Steve Price

Hi People

In another thread, I expressed the opinion that trappings woven for important events (birth, coming of age, marriage, death) would be more likely to include motifs, colors and layouts with supernatural meanings or powers than everyday items. In addition, the kinds of supernatural powers or meanings could probably be predicted in some instances. Marriage trappings, for example, could be expected to invoke longevity, fecundity and prosperity.

Sadly, within the past couple of days I realized that the facts fail to support this notion. Let me illustrate with this Yomud asmalyk:



In the wool, the palette is nearly identical to that of my Chodor piece in the main essay. But that's not important. This asmalyk is about as good an example as I've seen of the most common design used on Yomud asmalyks. It has a white field with a lattice of erre guls and ashiks, rather simple borders (as is typical of Yomud asmalyks). That is, there's nothing about the vocabulary of motifs that suggests that they carry profound or powerful implications of special significance to a marriage.

Contrast this with the Chodor piece. Here are the two closeups with which I closed the essay:





It's simply loaded with motifs that suggest mysterious powers. Well, OK, maybe it was a trapping for special occasions. But the Munkacsi piece, essentially identical in most respects, is clearly a juval.

Lest we suppose that this simplicity and absence of mystery is peculiar to yomud "ashik gul" asmalyks, I point out that other asmalyk types (Yomud "pole tree", Tekke "bird", Tekke embroidered) also seem to have unremarkable design vocabularies.

This seems odd to me, although I guess it's been sitting around waiting for me to notice it for a long time now. The next question is, "Why don't asmalyks use motif vocabularies that are more obviously significant?" I don't have a good answer, but one that comes to mind (in half-baked form) is that the familiar and simple motif vocabularies that they use are as significant as those to which we attach lots of mystery.

Just some thoughts.

Regards

Steve Price

Michael Raysson

Steve,

I had pretty much promised myself to keep out of the Turkotek forum after my first experience, however, reading "supernatural powers", "profound implications" and "mysterious powers" coming from your pen provided just too much temptation for me to resist. Repressing a "Hallelujah!" and a desire to invoke the Higher Power (God), I enter the fray.

I think that if you go back to the pre-19th century asmalyks, then you will find more of what you are looking for, as far as meaningful asmalyk motifs are concerned.



If I have got the right image, you will see Tree of life motifs plus your supernatural charms on the right and little yurt-like figures plus more charms on the bottom. It would seem that the later asmalyks became more of a decorative exercise for a young Turkmen girl to show her weaving mettle to her future husband, rather than what you were hoping for. But rest assured that at one time this seems to have been so. At this point there is no use commenting on embroidered asmalyks, but I would say something unusual was going on.

http://s882.photobucket.com/albums/ac26/nossyar/asmalyk%20albumII

Michael Raysson

Steve Price

Hi Michael

Your images aren't displaying through the links you put on. If you'll send them (the images) to me as e-mail attachments, I'll insert them into your post.

Thanks.

Steve Price

PS After fooling with them a bit, the first link now goes to a page with a thumbnail size image of an asmalyk; the second one still doesn't bring anything up. Sending me the images is still probably the best way to get the images onto peoples' monitors.

PPS I finally managed to work my way back to a decent size image from your first link; it's now in your message.

Steve Price

Hi Again Michael

The one image that displays may, indeed, predate the 19th century, but that isn't demonstrated. There are a number of Yomud asmalyks of similar design generally attributed to the 18th century. Nobody really knows whether they are, of course. None of those asmalyks that I'm aware of have a prominent red in the palette - they're basically brown on ivory or beige backgrounds (Plate 77 in Mackie and Thompson's Turkmen is typical of this group).

But, more important, I see only three different motifs on the one you present (this is more or less true of that family of asmalyks), none of which is uncommon on Yomud pile weavings. Reading them as "tree of life", "yurt" and "supernatural charms" seems to me like an interpretation that goes far beyond what anyone knows with reasonable certainty. Anyway, there's a larger variety of motifs on nearly any asmalyk, including the one in my post. The puzzle (to me) is why the asmalyk vocabulary isn't farther from that of mainstream Turkmen utilitarian weavings, the way the vocabularies of ensis and pile decorated tentbands are.

Regards

Steve Price

Steve Price

Hi People

Scratching my head and pondering the question of which Turkmen motifs were peculiar to asmalyks (and other wedding trappings) hasn't gotten me to even a tentative answer. Maybe the answer is that there are no such motifs. On the other hand, it seems so obvious that matters like fecundity, prosperity and longevity would be represented or invoked at the time of a marriage that it's hard to imagine that they weren't.

Jon Thompson suggested in one of his books that white background colors were important elements of Turkmen marriage trappings; asmalyks and pile decorated tentbands certainly fulfill that criterion. This also makes me wonder if looking at motifs is sniffing around the wrong hydrant. The basic elements of weavings are palette, layout, and motifs. So, maybe the layouts are much more important than the motifs in this case. They're certainly different than those on rugs, juvals and torbas. Still a half-baked notion (maybe not even half-baked), but I thought I'd poke its head out and see what happens.

