After completing the annotated bibliography for our Trichinopoly project, I realized a few things.
1. Trichinopoly chains seem to be dated between the eighth and eleventh century.
2. Trichinopoly chain finds seem to be centered around Ireland and Great Britain, though there is always room for more discoveries in the future.
3. While Trichinopoly has been associated with prolific finds (the base of the Ardagh Chalice, the Derrynavlen treasures, and the Tara Brooch), there doesn't seem to be any scholarly-based studies on Trichinopoly itself.
Not exactly comforting news for those who wish to construct an experiment involving the manufacture of Trichinopoly-based chains.
In the humble opinion of this student, there is something to be said about a knitted wire chain that is well-preserved. If it's true that these chains were created between the 8th and 11th centuries, then one can't help but be amazed at how these chains managed to survive for up to and over one thousand years before excavation. (Meanwhile I've never had a chain that lasted more than six months). In studying photos of discovered Trichinopoly chains, not only do they appear to be study and well-constructed, they are aesthetically pleasing to the eyes. In the articles I read, many Trichinopoly chains were thought to be attached to brooches and pins, which signifies to me that while these chains are beautiful, they also had a functional, practical purpose. Most chains appeared to silver, but again, only future research can confirm this.
Trichinopoly appears to be apart of Irish/British material culture, associated with significant treasure finds of the nineteeth and twentieth centuries.
So why hasn't there been more of an effort by the scholarly community to study this art of wire knitting with regards to the material culture of Medieval Great Britain? If material culture is one way of understanding a society at a given point in time, why wouldn't trichinopoly be studied more?
While our research has only indicated Trichinopoly's use in Ireland and Great Britain, it is widely referred to as "Viking Wire Knitting". However, we couldn't find any peer-reviewed articles that spoke of it's discovery in Scandinavia. The sources we did find (Jewelry books, jewelry websites, message boards) couldn't be used. Even Wikipedia offered nothing in the way of this art form. This lack of information is unsettling. While there are plenty of tutorials on Viking wire knitting, there is hardly any information on Trichinopoly as material culture in Medieval society.
We have no idea of who made Trichinopoly chains. There is no insight as to whether its manufacture was limited to trained artisans or if was more widespread, or whether it was a gender-based craft (did males make these chains? Or females?)
While it's attached to treasure/artifact of considerable importance, we cannot prove conclusively that only affluent people/people of high status and esteem had these items. While I myself haven't read any articles about Trichinopoly grave finds, it isn't for me to conclude that it isn't the case.
We don't even know if silver was the only metal used with these chains. Most find are made of silver, but there are been no studies to determine if this was due to aesthetics or functionality.
The only good side of all this is that it opens up all sorts of possibilities for experimentation. When shopping for items (to be outlined in another post), we purchased wires of various gauges and material. In creating the chains, we hope to determine why most finds seem to be made of silver.
Hopefully, in the future, someone takes the time research trichinopoly chains and their usefulness. If the treasures attached to the chains are important, then should the chain be just as important, by extension. There had to be a reason why this form of manufacture was used, especially if there are hints of it being wider spread (Scandinavia and Britain), even if it continues to afford no answers as to who made these chains.
- N. Russell
No comments:
Post a Comment