Talk:History of jewellery in Ukraine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ukraine Portal
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters:
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified History of jewellery in Ukraine as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Ukrainian language Wikipedia.

OK guys, if you like to strat discussing unfinished text with no referenced statements - let's do it.

Contents

[edit] Renaming

I propose to rename the article to History of jewellery art in Ukraine as I'm not sure what meaning has single "jewellery" in English. Is it only artifacts? Or it also includes art and techniques? Mzajac?

Either sounds fine, "jewellery art" implying being more about the practice of jewellery-making than just about the product. —Michael Z. 2005-12-30 22:00 Z

[edit] I wonder why we should include Scythians, Sarmatians, Celts, etc here

The article should be split. Some parts obviously belong to Scythian art, others - to the Jewellery in Kievan Rus. --Ghirla | talk 09:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

You're saying this is a similar situation to "Russian architecture"? —Michael Z. 2005-12-30 16:01 Z
Not at all. Firstly, it is for the author to prove that Kievan Rus continued jewellery traditions of Scythian artisans, and that modern Ukraine continues traditions of Kievan Rus in jewellery. I'm afraid this is totally unscientific and smacks of original reasearch. I admit that the succession to Kievan Rus is a contentious issue; but Scythian, Celtic and Sarmatian art is totally out of place here. It is the same as if, writing the article on Russian architecture, I started it from the Sassanian fortress in Derbent. Or, writing the article on Russian jewellery, I started it from Proto-Indo-European civilization thriving in South Russia three millenia before Christ. --Ghirla | talk 16:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

First, please think of what is article about. It is not about "Ukrainian jewellery". It is about "Jewellery (art) in Ukraine", or contemporary Ukrainian terrains if you like. It is NOT stated anywhere in the article, that:

  • Trypillian jewellery is Ukrainian jewellery
  • Scythian jewellery is Ukrainian jewellery
  • Sarmatian jewellery is Ukrainian jewellery
  • Jewellery of Kyiv Rus' is Ukrainian jewellery (it is even not selected as seprate jewellery tradition, but united with all Slavic jewellery)

If you find such statements in the text - please correct them without hesitation. You will see them only in the chapters beyond Slavic jewellery as you prevent me working on them with your attacks. But they are on my list be fixed.

As for "that modern Ukraine continues traditions of Kievan Rus in jewellery". There is not such governmental program as to continue these traditions, but I will provide links (again, if you will be patient) to contemporary works by jewelleres from Ukraine in which you will undoubtely recognise Scythian and Kyiv Rus styles.

"Scythian, Celtic and Sarmatian art is totally out of place here" - why? As I said, the article does not claim to make it Ukrainian art. --Bryndza 18:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Since the archaeological finds and early history of jewellery in Ukraine have been influential on the modern practice, I would say these should be mentioned or described here. I think this is common practice in publications on Ukrainian decorative arts, although I can't name a particular reference off the top of my head. In the case that there is a larger article, like "Scythian art", it makes sense to describe the relevant details here, perhaps with a photo as illustration, but refer to the main article for in-depth coverage.
I'm curious if there is any evidence of direct influence of the older periods on vernacular decorative arts, or if their influence is strictly through the publication of archaeological finds.
The approach of covering the history of a craft in Ukraine is an interesting one too, as opposed to by Ukrainians. Arts and crafts tend to be apolitical, and given the history of settlement and trade going back to prehistoric times and including the Russian Empire and Soviet periods, this may be the best way to cover the topic here. —Michael Z. 2005-12-30 22:14 Z

Influence of early jewellery from Ukraine on contemporary one has no systematic nature. If you take a look on assorted jewellery articles in specialized shops across Ukraine, you will find two prevailing types there. One - rather lacking individuality and not pretentious "good old" Soviet style with "new twist" - more diamonds, new types of stones setting. Second - something more interesting, usually imitated from "western" samples and jewellery catalogs. In this case exclusive works usually differ only in number and value of stones. Of course, there are also original items by famous brands in Europe, some low quality import from India, Turkey, Italy etc - all imported, therefore of no interest here. It is difficult to see any influence of historical forms on this kind of works, nevertheless, it is present. Some examples here, [here just to give some examples. BTW, technically, these tridents can be also viewed as influence of historical motives on nowadays works.

Systematic and comprehensive studies of all j. from Ukraine are not known till now (at least to me). Therefore, G. is quite right calling this article "original research". There is good research on j. produced by Goldsmith's gild in Lviv, good research on j. of Kyiv Rus', of Russia (Postnikova-Loseva), of Scythians, reputable and well illustrated research on Celtic influence on Slavic jewellery in "Paganism of Ancient Slavs" by Boris Rybakov. But all this information was never integrated. This is what would be the purpose of the article that I proposed. It would also include this forgotten layer of j. jewellery from autochthon archeological cultures that, in best case, is just reported in archeological reports.

