A digital archive showcasing the extensive collection of jewellery and adornment images shared on the former Ethnic Jewels Ning site over the years. These images have significantly enriched discussions on cultural adornment and its global dispersion.
You need to be a member of Adorned Histories to add comments!
Request your copy of our newsletter.
If you would like to receive our newsletter
Comments
My goodness, our bracelets are so alike. Surely by the same hand? And I agree with you about the 3 rather than the cyrillic z now I know yours has 1s on each half.
I`m wondering why mine wasn`t assayed. There is a slight fault in the silver at one point so perhaps it wasn`t considered good enough.
I haven`t been able to trace the initials of your assayer. There was a Nicolay Shulz working in Jelgava mid 19th century. Maybe a descendant?
Gorgeous, dear Betty. Many thanks for posting it. Peter
I do not think the initials (which, if I am not mistaken, should read TK) are the initials of the maker, but rather of the first owner. But I may be wrong.
I asked some knowledgeable folks in Tbilisi (and another expert on the subject) why such pieces were not hallmarked.
The answer was simple: tribal jewellery, even if produced within the realm of the Russian Empire (or later the Soviet Union) was not made to be sold outside a certain region. The maker's would therefore never take them to the assayer's office. Just think about Uzbek or Turkmen pieces. They are rarely punched with Russian hallmarks even though the territories on which they were produced belonged to were under Russian administration.
It was different with belts made in the Caucasus, for example, as they were also worn in "Russia proper" as well as exported elsewhere.
Betty, I read the initials as being the opposite way round from the date and being the cyrillic "N" and the letter for the sound "sh". Of course, I`m not sure.