June 18th, 2010, 01:22 AM   1
Patrick Weiler
Members

Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 12
That's a Stretch

So, Steve,
The extra width of your piece and the lack of sagging may indicate trapping use rather than container use?
If I were that old, I would be sagging regardless of use.

Trappings would probably have hanging "ropes" at each top corner, or the remnants of such. Are there vestiges of such appendages on your piece? They didn't have Velcro back then for invisible hanging purposes.
Asmalyks are usually considered to have been used as trappings and for decorative display. Do they not show sagging, or is the pentagonal shape less likely to sag?
Could there be sagging of trappings from poor weaving technique rather than utilization, thereby confusing trappings with containers?
Could many very old trappings, which were probably hung from each top corner, have acquired sagging from having been hung from each top corner rather than from use as containers?
And if hanging ropes exist at each corner of a weaving, couldn't containers also have had such appendages so they could be tied to structural supports when used inside the tent and for when they were transported from camp site to camp site?
Did the weavers plan to confound future collectors by purposely obscuring the intended use of their weavings?
Will future archeologists confuse church steeples with radio communication towers?

Patrick Weiler
June 18th, 2010, 06:11 AM  2
Steve Price
Administrator

Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 95

Hi Pat

Extra width suggests trapping rather than container, but isn't enough evidence to give me confidence. Not sagging could mean that it was never used as a container, but might also mean that it was a container that never got packed with enough stuff to make it stretch noticeably.

I don't think I've ever seen a pentagonal (or heptagonal) asmalyk that looked deformed from being stretched, and there's pretty good evidence that they were trappings on animals (images of processions on Turkmen tentbands; photos). Some asmalyks still have hanging ropes on them, but who knows if those are original?

Could the deformation on the two pieces be the result of sloppy weaving? I doubt it; both pieces look pretty well done to me. So, I think it's possible, but very unlikely.

I recall seeing some suggestions that Turkmen motifs with antenna-like morphology actually represented antennae. I don't recall whether the author thought there was some now forgotten technology or if it was evidence of the visits from aliens with which we're all familiar.

Sagging with age? Gravity is the most relentless of enemies for us seniors.



Regards

Steve Price
June 18th, 2010, 11:35 AM   3
Dinie Gootjes
Members

Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2
Russia to the rescue?

Hi Steve and All,

The book Sovereign Carpets: Unknown Masterpieces from European Collections by Alberto Levi and Edoardo Concaro presents a selection of rugs belonging to European private collections, besides a set of rugs coming from the Russian ethnographic museum of St. Petersburg. It was first published on the occasion of the exhibition 'Sovrani Tappeti' in 1999 in Milan. The rugs from the museum of St. Petersburg are described under the titel 'The Turkmen Wedding', with an introduction by Irina Boguslavskaya and Elena Tsareva. The authors make a fairly firm distinction between the various kinds of bags on the one side, and camel trappings on the other. They seem to make the distinction mostly based on the designs, with the west of Turkmenistan producing the 5 or 7 sided asmalyks, with an arrangement of five tree stems, and the rectangular type with "long rectangular panels with two rows of kejebe (wedding litter) motif, each arch of which contains a vertical standing figure, usually interpreted as a 'Tree-of-Life'. Rather similar to the kejebe is a darvaza (gate) composition, notable for large central rosettes."

The collection includes one Chodor piece only, a wedding trapping. The description in the introduction: "Another representative of this family of designs (kejebe and darvaza, DG) is a Chodor trapping of breathtaking beauty (inv.no. KOV-224). The trapping is decorated with three pairs of half-ertmen guls, and central contour-drawn stepped rosettes. The shape and arrangement of the main element, together with the 'tree-of-Life' and pairs of birds filling of ertmens, leave no doubt as to their relationship to the darvaza and kejebe designs." The authors further remark that there is a common element in all these wedding trapping designs: the tree of life, "an obligatory attribute of wedding rituals of many Central Asian peoples of the past". Also:" As to the different shapes for the trappings- pentagonal and rectangular- it is possible that this was related in the past to the need to adapt to different breeds of camels: Arabian and Bactrian. Until now this is speculation and to be sure one has to study the use by Turkmen of different kinds of camels in different times."

There are two Salor pieces which the authors call trappings, though design wise they could also be seen as tent bags. In this case the authors say: "The main reason why these pieces are not thought to be tent bags is because of the type of finish, which is practically identical for all types of camel trappings" They don't give an explanation about what to look for, but I guess they are referring to the ivory plain weave folded over to the back and sown down, and the fringe.
Sorry for the long quotes, but as I know less than most about the subject, it seemed wise to let the authors themselves speak.

