Review of Book on Persian Textile Industry 1500-1925
The Persian Textile Industry
In Historical
Perspective
1500-1925
Willem Floor
Dear folks -
A short time
ago Steve Price put up in this space a notice of the publication of this book
and an email address for Mr. Floor. I contacted him and subsequently bought a
copy. I have read it once cover to cover, have read sections of it a second and
third time and am referencing some of them again as I write this review.
(Nabokov says somewhere, sagely, that one cannot really “read” a book; one can
only “re-read” it.) Mr. Floor’s book is one that will benefit from re-readings,
even from selective ones.
I have also loaned this volume to my learned,
Farsi-speaking, Persian, friend, Jamshid Aghamolla, and will reference an
indication or two he has made about it. In addition, I have a quoted comment
from Peter Andrews, with whom I have shared the table of contents and the
bibliography. Andrews has not read the book itself.
Mr. Floor is Dutch
and retired in 2002 from his work as an energy expert at the World Bank here in
Washington, D.C. He has worked for a number of years researching ancient trade
records and other old sources on the Middle East textile industry.
The
first thing, perhaps to note is that Mr. Floor has identified, dug out and
quoted from a large number of old sources. His lengthy bibliography will likely
be quite useful to other textile scholars of this period.
Secondly, it
is amazing how concrete some of the information in trade records about textiles
made long ago is. Here is just one sample of the sort of thing Floor reports. It
is from the entry for “Tafteh or taffeta” in his glossary chapter. “In 1618, the
English report that ‘Tafetas are made in great quantities, long 6.75 yards per
piece, wide, 0.75 yard less two inches. Those of Yazd are worth 48
shahis.'”.
Another feature of Floor’s volume is that he gives one
perspective on the wide varieties of weavings and textiles that were made in
Persia during the period he covers. It becomes much clearer that the country’s
weaving skills were not at all focused on rug-making, as we often seem to
assume, but were centered on a wide universe of textiles of which rugs were very
often (at least until the late 19th century) only a rather marginal part. In
this sense it is a healthy corrective for those of us who have, perhaps, read a
shade too many rug books.
Floor gets our attention with passages like
this:
“…However contrary to popular belief, Europe was hardly interested
in Persian fabrics or its carpets, and in the latter only as of the 1870s.
Because nowadays everyone loves Safavid fabrics, as well as Persian hand-made
carpets, many assume that this same attitude prevailed during the 16th-18th
centuries, the golden age of Persian weaving artistry. The more so, because
paintings from that era clearly show the use of Middle Eastern carpets as
decoration of tables, floors, and walls of the interior of European homes. Also,
because some of the surviving carpets were made to order for European royalty.
Consequently, there is a strong belief, albeit a wrong one, that the trade and
export of carpets from Persia to Europe has been an important activity in which
Europeans and others were engaged in the 16th-18th centuries.”
Floor
details a great deal of textile trade during the 16th-18th centuries, but with
Persia exporting luxury fabrics, mostly to Russia and Turkey, and to some extent
to Central Asia, and importing luxury textiles from India, and at least
indirectly, already importing woolens, such as broad cloth, from Europe. The
picture built up in his narrative is different from the ones I think that we
usually have.
I need to give you a brief version of Floor’s table of
contents in order to make the point I want to make next. Here it
is:
Foreword
I. Introduction
II. Historical Development of the
Textile Industry
III. Nomenclature of Persian Textiles and Crafts
IV. The
Persian Dress
V. The Persian Shawl
VI. The Kerman Goat’s Wool, or
Kork
Bibliography
The first thing evident from Floor’s sections is
that they do not comprise a sustained continuous discussion. They seem, rather,
when read, to be a series of articles combined under a broader heading to make a
book. This is not necessarily a criticism, but it requires some revision, as one
reads, of the expectations that one might have on the basis of the title of this
volume.
With only the table of contents and the bibliography in hand,
Peter Andrews, said that it seems that “it somewhat resembles Wulff's
'Traditional Crafts of Persia.'”
Here is a more complete citation on
this latter book.
Wulff, Hans E.
The Traditional Crafts of Persia
Cambridge: M. I. T. Press, 1966.
Floor also acknowledges explicitly
very early on that his treatment of carpets will be “partial,” so those
interested only in that variety of Persian textile may be disappointed in this
volume.
