the trunk were paintings of actual inlaid jewelry (since he was a jeweler).
i agree. just looking at the trunk w/o the attribution, the surface is sketchy as all heck. the painted butterflies and knifewings al l look exactly the same “freshness,” but in a muted palette to look old, and the ones on the top that are painted on a more obvious white background, are just kind plonked there, all the exact size and evenly spaced. IDK but this just screams “made to deceive” from that only. Also, i’ve owned a number of trunks over the years, and that surface looks like it was gone over with a palm sander and/or a torch BEFORE it was painted. it’s def an old trunk, but that surface ain’t right. IMHO
Btw I should clarify I was in no way offering an authentication opinion about this trunk. Just expressing that painted depictions of the imagery are found in Zuni material culture decades before the emergence of Zuni inlay silverwork.
