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
Truly spectacular, I envy you each time I see this wonderful piece./
The enamel is truly amazing as is the shape wich means it belonged to a very rich woman
Ca n anybody, maybe SARAH? tell us more about the use of coral cabachons on south moroccan old jewelry?
I know of carnelian being the most reasured inlayed semi precious stone in these areas, eventually being replaced by coloured glass.
Any insight SARAH or someone else?
An interesting question, Ayis, which I can't answer. It is perhaps useful to add, though, that everything shows that this piece is actually very early, including the colour and patina (including wear) of the back. The appearance of the back is "to die for", and in some respects the more amazing as the enamel has lasted so well. And as you say, the owner must have been very wealthy. Only a life-size photo would indicate just how impressively large this piece is, which is certainly among the best ethnic jewels we own.
I do recall Truus researching this one very thoroughly, and feeling convinced that, as she says in the book, it is from Tiznit and a Berber piece, and must be 19th/20th c - not later. Concerning the date I would agree (I know less about the area than she, though it does seem Tiznit to me also). It has exactly such early features as we have seen on many pieces known to be of that kind of age, and those features all look absolutely natural. The silver is also of excellent quality.
Hi Ayis,
I think I may have commented on the use of Coral some time ago regarding this very piece on Joost's FB page.
Carnelian in early pieces followed chronologically by glass discs and later fascetted cabachons would in my experience be typical of work from Tiznit.
For me the enamel is exceptional in this piece...... fine and glossy and most certainly made using European glass beads ground to make the basic powder. Possibly French imports from the Briare / Batterposses factory ( 1850 - 1950 ) or Czech imports from Jabolenc 1600 onwards . These beads were mostly traded into africa at the start of the 20th century. This gives us an indication of the availability of such glass for enamelling of this type..In my experience these beads reached Morocco for Jewellery use in around 1910 . This said, these beads are still found in Morocco today, and I know of a maker of 'reproduction' high quality pieces who travels to buy them by the kilo to grind them to use in his work...The more recent Chinese or Indian glass which is cheaply available has different qualities and makes muddier and more volatile enamelling.
I agree with Joost that the silverwork looks exceptional. ( I would love to see the pic of the reverse sometime!) The scale is also epic!
As to the corals....for me they speak of Kabyle work. This type of fine silversmithing also is typical of Kabyle workmanship, as are the colours.
This said, I do not completely reject the opinion that this piece may hail from Tiznit. It is not the first time that a piece from Tiznit has been discussed in this exact manner.
I saw a beautiful Hirz similar to this some years ago in the inventory of a very knowledgeable dealer in Morocco, I ventured the opinion that the piece was from Algeria, He told me it was certainly of Tiznit, and a few Jewellers there in the late 30's were inspired by the exotic Kabyle style. ( the piece did also have the aqua blue shade of glass included in the design. I took this as an indicator of the possibility of Moroccan work).
So I guess it is a case of 'Jury still out' for me. I certainly agree Ayis's point regarding the use of Coral (historically a piece with this style would have been of Kabyle origin.... so likely Algeria, but just possibly Tiznit until proven otherwise!).
Sx
I think one of the comments dealing with coral was that often Moroccan coral cabochons had holes in them -- used as beads apparently before they were placed as cabochons. ALgerian coral, however, came in cabochon form. These cabochons look like corals from Kabyle pieces -- although I am sure that there are huge variations in how things were set all over Northern Africa -- just an observation, the setting also looks Kabyle.
