Jeff Sun

My thought is that is a bagface.

If it is an animal trapping, what is it's use?

Too large for a top saddle rug
Wrong, and quite frankly, unimaginative shape and design for a bottom saddle rug.
Strange shape for a chest decoration and too big at ~5ft" for either a horse or a camel.
Can't be a head-dress.
Can't be a knee dressing.
Can't be a horse coat or horse blanket either...too narrow...and you certainly wouldn't squander this on a sheep or goat.
Too large to even be a saddle bag (yes, I know that is a bagface)
A complete waste if it is a feedbag.

Other than on an elephant, I don't think it could be a side decoration either. Even too big for a camel.

However, it is the perfect size and shape to be a large tent bag.

Furthermore does it appear to be pierced for straps to pass through or are there evidence of straps sewn to it? These would be necessary if it were a horse or camel trapping. if not, this further adds to the evidence that it is a bagface.

Steve Price

Hi Jeff

You're probably right, although I think it could be a trapping for an animal or for display on or in a yurt.

There are no ropes on it, but those things were usually removed by dealers. Many juvals (maybe all?) had hanging ropes sewn to their side edges, and many (maybe all?) had closure ropes sewn to the upper lips, so ropes would have been on it once upon a time whether it was a container or a trapping.

Some Turkmen trappings are too big for the side of anything much smaller than a van. But they must have been used for something - maybe on the wall of a yurt on some special occasion (wedding, birth, death, arrival of a new shaman; who knows?). The Chodor piece in question is larger than most juvals, but I'm not sure it's too big to display on the side of a camel - it's about 12 inches wider than a typical asmalyk.

Regards

Steve Price

Jeff Sun

Steve-


If it was meant to be displayed in a yurt, then why not just make it a bag anyway? The decorative sides of bags typically were faced inward. Decoration and utility together!

But then... of course, maybe....just maybe....it's was meant to be a rug!

Steve Price

Hi Jeff

According to one of the traveler's reports cited somwhere in this forum, juvals (presumably, empty ones) were impressive trappings/displays on the yurt walls. The two categories (trapping and container) might not be mutually exclusive.

One thing about the Chodor juval(?) that makes me think it might not have been a container is the bottom finish. Juvals were woven with the back being a plainweave extension of the pile face. It was folded and then sewn up the sides to create the bag. Dealers usually cut the plainweave off an inch or two below the pile, leaving the face and a stub of plainweave. This piece has a fringe made of groups of warp cords knotted at the end of the plainweave. This could have been done by a westerner, but it would have required teasing out the wefts from several inches of the flatweave to leave the warps exposed. Not impossible, but not usually done. The silk highlights also suggest a display function, although they aren't compelling evidence for it.

Regards

Steve Price

Richard Larkin

Hi Steve,

The only argument that it was not a storage bag that appeals much to me is the bit about the knotted warps below the pile. As you say, the effect could have been produced by interlopers after an original life as a bag. Do the warp ends show signs of having been crimped up, as is often the case where unravelling has occurred? Can you show a close-up shot of that section?

Rich Larkin

Steve Price

Hi Rich

Now that I've stuck my nose against it, I'm not sure the warp ends themselves are knotted. There's a row of yarn inserted below the last existing row of weft, and it is knotted around a group of warps every quarter-inch or so. Here's closeups of the fringe, one at the left end, one near the center of the piece. The warp ends are two plies twisted together at the left, appear to have separated into single, fine strands in the center.





Regards

Steve Price

Rich Larkin

Hi Steve,

Thanks for that image. It looks to me like later modification to the back of a juval. From a distance, it appears quite solid as an end finish; but up close, structurally, it looks shaky. It reminds me of loose and casual end finishes you see on some Shiraz area weavings.

Rich

Steve Price

Hi Rich

I agree. Actually, if you hadn't asked for the closeup of the fringe, I wouldn't have gotten close enough to it to notice. From more than, say, a foot away, it looks like a knotted fringe. The likelihood that it was a container once upon a time seems very high; trapping is a distant second possibility; both a container and a trapping is somewhere in between.

Regards

Steve Price