Regards

Steve Price

Martin Andersen

Hi Steve and Michael

Steves observation of the simplicity of the Asmalyks is interesting in the discussion of the placement between function and symbol. It seems obvious that the Asmalyks had no utilitarian function outside the symbolic situation of the marriage ceremony.

One could speculate that exactly the removement of utilitarian use from the weaving lifted the totality the weave into a symbolic realm. The Asmalyk in itself didnt had to bear any signs or symbols because it in itself were, or became, a symbol.

Of course older Asmalyks may have been more elaborated with symbolic motifs. Here is a Yomut Asmalyk which I suppose is older. It has a multitude of direct figurations connected to the marriage ceremony:



Looking at some of the details it seems like the pentagon shape of Asmalyk is directly conected to the shape of the Camels hump - and to the small tent on the top of the Camel. Perhaps the pentagon shape of the Asmalyk is directly connected to the Kejebe design which may have been the Saryk parallel to the Youmut Asmalyk? only speculation of course.





Looking at top one could interpretate that the Asmalyk depicts itself as an abstract geometric sign, or a symbol. The hanging ornament is perhaps some kind of depiction of the Turkmen silver jewelry, and may represent wealth, fertility and protection.


Perhaps the pentagon shape in itself symbolized protection, home, wealth, fertility, transport and transition - all articulated as weaving without function.

best Martin

Steve Price

Hi Martin

Those are very interesting thoughts, and make sense out of something that was making no sense to me at all. In fact, the more I thought about it, the less sense it made.

Thanks, and regards

Steve Price

Martin Andersen

Hi Steve

Another perhaps more simple approach could be that the Asmalyks are just a detailed part in the ritual situation of the marriage ceremony. I suppose we tend to look at the rugs as singularly objects, as we were looking for meaning in a western painting. Perhaps the Bridal Caravan of Camels, Tent and rugs as a totality is the "sign" or "symbol", and in that respect the Asmalyks are a minor fragment of the total ornamentation in the larger scale and context of the ritual.

I suppose the one approach dosent exclude the other (and anyway, who would have wall space enough for a hanging of a Bridal Caravan :-))

best Martin

Michael Raysson

Steve and Martin,

I am back and am posting the correct image (I hope) which Steve requested (above) and with his help, which shows an early pre 19th century asmalyk with obvious charms or amulets on the side and less clearly on the bottom. I think this will open up the subject as to whether early asmalyks did have supernatural elements deliberately meant for protection and other unknown purposes and that most or all later asmalyks lost this purpose and became merely decorative.



I am also including two other images of asmalyks that I had meant to include in my earlier post and which I feel are extremely germane to this discussion, although there is controversy as to whether they are of an early or later date. They are, of course, similar to the one which Martin has since posted and discussed at length. For the moment, I will go with his comments on them, although I would like to see a good discussion ensue on this very interesting subject.





Michael Raysson

Steve Price

Hi Michael

The last two you posted, and the related one in Martin's post, are sometimes called "jewelry asmalyks" because of the motifs that are so obviously related to Turkmen jewelry. There aren't many known specimens (probably less than 10), and all the ones I know about are in excellent condition. That, in itself, is a reason to suspect that they aren't ancient. I've only handled one, and its tactile properties were very unlike the patina I associate with very old Turkmen stuff. We don't have good descriptors for tactile properties of pile weavings; the best I can do is say that the patination to which I refer feels a lot like a seal fur coat that one of my aunts owned when I was a kid. I should add that I could be mistaken about the pieces that "feel old" to me, and I know it.

The first of the three you just posted shows the amulet-like devices that weren't visible in your first post.

Regards

Steve Price

Marvin Amstey

I remember a rather heated argument about the last "jeweled asmalyk" shown here. It failed to sell at a German auction house (even though it reached well into the 5 figure range) and a discussion (argument) ensued in Hali about its age.

Martin Andersen

Hi All

Surely the Asmalyks that Michael has posted could be seen as filled with small amuletic or talismanic symbols. The small designs dosent have the decorative character of ornamentation, and fillings could have been done with borders or ornamentation.

But looking at the Asmalyks in this tread convinces me that the shape of the Asmalyk, be it 5 or 7 sided, actually is the main motif of the Asmalyks. The simplest of them in a way have stronger emphasis on the borders than on their field ornamentation, and the complexed ones have re-representations of themselves as motifs.

Its only speculation but perhaps the Asmalyks represents the tent on the Camels hump in the marriage ceremony, which of course was a symbolic tent for a symbolic transitional journey. As far as I have understood the tent was called a Kejebe. And the Kejebe design of the the Salor and Saryk is basically defined by the small niches which could be seen as parallels to the shapes of the Asmalyks.

I also find it very interesting that the two simple ones that Michael has posted has a strong resemblance to the layout of the topping niche on the Tekke Ensis. Isn't the topping niche on the Ensis often interpreted as a tent? Again surely a symbolic tent.

Well I might be over interpreting, the Asmalyks shape may of course just be derived from the shape of the Camels hump :-)

Anyway fascinating weavings, especially these Jewel Asmalyks

best Martin

Martin Andersen

Here is an Asamalyk ascribed to the Saryk:



Once again a highly simplistic design. Almost entirely a floral decorative pattern in the field, and almost the same pattern repeated as main border.

