Editor's Note:
A thread entitled, "MAD Ersari" was becoming sidetracked by discussion of the boteh motif. For convenience, I split off the boteh-related posts and generated this thread from them. There are, apparently unavoidably, some gaps in the disussion created by the fact that not every post clearly belongs only in one thread or the other.

Steve Price

Bonjour Louis.

Thanks for your assessment and analysis of the aesthetic qualities of our rug. Thanks also for sending the Hans Konig article. I have had a quick read and it looks very interesting.

Your assessment of our rug is very similar to mine, though you have been more articulate in your description. In addition to the design, one aspect of this rug that stands out is its wonderful, bright palette. I have a few circa late 19th century Turkmen rugs with very nice natural dyes, but this one really seems to stand out. It is a real "eye catcher" whenever you step into the room. Although the palette is generally limited, the effective use of different hues of reds and blues is very effective. For me, a critical choice was to use a very light straw and yellow to intersperse with the white background. If the entire background was white, there would be a much less alive composition.

Your thesis is interesting, that some of the early Turkmen weavers who started producing "for the market" could express their own artistic flare while using some standard tribal design elements. This rug certainly has typical Ersari design elements, but put together in an inventive way (like using a typical border sequence as a field design). Maybe that is why I like the really good MAD rugs.

James.

Hi all,

I have now had a chance to read Hans König's article, "Ersari Rugs - Names and Attributions" (Hali 4/2). Merci Louis!

I think he makes a few interesting points that I thought I would share.

He classifies Ersari rugs into two main design traditions, which he further sub-divides into other sub-categories. The first main group consists of weavings that are "tribal", by which he means that they conform to a traditional Turkoman tribal design family. As I understand it, he divides these “tribal” groups into a group that frequently has the “tauk nuska” guls on main carpets and chuval, Saryk, dyrnak or ertmen gul on chuvals. Rugs of this group have been attributed to the Kizil Ayak and Chub Bash weaving groups. He sees this first group as being somehow affiliated to Yomut and Chodor weavings. The other main “tribal” group of Ersari weavings have been previously named as “Afghan” or “Khiva”, with large gulli guls and the like. He clearly mentions that the “Afghan” appellation is inappropriate since many early pieces were produced north of the Afghanistan border, though the design tradition was continued by Ersari weavers in N. Afghanistan after cross-border migration.

The second main category of rugs are non-tribal, of which one group is what he describes as “quasi-tribal”. By this he means that they are comprised of “non-tribal designs which became tribalized because they were the work of tribal weavers who interpreted these patterns according to their stylistic and artistic cannon (sic)”. It is perhaps important to note that while he acknowledges that many of the designs in this group are “imported” from other areas and are “cosmopolitan” in nature, he raises the possibility that some of these designs arose from local design traditions that might extend back further than some of the traditional Turkoman design pool. For this, he offers two lines of observation. First, archaeological excavations in the south of the Turkoman area, particularly in the Murghab oasis, in the past few decades have unearthed ancient pottery (dating from c. 3000 BC) that bears ornamentation that is similar to 19th century Turkoman rugs. Here is an example from the article, with a comparison to a Yomut torba. I can also see similarities with the ashik-type designs seen on Ersari rugs.



He also mentions that some of the boteh design rugs seem truly old, and he opines that perhaps the boteh design emerged in these weaving areas in parallel with other weaving areas, rather than as a derivation. Here is an example of an early boteh-design rug from the article (I would note that the main border has the same ornamentation as that on my rug).



The other two “non-tribal” groups are the “floral designs” and the Ersari or "Bukhara" prayer rugs. The "floral design"carpets include the “mina khani” and “Herati” designs. He sees these as clearly more recent design imports that did not reach the Amu Darya region until after the 1850s.

Another interesting point that König makes is that there are reasons to doubt the contention that the age and purpose of manufacture of Ersari group weavings is directly related to the sizes and shapes of rugs. Specifically, his view is that both "tribal" and "non-tribal" rugs could have come from the same loom. To quote: "If we agree that they wove rugs in 'tribal' sizes with a 'non-tribal' design, why should they not have made rugs in 'non-tribal' sizes either for their houses or for sale?" He further makes the point that since the Ersari had settled so early in the Amy Darya region, they may have woven rugs of "non-tribal" sizes for their own dwellings from an early time period.

Although I am sure that some of these ideas will be refined and revised over the years, I found this an interesting article that reminded me why the purchase of a new, old rug can be stimulating.

James.

James and al.

quote:

---

He also mentions that some of the boteh design rugs seem truly old, and he opines that perhaps the boteh design emerged in these weaving areas in parallel with other weaving areas, rather than as a derivation. Here is an example of an early boteh-design rug

---

Hi Filiberto,

Good idea. I would be interested to know more about these, so I encourage you to open a new thread about this topic.

James

Hi James,

Perhaps it would be better to frame the boteh in a more general discussion on “Urban Influences on Rug Design” but that will require some time to assemble images and data.

But I’d like to know first if you and others agree with me: do the images posted above look like boteh?

Regards,

Filiberto

Hi Filiberto,

My answer is "yes", they all do look like versions of the boteh.

James.

Filiberto:

Another great "find." Yes, they do look like boteh, and with the same variety in the detail of drawing that we find in rugs. So, I guess they didn't all spring from shawls.

Louis:

That was a most insightful analysis of James' wonderful rug. I am seldom impressed with someone's speculation about what was going on with the weavers when they made a particular rug, but I think you are on the money in this case. I especially like your point about high grade commercial weaving 150 years or so ago for a local market, persons who could respect and appreciate the art and the craft.

__________________
Rich Larkin

Hi Folks

Motifs that look for all the world like botehs occur in centuries old Andean weavings that could not possibly have been influenced by the oriental patterns (unless they go back more than 10,000 years and came to the New World when there was a land bridge, which seems pretty unlikely).

Independent origins of motifs seems to be an unremarkable thing, as remarkable as it seems.

Regards

Steve Price

Steve,

Botehs of "New World" didn't need a land bridge. They are/ were as sea worthy as coconuts and just as adventurous. Sue

Hi Sue

To Weave for the Sun is the catalog of an exhibition of ancient Andean textiles held in Boston in 1992. Here's part of one, with boteh-like devices. My scanner isn't big enough to fit the whole page on it.



It comes from the late intermediate Chimu period (AD 1000 to AD 1476), and predates any known European or Asian contact with the Andean cultures since the land bridge migration.

The book is beautifully illustrated, and many of the pieces it show would make great "mystery textiles" for our readers, showing lots of motifs and colors that are sufficiently reminiscent of Asian weavings to suggest relationships. Note the borders on this one - in fact, the general layout of a field with borders around it is what we think of as Asian textile art convention.

Textiles didn't fly over the Pacific Ocean nor were they seaworthy enough to float the distance. Possible explanations that I've seen for resemblances between ancient Andean and Asian weavings include transfer of the stuff by aliens, some sort of intercultural sharing of consciousness, or independent invention. I choose independent invention as, by a very wide margin, the most plausible.

Regards

Steve Price

Steve,
I know you don't like the word gourd and the word botah in the same sentence, at least you didn't the last time I did it, but, I must say, I was talking about gourds, not their woven portrayal. Sue

Steve, while I suggest that there can be explanations simpler than the “independent invention” may also suggest splitting this thread starting from my post (that I’ll edit tomorrow) on botehs?

Or I can do it, if it’s OK for you, tomorrow. Now I have to go.
Regards,

Filiberto

Hi Sue

I am not offended by the word, "gourd", even in the same breath as the word, "boteh". What made you think otherwise?

I hate to put words into your keyboard, but I think you're suggesting that the Andean boteh-like device is inspired by gourds that floated to the west coast of South America before Europeans or Asians did. If that's your suggestion, it's OK with me. I do wish you'd get into the habit of saying what you mean instead of speaking in riddles. As much as I'm sure it amuses you, it doesn't amuse me at all and contributes much more heat than light to a discussion.

The notion that most, maybe all motifs were inspired by things seems reasonable, and a gourd is as good as any for the boteh. Some other suggestions that I've seen, which also seem OK to me, are candle flame and flower bud. Elephant sperm seems sufficiently unlikely to be not OK. What isn't OK to me, but crops up often, is the notion that if some motif is common to two cultures, one must have gotten it from the other.

Steve Price

Hi Filiberto

I think splitting the thread is a good idea - it's becoming difficult to track the flow of thoughts because of the number of directions. Let me know if you'd like me to do it. Otherwise, I leave it to you.

Steve Price

Hi Steve,

I agree with your point that we need not infer that all similar looking designs, such as the boteh, have been transferred from one region/culture to another. I think the specific relevant point vis-a-vis Ersari rugs discussed in this thread is that we need not assume that the boteh and perhaps other designs that don't look strictly "Turkoman" were directly and recently imported from Persia and other areas. Konig makes the point that the diversity of boteh designs that is seen in quite early Ersari-Beshir weaving suggests that the boteh has a long history in the weavings of this area. This is in contrast to the "floral" designs such as the Herati and Mina Khani which he sees as being more recently introduced designs. So while the possibility of this parallel development of the boteh might not be remarkable, in this case it might be significant.

James.

