Start with the object number

Powerhouse’s record A7967-4 describes a densely embroidered headcover from Western Punjab, dated to the mid-to-late nineteenth century in its object statement. The catalogue distinguishes cotton ground cloth from silk embroidery and records dimensions. Begin with that identifier: the broad word phulkari can lead to many objects, while an accession number points to one particular record.[1]

The University of Michigan’s Museum of Anthropological Archaeology identifies its example as UMMAA 17358, in the Koelz Collection, and dates it more broadly to the nineteenth or early twentieth century. Its description again identifies silk embroidery on red cotton. Preserve each museum’s date range rather than forcing the two objects into an invented exact year.[2]

Separate observation from interpretation

The Powerhouse entry includes both a physical description and contextual curatorial notes. Its acquisition history says that the textile was purchased from David Spode in 1981 and that its earlier history is unknown. An acquisition date records entry into a museum collection; it does not tell us when the textile was made or identify its embroiderer.[1]

Michigan’s discussion describes deliberately irregular medallions and offers alternative explanations for interruptions to symmetry, including protective intent and family commemoration. These are interpretations presented by the museum. A careful note should retain that attribution and the alternatives, rather than announcing a particular motif as a universal code shared by every maker.[2]

A practical comparison sheet

Create separate columns for identifier, custodian, attributed place, date range, materials, measurements, acquisition history and interpretation. Add the catalogue URL and the date you consulted it. Comparing those fields makes the two records useful without assuming that one object represents all the embroidery of Punjab or that a modern border existed when it was made.[2]

Check reproduction rights before downloading images for publication. The Powerhouse page separates its text licence from image rights and asks users to make an image-licensing enquiry. This guide links to the original records rather than distributing their photographs. Online visibility and permission to reproduce are separate questions, even when the catalogue is freely readable.[1]

Sources & notes

Source records include access dates and, where known, limits on what was examined. Checks used AI assistance; independent human or specialist review has not been completed.

  1. Powerhouse Collection; contextual note by Christina Sumner. Embroidered shawl (bagh) from Western Punjab, Pakistan, A7967-4 ↗museum catalogue · Source date: publication date not established · Locator: Object Statement, Physical Description, History, Source, Copyright and Licensing. Accessed 2026-10-31.Inspected full record including acquisition uncertainty and image-rights restriction.Return to Start with the object number, paragraph 1 ↑Return to Separate observation from interpretation, paragraph 1 ↑Return to A practical comparison sheet, paragraph 2 ↑
  2. University of Michigan Museum of Anthropological Archaeology. Day 185: 200 Objects in 200 Days, UMMAA 17358 ↗museum object essay · Source date: 2017-10-01 · Locator: Object caption and discussion of irregular medallions, 1 October 2017. Accessed 2026-11-04.Inspected object identifier, date range and alternative interpretations; images not reused.Return to Start with the object number, paragraph 2 ↑Return to Separate observation from interpretation, paragraph 2 ↑Return to A practical comparison sheet, paragraph 1 ↑
Help improve this entry. Suggest a correction with a source.
Record PH-COL-0066 · English edition · human review not performed