ICOC X bag face

I was searching my HD for a double-niche prayer rug similar to the one selected by Jo Ann, and I found this one instead: picture taken by Jerry Silverman at ICOC X.



It’s also on the front cover of “From Bosporus to Samarkand” - the Textile Museum exhibition of sumak bags.
Almost identical to the bag face of this mini salon…



Regards,

Filiberto

Hi Filiberto -

There's also an article by Wendel Swan in an old ORR issue in which he talks about how such bags initially engaged him.

Here's the link:

http://www.rugreview.com./146beet.htm

He's done better since he wrote this.

Regards,

R. John Howe

Hi all,

Here's another one; this image was scanned from "Seltene Webtaschen asu dem Orient" , by Heinz Hegenbart:



The provenance of this piece is described (hedging his bets) as mid-19th century or earlier Kurdestan or Talysh-Shah-Savan. An excerpt from the description reads:

"The dark-blue fields center is dominated by an abstract "Garden Medallion" on a white ground, with a dark-red ground surrounds a square with hooked corners. The outer limits of the main axis build two, arranged floral forms - Growth and Maturation. Shoots spring from the corners. Axisymmetric floral forms fill the corners and two different kinds of scatter-ornaments the field which has the same color as the main border. The latter is separated from the field by a narrow, wave band. The main border is decorated with varicolored, stylized, floral abstractions."

There is also a structural analysis:

"Warp:Z3S; thin; wool; long staple, tight, grainy, elastic, slightly greasy, glossy, color: naturally light brown; Usually tightly plied (20-30 degree angle).

Wefts: Ground weft: single yarn; thin, Z-spun;silk; very fine, high luster; thickness approximately (KD/8); decorative Weft: Z2S and Z3S; very thin; wool; log staple, tight, grainy, elastic, slightly greasy, glossy. Color: naturally white and dyed; medium, tight ply (50-60 degree angle); thickness about (KD/3); silk; Z3S, in various pastrs of small designs; otherwise like ground weft. Colors (14) field: dark blue; border:deep blue;dark red;dep red;rosewood red; ruby; yellow; green; dark brown; white; silk: old rose, light violet, blue, yellow, green, faded blue, dark red.

Fineness: 750 warps/m, 1300 ground wefts/m, 1300 decorative wefts/m.

Upper End: missing Lower End: missing
Selvages: original; made of one warp, which is weft wrapped."

The section on Total Evaluation reads:

The strong expressivity of this extraordinary bag-face, is indicated by its artistic charm and, also, by its extremely fine workmanship. It is the finest piece in the collection. This masterpiece must be accepted despite numerous signs of partial wear and repairs, particularly in the color and pattern alternation. The condition of its design, wit hthe exception of partial separations in the upper edge, is complete. Only very few specimens, of similar pattern and textural quality are known."

Regards,
Chuck Wagner

__________________
Chuck Wagner

Hi Chuck,

It’s interesting to compare this last piece and the other two.
The others are geometrically perfect, the latter has a more free-hand (trembling hand?) and rustic composition.
I wonder which one has a finer weave. Perhaps “From Bosporus to Samarkand” mentions it?
Regards,

Filiberto

Hi Filiberto,

Unfortunately, "From Bosporus to Samarkand" has no structural information. By the way, on its cover is a different piece from the one you posted at the very beginning, although both bags are rather similar. I'd say the first one is the best of the three.

Tim

It’s not the same? Perhaps I misunderstood what Jerry wrote at the time:
Arguably the best khorjin extant greeted you almost at the front door. A better illuminated picture is available on the front cover of “From Bosporus to Samarkand” - the groundbreaking Textile Museum exhibition of sumak bags.
Regards,

Filiberto

I don't know. But the piece on my copy of "From Bosporus to Samarkand" is different from the first bag you posted.

