In November, 1705 at Cebolleta, New Mexico, a band of Apache de Navajo brought Fray Antonio de Miranda a holy cross to send to Don Francisco Cuerbo (y Valdez) in Santa Fe. They were seeking peace. Later, on February 23, 1706, de Miranda confirmed that whenever the Navajos sought peace they cams to Santa Fe bearing a large white skin pinted with a cross. This seems to be the earliest documented Navajo use of the figure. Simultaneously, the Navajo weaving industry had been evolving for approximately 50 years, and dispite their obvious familiarity with the cruciform, it remained an elusive loom image. One hundred and fifty-six years later, a Navajo blanket recovered in 1862 revealed a cross motif in its design. Then, in 1864 a Navajo blanket found in the aftermath of the Cheyenne Sand Creek Massacre revealed two distinct cross styles (Fig. 1). To date, the 1860s is the earliest known period for discovery of the cross in Navajo textile designs.

Since the metaphysical premises of Navajo beliefs are not founded in a Christian ethic, their use of the cross prompts several questions. Who or what influenced its use? Did pre-existing cultural conditions other than the historically noted "quest for peace" intiate its development? What meaning, if any, did the cross have for the Navajo weaver who used it? And, why was it incorporated so late into the Navajo design system? There are no simple answers. In order to understand what is known and what is left to speculation, basic assumptions about the Navajo subsystem art and the values and behaviors that governed its development must be outlined.

To begin, there is an evolutionary attitude in Navajo weaving design that represents itelf in two assertions: first, that patterns and elements are believed to be inherited formations, expressing a compromise between a Navajo aesthetic and outside influence; and scond, the dynamic structure of design is determined by variations in the individual's experiences and her developing stages of technological maturity. Since Navajo textile designs are not controlled by the cultural precedents of traditionalism or ceremonialism, they became an area in which outside influence could intrude and successively impose itself.

The Navajo weaving design, then is based on the premise that any creative process is initiated by an inherited pattern of ideas, prototypes. In their promotion, there must be a network of things and behaviors that have been gathered and internalized. Finally, the acceptance or rejection of a design idea is usually dependent upon the duration of contact and condition of its exposure, good or bad. Once adapted, dispite a probable or even determinable outside origin, the new feature is considered to be a product of a Navajo modal personality.

Interestingly, however, an idea is not determined solely by standard group behavior. Rather, it becomes a cultural expression which is measured and controlled by the individual. The changes or additions to a design idea are developed from the interactions of what is going on in the weaver's mind, her observations and thought, and how she wants these to be communicated.

Based on these thoughts, the following general statement can be offered. The adaptation of the cross into Navajo weaving characterizes the accumulation and concentration of both a cultural and individual idea. Its repitition in Navajo weaving represents a collaboration of effort when Navajo weavers were exposed to and simultaneously and cooperatively exploring a similar idea. The resulting variations and uses of the cross within the overall design plane of each textile offers a strictly individual Navajo orientation. An examination of specific blankets, their dates of manufacture and concurrent Navajo cultural events substantiates this and provides additional information.

The Navajo blanket taken from the body of Cheyenne chief White Antelope at Sand Creek was unique among the manufactures of the period. It was a maverick. Not only did it incorporate two distinct cross elements, it mingled elaborate Spanish structural design influences with simple life forrms. These characteristics, combined with the use of synthetic dyes and silk fibres suggest a settlement location in which exposure to such materials and pattern prototypes was prolonged and had attained acceptance. Moreover, it is possible the weaver lived in a Spnish household.

Whatever the source, the weaver most certainly interacted in, or was in close proximity to an environment where cross-cultural factors influenced her design making decision. One cross, the most elaborate of the two styles, serves as the focal feature in the blanket. Its importance to the weaver is unmistakable. The current literature attributes this motif (with no cultural verification) to the mythical Navajo figure "Spider Woman." But, its visual resemblance to the morada crosses of the Penitente Brotherhood is undeniable (Fig. 2a-b). Common characteristics include the subsidiary arms and the three-tiered "trinity" arrangement. Such papal symbols dotted the New Mexican landscape and were highly visible in Spanish settlements. The similarity between these and the Navajo footed crosses are not coincidental. In addition the textile was manufactured during the peak period of abducting Navajo captives for use or sale as servants which began around 1860 and ended about 1869 (Brugge, 1985:105).

