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
Good view of the detail!
I really feel that this is a super major master work and probaby one of the most important pieces I have sold. Under valued by many as they don't get it's craftsmenship and or the relevance of the dating and age. I told you several very good dealers thought it was 19th c and I said no by the way it was made.. and in fact when it was translated in front of me when I dissagreed , the two dealers who had handled Buddhist works of art all their lives were astonished. My opinion is that people don't consider ornament serious so they don't look at it the same way as sculpture or painting. Yet all the references to the age are in the piece as clear as anything else.
Well - of course I agree with everything you say about it. To my mind it is, of all the great works that you have handled and that I know of so far, THE most important item, all things considered. That it just my personal view, of course, and is due, I think, to the deep spiritual importance of the object which lifts it beyond the more normal "jewellery" sphere, while yet it meets all the criteria I look for in good jewellery at the same time. That combination makes it so uniquely valuable to Truus and me. We would dearly have liked other objects from your catalogue as well, but were (would you believe?) less wealthy then than we are now, so simply could not buy much more, and moreover - quite understandably - several other great pieces were sold. There are a good many pieces in that catalogue that we'd love to own - but you can't have everything, and we are not doing badly in what we do have. That's the way to look at it. To count the pluses, not the minuses. One could, after all, always think of yet other things one would have like to have. Admittedly, had we been richer we would have bought far more again ...! I find it incomprehensible, myself, that so few people can see the merit here, but I think you probably hit the nail on the head: it is "only jewellery" to the snobs that look down upon that as a "minor art". Conversely, jewellery lovers often like pieces that give them an immediate sense of joy, a kick, colour, etc. And that is not what this great work of art primarily offers! So it probably takes oddballs like you and Truus and me to appreciate this on more than one score, and for the "hybrid" that it is - both a religious object and a piece of jewellery.
The people who thought it was 19th c seem to me innately those who disregard the fact that many tribal art objects that are not actually period-bound are MUCH older than we often think. Carbon dating now reveals that many objects from the Pacific and Southeast Asia, made of wood, which everyone had described as "19th c" - never earlier (except occasionally "possibly 18th c") actually date back to 1400 or thereabouts. In many cases one could probably guess that it might be earlier than 1800 - but not necessarily earlier, as on the whole there is with a well-used wooden club (for example) not that much difference between one proven to date back four or five centuries (or more) and one known to be more likely e.g. 18th c or early 19th.
I cant agree more with both of you:
- I find the most wonderful joy when looking, discovering and even owning a piece, far beyond the simple colour glitter and the technique touch, when it allows youto surf on all knowledge waves
A piece like yours Joost, is a feast for the ethnographer, the historian, the anthropologue, the geographer and even the mystic, not only for the aesthetic lover that every collector and passionate is! Here where lies its value
-As many specialists "decided", that due to the constant recycling, melting and rearranging that jewelry goes through from the first time it is created, it all should be considered at most not older than 19th century, it gives them a historical landmark and profound sense of accuracy when they unfold their judgment.
This behaviour also, and maybe most importantly, given the fact that most of these specialist come from the western world, reassure them on the pre-eminence of sophisticated western cultural heritage over the "tribal/ethnic" one and they just only can't accept that a piece dating to the middle ages can compete with best renaissance european pieces!
For them there should be an influence lying beneath the mastering wether it comes straight from Europe or from an equivalent sophisticated source (ottomans, japan, china....)
They focus on paintings, sculptures and ignore jewelry for the simple fact that adornment was never a prime art in christian europe due to religious austerity (bar for the elite and royal courts!)
Pieces like yours and many others are of great importance to the people they created it because it is full of sense and spirituality that is why they have preserved it for centuries, this is a fact which is hardly acceptable by western "atheist" scholars and specialists
A very important and beautiful object which teaches much.
Congratulations on finding and purchasing it.
S x
An excellent exposition, Ayis, with which I thoroughly agree. I am always glad to come across people who do see the great merit of this piece, which is so important to Truus and me and which we are so very glad to have bought from Linda when we had the opportunity. Sarah, thank you also very much for your considerate post.
