Tekke Dowry Rug... similar examples?

[Paul Smith]

I purchased this Tekke several years ago because it looked like no Tekke I had ever seen, and it seemed to exude juju. Though the usual repetition can be seen in it, the variations in the elements are very lively, with various size shifts, and design alterations. I had never seen anything like the band of white cotton pile that goes through the middle of the rug, replacing the ivory wool in that section. The amulet items in the elems looked like similar elements I had seen in the oldest Turkmen weaving. It had condition issues, but I suspect that it has some age.

https://i.postimg.cc/xCPB6ybj/Paul-rug.jpg

Recently, I was inspired to see whether I can get a clearer sense of the piece by comparing it to others, and I ran into an interesting problem--I couldn't find anything like it in the books I have. So, I'm appealing to the fellow T'tekkers to see if anyone knows of similar pieces. One expert has told me to look at the first three Hans Elmby catalogs from the 90s--does anyone have access? If there were something in one of those (which?) I could probably go buy a copy. What do the earliest small Tekke rugs of this sort look like?

I understand that there are many, many small Tekke "dowry rugs" from the latter 19th c. and beyond, but I think this is something entirely different. I've attached some other photos... I appreciate any information or similar examples.

https://i.postimg.cc/kGR65xDv/field.jpg

https://i.postimg.cc/bYZ3nWt3/back-closeup.jpg

https://i.postimg.cc/4dSHZ843/elem1.jpg

https://i.postimg.cc/XXMZBpCS/secondary-gul-closeup.jpg

[Chuck Wagner]

Hi Paul,

A few comments on the criteria (structure, maybe ?) by which you determined this to be a Tekke piece ?

Regards
Chuck

[Paul Smith]

The knotting is asymmetrical, open to the right. The density varies but hovers around 15h x 11w = c.165 kpsi, with two weft shoots. I confess that my attribution to the Tekke was because of the colors and the elements that I associate with them, like the shelpie guls in the border and the interlocking rams-horn minor border, but the structure seems right, too. Here's a closer shot of the back...

https://i.postimg.cc/9MMw63hS/back-closeup-2.jpg

[Pierre Galafassi]

Hi Paul,

Beautifull rug! Congrats.
For what little it can help identify the weaver's tribe, O'Donovan writes
"...With it was a "beurg", or skull-cap, such as the Tekes invariably wear under their great sheepskin shakos. It was of cloth, finely embroidered with silk, in yellow and pale purple, with a little admixture of green.
Makdurn Kuli Khan had on a previous occasion given me another similar cap, and I was able to compare the different patterns of each, which, like the Scottish plaids, distinguish the Merv- and Akhal Tekes from each other. The Merv skull-cap was covered with ornaments in the form of small Saint Andrew's crosses, grouped in rows, while that bearing the Akhal Teke pattern was decorated with rows of upright ordinary crosses. This is the only difference I have ever been able to distinguish in the colors or patterns of the dresses worn by the two nations


E. O'Donovan. The Merv oasis. Travels and adventures east of the Caspian during the years 1879-80-81 Five months residence among the Tekes of Merv. Vol II. Pages 282-...

Regards
Pierre

[Chuck Wagner]

Paul,

I assume the new first image (recently changed) is actually the piece you wish to discuss ? and the rest not yet modified ?

The original image looked like a middle Amu Darya piece, which is why I asked about structure. But this more recent one is clearly Tekke.

Regards
Chuck

[Joel Greifinger]

I assume the new first image (recently changed) is actually the piece you wish to discuss ?

Hi Chuck,

I replaced Paul's thumbnail with the larger image and accidentally inserted the wrong rug. :banghead: The image that is now in the post is (I hope) the correct one.

Joel

[Paul Smith]

Hi Joel, Chuck, and Pierre...

I am sorry if my image size was weird. The photohosting thing is a bit of a challenge... They are all big images now.

Thanks for looking at this. All of these images are from the same piece. I added the closeup of the back because Chuck was interested in the structure (and I can post more details...). Has anyone seen those Hans Elmby catalogs? I think if I could find an analog(s), I would have a better sense of this thing.

I also recall being told by someone more expert than I (which is to say, nearly everyone), that the deep red ground, as seen here, was also a Merv Tekke feature, but I certainly don't know. I sure would love to step into O'Donovan's memory and see what he saw.

Cheers,

Paul

[Frank Martin Diehr]

Hello Paul


I looked through the first 4 Elmby catalogues, and there is no comparable Tekke small rug in any of those.
I have not got no 5, which is only half the size of the others. The catalogues contain 30-45 decent colour pics each, and brief tech. details, and don't weigh much. Even as a non-Turkomaniac I find Elmby's catalogues worth having (and still easy to get), many pieces are in fragmentary condition, but very interesting.


