Not to be a cynical curmudgeon. But I happened idly to pick up a copy of Oriental Rug Review the other day and happened upon an article by Murray Eiland (Vol. 8, No. 2 - 1988) which called into question a great deal of the 'scholarship' surrounding Turkoman rugs before and during the 'boom' of the late '70s - early '80s. It called into question the entire body of lore about the rugs, such as the totemic significance and importance of tribal guls, a great deal of which orbits around the work of Moshkova. He wasn't purporting to refute it so much as point out that much of it, layer upon layer, was the product of theorization based on very limited evidence.
Of course, as every ruggie knows, one can change the narrative every single day, and the rugs don't change a single hair. Meanwhile, there is nothing like great plates.
|