"influence of the older periods on vernacular decorative arts" is rather reflected in mythological motives that are used in decorative art. For example, well-known Tree of Life which is present in decorative art of many nations. The depiction of this motive is quite different from culture to culture even if the same media is used. Most likely, it is regulated by art tradition of the particular time. Originally, the form of j. articles was not so "abstract" and "faceless" as some time after our Christianization. Every pre-Christian adornment had very strong reasoning for every line and form. The outer shape was directly reflecting the spiritual world of that culture and had a very specific purpose (we would call them “amulets” now). Every "floral motif", as we are used to abstract now, had concrete meaning etc. (See Rybakov’s books for good examples). Nowadays we often think of influence or links between traditions of decorative arts as only similarities in form and shape. And for “styles” like Renesaince, Barokko etc. where material traditions prevail it is correct. In case of ancient jewellery we should also see what is behind the form. Here is one example of direct transition of moon-shaped pendant, lunnytsia, that can be traced from Bronze Age through Cimmerians (9-5 c. BC), Cherniakhiv culture here, Ant ( 6-7 c. AD), non-Slavic [Saltov Culture] here, (8-10 AD) here to Slavs from 10-12 c. AD here--Bryndza 05:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] On Russia

Since this paragraph will be of major attraction for some editors. I will explain my point:

  • Simultaneously, small colonies of north-eastern Slavs along the Volga River and its tributaries were borrowing some of the better Rus handicraft traditions. In combination with local cultural traditions as well as under the influence of Baltic people they contributed to the new culture that would later be called Russian.

The problem [1] stems from difference between Rus' and Russia. Usually it is explained like "However, in Ukraine there is a strong trend to revise the Russian history and to force English-speaking world to use terms and stories elaborated by the Ukrainian nationalists". In fact, that was the only (POV tagged) note on the ethymology (or timing) of the name "Russia" that I could find on WP. Therefore, I had to link Russian to Muscovy. As for contribution to the Russian jewellery art, please feel free to remove/add any other nations you are confident in.--Bryndza 19:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I say, lets comment out the paragraph for now or move it to talk, so we could concentrate on other things. There is no way, it would remain in Bryndza's or Ghirla's form. It is either needs rewritten totally or removed. I don't see why it is important for the rest of the article, so removing it for now seems a fine solution. --Irpen 21:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I repeat again, that the paragraph is open for editing and discussion. But I can not classify "edits" by Ghirla as such.--Bryndza 22:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Fine, let's agree on the paragraph at the talk page and until then comment it out from the article <!---this way--->, because the edit wars destroy the history of the page. I see no major harm in temporary removing it to talk since the rest of the article does not reference to it in any way. --Irpen 22:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

No objections. Can you please do this technically. I'm not familiar with "nowiki" tag. Thanks. .--Bryndza 22:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I commented out the phrase from the article. Let's see whether we can agree on something here. --Irpen 23:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Scytian gold will be moved to the section on Scytian jewellery after more representative pictures of characteristic for Ukraine jewellery will be found. BTW, all are wellcome to upload.--Bryndza 19:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Please make a correction to Image:Bronze 0.png caption suggested by User:Decemberster: what's shown is a diadem or a crown, but it cannot be a torque nor a necklace! (at least, not on my neck please :) - Introvert  ? @ 08:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

All the artifact that are depicted were held in my hands. The first one is constructed of 2 parts and can be opened in two halfs that are connected by hinge. This is definitely a torque. Why such strange shape and really not practical? I suspect that it was used by warriors that are on guard. The sharp spikes (especially one big for the chin) would not let them fall asleep. Or used in a battle "to look more firious" and protect neck. This is just ideas. But diadem or crown do not need to have hinges. As for third picture - open at one end piece - this is typical torc no doubts. It was also covered with typical for torque vawed ornament. It had to be worn permanently on neck once it was bent around. This one is quite light. As for the metal ring from the second picture - I do not insist that this is torc. It can not be open. But also it can not be crown. It has 6 ribs that make it absolutely uncomfortable to use as head ornament. If this is torc - then question "how do you put it around nec" remains. It could be something ritual, may be something to attach ropes to. Any other ideas? Thank you for your remarks.--Bryndza 14:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Bryndza, thank you so much for your thoughtful explanation. Well... I was referring to the spiked one on the left, Image:Bronze 0.png; if calling it a torc wasn't a witty joke in the spirit of merry season... :) (which would have been quite all right with me, actually :)
I am wondering whether your deduction is correct. We are talking about jewelry, something people use to adorn, to embellish themselves, but with your reconstruction, if this spiked thingy was used by warriors as an alarm clock, or to make them look more furious or for mere protection in the battle, then how it was jewelry? On the other hand, if it truly was jewelry... a diadem with a hinge would seem rather unusual, agreed -- but still not totally impossible, seems to me. So, as I said, I'm afraid I don't know enough on the subject to be helpful, but I remain doubtful. Also, btw, based on the definition in torque, a torque is an open-ended necklace, so if you insist that this spikey thingy isn't a crown, then using broader necklace rather than a torc might be more accurate (or a choker?) (:I hope I didn't confuse the things too badly.)
On the other hand, since we already have at least three people (Decemberster, Irpen and myself), who decided independently from one another that this artifact must be a diadem not a necklace, then wouldn't this particular caption be doomed to a continued quest in times to come simply by Murphy's Law.
I think that in any case, adding to the article your elaboration about usage of these artifacts is quite justified. I think it'll become an improvement to this already fine piece of work. Kind regards - Introvert  ? @ 04:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

