Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
AN ARTEFACT PROJECT
The replica of the Alfred Jewel at the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Cambridge | Alice Rose
Contents
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 3 Different Types of Replica ................................................................................................... 3 Type A Ashmolean Museum, 1909 ............................................................................... 4 Type B Elliot Stock (Elkington) copies, 1899-1900 ...................................................... 4 Type C Payne (Oxford) copies, 1901 ............................................................................. 4 Why were the replicas made? .............................................................................................. 5 How were the replicas made? .............................................................................................. 5 What was the function of the replicas? ............................................................................... 6 The Real Alfred Jewel ........................................................................................................ 9 A Description of the Replica at the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Cambridge ......................................................................................................................... 11 A Few Differences in Shape and Detail: Distinguishing the Replica from the Original . 15 Why is this replica in the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology in Cambridge? ... 17 Summary and Conclusion ................................................................................................. 18 Bibliography and Further Reading ................................................................................... 20 Books and Journal Articles ........................................................................................... 20 Web Sources ................................................................................................................... 20 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ 20
List of Figures
Figure 1: The different types of replicas (Keynes, 2009) .................................................... 3 Figure 2: Picture of replicas presently on sale in the Ashmolean Museum gift shop ........ 9 Figure 3: The front and reverse side of the Alfred Jewel (Hinton, 1974) ......................... 10 Figure 4: The Alfred Jewel (The Ashmolean, 2010) ......................................................... 10 Figure 5: A 1:1 scale drawing of the replica in the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropolgy, Cambridge ................................................................................................... 12 Figure 6: Side view of the animal head (replica) .............................................................. 12 Figure 7: Frontal view of replica ....................................................................................... 13 Figure 8: Overhead view of animal head (replica) ............................................................ 13 Figure 9: Reverse side of animal head (replica) ................................................................ 13 Figure 10: Reverside side of replica .................................................................................. 14 Figure 11: Close-up of design on replica ........................................................................... 14 Figure 12: Writing on back of replica................................................................................ 15 Figure 13: Writing on right-hand side of replica .............................................................. 15 Figure 14: Writing on left-hand side of replica ................................................................. 15
Introduction
The Alfred Jewel appears to be unique in the archaeological record associated with Anglo-Saxon England. Its function remains unknown, the designs meaning is disputed and its association with King Alfred is enticing. It appears natural that such an aesthetically beautiful, controversial and academically significant object should be admired and celebrated by academics and the public alike. However, the replicas of the Alfred Jewel are equally of interest. Objects created just over 100 years ago, shrouded in intrigue, evoking questions such as why were they created, by whom and for what purpose.
mentioned in relation to the millenary celebrations in Winchester and another presented to King Edward VII (Keynes, 2009).
possibly undertaken to make the replicas at the turn of the twentieth century and must have been completed by 1906 when the first photograph of the Jewel was published (Hinton, 1974). Unfortunately there are no records of what was done, but it is believed that drawings were made of different aspects of the Jewel and the replicas based on these drawings, hence there is so much variation between the different types of replica.
It is possible that the lack of accuracy in copying the Jewel to create the replica was for aesthetic and commercial purposes. Perfecting the Jewel in a replica might make it more acceptable to be bought as it does not appear to be faulty, despite the fact that the lack of accuracy in fact makes the replica a poor representation of the reality of the artefacts condition. This commercial aspect may be linked to the souvenir market at the Ashmolean for those viewing the Jewel but also for those commemorating the millenary of Alfred. If the replicas were created and acquired as souvenirs then it may be associated with humanitys natural curious nature towards the past and a longing for an association between themselves and the mysterious and ancient past, this feeling often being associated with the gentlemen antiquari ans that were emerging in the 18th and 19th centuries. This leads into the possibility that the replicas may have been used impress others through their display and the implicit notion that the owner must be cultured and knowledgeable to own such a mysterious object. This was possibly to provide an opportunity for the middle class to become socially mobile and demonstrate they were as educated as the upper class again from the presence of the object in a prominent part of the house such as the living room it could provide a focus for conversation and be a passive object in social interactions. The fact the replicas were made in different materials that would have come into different price brackets, the gilt being around 20 and the gold 40 (Keynes, 2009) might suggest the replicas were about education and allowing access to varying different sects of the community (but more likely to be those
with a disposable income or interest such as the middle class or academics) to have access to this ancient and mysterious object. On the other hand the replicas could have purely been an object to have, serving little function. The Anglo-Saxonist, Norah Chadwick, was given a
replica of the Alfred Jewel by her clergyman on her marriage to Professor Hector Chadwick. Her clergymans wife thought it was a silly present because it
couldnt be used for anything so Mrs Chadwick attached a pin to the back to make it into a brooch. This shows the useless nature of the replicas, however alternatively this scenario might just suggest that there are certain conventions when giving a wedding gift, namely that it should be something the couple can use. Yet if one looks in the Ashmolean gift shop today one will still find replicas of the Alfred Jewel in the form of pendants for bracelets and necklaces. These are considerably smaller than the original and early 20 th century replicas and a lot less accurate as it is difficult to show the intricacies of the object in such a miniature form. However, it does raise the issue again of the function of a
replica. Maybe replicas really are created to act as a souvenir reminding the individual of when they saw the real object and in this conspicuous display of the replica around the neck or wrist might be to create a talking point and demonstrate knowledge as the owner has not only been to the museum but has also learnt of what this beautiful and intricate object is.
