Context of Earring
It is difficult to say what kind of person would have worn this earring, due to the wide range of its potential dates. The original dealer claimed the earring was from England and was likely made between the 1st and 5th centuries. However, based on various comparanda, it is fairly safe to assume it originated somewhere in the Eastern Mediterranean (or, at least influenced by this region), as these other earrings were found in Syria, Byzantium, and Egypt. The object’s thickness and lunette design allude to Eastern typologies, but it is difficult to determine if it is Islamic or Christo-Byzantine since these features appear in both circumstances. Linearly abstracted forms, such as the repetitive s-curve design, originates in East Asia, but soon became a staple of Byzantine jewelry after the empire’s genesis in 330 AD. The Walters Art Museum has argued that precious stone inlay, such as that which may have previously existed within the s-curved motif also was used sparingly in classical Rome but became popular in Byzantium, influenced by medieval China. These features compounded with the lunette design likely places the work in the Eastern Mediterranean. Of course, the piece was said to have been found in England among other objects in the department's collection. The obvious explanation for this would be that the piece traveled across the continent in trade routes, or a local artisan hoped to imitate earrings from Byzantium.
While the comparanda easily points toward a specific location, the date of this piece is unclear. However, the thickness and hollowness of this earring could allude to potential date ranges. Both an earring from the Metropolitan Museum of Art and another from the Detroit Institute of Art features the thickness and lunette design similar to our own earring. These both date to around the 11th century, and were believed to be from Islamic contexts. Since neither exactly matches our own earring in other features, such as the S-Curve motif, this does not exactly pinpoint the date precisely. However, this does extend our potential latest date from the 5th century, provided by the dealer, to the 11th century.
The majority of our various comparanda are made of luxury materials, like gold. It was not uncommon, according to Maguire, that more affordable substitutes were used to make copies. These then could be lined with glass or semiprecious stones as a way of displaying a more middle-class status. According to Ellen Swift, jewelry was made to display class when worn during life, but also when left in graves after death. As mentioned, very little is known about the find spot of this piece, so it is unclear which of these applies to our earring. However, since both instances work to display class, it is safe to assume the earring is missing some more decorative components, as the bronze alone leaves a fairly little impression. Swift also writes that necklaces and earrings were generally worn by women, though strong associations with personal ornamentation and gender were more common in the later Roman period. We also know that piercing ears was considered a fairly feminine practice in the later Roman period as well. So if this is Byzantine (though as mentioned, it is not completely clear), it is likely that the earring was worn by a woman.
It is difficult to say what kind of person would have worn this earring, due to the wide range of its potential dates. The original dealer claimed the earring was from England and was likely made between the 1st and 5th centuries. However, based on various comparanda, it is fairly safe to assume it originated somewhere in the Eastern Mediterranean (or, at least influenced by this region), as these other earrings were found in Syria, Byzantium, and Egypt. The object’s thickness and lunette design allude to Eastern typologies, but it is difficult to determine if it is Islamic or Christo-Byzantine since these features appear in both circumstances. Linearly abstracted forms, such as the repetitive s-curve design, originates in East Asia, but soon became a staple of Byzantine jewelry after the empire’s genesis in 330 AD. The Walters Art Museum has argued that precious stone inlay, such as that which may have previously existed within the s-curved motif also was used sparingly in classical Rome but became popular in Byzantium, influenced by medieval China. These features compounded with the lunette design likely places the work in the Eastern Mediterranean. Of course, the piece was said to have been found in England among other objects in the department's collection. The obvious explanation for this would be that the piece traveled across the continent in trade routes, or a local artisan hoped to imitate earrings from Byzantium.
While the comparanda easily points toward a specific location, the date of this piece is unclear. However, the thickness and hollowness of this earring could allude to potential date ranges. Both an earring from the Metropolitan Museum of Art and another from the Detroit Institute of Art features the thickness and lunette design similar to our own earring. These both date to around the 11th century, and were believed to be from Islamic contexts. Since neither exactly matches our own earring in other features, such as the S-Curve motif, this does not exactly pinpoint the date precisely. However, this does extend our potential latest date from the 5th century, provided by the dealer, to the 11th century.
The majority of our various comparanda are made of luxury materials, like gold. It was not uncommon, according to Maguire, that more affordable substitutes were used to make copies. These then could be lined with glass or semiprecious stones as a way of displaying a more middle-class status. According to Ellen Swift, jewelry was made to display class when worn during life, but also when left in graves after death. As mentioned, very little is known about the find spot of this piece, so it is unclear which of these applies to our earring. However, since both instances work to display class, it is safe to assume the earring is missing some more decorative components, as the bronze alone leaves a fairly little impression. Swift also writes that necklaces and earrings were generally worn by women, though strong associations with personal ornamentation and gender were more common in the later Roman period. We also know that piercing ears was considered a fairly feminine practice in the later Roman period as well. So if this is Byzantine (though as mentioned, it is not completely clear), it is likely that the earring was worn by a woman.