NECKLACE

Description: An enamelled gold pendant of four parts (obverse, reverse, two removable pins), link, suspension link in the form of a hand (with pin) and chain. The assemblage, as submitted for investigation, numbers eight pieces. The link was purportedly broken in the process of removing the assemblage from the ground and is presently stored separately.

The link has been made from a piece of gold wire with a circular cross section. It has a diameter of 1.5 mm. It appears to have originally been in an oval shape with two ends butting up against each other, closing the link. It is said that the link was originally around one of the fingers of the enamelled hand, joining the chain to the pendant.

The link currently measures 11.3mm in length, 6.2 mm wide and 1.9 mm thick. It would have originally been around 10 mm in length. It weighs 0.8 g. Scientific analysis at the British Museum has shown that components of the pendant (the suspension loop, both sides of the pendant, one of the hinges and the twisted wire around the edge) have similar compositions, being very high in gold (above 98%) with a little silver and a very small amount of copper.

The chain is made up of 75 gold circular links and an enamelled hand, held in place by a separate pin. Each link has a diameter of 13.9 mm and a thickness of 2.3 mm. Each link has four others secured within it. The end link, which was originally secured to the back of the enamelled hand has half a circular link secured to a rectangular panel. This panel has two square holes, internal dimensions are 2.1 mm by 2.2 mm. These holes correspond to two rectangular projections on the reverse of the enamelled hand. It is hypothesised from the pattern of damage that the flaring broken stumps on the reverse of the hand are what remains of rivets.

On the other end of the chain, the link has been altered. Part of the link now incorporates a cylinder. The chain cylinder can be slotted between the two cylinders soldered into a gouged-out area on the reverse of the hand, at wrist height. The three cylinders align to allow a pin to be threaded through them, creating both a flexible hinge and a way of opening and closing the neckpiece. This pin has been made from a section of gold wire with a diameter of 1.7 mm. The wire has been curved around at the top to form a loop. The lower end has a rounded blunt point. It measures 20.2 mm in length. This purity of the gold for this pin was revealed by analysis to be lower than the gold used elsewhere.

The reverse of the hand still bears some opaque mulberry-coloured enamel. Looking at the front of the hand, there are four main sections: a hand, a cuff, a sleeve, and a cloud at the top. The cloud has been made of several curved crenellated lines, with a recess between them. The cloud section measures 23.3 mm wide and 5.0 mm long. The red rectangular sleeve extends below it. The sleeve is 4.5 mm long. Translucent dark red enamel has been used to decorate it. The gold surface beneath  appears to have been worked to increase the return of light through the translucent glass. Opaque white enamel with black speckles has been used on the cuff. This is suggestive of ermine. The cuff has a maximum width of 20.1 mm and is 6.9 mm long. The hand is enamelled in mulberry and has the shape of a clenched fist, with all fingers curved back underneath the palm, and the thumb lying flat against the fist. The fingers are individually tooled with zigzag lines as keying for now lost enamel. Fingernails have been detailed at the end of the fingers. Looking from the reverse, the thumb and index finger are close to one another, and the ring and little finger are close to one another, leaving space left and right of the middle finger. Some of the enamel has been lost from the back of the hand, revealing the gold beneath. The hand measures 15.0 mm long and 15.3 mm wide. It is 9.7 mm thick.

The chain measures 43.4 cm (17.2 inches). It weighs 267.4 g.

The pendant is cordate (a heart shape). The two sides of the pendant will be described separately. The domed panel with the motif of rose and pomegranate will be considered ‘obverse’ for the purposes of this description. The concave panel with motif H&K will be considered ‘reverse'.

Obverse: A circular loop is positioned between the two upper lobes of the heart. It has been made from a piece of circular sectioned gold wire. This has a diameter of 1.6 mm. The loop is 6.6 mm tall.

Around the edge of the pendant is a piece of S twisted wire. This twist exhibits a pattern of short and wide sections. The short sections are 1.0 wide, and the wide sections are 1.4 mm. Both are recessed. Some of the short sections still contain white opaque enamel. None of the wide sections do: this would have given the appearance of an alternating white and gold surface. An applied ridge of wire separates the twisted wire edge from the domed heart panel.