Floor’s discussion is, from the first, peppered with Persian
textile and textile-related terms that make aspects of his discussion opaque. To
some extent this may be unavoidable since, my friend Jamshid Aghamolla points
out that many of these terms are old, and some are colloquial, and not used any
longer in modern Farsi. True, Floor provides a glossary, but one does not have
the advantage of it until the third chapter, and the use of these words
commences early on. I can understand why Floor might not have wanted to begin
his book with a glossary, but in fact something like that is needed. Farsi
speakers are likely to find this aspect of Floor’s treatment more accessible and
interesting. A potentially fascinating linguistic archeology awaits them
here.
While Floor has done fine work in unearthing these old sources and
quotes, I found, frequently, that a series of them are merely strung together
and “dumped” on the reader, often, without needed context. One finds oneself
reading a quote, noticing that it has a different footnote than does the
previous sentence and wondering if this reference is to the same century. And
sometimes a quoted source in one sentence seems flatly to contradict its
predecessor in another without comment. To be sure, Floor often marks such
context and notes disagreements and even sometimes gives us the benefit of his
own weighing up of the evidence concerning such disagreement, but not frequently
enough for my taste. I came away from this volume wishing that Floor had shared
more of his own views on the basis of his extensive knowledge of this research
material.
Although this is a scholarly work and budgetary resources for
illustrations were likely very limited, I often found myself reading the quite
extensive descriptions of clothing items, especially in the chapter on Persian
dress, and wishing that I had an illustration of what was being discussed.
Verbal description is not quite adequate to the task here.
Because of its
French publisher and some of the title page information, it seemed to me that
this volume had been written and published French, originally, and the volume I
have read was an English translation of it. Floor tells me this is not the case,
that the book was written directly in English and “vetted” editorially by a
Britisher. In any event, the written English is not always successful and
occasionally there are grammatical errors. Most errors are of the transparent,
irritating sort, rather those that make the text mysterious, but sometimes one
cannot make out what is actually meant. It is sometimes the case that the budget
for an academic volume of this sort does not provide for adequate editorial
resources.
In the balance of this review I want to present some sentences
that attracted my attention in Mr. Floor’s book. They are disparate and do not
add up to any particular point.
1. “Tenreiro for example, in 1523,
observes that north of Lar groups of Turkoman nomads lived who ‘weave very fine
carpets of silk.’”
I find this a fascinating sentence. Lar, Floor tells
me, is south of Shiraz. We get very used to the fact that parts of many tribal
groups migrated or were moved to areas far from their traditional areas of
residence, but isn’t it interesting that, in the early 16th century, there might
have been Turkoman tribesmen in southwest Persian who were nomads, but who in
spite of this, wove silk rugs?
2. Floor indicates that the 17th century,
the 18th century and the early 19th century were not good times for many Persian
textiles, but that things began to perk up for some of them late in the 19th
century.
“However, a total outsider, carpet weaving, was to become the
most important and very successful textile craft in Persia. Carpets had never
played a role in Persian exports before, but the position changed radically in
the 1870s partly because European merchants were looking for a suitable
commodity to export from Iran, but mainly because of the growing interest for
old and antique carpets in Europe. Demand for carpets increased dramatically
after the World Trade Fair of 1873. Demand between 1872 and 1874 increased by
100%…By 1910 at least 65,00 persons were directly employed in this craft, as
compared with only 1,000 around 1860. Carpets were also important for the
economy as a whole; in 1850 the did not figure among exports, however, by 1912
they accounted for no less that 12% of the total Persian exports.”
Like
Floor’s earlier indication above, this paragraph seems to me to require us to
rework somewhat our usual understandings.
And just as the Persian rug
weaving industry flourished, the wider Persian textile industry was at death’s
door. Floor describes some items still being produced and even exported at the
turn of the 20th century and then says,
“But all of these activities, the
seemingly large number of available looms, the ongoing exports could not hide
the fact that the curtain had fallen for the Persian textile industry. ‘The once
flourishing printing and dyeing industry of Ishfahan still exists but it is no
longer flourishing. […] The local prints were now more costly than foreign-made
machine-made prints, and are consumed by the middle and upper classes.’ The
imports of foreign Russian cotton, especially of the printed variety, became
very popular among the well-to-do, who used them as carpet covers (“rufarsh”).
Jobs were also lost due to change in fashion.”
