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
that is worth to see the details! They are wonderful!
After a lot of discussion of this veil, here and elsewhere, I was persuaded that it is an eminent and in its own way attractive piece. Even Truus was not perturbed by its function (as I am), and we decided to buy it. Now that it has arrived, I find the piece SO good that I am very happy with it aesthetically and ethnographically, and it has huge age and authenticity. I like it better than I had thought, while not in the least inclined to think any more positively about the very idea of women being veiled on to my mind purely sexist grounds. I have great difficulty with the idea of any woman being her husband's property, having to be disguised from view before being "revealed" at the wedding, etc. But ... it is a splendid piece, no doubt at all.
Linda, here is an interesting issue. I posted this comment under my own post on this site (showing my own photo), but of course would like to make sure that you see it, and to see what you think. This is what I wrote: "I'd like to raise a matter for discussion on this subject. A Facebook poster - quite constructively - has suggested that this is not a veil. I quote her: "I think this is a hairpiece. Generally, Turkmen didn't wear veils, but they would have had a triangular amulet at the back of the head to protect from the evil eye. And they decorated the back of the head with interwoven silver pieces. This piece is stunning. You can see less ornate hair fillers for sale on the internet today." COMMENTS, PLEASE? It does not sound implausible to me, but I know too little about the subject. I'm just interested."
This is a veil and of a type that is similar to the ones used in Uzbekistan however this is from another group either Kazakh or Khirghiz . This group wore different kinds of headdress non of htem were like this. the textile section goes on the head and the string section goes over the face much the same way as the veils of the Uzbek tribes used them. This came from a veil collection.
so you disagree with Uzbek museum curators performing a display for the textile museum in Washington on me under a load of garments, head wraps and the veil with full on jewelry , tons of layers? Your drawing your conclusions because you don't see how this construction can be a veil or you don't believe those who are in a position to know differently ? The curators of three major Central Asian museums were the ones doing the demonstration on me as well as the full embassy having a textile and costume installation for our opening which was specializing in Central Asian textiles . There were veils used by Uzbek, Khirghiz, Kazakh , Turkoman as well a other groups. Some of the Khirhiz and Kazakh veils depending on their group were solid cloth and embroidery in the area of eyes. I'm sticking with veil since most of the ones i have purchased came from Uzbek sellers in fact and or have been told and shown by Uzbek curators that they were used as veils.
Patricia it has nothing to do with winning and argument .. The exchange of relevant information is I thought what the blog was about. I'm just suppose to sit back and agree ? it has to do with having some assumptions based on information you have gleaned and or knowing from reliable sources , in this case the museum curators from Central Asia and or Uzbek sellers whom I have purchased from before .. If they don't know then who does? certainly not me. I have not been to Central Asia, nor have I been field collecting there either but i have purchased some from those people who have. My first purchase of one was from an Uzbek of one like the one published in the book and I have always been told they are used as veils. So if you don't think so it's fine by me.. maybe sometimes they are used on the head after their function as veil is finished .. ? I was not told that but maybe so.
Linda, part of this discussion was carried out under a different photo: mine, of the full item. Please look there. My final comment there endorsed yours.
Just to be clear: this is my own latest view of this (also posted under the full photo which I took).
Corrected version of my latest post on this, as I was very tired and made many typos!)
Linda: part of the discussion of this item was carried out under this "full" photograph which I had taken rather than your incomplete one, and that creates confusion! For my part I ended up clearly saying that I agreed with you and wrote the following: On balance, Linda, I think you are right, even independently of what you tell us about the curators. They confirm, clearly, what Kalter offers in the Uzbekistan book, and also the Turkestan book Pat mentions (p.122); and in fact that, too, seems to me clearly worn on the face, as there is so much decorative material at the top which you find on the front of the head, so not the back. In other words , I believe that all three pieces - the two VEILS which Kalter, who was very learned - mentioned as veil, and the one which you mention as such. The only significant difference between yours and the others is the flap, and if that was placed high enough on the forehead there would have been no problem about the rest. There is simply no evidence of a back ornament of this kind, and I think it would have clashed oddly with plaits. Also, what would the women have worn on the front if they had this on the back??? To my mind all three illustrations point at a veil worn in front of the face. So I endorse was what you had said. My only reason for raising the issue at all was that I had had an - intelligent - FB question about the piece.