Ersari Main Carpet

[Joel Greifinger Administrator Find all posts View Profile Close Joel Greifinger]

As a ruggie who has never been bitten by the hard-core Turkmania bug, I've nonetheless long been drawn to gulli gul Ersari main carpets. And now, having gotten one to enjoy on a daily basis, I'm hoping for some input on where it fits into the history of such pieces.

The rug is 100" x 77" (254 x 196 cm). It's woven asymmetric open right with about 49kpsi. Here are a couple of attempts to photograph the whole rug. The color is a bit 'warm' from the indoor lighting:



In this photo, you can better see one of the interesting features: the top and bottom guls in each column are about the same height, and taller than the three in the middle rows:



The other unusual thing is that the configuration is 3 x 5. Just about all the other 19th century (or earlier) gulli gul Ersari main carpets (that I've found) that have three rows of gulli guls are either 3 x 6 or 3 x 7. The only published exception that I've found is this one, from the Wiederperg collection. Unlike the octagonal gulli guls on mine, this one has a lobed variety:



By my count the rug has twelve colors. Here are some close-ups:





Here is a picture of the five cord selvage:



And a close-up of the back:



Hoping for input from the real Turkmaniacs out there.

Joel Greifinger

[Chuck Wagner Administrator Find all posts View Profile Close Chuck Wagner]

Hi Joel,

That's a nice one. I have always liked that particuler "genre" with the white and light apricot (or some, with pale yellow) quartered major guls. I've always wanted one but never found one that I could afford. Not yet, anyway.

I know I've seen a few others in 3x5; I'll hunt up some images.

Regards
Chuck

[Joel Greifinger Administrator Find all posts View Profile Close Joel Greifinger]

Hi Chuck,

I know that the oldest Ersari main carpets with gulli guls have a lobed version, at least as far back as this one that is carbon dated with high certainty between 1487 and 1639:



I've been trying to find when the earliest octagonal gulli guls begin to appear on them. There appear to be some that are generally dated to the beginning of the nineteenth century, like this other rug from the Wiederperg collection:



This one, from the Neville Kingston collection has a similar palette and range of secondary devices to mine, albeit with lobed guls. Elena Tsareva dates it as "not later than middle 19th century."



How would you assess when during the 19th century mine might have been woven?

Joel

[Chuck Wagner Administrator Find all posts View Profile Close Chuck Wagner]

Hi Joel,

In Mackie and Thompson there is a discussion on the topic of these "gulli" guls and their relatives. With respect to aging it is particularly unhelpful, but they do discuss and group by design type. In particular, they discuss certain details of the rendering of the shrubbery inside the gul quarters, like the number of nodes, general shapes, etc. And it is pointed out that there appear to be links to earlier Saryk and Salor motifs, and that the Saryk guls tend to be flatter.

A conversation with Peter Poullada , and subsequent research, showed a meaningful and persistent Saryk presence and a late Salor presence along the middle Amu Darya.

The point: it's not clear to me that flatter versus more symmetrical can be used as a reliable age indicator because it also appears to be a tribal indicator.

Here's an example from Jurg Rageth's tome of an early (ca. 1700) Saryk rug. To me, the minor guls and border motifs may be better age indicators than the gul geometry. Still, less flat with age seems to be a trend, but complicated by tribal preferences. Note the pointy tips on the florals in the guls, closer to early Salor :



In Mackie & Thompson they show this piece, calling it mid 19th century and probably Ersari. I see no reason to dispute that:



Here is one from John Thompson's book that is described only as 19th century Ersari, but also noted as prior to the late 19th century migration into Afghanistan. So mid-19th seems reasonable. It is probably my favorite example from those in the literature. The rendering and colors make me think even earlier, but that's just a feeling:



My last example comes from Hartley Clarke's book and is plainly described as an Afghan piece. The badam gul minor border fits with Afghan origin. The book was published in 1922 and the piece look work so I would have to guess mid 19th century, possibly late 19th century. I don't trust the color reproduction:



So I think some further review of the literature, looking for analogs of your border motifs, and maybe that device at the center of the major guls, would be helpful for establishing an age range. Ditto for open space vs. packed designs. If I had to guess today I'd say last 1/3 19th century, and one reason is some of the color changes that I perceive in the apricot areas.

