Jim_Allen

Those of you with Turkoman Studies One please look up Pinner’s Article on Tekke Bird Asmalyks. On page 127 we find his succinct description of the profound history of the “S” meander border found on MOST Tekke Bird Asmalyks. Let’s assume that these special asmalyks were the property of Khans, because that has been the prevailing belief for many years now. Not making it true… of course.

The question becomes what other Tekke ‘dowry pieces’ have one of the two variants of the “S” meander border used for their minor borders? If this set of Tekke weavings turns out to consist of very finely woven and dyed artifacts; then shouldn’t we presume that these marriage accoutrements or torbas were originally the valued possessions of fierce and powerful khans? I think there ought to be about a dozen Tekke 6 gull torbas with one of the two types of “S” meander minor border Pinner described in his short synopsis.

I am starting off this Tekke “inquiry” by posting a Tekke torba with an excellent rendering of the older looking subtype of the “S” meander border. Let me add that ‘older looking’ doesn’t necessarily mean it is temporally older. This torba has ivory warps with two shoots of brown weft between each row of knots. It is woven with the asymmetric knot open to the right at slightly over 300 KPSI and no warp depression. The dyes seem a little dark “inside” ones house, but outside in bright sunlight they become luminous and regal. This is truly one of those rare Turkomen pieces that blossoms in direct sunlight. The dyes seem to be magically locked within each and every fiber. Experiencing this torba over a period of time definitely leaves one without any doubt concerning the virtuosity of its weaver.





I am personally looking through my own library and have been surprised by my failure, thus far, of finding any other examples. I hope this new line of inquiry sets off a chain of events that lets us all start better segregating Tekke weavings.

Jim Allen

Rich Larkin

Hi Jim,

I don't think the assumption about asmalyks being exclusively or predominantly the property of powerful khans is justified. Is there evidence for this proposition? Even if it were true, I don't see the logic in concluding that six gul torbas were also therefore the property of powerful khans. One of the prominent points in the discussion in Pinner and Franses is that the S-meander border is one of the oldest and most persistent decorations in the known history of carpets, appearing in 13th century Konya carpets, the Marby and Dragon and Phoenix rugs, and many more types since. No surprise, then, that the border would appear on a particular group of torbas.

Lovely piece you've illustrated.

Regards.

Rich Larkin

Jim Allen

are not found on hardly anything the Tekke made except the Bird asmalyks, according to Pinner. I am the person who has written about Tekke Bird asmalyks being the decorations of the Khans mount, especially at the Great Hunts where boys were made into men. See http://www.a-bey.com/ under articles.

I specifically want to see if any of the Turkotek members have Tekke weavings with this border or have pictures of examples with them. It seems common sense to me that a rare group of weavings with such a revered and ancient border would be closely related.

Jim Allen

Steve Price

Hi Rich

I think the hypothesis was that Tekke bird asmalyks (not all asmalyks) were the property of khans. As Jim points out, that was widely believed but the foundation for that belief, if there was one, has been lost. I'm not sure how the truth or untruth of that hypothesis bears on the torbas (or asmalyks) that use this border.

Regards

Steve Price

Hi Steve,

I take the point. The bird asmalyks were the property of the khans. I read Jim's post too hastily. Sorry, Jim. Still, I'd like to know what the basis is, if any, for the statement. It has the air of apocrypha about it.

Jim Allen

is; did Tekke weavers have the "right" to use any minor border design at all? I don't think so, as I assume that some decorations were restricted for elite use. In this light the fact that most all old Tekke bird asmalyks have this border while almost no other Tekke weaving does seems quite important to me. This is a matter of group mapping and set making in my opinion. I do not think that the total information to be gleamed from these weavings has been harvested. This is but one more example of an association that is probably important but that has gone largely unnoticed, except by Pinner. Turkoman Studies one is one of the very few Turkoman books that I find myself constantly going back to, over and over again, finding ever more useful and succinct information. Jim Allen

Rich Larkin

Hi Jim,

Is there historical evidence for the proposition that certain borders or other designs were restricted among the Turkoman to the elite? Or are you surmising this from the evidence of sets, as you term it? Do you think the surviving material is sufficiently broad and voluminous to allow such conclusions?