3. “In the
1840-50s,'alecheh' was produced in Mazandaran and Astarabad. It was a striped
manufacture of mixed silk and cotton of 9.5 yards by 14-15 inches. It was also
made with waste silk or 'kej' The price was respectively, 10-20 sahebqerans and
5 sahebqerans per piece. In Astarabad it was of the refuse silk variety and as
used by Turkomen women for shirts. Its length was 8 yards by 14 inches. It was
sold for 4 sahebqrans per piece."
Again, it is interesting to me that by
the mid-19th century Turkoman ladies were noticeably buying Persian textiles for
their clothing. It would also seem to reinforce the notion in some places in the
literature that there was quite a bit of interaction between nomads and town.
That the nomads were in a sense far more dependent on these town contacts and
sources than our more romantic images of them would suggest.
4. “Labaf or
“lavvaf” or is a rope maker or tent material maker. They formed a guild in
Isfahan. ‘They twist sack-makers’ thread [“qatimeh”], rope [tanab], and weave
tent materials [“galeh”], nets [“tur”], bags [khur], large sacks [“juval”],
saddle bags [“khurjin”] and the like. This group has not declined.’ There were
17 of them in 1870 and 120 in 1920.”
This confirms that there were, in
cities, folks who specialized in making tent materials. Not just the frames but
in weaving the cloth covering. But even more interesting to me is the seeming
indication that some saddle bags and chuvals were woven, not by tribal weavers,
but by city people who made other tent materials. One wonders who the customers
were and what designs were used. Were, designs for example, specified by the
nomad customers or was what would sell anticipated and selected by the city
dealers and weavers? We know so little.
5. In a couple of places there
are indications that at some periods in Persian society women were required to
signal publicly that they were menstruating by wearing black. Here are two
passages:
“Upper women had their clothes made of ‘aksun’ an expensive
satin, that was often black and made in Europe. Apart from the fact that women
had to wear black when they menstruated, it was also the color of
mourning.”
And later on:
“Persians not only word colorful clothes
but, unlike contemporary Europeans, sported a wide and varying combination of
colors at the same time. Each individual piece therefore had a different color.
‘Persians like to have different part of the clothes all of a different colors,
espec. the women. The sash and turban always need to be of striped fabric. Only
the mollahs have clothes of one colour. They use black taffetas when women have
their monthly courses, then they put on a black shirt of taffeta. Dancers at a
party wearing a black shirt are allowed to dance but nobody approaches them and
they eat apart.’”
These passages suggest that, in this respect, Persian
social mores, in at least part of the period studied, were similar to those of
other traditional societies.
6. On turbans at one point in this
period:
“Because of the length of the fabric, the turbans appeared to be
very big, and, moreover, they were very heavy. According to Chardin, who in the
beginning had difficulty wearing one, some turbans weighed 12 to 15 pounds, the
lightest weighing as much as 6 pounds.”
The size of the turban was also
sometimes a source of fun and scorn.
“According to a contemporary Persian
cleric: ‘One day I was in the mosque, and a man entered, dressed in white and
wearing a turban so large that it looked like a small dome. He meant to give
everyone the impression that he was a great scholar.'’ Darvishes made fun of
large turbans worn by many members of the olama saying: ‘the larger the turban,
the less brains under it.’ In respect to this the famous poem by Sa’eb is also
instructive:
‘If the hugeness of the turban is an indication of
learning
The dome of the Shah Mosque would be the greatest of scholars
Let
not, Oh Sa’eb, the ascetic’s turban pass with you for learning
For, as in a
dome, hollowness in the head creates much echo.’”
7. From Floor’s
treatment of the Persian shawl.
He notes that such shawls were mostly
worn by the rich. But then he says:
“The only author who mentions that
the common people used pieces of shawl to adorn themselves is Fraser, although
he in fact also confirms the exclusivity of shawls. He mentions that in Gorgan
the women wore a dress of which ‘the sleeves are long and wide, and some gird it
around the loins and the lower part of the stomach with a strip of white cloth
or coarse shawl. To have a good shawl for this purpose is a point of great
ambition with the Toorkoman women.’”
Although the “Gorgan” tribes were
among the more settled and were geographically positioned to have information
about textiles from other areas (ed. many Persian shawls were made in Kerman),
it is interesting to see that Turkmen women, whom we often picture as great
self-sufficient weavers, preoccupied with textiles of their own tribal
tradition, were visibly interested in quite urban textiles made outside their
culture and at a great distance.
