Gallery

Comments

• 

  Linda Pastorino August 26, 2011 at 11:22pm

  Hi it is not Moroccan but Algerian in my opinion. the only difference is the mounting on the leather that is still intact otherwise it is the enameling work of the Kybyle.
• 

  Joost Daalder August 27, 2011 at 4:20am

  That is what I also used to think. Linda, and similarly about the very large diadem that we have and had always believed to be Algerian. Acording to Ayis, however, both pieces are Moroccan, and indeed one of his reasons is that - he says - the Kabyle never used leather (both of our pieces do). He also regards the rigid construction consisting of hinged panels as non-Algerian, and distinctly Moroccan. His contention is that quite a few Moroccan pieces were made in an Algerian manner (chiefly suggesting that by the intensive use of blue), and even went so far as to use the word "forgery" for these pieces, which seems exaggerated, as - if they are as obviously Moroccan as he claims - they would not deceive anyone into thinking that they are Algerian. He also considers the coins on your piece as Moroccan - not an Algerian feature. I am slightly more than half-persuaded by his arguments, and to me it does not really matter whether they are Moroccan, as they are splendid anyway. But I do say "half-persuaded" deliberately. It is, after all, also possible that the Kabyle modified their own pieces under Moroccan influence, for example. But overall I am inclined to believe that these pieces are VERY different from standard Kabyle diadems, and that Ayis may be right. I'll be interested in further arguments from you, for sure, for you have after all seen many North African pieces over several decades. I see the matter as largely academic, for there is no doubting the quality of our pieces, and noone has as yet produced a photo of a Moroccan piece remotely similar to the very large one which we have, or indeed your own. I looked in auction catalogues as well, including French ones, and no diadems were shown there that even remotely resembled either yours or ours.
• 

  Linda Pastorino August 27, 2011 at 5:22am

  My opinion is that it is not typical and a variant and is Algerian. The enameling is not that of Moroccan style or color. Unless he says that the Algerians are creating for the Moroccan market. I also don't think the style of the crown in any way looks Moroccan and is a more modern and less traditional headdress meaning made after the period that the old traditional ones were made, both mine and yours similar.

  I would say mine dates from the late 30's to 40's  after research. I'm not suggesting it is like the original ones that are linked. However it was worn like this for a long time and my research has not led me to it being at all Moroccan as there is no type of headdress similar to this in shape or form that is Moroccan.  It is probably some early tourist hybrid and they took from both cultures. Being that there is alot of trade and the countries are close, I see no reason that Moroccan coins could not have been used they are all over the market place on both sides.  The style and shape of the drops,  bezeling of the coral is totally Algerian to my eye. Even the new pieces one finds in the market of this type of jewerly is always Algerian and most of it is not based on any traditional design.
• 

  Alaa eddine SAGID August 27, 2011 at 11:35am

  Since Joost named my arguments regarding this piece, i should bring  over my two cents.

   

  I have looked at it many many times and here are my latest conclusions:

   

  -The silver work and enameling is from the kabyles and was made into a traditionnal kabyle diadem with chains, however it is quite a recent workmanship and would not in any case date back earlier than the 1980's, please look at the different bales still intact on the coutour of the plaques...they were made for purpose otherwise they would'nt exist if the plaques were originally stitched on leather

   

  -Eventually, some inspired moroccan dealer dismembered the original diadem and stitched the plaques on the leather to produce this effect of a very unuasual, archaic-looking and hieratic feel that is very desirable by collectors.

   

  -Coins as far as i see from the picture are definetely moroccan coins wich never forayed into algeria, and kabyle never ever used non enameled coins in their jewelry.

   

  -Leather is alien in non saharan-related north african ethnic groups, the kabyle are turned and looking towards the mediterranean and have had minimal contact with saharan cultures and trade influences .....i recently emailed "marlene" from ethnic silver who mislabelled a leather and coin necklace as kabyle, and told her it came from the southern oasises, wich she gladly accepted.

   

  -I am not sure about this one, but branch coral is mixed with the very-common-in-morocco plastic tubular red beads.

