Joel Greifinger

Hi Yaser and all,

Here’s a common motif in a serrated diamond lattice on a Kurdish rug I recently acquired:




A variation on this motif, with the orientation of the central square rotated into a diamond, is familiar as well, from the elems of some Kurdish bags:






It can be found in Shahsavan pieces and also frequently appears as the sumakh field pattern of Bakhtiari mixed technique saddle bags, such as this one:




And also occasionally on Qashqa’i pile bags:




In the Kurdish version, it might be seen as a variation of a design that has sometimes been designated as a ‘shikak cross’?




or as a type of palmette, as was discussed in this 2002 Turkotek discussion (http://www.turkotek.com/salon_00088/s88t3.htm). In Antique Rugs of Kurdistan (p.161), Burns refers to the serrated edged diamonds in the field in A1 as ashlik:





However, it also has a marked similarity to the ‘gulbudak’ seen on Anatolian kilims, like this Reyhanli.




In keeping with the salon’s call to take strides towards a useful but pluralistic standardization of terminology, how should we refer to this motif? Would a phrase that attempted to be purely descriptive of its shape and features be best, in order to avoid committing, even implicitly, to any particular understanding of the design’s evolution? (For example, we might describe this motif as the juxtaposition of a cross-moline and a cross-quadrant, with variations of the orientation of the square.)

Should we research the local terms used by the groups who have made use of each variation and attempt to incorporate those in our descriptions? Is there a tension between the desire for standardization and the call for pluralism and “the responsibility of adopting more vocabulary from the local languages of the weaving nations"?

And, by the way, does anyone know any term(s) for this motif?



Joel Greifinger

Patrick Weiler

Joel,

I have always heard this design referred to as the "Spanner" design. It looks like a couple of open-end wrenches crossed in the middle. Obviously this relates to the ancient wrenches used by tribal nomads to fix their motor cars.

They keep them in their khorjin-kit along with their "latch-hooks".

Patrick Weiler

Joel Greifinger

Patrick,

When you wrote that you have always heard this referred to as the "spanner" design, I raced to search the literature. I figured that since this motif is used by so many weaving groups, it would turn up in lots of contexts.

However, it doesn't seem like the term has much currency. Other than Tanavoli using it in his book, Shahsavan, I have only been able to find one other author (citing Tanavoli) who refers to the motif as a 'spanner'. He is the inimitable rug collector, commentator and raconteur of some renown - a certain 'Patrick Weiler'.

Do you know if Tanavoli used the Persian word for ‘spanner’ in the original edition of Shahsavan or a local Shahsavan usage? What intrigues me about the terminology in reference to this motif is that rather than having encountered lots of names for it in different languages and dialects, we seem to have only one and that a rarely used and presumably recent descriptive term. At least that’s what seems the case in the literature, if not in the local marketplace.

Back in Salon 88, Michael Wendorf suggested that this motif "was probably Kurdish in origin." I wonder if there has been any further research along those lines.

Joel Greifinger

Steve Price

Hi Joel

I use the term from time to time. It's just a word that conveys the name of a familiar object that the motif resembles, which makes it a convenient descriptor. The weavers wouldn't have associated the motif with a crescent wrench, of course.

Regards

Steve Price

Patrick Weiler

Steve,

In this salon devoted to standardizing terminology, perhaps it is best that I correct your tool description. The type of wrench under discussion is not a "crescent" wrench, but is actually a:
"Double Open End Wrench / Spanner"
Also known as a "box-end" wrench.
This is also quite different from an "open-ended wench", of course. That is a completely new salon altogether.

Helpfully yours,
Patrick Weiler

PS Joel, in the original 1985 English edition of Shahsavan, Tanavoli describes, on page 289, plates 168-171:
"These pieces illustrate another variation of the stellar designs in plates 162-7. Although generally similar, the horizontal points extend outwards in the shape of a spanner (wrench) or pincers, which gives the design a strange shape and additional strength."
I also recall seeing this term in advertising for pieces from Haliden in Bath. The term "spanner" indicates a device which spans a distance.
From Yourdictionary.com:
span·ner (spănˈər)
noun
A wrench having a hook, hole, or pin at the end for meshing with a related device on another object.
Chiefly British A wrench.
Origin: German, winding tool, from spannen, to stretch, from Middle High German, from Old High German spannan; see (s)pen- in Indo-European roots.

Steve Price

Hi Patrick

I've also referred to the motif as a "dog bone" because it looks like the kind of bone cartoonists put in the mouths of dogs in cartoons. That's appropos of nothing in particular.

Regards

Steve Price

Joel Greifinger

Hi Patrick,

Thanks for the wrenching discussion of spanner specifics. Given the distinction, would the term for the Kurdish version then be kilita pesgir as opposed to kilita devger? cf. http://www.institutkurde.org/publications/kurmanci/dictionnaire/
Joel Greifinger

Patrick Weiler

Joel,

The spanner design is unquestionably pesgir in Kurdish, although I have not seen that term used to describe this motif in any Kurdish weavings.
You also showed the "shikak" design, which Burns calls a turtle. And, yes, he describes the serrated diamond versions as "ashik", although he is describing the diamonds and not the designs inside the diamonds.
In the book Sumak Bags, John Wertime discusses the spanner design, but does not give it a name, unless this description from page 216 could be called a name:
"a diamond lattice containing a repeating cruciform motif"
which, he says, "was a popular one among Turkic weavers in Khamseh, Kurdish/Lak weavers in Qazvin, and Lor and Bakhtiyari weavers in the Varamin region and in the Lor and Bakhtiyari areas of western Persia. The motif itself is no doubt a rendition of an old Turkic one, appearing also in Anatolian kilims, and in Turkmen weavings."
John Collins, in his recent book Persian Piled Weaving, also does not give the design a name, but relates the motif to "latchhook" designs common to Jaf Kurds and others.
So for purposes of standardizing rug terminology, we should probably call it the "diamond lattice containing a repeating cruciform motif" design - although that is not a very descriptive term and covers a whole lot of territory.