The main border is defined by two minor borders, an inner and and outer. But looking at top the inner minor border is topped with a small ramshorn pattern:



For me that clearly indicates that the inner minor border is not just a border - but also an outline of a motif in itself. A motif which repeats the outer shape of the Asmalyk : An architectural structure? a yurt ? the Kejebe ?

The same goes for this atypical Yomud Asmalyk:



A simple no hocus pocus interpretation could go like this:
The overall floral ornamentation of the Asmalyks represents the brides fertility, wealth and good luck. And the shape of the Asamalyk (and its re-representations) represents the Kejebe, that is to say a ceremonial tent which symbolizes the transition from one family to another, or one could say the transition from one tent to another.
The bride is a symbolic gift of fertility and wealth in between family and klans which establishes or confirms the connections between the tents - and the connections between the tents constitutes the tribe. And therefor the strong emphasis on the bridal ceremony. And perhaps bride and Kejebe/tent could be seen as one singularly symbol is this context. From the point of view of the social structure of the tribe "the framing of the gift is the gift".
Only an interpretation of course.

best Martin

Steve Price

Hi Martin

Those are interesting thoughts, although the ground on which they rest isn't terribly firm (as you recognize and point out). Let me start with the kejebe design.

Here's an example:


This one is Chodor, but just about every Turkmen weaving group used it. There are some well known variants in which one or more large medallions interrupt the repeating motifs. Maybe those yurt-shaped things represent kejebes. Maybe not. A bridal procession only had a single kejebe-bearing camel, kejebe torbas (I don't think I've ever seen the design on anything except torbas) have many, which can make us wonder.

But, if they don't represent kejebes, why is the design called that? Funny that you ask. I can think of one simple explanation: maybe the kejebe had things inside it with this design. I haven't a shred of evidence for this, of course, but there isn't much evidence that the design includes kejebe representations. Another wrinkle to consider is that motif and design names can have a number of origins, often not obvious. My favorite example is the ak su design. Ak su translates as "fresh water" (or white water; it's impossible to know without a context). What could be more important to desert people than that? Therefore, we might presume that it symbolizes or is associated with fresh water somehow. On the other hand, one of the last cities on the silk road before it enters central Asia was Ak Su. So, an alternative explanation is that the design arrived from a pathway in which Ak Su was a major location. That makes sense, too, although it doesn't excite the imagination the way invoking fresh water does.

You might notice that every one of the "kejebes" on this torba have a little ram's horn (?) at the apex, just like the one at the top of the Saryk asmalyk. This device is so nearly ubiquitous in Turkmen weavings that I'm disinclined to assign special significance to it.

I do suspect that your suggestion about the peak atop every asmalyk mirroring the camel's shape makes perfect sense. The upper border of every asmalyk I can think of is narrower than the side and bottom borders, and generally of different design. That's a curious characteristic, probably with some significance.

Regards

Steve Price

Martin Andersen

Hi Steve

Certainly interpreting the Turkmen rugs dosen't have much solid ground to stand on, except the rugs themselves (and they seems to be constantly breaking their own rules). And this is of course from my part only speculative interpretations, but I do think that in this case there is a few more correlations than often: morphology, linguistic and ceremonial coherence.

Regarding the word Kejebe it sure would be interesting to know its etymology. To bad no Turkmen speaking people are participating in the rug discussions on the internet.

I just found this highly interesting Ensi, by its owner ascribed to the Arabatchi. I take the liberty of posting it as it has a lot relevance in this tread, at least to my point:



It is of course not 100% certain (as not much is) but the Camels in the elem sure to me looks like they are topped with a multitude of Kejebe tents below each of them are hanging an Asamalyk. And in the top we surely have the Kejebe design as we know it from the Salor and Saryk trappings. Personally I cant see the correspondence between Kejebe and Kejebe in this rug as the weaver making a coincidence.
(This Ensi of course also very directly put into question if the Ensi were a part of the Bridal ceremony, I think I have seen that suggested frequent)

I understand that some find the haunting for symbolic meaning in the rugs a bit tedious and perhaps superficial. But for it for me seems self-evident that in the Turkmen rugs a lot is going on beyond pure decoration. The rugs were the Turkmens primarily visual expression. And humans are a sign making speice. For me speculative interpretations of this aspect in the rugs seems as valid as a pure aesthetic gaze, which I personally would find reductive and unfair towards the rugs and their background. It is not that I think there is some kind of hidden key or secret message which can be translated from the rugs. I simply think that signs and symbols for a very long period of time where an undramatic integrated part of the rugs for the Turkmens.

best Martin

Steve Price

Hi Martin

I agree 100% that the motifs, designs, layouts and colors of Turkmen weavings must be based on beliefs about them that may or may not have retained their meanings into the 19th century. The problem is knowing what those meanings were with reasonable certainty. The ak su example shows that even the name of a motif can mean something other than the translation of the word (of course, ak su may mean exactly what the translation means; we just have no way of knowing).