   

   

  Again i must add something, Joost: When i say that a kabyle piece has been made in Morocco, it means that is was crafted following some kabyle jewelry aspects to lure the potential buyer . Made entirely in morocco to look like a very early kabyle piece and make very high profit!!Hence my using of the word "FORGERY" wich is quite the case here. Isn't it?

   

  The Moroccan market have been used as the second most important source for kabyle jewelry after western Europe (namely France and the Benelux), but soon nomore genuine pieces were to be found and the local dealers with the high demand turned towards their smiths accompanied with pictures and reference books to FORGE kabyle -lookig pieces, many of wich obtained the desirable faith to turn out on very famous and serious european and american auction sales!!!
• 

  Linda Pastorino August 27, 2011 at 1:40pm

  HI,  I have this piece and first of all there is no plastic on it. It is all coral. I would not have purchased it if it had plastic, I hate plastic.   The next is that the person I got it from ( I knew her) got this when she used to buy there in the 50's and 60's.  She was not in Morocco in the 80's as she was already out of business then.

  Like  I said I agree that the piece was put together and is not perhaps original in it's format but it is not done in the eighties. I can see that since I go there and see many made up pieces and what the newer ones look like. There also is patina on the leather that is used to sew the old parts on. So even though you say you are looking at it, you don't have it in person.  Total conclusions can not be made until pieces like this are handled. the colors of this piece are not evident because of the photography of it is not accurate which is another issue. The enameling of this is not from the 1980's as there is a clear difference with newer enameling which is brighter and clearer and different in consistency. i have handled many enamels and can see differences in the way they are done.

  I do think piecies were remounted and recycled and that I can agree with, but not as recent as what you are suggesting and the pieces themselves in cluding the leather is old too not that they used newer leather. the stitching is older and not more recent and the whole was probably put together like I said in the 40's or 50's or even as late as the 60's when she was there buying.

   

   
• 

  Joost Daalder August 27, 2011 at 1:59pm

  Ayis, - I must admit to being more and more won over in one sense, viz. that of the PURPOSE of these pieces, irrespective even of where they (or parts of them) were made, or when. Where you are most convincing, I think, is by arguing that what the Pastorino and Daalder pieces have in common - and that is also true of the Ghysels piece on p. 43 of *The Splendor of Ethnic Jewellery" and presumably the Marlene Ponce piece you refer to - is that they are all pieces that have a very "imposing" look (that is certainly true of the Pastorino, Daalder and Ghysels pieces), but cannot be securely placed within a known, well-defined ethnic tradition. In other words, whenever and wherever these pieces were made, they all have that oddity in common, which does suggest that these pieces were made to impress, and notably to impress people who are not themselves members of those traditions even if they have seen majestic pieces which were "true" examples. I remember, for example, how, many years ago, I was totally bowled over by the pieces that were then still in Trocadero, and much more impressive than many other - often very good - diadems etc which I had seen before, whether in books or in real life. Thus, when we bought our own piece, I thought (and I still do think) that in many ways it had a quality which made it as impressive as the Trocadero pieces, and I thought it would only be a matter of time or we'd somehow find a fairly similar piece illustrated, at the very least. Similarly, Linda's piece looks on the one hand "familiar", yet on the other hand also does not look truly like any  "known" piece. In ethnic/tribal jewellery, worldwide, pieces of size, beauty and quality are ALMOST ALWAYS not "unique", but well-defined representatives of a group. For example, I can relate the large Uzbeki pieces we recently  bought form Linda and Michael Backman easily to existing pieces that leave me in no doubt about what, exactly, we own. I cannot claim that kind of conviction for the pieces we have been discussing. So, I accept what I think is your central point, viz that these are not pieces that are as "relatable" to a  well-defined tradition as - if they are genuinely TRADITIONAL pieces - they ought to be. They do seem, all of them, to contain bizarre discrepancies and deviations when compared with pieces that are unequivocally "classical". And,  as ultimately they must have been made for buyers, I think that we need to agree with you that they were very probably NOT made primarily for wear by some Moroccan or Kabyle woman, but for collectors. For if they WERE made for a particular ethnic group, that fact would stand out far more unequivocally and we would not have this sense of looking at "hybrids" or at pieces FOR WHICH WE CANNOT FIND ANYTHING LIKE EXACT PRECEDENTS. This is not to say they aren't very well-crafted and beautiful pieces: they are, and that is why the people mentioned as owners - ALL of whom are known as experienced collectors with a "good eye"! - have liked these pieces and bought them. Our excuse can be, I think, that the situation in North Africa, and particularly when it comes to this Moroccan vs Kabyle issue, is not a little confusing!! Ethnic jewellery is in general a difficult subject anyway, but not least in the area in which you have yourself very properly chosen to specialise. I think I have already said before that I still do like the piece that Truus and I own greatly, and I think Linda's is very good too, but I have come to look at them with different eyes, even if I had already earlier been somewhat surprised by some aspects - notably the absence of strongly similar pieces for comparison. And, in a way, these sizeable pieces do seem to be "one-offs", in that they do not conform with any particular, well-defined "type". So, yes, perhaps we do have to see them as forgeries, intended to create in the buyer the sense of "Here is a really quite extraordinarily impressive and unparalleled piece": and the sellers succeed
• 

