It seems to me that many people talk about the history of quilting in terms of women from way back then using scraps cut out of used clothing in order to make blankets for their families.
As a (very) amateur textile historian, I think this ignores the other side of quilting, one which was probably even more prevalent: women putting together patches of fabric to make a utility object into one that was decorative as well.
For instance, the earliest examples of quilts in Europe are the Tristan quilts, dated from approximately 1250-1300 ce. They were definitely decorative in nature and were probably wall hangings rather than bed quilts. Moving forward in time, there were broderie perse quilts (a form of applique) from the 1600s and Baltimore Album quilts of the 1840s and many others, all clearly intended to be decorative in nature.
You can't tell me that Jane Stickle made her sampler quilt as a purely utilitarian item; if so, why did she fiddle with tiny bits of fabric for so many small blocks? If she was in desperate need of a warm blanket, she would have used the largest patches possible to get through the project as quickly as possible.
For that matter, even quilts that were made of used clohing often have patches that are much smaller than one would assume the usable fabric accounted for. Which suggests that the maker was as interested in aesthetics as she was in utility; small patches waste an incredible amount of fabric and time compared to large patches.
Sometimes I wonder if, by paying a disproportionate amount of attention to the utilitarian history of quilting, we are inadvertently contributing to the lack of value quilts have today. Sure, the award winning quilts go for thousands of dollars (and are well worth it) but I've been reading many accounts of quilters who discovered their efforts were ridiculously underpriced.
Perhaps talking more about the history of women making quilts primarily as a way to beautify their homes, the general public will start to see quilting in general as more valuable.