Tim

Thank you, Chuck, for your post.
I immediately ordered Heinz Hegenbart's book when I read his "structural analysis" as it is the first I have seen which rises above pretty useless descriptions. (Not to disparage other analysts, if there are others who have printed such things, but I, on the web and in my scanty rug book collection, have yet to see any that come close.) I was imagining that he must be a BMW mechanical engineer or something like that, certainly not a spinner, from his understand of what needs to be understood about what he describes and how he describes it. His analysis is refreshingly unstandardized and translatable into yarn design terms which I look forward to testing. Seems rugdom got to him on the rest of his descriptions but I'm not much into those anyway.
My very used copy of it arrived in yesterday's mail and I can't really look at it yet as it smells musty. I am subjecting it to confinement in a room with an ozone machine running so it should be readable in a few days, hopefully. I did open the cover and noticed his map, which I like, as it looks like a landscape design blueprint and the lettering on it looks architectural so that's what his field, in real life, must be, I guess, which makes sense, too.
Anyway from the photo's I've seen of "beetle bags" the only ones that look genuine to me, are the one you post and the one on the cover of "From the Bosporus to Samarkand", which, of course, is not pictured in this mini-Salon, as Tim pointed out. Based on Heinz Hegenbart's analysis and my own hunches, I doubt genuine "beetle bags" were ever bags at all, by the way.
So thank you again, Chuck, I really appreciate it! Sue

I'm sorry to put it so bluntly, but this portion of Sue's last post makes no sense:

I doubt genuine "beetle bags" were ever bags at all, by the way.

First, what is "genuine"?

Second, the first one John posted (in the collection of Bill Price) is an original, complete khorjin with two faces, closure loops and back all intact.

If this khorjin isn't a bag, what is it?

Wendel

Hi Wendel,
First let me say I enjoyed reading your essay that John posted. As a child in the 60's I was lucky to be taken to all of Terry Dunning's auctions which, at that time, were in Barrington Hills and at his warehouse. That's where my allowance money went. Terry used to patiently answer my millions of kid questions and point things out to me before the auctions. I liked him a lot. No rugs or bags, though, out here, at that time.
Anyway, by genuine I mean as in being a TEXTile as opposed to being decorative. The bag John posted, (# 34), in this Mini-Salon is a decorative bag. That's all it is.
On one important level these bags have calendar functions. With calendars the numbers either add up or they don't. When the numbers add up I call them genuine. Rugdom can call them what ever it wants to. I don't care. In a mean nasty email, the last of which I hope to receive, Jack Cassin pointed out to me that at http://www.weavingartmuseum.org/exh2_2.htm , plate#3 , is the veritable archetype for the group. Whatever. I suppose that is possible but as it is from a later calendar it's weaver must have been back-watered before the weavers of the other "Beetle bags" if that is truly the case. That can happen. So now there are three genuine ones I have seen with only Hegenbart bothering to speak of pertinent structural details.
Reread Hegenbart's structural analysis that Chuck posted. The selvages are ORIGINAL and made of ONE WARP, which is weft-wrapped. That is not what a weaver, of the caliber that that one was ,would choose for making a bag. Period. Sue

Hi Sue

I assume that you are using the term "decorative" to mean "not utilitarian".

I'm sorry to hear that Jack Cassin has added you to his e-mail list. His assertion that his piece is the "veritable archetype of the group" isn't evidence that it is, of course, but I don't recommend wasting your time debating that with him.

The calendar aspect of your reading of textiles deserves explanation.

Regards

Steve Price

Hi Steve,
If any of my efforts in speaking on any aspect of textiles to rugdom have not been wasted it would be news to me. I'm on my way out. Sue

Sue wrote:

If any of my efforts in speaking on any aspect of textiles to rugdom have not been wasted it would be news to me.

Dear Sue,

Try though I may I can't seem to parse this sentence.

That aside, could you clarify this "calendar" concept that has been referred to in recent threads? Or point me to information about it?

Curiously,

-Jerry-

Hi Steve,
No. What I mean as "decorative" is a textile without text. The questions about calendars that you and Jerry have addressed I have answered, to John, in the TM Exhibition thread. You will find them there. Sue

Hi Sue

Any textile without text is decorative?

Yours in perpetual puzzlement,

Steve Price

Hi Steve,
In the matter of a culture's arts and crafts, just as in all other matters, content and form do not always leave the planet at the same time. I'm sure there are better ways of saying it but until I hear of them I'll continue to think of it in my own way. The distinction is worth making. Sue

Hi Sue

It's your privilege to express your thoughts any way that suits you. But - and I think this "but" is pretty important - when you use a public forum to do so, other people can't know what you mean unless you define whatever novel terms you choose to include.