I think everyone has seen this translated into various rugs as a boteh motif, maybe not from above, though.

Hi Sue

Yes, but since the weavers were illiterate, they usually inverted the image, not realizing that this made the text upside down.



Steve Price

Thank you Steve,

I need more time to assemble material for an appropriate post.

Meanwhile, Ladies and Gentleman, may I ask you for a little help? It would be useful to find the earliest examples of boteh design, preferably on textiles. Please search your books and publications.

Steve, also more Andean examples could be interesting, if you have any...

Optimistically,

Filiberto

Hi Filiberto

I don't have other Andean examples of boteh-like motifs that I can think of just now (perhaps a map of South America will be close enough for some purposes - it undoubtedly has the "mother and child" origin in it), but there are lots of Andean textiles that have Asian overtones illustrated in the exhibition I cited. Do you want the thread to begin by going that far afield?

Regards

Steve Price

Hi Steve,

Later, perhaps, but for the moment I prefer focusing on the boteh only .

Cheers,

Filiberto

Hi all,

My personal favorite for origin of the boteh is the form of the fig leaf. In Indian art, shape of the leaf of the Bohdi tree (the sacred fig tree, beneath which Siddhartha arrived at "bohdi" - a state of enlightenment) is often given as the basis of the paisley motif, which is simply a more ornate version of the boteh. Another way to look at it, I suppose, is that the boteh is a dumbed down variety of the paisley.

That fits with the comingling of Persian and Indian cultural components over time, as empires waxed and waned. Because this design is so common in old Persian art, it is often explained as having originated in Persian and migrated to other cultures. But Buddhism predates the Safavid dynasty by a couple thousand years, so I prefer the Indian origin.

Anyway, you get what you pay for and that's my two cents worth. I'll hunt down and/or scan a few images and post them unless someone else has some more readliy available. In the mean time, here's a link (from motherherbs.com) to make the point:




Regards,
Chuck Wagner

__________________
Chuck Wagner

Thanks Chuck.

Yup! That’s part of the material I found:

The Sacred Fig Ficus religiosa, also known as Bo (from the Sinhalese Bo), Pipal (Peepul) or Ashwattha tree, is a species of banyan fig native to Nepal and India, southwest China and Indochina east to Vietnam

This plant is considered sacred by the followers of Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism, and hence the name 'Sacred Fig' was given to it. Siddhartha Gautama is referred to have been sitting underneath a Bo Tree when he was enlightened (Bodhi), or "awakened" (Buddha). (From Wikipedia)

I’m almost finished but now I have to write it down. Don’t hold your breath, thought.
Regards,

Filiberto

Chuck, Filiberto, et al,

Is the term "bodhi" perceived to have an etyymological connection to the term "boteh?"

__________________
Rich Larkin

Hi Richard,

As far as I remember "buta" is the Indian version of the Persian "boteh" and it should mean "flowers" or "bunch of flowers". Nothing to do with "bodhi".
Regards,

Filiberto

Here we go...

First, the scans are from the book: “Lyon, musée historique des tissues
Soieries Sassanides, Coptes et Byzantines V – XI siècles”, from the Coptic section.

These silk textiles were found in Akhmim, (a.k.a. Achmim or Akhmin, at the time its Hellenized name was Panopolis) a city of Upper Egypt, situated on the banks of the Nile. Of late years it has attained great importance, on account of the discoveries made in its cemeteries at the end of the 19th c. The city is chiefly famous for its papyri and for its tapestries. The tapestries, however, have furnished material of primary importance to the history of textile handicrafts in ancient times.
All the fragments shown here are either from Paragauda, or from Clavus.

(Paraguda:the border of a tunic worn by ladies, but not allowed to men except as one of the insignia of office. The term, which is probably of Oriental origin, seems also to have been converted into an adjective, and thus to have become the denomination of the tunic, which was decorated with such borders- Clavus:round decoration - or insignia – of a paragauda).

Weaving of silk in Akhmim was unknown and these artifacts could have been imported from somewhere else. But there are elements that point to local productions and this is considered by the book like the most probable hypothesis, albeit there’s no certitude.

Now a full view of the fragments. All of them are said to be from the 7th or 8th centuries but the first and more stylized should be of the 6th or 7th.












The text notes that the element we would call “bothe” is almost omnipresent among the silk textiles of the “Achmim group”. The book says “it seems derived from the lotus leaf”.

Mmmh! Which lotus? A search on the web found that it isn’t likely the water-lily Lotus, but, and especially for Hellenized people, the:

Ziziphus lotus, the date palm (which may have been the "lotus tree" of Greek mythology; see below)
The lotus tree (Greek lôtos) is a plant that occurs in two stories from Greek mythology:

* In Homer's Odyssey, the lotus (tree) bore a fruit that caused a pleasant drowsiness and was the only food of an island people called the Lotophagi or Lotus-eaters.
* In another story, the nymph, Lotis, is turned into a lotus tree.

The botanical candidates for the Lotophagi's lotus (tree) are actually two:

1 - Ziziphus lotus is a deciduous shrub in the buckthorn family Rhamnaceae, native to the Mediterranean region. It can reach a height of 2-5 m, with shiny green leaves about 5 cm long. The edible fruit is a globose dark yellow drupe 1-1.5 cm diameter called a nabk.



It is closely related to the Jujube (Z. zizyphus), and is often regarded (without hard evidence) as the Lotus tree of Greek mythology.

2 - The Jujube, Red Date, or Chinese is a small deciduous tree or shrub in the buckthorn family Rhamnaceae. Its scientific name is Ziziphus zizyphus, synonym Z. jujuba. It is thought to be native to North Africa and Syria, but moved east through India to China, where it has been cultivated for over 4,000 years. The tree can reach a height of 5-12 m, with shiny-green leaves, and sometimes thorns. The many inconspicuous flowers are small, greenish or white, and produce an olive-sized fruit that is a drupe.
In Persian cuisine, the dried drupes are known as annab. They have medicinal use too.



That’s all for today, I’m afraid. More on the subject tomorrow.
Botanically yours,

Filiberto

Great stuff, Filiberto. The "Red Date" looks like the better candi-date (pun intended) for the boteh, leaf-wise.

__________________
Rich Larkin

Thanks Rich, I agree.

I have to stress that the lotus association is suggested by the author of the book (BTW it’s Marielle Martiniani-Reber, and the book was published by the “ Ministère de la Culture et de la Communication – Editions de la Réunion des musées nationaux, Paris, 1986).
I’m only trying to find out which kind of lotus could be the “candi-date”.

Other interesting points: Ms. Martiniani-Reber wrote in note #2 in the “Achimim” chapter: “Not all the silk textiles discovered at Achmim were considered in this study because some of them were attributed to Sassanid Persia and others to Byzantium”.
The group considered (23 pieces) has remarkable unity of style. As for the technical descriptions, it’s too much for my degree of comprehension.

Akhmim was in any case a reputed center for the weaving of linen so it was reasonable to assume that also a collateral production of silk decoration for the linen fabric existed in situ..

Anyway, what is the meaning of these fragment?

Fact # 1: that there was in Egypt (around 6th to 8th c.) a group of silk textiles from the same source showing a pattern very similar to what we call to “boteh”.

Fact # 2: the “source” was an urban workshop.

On these fact we can build some hypothesis, but before going into that…

Which are the earliest known examples of bothes?

Regards,

Filiberto

Hi Filiberto,

I don't think I'm ready to buy into Egyptian origin of the boteh symbol yet. I would expect to have seen it as a persistent motif in Egyptian art and symbology, were that the case, and I don't see that.

Most early Egyptian art that I have seen (and, that isn't a whole lot ) has a strong bias toward symmetry in its portrayal of inanimate objects. There are lots of renderings of papyrus, lotus plants, palm and olive trees, but mostly portrayed in "realism" rather than "abstraction" technique, like flattened versions of the real thing. The boteh just doesn't fit with what I've seen.

That the pieces you show are made of silk is telling in itself; this is a product of import to ancient Egypt. I would have no problem linking such pieces (particulary because of the execution of the designs) to south or east Asian sources from along the silk road.

Here's another reason I like the fig tree as the root of the boteh symbol (image from the website: teamorganicnyc.com) HINT: it sure would be nice if Our Moderator would embed this one as well...

The internal structure is not that far from what we see in some boteh renderings, although I admit that this is a bit of a stretch:
Fig or boteh ? You tell me...



Regards,
Chuck Wagner

__________________
Chuck Wagner

Hi Filiberto,

I think you have assembled some interesting evidence that is fairly convincing that the boteh is an ancient design. These examples certainly pre-date any of the rugs and other textiles that we usually discuss and debate. However, I wonder whether going as far back as possible will bring us closer to an understanding of the design lineage of botehs in particular weaving groups.

My questions are:

1) Is there likely to be an "original common source" for the boteh design (maybe Adam's fig leaf)?
2) Does finding the earliest documented sources of this design provide sufficient evidence for a common source?
3) Does the fact that some of the earliest examples were produced in urban workshops necessarily mean that this is the case in other places and at other times?

