Árbók Hins íslenzka fornleifafélags

Volume

Árbók Hins íslenzka fornleifafélags - 01.01.1979, Page 175

Árbók Hins íslenzka fornleifafélags - 01.01.1979, Page 175
TVEIR RÓSAÐIR RIÐSPRANGSDÚKAR ÚR DÖLUM 179 as having' been provided by Katrín Björnsdóttir at Staðarfell,20 a wealthy widow by the way, came into possession of the church sometime during the years 1725 to 1733,27 most likely áfter 1731.BO It was possible to trace the veil with certainty in records until 1911,28’ 20> 80' 2. 25 an(j there were indications of its existence as late as 1926.3e After it had been brought to light during a thorough search in the church in the early summer of 1979, it was lent to the National Museum for examinaton and investigation. In the inventories both these embroideries were at times listed as riðsprang, literally netted sprang, these being the first instances where it has been possible to connect the compound word riðsprang — not just the word sprang — with surviving embroideries in knotted net7' i°. u. 12. iia, 20. 28 (see also Elsa E. Guðjónsson (1979), op. cit., text with Figure 11, notes 93, 116 and 117; cf. ibid., text with Figure 15 and note 125). Both pieces eonsist of a knotted net ground of red twisted silk witli about tbree meshes per cm, with embroidery worked in polychrome floss silk in cloth stitch on the surface of the net (Figures 9 b and 6 a and b). This stitch variation apparently had not been distinguished from ordinary cloth stitch (Figure 9 a) by other writers, and the present author, when first identifying it in writing in 1979, chose to refer to it as surface cloth stit.ch (see ibid., text with Figure 11). The color scheme of the embroidery on the two pieces is much the same, with blue, green, yellowish, tan and brown colors, and the patterns are related as well (see Figures 3, 7 and 13 a and b). Although sprang is mentioned in written sources as early as the beginning of the fourteenth century,43 no descriptions of it are found before the seventeenth century. At present, five churches are known to have owned polychrome silk sprang; tliis was acquired during the period from 1657 to 1751. According to an inventory from 1657, two sprang cloths to be made into riddells had been given the cathedral church at Hólar in northern Iceland by the then deceased bishop Þorlákur Skúlason and his wife,45 while during the period from 1713 to 1751 two churches, at Staðastaður and Staðarfell, acquired chalice veils,48'2" one church, in Hítardalur, a corporal,54 and the Hjarðarholt church a frontlet7' 8 all these latter churches being situated in western Iceland. It is of interest to note also, that in the three first mentioned of these latter churclies, the silk sprang ties in, directly and indirectly, with descendants of Jón Vigfússon (b. 1643, d. 1690), bishop to Hólar,48' B1«54 and, besides, it is just possible that Katrín Björnsdóttir may have assisted in proeuring (making?) the frontlet for the Hjarðarholt church. Wlien looking for similarities with the two embroideries as to design and technique, not much has turned up. The material comparing most closely in these respects are two cloths in Nordiska Museet (Figure 12) and a canopy in Statens Historiska Museum, both in Stockholm, Swedenlir>' 011 These works are executed in the same technique, and show patterns almost identical to the one on the Staðar- fell church chalice veil. As regards the design on the remains of the frontlet, the closest parallells yet seen — apart from flowers incorporated in the design which are just about the same as some on the other embroideries (Figure 13) — are floral designs on two pattern woven wallhangings in the Kristianstad kluseum and Kulturen, Lund, in southern Sweden.75 The hangings are executed in bro- cading on the counted thread, dukagáng, and date from 1806 and 1817 (Figure 14). The two embroidered cloths in Nordiska Museet are of unknown use and
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
Page 49
Page 50
Page 51
Page 52
Page 53
Page 54
Page 55
Page 56
Page 57
Page 58
Page 59
Page 60
Page 61
Page 62
Page 63
Page 64
Page 65
Page 66
Page 67
Page 68
Page 69
Page 70
Page 71
Page 72
Page 73
Page 74
Page 75
Page 76
Page 77
Page 78
Page 79
Page 80
Page 81
Page 82
Page 83
Page 84
Page 85
Page 86
Page 87
Page 88
Page 89
Page 90
Page 91
Page 92
Page 93
Page 94
Page 95
Page 96
Page 97
Page 98
Page 99
Page 100
Page 101
Page 102
Page 103
Page 104
Page 105
Page 106
Page 107
Page 108
Page 109
Page 110
Page 111
Page 112
Page 113
Page 114
Page 115
Page 116
Page 117
Page 118
Page 119
Page 120
Page 121
Page 122
Page 123
Page 124
Page 125
Page 126
Page 127
Page 128
Page 129
Page 130
Page 131
Page 132
Page 133
Page 134
Page 135
Page 136
Page 137
Page 138
Page 139
Page 140
Page 141
Page 142
Page 143
Page 144
Page 145
Page 146
Page 147
Page 148
Page 149
Page 150
Page 151
Page 152
Page 153
Page 154
Page 155
Page 156
Page 157
Page 158
Page 159
Page 160
Page 161
Page 162
Page 163
Page 164
Page 165
Page 166
Page 167
Page 168
Page 169
Page 170
Page 171
Page 172
Page 173
Page 174
Page 175
Page 176
Page 177
Page 178
Page 179
Page 180
Page 181
Page 182
Page 183
Page 184
Page 185
Page 186
Page 187
Page 188
Page 189
Page 190
Page 191
Page 192
Page 193
Page 194
Page 195
Page 196
Page 197
Page 198
Page 199
Page 200
Page 201
Page 202
Page 203
Page 204

x

Árbók Hins íslenzka fornleifafélags

Direct Links

If you want to link to this newspaper/magazine, please use these links:

Link to this newspaper/magazine: Árbók Hins íslenzka fornleifafélags
https://timarit.is/publication/97

Link to this issue:

Link to this page:

Link to this article:

Please do not link directly to images or PDFs on Timarit.is as such URLs may change without warning. Please use the URLs provided above for linking to the website.