Figure 2: Picture of replicas presently on sale in the Ashmolean Museum gift shop
Figure 3: The front and reverse side of the Alfred Jewel (Hinton, 1974)
The function of the jewel is still unknown, however there is much belief it could be an aestal. This is because Alfred is thought to have had various books translated from Latin into English, so that more people would understand them including the Word of God. One translation was Pope Gregorys Regula
Pastoralis, which provided instruction for both rulers and priests. Alfred sent a
copy of this translation to each of his bishops with a covering letter explaining why he had chosen it and that he would also send an aestal worth 50 mancuses and that no one was to take the aestal from the book. However, aestal is an Old English word and its meaning unknown. It has been postulated that the word may originate from the Latin hastula, little spear and may have been a pointing tool for reading. However, it would have been too top heavy for this and may only have had a ceremonial purpose. Alternatively, it could have been used as the terminal of a rod used to roll the manuscript around, but it seems unlikely to have been robust enough for this (Hinton, 2008). 10
The Jewel would have cost a considerable amount of time and wealth in its production, as its cloisonn design and metal-working would have required considerable skill. It is therefore plausible that it was a kind of teaching aid to accompany the Regula Pastoralis, as the text stresses both wisdom and wealth could the Jewel represent this both physically as a valuable object and metaphorically to understand Gods wealth is stored in books and better than worldly treasure (Hinton, 2008). The mystery surrounding the Jewels function, its uniqueness and its association with Alfred has made the Jewel a popular object of study not only by the academic but also by the public.
11
62mm
Figure 5: A 1:1 scale drawing of the replica in the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropolgy, Cambridge
There is an animal-head terminal with beaded design as well as horn and eye features, the reverse side has an unsymmetrical design in a fish-scale pattern. The symmetrical design on the front leads into a protruding open-ended tube (again made from silver-gilt) that appears to be slotted inside the animal head. The end of the tube connecting to the head is beaded whereas the other end of the tube flares outwards and is corrugated. Behind this collar, the tube has been pierced with two holes, through which passes a rivet which has flattened circles at both ends.
12
Figure 8: Frontal view of replica Figure 7: Overhead view of animal head (replica)
The back plate is pear-shaped and also of silver gilt. It has a narrow plain border with the central design of a symmetrical plant incised on. In the
background of the design is all-over basket-work hatching. The back plate is secured by half-ellipses of metal which have been bent over to back plate. The silver gilt frame holds a plate of glass, flat-topped with bevelled sides and a flat base. The design at the bottom of the glass is of a human figure, its head inclined slightly to the left with curled hair falling to the right side of the face. The eyes are pear shaped, the nose a straight strip, cleft at the end and the mouth below an open-based rectangle. The body has a green tunic with the figures forearms facing inwards over the body, the wrists shown by strips of silver gilt. The hands are clenched with the thumbs shown separately, each grasping a silver gilt strip. Below the hands the strip is continuous and forms a loop, above the hand each strip rises above the shoulders, curving away from the body, ending in flower terminals with pear-shaped leaves.
13
The background of the design is blue, with aspects (such as the lower part of the tunic and flowers) of the design taking a red colour and the hair, face and arms taking a whitish-grey colour.