My concern is that there is a huge time and socio-cultural gap between 800-600 BC and the 16th-19th century, so tracing the use of the boteh for that length of time is going to be difficult. Should we also be looking for somewhat more recent examples of the use of boteh in different regions to determine whether it is likely that its use developed in parallel or through diffusion?

James.

Dear folks -

I'm looking at this thread late and perhaps dysfunctionally.

I notice that a few post back someone uses the term "buta" rather than the more usual "boteh."

This just to indicate that awhile back there was an exhibition at The TM here in DC, on shawls that featured the "buta" in their design. Kashmir shawls in particular.

One thing that struck me about the guest curator of this exhibition is that she always, always used "buta" and never deferred to "boteh."

I'm not sure of the implications but it was apparently an important distinction.

Here's a link to previous exhibitions at the TM.

http://www.textilemuseum.org/exhibitions/previous.htm

If you look down a bit you will see the "Garden of Shawls" exhibtion with its "buta" usage.

Regards,

R. John Howe

Hi Chuck, James

Some challenge, at least!

Chuck – look, Coptic textiles aren’t my cup of tea but if the guys at the Musée Historique des Tissues de Lyon classify these as Coptic, I think they know what are talking about.

quote:

---

That the pieces you show are made of silk is telling in itself; this is a product of import to ancient Egypt. I would have no problem linking such pieces (particulary because of the execution of the designs) to south or east Asian sources from along the silk road.

---

quote:

---

My concern is that there is a huge time and socio-cultural gap between 800-600 BC and the 16th-19th century, so tracing the use of the boteh for that length of time is going to be difficult. Should we also be looking for somewhat more recent examples of the use of boteh in different regions to determine whether it is likely that its use developed in parallel or through diffusion?

---

Correction

Hi John,

Correction:
While all the sources I have consulted agree that Boteh means “a cluster of leaves, or a shrub”, the Encyclopædia Britannica says for Buta:

Buta - (Hindi-Urdu: “flower”), one of the most important ornamental motifs of Mughal Indian art, consisting of a floral spray with stylized leaves and flowers. It is used in architecture and painting and in textiles, enamels, and almost all other decorative arts. The motif began to gain importance in the reign of the Mughal emperor Jahangir (1605–27)

The distinction is important. Etymology is another good starting point in the search for the origins of Boteh and Buta.
Regards,

Filiberto

John mentioned the TM "Garden of Shawls" exhibition.
It was reviewed by HALI, here is the full article.

And here a few excerpts:

The theme of the talks then turned to Kashmir shawls, and another excellent lecture followed, from Dr Jeff Spurr of the Aga Khan Program for Islamic Architecture, Harvard University. This talk, packed with verbal and visual information, explored the impact of the Kashmir shawl in 19th century Iran, both in male and female dress and as the inspiration for Caucasian rug design. It also discussed the relationship of the Kashmir shawl to its Kermani counterpart.
…
Dr Spurr turned to the subject of Kashmiri influence on Caucasian rugs after an already full 40 minutes, but the unmistakable buta designs of Senneh kilims and Kuba and Shirvan rugs with their echoes of striped shawl design were an appropriate coda to what had gone before.
…
The afternoon session started with Dr Eunice Maguire's talk 'Shawl design and reflections from the gardens of Kashmir'- an account of the theories behind the exhibition she has curated at the TM. She broke down the elements of shawl design into four essential components: boundaries and architectural elements, alternation, and encapsulation or overlay. Positing a "deeply coded and complex system of encapsulation" with roots in far earlier art and design than the Kashmir shawl itself, Dr Maguire cited a wide range of textiles and paintings, from a 13th century Armenian manuscript, 15th century Herat painting to a 5th-6th century Coptic textile, in evidence of the continuity of this type of design.

Synthesizing the synthesis, it seems that:

- it was said that there is a “continuity of design” between “a 5th-6th century Coptic textile” (see? Nothing new under the sun ) and the “Kashmir Shawls”. My guess is that the design should be the boteh/buta.

- However, there was also an “impact of the Kashmir shawl in 19th century Iran, both in male and female dress and as the inspiration for Caucasian rug design”.


Regards,

Filiberto

Hi Filiberto

...cited a wide range of textiles and paintings, from a 13th century Armenian manuscript, 15th century Herat painting to a 5th-6th century Coptic textile, in evidence of the continuity of this type of design.

I'd categorize this as supporting evidence if there is something more compelling to which it can be attached. The fact that similar motifs can be found in objects dating to different times doesn't prove continuity or even come close to it. For example, the Andean textile with the boteh-like device, which dates to the 11th-15th century is very unlikely to be part of some design continuity leading to paisley shawls.

The burden of proof rests with the proponent of a hypothesis - the detractor's proper role is to throw obstacles into its path.

Regards

Steve Price

Hi Steve,

I know, I know, but it’s to soon for jumping to conclusion, be patient.

I need to put together the material available first, including the current opinions on the matter. I’m doing it bit by bit: for lack of time and in the hope that somebody else could add interesting information.

I quoted HALI for another reason: to show that evidently the Coptic textiles connection was already spotted.

Regards,

Filiberto

Hi Filiberto

I wasn't jumping to the conclusion that the Coptic connection is wrong, just pointing out that the conclusion that it is right isn't warranted just yet. You obviously recognize this, it's likely that Dr. Spurr does, too, but his talk to a lay audience probably didn't put much emphasis on that fact.

Regards

Steve Price

P.R.J. Ford’s Oriental Carpet Design

“THE BOTEH” is the title of P.R.J. Ford’s “Oriental Carpet Design” first chapter.

Ford lists a series of possible origins of the motif along with examples of the boteh in other mediums.
Two of the latter are illustrated and not particularly convincing, in my opinion.

One is a sketch of the “decoration of applied-leather plant motif on a leather flask from the Pazyrik tombs (fifth century BC). Hermitage Museum”.



I find this particularly unconvincing.

The other is a “Decorated stone capital from the Nau-i-Gombad mosque, Balkh (ninth century)”.
Instead of scanning the book, I searched for more photos on this useful website
ArchNet where the mosque is listed under “No Gumbad”. It’s located in Balkh, Afghanistan, dated first half of 9th c. - The style is Abbaside.

The sites has 61 photos of the mosque, some of them in B&W, from around 1960. Guess who took them? The late Josephine Powell.

Here’s one, “Reproduced (on ArchNet) with permission of the Fine Arts Library of the Harvard College Library”:



This one is more recent and is almost identical to the one in Ford’s:



A bit more on the target, but it depends on how you read it.

It could be a blossom, could it be?



Enough on images, for the moment. What is interesting in Ford’s text?

He says that “Its wide use (of the boteh) in Turki-speaking north-west Persia may be older and that the elaborate version of Khorassan and of town like Qum may represent more recent refinements. Against this must be set the fact that in Turkey the design is practically unknown”.
On which I partially agree… Let’s say that the boteh is known in Turkey but scarcely used.

… the origin of the motif can be traced to a plant form… (agreed) but if one were to ask a weaver in India – where the motif is widely used in carpet design - he might call it a “suggi”, which means a female parrot.... because …the design resembles a parrot’s head and beak, or even a whole parrot. Other Indians call it the lichee design, but both these names seems to be cases of weavers adopting a design from an alien tradition and then reading their own meaning into it… as far as modern oriental carpets are concerned, the whole principle of attaching ‘meaning’ or ‘symbolism’ to the motifs is highly suspect.

Last words should be carved in marble, if you ask me

After considering the “palm tree”, and “evil eye” theories, Ford cites the research of a S.V.R. Cammann printed in 1973 on Washington Textile Museum Journal, dealing with religious and mythological origin of carpets motifs. The suggested origin of the boteh was a ”sun-bird”, but he (Cammann) stressed that “it is perfectly possible that the forms of the motif which we know today may have been derived from several different originals in different places”.

Another relevant point: Ford asserts that “The boteh does not appear in known carpets as an independent design until the eighteen century. Guess he means not before 1800, as Ian Bennett wrote in his last book.
In any case Ford presents, in the Indo-Mir section of “the Boteh” chapter, an Indian cotton bedcover dated 1786, from the V&A Museum… Which is also the earliest example of modern boteh on a textile I have found so far:



Well… these botehs do look like parrots, don’t they?

Logically, after the Indo-Mir bedcover, the next installment will be on “Kashmir Shawls and the Paisley design”.

Cheers,

Filiberto:

Birds

G'day Filberto and all,

You reckon parrots, I reckon penquins - at least those in the lower 'elem' ...

I have a field just like it - the Indo Mir's or even the Persian version do something visually for me. Somehow virtually, fascinating.

And I love those penquins...

Regards,
Marty.

Apols

Filiberto, my apologies, its all in your name - Filiberto, for my recent address to you.

Regards,
Marty.

Hi Marty,

Never mind.
Yes, they have a penguinish look too. Pretty unlikely fauna in India, the penguins.
Unless they were on a tour, and they were dressed like the locals…
Regards,

Filiberto

Indian Parrots??

Hi Filiberto and all,

The "Indian parrot" theory sounds interesting, but exactly what sort of Indian parrot might this be? According to my information (I have also consulted three Indian bird field guides), India has a number of species of parakeets and a couple of small hanging parrots (lorikeet), but none of the other parrot species. Parakeets have thick beaks, long thin bodies, and long thin tails. Lorikeets are small and have relatively unimpressive small beaks.