8. In a final quote Floor’s sources
report that some Turkmen women wove Persian shawls. “According to Varizi, the
master weavers in Mashad were all from Kerman, as were the shawls warp and woof.
There also appears to have been some production of coarse shawls among the
Turkomans of Astarabad and Semnan, part of which were traded.”
This seems
to raise the possibility that some Turkmen women envious of a Persian shawl
might find one woven by another Turkmen woman.
I have not begun to
summarize, in these few impressions and snippets, many useful aspects of Mr.
Floor’s work in these chapters. You have not yet read here a real “review” of
the book this author has written.
I think on balance that Mr. Floor’s
volume is a useful addition to the literature on Middle Eastern textiles and he
is to be congratulated for his wide and deep digging in old sources.
This
book can be purchased. I contacted Mr. Floor by email and he directed me to a
Mme. Jacqueline Calmard, with the French publisher. You can order it directly
from her at the following email address: j.calmard@wanadoo.fr
The book cost me
50 euros (she cannot accept US dollars), including shipping to me here in
Washington, D.C.
Here is the detailed publishing information on this
volume:
Willem Floor
The Persian Textile Industry in Historical
Perspective, 1500-1925
Paris, France: Societe d’Histoire de l’Orient.
L’Harmattan, 1999
399 pages, nine line drawing illustrations, ten
tables.
Bibliography, pp. 383-399
To order email Jacqueline Calmard at j.calmard@wanadoo.fr
I would
recommend Mr. Floor’s book to those interested more comprehensively in Persian
textiles made during the period of his research.
Regards,
R. John
Howe
Why So Little About Yazd in Rug Books?
Dear folks -
One of the things I noticed as I read and re-read Mr.
Floor's book is how often the city of Yazd is mentioned as a great center of
weaving activity.
Yet, we seem not to have in the literature much
reference to Yazd rugs.
I just looked again at Eiland and Eiland (1998)
and they do provide a short treatment of Yazd rugs (pp. 143-144). They first say
that Yazd was famous "particularly for fabrics other than rugs." But then also
acknowledge that "Carpet weaving is an old tradition in Yazd."
They give
some useful details on the character of Yazd rugs before WWII, but it appears
that mostly Yazd is too close to Kerman and its rugs too often resembled Kermans
and so many were/are? identified as Kermans.
Eiland and Eiland do say
that they can be distinguished from Kermans in that they have two picks of
cotton weft between knots. Most Kermans have three picks of cotton weft and
deeply depressed alternate warps.
I also looked at Hubel (p.203). He says
that that "Yesd" carpets are almost always "large in format," in sombre colors
not popular for export, and are often distinguished from older Kermans only "by
their blue weft." Hubel also gives them good marks for quality, saying "'Wares
from Yesd' is a term of quality understood all over Iran."
Anyway, rugs
from Yazd were a kind of blank for me and so it surprised me that it was a great
weaving center.
Regards,
R. John Howe
Great work, John!
Although you stressed that yours is not a real
"review" I find it really useful.
Your points 3 and 4 are especially
interesting for their implications…
Thank you very very much!
Best
regards,
Filiberto
A Response from Mr. Floor
Dear folks -
Willem Floor and I exchanged several emails about his
book, background and my review before I posted it.
I have discovered that
he apparently lives in the Washington, D.C. area and it may be that we will be
able to arrange coffee some day soon.
I asked him to look at my review of
his book in advance and to correct any outright errors. He did so and I made
some corrections. I also asked him to say anything he wanted in response to this
review and he has offered some points of this sort as well.
I am going to
copy his response in its entirety into this post below. It seems possible that
not only has Steve Price pinpointed a useful book, but that the permutations of
that may supply us here in DC with access to a useful textile expert who may be
pursuaded to speak both at a Textile Museum "rug morning" and to our local rug
club. Mr. Floor seems also a candidate for salon host here on
Turkotek.
Here are his comments on my review:
Dear Mr.
Howe,
Herewith some comments on the review of my book The Persian Textile
Industry, Its Products and Their Use 1500-1925 (Paris: Harmattan:
1999).
