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
This is like the second one (not ours) which Backman sold - very, very similar, in fact. We took an option on both of his amulets, and chose the smaller piece, which meant that this went to the second buyer, i.e. the Asian Civilisations Museum in Singapore. The museum piece was not only a good deal dearer, though NOT expensive, but simply too large for anything like a substantial but not grand home. This TYPE, I feel, stands out as a separate category, formed by some 10-20 known box-like amulets: not, in essence, with just a triangular tumar shape, but much bulkier. The very bulkiness of the box - which is very large - does not, to my mind, sit comfortably with the human body, either to wear or to drape over it. That is why I think this type would have been worn by a horse (and it could have been worn for several processions, thus causing patina and wear); the proportions do not literally or even imaginatively to my mind suit the body of an inevitably small Central Asian woman. It COULD, or course, hang in a room, but there it would not develop much patina or wear.
What your photos (together with Michel Halter's) do tend to show pretty clearly is that the very large items which do not look like actually wearable for a Central Asian woman (indeed, many of the larger ones, as Hillary's example shows, are not suitable for a larger white woman either), all do seem to be an evolvement from smaller (even if sizeable) pieces that WERE worn by women, and, even if large, without looking out of all proportion. By contrast a large piece like this DOES look out of proportion for a small woman, and not only unattractive, but very heavy and unwieldy to wear. That is why I believe that these "scaled up" versions, which moreover tend to have a VERY bulky box also in width, were probably designed for horses, or, if not, to serve as hangings.
This was sold by Christies on 31 March 2005: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150157066338049&set=a.....
NOTE: Christies actually did NOT describe it as worn by a horse. It fetched US$24,000 (far more than their estimate), and this is their description: "A Gilt Silver Pectoral Plate -
Bukhara, 19th/20th Century. In the form of two addorsed birds with shaped hinged cover, with fine filigree overall, inlaid with carnelian, turquoise, and hardstones, with hanging pendants terminating in openwork orbs, the front silver gilt. Approximately 47½ in. (120.5 cm.) high overall including chain." Sounds like a perfectly sensible and responsible description to me. Interesting that they did not commit themselves to describing the purpose of the object!