Patrick, many of the trappings here have what looks like remains of hanging cords. The bags don't have them, as far as I can see, though one Tekke mafrash has a sewn on plait to the sides which looks like it could have been longer in the past.

If someone with this book and a scanner could reproduce p. 214 here, that would be great. Otherwise I will take a picture of the page and send it to Steve later today or tomorrow.

There is another, very similar Chodor wedding trapping in the Sotheby's catalogue of the sale of carpets from the collection of Dr. and Mrs. Jon Thompson in New York, December 16, 1993. It has the same tree and bird filling in the ertmen guls. I will send Steve a picture of the photo and description of the piece, #37. Unless again there is someone else with catalogue and scanner????????????? ???

In your piece, Steve, the extra row of ertmen guls spoils the gate design, while the guls themselves do not have the tree and birds in them. So according to the Russian Rule your piece should be called a chuval, I guess. This will not keep me from offering it the place of honour, or even honor, in our house, if it would like to see something of Canada. Breathlessly waiting for its reply.

Dinie
June 18th, 2010, 01:21 PM   4
Steve Price
Administrator

Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 95

Hi Dinie

The catalog photo of the Thompson Chodor trapping(?) from Sotheby's sale is on Spongobongo.com, and I've copied it to our server so we can see it without using Barry O'Connell's bandwidth. Here it is:



The dimensions are 5'6" x 2'2", which is probably why Thompson believes that it's a trapping (he wrote the catalog descriptions). Torbas of such size occur in Ersari weavings, so it isn't outrageous to consider that this might be a torba. The knot density is about 8.5 x about 14.5; about 125 kpsi.

There is a tradition in Rugdom of interpreting nearly every motif that has tree-like elements as a Tree of Life, but I don't know of any evidence that it's true. In fact, all three of the pieces in the Mini-Salon essay have tree-like central elements in the red and in the white Ertmann guls, and the distinguishing feature of what Kurt Munkacsi classifies as Group I Chodor juvals is that the blue guls have "poles" as central elements. Kurt also suggests that the latchhooks at the tops and bottoms of the poles in the red and white Ertmann guls are stylized bird heads.

I'm skeptical about the claim in the article by Boguslavskaya and Tsareva that the tree of life was "an obligatory attribute of wedding rituals of many Central Asian peoples of the past". How could they possibly know that? I'm equally skeptical about their claim that some unspecified characteristic of the finish is practically identical for all types of camel trappings. For one thing, it can only be known if there is an unambiguous way of identifying all types of camel trappings, and there isn't. Camel trappings include lots of things besides pile woven asmalyks and things more or less in the formats of torbas and juvals: embroidered asmalyks, plainwoven asmalyks, knee covers, head and neck decorations that include embroidery as well as ikat pieces, just to name a few.

The suggestion that fringes or braided ropes distinguish trappings from containers is interesting, but probably not right. For example, I own a Tekke ak-juval and a Tekke ak-mafrash, both of which have braided ropes attached for hanging and for closures. They appear to be original, at least on the ak-juval, where the ropes are sewn to the side edges with two interruptions in the sewing on each side and wear patterns suggesting that these were handholds.

I don't have a copy of Sovereign Carpets, so I can't scan that photo myself.

Regards

Steve Price
June 18th, 2010, 03:14 PM  5
Jim Miller
Members

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 1
Sagging

Steve,
I agree that the sagging could indicate that the piece was used as a bag in the field. Could it also result from someone on the west stuffing it for a decorative pillow? I have certainly seen many khorjin halves stuffed this way, not sure if is as common with Turkmen juvals.
Jim
June 18th, 2010, 03:31 PM   6
Steve Price
Administrator

Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 95

Hi Jim

I suppose stuffing juvals for pillow use could deform them, although I haven't seen any juvals used this way (I've seen lots of stuffed khorjins and Belouch balischts, though). I'd be a little surprised if stuffing a juval would deform it the way Kurt's is deformed. Here it is, for reference:



It sort of looks like it had some big things just to the left of center in it. Notice that the deformation is at the top and at the bottom, so it wasn't the result of something very heavy tugging at the bottom while the bag was hanging. Someone could do that with pillow stuffing, but stuffing it in such a way that one part, near the middle, had lots more in it than the rest seems unlikely (to me). I think the balischts and khorjin that I've seen stuffed all had commercial pillows in them, and were very regular in shape.

