Martin Andersen

Hi All

Here is a small and very finely woven 6 Gul Tekke (it certainly needs a wash and securing of the edges, I will get that done later). I suppose it is bleached and smoked, but it has a very beautiful soft and shinny texture. It measures 97 x 35 cm.


6 Gul Tekke



texture


back (centimeters)

I mainly got this Tekke because of its border, but it has a few other unusual features (the blue center layout in the Gul and the tertiary elements).
The border has a very close resemblance to Hoffmeisters plate 25. Turkmenenian in Franconia. Actually I have not seen another border with a resemblance this close to the Hoffmeister Torba. I would be very interested if anyone on this forum could direct me to other published material regarding this border.


Hoffmeisters plate 25. Turkmenenian in Franconia.

I understand that the Hoffmeister Torba is regarded very old according to a c-14 dateing. I of course understand the fundamental uncertainty of trying to date these rugs. And it is not that I think that my Torbas is as old as the Hoffmeister Torba (though I wouldn’t mind ), but subjectively it certainly has a very old feel comparied to my other Turkmen rugs.


border


border horizontal

I would be very interested in seeing other Tekke pieces with this border. The Hoffmeister border sure has a late history in Ersari weavings (were its rather crudely executed) , but I haven’t seen it on other Tekke rugs.


And any comments are of course much appreciated.

Regards
Martin

Jim Allen

i WANT IT! pLEASE sANTA plEASE i REALLY REALLY WANT IT!

jiM aLLEN

Martin Andersen

Well Jim, I guess I owe you a drink I probably wouldn’t have had an eye for this border if it wasn’t for some of our discussions on this board, and some of your texts on the internet (fx. http://www.a-bey.com/index.php?a=12 )

Regards
Martin

Martin Andersen

The layout of the blue field around the centre of the main Gul is different from what I else have seen. Has anyone seen this layout before ?



Martin

Jim_Allen

Martin:

Here are pictures of some related pieces presented without order or orchestration. Look at these pictures and see how you think they are related to one another through in time.













Jim Allen

Martin Andersen

Hi Jim

I know that trying to date these rug is controversial here on Turkotek. Steve has of course some very reasonable arguments on the unscientific aspects of the dating game. But its fun anyway - and no rugs are harmed
So with tons of reservations, I would think looking for some kind of design evolution in these pieces, I would find it hard to place the one with the 3 centred Guls, but it certainly looks very archaic, and as far as I can se it has a lot of very unique design elements. But the secondary Gul on it resembles the one on the Hoffmeister Torba. I would guess they were equally old.
The Extremely beautiful fragment which have been digitally restored I would place next in line. And what a fantastic drawing all over the piece – also in the border. Certainly a master who has made this.
With the Torba with tertiary star elements we are getting closer to a more familiar Torba design, but still the drawing of the Guls seems early. Last in the dating line I suppose I would place the 9 Gul Torba and my own. – Pure guesswork of course


I have looked a bit closer on my own Torba. I get the kpsi of the Torba to be something like 325 (13x25)



325 kpsi is actually a bit less then I would have thought just looking at the fineness of the knots. Perhaps its because of the relatively thick weft treads. The weft treads are single spun light brownish and extremely soft (I think it could be camel wool?). I am not sure if this technically is called “depressed weft”? The warp treads are twined white wool.

Regards
Martin

Martin Andersen

After looking a bit closer at the 9 Gul Tekke, I would probably place it last in line. The border design is not redesigned in the vertical border direction, as it is on the Hoffmeister and my own.

And Jim what is your take on the obvious connection between the Hoffmeister border and the Nagdal(?) border which is generally associated with Saryk rugs? Half of the border structure ,the diagonal “hook forms”, are almost identiical.


Nagdal border. Saryk

Martin

James Blanchard

Hi Martin,

My unsophisticated view of that torba is "WOW"....

I find the effect created by the relatively large blue central field in the guls to be fantastic, even if I have no idea how that might relate to its age...

James

Martin Andersen

Hi James

I must admit that I first found the blue layout around the Gul centre a bit brute and simplistic (perhaps because I normally really enjoy the angular complexities of the Tekke Chuval Gul). But after looking more at them here, I appreciate this layout more and more. It is almost like the centres are floating silently in a blue space behind the main field.