That surely is a kejebe design at the top of the ensi, and it surely proves that it can be found on things besides torbas (and trappings that are more or less torba shaped). My understanding of the Turkmen bridal procession is that only the lead camel bears a kejebe and only that camel wears asmalyks. I guess there would be a second such camel in a double wedding, if there is such a thing in Turkmen practices, but processions of many camels each bearing a kejebe and wearing asmalyks seems unlikely.

The functions of ensis beyond being coverings over the portals to yurts is not well documented, nor is it clear whether they were used routinely or only on special occasions. The one you show certainly has lots of allusions to a wedding, and it seems reasonable to believe that it was made for use on such an event; maybe woven by a girl for her dowry and saved for the yurt in which she and her future husband would live.

And to repeat myself for emphasis - I have no resistance to speculation about the meanings of various aspects of tribal weavings (or other tribal arts). In fact, I enjoy such speculations, although my tendency is to examine them against lots of alternatives and see if that leads me anywhere. My resistance gets activated when people present their speculations as though they were facts (I'm happy to say that you aren't one of those people). I think presenting conjecture as though it was fact is counterproductive to understanding and almost certainly misleading to the novices among our readership. It's an extremely common occurrence in rug-related publications, which is one of the reasons why the state of knowledge is so dismal.

Regards

Steve Price

Martin Andersen

Hi Steve

I think we have a common resistance towards interpretations without reservations in this field (perhaps I have learned it here on Turkotek) But perhaps I have an additional reservation towards the opposite position, which often concludes that almost nothing can be said.

So I will take the liberty of saying a bit more, especially because seeing a possible connection between the Asmalyk and the Kejebe design trickers my favorite speculation.

When looking at the row of Camels and Asmalyks on the Ensi it is not that I see a naturalistic depiction of a mass-wedding, on the contrary I see the singularly totality of Kebeje tent, Camel and Asmalyk taken out of its context and turned into a pattern of signs. This process of transformation is perhaps also the background of the Kejebe design in the top of the Ensi. Of course a much older and more complex transformation than that of the naturalistic Camels. A transformation probably with multiple sources which goes at least back to the Seljuks in the 11th century. The Seljuk multiple niche prayer rugs surely are related to the Kejebe design trappings. But then again what constituted the singular Seljuk prayer niche? My own speculative open answer (which I know in writing sounds absurd ) is a strange melting point between the kufic alphabet (which is one of the multiple source of the Kejebe design) and some kind of mobile ceremonial architectural structure which the Turkmens brought with them on their journey to Anatolien. That mobile structure could perhaps be very closely related to the Kejebe tent. Of course totally speculations, but based on looking at the rugs.

Naturalistic figurations in the Turkmen weaving is of course the exception, but turning signs into patterns certainly could be the background rule rather than the exception. And Steve, I must say I think you are too harsh on the Ramshorn I find it a bit unfair when you say you see them everywhere and therefore will not assign any meaning to them. To put it up a bit argumentative: perhaps like going into a Christian church seeing crosses everywhere, on the floor, on textiles, on the alters, on the books, and then concluding they are everywhere and meaningless. Of course some of the crosses may be purely decorative, some may even be random, but certainly some of them are the very basis of the church. Not sure if I will call this speculation because I suppose the Ramshorn pattern is almost a kind of self-explanatory symbol: The Rams fertility and potens in an nomadic sheep-based culture can hardly overestimated, and the specific Turkmen version of the sign where it as much looks like the first leaves of a small and fragile growing plant is beautiful in its simplicity and depth.

Here is another Yomud Asmalyk with naturalistic drawings of the Bridal ceremony, similar to the one I posted earlier:



A thing that strikes me is, as you also pointed out, that on both we have the Camel with the Kejebe but without the Asmalyk, followed by a camel with an Asmalyk. Perhaps we here have an explanation on why we have so many Yomud Asmalyks compared to Asmalyks from the other tribes: Perhaps the Yomuds at a point started dressing more than one camel in bridal caravan up with Asmalyks? The Kejebe were simplified as a sign and transformed to the Asmalyk, perhaps in an attempt on multiplying good luck and fertility - and thereby multiplied the number of Yomud Asmalyks that still goes around today. As always: only speculation of course

best Martin

Michael Raysson

Steve,

As you may know, it is my personal heartfelt contention that it is the magical and metaphysical aspects of oriental rugs that make them so compelling. While I have given up all wishes to convince you or anyone or Turkotek of such, I would like to point out a little bit about the very subjective use of the words "fact" and "speculation". You state in your previous post, "The functions of ensis beyond being covering over the portals to yurts is not well documented". The inference being , of course, that it is well documented that ensis are coverings over the portals to yurts. This is accepted by almost all rug collectors. Nevertheless, I think in all the old photographs of yurts that I have ever seen (and I like to look for them) there is maybe, maybe one picture of a rug that looks anything like a classical ensi covering the portal to a yurt.

I think that perhaps there were special ritual events when a classical ensi was used for a door covering, or perhaps for the Shaman's yurt. But this is my speculation. At any rate, I am interested if anyone can produce a series of photos showing classical ensis as door coverings, or a series of eye witness accounts clearly describing classical ensis as door coverings of a yurt.

Passing beyond that, I am looking forward to more discussion, pro or con, about the magical properties of asmalyks.