Kind regards


Frank

[Paul Smith]

Hi Frank,

Thank you so much for looking. It was recommended that I go through the first three catalogs, so if there was nothing there... hm...

So, then, the search goes on.

Regards,

Paul

[Chuck Wagner]

Hi Paul,

OK, so now I'm back to wondering about middle Amu Darya (or a hybrid, anyway), based for the most part on the motifs in the center of the major guls, which are a long way from any Tekke work I'm familiar with, and that rather closely approximate MAD motifs.

I remember seeing something similar in Elena Tsareva's book on the Kingston collection; I'll try to get an image up over the weekend.

Regards
Chuck

[Paul Smith]

Hi Chuck,

Some of those main gul centers, the ones with the triangles, look similar to centers you see in Tekke chuvals and small rugs, but I have only seen them more precisely-drawn, with right triangles fitting nicely into diamonds. Here they sort-of casually stack themselves, with a couple diamonds. I mean, several of those centers, I've never seen in anything! As with the shelpie guls (I think that's the right name for those eight-pointed stars-in-rayed-octagons?) in the border. Some are conventional, some seem distorted, and some look like nothing I've ever seen before, one with a moustache and another that has morphed into a frog. The crosses and dots are interesting. Maybe there's a deer head. But the basic design there, the minor borders and the chemches, with the lines connecting, the weave and the colors... sure look like old Tekke to me. I just saw an old MAD rug, currently on a commercial site, that has chuval guls not unlike some of these, with more MAD-esque variation, but no lines in the field--you would have no doubt it was from that tradition--colors (fabulous, actually) and other motifs. To see this kind of variation in the elements does seem like more of a MAD weaving trait, that's true. It is certainly unusual in Tekkes, though I have seen more of it in really old Tekke work, which I am wondering if this one is.

I look at this and wonder about wonkiness. Something is going on with this piece. Sometimes, as here, there seems to be deliberate design manipulation, while some of it seems more haphazard, and there are some rugs where this becomes extreme. What I see here seems extreme, not for Baluchis or Kurds, but definitely for the Tekke! Not insignificantly to my eyes, the common trait of expanding gul sizes corresponding with expansion of the connecting lines does that weird 3-D/proportion effect, where something sitting on the (significantly more worn) end with more amulets would be enlarged to someone sitting in front of the other end. I have annoyed those more knowledgeable than I with my speculation about the intentionality of the weaver in this sort of effect, but it sure looks deliberate or at least purposeful to me.

Paul

[Chuck Wagner]

Paul,

Well, by most characteristics it is pretty straight-forward to assign a Tekke attribution to this one: borders, minor ornamentation, the pallete, and the structure in particular - which is why I asked about it.

Nevertheless, the choice of internal ornamentation of the major guls is enigmatic. At the bottom, it is very close to MAD pieces (show-and-tell below) but progresses through several different motifs seen on a variety of Turkmen work, with the second and third row from the top close to traditional Tekke motifs.

And given the unusual execution of several of the major border elements, one might reasonably suggest that this piece might be the result of an inexperienced weaver at work, or one chewing a little too much khat.

Given the mixing of populations in the later 19th century, it's equally likely that prior observations of work from other tribes/regions might have influenced the choices. Followed by a slap to the head and a suggestion from mom that we start sticking to tradition, around here. Young people... mutter mutter... etc.

Anyway, I have only found one example attributed to Tekke with a similar major gul motif, in Jourdan's book on Turkoman work. The rest are all attributed to Ali Eli, Kizil Ayak, or other yet-to-be identified MAD groups, or, as more generally, Ersari work. All have a combination of light/dark triangles organized somewhat differently from one piece to another.

The pictures part of the project now begins, starting with the Jourdan Tekke attribution:

http://www.turkotek.com/show_and_tell/C_JourdanTK2.jpg

and a close-up:

http://www.turkotek.com/show_and_tell/C_JourdanTK1.jpg
Next a northern MAD oasis example from Tsareva's Kingston Collection book:

http://www.turkotek.com/show_and_tell/C_Kingston_NorthernM ADOasisChuval.jpg

Here are two from Rageth's tome, noted as Ersari:

http://www.turkotek.com/show_and_tell/C_RagethErs1.jpg

http://www.turkotek.com/show_and_tell/C_RagethErs2.jpg

And four from my own Rug Bunker, the first two 19th century Ali Eli Turkmen, the third a 20th century Ali Eli from northeastern Afghanistan, and the last (based on a conversation with Peter Poullada) Lebab Saryk; the Saryk settled on the banks of the middle Amu Darya.

http://www.turkotek.com/show_and_tell/C_AEchuv1.jpg

http://www.turkotek.com/show_and_tell/C_AEchuv2.jpg

http://www.turkotek.com/show_and_tell/C_AEchuv3.jpg

http://www.turkotek.com/show_and_tell/C_SYchuv1.jpg

Regards
Chuck

[Paul Smith]

Chuck,

Thanks for all those examples!