Here is a picture of the most common Indian parakeet ("rose-ringed")...



So these boteh figures don't look much like an Indian "parrot" to me. It actually looks more like a Kea, which is found in New Zealand.



Squawk, squawk....

James.

James, it could be the Ziziphus Lotus Psittacula Himalayana, more commonly known as the “Indian Lotus and Fig Tree Parrot”.
Ornithologically,

Filiberto

Jokes apart, there IS really a Psittacula himalayana himalayana:



Distribution: Eastern Afghanistan to Northern India, Assam North of Brahmaputra, Nepal.

Hi Filiberto,

These parakeets don't look much like the botehs, in my opinion.

Cheeeep!

James.

Oh, perhaps, like me, those ignorant Indian weavers didn’t distinguish between a parrot, a parakeet and a boteh...

Boteh

G'day James and Filiberto, all

When thinking of boteh pattern rugs, Im reminded of one smallish piece I missed because it was rolled up and so stiff I wasnt able to roll it flat on the floor.

It was a white field Bihar, and had five very large boteh drawn from many coloured outlines. I forget which border type, except remember the borders were very narrow compared to the space of the field and the few elements.

The boteh of this rug appeared more like a large shooting onion! If the rug wasnt so hard and stiff I would have bought it - when I went back it was gone ...

Regards,
Marty.

Hi Filiberto...

Sorry for the misinformation in my edited post. A parakeet is in the Order of parrots (psittacines). Getting back to botehs, some of them look like certain, roundish species of parrots with short tails, but they don't look like parakeets, which is what an Indian weaver would see.

James.

Well, James, I’m not responsible for P.R.J. Ford.
He’s the one who wrote:
but if one were to ask a weaver in India – where the motif is widely used in carpet design - he might call it a “suggi”, which means a female parrot.....
You are in India: ask a weaver!
Cheers,

Filiberto
P.S.
WARNING! With reference to Marty's last message...
The first one who dares to post a picture of a shooting onion in this thread will be shot on the spot!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Filiberto Boncompagni
P.S.
WARNING! With reference to Marty's last message...
The first one who dares to post a picture of a shooting onion in this thread will be shot on the spot!

---

…or perhaps shot on the post???!!!

As long as we are speculating...

I hesitate to post this, because people may think I am kidding. I am not, and I've had this thought for a very long time, even collected a number of photo examples before I realized how futile the exercise was.

Given the penchant of the weaving peoples to represent earth and life-cycle themes, I’ve always thought the boteh might represent a mother’s breasts. The common insertion of artifacts within the boteh may represent the mother’s-milk-of-life. Many botehs even have a nipple like appendage. ,

Please, there would be no way to prove this. But it has always seemed a possibility to me, especially given that other life-birth associated female anatomy are apparently plentifully represented in carpets...see Salor gul for example.

Regards, Jack

Hi Jack,

Hummm… Photo examples of what exactly?
(suddenly interested)

Filiberto

Specs

Heh heh Sorry, but the boteh REALLY looked like a (perhaps I should have said) 'sprouting' onion ...

Unfortunately, it is likely the speculation about just what is the design meaning of the boteh will continue ad infinitum.

I do think the climactic elephant is the unlikeliest so far ...

Regards,
Marty.

Hi Marty,

So far:

It’s a “leaf” (Sacred Fig tree – Lotus – Ziziphus lotus – Jujuba) or a “shrub” (see meaning of boteh)
It’s a “fig”.
It’s a “flower” ” (see meaning of buta) or “bunch of flowers".
It’s a “pine cone” (from Ford’s book)
It’s a “mango” (Ford)
It’s a “suggi” (female parrot - Ford)
It’s a “lichee” (Ford)
It’s a “palm crown” (Ford)
It’s a “evil eye” (Ford)
It’s a “sun bird” (Ford)
It’s an “animal form” of possible Scythian origin (Ford)
It’s a “Zoroastrian flame” (Ford)
It’s a “Cypress” (various sources)

The following from Wikipedia article on the Paisley motif:

It’s a “Turkish tughra”
It’s a “floral spray”
It’s a “fractal”
It’s a “medicinal leech” sometimes a “pregnant leech” (YUK!)

We could add our “penguin”, “sprouting onion” and “mother’s breasts” (that “number of photo examples” conjures some pictures… ).
Give it some time and somebody will find a similarity with elephants.

Regards,

Filiberto
P.S.
And I forgot the "al-Masjid al-Haram" layout, sorry.

Hi Filiberto

You also forgot the map of South America. If it includes the political boundaries, you have "mother and child" botehs.

Regards

Steve Price

Yes, Steve, that’s for the “Andean Boteh”, of course.

Let’s try to regain some SERIOUSNESS here.

Ha-hum...Where was I? Uh, the paisley motif, of course.

Which takes us to the famous Shawls woven in Kashmir.

On this site you’ll find an excerpt from the book “Shawls” (1955), written by the late John Irwin, an Indian-born British researcher, at the time Assistant Keeper in the Indian Section of the Victoria and Albert Museum. (Note: in 1973 he published another book, The Kashmir Shawl – it’s not clear if the excerpt comes from the first or the second book - or if the second book was simply a revised edition of the first).

The article is a fascinating panorama of the Kashmir Shawls.

What interests us is the following passage:

At this period the characteristic motive of Kashmir shawl-design was a slender flowering plant with roots (Fig. 1) It combined the grace and delicacy of Persian floral ornament (from which it was ultimately derived) with the naturalism characteristic of seventeenth-century Mughal art. In the early eighteenth century, this simple floral motive was treated more formally, and the number of flowers stemming from a single plant increased (Fig. 2). At about the same time it ceased to be depicted as a flower with roots and merged with another well-known Indo Persian decorative motive-the conventional vase-of flowers. Many of the eighteenth century forms betray their dual origin by retaining both the vase and the appearance of root-growth. The name given to these floral motives was buta, meaning literally ‘flower’, and it was not until the middle of the eighteenth century that the outline of the motive began to harden into the rigid formal shape which later come to be known in the West as the cone or pine (but still unknown in Kashmir as buta). Although this motive had antecedents in Near Eastern textile patterns of the seventh or eighth centuries A.D. (NOTE: it’s the Coptic connection?) the cone in the varied forms in which it became associated with shawls was clearly the product of separate development.

Independently of the Kashmir buta, another type of cone based on the leaf-form appeared more or less simultaneously in Persian decorative art. This Persian form had an important influence on the subsequent development of the Kashmir cone, giving rise to a variety of cone forms which were common to Indo-Persian art of the period.

A further stage was reached in the first quarter of the nineteenth century, when the Kashmir cone began to lose trace of its naturalistic, floral origin and became a purely conventional form (Fig. 6). This prepared the way for a final stage of abstraction when the cone became elongated and transformed into a scroll-like unit as part of a complicated over-all pattern (Fig. 8).
As guides to dating, the different stages in the development of the cone must be regarded with caution. Because a certain form came into vogue at a certain period, it did not necessarily follow that earlier types were superseded. In fact, it often happened that the older well-tried motives and patterns outlived new. Figures from 1 to 8 are assembled in this picture:



Regards,

Filiberto

Filiberto -

I wish I could remember more of what was said in the walk-through by the visiting TM curator of the shawls exhibition who insisted on "buta."

As I recall, there is even a plant-based reason why the "buta" often exhibits a tip that turns over and down.

Regards,

R. John Howe

G'day Filiberto,

Bravo! From your extract and examples it would be pretty hard to refute the evidence given; those varieties of boteh/buta which we see everywhere now nearly all show some clear relationship to those you have shown.

Intreguing little element isnt it?

Regards,
Marty.

quote:

---

As I recall, there is even a plant-based reason why the "buta" often exhibits a tip that turns over and down.

---

Marty,

quote:

---

Intreguing little element isnt it?

---

ornamental device

Salut à tous

My opinion about the boteh is the following :

- the first origin of this motif is to be searched among peoples that have in an early times developped a high skill in ornamental design with a style that give a contourned shape to representations of animals and vegetal elements (flourish, "fioriture" style). We find this style of ornamentation in central asia peoples : Pazyryk excaved materials and east Turkestan tombs give very good ex of this contourned vegetal or animal style. So I find that the Pazyryk ex given by Ford is not a so wrong thread for the protype of boteh ancestor. All of those peoples have lived longtime before Christ.

- as those decorative crafts were the production of court craftmens and workshops it is likely to envisage a relative continuity in production and design of court objects from a king to an other. This continuity ( to be prouved with some evidences) could have been effective until middle age central asian kingdoms. Mughal, Sassanid, Saffavid styles are not so far from the original contourned decoratve style of the old central asia civilisations. There is no historic or stylistic gap. The continuity is to be found also in islamic style

- the boteh design has prospered on this historic and stylistic background until to be transformed in a kind of archetype of vegetal ornamentation. The reasons why are not known : fashion, easily recognizable shape, possibilty of a symbol of prosperity (vegetation is synonymous of crops and prosperity and seasonal rebirth...) or maternity (generous rounded shape in the low part of the boteh, breast shape, en capsulated/closed design with a containing and a contents). The pregnant mother and child boteh gives a good ex of this symbolism.