Sarah, I think that yours is an excellent statement on this piece - really most impressive. When I first started posting on Facebook (using the title "Ethnic Jewellery and Adornment" for my page on that subject) I presented this piece to viewers early on, and the question of "Algerian vs Moroccan" immediately arose, as you may remember, for you made a brief comment then, in response to the very person who raised the matter. I recall being very definite on the piece being Tiznit, as I believed, which I actually still do, that the predominant style of the piece is distinctly Moroccan, and although I concede that the use of the corals looks like an Algerian feature, I consider that it is more likely that Moroccans would have adopted this feature from the Kabyle than that the Kabyle would have made a piece looking predominantly Moroccan with just the corals as a component of their own (so to speak). Above all, I think that, as time passes, it becomes increasingly clear that it does NOT "pay" to think in terms of rigid divisions as setting the two cultures apart. On the contrary, to me it is clear that Ayis is/has been inclined too much to reason that e.g. a piece which shows one particular feature from culture "A", even if predominantly looking like a "B" piece, then the piece cannot be a "B" piece. The evidence suggests to me that there was far more cultural interaction and influence than that: this is, indeed, common in tribal (and other) cultures, for it is perfectly logical for a culture to stick mostly to its own traditional aesthetic and yet to incorporate features from another culture. That is what I strongly believe is likely to be the case here. I think that there is also a possibility of that being also the case with the large, mostly blue forehead piece of ours that has been so often discussed here, though I feel still uncertain as to what the position is in that case. Coming back to this piece, I have no problem believing that the piece is early 20th c - it is in any case many decades old, without question. I MAY have some telling shots of the back, if I am lucky (awkward to photograph, but the person who sold the piece to us did produce some good ones, and I shall have a look). The back looks as though the piece may even have been made around 1850, but I agree with you that there are strong pointers that that is impossible, and that the piece is likely to be early 20th c. I still feel that all in all the piece is in its colouring and general aesthetic Moroccan, but it would not even be impossible for the Kabyle to have made a piece significantly influenced by Tiznit tradition. Like you, I would not rule that out. But "Tiznit until proven otherwise" seems to me a very sensible summing up, as so much of what we see is more suggestive of Morocco than Algeria. Yet one thing stands out for me above all, as a result of all these useful reflections: people have been far too rigid (and not just Ayis and Truus and I!) in deciding readily that a piece is "definitely A" on the basis that it predominantly looks like "A", OR in REJECTING it as "A" because it has a feature supposedly not found in "A" (thus one might - to my mind wrongly - argue that this must be Algerian simply because of the corals). This last position seems to me more unwise than the former, i.e. going by the overall approach and accepting that a culture may readily incorporate a feature, and even a technique, from another culture - that happens so often throughout history and in so many cultures that such an occurrence should never surprise us. As to date: the piece has a VERY early feel, and back, but obviously if 20th c glass was used, one must accept that as more important than factors like wear and patina: much ethnic (especially tribal) jewellery is later than we think, as even after a few decades of regular wear it comes to look very old. I have no problem with that. We did not, in any case, claim that the piece must be 19th c, and would only do so if
(Addition to earlier post.) My post just proved a bit too long, and I should have made it shorter. However, the only thing missing at the end is my point that we would, always, only claim definitely that a piece is 19th c if it cannot possibly have been made later. Again, people are often far too dogmatic and confident about such a matter. But it IS possible to be categorical if, as you explain, the material used for the enamel must have been 20th c: that is hard evidence. Thanks again. I post this right now, without having read Patti's post yet, though my screen told me (while I was writing) that she had done!
My post was only an observation, I am not well educated in all the different settings and styles, just something I remembered from other posts. What I am writing about is heresay, not necessarily reality, I have also heard, that the light blue enamel may indicate a later date than nineteenth century, say early twentieth, but again, who cares? This is a magnificent piece no matter where it comes from or if it is late 19th or early 20th century and there is no reason to worry about that. It is one of a kind, North African and antique these things are the most important observations.
(Second addition!) I quote from you, Sarah: "I saw a beautiful Hirz similar to this some years ago in the inventory of a very knowledgeable dealer in Morocco, I ventured the opinion that the piece was from Algeria, He told me it was certainly of Tiznit, and a few Jewellers there in the late 30's were inspired by the exotic Kabyle style. ( the piece did also have the aqua blue shade of glass included in the design. I took this as an indicator of the possibility of Moroccan work)." I find that dealer's statement (presumably based on real knowledge) important, and it fits in with my general point that cultures (e.g. in this case most likely the Berbers in Tiznit) do in their work incorporate features from other cultures. In such a case, the presence of a feature from another culture should NOT be seen as proof that it was produced by that culture: on the contrary, one should go by the predominant approach, and be alert to the possibility that a "foreign" element may very readily have been incorporated. Cultures imitate each other: usually a culture adopts an "exotic" feature from another because (a) it is liked, (b) it is new and refreshing, (c) one shows that one is "knowing" and "with it". The technical obstacles to introducing the new "foreign" component are often very quickly overcome, in one way or another. So if that knowledgeable dealer said that his piece was definitely Tiznit then I would be inclined to accept that, particularly if indeed it is known that Tiznit workers adopted exotic Algerian features.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next