Yeah, that first Jourdan example is the sort of Tekke I was thinking of as an example of the usual precise repetition seen in later Tekkes, and that one shows the crisp triangle/diamond gul centers. And the juicy Ersari/MAD gul examples... nice bunker! None of them are like the looser version in my Tekke, though the second example from your bunker heads in that direction.

I would be hesitant to ascribe the variations in the elements in my piece to incompetence, given the presence of special material (cotton) and the plethora of amulets and so on... and it sure doesn't look incompetent to me. That's the wonkiness debate--is precise repetition "better"? Not to me, but it certainly seems to be a feature of later commercial weaving. Altered states...hm, maybe. :monalisa:

Are there any examples of these Tekke small "dowry" rugs from before 1850? If mine is early (and, OK, I think it is), then later rugs might not be the best comparison, but I have so little to go on here.

Paul

[Paul Smith]

Hi Chuck, et al.

While shifting designs could mean any number of things, including incompetence, I suppose, one aspect of the wonkiness in this piece that clearly demonstrates intention and not randomness/mistake is the cotton. She had plenty of ivory wool, but deliberately chose to substitute the white cotton for about 2.5 inches in the middle of the rug. It was not used in a graphic way--it starts in one third of the main guls and finishes within a row of chemches (and doesn't completely fill the chemches, either. You can see it in the last photo of my original post). I mean, she didn't do an entire set of the ivory parts of the main guls, she did part of them. I am continuing to dig through auction catalogs and such, and I have yet to find a similar use of a special material. Usually silk is used to fill an entire area in an element, like a whole gul center or quarter. Here, it is obviously something else. It is this sort of clearly-intentional variation in the design that reminds me of some Native American art, where the object is not really the entire work, which includes the rituals and other things going on as the piece was made. A Native American shaman with whom I shared an office years ago at WSU explained the difference like this--that Europeans are all about possession and property--what can be sold--so art is an object. But in their world, art was an artifact of a much larger enterprise including relationships, rituals, and other arts, which is why the way we regard Native American art these days (as valuable objects that be bought and sold) can be offensive to the people who produced that art.

We have a far better idea of this aspect of Native American culture than we do of Turkmen before the 1870s, which says less about how much we know about Native Americans than it demonstrates the devastating vacuum of information about Turkmen culture. Though Europeans did their best at cultural genocide, by the early 20th century, anthropologists and others tried to document/interview survivors and there was an effort, still ongoing, to preserve Native American cultural knowledge. At the same time, in the new Soviet Union, cultural and ethnic identity was suppressed as part of their agenda to turn everyone into Soviet citizens. No one was interested in the days of Lenin and Stalin in encouraging Turkmen to maintain their cultural traditions; indeed they were violently prevented from doing so because it undermined the government's political agenda.

I wouldn't presume that how Native Americans here in the inland Northwest did things was necessarily similar to how the Turkmen regarded their artistic enterprises, but neither would I presume that Eurocentric ideas about art are necessarily relevant to Turkmen aesthetics, and the relationship of Turkmen women (and their community at large) to their weaving. There's mystery in it, for sure.

Paul

[Chuck Wagner]

Hi Paul,

I would argue that there is a world of difference between inexperienced, and incompetent - that incompetence is typically the result of ample experience, coupled with the failure to learn anything from that experience.

When I see motifs with proportions that have been perfected over centuries, rendered in a largely random and haphazard manner my natural tendency is to attribute the work to an inexperienced weaver. That could be a young person working on their weaving learners permit, or an adult who only practices the art infrequently and/or who is working solely from memory without a reference pattern.

While not explicitly recorded in literature (that I'm aware of) I suspect that some weaving exercises are interrupted by movement of the encampment, resulting in variable tensions used throughout the life of the activity as well as variable availability of materials. The deliberate switch to cotton is just as likely the result of running out of ivory wool and continuing until some more became available. Or that the supply was provided to a novice to work with on an as-needed basis. There are myriad possibilities, of course. Maybe mom just wanted the youngster to see what it's like to work with cotton ? Maybe mom was just freestyling ? Who can know ?

