Yaser_Al_Saghrie

As usual, when I buy a kilim from a certain area or a certain ethnicity I try to refresh my knowledge of that area or that particular ethnicity. I recently purchased a smaller one-panel typical slit-weave kilim from the area of Van: darker Hakkari colors, elliblinde pattern, early twentieth century.

A rather conservative kilims guy like myself would start with Yanni Petsopoulos book, Kilims. There I was stopped by the following piece of information in page 226: "early examples, like plate 275 illustrated here, were usually woven in a single piece, while more recent ones in two joined halves which seldom match perfectly", since mine was made of one panel.

The next book I picked was William Eagleton's An Introduction to Kurdish Rugs. Here and on page 100 under the sub-title Van-Hakkari we read: "Except for modern pieces fashioned for the Western trade in convenient small scatter-rug sizes, Hakkari kilims are usually woven in two sections which together form a unified pattern in squarish format".

This reminded me of my childhood when our boss would teach us how to recognize a certain type of rugs then another dealer would contradict everything that my boss has said. Later in my life I realized that books as well are full of information which contradict each other.

Page 185 of Hull and Wayhowska's Kilim the Complete Guide shows a map with a caption that reads "The Kurds", but puts the city of Bijar outside the gray spot of Kurdistan when everybody else knows that Bijar is the second largest Kurdish city in Iran.

These contradictions are not exclusive to books and dealers only but apply to all textile fans. I have discussed this issue with a lot of dealers and collectors that I have met during the last ten years and I can divide their opinions in relation to this problem into one or both of the following:
1. One should look at the whole picture and what looks like paradox is sometimes complementary such as when the area of Veramin which is a melting pot for lots of ethnicities is discussed.
2. One should never take anybody as an absolute authority and should try to listen to everybody's opinion and must also take personal observations into account.

At the end, in my language it is said the differences between experts are a blessing.

Joel Greifinger

Hi Yaser,

You've provided another good illustration of why any attempt to compile a comprehensive lexicon of textile terms should attempt not to resolve terminological and empirical disputes, but rather present a summary of the conflicting sources. Such a project, a massive review of the extant literature and accumulated marketplace lore, is no doubt a daunting task but would undoubtedly be a welcome resource.

In the "certainly not easy" thread you advocate an "active" approach that starts from suggestions on how to initiate such a project. Do you have some preliminary thoughts (on the level either of individual collectors, dealers and academics or institutionally) on how you think we could best proceed towards compiling such a volume?

Joel Greifinger

Yaser Al Saghrjie

hi joel;
as i have mentioned before i am not an expert in that field nor do i have a clear plan in my head on how to approach the idea but my wife had a very reasonable idea: one can start an online data-base in which everybody is invited to contribute no matter how small or big their contributuion is.
again i have no idea how such ideas are crystalyzed but Torkotek can sponcer or help?
yaser

Steve Price

Hi Yaser

We have space on our server and we have software that lets people post and comment (the forums). A database of the sort you envision could be generated through it, but can't become a useful reference source unless/until someone (or some group) is willing and able to organize it into a coherent form.

If there is a plan on how and by whom the posted information will be organized and edited, I'm pretty sure the Turkotek managers will agree to allowing a forum category to be set aside for this purpose. But without a plan and volunteers to perform the task, it's hard for me to see how we can create anything beyond a collection of more or less random definitions and notes. The Turkotek managers may allow that, although I should tell you that I have little enthusiasm for it personally.

One path with a reasonable chance of success would be to expand Peter Stone's Oriental Rug Lexicon. A necessary first step on that path, in my opinion, is for someone to contact Peter and see whether he wants that to happen and, if so, whether he wants anyone else to be involved.

Regards

Steve Price

Marla Mallett

Since rug literature is so full of inaccuracies, of what use would be a compilation of these inaccuracies?

(The remainder of this post deleted, as it was off-topic.) Marla

Steve Price

Hi Marla

I would add to your comments that misinformation in published sources isn't peculiar to Rugdom - it applies to all varieties of ethnographic and tribal artifacts. The reasons why the "literature" is so sloppy are probably the same in all of these fields.

Regards

Steve Price

Steve Price

Hi Again, Marla

You wrote, Since rug literature is so full of inaccuracies, of what use would be a compilation of these inaccuracies?

I'm sure there are truths in there as well, and Yaser's idea is to compile and annotate, rather than simply compile. Like many other things, the devil will be in the details, which is why I'd want to see a plan and volunteer personnel for organizing and editing the information before I'd vote to use Turkotek to support it.