Rich Larkin

Martin Andersen

Hi All

I think the strict use of specific motifs and pattern on the different formats of the Tekke rugs, and the consistency of the layouts, in it self is a strong indication that there were some kind of cultural restrictions on the use of the patterns. There must have been very narrow frames for what was considered proper use of motifs and patterns. I would think it reasonable that the elite would have had some kind of way to set it self apart. And the rarity of the Tekke Asmalyks seems to make them a likely candidate for this function. As Jim writes in his interesting article they seem far too rare to have been part of commonly used marriage ceremony in the Tekke tribe.

It is obvious that the Asmalyks are non utilitarian, and that they must have had some kind of representative or ritualistic function. Jims elaborate interpretation is as always thought provoking and interesting. And as I read it his hypothesis makes a general connection between an elite’s ceremony and the more common dowry rug, the Torba. And indirectly his hypothesis gives an explanation on the fading out of the dowry pieces in late 19th. But I suppose the precise historical facts can’t be verified.

The secondary meander border on Jims Torba do seem very unique, at least on a Tekke Torba. It’s a bit hard to se on the reproductions but the interpretation of the meander seems indeed to be very close to this Asmalyk.

Elena Tzareva. pl 45

detail



The primary border, the curled leaf seems to be more frequently appearing on the Tekke Engsi and Kapunuks. And I suppose that it is generally accepted that some of the iconographics on the Engsis are of ritualistic origin.

"Between the black Desert and the Red" pl. 17


regards
Martin

Jim Allen

Rich: There may be as few as 10,000 collectible Turkoman weavings in existence. This is an estimate Kurt Munkacsi and I worked out about ten years ago when we started noticing the same pieces circulating through collections and auctions all over the world. I still think the number might be that low. Look carefully at the minor borders of the bird asmalyks. Only the "old" ones have well drawn "S" meander minor borders. Why did the weavers of later Bird asmalyks try and use a border that they seemed to be unfamiliar with? My only guess is they did so because it was the proscribed border else they would have used something they were more familiar with. I have spent hours looking for other Tekke examples with well formed "S" meander minor borders. I have found one. This must mean something. My guess is that this revered border was reserved for weavings of the highest rank. Jim Allen

Steve Price

Hi Martin

I think it's reasonable to suppose that nearly all the iconography of tribal weavings (not only the ensi) originated as symbols or designs with supernatural power. Of course, to the people who believed in them, they weren't supernatural, but completely natural.

The problem is that the interpretation of those motifs and designs is speculative. It's one thing to believe that a border type (since that's the subject of this thread) had some significance. Knowing what that significance was is another matter.

Regards

Steve Price

Jim Allen

Speaking of motifs….“Of course, to the people who believed in them, they weren't supernatural, but completely natural.” I don’t immediately remember who wrote about the Turkoman penchant for putting an “eye stopper” into repeating patterns like borders but I constantly look for this feature when I am interested in a weaving. The function of an “eye stopper” was to ward off evil. I believe that the Turkoman believed in the supernatural as much as they did in the natural. All nomadic peoples are great observers of nature. I recently spent the day with Brian Morehouse and he showed me some yet to be published material he has collected on the stylization of certain originally natural and cogent motifs into unrecognizable highly stylized forms. Since we think a lot alike I was duly impressed with his reasoning. I may not understand Steve’s point correctly but I think the Turkmen often employed supernatural motifs and elaborations in their weavings.

Jim Allen

Steve Price

Hi Jim

I think we're on the same page about this. My point about what we call supernatural but others see as natural is this: I doubt that either of us think that a carved wooden statue can really be the physical and mental incarnation of one of our ancestors unless something supernatural (outside the limits of natural laws) is going on. But many African tribal groups have carved wooden figures that they believe are their ancestors, and that those statues afford protection and advice. They don't see this as supernatural. Rather, they believe that it is in the natural order of things for the deceased to take on life in a properly prepared wooden figure. Likewise for "supernatural" properties of motifs and such in old Turkmen textiles.