Knowingly that this was already published I decided to post it here because I am truly proud of finding it and being able to pass it on to the right owners. My acheivement in selling is only the accomplishment of finding such steller pieces in the first place . It makes me very proud to find such a piece and it's not about the sale or money exchanged but the ability to see the quality in something in a case such as this. Also as I am interested in eventually writing or lecturing on the age and quality aspects of pieces we take for granted as being just "19th c this piece for me was the first clear vindicated in this case as a positive outcome.. In some cases I had not the right outcome and was over taken by the lack of change in the design or technique and dated in correctly based on all what I know and have used in my life. I would tend to say my gut is usualy pretty good but some times we are not correct as we think.. So pieces like this are so important when one has a date or a history since in most cases the estimate of age is speculatory at best. I am glad I posted it since it's such an important piece and it's nice to share it with more people.
I think you are right to say, Lilnda, that dating ethnic jewellery can be a very difficult matter. For example, if a piece made of silver is worn virtually every day by someone for, say, 40 years, it is likely to acquire a terrific patina and signs of wear which will tend to make it look earlier than it is. This is where the techniques of manufacture, alloy used etc become very important to take into account, as you indicate. Even so, I think you did indeed encounter pure prejudice when others told you that this was 19th c. One of the things that is so good about the piece is that, as you felt, it looks much earlier than most pieces we commonly see; that there is no technical reason why it could not be very early; and then that the inscription stated the actual age. I think one has to look at it that way round (i.e. not start with the inscription), and to be aware that all factors "fuse", so to speak. You did extremely well to see its importance for what it is, for which you deserve real credit. For my own part, I still feel proud that of all the pieces in your splendid catalogue this stood out for me - and Truus can share the credit with me, for although she saw it after me she independently also "picked" it. Mind you, if it had actually been 19th century, we would still have loved it: that is in principle old enough! But the piece in all respects struck one as having tremendous depth, not only of pure age, but of tradition, spirituality and expression. We had no doubts about its quality and loved it instantly - the only surprise has been that so many other people do not seem to be really moved by it. I find that reaction personally very difficult to understand, and it continues to surprise me. But that is just the way it is - and I accept it as a fact of life. I have no doubt that it will go down the ages as something truly important, and it is one of those pieces which we own about which from time to time I really worry about how to make sure that it ends up in the right place. These are things we really need to discuss with our children, in the first instance, and thinking about this piece makes me feel that that discussion is becoming a matter of some urgency. After all, we are not young ... But meanwhile I am very happy that we should own it ourselves. It is one of those pieces, among everything we have collected (i.e. not just jewellery) that continues to stand out for us as genuinely very important and first-class in any environment, whether museums, art galleries, first class private collections, etc. Indeed, if rarity is added to the factors one considers (though never our first concern) then it is, in my view, unquestionably all in all among the very best things we own, all of our works of art included. Despite that, I think that the commercial reality would be that some collectors and dealers would pay to my mind inane prices for some of our best Oceanic pieces, notably, that would leave this, comparatively, in the shadows. That does not mean, however, that they will in the long run necessarily be proven to have their priorities right. I think ayis is on the ball with regard to the factors that lead many, particularly in the West, to misjudge the importance and quality of a work of art like this, especially that it is just "jewellery", for which they have no high regard as serious art; yet it is not actually "normal" jewellery either, which puts of strict "jewellery" collectors, etc. One has to be simply openminded and receptive about what one sees, but a remarkably large number of people seem to be incapable of shutting out what are in fact sheer prejudices.
I think that one of the good things about our doing the book - principally Truus's work - *Ethnic Jewellery and Adornment* is that it includes a piece like this, which is typically not what one would find in more predictable collections like that of Ghysels and van der Star. This is not to suggest that our collection is - as a whole - superior, but I do feel that, as you yourself have been, Linda, Truus and I are exceptionally independent-minded in what we buy, and that those who buy the book and then find that they like it so much feel that what we produce is unusual. We did very much what we, ourselves, believed in doing, and people do respond to that. Truus did an enormous amount of work on her text, which means that pieces like this and others get the kind of attention which they deserve and which we felt was sadly lacking in other general jewellery books (not, of course, in some of the more specialised ones). We have been very happy to publish this piece and others which we obtained from you, and in such a way that they will not be overlooked. So that is at least one step we have taken to help to preserve this piece and others for posterity.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next