Regards

Steve Price

Marla Mallett

I'm afraid that I have little faith in group projects, in which "everyone" is to "contribute." Such projects typically become defunct unless directed by one capable individual with a strong personal interest in the subject, an adequate background, lots of time, and dedication. Useful linguistic "annotations" must often reflect value judgments and cite reasons for inaccuracies; these would seem difficult to manage when dealing with a group of volunteer contributors. Typically group projects such as that suggested here begin full of promise, and then after a brief flurry of activity peter out, because few participants have a stake in their success. A compendium of popular misconceptions and disputed labels does not sound like a reasonable substitute for solid linguistic and ethnographic research.

I've not yet heard why, since we are dealing with the woven products of so many different cultures, with so many different languages involved, it should be important to settle on common terms that can be pronounced "correct." Why should a compendium of popular terms be regarded as superior to the terminology of ethnographic researchers and linguists who have been deeply immersed in specialty areas? Anyone spending time in one of the rug-producing countries must become familiar with local usage. Turkotek pronouncements are unlikely to influence language usage in Uzbekistan or Morocco. But even for stay-at-home armchair ruggies, an ethnocentric approach dependent upon English translations is problematic: Terms for some objects simply aren't translatable ("boche" and "hambel" come immediately to mind, but there are many) and English translations certainly don't guarantee the accuracy of descriptive terms. One very simple example: we read everywhere of Anatolian decorated "grain sacks." Ala cuval. Yet anyone who has ever seen elaborate brocade, soumak or tapestry-decorated storage sacks in an Anatolian nomad or village setting knows very well that those are NOT used for grain, but rather for clothing and household items; such terminology de-values highly-prized objects, as very simple, coarse, plain sacks normally hold grain. Another example: So-called "saddle bags" with extended bridges from southeast Anatolia around Fethiye are rarely used over the backs of animals, but rather over the shoulders, chests, and backs of humans. Whether termed "heybe," "khorjin," or "saddlebags," a wrong impression is conveyed. I cannot see how a list including popular Middle Eastern marketplace misnomers and Western misconceptions is likely to help us better understand the woven objects and why they were made. (Remember the insistent marketplace usage for many years of the term "besik"?) Rather than encouraging a compendium of popular usage and disputed terminology, we need to value and encourage serious research. Am I the only one sick of the endless parroting of popular lore by one author after another?

Marla

Steve Price

Hi Marla

I'm 100% in agreement, but not everyone else is. Yaser sees the matter as pretty serious; some other on-line ruggies worry about this sort of thing on their websites, too.

Please note that my only real suggestion was that anyone interested in pursueing the project should contact Peter Stone and see if he has any interest in expanding his book, the only compendium of such things of which I'm aware. Turkotek certainly isn't going to change the terms used by ruggies; Stone's book is the only existing relevant dictionary.

Another thought I'd toss out to the people who see this as important enough to warrant their effort is to use Wikipedia as their foundation. It allows multiple editors to contribute to individual pages.

Regards

Steve Price

Yaser Al Saghrjie

Hi Steve;
I have no clear plan at the moment but two friends one in the field of putting dictionaries and another who works in programing interactive websites promised help. I will let you know once i have met with them.
In the meanwhile does anyone know Mr Peter Stone personally??

Yaser Al Saghrjie

hi everybody;
i don't think it is fair to describe trying to find a common language to discuss a certain issue as "encouraging a compendium of popular usage and disputed terminology" unless one think that all languages are so.
in arabic a dialogue among people who don't speak a common langugae is called the "the dialogue of the deaf".
plus there isn't a more serious and less serious researche as long as people with different interests research different aspects.
taking people to rug stores quiete often i hear the comment: "don't tell me about technical issues it is boring" that doesn't make researching different techniques a less serious research.

Steve Price

Hi Yaser

I agree that we can only communicate effectively when all parties understand the words the same way, and I think nearly everyone would agree. If I seemed to be saying that the project you're exploring isn't potentially useful, that wasn't my intention. I have some skepticism, and I'm not drawn to it enough to be willing to commit much of my own time to it. But I would certainly encourage anyone who's interested enough to spend time doing it to move ahead, and I'm reasonably sure the Turkotek gang would allow our web space and software to be used in such a project.

Regards

Steve Price

Marla Mallett

Yaser, as someone who has been deeply involved in rather specialized terminology issues, I sincerely appreciate your intentions, but I just see many difficulties surrounding the project as you have outlined it. So just a few more random thoughts on the issue:

First of all, the most troubling terminology questions aren't easy to deal with briefly. Long discussions have dealt with the propriety of the word "seccade" versus "namazlik", to the rightness or wrongness of "verneh," "sileh" and "zili, " to the proper application of "jajim" and "cicim", to the appropriate use of "saf" --to list just a sampling. Merely collecting and "annotating" terms is unlikely to resolve the substantive disagreements involved. In fact, a huge number of quite common terms can be the legitimate subjects of lengthy debates.