This so-called Chief White Antelope blanket also displays eight Greek or Roman style crosses, in sets of two, each flanking the central motif. Such elements also serve as filters within a series of diamonds that horizontally traverse the design plane both above and below the central area. These crosses and similarly structured design units duplicate figures with previous Navaho and prehistoric Pueblo association. Identified in Navajo sand paintings and rock art, their orientation is directed to celestial bodies such as stars. Pueblo ceramics depict a variety of simple crosses, several of which occurred on bowl interiors as filler elements within open motifs such as diamonds. Such an arrangement exists in the blanket recovered from Sand Creek, and in many other Navajo blanket patterns developed after 1864. No doubt, this exposure and an intimate affiliation with the cross-like element augmented the Navajo weaver's perception of it, promoted acceptance, and provided an identity with a more familial model, particularly when a foreign concept associated with the form was presented.

During the 1860s many textiles with cross motifs succeeded this initial effort. Such action may have been prompted by specific Navajo historical events that signaled an increased awareness and employment of the cross. In addition to the events of the 1700s, November 14, 1858, is also significant. Special agent to the Navajo, Samual Yost, wrote to Colonel James L. Collins, then Superintendent of Indian Affairs for New Mexico. His letter reported on a completed 15-day campaign against the Navajo in Canyon de Chelly, Arizona. It was noted that at every point of observation by military officers entering the canyon, the Navajo were "crying for peace." He wrote, in "every mile or two of their progress, crosses placed by the Navajo would be seen in the sand, a sign – a Christian symbol – of peace. In one place a small cross was erected, on which was a piece of muslin, and a yellow stain from some kind of (illegible). I asked Juan (Annaya, Indian guide and interpreter) the meaning of it. He told me the white muslin was our (American) symbol of peace – the cross, the Mexican sign – and the stain, the Navajo sign" (NA-RG 75:yost to Collins, 1858; Correll, 1979:199).

The center bands of both blankets are almost identical. As a focal motif in each center of the three crosses. Two intersecting zigzag lines cross at their midpoints. To the Navajo this figure personifies a "male." Its function is to banish evil influences as well as secure blessings, healing and peace of mind for human beings. Koenig (1982:28, fig. 2) identifies it only as a "sweathouse" design," but (Joe Ben) Wheat (personal communication, 1979) notes it is the Navajo symbol for "man."

The end bands differ in each textile. The child's blanket has a simple nesting arragenent for each of the crosses in both end bands. The finite cruciforms in each end band of the "Chief" blanket encase a figure that consists of a horizontal zigzag and vertical straight line which intersect at their midpoints. Newcomb (1956:8) shows a variant of this motif with the straight bar positioned on a horizontal axis, symbolizing east and west. This is rainbow (a female). North to south is the zigzag line which is identified as lightning (a male). Figure 4a in this text reproduces Newcomb's symbol. Matthews (1902: Pl. 11B) and Koenig (1982:28, fig. 2), however, reproduce it exactly as it is portrayed in the "Chief" blanket (Fig. 4b). Given the significance and arrangement of the design units, it is interesting to note the combined presence of two foreign religious concepts. Loosely translated, the Navajo and Christian figures embody a man on a cross. Whether this was the meaning intended by the weaver can only be best explained by briefly examining Navajo speech and thought patterns for the cross in Navajo weaving.

In the Navajo languagethere is no expression to identify a "cross" in their weaving design, suggesting its reality and association cannot be easily classified by them, and therefore is not deeply rooted in their culture. This is particularly significant when one understands that in Navajo culture, thought is not without its inseperable companion, speech. Thus, if the Navajo cannot speak about such a form, they also do not think about it. It is nonexistent. Instead, the cross is metaphorically described as two sticks crossing each other (tsin alnaozid). It is also given association with familiar inanimate objects such as a star (so) which describes the GREEK OR Roman cross. The Saint Andrews form is referred to as a pointy star (so deshzha). Long objects in horizontal rotation (nahokhos) translates as a swastika cross. Four points with three stars tqago deza be digo desa) designates the Maltese style. These few examples are listed by the Franciscan Fathers (1910:251-252) and given in prsonal communication by Navajo weavers.

Thus, in response to one question posed at the beginning of this paper, the following can be postulated. Primarily, its late incorporation into weaving design, the Navajo meaning attributed to it by interpreter Juan Annaya on the military campaign in Canyon de Chelly, and its widely visualized presence in New Mexican settlements suggests the cross in Navajo blankets has a Spanish-American prototype. Underpinning this identity is its association with a Christian ethic. Peace and power were the concepts transmitted to the Navajo, and through its use, a mulyitude of behavioral codes were inacted. Primarily, it became a manipulative, intercultural communication device, a signal that peace was desired. As such, it was one of many design examples that portrayed an apt expression of Navajo dynamics to new experiences. Perception then becomes a key factor in answering the question without meaning. The cross was used to gain peace, because of its significance and value to outsiders. Beyond this, any Navajo meaning must remain speculative and attributed to the individual experience.