  Joost Daalder August 27, 2011 at 2:10pm

  Just a further point: Linda argues that her piece does not look how you would expect a Moroccan piece to look. But your point, Ayis, is that that is what we are EXPECTED and LED to think: the pieces are made AS THOUGH  they are Algerian but of a very special (though undefined) kind. And I think your argument is, ultimately, the more convincing one. Probably they are deliberately "hybrids", so that the buyer cannot easily pinpoint them: they are "Algerian", we are made to feel, "but with a difference". In such cases one would expect SOME parts of the piece to look very Algerian, and others "Moroccan", and that is exactly what happens.
• 

  Joost Daalder August 27, 2011 at 2:29pm

  Linda: on the question of AGE I am inclined to agree with you that Ayis is too pessimistic and sometimes almost certainly wrong. I suggested before that our piece, too, is older than he seemed to make out. (I wrote my two posts below without having seen yours.) My sense is that several "hybrid" pieces were made well before where Ayis would place them, though you will remember that in earlier correspondence with you I did say that your piece did not strike me as particularly old. But I see no immediate reason why it could not be 50s, say. I think it is too "sharp" and bland for it to be early 20th c. If your supplier could not have bought the piece in the 80s that does indeed pose a problem to his very late dating of it!
• 

  Linda Pastorino August 27, 2011 at 2:35pm

  Hi I don't think it's as complicated as you are alluding too.  I think pieces were made up for tourists all along and these are pieces that were probably intended for that purpose as being made with some old and orignal and some not original pieces, combining cultures  is what ever is around to use since people that are not aware would never know the difference. etc. I see that alot now in the market and it was done all along. It's not hard to imagine as it's done all over th world by dealers trying to make a buck.  It's not complicated and it's just about hybrids created for marketing purposes. I believe this was done for quite some time.  I dont' believe it is Moroccan and is made up with Agerian componants mostly with some Moroccan coins either by Algerians and or Moroccans to sell as it is. IT was used but for how long I don't know as it has patina on the inside like I said. But I feel it's definatly a hybrid which makes it neither Agerian or Moroccan for that matter and decorative then.  These also could have been used for festivales by the rich and famous at parties also and worn. Europeans using them as many people had a tendency to do costume balls there and still do . So it could have been worn like that and not by traditional groups.
• 

  Joost Daalder August 27, 2011 at 2:49pm

  Linda, I still think there is an important difference between a "pure" piece like the Uzbeki headddress we bought from you and a hybrid. I am not as bothered as Ayis by the hybrids, though. And I do agree strikingly with YOU on several matters of age: our piece also has a leather back WITH PATINA, and there are other signs of definite wear which I do not believe were "made up". But I still think that even then they probably were made with westerners as the eventual destination, don't you think??