by R. John Howe
On September 22, 2007, John
Wertime conducted a rug morning program at The Textile Museum on the
subject “Sumak: the Very Collectible Bags from Northwest Iran and
the Transcaucasus.”
Here is an older photo of John, taken in 1997. It gives you a
more sober view, more appropriate to his scholarly identity and persona,
And provides a useful corrective and counterpoint to the jocular one
below that I took one recent Christmas at a party of ruggies.
John and I talked a bit beforehand about whether photography could be
permitted. He said that some of the pieces he would show were not
his and so that probably we should not take photos. So what
follows is doubly “virtual.” You are participating in
this rug morning via the internet and, although some of the pieces I
will show below are those shown by Wertime this morning, most are
not. What I can manage for you is to include published pieces of
all the geographic areas he treated.
Wertime is an authority in this area. He lived nine years in Iran
as a young person, speaks Farsi and was a member of in early group of
rug scholars in Iran what included Parviz Tanavoli and, I think, Jenny
Housego. Wertime was in the Persian studies program at Princeton,
and has published several works in the area of his rug morning
topic. He authored an early article on flatwoven structures,
co-authored “Caucasian Covers and Carpets” with Richard
Wright, and more recently, published “Sumak Bags of Northwest
Persia and Transcaucasia,” a volume on which this rug morning was
explicitly based.
Wertime began with some general remarks.
He said that
we are disadvantaged in rug and textile studies by a paucity of
evidence. There are few instances in which we have direct
knowledge, for example, of where a piece was woven, or of who wove it;
what he and Wright called an “anchor piece.” For this
reason, he indicated, we are driven back to more indirect methods of
establishing such things as attribution and provenance.
Information from travelers, those who deal in textiles, and various
features of the weavings themselves, are the bases for what we, rather
insecurely, “know.” As a result, he said, smiling,
nearly everyone is “expert.”
Wertime said that the industrial revolution had an enormous impact on
the traditional production of textiles. He said that no activity
occupied more time in traditional society than did the production of
textiles. In traditional society most people, excepting the upper
levels of society, often had maybe one change of clothing. The
industrial revolution made the production of textiles much less
expensive and as a result, reduced their prestige markedly
.
He said that the weavings of his subject were made by women in a
geographic area approximately reflected in this map. He would
move south to north.
He said that the southernmost region in which the weavings on which his
talk would focus, were made is defined by the areas of NW Iran named
Kamseh (not the South Persian Kamseh), Garrus, Qazvin, Saveh and
Kharaquan. On the west it bounded roughly by Anatolia and moving
north, encompasses the transCaucasus, including Georgia and Armenia.
Wertime noted that the weavings of interest in his session were woven
by women who husbanded both the animals from which the fibers (cotton
aside as plant-sourced), were taken and the plants used to make the
dyes. They also did the dyeing, the carding, the spinning, and
the weaving themselves. These bags were the result of what we
would today describe as a “vertically integrated”
production. There was little “division of labor.”
Next he talked about the character of “sumak.” He
said that “sumak” is a shorthand term for a weave in which the warps are wrapped with wefts. He distinguished it from
“tapestry” in which the warp and weft are
“inter-laced.” He held up a side panel of a cargo bag
from the Shirvan area made using slit tapestry and asked the audience
to note the holes visible in it.
Then he held up another panel made using “sumak” and asked
the audience to notice that there were no holes visible in the
resulting material. He said that tapestry weaving had been
mechanized but that “weft-wrapping” has, so far, not
been. Sumak is by its nature tied to and requires the use of a
more traditional mode of production and is, in that sense, likely more
closely reflective of that tradition.
He said that more sumak is woven in NW Persia and the transCaucasus
than anywhere else. He acknowledged that some is woven in eastern
and western Anatolia and in southern Iran but that it was rare in
Central Asia. He asked Kelly Webb and me whether either of us
knew of Central Asian uses of sumak. (The closest thing I could
think of quickly is the Turkmen palas, which have extra weft patterning
but not, I think, of the wrapped sort. I have also seen some
flatwoven Ersari khorjin, but don’t know what weave was used,
perhaps some sort of brocade. As I wrote today I found a
published item of Turkmen sumak, but I think it is a rarer thing.)
Wertime said that, in his view, the fact that more sumak was woven in
the NW Persia-transCaucasia area than anywhere else suggested that this
structure likely originated there. He said that he was following
a principle analogous to one in biology and botany under which species
are usually found to have originated near the area in which they occur
most frequently.