That is good point whether this is really jewellery (picture 1 and 2), or it served solely utilitarian purpose. As for the first one, even if this is military-related "equipment", don't we include book covers, sword handles and scabbard, tea pots, dishes as articles of jewellery? This item has some "growes" and other twists that make it not just blunt "alarmklock" or whatever it was. I still insist that this is not a crown. The image of crowns that we keep in our imagination after many years of watching good old soviet animation and movies for kids did not really exist. And especially there is no special need to make 3-4 kg crown with hinges and 2-3 sm thick walls :) but there is such a need if you want to protect your neck from various kinds of cold weapon. I think that choker is actually a good alternative for it.

As for the second one - I just don't know what to say. Some specialist should take a look at it. May be it is better to remove it at all. I put it there as I just have no more not copyrighted pictures.--Bryndza 23:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I hate to say it, but what we are doing here has the name Original Research. Maybe we should just put Artifact (torc? crown?) from... etc. in the caption and leave our ideas on the identification of the object for peer-reviewed publications? abakharev 00:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

No objections--Bryndza 01:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Sorry I allowed such a long delay - adding question marks seems like a good and clever solution, I agree. I am not sure though that what we are doing is necessarily the Original research, why. It is Secondary research :). It is a reconstruction, true - but based on the knowledge of history, on museum data, and common knowledge, which I believe what Bryndza's sources are. May be footnotes with a link or two to the museum pages like this which expose similar artifacts and provide detail, would be something to consider? So I'm still wondering, why not adding more detail of reconstruction into the article. I think that giving the details such as size / weight, hinges, sugggested usage, etc. will certainly help the readers get a better feel for what they are looking at. To alleviate orig research concerns, such reconstruction could be put in a suggestive yet not definite way, and I think that'd be quite appropriate. Does it make sense? - Introvert 11:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Da, skythy my? Straw poll?

As I understand, User:Ghirlandajo wants to move the Scythian and Sarmatian Jewelry into separate article (we do not want to loose these fine texts, do we?) and only briefly mention it here. The original author, User:Bryndza, wants to keep all the material together in one article.

Both variants have their advantages and disadvantages and IMHO neither one is a catastrophe. I propose to have a straw poll to see what the majority of editors thinks.

[edit] Keeping article together:

  1. Both variants are fine with me, but I am for the right of the main author to choose the form of presentation of his material. Probably, we need a line stating that the direct connection between the Pre-Slavic and Slavic art is unclear ( or a paragraph about the connections) abakharev 01:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. At the moment I wrote just 1 sentence on Cimmerians, 1 paragraph on Scythians and 3 sentences on Sarmathians and do not plan to extend it. All information referes only to development of j. techniques and motifs in their works. Probably, lyrics like "fertile soils..." can be removed to make story shorter. I know, I (or anybody is welcome) have to refere to the article Scythian art for more comprehensive information. At the moment I just added it in Recommended articles. I suggest to keep this info in this article as it contains important information on techniques that were emerging during those times and this info is specific only for j.. Of course, any information from here can be used in separate articles on art of Scythians, Sarmatians, Cimmerians (so far only short article on Scythians exists). BTW, I suggest to everybody start editind Introduction and Nomadic part. Also there IS link between pre-Slavs and Slavs. I will make a small chapter on it.--Bryndza 02:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. I agree with Alex Bakharev regarding the more exact explanation of connection. However, the info should be kept together. Ukrained 20:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Must be keeping on geographical principle --Yakudza 14:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Separate Scythian and Sarmatian into separate article or articles:

[edit] Comments