Regards
Martin

Jim Allen

Martin your torba is 17th century in my opinion. It has the same colors, the exact same knotting density, and the same sun blasted appearance as my Tekke chuval that was C-14 dated to a mean date of 1650. Look at the back with good magnification. In my experience Tekkes this old may have considerable pile thread breakage so you will see what looks like pile on the back. I mean where the pile threads wrap around the warps producing a knot node on back....it is here that the pile bundle of threads shows breakage in really old Tekke weavings. Hoffmeister's torba as C-14 dated to the 16th century. I think the one Yon photo shopped is from the late 16th century. I am pretty sure the top torba in my group is early 18th century. It has the same knotting density as your torba and the fantastic colors characteristic of early Khiva period pieces. It was during this period that the Tekke and the Salor were the preeminent tribes. The 17th century was a very hard century for the Turkoman especially after one of their major rivers dried up. Many Turkomen were forced off the Mangyshak penninsula. One sees much fewer colors in 17th century Tekke weavings. In point of fact my old chuval had three browns,three blues, three reds,white, and a tiny bit of lac dyed silk. 16th century pieces are more colorful than 17th century pieces. Jim Allen

Martin Andersen

Hi Jim

I was about writing that I actually don’t think the Torba is especially sun bleached; there is no difference between the colours of the front and of the back. The colours are simply just a bit pale.

I am of course very happy about your opinion on the age of the Torba. I have a lot of respect for your vast firsthand experience of these rugs. If you are right (which I of course think you are) this Torba may be the needle in the haystack of my life Cant really hope for luck like this twice.


Martin

Steve Price

Hi Jim

I've never knowingly handled any Turkmen weavings that are old enough to be dated by C-14, so I rely on your experience with them as a source of education.

You wrote,
One sees much fewer colors in 17th century Tekke weavings. In point of fact my old chuval had three browns,three blues, three reds,white, and a tiny bit of lac dyed silk. 16th century pieces are more colorful than 17th century pieces.

This raises some questions for me:
1. How large is the range of uncertainty in C-14 date attributions with these pieces? My recollection is that it's in the ballpark of plus or minus 150 years. If that's correct, your 16th century chuval could actually date to the 15th or to the 17th century. Similar uncertainties would exist with other pieces dated with C-14, of course.
2. How large is the sample size from which you conclude that 16th century pieces are more colorful than 17th century pieces? By this, I mean how many documented (I include C-14 dating as documentation) 16th and 17th century Turkmen weavings led you to this conclusion? I agree that your chuval is more colorful than most, but can't help wondering if this is related to the time it was woven or some other circumstance.

Regards, and thanks.

Steve Price

Martin Andersen

Hi All
I am a bit puzzled that a rug like the Torba I have posted doesn’t generate more comments and discussion?
I would have thought that there were lots of comparative topics which could be discussed in this connection. The dating aspects are of course very interesting, but one can almost already see the dead ends in the arguments.

Well - it’s Christmastime and perhaps everyone is busy. I hope some more of you will tune in with related material, perhaps after the Christmas Carols

Regards
Martin

Jim_Allen

My C-14 dated Tekke chuval is less colorful than most Tekke chuvals; just as Martin’s torba is less colorful than most Tekke torbas. I posited my theory about hard times and hard use during the 17th century being the cause… as my best GUESS. I have seen two Salor chuvals C-14 dated to the 16th century and they were not easily distinguishable from 18th century or even later Salor chuvals. I once examined a purple ground Salor main carpet, that I advised the potential owner I thought was the oldest one I had ever seen, and it subsequently C-14 dated to the 15th century. I admit that the sample size, underpinning my opinions, is very small….. but I have had real life experiences with some of the oldest Turkoman material known which forms the basis of my opinions.

It is quite problematic that many people having these C-14 studies done and discovering classical period Turkoman weavings do not publicly divulge their results. This is also true for museums! They obviously want to keep their information close while they search the world for other examples. Collecting Oriental Rugs is a mind altering exercise and when coupled with active trading becomes the stuff of great experience and even legends……plus numerous setbacks and heartaches.

Steve, concerning the potential range of C-14 dates for a primary spike, if the primary spike is well defined and relative to a pre 1700 AD dating, is quite small. For instance I remember Nobiko telling me afterwards that Jull’s dating of the Ardabil Carpet’s wefts was centered on the range of dates woven into the carpet itself. I don’t remember the dates off hand but that really made us think that Dr. Jull was doing a magnificent job. Jull was so surprised that my Tekke chuval’s weft sample dated to circa 1650 that he did not report his results until he had run a second test. The second spike of both tests was circa 1950; indicating a virtually 100% certainty that my Tekke chuval was circa 1650 or mid 17th century. It was, at that time, the first Turkoman weaving ever C-14 dated with confidence to the 17th century.



I got no official recognition for this fact but news of the event went very quickly in academic circles around the world. Jon Thompson has been aware of my thoughts since Hali 55 and he gives me credit for instigating the belief that some Turkoman chuval gulls are drawn in three dimensional perspectives. Gulls drawn and executed in such a fashion usually look like they are flying up and away from the observer. There are many ways of affecting this feeling, through shape distortions and emphasis on encompassing line densities for instance. The actual sets of techniques used to effect such a dynamic presentation are specifically Salor or Tekke. In other words the Tekke and the Salor used a different bag of visual tricks or cues to effect the spatially dynamic appearance of their gulls; as if they were flying. Look at Martin’s and Hoffmeister’s torbas. The main gulls are visually exploding from these weavings like a covey of quail out in a field.