Michael Raysson

Steve Price

Hi Michael

For a more extensive discussion of the significance and uses of ensis, please take a look at Salon 89. You'll find photos of ensis covering the portals to yurts in this thread. You are correct: when I wrote, The functions of ensis beyond being covering over the portals to yurts is not well documented, it implied that this use is well documented. That was my intention, and there is more than one photograph of it.

Let's separate two notions from each other.
1. One is that at some time in the past, Turkmen attributed magical (supernatural) properties to ensis or to certain elements in ensis. I doubt that anyone disagrees with this, and it's one of the attractions of tribal arts, the ensi being only one example.
2. The second notion is that it is possible to know what those magical properties were without documentary evidence; artistic sensitivity or intuition or strong internal feelings about the matter suffices. The problem with this is that there's nothing to discuss or debate.

This preamble brings me to the point. You wrote, I am looking forward to more discussion, pro or con, about the magical properties of asmalyks. We can discuss what we think the Turkmen might have believed about the magical properties of asmalyks and we can discuss analogies that lead us to those thoughts. But there's nothing to discuss, pro or con, about the magical properties themselves. By definition, magical properties are things that operate outside natural laws. Like other religious beliefs, you either believe them or you don't.


Hi Martin

I think you and I see things more nearly alike than you suspect. My dismissive attitude to the "ram's horn" device at the apex of the Saryk asmalyk you presented is that it seems to be a kind of finial in so many Turkmen motifs and designs that I think of it as being just that. Take a look at the three juvals(?) in the main essay for some examples. It's also a motif that morphs easily into the simple latchhook, "bird's head", etc. It has probably meant many things in different contexts.

Regards

Steve Price

Michael Raysson

Dear Steve,

Please note that I deliberately stated "classic ensis". Those photos of rugs over the door do not look anything like a classic Ensi.

Michael Raysson

Steve Price

Hi Michael

You're right, none of the photos in the discussion thread that I linked clearly show "classical ensis" (I assume that you mean those with a hatchli layout). But they do clearly show that textiles about the size of ensis were used to cover the yurt entrance. Two of them are obviously felt, two are obviously pile weavings, the others aren't clear enough to identify. If you agree that there is enough photographic evidence to demonstrate that door-size textiles were used to cover yurt entrances, there's little to wonder about except whether some of those textiles were what we recognize as ensis today. I don't know of many Turkmen rugs of appropriate size, so naming alternatives isn't easy.

Anyway, photography was pretty primitive until rather late in the 19th century. How about drawings and traveler's reports (you requested those in your previous post)?


This drawing is of a Saryk yurt, published in Illustrated London News in 1885. The article (quoted in Salon 89) mentions that most yurts had felt door coverings.

Here's a Saryk ensi illustrated in the main essay of Salon 89:


Its resemblance to the one in the drawing seems obvious to me.

So, I stand by my statement: There is good documentary evidence that ensis were used to cover the entrances of some Turkmen (and other central Asian) yurts. They may have had other uses as well, but there's not much evidence for any of them.

Steve Price

Michael Raysson

Dear Steve,
This is exactly the kind of subjective thinking (disguised as scientific discourse) that I meant. You admit, Steve, that there are no photos there that can be identified as classic hatchli ensis. There is one drawing that might be a saryk ensi (and let me give you the benefit of the doubt on that). Even I know that there is no way that that qualifies as a scientific process. As a matter of fact, all you can say is that in one perhaps one unusual instance a classic ensi may have been seen by an artist on a yurt portal. Which, by the way, fits my speculation--that ensis were used only for special occasions.

Michael Raysson

Steve Price

Hi Michael

The evidence that some pile textiles (and some felt textiles) were used as tent doors consists of a number of photos and reports of 19th century travelers in the form of drawings and words. Anthropologists report the same thing, in the 20th century. I consider this satisfactory evidence that at least some of the things we call ensis were used as yurt doors at least some of the time. You say that you think that's basically true, but you'd substitute "only on special occasions" for "at least some of the time". I have no major problems with that, although I suspect that it's too restrictive unless you include durations as long as a year under "special occasions". A number of the things in the newlywed yurt were in place for the first year of marriage, and some ensis were most likely among those things (see the one Martin posted, with its obviously wedding-related iconography). There are some who believe that ensis were on all shaman's yurts. I don't know of any evidence that supports this notion, but it's plausible.

You wrote, This is exactly the kind of subjective thinking (disguised as scientific discourse) that I meant. First, the subject matter isn't science, it's history. I resent your saying that I "disguised" it as scientific discourse, implying intent to deceive. Your ad hominem remarks here and elsewhere are becoming tiresome and you will wear out your welcome if they continue.

Second, historical evidence isn't necessarily scientific. It can be pretty rigorous and is far from subjective. In this case, the evidence is photos, drawings, verbal reports, and some arguments from analogy. It isn't intuition or strong personal feelings arising from viewing, handling, or contemplating an artifact. Those don't exist external to the individual experiencing them: they are subjective.

Steve Price

Martin Andersen

Hi All

The Ensi design sure is one of the all time most fascinating and enigmatic formats of the Turkmen rugs.