He next noted that the groups who wove these sumak bags moved
geographically. Some were nomads and moved following their herds
from season to season. Sometimes whole tribes were moved
considerable distances by government fiat. Third, Wertime said,
there seems to have been considerable intermarriage between groups in
this area, and often women moved from tribe to tribe, or sometimes some
distance, to marry. He said these various movements of people
helped explain both why and how different designs and techniques might
appear in different geographic areas. (The situation he described
seems contrasted with what is generally seen to be the predominant
pattern of marriage among, say, the Turkmen. The latter seem to
have tended to marry closely within tribal, even kinship groups.)
Wertime noted that flatwoven structures vary far more than do those
associated with pile weaving. And the color palette often
associated with flatweave, especially Shahsavan sumak, is considerably
wider than that of the most studied textile group, the Turkmen, where
there is rejoicing if more than five colors are found in a piece.
This variety makes textiles woven with sumak especially interesting
objects of textile collecting and research.
With these introductory remarks Wertime moved to the pieces he had
brought as well as to some others had. He said that he would
organize his progression geographically moving south to north.
The “southern region” as defined by Wertime, includes sumak bags woven in the Qazvin, Saveh and Kamseh areas.
Wertime said the southern-most Shahsavan in NW Persian in the
Qazin and Saveh areas are the Inallou and the Baghdadi. This end
panel below is from one of the oldest Baghdadi bags known and was shown
in this rug morning program. It is attributed to the Saveh
–Kharaqan area and estimated to have been woven in the 2nd or 3rd
quarter of the 19th century.
This example shares the heavy, stiff handle of some other Baghdadi
bags, as the result of wrapping two warps rather than one. They
are sometimes wrapped so that one warp is on top of the other.
The line of weft twining countered to form a chevron design at the top
of this piece, and the minor “connected buds” border, are
also characteristic of Baghadidi weaving.
Wertime said that as wefts are wrapped around warps they
“angle” in various degrees. Sometimes the wrapping in
each subsequent row continues so that the angle of the wrapping in a
given row parallels that of the row(s) next to it. But the
wrapping can also be made in a subsequent row so that it slants in an
opposite or “countering” angle. When the slant of the
wrapping alternates row to row, the sumac produced is described as of
the “countered” variety. This countering affects the
texture of the fabric, but is not reflected in its design.
Baghadadi sumak, Wertime said, is characteristically of the countered
sort.
In his book Wertime includes only one piece from the Saveh-Kharaqan
area, but the next 40 pieces are from the Kamseh area. So I am
going to have to be very selective about the latter. I’ll
show you four.
This is Plate 14 in Wertime’s “Sumak” volume and was not shown in this rug morning.
It is a side panel of a bedding bag from the Kamseh area.
Estimated to the 1st half of the 19th century. Notice that it has
a border all round. We’ll talk about that later.
I find its graphics and colors to be exceptional. Wertime says
this is a masterful use of this field design on a large scale.
Note the “bird-on-a-pole” main border is a version of one
that we see elsewhere, often on Yomut Turkmen “envelope”
style bags in pile.
The piece below is a second Kamseh area piece that is Plate 26 in
Wertime’s “Sumak” volume. It was not one of
those shown in this rug morning.
Wertime describes this as a “masterpiece of design and
color”…with its “…five complete and two half
Lesghi stars…” He notes that in some pieces the
stars are arranged are aligned vertically with one another. I
think the dark outlining around them is especially effective.
The piece below is a third Kamseh area piece.
As you can see, it is a complete khorjin set, estimated to have been
woven during the 3rd quarter of the 19th century. Wertime says
that it displays a distinctive Kamseh palette. He also says that
the border above the closure panel is “infrequent.”
I find it a little crowded and busy, but agree that its colors are glorious.
The saddle bag face below is a fourth Kamseh example (Plate 39 in his
book) and was not among those shown in Wertime’s rug
morning.
He says that use of the device in the field compartments of this piece
is “widespread and ancient,” and quotes sources suggesting
similar usages in 14th and 15th century Anatolian fragments.
Wertime notes this design also occurs in Uzbek weaving. He
estimates that this piece was woven in the 1st quarter of the 19th
century.
I am a sucker for compartmented designs and am very attracted to the
large scale of the field motif. I also like the fact that the
border does not compete with the field, nor does the larger scale
design on the closure panel, the latter, perhaps because it is still
somewhat smaller and different from the device used in the field.