The surface is heavily tooled. It has been chased using a ridged small punch. The decoration could be described as loosely concentric. It largely follows the contour of the heart’s outer line aligned in a series of parallel lines which being to flutter around the central motif.

No enamel has been found adhering to this surface and it is noted that this chasing is quite different to, for example, AF.2765, which is believed to have fixed enamel. It is possible that this type of chasing represents that which is described as ‘chased rocky’ in early sixteenth-century inventories.

A floral design is positioned centrally. Extending upwards from one stalk with a noticeable tail (a feature created when a stem is ripped from another branch), there are first two leaves – left and right – in a paisley or curved teardrop shape. The left leaf terminates with its point upwards, and the right leaf with its point downwards. Both are enamelled red. Immediately above these, is an unfurled banner.

Above the banner, there are two more leaves, the stalk then splits into two. The left-hand stalk then splits again above a leaf. The lower branch curves off to the left with four more leaves before terminating in a dark red translucent enamelled rosebud. The rest of the stalk curves upwards to the right, feeding beneath the other stalk. It terminates with two more dark red translucent enamelled leaves and finally with a pomegranate. A small opaque white enamel diamond shape is present at the base of the pomegranate. The pomegranate has two distinct colours of enamel present. A translucent dark red one in the centre and a paler orange translucent one on each side. Care has been taken by the enameller to ensure that the colours do not bleed into one another.

The right-hand stalk separates above two small red enamelled leaves. The lower branch has two more red enamel leaves before terminating in a small baby pomegranate (enamel lost). The upper stalks continue upwards curving to the left with another two dark red enamelled leaves. It finishes with a Tudor rose, with five bi-lobed petals, and five sepals. White opaque enamel is present on the inner petals, with dark red translucent enamel on the outer petals. There is no enamel present in the sepals. Care again has been taken by the enameller to ensure that the two colours do not mix.

The banner at the bottom reads: + TOVS + IORS. The cross at the start of the inscription and in the centre is in opaque white enamel. The letters have been infilled with dark red translucent enamel.

Reverse:

The other face of the pendant, the reverse, is bounded by two hinges, one to either side at the widest point of the heart. These hinges each comprise three cylindrical barrels of uneven length. Viewed from the reverse: on the left, the upper and lowermost barrels are affixed to the obverse. The middle barrel is affixed to the reverse; on the right, the upper and lowermost barrels are fixed to the reverse, and the middle barrel to the obverse (i.e., the opposite). The central barrels slot in between the uppermost and lowermost, and a pin is threaded through each. When the pendant was opened at the British Museum, the pin on the left side was removed and is now stored separately. The hinges are broadly speaking of the same style as on the reverse of the enamelled hand described above. A similar technique can also be seen on KENT-425D3D (2022T395). KENT-425D3D, however, differs in that the pendant has the depth of a capsule. It seems unlikely from the construction of 2018 T1206 that this pendant was designed to be regularly opened. Instead, the two hinges are the primary mode and practical approach to creating a pendant with enamelled front and back. The concave reverse appears intended to sit within the domed obverse, giving the superficial impression of enamelling and counter-enamelling on a single sheet. To the left of the right hinge there are two small rips in the metal which may be a result of hot working. Beneath both hinges (right and left) the metal is crimped inwards. These may date to the time of the objects making and do not appear to be modern. The top portions of the lobes, and the lowermost point of the heart no longer sit within or against the domed front and have the appearance of curling upwards. This damage is not as haphazard as can be seen on KENT-425D3D.

The ribbon border of the front panel is visible from the back, as is the loop for suspension, which sits atop the bow of the heart’s two lobes leaving a small aperture.