- the boteh can have became a very popular design for two reasons : it was a sign of royalty or court art (a "chic" device), it was very recognizable because of its absolutly foreign and non tribal assymetric shape (all classical tribal symbols -guls, crosses, kotchanak ... - are symetric -central or axial- except some animal renderings).

- the boteh has been cooked with numerous tribal sauces : persian, caucasian, ersari, baloutch.... In each case tribal weavers have interpretated the boteh with their proper aesthetic codes. All different but all easily recognizable. This tribalisation can give to the boteh either a vegetal appearence or an animal appearence (certain baloutch botehs are really scorpions, other can be elephants...). And every weaving people has projected on the boteh his proper symbolic world.

- the boteh with its assymetric shape gives to the weavers possibilities that symetric devices like guls cannot. When you fill your rug field with guls it takes a very calm appearence that can became a quite stiffy graveyard if done without spirit ! In using botehs for filling a rug field you can create a very efficient animation of the design in using the mirored botehs in alternated rows or diagonals or columns. The dynamic visual effect is guaranteed.

- one question remains : why some weaving peoples have never used botehs ? Village anatolian rugs and kilims, turkmen rugs (except ersari/ beshir) are boteh free. May be those isolated peoples (anatolia) have been cut from any contact with boteh culture which was an urban workshop culture, or may be the cutural conservatism of tribes (turkmens) was stronger than the effects of a foreign fashion.

That's all folks

Hi Louis,

I agree with most of what you say, albeit I have a much more simple explanation for the “boteh phenomenon” that includes your last point:
- one question remains : why some weaving peoples have never used botehs ?
and also this important one:



I’m waiting to finish with all the material I have found so far. It should take a couple of more days, after that I’ll write my conclusion.
In the meantime, I ask the others to hold their fire, so to speak.
Regards,

Filiberto

Resuming John Irwin’s words, the Indian “buta” had its origins from the Persian vase-of-flowers, and in the middle of the eighteenth century the outline of the motive began to harden into the rigid formal shape which later come to be known in the West as the cone or pine.
Independently of the Kashmir buta, another type of cone based on the leaf-form appeared more or less simultaneously in Persian decorative art. This Persian form had an important influence on the subsequent development of the Kashmir cone, giving rise to a variety of cone forms which were common to Indo-Persian art of the period. That, I infer, ultimately ended with the “Paisley” motif.

So, “buta” and “boteh” influenced each other and appeared in the middle of the eighteenth century.

Fair enough. It didn’t look fair to Cyrus Perham, though.

Cyrus Perham is an Iranian carpet researcher and has published several articles and books. He already presented a lecture at ICOC-X: Cyrus Parham, Iran The Botteh Motif. (Note: the “botteh” spell should be the correct one – coming from an Iranian, he should know - and I’ll live that when quoting Perham).

I don’t have the text of the ICOC lecture but I found the translation of an article published in 1999 (Nashr-e Danesh, vol.16, no. 4, 1378, Tehran), that “was the first comprehensive well-documented writing on the millennia-old history of the botteh motif and its Iranian origin”. Full text but unfortunately no images here.

In this article Perham confutes Irwin’s book of 1973.
Perhaps in that book Irwin tended more toward an Indian origin of the “boteh”: see reference to the Butiya (Butea frondosa) four posts above.

In any case Perham, with a marked nationalistic fervor, upholds the thesis that the “well known botteh motif whose nature, identity, enigmatic and symbolic meaning are still subjects of controversy amongst art scholars” is Persian!

"The simplest and the most modest form of it,- a leaf-like shape – along with those of most stylized and highly intricate, Used in various kinds of curvilinear and geometrical bodies, have continuously and persistently remained since at least 1000 years ago."
A leaf-like shape, at least on this I agree.

Perham writes of several examples. As I said, the original illustration are omitted so I tried to search for them using the text references.
One of the following should be the “carved stucco revetment found in Nishabur and preserved at the Metropolitan Museum of Art (PL.4)”:





The photos, courtesy of the MET, are too small – I tried to crop and enlarge some details:



Notice how the motif inscribed in the eight-pointed star on the left is similar to the Yin and Yang.



And this should be “the 11th century panel of stucco relief revetment from the Madrasa of Ray”, but I’m not sure.



Then Perham says that “toward the end of the third decade of the 15th we encounter the ancient motif depicted as Botteh Jegheh, that is, a royal ornament on crowns and head,”and it became “the symbol of sovereignty and absolute power…
in the same period we find this ancient symbolic motif adorning precious fabrics, often woven with royal gold-thread, because they were treated respectfully and not spread under the feet, thus protected from irreverence and insult whether the botteh was used as the symbol of royalty (Pls. 7,8) or as a decorative ornament in the fashion of the garment in pl.2.”
And this is the reason why “we see no botteh motif in classic Safavid carpets” : out of respect for the royal symbol.
“In the same period, when the carpets of the royal or aristocratic workshops were devoid of the botteh motif, Tribal and village weavers, unmindful of the royal status of the botteh, and quite possibly unaware of its sacredness, continued to use the ancient motif in innumerable innovative styles in their carpets. The widely used tribal and rural botteh, often curiously stylized and abstracted,was neither a copy of the intrinsic Kashmir or kerman shawl nor of the emblematic botteh jegheh ornament of the crowns and headdresses of kings, princes, and rulers. The tribal botteh repertoire, constantly enriched by cross-cultural assimilation and innovation, reached back over the eons to the primeval source.” (The emphasis is mine.)

This is the only example of the “botteh jegheh” I was able to find, a miniature of 17th century, Reza Abbasi Museum. See personage in the middle, Shah Abbas I. IF that is the “botteh jegheh”, it looks suspiciously Chinese, with those cloudbands around:



There must be better examples, but does it really matter if the boteh on carpets, wasn’t a copy of the emblematic botteh jegheh ornament of the crowns and headdresses of kings, princes, and rulers?

Well, I have now presented the most relevant information on the boteh I have found.

I’ll let you ponder the following question: How do we go from this:



To this:



Passing probably from here:



Without forgetting this one too!



At this point, I have made up my mind and I’ll write my conclusion shortly.

Regards,

Filiberto

Leaf or flowers?

Hi Filiberto,

I eagerly await Filiberto's grand finale... While we are waiting and at the risk of pre-emption, I thought I would reiterate that it seems like there are two separate themes in the development of the boteh. One is the "leaf motif", which has a compact, leaf-shaped form from an early stage. The other theme is the "cluster of flowers", which gradually condenses into the characteristic Indian "boteh/buta" design (note that I am discounting the parrot analogy). With regard to the "flower cluster" I would mention that Mughal monuments and other monuments from different eras and locations (like Dravidian in S. India) are replete with floral clusters of various kinds. Here is a marble inlay from the Red Fort in Delhi (one of my personal favourites). Note the two "floating" designs in the upper right and left corners of the field. For some reason, they remind me of Chinese "cloudband" types of motifs.



Following on the "cluster of flowers" concept, it strikes me that continues to be prominent in some weaving groups, especially the Afshar. Here is a particularly explicit floral version on a rug my father owns (note: I don't know its attribution, though previously on a Turkotek discussion it was attributed to "Quchan").



My father was not convinced that it is a "boteh" and others might not either, but compare it to the following Qashqai version (From Jozan's Educational Rug Gallery) and decide... It seems like a move from the abstract back to the literal.



James.

MY CONCLUSION

Thank you James for the supplementary and useful images…

I’m afraid that it will be more a “grand delusion” instead of a “grand finale”. A delusion is the natural following of an illusion.
The illusion about the “boteh” is that it has mysterious “nature, identity, enigmatic and symbolic meaning”.
Not at all: it’s a LEAF! It was born as a leaf, it became a “bunch of leaves”, or “shrub” or BOTEH in Farsi. It subsequently “met” the Indian “buta”, i.e. a bunch of flowers, and some versions of the boteh started incorporating flowers.

But let’s start with order.

Leaves and flowers are the most common, natural and universal elements of decorations I could think about. Albeit probably the first decorations (on pottery and so on) were geometrical, every people, culture, nation used vegetable motifs as well.

Don’t we have plants and flowers at home as decoration? Don’t girl used (well, not anymore in our technological society) to put flowers in their hair? No wonder that people started copying them whenever they need a graphic ornamentation. No wonder that we found graphically rendered leaves.

Look again at the Coptic textiles at the beginning of this thread. The “botehs” are curled leaves, aren’t they? I didn’t hear anybody contesting it.

Now, look at the Mughal marble inlay from the Red Fort in Delhi posted by James above.
In the “frame” we see flowers and curled leaves, no?
Where is the big deal?

Besides…. Remember: around the time those Coptic textile were woven, a new civilization rose: the Islamic one.

An HUGE characteristic of the Islamic art was it’s use of decoration.
They loved covering surfaces with highly intricate decoration. Which – besides the calligraphy – came in two flavors: the Geometrical and the Curvilinear Plant Form.
If you have a book on Islamic art, have a look at the illustrations: you’re likely to find several examples of curled leaves.

