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
When all is said and done I think it is clearly an Indian silver belt. The lock at the front is certainly Indian (mind the screwing when you open it!). The "woven"/"knotted' thick pieces of chain on each side of the lock look slightly unusual, but they are well done and of high quality, and the pieces that follow on each side (looking from front to back) are entirely Indian in character, as is the slender, smooth chain used for the remainder. In no sense is there reason to see this as Islamic. The piece is almost certainly made of high quality (coin) silver, and all in all it looks entirely convincing as an Indian belt (definitely a belt, not a necklace). I think you have nothing to worry about, myself. The rather thick woven pieces look the most unusual, but less so in the context of the piece as a whole. And it all has been typically well made. From what I can see it is a fine piece and certainly Indian.
The thinner chain definitely looks Rahasthani as does the buckle -- obviously an Indian belt after a different fashion. Lovely!
Agreed, Pattie, in all respects, including the area. A very good buy, it seems to me!
This could be a Sri Lankan necklace that was slid down the head to wear, and sat low below the neck.
The granulation work in the middle is very reminiscent of Sinhalese granulation work, also found in some Tamil jewellery, with which it had a shared heritage. Sinhalese necklaces also have the flexible braided chain at the back.
Here is an image of 2 Sri Lankan necklaces, one of which has a small portion on the sides with a similar style of thick braiding as shown on the above necklace to the right and left of the middle pendant. Sorry for the rather poor quality of the image; I got it from a seller some time ago and have no reference to the book it came from either.
I fear I disagree, Preethi, or at least need more persuasion. (1) This would be quite unduly large for a necklace: most belts were about 75 cm, so 80 cms, as here, is ample: we are looking at a belt (the front part is typically that of a belt, too). (2) The braided chain is, I admit, somewhat unusual, as Pattie and I have argued, but what you show is MUCH thinner, slighter, and more transparent, and they are very short pieces as well. The article as a whole continues to look as a belt, even though I can understand your reasoning, and each braided piece is quite firmly and logically fastened (wherever it came from of whenever it was produced) to both the centre piece and the piece which connects it with the chain at the back. In other words, what you envisage is extremely difficult - and I think unnecessary - to imagine, and in any case the end result is clearly a belt, not a necklace that sits low below the neck.
Love those necklaces! The thicker braiding does, indeed, look like the thicker braiding of the belt.
Yes, I agree: I too like the Sri Lankan necklaces - quite apart from any other consideration! And there is a resemblance in the braiding, but they do otherwise seem quite different: very much more like actual necklaces also in having more "air", less "solidity".
Thanks for the information. Regatdless of origin, I love the piece and am hoping to actually use it as a belt. Before taking steps to "open" it I wanted to be sure it was a belt, not a necklace. Appreciate the feedback. How I became fond of belts, I will never know.
You are lucky, Becky, that, with your size, you can use it for its original purpose, and it will be splendid to wear. I think with women, in particular, belts look great as they accentuate the waist - I am sure that ultimately this has to do with the aesthetics of the "hour-glass" figure. They look good with men, too, but less strikingly so, and are in their case often best when worn on top of any kind of overcoat, as again they then create a division; that is how they were often traditionally worn by e.g. officers in various cultures. I share your liking for the piece entirely. It has excellent workmanship and very appealing variation (monotony makes belts deadly dull and functional only). The silver is almost certainly derived from coins, which was the common practice in India (and Sri Lanka) as that guaranteed the level of actual silver used in the alloy (80% or over). Hence, also, an object like this was primarily sold on the basis of its weight, as it was the silver which was considered to have value, not the workmanship. That is one of the reasons why so much silver was melted down, in countries like India, in order then to refashion it into something else, and why so much beautifully worked silver from the past has disappeared. You should have no difficulty, now, opening it up and proudly wearing it. And from here on the chances of THIS getting melted down would no doubt be very slight!