The difference between balderdash and truth is that superstitions in which we don't believe are balderdash, superstitions in which we do believe are truth.



Regards

Steve Price

Rich Larkin

Hi Jim,

The points you make about the frequency (or infrequency) of certain patterns on specific woven types within the Turkoman repertoire are impressive and telling, and as you say, it must mean something. In spite of my skeptical approach, I applaud your efforts and imagination in fashioning hypotheses.

Regarding the significance and symbolic content of patterns and devices, supernatural or otherwise, insofar as the attitudes and understanding of the weavers was concerned, I am sure the real answers are very complicated. Much of the original significance must have been forgotten collectively in many instances. I note in the Pinner and Franses excerpt you referred to, they make the point that many of the designs we are considering bore names among the Turkoman that differed from one sub-tribe to another; but which seemed consistent within each group with a naming method that adopted names of familiar things that the design seemed to resemble. For example, the Ersari named the S-border with a word meaning "tip of the ear ring," while the Yomud called it "lightning" or "yellow scorpion." This suggests to me a pragmatic approach to naming that could reflect a loss of memory as to a more profound significance the designs might have had in an earlier time.

As an aside, Jim, I greatly enjoyed picking through the images in the site to which you provided the link. There are some eye-poppers in that collection. Congratulations.

Rich Larkin

James Blanchard

Hi all,

I can't pretend to be an expert in Turkoman weaving traditions, but I do like the idea of looking for patterns and anomalies in design usage. The consistent use of a particular design/motif on a particular type of weaving must have some traditional relevance, especially if it is an absolute rarity on other weavings. I suppose that this can legitimately generate hypotheses such as Jim's. I think his request to assess the stability of this empirical pattern is a reasonable line of inquiry. We don't see enough of this sort of empirical data organization and analysis, such as that provided in Turkoman Studies in relation to engsis and a few other types of weavings. The difficulty will be moving beyond the data to understand the socio-cultural meaning of the information.

With respect to this particular border, I tend to associate this with "Eastern" weaving. In particular, it seems to appear quite commonly on Uzbek weavings and some Ersari weaving.

James

Jim_Allen

The “S” meander border may hold the key to unlocking some iconographic Turkoman relationships through the ages. Pinner mentions the “S” meanders use on the Marby rug, a 15th century weaving prominently portraying four clear bird forms: each with two crests, in his synopsis on the “S” meander border in Turkoman Studies 1. I have always thought the Marby rug was woven as homage to earlier Turkoman carpets. It must be admitted that the “S” meander border seen on the Marby rug is quite different from that seen on my Tekke torba and the Tekke Bird asmalyk gracing the cover of Hermann’s first catalog, VON LOTTO BIS TEKKE. My Tekke torba’s “S” meander border is nearly identical to the one found on Hermann’s Bird Asmalyk. If the Marby rug is 15th century and Hermann’s and my Tekke weaving’s are late 17th to mid 18th century, as I think they are, what form did the ”S” meander border take during the 16th century?

Below is a picture of a Salor main carpet fragment I believe is from the 16th century.



Notice the background color of its minor “S” meander border is apricot. The positive ground “S” forms in blue are easy to see but note that the background of each repeating unit is composed of two opposing segments of a “running dog” border. Pinner mentions that the Yomud used a variant of the ”S” meander border in some weavings.

Below is an example of a Yomud asmalyk utilizing such a variant.





I have written an article about this asmalyk, see http://www.a-bey.com/index.php?a=8 . I date this Yomud asmalyk to the mid 18th century and believe that its iconography is fundamental to understanding the unfolding of this specific genre over the subsequent 100 or so years. Most folks call similar Yomud asmalyks jewelry pieces, for the wedding silver so often portrayed along their superior margins.