"Decorative" is a term with a longstanding meaning in the world of ruggies. Using it with your personal meaning, especially if you don't reveal that meaning until pressed to do so, confuses rather than educates the reader. I doubt that this is your intention.

And from your last post, I'm now puzzled about what meaning you assign to "text." I have a feeling that it isn't the usual meaning that most of us use.

Regards

Steve Price

Maybe

Sue,

I disagree with the basic premise that you put forth:

"The selvages are ORIGINAL and made of ONE WARP, which is weft-wrapped. That is not what a weaver, of the caliber that that one was ,would choose for making a bag. Period."

To suggest that a bag not built like a Mack truck can't be anything more than decorative is an oversimplification.

One must keep in mind that, very often, the nomadic folks use bags and sacks inside their dwellings, where these pieces are lashed to an interior wall. They would never see the abuse and wear that a typical overstuffed saddle bag does, rather, they would be used with great frequency but with the same care that anyone would give to a highly prized household item.

Regardez:



...from Oriental Rugs Vol. 1, Caucasian (Bennett).


Regards,
Chuck

__________________
Chuck Wagner

Hi Steve,
If "decorative" means "not utilitarian" in the long-standing meanings of "ruggiespeak" then it is rugdom that is inventing novel terms, not I. Nor did I invent the word text or the word textile -- words who's meanings, too, rugdom casts aside. It is rugdom that confuses and is in need of pressing.
Parsers parse that. Sue

Hi Chuck,
I am sure that if this "bag" had had a back Hegenbart would have made note of it.
How could it's original selvages and wrappings remain intact if it was a bag with it's back removed? A bag would have needed at least one other warp to use in binding it into a bag shape. One warp from the front and one warp from the front. See? Sue

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sue Zimmerman
Hi Steve,
If "decorative" means "not utilitarian" in the long-standing meanings of "ruggiespeak" then it is rugdom that is inventing novel terms, not I. Nor did I invent the word text or the word textile -- words who's meanings, too, rugdom casts aside. It is rugdom that confuses and is in need of pressing.
Parsers parse that. Sue

---

Textiles, text and context?

Hi all,

I must admit that much of this discussion is beyond my comprehension. However, I do find it of some interest that both text and textile have the same Latin root textus , which means "fabric". Perhaps an etymologist could shed some light as to why these two words, which on the surface seem to mean such different things in common English usage, share this common lineage.

When it comes to rugs and other woven textiles my interpretation of Sue's posts is that some textiles have historically been used to convey "text". I suppose that most would agree that some weavings contain some authentic symbolism that are meant to represent or communicate something of social, cultural and/or religious significance. Others almost certainly do not. And still others contain the individual symbols, without the context. Presumably many textiles with authentic symbolism have a fairly simple text (a swastik here, a bird there), whereas others might have a second level of organization wherein the combination of symbols and designs form a more complex text. Over time, the symbolism is bound to become lost and is used out of context, as pleasing design elements.

However, as with some other aspects of rug scholarship I wonder how possible it will be to fathom which textiles have authentic text, and if so, what is the meaning.

James

Hi Chuck,
When I responded to your post your photo wasn't posted there yet. The photo reveals what would be a logical place to put a calendar, (or other information to keep at the back of one's mind), if one didn't have a metal refrigerator and kitchen magnets.
It would also be logical to secure the completed band on the loom's lower beam and weave the "bag" up from the band. This was a technique that was often used in Scandinavia, ( and probably Greece), though they would have woven from the top beam on down, on their warp weighted looms. That's a good method to use for helping keep the warps orderly while weaving pieces which would not require a heddle bar, like this one.
Does Bennett tell what the picks per inch of the wefts on the band are? Does he tell what the warp sett, (warps per inch), are on the "bag" is/are? This is important. It would be good to know if they were designed to match up. I suspect they were.
Does Bennett say anything related to how the band and the "bag" were attached to each other in his analysis? Were the warps used on this "bag" three ply or two ply? Does Bennett, From his analysis' in general, in his book, give any indication he can tell two ply from three ply? They can appear, to casual inspectors, to be the same, which can be, and I think is, one of the MANY and MAJOR problems in modern textile analysis. Sue

Hi,
On rereading my posts on this thread I see some typo type mistakes I'd like to clear up.