Regards
Chuck

[Joel Greifinger Administrator Find all posts View Profile Close Joel Greifinger]

If I had to guess today I'd say last 1/3 19th century, and one reason is some of the color changes that I perceive in the apricot areas.

Hi Chuck,

Could you say a bit more about the color changes you see in the apricot areas? I’m looking for them on the rug and am not sure where you mean.


Joel

[PaulSmith Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close PaulSmith]

Hi Joel,

Something I love in your carpet is that there is abrash in so many of the elements. So, within the quartered panel of a gul, the mid-blue will shift to green. There's a minor gul in your photos up there where it's green on the bottom, dark blue in the middle, and mid blue at the top. I'm not sure if this is what Chuck was referring to, but there is a deeper apricot tone in the top row of guls that shifts to the lighter shade used below. To my odd eye, that creates depth, and makes my eyes wander around the design. This strikes me as being an old quality of Turkmen carpets that lingers in Ersari/MAD carpet weaving longer than it did elsewhere. I am particularly struck by the deep red used as a special color in the little doodads between next-to-the-bottom row of major guls. Anyone seen that before? That, the shifting sizes of guls (also contributing to the sense of depth here... I could wax poetic on this feature...), and the pale yellow makes me think the age of this piece leans towards the mid-19th century. Also, it has to be said--what great condition!

Paul

[Chuck Wagner Administrator Find all posts View Profile Close Chuck Wagner]

Hi Joel,

I was referring specifically to your closeup image of the pile front at the border - the apricot that fills the alternating triangle motifs along the edge (that seem to be outlined with a madder red) seems to fade at the tips. The red that Paul mentions in the minor fill-in devices may be suspect as well. True, the Salors had a nice clear red, early. But this red still has a familiar and possibly synthetic look to it.

Regards
Chuck

[Joel Greifinger Administrator Find all posts View Profile Close Joel Greifinger]

Hi Paul and Chuck,

I've been diving into the 'apricot question'. I've been in this territory before, having once given a presentation to a rug society entitled, "There's Nothing Like a Good Apricot", but that one was about Afshar rugs.

I'm not sure if this is what Chuck was referring to, but there is a deeper apricot tone in the top row of guls that shifts to the lighter shade used below.

Paul - I don't see much variation between the apricot in the top row of guls and the bottom row. Here they are side by side:



In most of the guls, what I mostly see is the variation you'd expect with any madder-based apricot shade. The apricot in the middle three rows of guls is a bit lighter than in the top and bottom. And, in the second row from the bottom, there is a shift in the bottom quadrants:

If I had to guess today I'd say last 1/3 19th century, and one reason is some of the color changes that I perceive in the apricot areas.

Chuck - You wrote that your age estimate was partly based on the color changes in the apricot. I would like to get your thinking on the relationship. Is it your sense that older rugs of this type had more uniform apricot dye lots and less variation in the degree of 'redness' in the color?

Hope this can add to the fruitfulness of the discussion.



Joel

[Joel Greifinger Administrator Find all posts View Profile Close Joel Greifinger]

I was referring specifically to your closeup image of the pile front at the border - the apricot that fills the alternating triangle motifs along the edge (that seem to be outlined with a madder red) seems to fade at the tips.

Hi Chuck,

Seems I was preparing my last post while you were posting your reply, so I missed it.

Perhaps part of the problem is that the pictures that I initially posted were taken in a variety of situations, with three different cameras and with very variable lighting.

Here is a close-up of those border triangles in direct sunlight from the front and back. I wouldn't suspect that this is a synthetic dye, and particularly not an early synthetic orange. But as I said, I'm quite unfamiliar with Turkmen rugs. By any chance, do you have any photos of Turkmen rugs with an analogous synthetic apricot?





