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
I'd stick with Sindhi - by far the likelier solution. If you feel that is too bold, then "Pakistani" is very safe. "Multan" is highly improbable. In truth all the ones with this kind of patterning are entirely different from the Multani pieces which have no such relief but are flat.The enamels here are much thicker and much glossier, and the patterns are totally unlike those of Multani pieces, which are very fine and intricate. Completely incompatible styles. Of the styles one sees described - I quoted them from Saad Al-Jadir's book, Sindhi emerged as clearly the most likely, and in any case the difference with Multani pieces is truly huge. These seem very typical of their type. I agree with you that the full-on enameling, even on the backs of the clasps, is very striking. Are you in a position to reveal where you bought them?? I don't want to pry - but am curious!
I find it intriguing that these and some others we have seen are VERY bright whereas the ones posted by Lynn Levenberg were much softer in colour. I wonder why. Note that the blue is much harsher than the soft blue on Multan pieces, with the green also very strong (and not typical of Multani pieces at all).
Joost, I think that the differently perceived colours are an outcome of photos being taken in different lights and possibly differing camera characteristics. I really think the enamels are all actually of the same type and hue. But it is interesting - the reason I`ve shown them under different lights.
See my first photo of them. The source is revealed there. It`s not hard to guess!
Wow! Beautiful! I love the colours like this and in daylight.
Yes, light can make a great difference, both in photography on in how glass comes across.
But I don't think all of these bracelets are the same colours either: Lynn's was almost certainly not nearly as bright - more restrained, I feel.
Mmm.... I think you may well be right about the colour, Joost. Having reminded myself of Lynn`s pair, it seems that the green of her`s seem to have a deeper, more olive cast to them whereas mine are of a distinctly more eau-de-nil hue. Possibly the blue of hers is deeper and more opaque, too. Of course that doesn`t neccessarily indicate different origins. Having done a very little enamel work myself, I know how easy it would be to arrive at differing colours.
Frankie, I don't think it is is likely to be a matter of origins, or at least not to the extent that I'd think that difference great, as the architecture of the pieces, and the general way of enameling them, indicates far more likelihood that they come from the same region than from two different ones. Rather, I think that Lynn's are likely to be some decades older, and that the more recent ones (if if not brand new) have been made with more emphatic use of bright and intense colour. So - just a different concept of colour, I would think, but not a different place of origin, or not markedly so. Personally I prefer the colours on ALL of them - and also the shapes - by far to what is characteristically Multan, which I find dull, contrived, too "civilised" and inhibited. These pieces have plenty of life!! So, I can understand your loving them, and perhaps the more so because you will wear them???
Joost, I would be quite happy to agree that there are differing sources of enamel we are discussing here if I did not have three items in front of me which make me, if not exactly doubt, at least still question it. I have two pieces of what is normally referred to as Multan enamel and one of the anklets. The two pieces of Multan are quite differently treated - one is the section bracelet I showed earlier and a small ring with red and yellow enamel too. The finishing process of each is quite different. I think all three of them are champ-leveed enamels but, where the bracelet is concerned, the pieces seem to have been die-stamped, fired, ground to level both metal and enamel to the same level, then refired to restore the gloss. The other two pieces I really think were never ground. Here the enamel shows its` more flowing quality between the hand engraved metal pattern. I wonder if that does not indicate their greater age and differing production processes rather than different origins since it was hand engraving that was the first method used in the production of Multan enamel pieces. I find it rather sad that Bahalwalpur, where all the early engraving and latterly the die-stamping was done, rarely seems to get a mention in this context.
Of course you have the advantage of the Al- Jadir book to consult. My experience is insufficient to ascribe the anklets to either Sindh or Multan because I don`t know whether two, or possibly more, enamel outcomes of effect were produced either at different times or even concurrently at Multan.
All ruminative reflexion on my part because I like to get to the bottom of a mystery. I think we must all be aware of arguing a case and considering it proven or even it being the most likely solution.
I find Pakistan a bit too general description for the anklets origin since the area gives birth to so many differing types of ethnic jewellery.
Joost, it seems that our comments crossed. In my last contribution I was referring to the Multan v. Sindh origins of my own anklets.
Certainly I will try to wear the anklets somehow though doing so poses problems since they are quite large and heavy. I think securing loops sewn into sleeves might be an answer.