It is hard not to read some kind cosmology into its iconography and layout. But I must admit that I am a bit uncertain about ascribing the Ensis as we know them solely to shamanistic practice, likewise with the terminology "magical" (though that may be a question on taste of word). I suppose we know next to nothing about the actual shamanistic practice in Turkmenistan, I certainly know nothing, but in general I would think such a practice to be rather unorganized at least in muslim time, neither shamans or suffi musilms (which may have been around) tends to toward centralized organization and formalization. Shamans are as I understand, even though they are highly respected or feared, somehow active in the periphery of their society. And again in general I would expect specific shamanistic artifacts from central Asia in muslim time to be more messy and less formalized than I see the Ensi format. To me personally the Ensis seems to be connected to a broader cultural expression than solely to the specific metaphysical practice of the Shaman.

But of course there certainly may be a multitude of shamanistic background sources in the development of the Ensi format which goes way back. And I certainly have a hard time seeing the Ensi as a common everyday door. The wear of daily lifting it up and down and from side to side isn't visible on the Ensis we have today. And looking at the drawing in this tread there seems to be a protective textile which could be drawn in front of the Ensi. To me it points in the direction of ceremonial marking of the yurt and its entrance in a broad cultural context of the Turkmen, and as we know of little other ceremonial than the marriage (though the certainly must have been more) it is a good candidate for the context. Perhaps one could say that like the Asmalyk occasional lifted the camel into a symbolic realm, so did the Ensi to the Yurt.

I (of course) in the basic design of the Ensis see the same framing of an architectural structure as I see in the Kejebe design and in the shape of the Asmalyk. Some kind of symbolic tent structure. When humans give sign and form to their symbolic thinking they draw heavily on their reality. The parallel in our own christian culture could be something like "the House of the Lord" or "In my Father's House there are many Mansions", we live in houses and so do our symbolic realm.

best Martin
(and I find that we are having an interesting exchange of viewpoints here - hopefully we can continue in an open and peacefull atmosphere )

Steve Price

Hi Martin

For practical reasons, wooden doors are made in more or less what we call the hatchli format when it's used on rugs. For that reason, I suspect that the format is derived from wooden doors. I suppose I could add that to my list of reasons to believe that ensis were used as doors, although that argument comes close enough to being circular to make it unattractive. Anyway, here's a link to a discussion of the possible relation between the hatchli layout and the appearance of wooden doors.

Interesting that you are thinking about icons and such in our own culture. I think that can be very instructive and will try to find time to create a thread about it. If you'd like to get it started, please do.

Regards

Steve Price

Martin Andersen

Hi Steve

I am all for the possibility of a door structure as one of the multiple sources of the layout of the Ensis. In general the transforming from one structure to another is one of the fascinating qualities of the rugs.
But a door origin want protect you from symbolistic interpretations As I am sure you know the door, or the gate, as a transitional space in itself is a highly symbolized image. Just think of f.ex the Shinto gates of Japan, or even our own Heavens Gate.

A bit in the same genre, and back to the Asmalyk: I suppose it has also been suggested that the lattice pattern of the Yomud Asmalyk could have been partly derived from the interior grid of the yurts wall?



Perhaps a bit farfetched but it could support my speculation of the Asamlyk as a highly formalized representation of a symbolic Yurt.

best Martin

Steve Price

Hi Martin

The layout of "ashik gul" asmalyks is generally referred to as a lattice with guls in the compartments. I don't think I've seen anyone call attention to a possible relationship to the yurt trellis, but it's an interesting thought and a striking similarity. Chodor Ertmann gul juvals are another example of Turkmen using a lattice layout.

Regards

Steve Price

Martin Andersen

Hi Steve

Just clarifying my point visually:



The Ertmen Gull trapping (and other bags with lattice pattern) hanging inside the the Yurt on the actual trellis structure surely in situ must have corresponded very directly visually with the trellis.

Earlier in this tread you pointed out that a lot of the Asmalyks seems to have a rather strange gradually flattening of their upper border. I would probably see that flattening as the weavers attempt on articulating the rounding of the yurts roof.

Another thing that could be a connection between the Asmalyk and a structural element of the Yurt is the white background color. As Steve also pointed out: by large only Asmalyks and Tent bands use the white as background color.
Here is a tent band - even with a few camels on it:



best Martin

Martin Andersen

Hi All

Just stretching my point back to the 11th-12th century Seljuk rugs (which are directly connected to the Kejebe design if you look it up):

I would say this is one of the roots of the shape of Asmalyk:



The "Rams horn" on the top may, apart from their other connotations, point back to a more primitive and older topping of the tent structure than the circular topping on the Yurt.



The stuff that is mixed up with the Kufic Alphabeth in this, I suppose slightly older, Seljuk rug - is the real stuff of which speculations are made :



And in these two samples we even have both the 5-sided and the 7-sided shape.

A straight forward, and perhaps a bit borring, interpretation of the Seljuk border could be that it is (apart from the Kufic ornamentation) a highly formalized depiction of the Camels with tent structures above or between them. Like in the Ensi earlier in the tread.

Certainly the Seljuk borders are provocally strange (and by the way i just see that the Seljuk rugs main field could be said to be a lattice pattern):



best Martin

Steve Price

Hi Martin

Unless the five-sided one is the great pyramid at Giza and the seven-sided one is a silhouette of the sphinx viewed head on.