As to my own background the following may be of interest. Until
July 2002 I was working at the WB as an energy specialist, but since then I have
retired and have written a number of books and articles. Maybe also of interest
to your readers is my Agriculture in Qajar Iran (Washington, DC: MAGE, 2003),
which deals with any- and everything agricultural in 19th-early 20th century
Iran, including the production and trade in raw silk, cotton, and wool. Also the
relationship between nomads and urban dwellers is discussed as well as the role
of weaving as a subsistence activity for the rural population. There is also a
section on rural dress as well as chapter on natural dyes used. The book (698
pages with some 90 pictures in large format) may be bought from MAGE:
1-800-962-0922 or info@mage.com or at
Amazon.com or Barnes&Noble.com.
Another book that may be of interest
is my The Traditional Crafts of Qajar Iran (Costa Mesa: Mazda, 2003), 507 pages
and some 12 rare illustrations that offers information on ceramics, glass
making, lighting fuels and devices, metal-working and mining technology, paper
making, sugar making and trade, soap making and leather tanning. It may be
bought directly from http://www.mazdapub.com/ or via Amazon.com and
Barnes&Noble.com.
Although having worked for the last 25 years as an
energy specialist, I studied amongst other things sociology, economics, Persian,
Arabic, and Islamology. In addition to my normal daily energy-related work I
also kept my interest in the Middle East and wrote books and articles about the
socio-economic life of Iran and the Persian Gulf during my spare time. There was
not much of that, because I traveled all over the world each year (but not in
the Middle East or Iran!), usually 100-120 days per year. It was in between
travels that I did my research and writing as a form of relaxation to balance it
with the demands of my busy job. Thus, textiles are just the result of that
broader interest.
As to your comments on my book, the following. First,
a general remark. The book was written out of a sense of frustration, because
art historians and textile specialists did not have answers to my many questions
relating to this important field of socio-economic interest. I therefore set out
to find these answers myself. The book therefore represents the extent of my
ignorance. Although it would seem that the book does not offer “a sustained
continuous discussion,” as you have put it, it tries in fact to do so. In the
first part of the reader is introduced to the raw materials (silk, cotton, wool,
flax), to the variety of textile related crafts, to the diversity of weaving
centers and the development over time, the organization of the royal workshops,
and international trade. I point out the destructive impact the Afghan
occupation (1722-30) had on Iran and in particular on its crafts. The 18th
century was one of continued and sustained economic decline and it was only
around 1800 that the economy started growing again due to the stability brought
by the new Qajar dynasty. For the 19th century I once again discuss crafts,
weaving centers, the impact of foreign trade, and the slow disappearance of the
weaving of fabrics, which was partly off-set by the boom in carpet production
after 1873. This first chapter indeed represents an assessment of The Persian
Textile Industry 1500-1925. Because the book uses many technical terms, the
second chapter provides a glossary. This glossary also shows that the simple
substitution of some English equivalent is not always possible or even
desirable, since the meaning of the terms often changed somewhat over time.
Because the most important end-use of textiles is clothing the third chapter
deals with clothing items from headgear to footwear, by century, so as to make
it easier for people to read, compare, and see what changes, if any, occurred.
Both these chapters thus represent the Its Products and Their Use part in the
title of the book. The fourth chapter is about all you wanted always to know
about shawls. What does the term really mean, what it the history of its
production, what was its social and economic role and its many end-uses, what is
the difference between a Cashmere and a Kerman shawl? For example, this chapter
points out that in Persian the term shawl did not mean a wrap-around (although
it did in India) as it is understood in the English language, but in Iran it was
not used as such. In the final chapter, I discuss the geographic location, trade
and other aspects of the fine down of the Kerman goats from which high-quality
shawl was woven. In short, there is a logic in the book, which may not be
evident at first sight, or even after having read the book. This is
understandable, because the book is a storehouse of information of textiles and
their craftsmen from 1500-1925. Not only the wealth of facts but also the
multifarious and exotic terminology used (which modern Persians also often will
find quaint) requires careful reading and re-reading, so as to get the storyline
and the shades of meaning.
As to some of your other comments the
follwing:
Carpets were woven all over Iran, but until 1873 were not a major
export item. There had always been some export of carpets, but never anything
like what happened after 1873. So, when I wrote that carpet weaving was marginal
I meant to say that although omni-present it was production for the local
market. Also, production of coarse cottons was much more common and needed,
because they did not last as long as carpets did.