Like the obverse, this face has been heavily chased, but less methodically. The contour of the panel is marked by an engraved line border left unchased. The central design consists of two letters, a Lombardic “h”, and “K”, with a ribbon entwining the two. The letters have been decorated with dark red translucent enamel. The ribbon which loops around the inner uprights of the letters with a loop at the top and bottom has been decorated with opaque white enamel. The ends of the ribbon go through slits indicated in the unfurled banner beneath. The ends of the ribbon have been finished with thistle-shaped ends suggesting tassels. The gathered bulb of the tassel is white opaque enamel, and the head is  dark red translucent enamel.

The banner here is unfurling differently from the banner on the front, and there are traces of black enamel in its contour. It bears the same inscription as on the front face: + TOVS + IORS. Black enamel has been used for this, and for the larger cross pattée at the start of the inscription and a smaller plain cross between the words.

The pendant has a length of 59.1 mm. It has a maximum width of 55.5 mm and is 8.2 mm thick. It weighs 50.2 g.

Interior:

The pendant was opened with permission from the coroner at the British Museum. In its open state, it was possible to observe that the internal surfaces of both the obverse and reverse have scratches and indentations.

The examination of the internal surface of the pendant with a Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM, Hitachi S3700) was clearly able to discern historic scratches. In some cases these scratches relate to the production of the object (for instance to filing). It was possible to distinguish these scratches from those which are likely to have been made more recently. On the one hand, the surface of historic damage (for example scratches) is affected by corrosion and encrustations. On the other, the surfaces of what are held to be modern damages remain smooth, fresh, and not yet affected by corrosion. The orientation of much of the ‘modern’ damage appears to relate to the upwards curling metal of the reverse perimeter, suggesting that the interior was accessed through the openings this curling creates. It cannot be ruled out that the lifting of the perimeter has not been exacerbated through this action.

Discussion:

Specialists at the British Museum were able to conduct wide-ranging art-historical, historical, technical, and scientific studies of this object, but have nonetheless been severely restricted by the need to work within parameters set by the pandemic, furlough, closure of libraries, and other investigations. What follows is therefore a first attempt to understand the dating of this object with respect to the Treasure Process, which requires an object to be at least 300 years old. In the context of 2019 T1206, this means produced before December 1719. Objects must also meet a minimum requirement of 10% precious metal, which this object does. Note: this text uses modern dating conventions throughout rather than taking the Tudor new year of March 25.

Pendant

Form:

Heart-shaped pendants are known from French inventories from at least the 1460s onwards, and the oldest example in the British Museum is probably 1979,1103.1 (see John Cherry, SJH 1983). Cherry’s article presents several French language sources for late-medieval heart-shaped jewels, but there has been little research on English sources. Heart-shaped brooches are noted on two occasions in Nicholas’ volumes Testamenta Vetusta (1827). A series of different manuscripts relating to York in the first decade of the 1500s refer to what seem to be heart-shaped pendants, and recently (Swansea History Journal 2013-14) M. Grey has discussed hearts of gold in the possession of Lady Katherine Cradock at her death in 1529. McGill (Proc Soc Antiq Scot 151, 2002) refers to James IV's commissioning of goldsmith Johne Currour to produce 'ane hert of gold' for Margaret Tudor in 1503. The State Papers Online digital resource demonstrates that hearts of gold were sometimes sumptuous jewels, and at other times were simpler pendants suspended from prayer beads.

In contrast, surviving portraits and sculpture depicting such heart-shaped jewels are fewer. The effigy of Elizabeth Aldeburgh at All Saint’s, Harewood, (d. 1434), after the Master of Flémalle, Marie de Pacy, Wife of Barthelemy Alatruye (copy circa 1562 of painting dating to circa 1425) and Jean Hey’s Margaret of Austria (Metropolitan Museum, ca. 1490) are notable examples. A mid-sixteenth-century example is Maerten van Heemskerck’s Allegory of Innocence and Guile (Bowes Museum). Early sixteenth-century Netherlandish Books of Hours, such as the Bruges-made example in the Morgan Library (MS. M399, ca. 1515) show pendant hearts enclosed within borders of twisted wire, and many surviving silver and lead-alloy pendants imitate this border with a twisted wire motif or beading. Though these can be difficult to date, the use of Roman capitals on 1997,0105.3 and 1836,0610.82 suggests that both are post-medieval. Since Charles Oman’s British Rings 800-1914 (1974, 40-41), it has been proposed that letter forms (Lombardic vs. Blackletter vs. Roman vs. italic) may be used as an aid to dating. Philippa Glanville asserts that Roman lettering was introduced to England in 1509, but that blackletter-inspired lettering continued to be seen as late as 1525 before giving way to Roman capitals in the 1530s (1990, 149). Lead alloy heart-shaped badges are recorded by the PAS for England & Wales, and on the continent.