For many years I have been saying that the main gull quarters of old Tekke torbas portray sacred bird forms in their negative spaces. Below is a close-up of my Tekke torba with “S”meander border.



Look in the lower right hand quarter of the main gull. Suppress your natural tendency to only see colored ‘objects’ and notice that the white ground image forms a bird with two crests and/or two feet, an elongated body with a quartered “HEART” box, and a big fancy tail. The Marby rug’s birds have central triangles representing their hearts, I suppose, while later Tekke bird forms have quartered boxes serving the same visual purpose. I feel that there is a direct line of descent between the Marby rug and all later Tekke and Salor weavings. The Marby rug is an Oguz weaving, in my opinion, and I also suspect that the Marby rug is late 14th century and not a 15th century weaving.

Martin Andersen

Hi All

The Marby rug sure is extremely interesting in this connection : The octagons, the ramshorns, and the resemblance of the birdmotifs of the Marby and the Bird Asmalyks - and of course the meander borders

Marby Rug


detail


Bird Asmalyk




(and sorry I cant help posting the Road Runner / Clamator Glandarius in a western interpretation)


regards
Martin

Martin Andersen

Hi Jim

For some time, also before this tread, I have tried to understand the motif you see in the Torba/Chuval Gul. I must admit that I don’t get it completely. I suppose the tail of the bird is in the lower left corner on this drawing. But which part of the two shapes in the right corner on this drawing do you see as the head of the bird?




You have also elsewhere described the motif as a spirit image. Would it be correct to say that you see the motif as a mixture of both bird and spirit image? I can’t always follow the images you see in the patterns. For me some of them are perhaps a bit too naturalistic/figurative in a western sense. But this one I would like to follow.

Regards Martin

Rob van Wieringen

Rob.

Jim Allen

In the Tekke torba's main gulls are two white ground birds and two red ground birds. Looking at any set of birds and then looking at the gull quarter just above the bird form you can see the larger outline of a raptor's head. By the way Rob's drawing demonstrates that he sees the full image of the bird and has done us all a favor by reproducing it with ears and a lemonade. In my opinion the white image is a spirit image and the red image is a living image of a bird, roadrunner....beep beep. This distinction between red and white doesn't have the weight it seemed to have in 13th, 14th, and 15th century work. Do notice that the opposing birds in the Marby rug are not colored the same thus they are not mirror images of each other. I think this is an extension of this alive and dead red and white sort of dichotomy. Jim Allen

Rich Larkin

Hi Jim,

I think Rob did do us a favor, but (intending no insult to his drawing skills), I think he turned that bird into a froggie. BTW, that may not be lemonade! But have one anyway.

Regards,

Rich Larkin

Martin Andersen

Hi Jim

Is it correct that this motif is what you reefer to as the raptors?




When looking at different layouts of the Guls on Tekke Torbas I would think the weavers in general make a higher priority of make a clear drawing of this double motif (with or without double crest), then of the Road Runner/Spirit image which is partly its negative space. And the double raptor isn’t a part of a ram’s horns pattern (as in the top and bottom of the Gul).

I think it would be fair to say that this double motif is some kind of animal representation. And actually it could also be seen as the same two archaic birds as on the Marby Rug. And it would very unfair to attribute these animals with lemonade.

Regards Martin

Steve Price

Hi Pat

I don't want this to take things away from the topic, but many societies see frogs as magical or highly symbolic. The reason appears to be their mysterious appearance immediately following a heavy rain. I don't know that this is the case in central Asia.

Regards

Steve Price

Martin Andersen

Hi All

Even though Rob seems to find it silly enough to make silly drawings, I find that the Chuval Guls possible connection to the Asmalyks is very interesting.

Actually the Tekke Chuval Gul, as far as I can see, is one of the most, if not thee most, complexed of the Turkmen Guls. And especially the negative space, in which Jim sees the Road Runner, is extraordinary asymmetrical for the Turkmen vocabulary. I find it very understandable that Jim is trying to find a motif in this space. Partly some of its asymmetries could be ascribed to the horizontal flattening of the Gul, but not the parts which Jim call the head of the Road Runner and the Raptor. These details seem to be hard to see only as negative spaces, defined by the meeting between the centre of the Gul, the Guls outline, and the ram horns ornamentation.