For a previous Turkotek discussion of this motif, which also did not resolve the issue:
http://www.turkotek.com/salon_00088/s88t3.htm
Patrick Weiler

Joel Greifinger

Hi Patrick,

Lest an obvious absence in Wertime's list irritate and alienate the substantial Baluchophile segment of Turkotek's devoted following, I offer, in the spirit of fellowship, one of the many Baluch uses of the "diamond lattice containing a repeating cruciform motif", a k a (per S. Price) the "dog-bone" design:



Joel Greifinger

Patrick Weiler

Joel,

It is now almost more a question of who did NOT weave this design than what it should be called.
The lovely Baluch piece you show looks like an aerial view of a castle compound surrounded by a white barbed-wire fence which is further defended by the moat with S-shaped serpents. Perhaps you could research architectural remains to see which culture used this design the earliest. You could apply for the generous Turkotek Rug Study Grant and spend a few years tramping about the rug weaving countries for answers.
And what statistical study did you research to confirm the existence of a "substantial Baluchophile segment of Turkotek's devoted following"?


Patrick Weiler

Antonio Scarano

Greetings to all,

when I read this thread and look at the pics posted, I immediately thought to the "ak su" design, even if it's more complex than the kurdish version, due to the presence of the alternate white design.
It should be interesting to investigate the older example. I saw something quite similar in the Lamm Collection http://www.weavingartmuseum.org/wamri/plate8-9.htm

Antonio

PS - Detail of a Saryk ak-su torba:

Steve Price

Hi People

Just a note to let you know that Antonio has a detail of a Saryk ak-su torba in the previous post.

Thanks, Antonio.

Steve Price

Joel Greifinger

Hi all,

In the 2010 edition of Tribal Rugs:Treasures of the Black Tent, Brian MacDonald weighs in on this terminological conundrum about the motif under discussion. In reference to the following rug (that he attributes as Sauj Bulaq) he refers to the lozenges containing the motif as "'latch-hooks' lozenges" and to the motif itself, drawn below, as a "Kurdish gol".



Given the ubiquity of the motif throughout the region, I suppose this may reflect that he is disposed to believe that it nonetheless originated with the Kurds. Has anyone seen or heard it referred to elsewhere as a Kurdish gol? (By the way, please mentally fill in the umlaut over the 'o' in 'gol', since I don't know how to access it on my keyboard.

Joel Greifinger

Joel Greifinger

Looking down at the Luri rug at my feet, I realized that the survey of groups that utilize the "diamond lattice containing a dog-bone-looking spanner a/k/a 'Kurdish gol' (add the umlaut)" was missing their contribution. Here's an example from that rug:



As for what they may call it, if they opt for 'spanner' it could be somewhere between the Persian and Southern Kurdish terms, since,

Joel Greifinger

Patrick Weiler

Here are a couple more spanner designs. The first is from a "Shiraz" rug of mid-20th century vintage.

The second is from a Luri rug. It probably contains the smallest possible version of this design. Each motif is only 2" tall and 2-1/2 wide.
So, did this tiny model get enlarged to become the type we are more familiar with, is it just a coincidence that a small rosette incorporates the critical features of the design, or was the larger model reduced to become this mini-version?

And you must have certainly alienated the Baluchophile members of Turkotek because they haven't been commenting on your lovely Baluch chanteh!
Or is the correct term Baluch-o-Pile? We need to come to an agreement or Yaser will not be able to comPile his rug terminology anthology.
Patrick Weiler

Rich Larkin

Hi Joel, et al,

Here's a South Persian one with a whole set of wrenches. No telling what size nuts and bolts you're apt to find on the trek.





Just kidding. Having in mind Yaser's main thesis in the salon, I think Joel has demonstrated by focusing on just this line that trying to develop a reference nomenclature for the bewildering variety of motifs one can identify in weavings would be a very frustrating task of questionable utility. No doubt, the weavers themselves had names for their many devices, but as Yaser has suggested, such names probably varied from group to group, and from variation to variation. I believe an orthodox nomenclature would provide the occasion for endless battles over the aptness of the name in any given example.

Most of the examples Joel has shown feature the "spanner" tips. One wonders whether the weavers classified the motif on the basis of whether there was a spanner in the deal. The Kurdish version, the "shikak cross," lacks the spanner ends. So, in the official nomenclature, would those versions belong? Here's a Baluch khorjin that may or may not depict spanners.




If so, they're the adjustable kind, and the gap is closed. The point is that the motif in the khorjin may well share a common ancestor with the spanner motif, but may also reflect several incremental modifications over many generations. Trying to bring all this under a comprehensive body of terminology seems quite frightening.

Rich Larkin

janand

Wonderful. Really very nice and look cool.
Nice traditional design and colourful pastern.