Script:

Note that the lettering on the front and back of the heart-pendant is Lombardic. In his important study of Serjeants’ Rings, Mark Emanuel (SJH 2018/2) highlights the phasing out of Lombardic inscriptions after 1510, with a mixture of Lombardic and Roman evident on rings attributed to the “Call of 1521”, and the last known use of Lombardic lettering being the ring for the “Call of 1531”. He also notes that the letter ‘I’ with a mid-point pellet, as seen here, continued to appear on Serjeant’s seals as late as 1526, but last appears on a ring of 1531. If considered solely on the basis of Emanuel’s work, the heart-shaped pendant would likely date to the period circa 1500-circa 1530. Qualitative analysis of the composition of the black enamel used in the text on the reverse of the pendant suggests the use of a recipe which was moved away from circa 1520-1530, on the continent at least. The latter suggests that the reverse panel of the pendant is likely to have been made before circa 1530.

Banner:

The text of the pendant is atop unfurled banners. These banners cannot be explicitly dated, but it is worth noting the banner on BM 1848,0828.7, and the banners on early-sixteenth century English woodcut bookplates and on some monumental brasses of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The banner has parallel striated edges which, again, bear comparison with Serjeants’ Rings (Mark Emanuel 2018/2). Emanuel suggests that striated edges on rings are replaced by grooves by 1555.

Text:

The text ‘Toujours’ (Fr. Always) is split into its component words, tous and iors. This motto is found across other examples of jewellery, such as V&A 892-1871 (ca.1400-1500, pors tous jours, literally for all days / forever blackletter). Emma Cahill Marron (pers. comm) has suggested that the motto may be a ‘Franglais’ pun: tous yours. She has highlighted the composite spelling ‘touiors’ and ‘tousiours’ in the manuscript version of the French-language song Helas Madam¸ the specific text of which is thought to date to the first decade of the sixteenth century and in which the young prince Henry drew on phrasing in French-language manuscripts of the period 1450-1495 (Ray Siemens, pers. comm). The text is therefore not to be understood as being unique to Henry VIII, and it has been found as ‘TOVT IOVRS LOIALL’ on KENT-B945A6 (finger-ring). 

If, however, the object is indeed related to the agreement of the Treaty of Universal Peace in October 1518 (see Hand below) the text may also bear its literal and original meaning - always.

Other motifs:

The other enamelled motifs on this heart are also likely to date to the early part of the sixteenth century. The Lombardic letters H and K on one side of the pendant most likely stand for Henry and Katherine. Their marriage was celebrated in 1509 and annulled in 1533, with Henry probably beginning to explore this possibility from circa 1526. Interlacing/knotting of this type appears to have become especially established at the Burgundian court, particularly with the marriage of Charles the Bold and Margaret of York, and their initials are presented in this way from circa 1466 onwards (for example Gerard Loyet, Reliquary, St Lambert’s Cathedral, Liege). Decorative interlacing/knotting uniting initials can be found throughout the sixteenth century. The letters H and K themselves are referred to as royal emblems throughout their marriage. For example, the goldsmith Amadas produced 259 H letters weighing 89 ounces, and 218 K letters weighing just over 81 ounces to set on apparel for the pageant ‘The Golden Arbour in the Arch Yard of Pleasure’ in February 1511. We do not, however, know what script was used, as none are known to survive. Many examples of ligated letters can be referred to in this period, some entwining H with the initial R (rex) or K (Katherine). Worthy of particular note in the context of 2019 T1206 are the entwined ‘H&K’ motifs on Henry VIII’s silvered and engraved field armour made at Greenwich in 1515 and decorated in 1516.