Joel

[PaulSmith Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close PaulSmith]

Hi Joel,

In your second photo down from the top in your original post, I can see the shift within the gul quadrant at the bottom that you describe, above. It appears that a similar shift occurs at the very top of the top row of guls. That's what I was referring to. I can see now how I was unclear, but I yeah--I was referring to abrash within the gul quarters, which does seem to appear at both ends. I don't think I see any evidence of synthetics here, but the red doodads--I don't know, could be something. They look good to me, though. It would be worth figuring that out... because if it's a nice natural color, that would be significant. I think it's good.

Paul

[Joel Greifinger Administrator Find all posts View Profile Close Joel Greifinger]

The red that Paul mentions in the minor fill-in devices may be suspect as well. True, the Salors had a nice clear red, early. But this red still has a familiar and possibly synthetic look to it.

I don't think I see any evidence of synthetics here, but the red doodads--I don't know, could be something. They look good to me, though.

Hi folks,

Well then; on to the doodads.

Here are close-ups, front:



and back:



Bright crimson reds can certainly be made with natural dyes:



The question is whether they were being used by Turkmen weavers in the middle of the 19th century. Since, as I need to reiterate, I have very little hands-on experience with Turkmen rugs, I consulted the literature at hand. Jürg Rageth's Turkmen Carpets: A New Perspective contains an essay on red dyes. He documents the use of cochineal for producing scarlet reds. While these are generally on more finely spun than 2-ply yarns in pre-1850 pieces, they sometimes are seen on later 2-ply yarn. Starting about 1880, azo synthetic dyes began being used for highlights, often in more orange shades of red. He also mentions that synthetic-dyed yarns can often be recognized "by their unusually faded pale tips."

So, unsurprisingly, nothing dispositive on the dye source for the red doodads. But, all things considered, I'll default to a hopeful pre-1880 estimate.

Joel

[PaulSmith Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close PaulSmith]

Well, it doesn't look synthetic to me. And there are some very intense but still legit reds in 19th-c. Turkmen. One thing would be the damp white cloth test, where you rub it on the pile and see if anything comes off. In other news, I keep noticing other apricot gul quarters with abrash. There's some in the main guls adjacent to the red doodads. A LOT of the elements in this carpet are abrashed in this way, and I think it adds to the depth in it.

[Joel Greifinger Administrator Find all posts View Profile Close Joel Greifinger]

And there are some very intense but still legit reds in 19th-c. Turkmen.

The bright red in this MAD rug, attributed to the first half of the 19th century by Tsareva from the Hoffmeister collection, seems to bear that out.



As we're all aware, discussions about color in rugs based on photos seen on screens is always fraught. As I mentioned earlier, I had used three cameras to try to capture the colors in the rug. Adding in the differing lighting situations, the color differences in the results were vast.

Here's another example. Earlier, Chuck wrote that this rug from Thompson is a favorite:



With my scanner, it comes out like this:



And, more significantly, the same rug is published in Tsareva's Hoffmeister Collection book, Turkmen Carpets. There it's rotated 180 degrees and scans like this:



Nonetheless, on the whole, having these images and the media to easily share them is a great thing. Just not as great as seeing (and feeling) them in the wool.

Joel

[Joel Greifinger Administrator Find all posts View Profile Close Joel Greifinger]

In my opening post I wrote,

The other unusual thing is that the configuration is 3 x 5. Just about all the other 19th century (or earlier) gulli gul Ersari main carpets (that I've found) that have three rows of gulli guls are either 3 x 6 or 3 x 7.

After searching around a bit online, and only finding one more, I remembered the amazing collection of rug images that John Taylor has compiled at rugtracker.com.
And, luckily for me, he has organized the gulli gul carpets by layout (e.g., 3x4, 3x5, 3x6, 3x7 etc.).
Unlike the dozens of 3x6 and 3x7 examples, there are only a dozen 3x5's of this type. The guls are mostly octagonal, but a few are lobed. Here are some that bear some similarities with my carpet:







Joel