Sunteți pe pagina 1din 20

Easter 2010

AN ARTEFACT PROJECT

A REPLICA OF THE ALFRED JEWEL

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.

Different Types of Replica


There appear to be three different types of reproductions of the Alfred Jewel and these can often be readily recognised from each other by the shape of the animal head as it is viewed from above (Keynes, 2009).

Figure 1: The different types of replicas (Keynes, 2009)

Type A Ashmolean Museum, 1909


These replicas were electrotypes in copper gilt made in 1909 by W. H. Young, who was a restorer at the Ashmolean. They were made from moulds taken from the original and are signed NEO or W. H. Young on the underside or back. They are slightly smaller than the original and there are copyright papers in relation to these replicas in the Ashmolean dating to 1909. They were originally sold in the Ashmolean Museum and some copies were also ordered by the Victoria and Albert Museum (Keynes, 2009).

Type B Elliot Stock (Elkington) copies, 1899-1900


Type B replicas were commissioned and distributed by Elliot Stock, a bookseller and publisher of London. They were made using a mould created from drawings of the original and then hand-worked to finish and thus differ from the original in shape and detail. They were made of silver gilt as well as a small number in gold and were sold until c.1903. The Victoria and Albert Museum bought at least three in 1901 to be used by art students for drawing practice. The replica in the Cambridge Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology is of this type (Keynes, 2009).

Type C Payne (Oxford) copies, 1901


These replicas were made by the jeweller Payne and Son in Oxford from drawings by William Ewart Payne. The replicas were cast from a mould made from these drawings and then hand-worked to finish, again differing from the original in shape and detail. A few copies were made in gold, one of which is

mentioned in relation to the millenary celebrations in Winchester and another presented to King Edward VII (Keynes, 2009).

Why were the replicas made?


J. Charles Wall wrote in 1900 that in commemoration of the millenary of Al fred, Mr. Elliot Stock has reproduced this jewel so that it may be better known than hitherto, and by it to recall the Christian labours of that king (Keynes, 2009). J. Gilbert wrote the reproductions of the Alfred Jewel being hand-wrought are necessarily limited in number, and intending purchasers are respectfully informed that orders can only be executed in rotation (Keynes, 2009), showing that a certain exclusivity was being placed on these reconstructions. Similar events marking the millenary of Alfred are also apparent. One such instance was the erection of a statue of Alfred the Great in Winchester at the turn of the twentieth century, where it is reported that the unveiling of the statue was preceded by a procession through the city and an address by the Bishop of Winchester (Britain Express, 2010) (Group-Web Holdings, 2010). The marking of this occasion might also be associated to wider views towards the AngloSaxons and Alfred at the turn of the century where academic and socio-political thought was promoting the idea of Anglo-Saxon and Englishness as a positive trait and a great heritage, highlighted in Nationalist ideology.

How were the replicas made?


Engravings have been made of the Jewel before 1824, however it is known that the original Jewel was taken apart in the Ashmolean and that this process was 5

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.

What was the function of the replicas?


The Victoria and Albert Museum ordered replicas reportedly to provide a tool for practising art students (Keynes, 2009). This function of the replicas as a tool of study seems the most obvious, especially when travel was more difficult than today and it may have been difficult to go and see the original Jewel therefore it seems logical to obtain the next best thing: a replica. However, the replicas are not accurate in shape and other details therefore they would have been an inaccurate study tool, possibly rendering them useless in performing that function. The fact the replicas were made not when the Jewel was found nor when it was given to the Ashmolean but rather at a time when King Alfreds millenary was being celebrated might suggest that rather than principally being made as teaching tools they were made as commemorative pieces or souvenirs. This is reinforced by the lack of accuracy in the replicas due to their creation from drawings. If an accurate replica was required for study, an alternative method probably would have been used to make them.

