[HNW] (OT) Origins of Interlacing (long)

Eowyn Amberdrake eowyna at sca-caid.org
Wed Apr 30 13:14:44 PDT 2003


On Wed, 30 Apr 2003 09:13:01 -0700
  "Eowyn Amberdrake" <eowyna at sca-caid.org> wrote:
>If the Saxons are the ultimate origin of the interlacing
>style seen in Britain post-600 AD, what evidence is there
>for such interlacing on the continent?  Or are you saying
>it is original to the creator of the Sutton Hoo Buckle?
>Germanic zoomorphics, yes.  Interlacing in the insular
>style... I'd love to see sources.

What may not be clear from my request for sources is that
the sources I seek are _not_ primary sources, but rather
scholarly secondary sources.  With all the emphasis that
one sees in the SCA on primary sources (which are
wonderful for knowing what was actually done, but much
less useful for providing broad context), there is not
much discussion of the role of scholarly secondary
sources.  These are the sources that put artifacts into
context: charting trends, searching for origins, comparing
and contrasting, seeking dates based on auxilliary
evidence, etc.

I interpreted the original statement (short as it was) to
be that the interlacing style seen in the British Isles
after about 600AD, (and which often goes by the name
"Celtic Knotwork", a term that we both agree is
inaccurate) is actually Saxon in origin.  If I have
misinterpreted, I apologize.

When I asked for your sources, I was really asking for the
names /publications of some of the experts in the field
who are also saying that Insular knotwork is ultimately
Saxon in origin. That statement is much more general than
any particular artifact can usually support.

By the way, the Sutton Hoo buckle appears to my eye to owe
more to the Germanic zoomorphic style than to the dots
method of interlacing, which I believe is the style most
characteristic of insular knotwork.

Have we clarified our positions to the point of agreement
yet?

Eowyn Amberdrake



More information about the H-needlework mailing list