The other side of the pendant is decorated with an entwined Tudor rose and pomegranate bush. The double-headed white and red rose (the combined emblem of the families of York and Lancaster) was used from the marriage of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York onwards (1486) and was prince Henry (later Henry VIII)’s dynastical emblem. The pomegranate was the badge of Katherine of Aragon, daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain. The pomegranate became part of the royal arms of Spain in 1492 with Ferdinand and Isabella’s conquest of Granada. For Christians, it was also a symbol of fruitfulness and the Resurrection. The entwining of rose and pomegranate represents the union of Henry and Katherine. Though slightly different in appearance, Thomas More presented ‘Poems on the coronation of king Henry VIII of England and Queen Katherine of Aragon’ including decoration showing the entwined rose and pomegranate trees to the royal couple in 1509 (BL. Cotton Ms Titus D IV, ff.12v-13) and several more comparable intertwined rose and pomegranate bushes (notably emanating from a single bough) can be seen on surviving manuscripts relating to the 1511 Westminster Challenge. See also the panel from Dunstable Priory, today in Hever Castle's collection.

Construction:

The construction of hinges using three or more aligned barrels is not unusual and can be found on goldsmiths’ work from the medieval and post-medieval periods (for example on AF.2765, fifteenth century, 1894,0729.1, seventeenth century, WB.167, early seventeenth century and WB.168 1635-40). The technique is found across media (for boxwood see Chatsworth decade rosary). The position of the hinges on either side of the heart’s lobes is paralleled by 2022 T395 (sixteenth century). Heart WMID-9DD8A2 (2016, attributed to the seventeenth century) hinges at the heart’s bottom-most point. A pendant found at Nya Lödöse, Gothenburg (before 1621) is hinged at the cusp of the lobes, as is the Darnley Jewel (circa 1571-8). Though little has been written about the significance of this technical feature, it is certainly the case that a jewel which opens to double height rather than double width is easier to handle (like a modern pocket mirror) and is therefore better suited to containing portraiture or other decorative detail. There is neither evidence that 2019 T1206 contained something in its interior, nor that it was made with a regular opening in mind. On the popularity of heart jewellery in the mid 1500s, see McGill (reference above).

Conclusion: Pendant

Taken together, the decorative motifs on the obverse and reverse of this pendant date to 1509 or later. The latest likely date for the script form used and the black enamel is circa 1530. The marriage it celebrates was annulled in 1533, and it is unlikely that an object decorated in this way would be made after this date, unless for a staunch opponent of the divorce.

Hand

Form:

The gripping hand as an emblem is known throughout the sixteenth century, most distinctly in jewellery produced after 1551, when Claude Paradin published his much-translated Devises Heroiques et Emblemes (Lyon). Many of these hands emanate from clouds, and this motif is clearly seen in the Hilliard-type miniature of R. Devereux Earl of Essex dated 1588 (Christie’s 2013). However, the cloud and hand combination is also seen in Hans Holbein the Younger’s designs for enseignes in the British Museum (i.e. SL,5308.22, circa 1532-1543). In very few of these printed and drawn examples is colour indicated, although it is clear in many cases that the hand is not gloved. Sleeves and cuffs, of distinctive styles, are sometimes indicated. The only example of a gripping hand emanating from a cloud with both hand and cloud recalling the form of this clasp found to date are the devices designed for the Basel-based press of Johann Froben (est. 1491). The device gracing Erasmus’s Encomium moriae (1515) has a single gripping hand, no sleeve, and no cloud. These elements are added in Erasmus’s Novum Instrumentum (1516), and they are also in Thomas More’s Epigrammata (editions of March and December 1518). Europe-wide distribution and large print run of Froben’s humanist texts allowed the device to spread across Europe. A polychrome tempera on canvas version of this device by Hans Holbein dated circa 1523 has been preserved in the Kunstmuseum Basel. The arms are dressed in red sleeves with a golden cuff.

