Árbók Hins íslenzka fornleifafélags - 01.01.1979, Qupperneq 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