Regards

Steve Price

Martin Andersen

Hi Steve

Nice to see that you also are able of some visual thinking - though I think you are wrong

I dont know extactly where you draw the line, but I suppose we can agree on that there is a relation between the Kejebe design and the Seljuk border?
Certainly others have pointed it out before me :









If or if not the Kejebe design trappings of the Salor/Saryk have been the eqvivalent of the Yomut Asmalyk I suppose can also be discussed, but its not my suggestion (I think I have read it among other places at Pinner and Frances, not quite sure)

The other looking is of course speculative, as I have underlinied quite a few times by now, but for me its rather far from the pyramides.

best Martin

Steve Price

Hi Martin

In my last post I was just being the New York smartass that I am, not serious at all. I can see the morphological relationship between the kejebe design and the Seljuk border. But I can see enough other things in both (not counting the sphinx and pyramid) to leave me unconvinced that there's a direct evolutionary relationship as well. It is fun to think about, though.

Regards

Steve Price

Martin Andersen

Hi Steve

So you are from New York - now I have a better cultural understanding of you

I have seen 3 attempts on explaining the Seljuk border patterns: an ornamentalization of the Kufic Alphabet, a series of stylized dragon heads, or a series of stylized human figures. There may of course be more, and I would be curious in seeing them.

The connection to the Kufic Alphabeth is self-evident. But I personally certainly don't think it is enough, the drawings simply has a lot of details which has no connection at all to Kufic as we know it from ornamentation in architecture and writing. Something else is mingled into it. And mingling and transforming multiple source into new patterns is of course basic rug vocabulary.

And if the pattern can be seen as stylized dragons, I would say stylized camels were at least as good a candidate. And from the Camels to the Kejebe tent on top of them, or to the 5- or 7-sided trappings on their sides I would say that the speculative journey (which of course it is) isn't terrible long.

And agree that there perhaps is not a direct evolutionary connection between the Kejebe design and the Seljuk pattern. I would think it more likely with a parallel development, perhaps from a common older source.

best Martin

Pierre Galafassi

[quote=Martin Andersen;6337]Hi All

The stuff that is mixed up with the Kufic Alphabeth in this, I suppose slightly older, Seljuk rug - is the real stuff of which speculations are made :

A straight forward, and perhaps a bit borring, interpretation of the Seljuk border could be that it is (apart from the Kufic ornamentation) a highly formalized depiction of the Camels with tent structures above or between them. Like in the Ensi earlier in the tread.

Hi Martin,
One interesting previous thread made indeed credible that the seldjuk border was stylised kufic, spelling the name of God. The alternative or complementary hypothesis relating it to the kejebe is also interesting and creative.

The obviously chinese rug below might open even more avenues for speculation. Is it kufik too?



To me its border seems very close to the classical Seldjuk border. It is estimated to be at least a century younger (15th c.).
The link could perhaps be the Uyghur Turks (moslems) who are supposed to have been the weavers of most (Ninghsia) antique Chinese rugs.
Regards
Pierre

Martin Andersen

Hi Pierre

Very interesting with a possible Chinese connection, but your photo link dosn't work here, could you repost it ?
(and i know the spelling of Allah in Kufic speculation quite well, actually it was my speculation )

best Martin

Filiberto Boncompagni

The link is fixed now. But the outer border of that Chinese rug... isn't of Greek origin?
Regards,

Filiberto

Pierre Galafassi

[quote=Martin Andersen;6346]Hi Pierre

(and i know the spelling of Allah in Kufic speculation quite well, actually it was my speculation )

I guessed so, Martin, but with about 40°C over here, I was just too lazzy to check the old thread.

Hi Filiberto,
In French we call this meander 'une grecque", but I leave it to more creative people to decide how it might have landed on this chinese rug. I guess that poor old Alexander will be called to duty again.

Best regards.
Pierre

Filiberto Boncompagni

In French we call this meander 'une grecque", but I leave it to more creative people to decide how it might have landed on this chinese rug. I guess that poor old Alexander will be called to duty again.

I know… I was only teasing. It’s just a sobering reminder of how far in space and time a motif origin could be.

Regards,

Filiberto

Martin Andersen

thanks Filiberto

and Pierre:

Wow - that certainly is an interesting Chinese rug. The border is clearly directly related to the 11-12th century Seljuk borders. The additional vertical tridents are very interesting. Have you seen other Chinese rugs with this border?

I haven´t looked much at Chinese rugs, my own (unqualified) guess when looking at this rug would have been somehow Mongolia. But I suppose the relations between China, Mongolia, Uyghur Turks (and probably a lot more) are at least as complicated as the relations and migrations of Central Asia.

Asia is a wast continent, but the rugs constantly gives evidence to the level of the floating exchanges across time and space.

And in the rolling of the Meander border across the continent, I woundn´t think it unfair to give Alexander a little credit, there would have been no hellenistic Sogdiana without him - but the Silk Road probably should have more.

best Martin

Pierre Galafassi

Hi Martin,

[quote=Martin Andersen;6350]

The border is clearly directly related to the 11-12th century Seljuk borders. The additional vertical tridents are very interesting. Have you seen other Chinese rugs with this border?