Was there a continuity of design between the Coptic leaf and the Mughal one? Well, of course, in a way it was the use of vegetal elements as decorations that never stopped.

Nevertheless, the “boteh” is not simply a curled leaf.

It was when somebody started using it as a single element of decoration out of its usual context, that the “boteh” acquired a life of its own.

As Louis wrote above, it’s the asymmetry of the motif that opened a new horizon to weavers and designers.

WHERE it was used first I don’t know. Possibly, if John Irwin is right, the “boteh” evolved simultaneously with the asymmetric form of the Kashmir “buta”.

Perhaps it happened through the Kerman shawls.

It should have been in the 18th century and MUCH likely in an urban milieu.

Cyrus Parham’s “Botteh Jegheh”, the royal boteh, could have played a role in the phenomenon BUT I don’t think there was any “symbolic” connection.

The new-born “boteh” was a “commercial” decoration only and was a successful FASHION too. It was promptly copied by – let’s say – commercial weavers.
It wasn’t part of a tradition anyway. If you see botehs copied on tribal rugs, it was because the patterns sold well.
If you look at tribal or rustic flatweaves, though, the music changes. The boteh is pretty rare in Caucasus and north-western Persian flatweaves. Flatweaves motifs are more conservative and the new fashion wasn't much appreciated on them.
But it’s more common around Kerman, isn’t it?

Turkey….I don’t know exactly why, but in Turkey the boteh wasn’t successful. I found a few Anatolian rugs with curved-leaves-looking-botehs on them (and a Sivas that seems a copy of a Kerman shawl) but they weren’t used in the “boteh way”.

Now there’s only one small detail left out: the Andean textile presented by Steve.
I have to go now, I’ll take again the subject later.
And you, any idea?

Regards,

Filiberto

Hi Filiberto, et all,

More later, but for now, I agree - no botehs in the inlay. Further, those stuccos that Parham likes look more like the classic (and very old) Taoist yin-yang figures. The small inset is clearly a set of wings and bears no resemblance to a boteh whatsoever.

If I am reading correctly into your observations, you're OK with the idea that the boteh may have had AT LEAST had one starting point, in India. Parallel development elsewhere - maybe - why not ? Leaves and flowers are rather ubiquitous.

Regards,
Chuck

__________________
Chuck Wagner

Very funny, Filiberto, but what do you really think? Sue

Hi Chuck:

quote:

---

WHERE it was used first I don’t know. Possibly, if John Irwin is right, the “boteh” evolved simultaneously with the asymmetric form of the Kashmir “buta”.

---

Hi Chuck, Filiberto, et al

Leaves, flowers and birds are probably the most common motifs (and, by extension, ancestors of other motifs). As Filiberto points out, flowers are beautiful and colorful. I think that's part of the story, but that there's more to it. Flowers and leaves have the mysterious (and symbolic) property of being able to die and be born again. That's pretty powerful stuff, and is likely to be as significant as their beauty, maybe much more so. The ability to die and then be reborn goes straight to the heart of what may be the most pressing issue in most (if not all) cultures. In addition, fertility is a matter of great practical importance, and this has been nearly universally true until well into the 20th century. Children were the source of support and protection in old age. Not having children was not a trivial problem.

Birds, too have special places. Their beauty, of course. But also, they can do what humans can't even do badly - they can fly. We can't swim as well a fish or seals, but we can swim. We can't run or jump like big cats, but we can run and jump. But flight, for nearly all of human history, was the stuff of myths.

All of this is preamble to the possibility that the Andean "boteh" is a stylized bird. I don't know enough about Andean cultures to have an opinion worth worrying about, but the folks who wrote the catalog from which I got that textile image describe the device as stylized birds.

Regards

Steve Price

Hi Filiberto and Chuck.

I agree that the flower inlay is a far cry... I was alluding back to this progression in John Irwin's writing.



Figure 1 looks like those Red Fort inlays, but are those little red cloudbands in the upper corners of the inlay?

It is a bit interesting that by the late 19th and 20th centuries we still have asymmetric flower groupings along with all sorts of leaf-like designs.

Cheers,

James.

Hi Steve,

quote:

---

the folks who wrote the catalog from which I got that textile image describe the device as stylized birds

---

OK, I clarify the post above:
the Coptic motif is apparently more similar to the classical boteh, but is not used as such.
The Andean ones are much more stylized and simplified but they are USED exactly as we should expect, say, in a Persian or Caucasian rug.

Filiberto

A more general clarification:

I don’t think that the origin of the boteh motif is important. Don’t waste your time on it, IMHO.

Whatever it was in origin, for the fact that it was asymmetric, it became an element of a new style of decoration in an urban, commercial environment.
That’s the originality of it – the use.

Well, that’s for the Indo-Persian boteh, the Andean is another matter. But it’s surprising that the Andean one is used in the same way.

Filiberto

Hi Filiberto

I don't know a thing about Andean textiles except that they can be very beautiful and sometimes show surprising resemblances to things from other places. Sorry, I just don't know what the basis of the stylized birds description is in the catalog; I just tossed it in for completeness.

Interestingly, some pre-Columbian figural ceramics have faces remarkably similar in style to those on some African masks and sculptures.

Regards

Steve Price

Hi Filiberto,

I get the point about how the USE of the boteh is an innovation. By use I am assuming you mean the display of these asymmetric designs in an all-over and sometimes abstract pattern. Is that what you had in mind?

If so, then how did this use of the boteh disseminate to so many weaving groups, but not to others?

James.

Hi James,

You got the idea.

Turkey apart, it was well disseminated, no? Think about it: Persia, Caucasus, Afghanistan, Central Asia…



Filiberto

(added later... I think the dissemination was a matter of cultural influence - or the lack of it)

P.P.S. I think the dissemination was a matter of cultural AND commercial influence or the lack of it

Hi all,

I have scoured my art history library, all four books, and have found a few of interesting images to share with you. I'm not sure how much they contribute to the conversation, but they're interesting nevertheless.

Curiously, a review of the catalog of the enormous and worldwide Rockefeller Collection of Primitive Art produced no instances of the boteh design, including the ancient South American examples.

A few interesting images were found in:

"Islam, Art and Architecture", edited by Hattstein and Delius; primary organization by geographic distribution.
"Uzbekistan, Heirs to the Silk Road" edited by Kalter and Pavaloi, primary organization by age.

One must keep in mind that Islam had reached most of Central Asia by 750 A.D., which is comtemporary with the Coptic textile examples that Filiberto showed us in his earlier posts. The first image shows some 9th - 11th century pottery from northern Afghanistan or Central Asia. Note the pattern around the lid of the piece on the right:




The next is the north portal of the Divrigi Ulu Cami, dating from 1228-1229, and build by a Seljuk Turk. These ruins have several asymmetrical vegetal motifs that are reminiscent of the boteh and predate the Safavid dynasty:



Next, for the fig leaf skeptics, a 15th century miniature painting from West Turkestan:




And, finally, a painting of the governor of Teheran, dated 1854, wearing a robe covered with botehs (I wonder if this made using a Kashmiri textile product):


Now, some boteh pictures.

The manner of boteh rendering is certainly a discussion of its own. Filiberto has already shown several levels of complexity in his images. Here are some more. First, a couple late 19th century-early 20th century Afshar botehs. Each have significant internal detail:





Contrast those with this turn-of-the-century Bakhtiari runner. The definition of "what a boteh is" changed several times as this piece was built, but complex and elegant never made it into the plan:




And now, from The Bed Room of the Wagner Rug Museum , something for James; an implicit boteh ? in the border of a modern Qom carpet:




And, a boteh in a distictly floral setting from a modern Persian woodblock print fabric:



Last, from another room of the Wagner Rug Museum , some Isfahani and Tabrizi botehs:





One final observation: we rarely see the boteh in a reciprocal setting, like the yin-yang figures of Taoism. For me, this contributes additional weight to the argument that this is primarily a vegetal motif rather than a curvilinear geometric motif.

Regards,
Chuck Wagner

__________________
Chuck Wagner

Hi Chuck,

Thank you for the supplementary images.
That Bakhtiari runner is a real anthology of botehs… whose vegetal origin shouldn’t be questioned, IF “bothe” means “shrub” in Persian.

As for the Andean variety, whose name is probably unknown, I’m waiting for a scan promised by Louis Dubreuil.

Filiberto

Hi all

Filiberto: "IF “bothe” means “shrub” in Persian."

What has become to be called boteh may not always have been associated with a shrub. I can't earnestly believe that 6th or 7th century (?) Sassanian masonry from Nishapur or 9th century Koptic textiles should so prominently feature a profane shrub - it would at least have to be a sacred one. Any suggestions in that direction?

If not, how about this? Dualistic concepts in religion and philosophy at the time were traded in the old world at every corner between the British Isles and China (Ying-Yang, eternal battle between good and evil, dualism of Christ man and Christ god etc.). In image language this was expressed by those two leaves curling into one another (Nishapur). When and where Islam had firmly established itself, dualism had become substituted by strict monotheism; only one leave remained (the other had become obsolete) and has gone on ever since being interpreted in never ending ways.

Horst

Hi Horst,

You say What has become to be called boteh may not always have been associated with a shrub… I have no objection to that.

