Amabaca

Amabaca

[ Source of title : Nessa Leibhammer for SAHRIS, using JAG materials ]

Object

JAG 1995-2-95

Creative Commons License: CC BY-NC-ND https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

Description [Source - Debra Pryor for FHYA, 2022, using spreadsheet created by Nessa Leibhammer for the South African Heritage Resources Information System (SAHRIS), from JAG materials in 2015: Object description: Wooden frame to hold rolled up mats. There are two vertical panels one behind the other and two horizontal bars that span between them. The four front panels have geometric designs carved into them and darkened with pokerwork Object form type: mat holder; Object material type: wood, pokerwork, metal nails, carving; Technique: carving, pokerwork; Colours: Brown, dark brown, black; Dimension comment: ; Object age: late 19th to mid 20th century; Production place: Northern KwaZulu-Natal; Cultural association: Zulu, North; Place of use: Northern KwaZulu-Natal; Provenance: .]

Attributions and conjectures [Source - Nessa Leibhammer for FHYA, 2017: Comments on classification: In his 'A Preliminary Survey of the Bantu Tribes of South Africa', Union of South Africa, Department of Native Affairs, Ethnological Publications, Vol. 5, Pretoria, Government Printer, (1935): 7, 70-83, national government ethnologist, Nicholas Van Warmelo did not use the term "North Nguni". He grouped people living both north and south of the Thukela, under one umbrella term, "Natal Nguni", based on linguistic affinity. His classification was adapted by the ethnology curator, Margaret Shaw, in her 1958 "System of Cataloguing Ethnographic Material in Museums" which determined that items from the region were to be classified as "Natal Nguni: Zulu and others (not differentiated)." According to art historian, Anitra Nettleton, the classificatory system used by art galleries and museum shifted from Shaw's model to the one where "Natal Nguni" fell away and was replaced by "North/Northern Nguni" for KwaZulu-Natal and Swaziland because scholars found it difficult to distinguish items from adjacent areas, or emigrant people from those from the KZN region. Scholars working with the JAG materials used broad ethno-linguistic categories (Zulu, Xhosa, Tsonga, Shona, Sotho, Tswana) to identify the makers/users of the objects, all of which came to JAG without much by way of provenance, and identification was based on factors such as object type, materials, formal composition, style and surface patterning (emails A. Nettleton to N. Leibhammer, 25 and 28 November 2014).]

If you have difficulty accessing the objects, use these links.

Amabaca
Amabaca (view 2)