Posted by R. John Howe on 02-16-2006 06:33 AM:
Kazak with Two Niches
Dear folks -
Although not one of the pieces Jerry Thompson singled out
for me to show you, the Kazak with the two niches is interesting.
I often respond positively
to Kazaks. As a mostly Turkmen collector I like their frequent open, spacious,
economical designs and drawing.
There are quite a few Kazaks (and other
Caucasian types) with two niches. But in most of them the niches are oriented in
the same way. That is the niche at the top is convex in the upward direction,
while the niche on the bottom is concave. This double niche usage is often
referred to as a "re-entrant" design. (I cannot swear but think that Walter
Denny in his lecture before reception for the Anatolian exhibit in Philadelphia,
that re-entrant usages are references to flowing water.)
The possibly
unusual thing about this particular two-niche design is that the lower niche is
not concave, not oriented upward. I have looked through my Caucasian books
quickly and haven't found another niche design of this sort (although I am sure
I have see some).
But it's unusual and raises the question of what the
weaver intended. Is it simply a two niche design, not really intended to be
different from the "re-entrant" variety? Kaffel says that some prayer rug
designs may refer to building layout, and this would be plausible
here.
Has anyone seen another Caucasian rug with a two-niche design of
this sort? Does anyone have any suggestions of how it should be
read?
Regards,
R. John Howe
Posted by Steve Price on 02-16-2006 07:02 AM:
Hi John
There are two issues here:
1. What was the meaning of the
"re-entrant" design at some distant time in the past?
2. What did the late
19th century weaver intend to convey when she wove a "re-entrant" design
rug?
Those are different questions, and probably have different answers.
My guess is that Walter Denny's comments about the meaning of such designs were
directed at the first question, and were based on information that arose during
the course of somebody's scholarship.
One recurrent problem in Rugdom is
interpretations of this sort based on little information. Walter's credentials
are what give his comments credibility. Even without knowing what their
foundation is, it is reasonable to believe that there is one and that it is
well-grounded, simply because they came through him.
Regards
Steve
Price
Posted by R. John Howe on 02-16-2006 07:30 AM:
Hi Steve -
Actually, there are three questions (and I didn't mean to
seem to lean so hard on the interpretive side).
The third is whether
anyone knows of another instance of this particular version of a two-niche
design on a Caucasian "prayer" rug.
Regards,
R. John Howe
Posted by Tim Adam on 02-16-2006 07:45 AM:
Hi Steve,
I am surprised you, as a scientist, give so much weight to
someone's credentials. In my area, economics, credentials might get you an
invitation to present your ideas in a seminar, but during the seminar
credentials don't play a role at all.
Even in the absence of information
to judge, I'd try to obtain the necessary information, rather than believing
someone based on his/her credentials.
Tim
Posted by Tim Adam on 02-16-2006 07:55 AM:
Hi John,
I think this format is not that unusual. Below are three
examples from recent Skinner auctions.
In my option it's a degenerate
form, and indicates a later weaving.
Tim
Posted by Steve Price on 02-16-2006 08:50 AM:
quote:
Originally posted by Tim Adam
Hi Steve,
I am surprised
you, as a scientist, give so much weight to someone's credentials. In my area,
economics, credentials might get you an invitation to present your ideas in a
seminar, but during the seminar credentials don't play a role at
all.
Even in the absence of information to judge, I'd try to obtain the
necessary information, rather than believing someone based on his/her
credentials.
Tim
Hi Tim
There are different venues for exchange of
information. One is the professional journal or conference, in which it is
customary to explore the foundation on which statements rest. That's true in
every academic specialty of which I'm aware. And, as you note, someone's
credentials might get him/her invited to speak or to contribute a chapter to a
book, but they don't exempt the person from being asked for his
evidence.
At the other extreme, casual conversation is often a venue for
information exchange. It is not a venue in which checking references for
accuracy (or even checking to see if they are real!) is convenient, and few
people - even professionals - carry the reference details in their heads. I'm
sure you can tell me certain things in the economics literature, probably even
name the authors of the specific information, but can rarely give me the exact
journal reference off the top of your head.
When Walter Denny presents a
talk to a lay audience in which he says that the re-entrant design represents
water, the venue doesn't lend itself to chasing down the source of his belief on
the spot. The audience members can either believe that what he said is probably
well founded or they can disregard it. The only basis they have for making that
decision is his credentials. In my opinion, at least, his credentials make him a
credible source of that kind of information. Not infallible, but more reliable
than, say, you or me, with regard to the same statement. If the subject was
economics, you'd be more credible than him or me. If it was some aspect of
biology, I'd probably be more credible than either of you.
I didn't mean
to imply that the credentials of the source are the ultimate criterion in
determining the truth of some statement, and I don't think that they are. But I
note that there is a strong tendency in Rugdom for assertions - often of a
romantic nature - to be made in venues that do not lend themselves to
fact-checking (most popular articles, books, websites, etc., are in this
category). How, then, does a fellow decide whether to take such an assertion
seriously? I think the credentials (and academic credentials are only one kind;
there are many others) of the person making the assertions is what we're stuck
with. The alternative, it seems to me, is to either believe everything we read
or hear, or to ignore anything we read or hear except when it's fully documented
and we have personally checked the source.
Regards
Steve Price
Posted by R. John Howe on 02-17-2006 05:18 AM:
Tim, Steve -
I have written Walter Denny asking whether I heard his
seeming "re-entrant" design - flowing water reference accurately. I have also
asked him to say (if it turns out that I heard correctly) a sentence or two
about his basis for that.
He's very busy, but perhaps he will
respond.
Regards,
R. John Howe
Posted by Filiberto Boncompagni on 03-15-2006 05:01 AM:
Not all are late
We received from Mr. Kelvin Webb this photo:
With the following text:
John,
This is of course a Karachop. Dated 1290.
Please put in the ' kazakh with two niches' thread with the caption
"Not all are late."
This has to do with a comment by Tim Adams but no contention implied !
Thanks Kelly
I took the liberty to crop, rotate, resize and clarify the photo.
Actually the date is 1295.
A.H 1295 corresponds to A.D. 1878.
Thanks,
Filiberto