No Martin, this is the only one I ever met (in a wonderful book called "Glanz der Himmelssöhne", Textile & Arts publications, page 39). The field with its two fo-dogs is about as chinese as fine noodles can be. But the borders are indeed puzzling.

And in the rolling of the Meander border across the continent, I woundn´t think it unfair to give Alexander a little credit, there would have been no hellenistic Sogdiana without him - .

You are right about the importance of the hellenistic influence in Central Asia, of course, my irony was targeting Turkmen, Afghan, Persian and the likes who systematically attribute to ol' Alexander any Parthian or Sassanid ruin.
You are right again about Sogdiana, although Sogdians, under a different name, would have been much more numerous without Alexander's efficient "sarissa cure"

regards
Pierre

Steve Price

Hi People

One great source of rug information on line is Richard Wright's Research Reports. He recently added an essay entitled, Caspian Turkmens, with lots of well documented information about the lifestyles, economies, and weaving characteristics of Turkmen living near the Caspian Sea. It's a great read, and I recommend it. One of the things that caught my eye, which is especially relevant here, is this photo (taken in 1909):



It's pretty obvious that a pile ensi was being used as a door covering, with nothing to suggest that this was a special occasion. It is clearly not of the hatchli format. Another photo, taken at about the same time and by the same traveler, shows a yurt with wooden doors.

Wright also mentions that by 1900, essentially all Turkmen weaving in this area was done under the kustar program and sold outside the local community. This suggests that the ensi was woven in the 19th century.

I add this as another bit of information, and I draw no conclusions from it.

Regards

Steve Price

Martin Andersen

Hi All

Regarding the wooden door structure and the trellis as possible sources of some of the rugs layout, I think the correct term is tectonic representation. Its a rather common and basic feature in architecture and ornamentation.

As a western example we have the Triglyph. Originated from greek ornamentation as a translation from the wooden construction of the ruff of older temples to pure ornamentation in later marble constructions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triglyph :



An interpretation could be that the totality of the wooden temple structure were regarded sacred (or perhaps just aesthetically pleasing), and therefore translated into the new marble construction. Wooden construction taps and blocks became ornamentation.

A parallel could be seen in the relation between the joints of the trellis and the outside felt ornamentation on this Yurt:





I would say that tectonic representation is a factor when looking at the distinctions between utilitarian function and possible symbolic or presentational signs in the Turkmen rugs, trappings and ornaments.

And this is of course also directly related to what i am generally looking for in the Kejebe design and its possible relation to tent structures:



best Martin

Steve Price

Hi Martin

I'm an admirer of Marla's hypothesis that many motifs originated on slit kilims, arising as ways to have complex patterns without destabilizing kilim structure. One of the things that appeals to me about thinking of architectural elements finding their way into rugs is that it's such a short step from designs being carried over from slit tapestry to designs being carried over from architectural elements. Wooden doors are usually constructed in more or less a hatchli format, for structural stability. It's not difficult to imagine it being adopted for pile rugs that were doors. Your example of the upper region of the yurt trellis resembling the pattern around the edge of the yurt roof is intriguing for the same reason.

None of this constitutes proof, of course, but when forced to evaluate alternative explanations, I lean heavily in the direction of pragmatic rather than romantic interpretations.

Regards

Steve Price

Martin Andersen

Hi Steve

I agree that Marlas observations on pattern transformation from different weavings styles is highly relevant and very interesting. And it is certainly related to what I see as tectonic representations, but it is perhaps not quite the same.

There is not much pragmatic about the Asmalyk, as we seem to agree its a purely non-utilitarian trapping of the wedding ceremony (whether one looks upon marriage as a pragmatic or a romantic institution I suppose is another subject)

And Personally I would say that its is not purely pragmatic or rationalistic to transfer the image of a wooden door to pile weaving. I would see it as a representational gesture: The door is not only a door - but is also transferred into an image of a door. A self referring object, doubling into a sign (or if anyone prefers, a symbol), a kind of strange artificial status bordering what we perhaps would call art, even though that doesn't quite fit. Perhaps it is simply more fair to call it a trapping And I would speculate a ceremonial wedding trapping.
The rational thing regarding a utilitarian door cover would be just to put up any rug or felt, and thats probably also what happened, and perhaps also how things devolved as the tribal social structures where eroded after the russians.

Well, I am looking around for Camels/Kejebe designs in my books, I will return when I have scanned the material. Think I have a point or two, which could support my speculations.

best Martin

Steve Price

Hi Martin

... whether one looks upon marriage as a pragmatic or a romantic institution I suppose is another subject)

A marriage is generally a romantic event in our cultures, but you don't have to go very far back in history to find it as a highly pragmatic thing to do. Political alliances in Europe were often forged by marriages, for example. Having children was, probably still is, the way people protect themselves from becoming destitute in old age in many cultures. There are still many parts of the world in which arranged marriages are the rule, not the exception.

I agree, tectonics and design carryover from kilim to pile aren't identical, but it isn't much of a leap to get from from one to the other.

Regards

Steve Price