Steve Price

Hi People

The "spanner" was introduced in another thread that's lurched off into several directions. I mentioned that I sometimes refer to it as a "dog bone" of the sort seen in cartoons. Here, just for reference, is a cargo bag side panel plus a detail of my "dog bone".





Regards

Steve Price

Joel Greifinger

Hi Steve,

Of course, in addition to the standard cartoon dog bone in your post there are others that, to take our inspiration from music, we might call "The Dog Bone Variations". Included in these are:

the 'split dog bone with wagging tongue' variation from this Reyhanli kilim:



and this 'dog bone being torn asunder by a raging elibilnde' variation from a Central Anatolian kilim:



I'm sure we can find additional versions of 'Fido's friend' from other weaving traditions as well, if we just sniff them out.
Joel Greifinger

Steve Price

Hi Joel (and everyone else)

One of my reasons for posting this (and several of my other posts) is to emphasize the difficulty of adopting standardized terms in rug descriptions. As we see in the ok bash/uuk bash issue, putting the focus on the weaver's term doesn't always get us to a definitive end - not everyone agrees on what the weaver's term is or what it meant. Using descriptors that refer to objects familiar to us (spanner, for example) divorces the matter from the realm of original intent and contributes nothing to understanding the cultural elements of the weaving. On the other hand, it does allow us to communicate - to transfer information - in a reasonably convenient way. I can't help thinking that this is often the most we can hope to accomplish, and that it's a whole lot better than nothing.

Regards

Steve Price

Joel Greifinger

Hi Steve,

I agree. Rich summed up my thoughts on this issue in his last post in the "What D'ya Call It?" thread. As he suggested there, I started that thread using a single example in order to tease out the manifest difficulties of pursuing terminological standardization in the light of the staggering array of local usages and design variations.

Rich wrote:
We're better off with simple analog descriptors: e.g. the dog bone variations.

Joel Greifinger

Steve Price

Hi Joel

Warning: off topic post

Perhaps Richard Farber can put composing The Dog Bone Variations on his to-do list.

Regards

Steve Price

Richard Larkin

Hi folks,

It would seem that before it would be possible to establish comprehensive norms for terminology in connection with, say, handwoven textiles from the Middle East and vicinity, it would be necessary to understand rather thoroughly the range, nature and several functions of the weavings. The discussion about one obscure item like the ok bash, or uuk bash, or whatever, demonstrates that there isn't even consensus among experts on such a thing as that, and persons with what appear to be very high credentials disagree. That one small line of inquiry illustrates the difficulty and, often, the apparent futility of trying to get a handle on basic reliable factual information about the role of various weavings in the day to day lives of the weavers in years past; just as Joel's analysis of the many permutations of the "spanner" design seems to put out of reach the reduction of familiar design motives to fixed concrete terms. As Steve indicates, the use of suggestive terminology that may or may not have any relationship to the "meaning" of design motives to the weavers, but which do facilitate discussion of them, is a more useful (and, God help us, a more humane!) system. There are many such terms, "wineglass border," "running dog border," even "tree of life." And oodles more.

An endeavor that would be welcome, it seems to me, is a comprehensive catalog of terminology used, both in the past and now, where it appears, and brief discussion of what is said about it, with comparative references. (I'm not familiar with Peter Stone's work in this vein, so can't comment on that.) In spite of my pessimism about the development of a comprehensive system of terminology, I'm all for striving ahead in an effort to fill up the many gaps in our knowledge. A thorough review of what has been said and written is one way to do that, but the establishment of an orthodoxy of terminology isn't a substitute for the knowledge.

Rich Larkin

Steve Price

Hi Rich

Peter Stone does a pretty good job with this issue. Here's what I found when I looked up "wineglass":

wineglass see "leaf and calyx"

Following his instructions, I then found,

leaf and calyx, leaf and goblet, wineglass A border design used in Caucasian rugs, especially those of the Kazak region. Diagonal serrated leaves alternate with a geometricized calyx which suggests a goblet or wineglass. (a sketch of such a border follows the text)

This seems to say about as much as can be said; at least, within my comfort zone.

Regards

Steve Price

Joel Greifinger

Hi Yaser, Steve, Rich and all,

When I initially responded to Yaser's essay, I read it as calling for the inclusion of more local usages in an English-based, standardization of terminology. I wrote that I thought there was a tension between the advocacy of linguistic pluralism and the call for standardization.

When I re-read the essay I concluded that, despite the title, it's proposal is not to establish a set of normative guidelines to standardize usage, but rather to gather the breadth of current usage, including local, ethnic, tribal and linguistic variations into an inclusive, cross-referenced lexicon. In other, words, I'm making the perhaps foolhardy claim that we are all actually agreeing that:

1. the attempt to "establish comprehensive norms for terminology" in this field is neither practical nor helpful, but
2. a "comprehensive catalog of terminology" along the lines already started quite successfully by Peter Stone's Lexicon would be a worthwhile project for rugdom to pursue.

Is this the consensus or have I misread someone? everyone?

Joel Greifinger

Richard Larkin

Hi Joel,

So, are you saying that we set up a straw man, then annihilated the thing? Or was that just me who did that?

Rereading Yaser's essay, I must agree with your conclusions. And, Yaser, I apologize to you if I've suggested you proposed something you didn't. But, I remain fearful of the whole new layer of debates that will ensue over the terminology. At least, when we're getting nowhere debating about the rugs themselves, we're having fun doing it. At least, I am.

If the dictionary is to be really comprehensive, it will be a mega opus indeed if it takes into consideration all the claims and contradictions floating around about rugs and other weavings. I can't wait to read the entries discussing the difference between gul and göl. That, and the chapter on Soujbulagh.

Rich Larkin