I agree with your wish
for more illustrations. However, cost made that impossible. May be if I had
approached another publisher, but being very busy I had neither the time nor the
patience to do so, and therefore opted for the Societe d’Histoire, also to help
their revenues. May be I should republish the book with additional material that
I have found/written since then, but this would require some funds, which are
always difficult to get. Given the fact that actual 19th century samples are
available in the archives for many of the fabrics mentioned in the Glossary
would make this a worthwhile undertaking.
The book was not originally
written in French, but directly in English. I understand a native speaker’s
irritation with a foreigner mangling his/her language, but there is no easy
solution to that. I had an English native speaker (a Brit no less) vet my
inadequate use of the English language, but apparently some mistakes still
remain. So be it. There is always a trade-off between quality and cost. The book
as it stands now costs I believe $40; it could have been fully edited, but then
the price would more likely have been $50, and therefore possibly reducing the
number of purchasers and making its publication impossible. This leaves aside
the question that somebody must be willing to pay the up-front editing cost that
only can be earned back piece-meal. This is not attractive to a cash-strapped
publisher. Publishing books of this nature is only getting more
difficult.
As to your quotes of some sentences. Correct, Lars into Lar,
which is south of Shiraz
As to your comments to your observation 3 that
nomads were dependent on urban contacts may I refer you and other interested
readers to my recent book Agriculture in Qajar Iran (Washington, DC: MAGE, 2003)
chapter 8.
As to observation 4. Tents were also much used by urban
people, either for outings in the countryside or as awnings and the like inside
the town. Nomads usually made their own tents and tenting.
As to
observation 7. Please note that shawl means a variety of things. First it means
a sturdy coarse woolen fabric; secondly it means a very refined, high-quality
woolen fabric; third, it means a fabric (made of silk, cotton, or wool or a
combination these materials) that displays the same patterns as the refined
woolen [Cashmere-type] shawls. The Torkoman women wore a cheap version of 2 or a
more refined version of 1. They did not wear, unless they were rich women,
Kerman shawls. As you cited another quote of mine where it is clear that
Torkomans wove shawls, but they were of a coarse variety.
Wulff Book Distinctive From Floor’s
Dear folks -
Peter Andrews, armed only with the table of contents, a
brief passage from the glossary and the bibliography suggested that Floor’s
book, reviewed above, might be similar to Hans E. Wulff’s “The Traditional
Crafts of Persia,” The MIT Press, 1966.
As it happens, I have been able
rather quickly to obtain a copy of Wulff’s book. I can see why, given the
glossary portion and the bibliography he has seen, Peter might suggest that the
books themselves are similar.
They do have aspects of similarity, in
addition to the fact that both have a long bibliography and a glossary of
related terms. They even both draw on deep historical roots in their respective
discussions.
But Wulff’s work has far more breadth than does the Floor
book. Here is a brief version of Wulff’s table of contents.
Metalworking
Crafts
Woodworking Crafts
Building and Ceramic Crafts
Textile and
Leather Crafts
Agriculture and Food-treating
Crafts
Outlook
Bibliography
Review of Literature
Index
The
craft that is the focus for Floor’s entire book is treated in Wulff’s in about
40 pages.
Floor’s book places rug weaving, usefully in the broader
spectrum of the Persian textile industry. Wulff’s treatment provides a similar
perspective and context for textile weaving as a part of the world of
traditional Persian crafts.
Floor and Wulff do draw on some of the same
literature, especially very old accounts by travelers and Wulff makes some
claims for existing textiles that seem astounding to me. Floor has mostly
examined the primary resources of trade records, while Wulff has often used
secondary resources. It is not clear to me how some of the things he claims
about old textiles comport with more recent research by folks like Elizabeth
Barber and even that reported in Hali 100 by John Wertime. Regardless, the basic
sources consulted by these two authors are quite distinctive.
In
addition, while Floor describes the textiles themselves as they are portrayed in
trade records, Wulff’s treatment is much more of a “how to” variety with a great
deal more discussion of the methods, tools and processes used in traditional
Persian crafts.
Another noticeable difference is that Wulff’s book is
profusely illustrated. It contains 423 illustrations plus a map. Many of these
illustrations are photos taken in the early to middle 20th century and may not
provide accurate images of how things were done in the more distant past.
Anyway, Wulff’s book is also deserving of a competent review and is
recommended for those interested more broadly in the Persian crafts of his
title.
I was able to purchase my “ex libra” copy for $14.50 including
mailing.
Regards,
R. John Howe