Further verification of this is found in the unique and various cross styles that appear in Navajo culture (Fig. 5a-i). Many innovations and alterations of the form are observed. It is obvious from the many styles that appear in textiles after 1862, Navajo weavers were making choices. Flexibility along with a pragmatic approach characterized their efforts. One cross example even resembles a form the Navajo designate as the "life and death" symbol (Newcomb, 1956:47, Figs 85-87).

This indigenous element is mainly observed in their sandpaintings and other religious art, but there is no obvious similarity in shape between it and one incorporated into Navajo weaving. The comparison, however, may end there. Navajo weavers note an inherent danger in replicating sacred designs. To do so violates the natural order of things, creates an imbalance and brings disorder to their world. Moreover, they know that designs associated with Navajo cognitive themes are rigidly established and should be created without significant change or alteration. While a few have challenged this notion and overridden their fears, the majority prefer the protection of a well-ordered universe. It may be noted, then, that there is no pre-existing cultural condition that dictates the transmission of the cross-like element from a religious medium to a secular one. But when this does occur, the choice is a personal one.

Choices are always presented to the weaver. It is this decision making process that allows a final response to why Navajo weavers incorporated the cross so late into their repertoire. As noted in the beginning of this article, the presence of a cruciform endured three centuries of Spanish, Mexican, and subsequent American occupation of the Southwest. Slave trading, baptisms, increased American military dominance, and a severe decline in Navajo economic stability, were certainly persuasive factors of the 1860s contributing to its awareness. Whatever the reason, the concurrent appearance of the cross in Navajo weaving became a sensitive indicator to a shift in degree and type of cultural interaction that was taking place.

As such, crosses in Navajo blankets became transmitters of information. While their substance and meaning is uncertain, there is no reason to dismiss the possibility that their use symbolized a Navajo response to an impending loss of freedom and power to control their own world. Embellishing the highly sought after Navajo blanket with a form that symbolized peace and strength may have eased an explosive political situation while also creating potentially new economic gain for their loom product.

In so doing, weavers repeated the same behavioral patterns of their kinsmen escaping annihilation by the American military in Canyon de Chelly. Its use characterized something important to the Navajo and may have promoted a more productive coexistance. In fact, individual weavers may have been positing the selective values of outside groups onto a visible canvas, while at the same time preserving their own Navajo identity.

In sum, several conceptsalong with supportive historical and ethnographic data have been offered to answer questions about the incorporation of the cross in Navajo weaving design. While much of the information remains speculative, it is clear that flexibility and freedom Navajos have had over the centuries to make selective decisions in their culture have created the precedent by which one expects to observe alterations and additions in their art. The reasons may not alwasy be clear. But the cross in Navojo weaving is essentially a product of changes in individual and group experience. Drawn from outside Navajo culture, the form could intrude and be successfully incorporated into their design system because there was no prescribed or mandated cultural orientation. Finally, it is noted the presence of the cross, like so many other additions in Navajo weaving design, is not only a visual example of change, it is also the result of an incorporation of experiences that affected Navajo daily life.

Correll, J. Lee
1979 Through the White Man's Eyes: A Contribution to Navajo History. Vol. I-VI. Navajo Heritage Center. Window Rock, AZ.

Franciscan Fathers
1910 An Ethographic Dictionary of the Navajo Language. St. Michaels, AZ: St. Michaels Press.

Koenig, Seymour H.
1982 Drawings of Nightway Sandpaintings in the Bush Collection. In "Navajo Religion and Culture: Selected Views." David M. Brugge and Charlotte J. Frisbie, eds. Museum of New Mexico Papers in Anthropology, 17. Santa Fe, NM: Museum of New Mexico Press.

Matthews, Washington
1902 "The Night Chant." Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History, 6. New York.

National Archives
1858, November 14, Yost to Collins. Records of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, New Mexico Field Papers. Letters Received. RG. 75.

Newcomb, Franc Johnson, Stanley Fishler and Mary C. Wheelright
1956 "A Study of Navajo Symbolism." Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnography. 32 (3). Cambridge, MA: The Peabody Museum. (Kraus Reprint, 1974).