Regards

Steve Price
June 18th, 2010, 11:08 PM   7
Jim Allen
Members

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Chattanooga
Posts: 1
Send a message via Skype™ to Jim Allen
Trappings

Trappings are woven without backs and thus can't be used for bags. I think this indicates their iconography must be of greater importance than most any "bag". Chuvals are probably the largest weaving made for most Turkoman dowry's. I believe that a chuval's iconography often has heraldic and ancestral components plus God knows what else. I like to point out that weaving done from memory according to culturally programmed archetypes satisfies all the classical requirements for a simple language. They were of course more meaningful in situ yet they remain meaningful to us across centuries down to this very day. I believe we can still limn some of their true meaningfulness but the best that can be done is always going to be a matter of personal perspective. I think it is interesting how many of us refer to our Turkman weavings as our girls. I think that is partly the reason they have appreciated so much. We truly want to be as close to these far off and far away (women / weaving) as we possibly can. Do we touch or caress these objects? I know what I do.
June 19th, 2010, 04:34 AM 8
Pierre Galafassi
Members

Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 11

Hi Steve,
The extra width of your bag reminds me of a note by O'Donovan which I took for a mere slip of the pen.
While describing (Vol II page 140) the inside of a Teke yurt he wrote "...Round the wall hang large flat camel bags six feet by four (!!), one side being entirely composed of the rich carpet work in which the Turkoman excel. Ordinarily, all the household goods are packed in these bags, for transit from place to place on the back of camels. When empty they form a picturesque tapestry...".
Why not, after all. They were perhaps used to carry cereals or other relatively light but voluminous goods.
Regards
Pierre
June 19th, 2010, 05:54 AM   9
Steve Price
Administrator

Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 95

Hi Jim

I don't think of my weavings as having a gender, but, like you, I find the tactile qualities very important to the aesthetic. The Chodor juval has the same silky feel as a Yomud asmalyk that I own. I discovered the asmalyk by touch near the bottom of a pile of stuff in a dealer's room at an ACOR or ICOC some years ago. Interestingly, Jean and I have rather little interest in living with art forms that can't be touched (paintings, for example). Instead, we are attracted to textiles, sculpture (especially pieces that have great tactile aesthetics) and, in her case, ceramics. I know that you collect African sculpture, too, as do many ruggies.


Hi Pierre

The passage you cite suggests that at least some juvals were containers for travel and were trappings when empty. I'm not sure the contents were always light, though. Here's a rather poor image of a Tekke ak-juval that appeared on Turkotek years ago:



The hanging and closure ropes are probably original, and they seem to tell a story. Notice the pair of openings between the ropes and the sides of the bag on each side. They look like places for two people to grab the bag and lift it. This notion is supported by the fact that the edges of the bag are worn and stained (sweat?) at those points. Having places for two people to hold while lifting it makes me think that whatever it held was fairly heavy.

Notice, too, that the closure rope is frayed (not cut) at its free end. This suggests that it was repeatedly opened and closed at that end (the right side) of the top of the bag. If that's correct, whatever the bag held could be gotten at through an opening about a foot wide. Bedding, large garments, etc., don't meet that description, but grain does.

I might also mention the presence of silk in the pile. My Chodor has it, as does this Tekke ak-juval. Silk is an odd thing to use for a bag that will be exposed to the elements and seen only from a bit of a distance, but makes sense if the piece is an indoor trapping at least some of the time.

Regards

Steve Price

Note: Image updated, 7/14/10
June 21st, 2010, 01:37 AM 10
Martin Andersen
Members

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: dk
Posts: 29

Hi All

The distinction between bag and trapping certainly is intriguing. And it involves the question of in which degree the rugs where decorated utilitarian objects or independent symbolic or artistic cultural expressions. A segregation which might have been meaningless for the Turkmen. Or it might in a lot of the rugs be a floating happy mixture, as it has also been in some of our own historical stylistical periods.

F ex this object certainly represent a specific representative connection to power, wealth and aristocracy:



Can you guess its function?


Well not sure what kind of writing has been done on it, but it is a chest of drawers / bureau.



That aside the Ertmen Gull pieces sure are strange and beautiful :-)

best Martin

Last edited by Martin Andersen; June 21st, 2010 at 01:56 AM.