Hypothesizing over issues that cannot be resolved by examination of direct and/or compelling evidence is what makes the interpretation fun instead of mundane, and you may notice there's a lot of that happening around here...

Regardless of the actualities of the weavers situation, they resulted in a charming piece that from a distance looks like just one more dowry rug, but up close is clearly free of the typical - and occasionally boring - rigidity seen in such works.

Regards
Chuck

[Martin Andersen]

Hi Paul

Congrats, it is a very nice wedding rug. Lots of life in it, rare to see a Tekke with a "happy" felling to it, perhaps it is the juju :)
The condition issues is nothing to speak of, this is obviously a collectors rug which deserves a wall hanging, no more feet on this one.

And Chuck, I sure see what you see with "Followed by a slap to the head and a suggestion from mom that we start sticking to tradition, around here. Young people... mutter mutter... etc." It kind of adds to the happy feeling of the rug :)

On the other hand a rug like this makes me think of the possible fundamental difference in aesthetics in pre-industrial environments. A difference in aesthetic sensibility and tolerance of large and small asymmetries which may have been culturally eradicated in the meeting with the mass-produced textiles of the west. It must have been a strange and devastating blow to the nomadic weavers pride to encounter the cheap systematic precision of the Jacquard machine, probably profoundly transformative. The early export of the rugs by the Russians may not have had a taste for the nomadic asymmetries. I suspect that we have to be in the solid modernism before a broad taste in Europe takes up the "authenticity" of asymmetrical tribal weavings, and in that time gap of two generations or more, and the rough setting of colonization and revolution, certainly a lot of Turkmen nomadic rugs have been discarded and are gone. Not appreciated neither in Central Asia nor in the west. I think I tend to see Paul's wedding rug as a survivor. Not that it is necessarily terrible old (it might be, who knows), but pre-russian in all aspects - and in a very interesting and beautiful way.

All the best
Martin

[Martin Andersen]

I looked at Elmby's catalogs. Nothing directly comparable, but there is an interesting and very lovely small Yomut piece in the first catalog, no 43. It might be relevant for you Paul. Elmby calls it a hearth rug, ca 1850.
Lots of life and asymmetries in it :) (perhaps even the strange and hard to define floating space which some are looking for in the Turkmen rugs).



https://iili.io/fGMdk7.md.jpg (https://freeimage.host/i/fGMdk7)

And Elmbys catalogues are great, small but great, he sure had good taste.

best Martin

[Martin Andersen]

By the way Paul, what is the dimensions of your dowry rug?
Best Martin

[Paul Smith]

Hi Martin,

Thank you for responding! That Elmby example is indeed the closest analogue I've seen so far, so I very much appreciate seeing it. The variation in the main gul centers, while not as much of a menagerie as in my piece, is similar. Interesting that it is dated to 1850. I suspect that these days, it would get a dating closer to 1800, but of course dating these things is closer to ritual incantations than it is to rigorous evidence, until we get old enough to pull out the C-14 tests.

The size of my piece is approximately 53" x 40.5" (135cm x 102cm).

Regards,

Paul

[Martin Andersen]

Hi Paul

Dating the rugs is as you and we all know mainly based on subjective basis, even most of the c-14 results have to be interpreted. But it's fun (unless you are dealing with a dealer:)), and I suppose we all to some degree try to order our rugs according to some estimate of age.

It is of course extra risky to try to estimate age based on photos, especially on a single photo like the Elmby yomut. But just for the fun of it, personally, and 120% subjective, I would probably date your rug mid- or third quarter 19th, and probably be putting Elmbys yomut a bit back to first half 19th, or considerably older if the tactile qualities of age was at hand in real life (Elmby had it at hand so his 1850 should of course be taken very serious, but compared to others he was cautious in his datings). The last part "tactile qualities of age" which also include some color judgement is of course even extra subjective, but still I suppose we all do it. When I don't put your rug even further back it is based on a totally subjective interpretation of your close up photos of weave and color in regard to this subjective notion of age. And of course this may be totally skewed, the rugs for sure aged under very varied circumstances. And I am certainly no expert, and I may be totally wrong, I just like to look at the rugs and old stuff in general.

Anyway your rug sure has the aesthetic qualities and an a uniqueness I think must be obvious to anyone interested in the Turkmen rugs. Enjoy the rug, it is far more interesting than the bulk of the small format dowry rugs. I think it has found its rightful owner in you, you have the sensibility for its qualities.

all the best