1. In my unanswered post to Wendel I should have said, and meant to say, ...it's weaver must have been backwatered AFTER, rather than what I said, which was BEFORE, the weavers of the other bags.
2. In my post to Chuck 3/11 the last sentence should have said ...one warp from the front and one warp from the back... Sue

Hi Sue,

Unfortunately, there is no additional information. Indeed, in a brief publisher's forward to the book, the following disconcerting phrase appears:

"The illustrations in this book also feature in a German book on Caucasian rugs. In writing the English text the distinguished author did not have the opportunity to examine or handle the individual rugs."

Thus there are fewer specifics regarding structure and details than one might have expected.

Separately, I'd also like to point out that it is not at all uncommon to have the back and front of a bag secured together with a needle and thread, and it is entirely possible that a fine piece such as this could possibly have originally been put together in such a way. This would be difficult to detect because a skilled textile handler would pick her way between the warps and wefts without leaving obvious gaps that might draw the eye of an observer not expecting such features.

__________________
Chuck Wagner

A few comments.

James, the OED cites the Latin roots textus (as you point out) as well as textilis, showing the English term textile back to 1626. You are entirely correct to question “how possible it will be to fathom which textiles have authentic text.” From time to time, we hear claims of some mysterious and unknown language being woven into rugs or purported symbolism of raptors or birth canals. The fact is that many common design elements are ancient, some being copied faithfully for 1,500 years or more. If there ever was any meaning or symbolism to many, if not most, designs, it is lost in antiquity.

Sue, the sides of bags are normally finished by wrapping weft over one warp or perhaps a single bundle or two or three. Some of the fake beetle bags can be readily identified by the use of 4 or 5 cord selvedges, something that would not exist if the intention was to wrap the back and the face together to create a container.

Chuck, you said “it is not at all uncommon to have the back and front of a bag secured together with a needle and thread.” That is true only as to the fastening of the sides, but the face and the back are woven on the loom at the same time and on the same warps. When you go on to say that the Bill Price khorjin could have been pieced together, your speculation goes too far. It is at it came off the loom. There are composed pieces of which we should be aware, but this is not one of them.

Bill Price also owned the face that is on the cover of FTBTS, but at the time of the exhibition, it belonged to Dave Chapman. Bill Price got to Dave’s widow sooner than I did and with more resources.

The origin of the beetle bag design is probably in the 8-lobed medallions of the Oushak carpets, but there is no way to say how old the design is. I see little structural or design differences among the members of the group to suggest a long lineage, although one can certainly see synthetic dyes in some and that others are somewhat later.

Chuck, a qashoqdan (spoon bag) is a composed weaving, consisting of three separate parts. There is a flatwoven band, to which webbing is attached and a chanteh (or three) with back(s) attached to the webbing. Each of these components is woven separately. The bag(s) and the band could have been used independently. But the amalgamation is distinctive and flashy.

Wendel

Hi Wendel,

I guess I need to clarify what I said, because what you said I said is different from what I say I said, but that said, I have the evidence on my side, because you said I said "pieced together" and I actually said "put together", which has an entirely different connotation:

quote:

---

Separately, I'd also like to point out that it is not at all uncommon to have the back and front of a bag secured together with a needle and thread, and it is entirely possible that a fine piece such as this could possibly have originally been put together in such a way.

---

__________________
Chuck Wagner

Hi James,
The field of etymology makes for a very interesting road trip, even as it pertains to rugs, for once one travels beyond Oxford and Rome the big wide open appears -- fresh air, sunny days, starry nights. To get the most out of such a trip I highly recommend employing the guidance of good reference librarians for directions. There are dictionaries and their are dictionaries, so to speak.