To be practical, if a group project/community effort were undertaken for which volunteer contributions were solicited, how would one deal with entries that were totally incorrect? There will always be a dealer who insists that a rectangular bedding bag is properly called a "besik", a cradle, and will want to be heard. Someone will inevitably insist he has been told by a "recognized authority" that red rugs with guls are "Princess Bokharas." There will always be dealers who insist that South Persian complimentary-weft or weft-substitution bags are "suzani," (needlework???) and who proclaim that they KNOW, because they are Iranian. Can one ask for contributions and then tell folks that they are wrong?

The naming and interpretation of motifs is of course fraught with immense difficulties. It's one thing to deal with a wrench-shaped form, commonly called a "motor key" by some Middle Eastern weavers. It's an entirely different matter to address the claims of the goddess-cult clan who see religious figures in every abstracted, degenerate kilim form--especially interpretations based on, or shaped by, fraudulent archaeological materials. Should these interpretations be given serious attention, perpetuating the unfounded rug-book mythology that was the rage for a few years?

Terminology issues that relate to the uncertain purposes of woven objects are among the most difficult. Of what use can it be to positively define a word like "germetch" if in fact the object was not actually hung under a door frame to keep the chickens out? Many of these issues become a question of ethnography, not linguistics, and hang by the slimmest of threads on questionable research.

Technical/structural terminology is easier to deal with--if boring as hell. We have behind us a couple of centuries of hand weaving and commercial textile production literature and general usage. This has, however, in the past simply been ignored by most Oriental rug authors, and so gross errors have been perpetuated in rug books. In WOVEN STRUCTURES, I have addressed "Problematic Terminology" at the end of each chapter, where I have dealt with mangled terms, and have tried my best to sort out inappropriate labels. Since that book was first published, I have solicited feedback (with a questionnaire even included in the first edition), but in the twelve years since that first printing, I have received no specific criticisms. I am in the midst now of preparing for a third printing, and so I welcome corrections. Anyone can e-mail me at mailto:marlam@mindspring.com --unless you'd like to post comments here. The book goes to the printer in a couple of weeks.

Best wishes,
Marla Mallett

Yaser Al Saghrjie

hi marala;
it was your book Woven Structures that re-ignited my interest in the "standard termenology issue".
i really understand your concerns but i would like to tell you as for the first fact you have mentioned taking as an example "namazlyk" and "siccade" i think it is good and profound when a language has more vocabularies meaning the same thing but as long as those are classified and the researcher is aware of them; in fact in the university we were tought that this is the greatness of English: adopting more vocabs from other languages even when wards have already existed to mean almost the same thing.
as for the fact that some people insist on wanting to use some misleading vocabs we are here dealing with facts andd those same misleading names adjectives etc are refeared to. Besides it is no longer so difficult to find out that ala chuvals are not really used as grain bags nor khorjins or hypes were exclusively for animal-backs or human shoulders.
i totally agree with you about group projects and i personally had bad experiences in the past but the most risky of choices is better than nothing.
thank you

Steve Price

Hi Yaser

One thing that occurred to me this morning is that Barry O'Connell has been compiling snippets of rug stuff on line for a long time, and has an alphabetically arranged public database already. He isn't permitted to post on Turkotek, but you can see his material and find his contact information at this link.

Regards

Steve Price

Jerry Silverman

In an earlier post it was asked -

I sent Pete the link to this thread. He responded, saying that he has "been working full-time on an expanded and full-color Lexicon."

He also said, "A comprehensive, accurate and authoritative on line Lexicon is a great idea. The Wikipedia concept could work very well. If Turkotek becomes committed to this plan, I would without regret, consider suspending work on the Lexicon."

I agree with Pete about the potential of a Wikipedia approach to terminology. It's the adjectives he uses that should give us all pause: "comprehensive, accurate and authoritative". To that I would add "consistent", especially in light of the myriad inputs this might eventually have. (I know consistency is redundant subsumed in the meaning of comprehensive, accurate and authoritative, but I feel it's worth emphasis in a wiki environment.)

As for the "(I)f Turkotek becomes committed..." part of Pete's remarks - in my experience enthusiasm for new projects peaks at the start, flags as the actual work proceeds, and dwindles to almost imperceptible levels as completion never seems to arrive. (An examination of the contributors to Turkotek over time - with the notable exceptions of Steve and Filiberto - supports this observation. Now you see them; now you don't.) Accepting this project means shouldering the responsibility to see it through - especially as it also may mean that Pete may stop working on his revised Lexicon.