About Dualism… No question either, there are ancient symbols that have different meanings to different cultures.

Take the swastika. In antiquity, the swastika was used extensively by the Indo-Aryans, Hittites, Celts and Greeks, among others. In particular, the swastika is a sacred symbol in Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism — religions with billions of adherents worldwide, making the swastika ubiquitous in both historical and contemporary society. Recent discoveries have shown that Indus Valley Civilization also used the swastika symbol.
It occurs in other Asian, European, African and Native American cultures – sometimes as a geometrical motif, sometimes as a religious symbol. (from Wikipedia and confirmed by my “Dictionnaire des Symboles – Jean Chevalier, Alain Gheerbrant”.)

This is not even Dualism. It has such a multitude of meanings that we can coin a new word for it :“Multi-ism” (Ugh!).
But the swastikas we see on oriental rugs could have been used as simple decoration, no? And, if you don’t think so, are you able to find out the possible meaning the weaver had in her mind for such a symbol?

I can say EXACTLY the same for the boteh….
Which is, for me, basically, a leaf. A leaf by another name (like the rose) is still a leaf. AND, like the swastika, it was used everywhere by everyone.

Regards,

Filiberto
Note: Gene Williams’ “Pan-Turkic culture” post in the “shar'nuff Afshars” thread has some points regarding origin (tribal or urban) and utilization of motives…

Hi Horst,

Reading again your post I realize that I had misunderstood your hint about Dualism. I thought you meant a symbol with two meanings.
Now I understand.

I can see Dualism in a Yin-Yang representation, but I don’t see how Islam could take one part of it down to mean monotheism or whatever else.
Most of the boteh composition are of botehs shown parallel each other, so I don’t see how “Dualism", or the lack of it, is involved.



So far you have given me the impression that you reject my explanations as too simplistic, knowing that the boteh should be, or MUST BE something of deep and mystical signification. But you haven’t offered a clue of what you really think it is.
May a ask you to express it clearly?
Ciao,

Filiberto

American Boteh

No sign of Louis’ scans.
I have to take on the Andean boteh.

My first thought was:

- Technique-Generated Designs.

Honestly I don’t know the technique of that Andean textile… Besides, the design is so simple that the only technical influence I can think about is that a weaver is forced to stylize a pattern in most of flat-weaving techniques

- Second possibility: independent invention. I didn’t like it but, contrarily to what I have written before, it seems the most logical explanation.

- Third possibility: The pattern was invented in South America and exported to the Asia.
Heck, if chili pepper (not to mention other produce) made it from Mexico
to India, China, Korea and Japan (see wikipedia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_pepper
why not textiles?

Thinking about it… This is a Cayenne chili pepper:



The American boteh is a chili pepper! Eureka!
They used to send chili peppers to India in bags decorated with botehs/chili peppers!

I’m kidding of course. But the textile-from-America theory, even though unlikely, IT ISN’T IMPOSSIBLE.

Regards,

Filiberto

Louis sent me the promised scans.

Here are more pre-Colombian botehs.
From Ferdinan Anton's book ANCIENT PERUVIAN TEXTILES (Thames and Hudson). Plate 164: fragment of a man's garment made with slit tapestry.






Hope he will comment on them

Regards,

Filiberto

Hi Filiberto

no rejection, nothing simplistic about it - it has so far been a light-hearted and as usual, somewhat meandering discussion, it has already covered more aspects than are usually touched on in discussios of the boteh. There also is - and it might be just with me - the feeling that there is still more behind it than what meets the eye.

I have merely made a suggestion into the direction of what it might be. I would like to be clearer about it myself, but unfortunately (time!) I can't work it out in more depth right now.

Cordially,

Horst


p.s. In appreciation of your service to the boteh I'd like to send you this bouquet from Chila/Baku:



Have a nice day,

Horst

Thank you!
Filiberto

Hi Guys,

I'll spare you here from further thoughts of math, calendars, and maps in weavings but wait just a second.
Don't almost all creation myths everywhere pretty much boil down to our ancestors telling us they learned what the did about civilization from traveling strangers?
Wouldn't the most strict conformation to Occam's principle be to believe them?
One crumb on one trail -- Buddha's mother's name was Maya. There are many, many others. Sue

Hi Filiberto,

This was a very interesting thread. You’ve provided some wonderful images as the result of your work. Within the past few years I’ve heard several lectures about the boteh that fail to trace it back nearly as far as you have.

I only contest the conclusion that “it’s a LEAF!” because there is no way of knowing when you have reached the ultimate source, if there is any such thing. Just remember the adage that everything comes from something else. Just when you think you’ve found the Mother Goddess, her grandmother appears. You’ve said as much: “I don’t think that the origin of the boteh motif is important. Don’t waste your time on it, IMHO.”

The boteh appears to be vegetal, but exactly which plant or part probably can’t be resolved. Our opinions will depend on the time period and which group was interpreting the boteh. The Coptic botehs are all set in a vegetal context, which tells us that at least the Coptic weavers consider them to be some form of plant. However, the large scale of the botehs suggests that they may not originally have been associated with the other floral forms as appear in the Coptic material.

Chuck’s fig notion is provocative. The fig is among the earliest domesticated plants and the section of it certainly does look like a boteh. We see pomegranates in many rugs and textiles, so why not figs? Whether it could be a cross section of a fig or a pear or other fruit can’t be determined, but cross sections of various plants are found in Near Eastern and Islamic art, where scientific interest was at its zenith.

For example, here is an image comparing blossoms in three pile rug with one of the many similar blossoms that decorate the interior of the Dome of the Rock (completed 691 A.D.). Yes, there are stylistic differences, but this looks like yet another design continuum that stretches over millennia. If these blossom sections can and did survive, so could the boteh.



There is at least one other reason not to assume that the ultimate source has been found. The photos from Balkh reveal the practice of duality in art. We don’t know whether the boteh was essentially half of an image or was reflected to create an image twice its size. And we’ll never know.

The images from the Met are really similarly intriguing. What looks like a yin and yang symbol is set within the familiar stars and crosses design so commonly found in early architecture and ceramics. Quite commonly, floral motifs are combined with the geometric stars and crosses design. So the boteh as a floral motif is consistent in those panels.


The points of correspondence in the Coptic botehs are too significant for them not to be in a design continuum with the botehs of Mughal India, Savafid Persia and later.

Both the botehs in the Coptic textiles and those we see in the 19th Century rugs and textiles with which we are familiar share these characteristics: the boteh is outlined with what resembles a border; that border contains dots or other ornamentation; the outer edge of the boteh is sometimes serrated (as would be a leaf); the interior of the boteh is decorated in a way as to sometimes resemble leaf veins, but in any event there is decoration within the boteh; the boteh is, by its nature, asymmetrical. Clearly, the boteh is not structurally driven.

Incidentally, to me the Chimu textile doesn’t resemble the Coptic botehs except in the vaguest sense. On the cover of that catalog are many examples of simple geometric forms, many of which resemble what we see in Near East weavings: crosses, diamonds, Z’s, fork-like devices and even S’s that are but a small step removed from what Steve sees as a boteh. These are all easily achieved on a loom and lack the intricacy of the botehs Filiberto has presented.

Good work, Filiberto.

Wendel

Hi Wendel

No disagreement coming from me. I think I was careful not to call the Andean devices botehs, just boteh-like motifs (I might have gotten careless about that, sometimes I do, but I think I kept it as boteh-like). It does illustrate how difficult it is to decide what does and does not fit into a category with vague boundaries.

Regards

Steve Price

Many thanks, Wendel,

I surely can swap the “it’s a LEAF” (but it WAS a leaf in the Coptic textiles) with “it’s a vegetal motif”. After all, in many boteh representations there is a flower or a bunch of flowers inside the outline.
I always wanted to point out to the boteh’s structural characteristics you mentioned

quote:

---

Both the botehs in the Coptic textiles and those we see in the 19th Century rugs and textiles with which we are familiar share these characteristics: the boteh is outlined with what resembles a border; that border contains dots or other ornamentation; the outer edge of the boteh is sometimes serrated (as would be a leaf); the interior of the boteh is decorated in a way as to sometimes resemble leaf veins, but in any event there is decoration within the boteh; the boteh is, by its nature, asymmetrical. Clearly, the boteh is not structurally driven.

---

quote:

---

Buddha's mother's name was Maya

---

Boteh - like

G'day all,

We accept the boteh is what one almost could call a ubiquitous design characteristic, across a large swathe of the rug weaving world.

It is represented in such a plethora of forms to the pleasure of the observer, that it is something which obviously was responsible for a beautifully drawn modern piece I saw on a rug sale site, that unfortunately I am unable to refind but remember well.

The rug itself was described as from Afghanistan, but that usage covers several other countries surrounding it, in the woven goods sense. It was (seemingly - my screen reproduces colour well) a nicely coloured rug, with good design and balance such that I was immediately drawn to the geometric field of fist sized boteh-like objects on a deep red ground.

These were undoubtedly HAND GRENADES!

I couldnt believe my eyes - with an oblique glance it was a wonderfully graphic design taking the interest - which then became a very modern war rug...

What straits has the weaving world succumed to, that it needs to abstract further something which has given pleasure for centuries, to portray an object which gives only horror and hurt!?