The third geographic area Wertime treated in this rug morning was
“Garrus” (most of us think “Bidjar” when we
hear “Garrus”) and his Garrus example is a repeatedly
published and widely praised one. Wertime included it among his
rug morning pieces and it is Plate 42 in his book. It is a side
panel of a bedding bag with a border all round. It is treated
there in a two-facing-page spread so I can’t scan it all
successfully, but here is the detail of it that I can manage.
Wertime describes it as very fine and very old, estimating it to the
1st half of the 19th century. He also notes that the border on
the right side is not original and was “most likely) taken from a
similar panel on the other side.
At this point Wertime talked a little about the seeming use of design
in complete bedding bags of this type. In general, it seems that
if the side panel design does not have borders all around it, the
design on the side panel is carried all the way around in the other
side panel and both end panels.
Here, below, is an image of a complete bag of this sort from the
Azadi-Andrews volume “Mafrash” that shows the side panel
design continuing all round the other four panels.
But, in the case of a side panel with a border all round, usually, the
other three panels will be different from it. The way in which
this difference can occur can apparently vary, but here below is
another complete bedding bag from the Azadi-Andrews book that shows one
side panel with borders all round it and the other three sides in a
zigzag design.
If the right side border on the Garrus piece above comes from a
matching side panel on its opposite side that would seem to be a rare
occurrence, although the right side border is so similar to that on the
rest of this panel that that explanation seems plausible.
The next next geographic area that Wertime treated in his rug morning
program was that of Hashtrud-Miyaneh. The piece below is Plate 52
in Wertime’s “Sumak” book but was not one of those
shown in this rug morning.
On the other hand several pieces from this area and with this design were shown.
Wertime indicated that this is another form of sumak in which there is
90 percent displacement of every other warp in the wrapping.
Another, even more unusual feature, he said, was that this piece is
made with an “extra-weft wrapping” structure in which
“a true knot if formed in the wrapping process.”
Wertime used the example of the knot one uses to tie one’s shoes,
but I think what he intends is that a lot of “knots” in the
world of textiles are not “true knots” in the sense that
they are not “firm on the basis of their own
construction.”
(Both symmetric and especially asymmetric knots in pile weaving do not
meet this test fully and require “pinching” by the wefts
between knot rows in order to remain firm. The asymmetric knot is
in fact closer to what might be better described as an “in
lay” in this respect. The symmetric knot is
“firm” as long as tension it maintained on its cut pile
ends. Otherwise, it too, is dependent on the pinching wefts to
retain its firmness.)
I think Wertime is suggesting that this extra-weft version of sumak is
one in which the knots are firm on the basis of their own
construction. That is, I think, a fairly unusual occurrence in
the weaving world.
Wertime also used this khorjin set to reinforce the point that in
general designs seem to move from techniques that are more restrictive
to those that are less so. Sumak, like pile weaving, is one of
the less restrictive techniques. Nearly any design can be
executed on it since its minimum requirement is only that one
patterning weft must circle one structural warp. Wertime brought
out the example of zili shown below, a species of brocade and a more
restrictive technique.
Notice that this zili has this same design.
Wertime said that he felt that this design likely flowed from pieces
made in more restrictive techniques, like the zili, to those made with
less restrictive ones like the sumak.
A second piece from the Hashtrud-Miyaneh area is the saddle bag half below.
It was in the room for this rug morning and is dated 2nd quarter 19th century.
Wertime said that the provenance of this piece is
“problematical” and that its attribution is based in part
of the fact that it has warps on two levels. He says that the
central medallion is “rare” and that the birds are drawn
somewhat differently than most in this area. It is Plate 55 in
Wertime’s book. Plate 56 is a very similar piece.
The next geographic area Wertime illustrated was Moghan-Savalan.
He had the piece below in the room (it is Plate 73 in his book) and
explained why he had included it rather than the more striking piece
(Plate 74) that Wendel Swan owns.
He said that he estimates that this piece is older than Wendel’s
piece (he says 1st quarter, 19th century and estimates Wendel’s
piece as 3rd quarter) and says that it has a lighter purple or violet
in its corners that is derived from madder. He says that dye is
common in Anatolian pieces, but rare in those made by the
Shahsavan. The piece shown lacks the exquisite condition and the
saturated colors of the Swan piece, but its fragmentary dark-ground
border with stars and cruciform devices still effectively frames the
milder field this old weaving.
A second piece from the Moghan-Savalan area is the one immediately below.
This piece was not in the room on this rug morning, but is one of the
most beautiful weavings of which I know, so I’m giving it to you
from Plate 87 in Wertime’s book.