In general all the Turkmen patterns and layouts are extremely symmetrical, and actually the Road Runner on the Asmalyks and the negative space in the Tekke Chuval Gul, as exceptions, do share the asymmetry.

And well yes the main topic of this tread is the meander border, and I do hope someone will continue with the border. And I would vey much like to see an a photo of Hermann’s Bird Asmalyk, hope someone will post it.

Regards Martin

Chuck Wagner

Hi all,

OK, so it sounds iconoclastic, but I feel that the similarities between the design on this asmalyk and the image below are sufficiently strong to warrant invocation of a chant to raise the ghost of Gene Williams . These are poppies, folks:



...and so are these:



Regards,
Chuck Wagner

Martin Andersen

Hi All

This Torba has a S-border as it primary border. I am not quite sure if Jim distinguishes between 2 different minor S-borders, or if this border is the second one he is referring to in the first post.

elmby_V_no4


detail. elmby_V_no4



Perhaps it should be seen as more like a geometrization of the Curled Leaf border, then of the meander border? Anyway both have the connection to the Asmalyks.

To me this border actually seems very close in structure (XSXSX) to the Tekke kizil Pattern that Patrick points to. Funny that the microskopic pattern on the Kizil´s may be tiny versions of the Curled Leaf.

regards
Martin

Jim_Allen

Martin you have made a great leap forward. I have not seen that the Tekke big S border was related to the curled elephant's trunk border found on Tekke Bird Asmalyks. Now we are actually getting somewhere. Kurt Munkcasi and I have long theorized that the Big S border was so rare and the torbas upon which they were found were all of such outstanding quality that they must have been the property of Khans. There are about a dozen of them known. I am enclosing a picture of my example for posting.



I am a little perplexed at the fact that not another Tekke example with the S meander minor border has been found yet. Surely there are others. In Turkoman studies one Pinner made drawings of the two types of S meander borders. This Big S main border association with the Bird asmalyks is totally new and as far as I know has never been made before. That is what I call making progress.

Jim Allen

Steve Price

Hi People

Jim sent me this image of the bird asmalyk that appeared in Herrmann's Von Lotto bis Tekke.



Thnak you, Jim.

Steve Price

Jim_Allen

The large raptor’s head I mentioned earlier is highly stylized and not easy to grasp. I have chosen to illustrate this “head” with a blowup of the gull on David D’Heurle’s eagle gull torba. This is truly one of the most obvious and powerful representations that I have seen. In fact it looks like the profile of a golden eagle to me. After looking at this blurry image go look at images of Tekke torbas and look to see if you can make out a raptor’s head in main gull quarters superior to the red spirit bird profiles below.





The Big S border is related to the “curled leaf border” because they both are representations of animals. The curled leaf is actually the profile of an elephants head with its trunk curled up and the great sound it makes is represented by the jagged outline that surrounds it. The design complex also contains the reciprocal image of an elephants head with its trunk hanging straight down. Great Khan’s had elephants in their stables. They doubtless rode on elephants at great festivals. The image of a bellowing elephant would have been the quintessential symbol for a great Khan. I have dealt with this subject in an article posted on the San Francisco Bay Area Rug Societies web site.