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

The Real Alfred Jewel


The actual Alfred Jewel is kept in the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford. It was found in 1693 by an unknown labourer, who was digging for peat at Newton Park in North Petherton. The location of the find is interesting in itself as it is about 4 miles from Athelney where King Alfred sheltered from Viking invaders in 878 AD as well as the county being the setting for the Treaty of Wedmore. Later Alfred founded a monastery at Athelney (Hinton, 2008). The land was owned by Sir Thomas Wrothe, who became the owner of the jewel, later giving it to his uncle, Colonel Nathaniel Palmer who had been an undergraduate at Trinity college, Oxford. At his request it was given to the University after his death in 1717, entering the collections of the Ashmolean Museum (Hinton, 2008).

Figure 3: The front and reverse side of the Alfred Jewel (Hinton, 1974)

Figure 4: The Alfred Jewel (The Ashmolean, 2010)

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.

A Description of the Replica at the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Cambridge


The replica has a pear-shaped silver gilt frame that holds glass under which is a design that has possibly been painted or like the original is cloisonn enamel with a gilt outline. The back plate is also silver gilt with a traced design. The measurements of the replica can be seen in the figure below.

11

Width of replica 30mm

Height of writing 7mm

Length of jewel design 32mm Length of replica

62mm

Length of animal face 21mm

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.

Figure 6: Side view of the animal head (replica)

12

Figure 8: Frontal view of replica Figure 7: Overhead view of animal head (replica)

Figure 9: Reverse side 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.

Figure 10: Reverside side of replica

Figure 11: Close-up of design on replica

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

Figure 14: Writing on back of replica

Figure 13: Writing on right-hand side of replica

Figure 12: Writing on left-hand side of replica

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

Why is this replica in the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology in Cambridge?


The Alfred Jewel replica has the accession number D.1955.7. The D denotes that the object was given on long-term loan to the museum and since it is still in the museum no one has returned to retrieve the object and it has not been bequeathed. The accessions catalogue also states that it was given by Professor Bruce Dickins, who held the Elrington and Bosworth Chair of Anglo-Saxon at Cambridge from 1941-1957 (Page, 1979). However, why did he give this replica to the museum on long-term loan? This question led to many different paths of enquiry such as looking at the museum correspondence for relevant years and contacting individuals who may have knew Bruce Dickins or participated in any of his teaching. Many of these paths came to no fruition, such as the museum correspondence as when the object was given to the museum the Department of Anglo-Saxon and Archaeology were combined therefore there would have been no need to write a letter to the department concerning the object as all communication could be conversed. Similarly, there were few people who had knowledge of Bruce

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.

Summary and Conclusion


Several different types of replica were made of the Alfred Jewel. None of them are accurate copies, often differing in shape and detail from the original. These differences are most likely to have been caused by the creation of the replicas from drawings rather than from the artefact itself. It is likely that the replicas were made to celebrate the millenary of King Alfred the Greats reign and were used as teaching tools, souvenirs or to show status through learning. The replica in the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology in Cambridge was given on long-term loan by Bruce Dickins, who was a professor of 18

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

Bibliography and Further Reading


Books and Journal Articles
Anon. 1978. Bruce Dickins British Studies Monitor 8.1: 85 Eds. Blair, J. Keynes, S. Lapidge, M. & Scragg, D. 1999. Alfred Jewel in Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Anglo-Saxon England. Blackwell. Cameron, K. 1980. Professor Bruce Dickins Onoma 24: 359 Hinton, D.A. 1974. The Alfred Jewel in Catalogue of the Anglo-Saxon Ornamental Metalwork 700-1100. Oxford University Press Hinton, D.A. 2008. The Alfred Jewel. Ashmolean Museum. Page, R.I. 1978. Bruce Dickins, 1889-1978 Proceedings of the British Academy 64: 341 Page, R.I. 1978-9. Bruce Dickins Saga-Book of the Viking Society 20: 4 Yorke, B. 2008. Alfred the Great: Warfare, Wealth and Wisdom. Accompanying text to exhibition at Winchester Discovery Centre, Feb-Apr.

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

S-ar putea să vă placă și