There he says that it is “a marvel of colour and elegant
simplicity.” He attributes this to use of a somewhat larger
scale and a spaciousness created by refraining from making the
cruciform devices larger. He sees it as a “stunning display
of the dyer’s art” and especially admires its purple.
Wertime also explicitly admires the simple borders and the
“elaborately decorated bridge in slit tapestry.”
It is estimated to have been woven in the 1st quarter of the 19th century.
Wertime showed several smaller bags and the one immediately below,
about 10 inches square, may not have been among those shown, but is
similar in coloration and design to one that was.
Wertime also attributes this piece to the Moghan-Savalan area,
describes it as a “small saddlebag” and estimates that it
was woven in the 2nd half of the 19th century. He notes that the
ground weave of this piece is warp-faced. He noted that these are
often seen as children’s items but said that they are made at a
level of quality that makes this doubtful.
Wertime next moved to items from the Kuba area. The piece below
is a saddlebag “half” and is estimated to the 1st half of
the 19th century.
Face to face this piece draws immediate attention as an older and likely sophisticated piece of work.
Wertime’s next example, below, comes from Qarabagh.
It is a salt bag, estimated to have been woven in the last quarter of the 19th century.
Wertime calls it “beautiful” and cites its wonderful
graphics. It was not in the room for his rug morning, but appears
as Plate 117 in his book.
Wertime describes the next saddlebag half, below, also from Qarabagh as
“one of the greatest sumak bags known.”
He says that is proportions are “optimal” and praises its
“simplicity” and “grandeur.” It has the
sort of spacious drawing that might draw even a determined Turkmen
collector to a Caucasian weaving. We were not fortunate enough to
have it in the room. You need to go to his volume and read more of his
fulsome praise for this piece.
In Wertime’s book, his next geographic area is Kazkh and he offers the salt bag below (Plate 133) as one such example.
The good, strong colors of this piece are appealing and its graphics
are striking. Here is a little of what Wertime says about it in
his book.
“An attractive feature of this bag is the three-dimensional
effect created by the device that fills the hexagonal centres of the
repeating motif of the ivory bands. The middle of this device
appears as a negative cruciform that pulls the viewer into another
realm.”
Another piece from the Kazakh area was in the room. It is a side
panel of a bedding bag and is Plate 134 in Wertime’s sumak book,
estimated to have been woven 3rd quarter 19th century.
The field design is very unusual and one of the owners of the piece
said that they especially like the “ducks” swimming about
in the lower half of the field devices, something that Wertime notes
specifically in his description of it. Wertime says that this
treatment of the blue-ground border is rare because it occurs on the
sides not just top and bottom.
This is a piece that draws the eye face to face. I think the use of white especially effective.
At the end of his book, Wertime treats Kurdish pieces separately.
The piece below is Plate 136 and is a complete Kurdish khorjin
set. It is attributed to Northwest Persia and is estimated to
have been woven in the last quarter of the 19th century. We did
not have this piece in the room in this rug morning but did have a
Kurdish chuval that was quite similar.
Wertime says that the field design is a Turkic one used by weavers in a
number of locations. He says that it is similar to weavings in
the Kamseh confederacy excepting that it has “a different
palette, its pile bottom (I had forgotten in our recent discussion here
that pile bottoms can occur on Kurdish pieces), its use of two ground
wefts after each row of wrappings and its frame, particularly the guard
stripes. He makes comparisons with a piece that Housego discusses,
her Plate 40, and that Wertime examined directly years ago.
Wertime’s discussion of this piece focuses largely on it
attribution.
I want also to show you two pieces from the area of Wertime’s rug
morning, but from the Azadi-Andrews book “Mafrash.”
Both of these pieces are end panels from the sort of bedding bags we
have been treating.
The first is this powerfully graphic piece below.
It is on page 121 and is described as Shahsavan “North of the River Aras, third quarter.
I find its graphics breathtaking. We had a similar piece in the room in Wertime’s session.
A second end panel is more sober.
It is on page 123 and is described as “Shahsavan” from “Northwest Iran, mid-XIXth century.”
I like the use of a dark ground and of the color choices and outlining
on the hooked lozenges that let them stand out from it.
Azadi-Andrews also draw attention to the simplicity of the
“triple horizontal border.”
That is what I have to show you of sumac bags from northwest Persian and the transCaucasus.
This was an excellent rug morning of the more authoritative type.
Our thanks to John Wertime for conducting it.
Regards,
R. John Howe