God’s heavenly hand emanating from a cloud has a much longer tradition, and there are also written references to a hand coming out of a cloud gripping a branch of roses and pomegranates with an H and a K embroidered onto horses’ bards in store at the tiltyard in Greenwich in March 1521. Some of the embroideries themselves may have been reused from other jousts. For example, depictions of the bards at the 1511 Westminster Tournament also show a hand holding a fluttering banner. An undated document filed after household expenses for October 1518 is entitled 'Jousts'. This records 'bards, basses, saddles and harness for the King, his three spare horses, and the seven noblemen challengers on his side'. One of the three led horses dressed to accompany the king's third suit, is  wearing 'cloth of silver and russet velvet' 'with a branch coming out of a cloud, holding a branch of roses and pomegranates, powdered with H & K.' Another of the three horses has a bard embroidered with true loves and hearts, witha  great H and K'. These expenses relate to the October jousts to celebrate the Treaty of Universal Peace and to entertain the French ambassadors. They are thought to have taken place at Greenwich.

The coupling of hands and hearts, or examples of hands as suspension points or clasps, do not appear widely in Henrician sources. A 1519 inventory of the Royal Jewels describes two hands used to mount a ruby; among the goods forfeited by Lady Hungerford in February 1523 was “a heart of gold in hand with wide sleeve enamelled white and blue”. Other later references have been found to gentlewomen’s hands, and ladies’ hands holding men’s hearts, suggesting the hand’s gender may be implicitly female. 

Analysis:

All colours of enamel present on the object were qualitatively analysed as described above. There was consistency in the elements detected between the red enamel on the letter k, the pomegranate, and the sleeve. There was consistency between the elements detected in the white across the ribbon and the cuff. This is not evidence that the hand and heart were made in the same workshop, by the same person, or using the same batch, but the reds are sufficiently like one another to suggest a cultural and chronological relationship. It cannot be confirmed that heart and hand were made for one another: heart, hand and chain may in fact be a marriage. If so, the moment at which this took place is, as yet, undertermined. 

Conclusion:

Given the apparent similarity between the motif on these bards, the hand pendant, and the motifs across the heart pendant portion of 2019 T1206, it is reasonable to suggest a date of 1518 (in which the emblem of a hand coming out of a cloud gripping a branch of roses and pomegranates with an H and a K is recorded) and after, possibly even before, for the hand clasp and pendant.

Chain:

Form:

The chain belongs to a form type today known as a curb-chain. This word has only been in use since the later 1600s. Despite extensive consideration of chains in English inventories, it is not clear what name would have been given to this chain type prior to circa 1670, other than that it would likely have been known as a collar. This may be the type of chain that some sources describe as ‘flat.’ There are not known to be any surviving English chains from the first part of the sixteenth century with which to compare this object. Equally, curb-chains are infrequently depicted in surviving portraiture of this period. The earliest example found is presently that shown in Petrus Christus’ Portrait of Sir Edward Grimston (1446, also depicted in Petrus Christus’ The Goldsmith in his Shop, 1449). Other renderings can be seen in surviving paintings of Rodrigo de Osona the Elder (d. 1518) and Younger (d. 1514) and in Bernhard Strigel’s portrait of Maximilian I’s grandson Ferdinand I (1515/1520). Longer curb-type chains can be seen in portraiture and designs for objects such as scabbards throughout the second and third quarters of the century, ranging from German-speaking Europe (i.e., Portrait of Barbara Kressin, Getty, 1544) to England (i.e., Portrait of Sir Richard Southwell, Holbein, Uffizi, 1536). The only example of a short curb-chain worn by a woman identified thus far is on one of the women in the Master of the Baroncelli portraits, St Catherine of Bologna (Bruges 1510), although a longer example can be seen in Justus of Ghent’s Personification of Music (painted Urbino, 1470s). This evidence is not enough to draw conclusions about whether the chain in question here was specifically for female wear. To date, no short curb-type chains have been found in English paintings of the sixteenth century other than in the last two decades when this chaintype comes to be used for bracelets (for example, Lady Speke, private collection, 1592).