Circling the edge of the jewel design is a row of cut beads. Below this, covering the horizontal edge of the glass is an openwork inscription in Anglo-Saxon capitals, which reads anti-clockwise: + AELFRED MEC HEHT GEWYRCAN
(made) translated as: Alfred ordered me to be worked
Underneath this lettering in a zig-zag, an arched pattern with a curved and dotting.
14
A Few Differences in Shape and Detail: Distinguishing the Replica from the Original
The obvious differences between the replica and the real jewel are the materials and techniques used to create them. The former is made of silver gilt and glass from a mould, the latter of gold and rock crystal and most likely to have been made by hand. Another noticeable difference is the shape of the animal head. The
replicas head is shorter and more bulbous than that of the original, and the replica also has a longer socket. The eyes on the replicas animal head are a half moon shape in contrast to the originals which are full circles and the ears on the replica originate further away from the top of the head than the original.
15
The difference in the techniques used is more apparent in the figure design. The enamelling on the original has crackled in some places and the different colours are mottled with darker patches. This is in contrast to the replica, where even though there are some darker patches in the colouring, this is to create a shading effect to make the image look three dimensional: this is not a feature of the original. The gold outline on the original does not always create a single consistent line where one should be, such as the flower stem on the right hand side where the line above and below the hand does not enter and exit the fist in a consistent line. In contrast, the replicas golden lines all create consistent outlines in the image. Furthermore, the gold lines of the original are raised and textured as they were soldered to the back plate and the enamel slotted in between them, whereas the replicas are embedded in the image and of a uniform height suggesting a different technique was used. The back plate of the Alfred Jewel is secured by irregular rounded triangles folded at a ninety degree angle from the sides to hold the plate, whereas the replicas are more regular in shape appear to come from within the jewel casing. Overall, the replica appears to have perfected the imperfections of the original Jewel, this is possibly due to the approach towards creating the replica, namely making the mould from drawings rather than primary observation of the artefact.
16
Dickins, and did not know why he might have given the replica to the museum. However it was noted that he sometimes used objects as teaching aids and it is possible that the replica served this function. Another path of enquiry was to try and find members of Bruce Dickins family to see if they knew why he had given the replica to the museum. Yet during research it emerged that his son had died at a relatively young age, and
17
although his daughter was potentially still living in the Cambridge area, she had married and therefore it would be difficult to find her under her married name. However, through reading obituaries of Dickins it became apparent that his interests were broad such as being a librarian at the Parker library, president of the Viking Society (Page, 1978-9) and vice-president of the English place name society (Cameron, 1978-9). Other aspects of his character also have become apparent such as his concern for detail in research, his immense interest in Old Norse and his readiness to make his learning and experience available to others. He is also reported in the Corpus Christi College Senior Common Room as saying it is never wise to assume that I am ignorant of anything showing his approach to breadth of learning (Page, 1978-9). It is this broad attitude to the study of the Anglo-Saxons that might have led him to give the replica to the museum on his retirement.
Anglo-Saxon studies at the University. It is likely that either he or someone he knew acquired the replica from Elliot Stock (a bookseller in London) and that Dickins used the replica for teaching purposes, lending it to the museum before his retirement in 1956 so that it could continue to be used for study by students. However, the function of these replicas is still unknown and would most likely only be discovered after studying a variety of the replicas and their personal artefact history in detail. The reasons as to why Dickins had the
replica and gave it to the museum is also somewhat speculative, and due to the amount of time that has passed since he taught in the department and the fact that records are not kept as to why an object is given to the museum it is unlikely this information could ever be wholly secured.
19
Web Sources
Keynes, S. Replicas of the Alfred Jewel. [online] www.trin.cam.ac.uk/sdk13/AlfJewel.html Accessed: 09/10/2009 Britain Express. Statue of King Alfred the Great Winchester [online] http://www.britainexpress.com/counties/hampshire/winchester/alfred-statue.htm Accessed: 29/03/10 Group-Web Holdings. 1998. The City of Winchester. http://www.cityofwinchester.co.uk/history/html/king_alfred.html Accessed: 29/03/10
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the following for their assistance with this project:
Dr Pamela-Jane Smith, Dr Catherine Hills, Dr Audrey Meaney, Prof. Simon Keynes, Dr Christopher de Hamel, Anne Taylor.
20