Greetings - ID help for a new collector

[aarongoldstein Junior Member Find all posts View Profile Close aarongoldstein]

Hi All,

I'm just starting out on my Turkoman rug collecting journey. A friend and antiques shop owner in Oakland has generously been giving me an education, and I've acquired some books and have read through some of the old threads on this site, which quickly led me to realize the nuances, pitfalls, and general difficulty of identification, as well as the tremendous knowledge that exists here.






I have a few very worn out/lesser bagface rugs, but this is the star of the show. I haven't yet found an exact match for the gul, and haven't seen many examples of the flower motif in the skirt, but then again I haven't been looking at Turkoman rugs for years. The chemche looks like a common one. I've found some similar ramshorn border motifs in a book of Turkoman and Uzbek carpets studied between 1929 and 1945, which a friend has been helping me translate from Russian. The wool is still lustrous, and the lighter blue is almost irridescent in certain lights (also forgive me if it's purple - I'm very colorblind!)

If anyone could help to roughly locate and~date~ this rug, at least to a half- or quarter-century, that would be amazing. Many thanks!

The rug measures 58" x 40". I haven't yet done a KPSI count, but can do if that is helpful for ID.

Many thanks!

Aaron Goldstein
Berkeley

[aarongoldstein Junior Member Find all posts View Profile Close aarongoldstein]

Here is an image of the reverse side.

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

This looks to me like an Ersari (or maybe Saryk?) chuval from the Middle Amu Darya region. I was looking hard at the brighter red to see if it was synthetic, or if there was any bleeding onto the ivory, but it looks good to me. At least two blues, and a pale yellow... so I would say, c.1890?

[aarongoldstein Junior Member Find all posts View Profile Close aarongoldstein]

Thanks, Paul. I tried to photograph in an even daylight, but inevitably there is some distortion of the color. The ivory looks very sharp to my eye, no bleeding of the neighboring colors. Is your assessment based on the gul/chemche, or the whole package? Just for my own learning - many thanks!

AG

[Joe Lawrence Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Joe Lawrence]

I did some fast research on this since it is a beautiful yet unusual Chuval (at least for me)

According to Moskova’s book, “Carpets of the People of Central Asia” page 203 and 204, identify the minor Gul on page 203, plate XL #12 and the small flowers in the skirt you noted are identical on page 204 plate XLII #4. . These motifs are classified as Saryk like Paul mentioned. Please keep in mind that there are more variations of Guls and motifs then pictured in books so it is at times difficult to find the exact one you are looking for.

Dating is difficult to say. I would “think” based on the pics, it’s safe to “possibly” narrow it down to a 50 year window from the last qtr of the 19c to the 1st quarter of the 20th century.

To make it more confusing, I have found nearly identical examples without the bar running vertically through the guls listed as Kizil Ayak Ersari Chuvals from very reputable dealers.

You have a wonderful piece and thank you for posting it. I would love to hear what the long term members have to say on it.

Joe Lawrence

[aarongoldstein Junior Member Find all posts View Profile Close aarongoldstein]

Many thanks, Joe. In my initial digging, I found an old thread in which the "Kizil Ayak/Ersari" distinction was being debated. I'd love to see the plates you reference from Moshkova's book if you could share them.

What do you make of the anomalous bar running through the guls?

Any idea what KPSI one would expect in a carpet from the tribes/time periods you mentioned?

I found a somewhat similar carpet on an auction site listed as a "Lebab Saryk" - gul is not a great match, but the minor gul and ramshorn borders and skirt look close.

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

Hi aarongoldstein,

Your chuval and the example you just posted are similar, but there are significant differences. For example, both chuvals have chemche minor guls, but the chuval you just posted has the standard Kizil Ayak version that has a diamond in the center. I don't think the Saryk used that, but I can always be educated. Here is a close up from a Kizil Ayak main carpet in my collection, showing that style of minor gul.