I wish I could find that rug again, it was a pattern which grabbed me (I have quite a few boteh hanging out at my place) if only to have a reality check sometimes.

Sorry to bring the 'dog' down on us in this very fascinating subject.

Apologetically,
Marty.

Hi Marty,

Must have been an Afghan War Rug.

Regards,

Filiberto

Hi Marty and Filiberto

One of the lessons taught by the early Afghan war rugs is just how rapidly motifs could morph as new objects took on places of importance in the weaver's world. Botehs became hand grenades, motifs that were derived from floral elements became tanks, etc. All of this happened over a span of just a few years.

Regards

Steve Price

Right, Steve.

And, as a consequence of these rapid changes and morphing...

quote:

---

as far as modern oriental carpets are concerned, the whole principle of attaching ‘meaning’ or ‘symbolism’ to the motifs is highly suspect. - P.R.J. Ford

---

Morphism

G'day Steve and Filiberto, et al,

Which leads us to wonder, in the unlikely event that if the war rug I saw, survives for one or more hundred years, and supposing that hand grenades have long become unknown, and with the then modern electronic media having overwhelmed everywhere and libraries perhaps long extinct, then just what might an observer identify as, the boteh-like objects in the field of the 'antique war rug'?

I shudder for the future

Regards,
Marty.

Hi Marty

Oh, he might think they are flower buds, candle flames, elephant sperm, derivatives of Chinese Yin-Yang symbols, the flasks Pasteur used in his experiments on spontaneous generation, stylized birds, aerial views of South America or of almost any compound with a single path leading out of it, figs, ephedra leaves, comets with tails, probably lots of other things, too.

Then, if he's really interested, he'd find this discussion with a Google search, and it would solve his problem. That's because we have the foresight to archive threads like this one.



Regards

Steve Price

another pictures

Bonjour à tous

In order to make the link between vegetal and animal style here are two pictures of mythologic animals with wings that are near to boteh shape.




About this picture Filiberto wrote "That Sassanid roundel is almost a photocopy of another one found in Nortwest Caucasus but probably made in Sogdiana."
See HALI #92, May1997, "SILK ROUNDELS FROM THE SUI TO THE TANG




Those winged horses is a silk serge fabric and was used as a cushion for the enamel cross of the Pope Paschal (817 - 824) and is said to be Byzantine (8th cent). Museo Sacro Vatican. The author notes that this "pegasus" was exactly the same type of animal as the sassanian original which may be seen on silk fabrics from Antinoe wich are now in Lyon and Berlin. The high degree of stylisation proves that it was made in Byzantium




This piece is one of the "Achmim group" signed "Zakariou", same as the one in Lyon, said Filiberto.

Those pictures are from a little book "early decorative textiles" by W. Fritz Volbach, ed Paul Hamlyn 1969.

We can interpretate this fact as a stylistic convergence.

I think that the chronology is : first central asia grooved animal style, second vegetal representation with same graphic style. The boteh has been then individualised as a decorative device associated with power, largely used in workshop works. It has been early a "fashion device", exclusively urban. This can be the reason why we do not find it in rural and nomadic productions when they were not in contact with commercial trade and fashion. This device was not used by traditional weavers because it had no symbolic meaning and was purely decorative.

That's all folks


Louis

Bonjour Louis,

Thanks for the supplementary images and for the conclusive synthesis. I only have one reservation:

quote:

---

first central asia grooved animal style, second vegetal representation with same graphic style

---

Reading quickly the above mentioned article "SILK ROUNDELS FROM THE SUI TO THE TANG” (HALI #92, May1997): One of the authors, Prof. Zhao Feng of the China National Silk Museum says that the first group of roundels (the ones found in Central Asia & Sogdiana) have actually a western style and categorizes the two following groups as “2. Chinese Weaving with Western Patterns” and “3. Chinese Weaving with Adapted Western Patterns”.

Which put in doubt the Central Asian origin of those “boteh-like” wings.

Well, last week I was in Damascus and visited the interesting Syrian National Museum there. In the room of textiles found in ancient Palmyra one can see Coptic textiles together with Chinese silk fragments… textiles - with their patterns - travel and they do it both ways!

Regards,

Filiberto

grooved style

Filiberto

My complete argument was the following :

- the grooved style at the begining in Central Asia was applied only for animal depiction. There Is no ex. in early objects of representation of vegetal subjects. Winged and fabulous animals were current in central asia objects.

- the vegetal has made a latter appariton in decorative art and has followed the same grooved style : the grooved shape of the boteh could come from that. There could be a kind of convergency between grooved leaves (botehs) and grooved wings (and it is an egg-and-hen problem).

- objects and weavings with this type of design were court's (and church's) prestige objects that has travelled with ambassadors and rich merchants westward and eastward, from Byzance to China along the silk road.

- Islamic art is an heritage of this long grooved style story : I think that the success of boteh in islamic decorative style is directly linked to the ambiguous signification of the boteh (abstract and realistic), and to its decorative qualities and infinite possible variations.

- It is possible that there could be an historical gap in the use of boteh. Boteh could have been discovered again by some mughal designer from ancient textiles or objects and used again on a great scale with an obvious fashion effect.

Hi Louis,

We don’t need Central Asia for the boteh origin, as the Coptic textiles demonstrate.

From “Ornament and Decoration In Islamic Architecture” (Dominique Clévenot – Gérard Degeorge, ) Thames & Hudson:
Islamic vegetal ornamentation takes its basic vocabulary from Middle Eastern, Greco-Roman, Sasanian and Byzantine artistic tradition (page 135)

Remember Occam’s razor: A rule in science and philosophy stating that entities should not be multiplied needlessly. This rule is interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known. Also called law of parsimony.

Parsimoniously,

Filiberto

Hi Filiberto,

I am not sure that I would say that your theory is more parsimonious than the notion of parallel development of the boteh design in a few different places at the same time. Think of the contortions that we have seen to migrate the boteh to S. America to end up on textiles there. It is a simple, naturalistic design, so I think it is not too complicated to think that it might have developed in more than one place. More evidence for this is the varied manifestations of the boteh, which might indicate different origins rather than a common origin with multiple variations.

Your theory might well be spot on, but I don't think it is all that parsimonious in its full manifestation.

James.

Hi James,

But that’s exactly my point!

When I say We don’t need Central Asia for the boteh origin I mean that we don’t need necessarily ONE origin with continuity of design from Central Asia trough Sassanian, Byzantine, Coptic, and Islamic art because the boteh was developed, as you say, from “a simple, naturalistic, design”.

Putting it in another way: the boteh has its roots in the use of vegetal ornamentation in decorative art. This use was common to different cultures through the ages (so we can say it has different origins), but it was particularly developed in Islamic Art.

Now I have to quote myself again, from a precedent post:

quote:

---

A more general clarification:

I don’t think that the origin of the boteh motif is important. Don’t waste your time on it, IMHO.

Whatever it was in origin, for the fact that it was asymmetric, it became an element of a new style of decoration in an urban, commercial environment.

---

Hi Filiberto,

Mea culpa. I didn't catch your meaning. Whatever, I agree that it seems plausible that there were multiple sources for the boteh. Hans Konig points to the fact that there were a number of variations on the boteh evident in some of the earliest rugs of the Ersari, at around the same time as many of the Persian versions were developing. He suggests that the variation seen even in these early versions might suggest that they had been around for some time, and not necessarily derivative of the Persian varieties.

James.

Hi James,

I wonder what was Hans Konig’s “material”… For doing that, one has to have access to early and securely dated examples.
And there’s the rub: the “securely dated” part.
Regards,

Filiberto.

Hi Filiberto,

I suppose his dating is the same as usual... sorting rugs by presumed time sequence. How else do people date 18th and early 19th century rugs??

Here are a couple of examples to which he referred. At least the larger rug with the elaborate botehs has been dated to the first half of the 19th century by some folks other than Konig (Sotheby's, I think). I am not sure about the other one, but it looks like it might be a similar era. The treatment of the boteh in these two sure looks different, even though the border is almost identical.

James.

Hi James,

quote:

---

I suppose his dating is the same as usual... sorting rugs by presumed time sequence. How else do people date 18th and early 19th century rugs??

---

Hi Filiberto and all,

Another stab at this boteh issue, from the Turkmen angle. Here is a "boteh" on what looks to be an early Ersari rug (the caption gives an estimate of 18th century). The image is taken from Thomas Cole's adaptation of Moshkova's article "The Tribal Gol in Turkmen Carpets" (http://www.tcoletribalrugs.com/article35Moshkova.html).



The caption describes this design as follows: "a very Persianate form of the ubiquitous boteh design. It is only the curvilinear lines of the boteh which suggest a Persian influence. Actually, this image is very realistic given the bird-like appearance of the boteh, complete with a distinctly beaked head looking back over the shoulder, a classic image seen in ancient textiles and weaving from ancient Inner Asia."

Perhaps this is more evidence that the lineage of the "boteh" is not simple.

James.

Folks,

The question is, "Would you kill for a rug?"

The answer is, "Were you thinking of that Ersari boteh model from Cole's adaptation of Moshkova's article?"

__________________
Rich Larkin