For me it boils down to whether we're likely to do a better job of this project than Pete.

My money's on Pete.

Cordially,

-Jerry-

Steve Price

Hi Jerry

Just to be sure everyone understands: I don't think there's a serious likelihood that Turkotek will commit anything more to this than providing a platform through which the serious laborers can interact. I haven't seen or heard expressions of enthusiasm for working on it from any of the Turkotek group.

Like you, I'd hate to see Peter abandon revising Oriental Rug Lexicon on the basis of an optimistic hope that some individual or group will produce something just as good on this (or any other) internet venue.

Thanks for calling this to Peter's attention; knowing where he stands makes a big difference to my ideas of where we ought to go with this.

Regards

Steve Price

Marla Mallett

Steve, Yaser, Jerry and all,

Since we've been talking about the efficacy of group projects, perhaps it is appropriate here to say a little about the "Terminology Seminar" Yaser referred to in his essay--an event that was held at the 1983 ICOC in London. I mentioned it just briefly in my book's introductory comments. This highly touted seminar was organized in an attempt to get a committee of intensely interested individuals working together on standard technical/structural terminology for the field, as people by that time were completely frustrated by the dismal state of technical information in rug literature. Folks were also sick of attempts to force Irene Emery's inadequate and awkward language on the field.

I wasn't at that conference, but I received several first-hand accounts of what transpired; a couple of written accounts of the meeting were also published. It apparently dissolved in total chaos, with the participants screaming at each other. The idea of a committee to work on the matter was reluctantly, but immediately, abandoned.

Strangely enough, when people told me what some of the specific sticking points were, they proved to be quite simple, easily surmountable problems. For example, one deeply involved person told me that a tremendous fight was waged over insistence by weavers on the committee that their standard weaver's terminology, "epi," should be standard rug book/technical analysis fare. This common notation just means "ends per inch" in a fabric's "warp sett"; it is the weaver's most important measurement and it affects the way that every remaining factor in the weave balance is adjusted. But others on the committee were outraged by such a suggestion. In simple language, this abbreviation means the number of warps per inch. Well, this perfectly satisfactory, simple "compromise" is one that cannot offend weavers or textile manufacturing professionals, yet is easily understood and acceptable to non-technical ruggies. A series of other much more substantive conflicts within the ICOC "working group" made it quite clear to everybody that a committee approach to creating standard technical/structural rug terminology was NOT practical.

When I decided to tackle the problem of technical terminology, I intended to produce a small brochure, and ended up with a 185-page book. I drew from my long weaving background, familiarity with hand weaving literature, and teaching experience. I also consulted textile manufacturing literature, and historical textile literature to assure that I was selecting the most standard terminology extant and was applying it correctly, but in the simplest manner possible. Sometimes the smallest, most insignificant-sounding words can be extremely important to accurate analyses. While applying standard terminology to Asian tribal textiles, I found that there was one important woven structure unique to Anatolia and Iran for which no term existed. After agonizing over this it became clear that someone needed to devise a label, and that it might as well be me. So I settled on the term "reciprocal brocading." But everything else was strictly standard. I had finicky weaver friends scour the manuscript to see if they could find points to argue. Other people helped me refine descriptions so that they were more understandable to non-weavers. Carl Strock, whom some of you know, was immensely helpful in that regard. Now, I'm happy to say that the manual has been well received and is used by most museum textile curators in the US and abroad for their analyses and cataloguing. Early on, museums like the Metropolitan and the Victoria and Albert ordered multiple copies for their curators. But I am most pleased when folks just tell me that the book has helped them to better understand the weaves.

I offer these comments on the ICOC committee attempts and also this summary of my experience simply to suggest that a group or committee approach is not necessarily the answer to solving sticky, contentious terminology problems. It requires at least one person willing to do a lot of hard, dull, tedious work.

Best wishes,
Marla Mallett

Steve Price

Hi Marla

Decision making by committee is the usual procedure in state and federal government agencies - it relieves everyone from individual accountability, thus ensuring normal progression through civil service ranks and job security. It's the natural enemy of anyone with even modest creativity. Whenever I get stuck with a committee assignment, my first approach is to divide the committee's responsibilities into discrete areas and assign each area to one person. It usually works out. I'm also unpleasant enough to usually get bypassed when administrators select people for committees here.

On the other hand, having a number of people submitting stuff to someone with good leadership and the authority to make decisions can be very productive.

A camel is a horse designed by a committee.

Regards

Steve Price