The minor borders on the chuval you just posted are associated with the Ersari--not sure they turn up on Saryk pieces. Your example is different, which is why I wonder about a Saryk attribution. Both examples do have elem designs up above the border at the top, so there's that. The "anomalous bar" through guls is something I've seen in various Turkmen pieces, though it's usually a Tekke attribute. I love trying to decode the details in these pieces. I'll pull out some books and see what I find.

[aarongoldstein Junior Member Find all posts View Profile Close aarongoldstein]

Thanks, Paul. So you're leaning towards a Saryk attribution for my chuval? And am I correct in understanding that the vertical bar through the guls is not necessarily unique to Tekke chuvals.

Looking forward to seeing what you dig up in your books!

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

My opinion is worthless, honestly. I'm good on some things, but this is an unusual Turkmen, IMWO. Keep in mind, unusual is often a good thing in Turkmen. The main gul centers are not at all the usual Saryk design, and the "anomalous bar" would be pretty unusual. I love the sparkling effect of the lighter blue bits. I think some design aspects look more Saryk than Kizil Ayak, and that's another worthless opinion. Someone more expert than I who has handled Saryk weaving would need to comment, but I am left with a vaguely Middle Amu Darya, 19th-c. guess, while wondering what an expert would say.

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

Hi Aaron and welcome to Turkotek,

I think Paul is in the right place geographically by saying Middle Amu Darya region. As for age I would guess latter 1/3 19th century. I'm less certain about a Saryk attribution. Looking at your image of the back, at lower left I think I am seeing a somewhat ribbed texture indicating knot depression, similar to what is seen on Saryk work. But the main border and major guls are not really consistent with Saryk work, nor what is usually classified as Kizil Ayak. I've seen that border on a few Tekke pieces but this has no other characteristics that point toward Tekke work.

Based on a fairly good analogy with the image below from Jurg Rageth's book, I have to go along with his suggestion that yours is an otherwise undifferentiated Ersari piece.

Regards
Chuck

[aarongoldstein Junior Member Find all posts View Profile Close aarongoldstein]

Thank you, Paul and Chuck. Chuck, the image you attach from Rageth's book looks pretty spot on, down to the iridescent quality of the lighter blue. Does the whip stitching (if that's what it is) at the bottom of that chuval suggest it may have had a skirt which was lost, and that edge was then reinforced?

What is one to make of the potentially mismatched skirt motif, which you feel is closer to a Tekke design? Is it an example of "mixing and matching," or would one also find that design in Ersari rugs if one looked enough?

AG

[aarongoldstein Junior Member Find all posts View Profile Close aarongoldstein]

Chuck,

I found the image you attached from Vol 2 of Jurg Rageth's book, and saw that Chuval was dated to the 18th or early 19th century. I'm looking back and forth between the plate in the book and my own chuval, and the resemblence is quite striking. What stands out to you in my example which would place it in later in the 19th?

It does appear that the guls in the chuval from Rageth's book are more square, whereas mine are more elongated left to right.

Thanks!

AG

[Steve Price Administrator Find all posts View Profile Close Steve Price]

Chuck,

I found the image you attached from Vol 2 of Jurg Rageth's book, and saw that Chuval was dated to the 18th or early 19th century. I'm looking back and forth between the plate in the book and my own chuval, and the resemblence is quite striking. What stands out to you in my example which would place it in later in the 19th?

It does appear that the guls in the chuval from Rageth's book are more square, whereas mine are more elongated left to right.

Thanks!

AG

Exactly. In Turkmen work the vertical knot density increases as age decreases. This flattens motifs. It's not a perfect indicator, but it's pretty good.

Steve Price

[aarongoldstein Junior Member Find all posts View Profile Close aarongoldstein]

Thanks Steve. Do you concur with the mid 1860's-1900 assessment?

Aaron

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

What stands out to you in my example which would place it in later in the 19th?

The thing that hit me immediately in the example Chuck posted (besides the anomalous bars, of course) was the clarity/luminosity of the colors. The red ground is exquisite, and the light blue... That might be in another league even from the luminous blue in your chuval. This sure looks like an earlier generation to me. But, I think that the similarity of design elements is striking, and it wouldn't surprise me if the granddaughter of the gal who wove the piece in the Rageth book wove yours.