A number of these bracelets have been recovered from tombs in German-speaking Europe, demonstrating that they were established by circa 1600. Surviving dated examples demonstrate they continued to be worn until the mid-seventeenth century (see also Matthias Krodel the Younger, Portrait of Christina Rohling 1615; unknown, Portrait of a Nuremberg Bride in Crown, circa 1660, both GNM, Nuremberg). Surviving English goldsmiths’ work from 1580/81 (silver-gilt flagon marked FT) and 1600/01 (silver-gilt Leopard flagon) in the Kremlin demonstrate the versatility of this chain type for other genres of objects, something also seen elsewhere in Europe with Georg Ruehl’s Chain Flagon (1598/1602, GG Dresden).

As of 2022, there is no analytical data available to allow the surface gold content of the chain of 2019 T1206 to be compared with any of the above. However, the presence of certain inclusions in the gold suggests that it was not refined using a modern process.

Context:

Chains are not known to have been discussed in the Act against the wearing of costly apparel of 1509 but are featured in the Act for the Reformation of Excess in Apparel of 1533, which makes it clear that chains were not suitable for wear by those of lesser status than a baron’s son, or knight. When compared with records of chains in published elite inventories from the first half of the sixteenth century, the chain in question is neither especially heavy nor long. This said, the weight is that reserved in 1533 for those above the rank of baron’s son and knight and with an annual personal income of between £200-£300. Such sumptuary legislation appears to have seldom been enforced but gives an impression of the societal expectations associated with a chain of this weight.

Conclusion:

The curb-type chain was popular across Europe for at least 200 years, and evidence allowing the accurate dating of 2019 T1206’s particular chain is not available. Most significant is that before the middle of the sixteenth century, a chain of this type is likely to have had Burgundian/Flemish connotations. The Burgundian chivalric traditions were most strongly felt in the first decades of Henry VIII’s reign. The chain is more than 10% precious metal, and this metal is unlikely to have been refined in the modern era. It is reasonable to claim that the chain is over three hundred years old.

Use:

It has not yet been and may never be possible to determine with certitude for whom or why this object was made, although it is undeniably likely that the patron was of elevated status. As has already been noted, there is no direct evidence that this is intended for a woman rather than a man based on its length and weight. There is, however, a curious inconsistency between the high purity of the gold used and the standards of workmanship. Elements such as the barrel hinges, the cast hand, the clasp etc seem to have been hastily prepared, are uneven, show errors and lack accuracy. This is especially noticeable for the hinges, which are uneven and skewed, and where parts of the metal exhibit have been damaged, possibly because of heating. These hinges have the appearance of ‘making do’ rather than having been ‘made for’ (see AF.2765, 1874,0729.1, WB.167 and KENT-425D3D, as well as a range of clock cases and scientific instruments). Analysis of tool marks across the obverse and reverse of the pendant suggests consistency of the tool used, but other elements such as slight differences between the rendering of the text on each side may suggest different hands. It is highly likely that more than one person were involved in its facture, given the different skills applied in making the chain, making the hand, making the heart etc. It is possible that this object unites existing elements, or combines new with existing elements. Once again, it is not clear at which point in the object's history these elements were married. 

Three proposals are: this object was made with some rapidity given the gap between the facture and the substance; the object was important primarily for its material worth rather than artisanship and the fact that enamelling is minimal may suggest an object which was made to be easily reused or sacrificed to the melting pot; finally, this object was not made to be seen at close quarters. 

Overall, these suggest an object made for a setting in which the appearance and impression at distance were key, possibly without the expectation that it would endure for any length of time. It is recorded in a missive of July 1517 following a joust and banquet for the Flemish ambassadors at Greenwich that the event had been four months in preparation, producing metalwork with the letters H & K and other royal emblems for the garments of over one hundred individuals and many horses. This suggests a huge amount of metalwork being hastily prepared with visual impact in mind, none of which was intended to have longevity. 2019 T1206 could have been made in similar circumstances. Elsewhere prizes are recorded for jousts (values are given but no objects are described, rings, other jewels). Might 2019 T1206 be a visual token of financial reward?

Dimensions:

Total Weight: 317.4 g.