Mexican Beadwork Objects: Distinguishing Knitting from Needlework in Five Met Records

한국어로 읽기

Research and writing: DDUJA KNIT

It is tempting to read a beaded purse from the pattern outward. Yet similar-looking beads can sit on different textile structures. Five Mexican objects in The Metropolitan Museum of Art make the distinction unusually clear. One reticule is described as probably hand knitted, two objects are explicitly called knitted, and two comparison objects are not classified as knitting in their collection records. Calling all five “Mexican traditional knitting” would erase precisely the evidence that makes them useful. This article reads their dates, materials and curatorial wording as carefully as their motifs. It also separates the objects’ nineteenth-century making from their twentieth-century collection history. Met reticule record · knitted purse · unfinished knitted bag

1818–30: the word “probably” matters

The first object is catalogued as a Mexican Reticule of glass and silk, dated 1818–30. The Met suggests that its miniature, unusual shape served a decorative rather than a practical function. For technique, its wording is probably hand knitted. An article should not silently remove that qualifier. The available images show form and bead arrangement, but the page does not supply a technical study establishing stitch paths, gauge or the sequence of bead placement. Seeing beads is different from knowing exactly how they were integrated into the fabric. Met object 2009.300.1902

The next photograph belongs to the same collection object; it is not a second nineteenth-century reticule. The two images allow comparison of the silhouette and surface, but neither is an executable pattern. A reconstruction would require closer study of the reverse, edges and thread routes. Keeping the museum’s uncertainty visible is more informative than assigning a technique from the front-facing picture alone.

What the unfinished bag can—and cannot—tell us

The Met dates an unfinished Mexican Bag to 1840–60 and explicitly calls its surface knitted beadwork. It records two sizes of very small beads used for detailed animals and flowers. A little female figure on the flap sits between the initials “VZ”; the curator says she may represent an owner. That is not an identification of either the maker or the owner. The listed materials are glass and linen. Its unfinished condition is itself evidence, a reminder that the pictured surface had not yet become a closed, usable bag. Met object 2009.300.1917

What the catalogue does not give is just as important to a knitter: there is no stitch count, needle size, bead-threading order or construction diagram. The precise animal and floral motifs cannot responsibly be presented as a ready-to-knit chart. One can inspect how bead size relates to the contours of a motif, then ask for close views of the reverse and borders before proposing a reconstruction. The description establishes the technique category without claiming every practical detail of its execution.

A late nineteenth-century knitted purse with a firm shape

A different Purse, dated to the late nineteenth century, is explicitly described as knitted. Its stylised flower head reminds the curator of European and American cross-stitch patterns. A resemblance to a cross-stitch design does not turn the knitted support into cross-stitch. The Met instead explains the firm structure by silver-coloured metal added to linen cord, and lists glass, metal and linen as materials. Surface design and structural support answer different questions. The eye reads a flower, while the cord and metal help the object hold its shape. Met object 2009.300.1916a, b

The record does not name the individual maker, workshop, seller or user. Nor does a “Mexican” cultural attribution license a claim that this construction was uniform across the whole country. This is one surviving object with a particular museum description. The careful comparison is with the other objects in the collection, not with an imagined single national origin for beaded knitting.

Beads do not automatically mean knitted fabric

A Purse dated 1800–1820 combines beadwork and needlework. Its lamb motif is needlepoint. The lining reuses eighteenth-century dress silk, possibly French, according to the Met. The curator suggests that a crown motif may have a ceremonial, perhaps marital, meaning. Each of those qualifiers matters. This object record does not call the bag knitted. A reused lining points to the continued life of valuable silk, not to a documented chain of owners that the record does not provide. Met object 2009.300.1921

The second comparison is a late nineteenth-century Spectacle case. The Met singles out cut-steel beads used in a playful illusion of metal: a key in a dog’s mouth and the top of a beer stein. Its listed materials are glass, linen, leather and metal. The description discusses the visual trick but does not classify its foundation as knitting. We include the image precisely to show the boundary of a knitting claim, not to count a spectacle case among the three knitted or probably knitted objects. Met object 2009.300.1903

Elizabeth Morrow, the museum and the makers left unnamed

All five catalogue records connect the objects to Elizabeth Morrow (1873–1955). The Met says she collected more than 600 Mexican beadworks between 1927 and 1930, while her husband Dwight Morrow served as United States ambassador to Mexico. She lent the collection to the Brooklyn Museum in 1938; after her death her children donated it. The present credit lines record a 2009 gift from the Brooklyn Museum Costume Collection to the Met. Thus the date of making, collecting, lending and museum transfer are separate events. An 1818–30 bag was not manufactured in the late 1920s merely because it was collected then. Met collection history · credit line

The Met explains that Morrow assembled Mexican beadwork and other arts for a country house in Cuernavaca to promote a more peaceful image of Mexico. That is a statement about a collector’s purpose, not a direct record of what the unnamed makers intended. Its account of imported glass beads and European pattern sources gives historical context, but does not trace every bead in a particular object to a named port or publication. These five objects are a close-reading exercise, not a statistical sample of all Mexican textiles.

When looking at an old beaded bag, ask three questions before calling it knitted. Does the record assert the technique, qualify it as probable, or say nothing? Have you separated surface motif from the structure carrying it? Are the making date and later collecting date kept apart? Those questions move attention from a pleasing image back to the material evidence.

Primary records and image rights

1. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Reticule, 1818–30, object 2009.300.1902 — Mexican object record, materials and catalogued technique: probably hand knitted.
2. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Purse, late 19th century, object 2009.300.1916a, b — Mexican object record, materials and catalogued technique: knitted.
3. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Bag, 1840–60, object 2009.300.1917 — Mexican object record, materials and catalogued technique: knitted beadwork.
4. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Purse, 1800–1820, object 2009.300.1921 — Mexican object record, materials and catalogued technique: beadwork and needlework, not described as knitted.
5. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Spectacle case, late 19th century, object 2009.300.1903 — Mexican object record, materials and catalogued technique: not specified as knitted.
6. The Met Open Access policy — CC0 for public-domain collection images; the object pages are each marked Public Domain.

Object records and image rights checked 15 October 2026. Five real collection photographs from four distinct objects; no AI-generated image. Each caption links the object record, the image file and the CC0 policy. The fifth object, 2009.300.1921, is discussed through its record without reproducing its image. Neither comparison object is counted as knitted.