Hi Chuck,
I read your post carefully and think I understand what you are saying. Nevertheless I am still confused. If the selvages were wrapped over one warp, as the weaving progressed, and then the "bag" was sewn together once it was cut from the loom, I cannot see what purpose, beyond decorative finishing, such wrapping would serve. Even if a bag's back was wrapped the same way, as it was being woven, as it was for the front, when such a bag was sewn together it would look goofy and the wrapped selvages would need to be rewrapped together, as another step, not to look goofy.
If the wrapping was done after the weaving of the bag was otherwise done the bag's sides would be bound together, not separately or on only the front, with wrapping, because that would make the most sense structure-wise and finishing-wise. In any of these cases I cannot see, from any angle, how it would be in any dealers interest to deconstruct such a bag.
I am not, in any case, assuming anything other than things pertaining to weavings, and the best ones in particular, should make sense. As I haven't the opportunity to see them in person I have nothing of substance yet to go on, as to what would or would not make sense, except from the formula/s buried in Heinzbart's analysis' which I can test six ways to Sunday because his manner of reporting is good enough to allow for one unknown factor to be isolated for each test.

Hi Wendel,
What do I know? I'm just a stupid artist trying to peek around rugdom's hedgerows which are blocking my view as I travel through town. Spoonbag? Spoonbag? I don't know who came up with that one. From my experiences, though, I'd put my money on it being a male scholar, although I know some female ones who would qualify for that type of thing, too, come to think of it. Spoonbags.
Anyway, even though I'm just a stupid artist I do know enough about some things like cooking, camping, and that those two things complexed with the factors of children, animal care, no electricity, and no running water, to know that the spoonbag idea is ridiculous. Anyone with any such experience, guaranteed, will know why cooking spoons have a hole in their handle or are kept otherwise. I can think of no one with such life experiences who would bat an eye at the idea that things pertaining to birth and death, however, making their presence know in arts and crafts. Sue

Hi Sue

Peter Stone's "Lexicon" notes that qashoqdan, which is Farsi for spoonbag, were used to hold spoons and small objects like knives. I doubt that the term was invented by any westerner, and the notion that these were containers for spoons and other kitchen utensils seems a lot less ridiculous to me than the notion that they were calendars.

And, as someone who has visited a lot of the world (including some places with no running water or electricity), I will let you in on one of my discoveries. The overwhelming majority of cooking spoons, whether made of wood or metal, don't have holes in their handles.

Regards

Steve Price

Hi Steve,
I got some good laughs out of reading that ruggie lexicon book before I drilled a hole in it and strung it up for the parrot to play with. He liked it too. The modern rug weaving world has a pretty good sense of humor. I think of different things when I think of "written in stone", but then, if everyone thought as I do, who would there be to do such crucial rug studies work as you have undertaken. It never would have occurred to me to do a world-wide survey of cooking spoon holes. As John would say "good eye". Sue

Dear Sue,

As an acquaintance of Pete Stone for about 20 years I can assure you that his sense of humor is second to none.

Nevertheless, his lexicon is not a work of humor.

If you had any idea of the amount of serious research that went into it or the repute in which it is held, you might want to reconsider your ill-founded contempt.

That said, Turkotek is not the place for ad hominem attacks. You owe Pete an apology.

-Jerry-

Hi Sue

You wrote, ... spoonbag idea is ridiculous. Anyone ... will know why cooking spoons have a hole in their handle or are kept otherwise. This is what gave me the impression that you thought you knew how most cooking spoons are constructed.

Speaking with an air of authority when you actually don't know the facts does little for your credibility. Stone's book, like every book, contains errors. And maybe his account of the use of qashoqdan is one of them. But your "evidence" for it is the most ridiculous statement in the discussion. His definition of the term is on far more solid ground than your reason for dismissing it.

Regards

Steve Price

Hi Folks,

In Turkey We call it "Kasiklik" = Qashiklik = Spoon bag
Qashoqdan is a Turkic word, qashok meaning is Spoon.

Below Images are from a Shahsavan tribe Tent in Iran.


Kitchen Area



And Kasiklik: qashoqdan: Spoon Bag




Regards.

Jerry, I don’t think that Sue’s dismissing of Stone’s Lexicon qualifies as “ad hominem” remark. She’s entitled to her opinions about books, but I believe she should justify her judgment, especially for people - like myself - that do not own the book in question.

quote:

---

Spoonbag? Spoonbag? I don't know who came up with that one. From my experiences, though, I'd put my money on it being a male scholar, although I know some female ones who would qualify for that type of thing, too, come to think of it. Spoonbags.

---

quote:

---

On one important level these bags have calendar functions.

---