http://www.sfbars.org/ja/eleph.html

In some Big S border Tekke torbas the visual devices used to make the turns in the “S” forms are clearly that of a bird’s head complete with crest. In other examples this animal association is lost in stylization. In the early Bird Asmalyks, like Hermann’s, there is an extra tangent in the design complex, repeating unit, which strongly reinforces the “S” shape of the complex. I always saw this extra bend as reinforcing the shape of the elephant’s forehead but now I see that it also reinforces the overall S shape of the Main border’s design. This new association between the “curled leaf” design of Tekke asmalyks and extra fine Tekke torbas with “S” minor or major borders is extremely important. There has never been the slightest shred of evidence concerning the original ownership of any Turkoman weaving. We have all had our strong suspicions but nothing as tangible as the association between set unions among unusual Tekke weavings, their borders. Since all these Tekke weavings are of such superior quality as to weave, wool, and color any association between them and anything besides the ruling elite doesn’t make any sense. Of course this is inductive reasoning but that does not invalidate it. The elite would be separated from the common members of Tekke society and their personal clothing and weavings would be some of the very few ways that this could be demonstrated in Turkoman society. Perhaps the Bird asmalyks served two purposes. On one hand they were the wedding asmalyk for great Khans. Their designs were different from all others because these asmalyk were destined to decorate the mount, whether horse, camel, or elephant at the great hunts of initiation into manhood presided over by the great Khan. I am sure these weavings elicited the sound these great beasts made upon being viewed by the young boys about to do near impossible things from horseback; shooting bows and arrows at running game.

Jim Allen

Jim_Allen

I see a dating problem concerning the identification of Bird Asamlyks with the Tekke tribe’s Khan. I have seen over half of all the Bird Asamlyks and their physical appearance suggests to me a period of use from perhaps circa 1740 to the third quarter of the 19th century. There may be three or four of the classical type that are from the Tekke’s days at the Merv Oasis, circa 1845-1870. Several of the published Russian examples seem to be from this period. The earliest period of this object’s introduction seems to be circa 1740-50; from their physical characteristics of color, weave, and wool quality. I think there might be one or two much older but who can know this for sure? This does not align at all well with Tekke history. There is a clear line of descent from the spacious and powerful early examples, like Hewrmann’s, and the fuller and less refined later examples. The curled main borders also become more stylized and much of their visual power is lost. Considering the fact that the Tekke were basically weak and often subservient to the Yomud during this exact period suggests to me that the Yomud were having Tekke weavers create the great Khan’s symbol of authority. This seems impossible at first but I would suggest that any Turkoman tribal Khan might consign a special weaving job to the acknowledged best weavers available. Why shouldn’t the great Yomud khan have had his Tekke wife weave such a fine and auspicious object for him? Frau Rautenstengel recently told me, at the NY Hajji Baba show, that her Tekke confidants have consistently denied any knowledge of these pentagonal weavings. This is a serious problem with their identification with the Tekke elite. There are very old Yomud main carpets that have large S borders and I am showing one below. Are those gull forms in its lower elem Tekke gulls? What do you think the weaver was saying when she incorporated Tekke gulls into the dust off area of her main carpet?



If this strange relationship is true there ought to be Yomud examples for approximately the same purpose. I would propose that the mid 18th century Yomud asmalyk already posted in this thread would be a prime example of a great Yomud Khan's main insignia or animal decoration. If so little has changed in th ereagion for the last several hundrted years. The great werlord Khan's are stuill growing opium as their main cash crop effectively parastizing the neighboring world. Also pictured on that great Yomud asmalyk are running cheeteh's another symbol of nomadic royalty. Who knows maybe it was originally the Tekke who participated in these great Hunts as part of their social reality. The mongols had done the same thing centuries before. Maybe the Yomud adopted the Great Hunt festival after conquering the Tekke in the mid 18th century. This line of reasoning represents the kind of speculation I expect to flow from this discussion of rare borders on special weavings. I think a large ethnographic study can and should be preformed by setting up the data concerning designs and their likely tribal descent into a searchable data base. By evaluating the resulting numerical relationships one might be able to build a socioeconomic and ethnographic map of central Asia over the last several centuries, In fact Bregel has probably done that in his fantastic atlas detailing the historical environs of central Asian Turkmen along with their neighboring tribes over the last half of the second millennium AD. I realize that I am just taking a baby step here: but at least it is a step forward. There are many new hypothesizes just around the corner but this is exactly what makes such a study both fun and rewarding. My aim is not to set Turkoman history in stone but to help bring their complex and evolutionary forms into better focus.

Jim Allen