Steve Price

Hi Jim

I know that you've handled some of the oldest C-14 dated Turkmen weavings known, but I think it's important to evaluate the extent to which that gives you the ability to make accurate attributions "on the fly". In order to bring it beyond the level of anecdotal evidence, it would be useful to know:
1. How many of the Turkmen textiles that you judged to be very old (say, 17th century or earlier) have been tested with C-14? Of that number, how many confirmed your judgement? The larger the number, and the higher the percentage in which you were correct, the more likely it is that you can reliably recognize rugs that are very old.
2. How precisely have you been able to predict the outcome of the C-14 tests? For example, did you predict a mid-17th century date for your Tekke chuval or was your prediction less specific (say, pre-18th century, a much wider range)?

As you can probably see, I'm probing two questions.
1. Does your track record of predictions show that you can distinguish "very old" from 19th century Turkmen work? I think it's likely that you can, but having done so with a high percentage of success with a significant number would be persuasive.
2. Can you reliably attribute dates of "very old" Turkmen stuff to relatively narrow windows of time? This is a different question, and I'll be surprised if you or anyone else can do it, but I'm prepared to be convinced if there's evidence that it's so.

I'm kind of struck by your describing the two 16th century Salor chuvals as difficult to distinguish from 18th or 19th century Salor chuvals. This suggests to me that attributing them to their respective date windows without the C-14 analyses would have been impossible. That is, even as experienced an observer as yourself would have attributed them all to the same date (approximately) despite age differences spanning about 300 years.

Thanks.

Steve Price

Martin Andersen

Looking at these 3 Guls I subjectively wouldn’t doubt that Hoffmeisters is the oldest. And my own I would probably (if I didn’t know that the Torba had the Hoffmeister border) subjectively think the youngest. I suppose its the flattened layout of the centre that would make me think it youngest. But certainly my experience is limited.


Hoffmeister


9 gul



In general there are of course some variations in the Gul layouts, but still the missing angular points in the horizontal direction on my Torba seem rather radical. One could speculate that the design of the Gul became more and more fixed and conventionalized through time? Or perhaps it has in its own time been an acceptable and common variation. Or the possibility of a daring creative later weaver.

Come to think of it I have before wondered about the diamond or rhomb shaped fillings in the centre of the chuval gul. Actually the centre of my Torba may explain them as fillings in the meeting between an octagon and an 8 pointed star.





Not that this makes my Torba older, this centre layout is not uncommon, just interesting that it in this specific detail perhaps is closer design wise to a geometric starting point of the layout of the centre of the Tekke Chuval Gul.

Martin

Martin Andersen

Hi All

Here are some general thoughts on the development of the Chuval Gul, some of which may be trivial - and certainly its all just speculative.

Jon Thompson describes this Gul layout as “the archetypal Gul” ( http://www.spongobongo.com/tekke.htm )




I suppose he by this states that this layout could be a kind of prototype for later Turkmen Guls. Guls which may be simplifications or developments from this complexed layout.

Of course an extremely complicated design like this didn’t come from nowhere. I think the layout can be understood as design construction derived from 3 different sources.

1. A very ancient Animal and Plant motif
2. A very basic geometric overlaid 8 pointed construction.
3. The fact rug weaving is not a neutral media. Over time interpretations of diagonal lines and knot proportions (f.ex. 1,3 : 2) introduces flattening and distortions in the drawings.

I Think the drawing from the Lippo Memmi painting and the Marby Rug from give us 2 related very plausible old rug samples of the Animal and Plant motif. Birds and trees are mirrored in vertical and horizontal directions, and inscribed in a octagon:


From Lippo Memmi 1430


The Marby Rug 14-1500 (?)


There are of course a lot of missing links in this possible development. But here is a schematic drawing of how I see this motif translated into the Chuval Gul :



Personally I think that basically all the rest of the complicated layout (including all the protruding angular shapes around the Gul centre) can be understood as meetings and filling spaces between the Animal & Plant motif and an overlaid 8 pointed geometrical construction. A construction which could be said to consist of various sizes of 3 figures: octagon, star and cross.


Schematic drawing of the geometrics of the Chuval Gul.

This of course places the tribal birds in a different position than where Jim Allen suggest them - but they are still there

And (as a bonus) looking at the geometrics above I think its very interesting that perhaps the layout of the secondary Chemsche Gul actually is an inherent part of the internal structure of the main Gul.


Chemshe Gul

Regards
Martin

Rich Larkin

Hi Martin,

The subtle intricacies of the six gul torba through the years are over my head, so I can't contribute much that is profound. I join with James (and you, belatedly!) in saying that the serene blue center of the gul is magnificent. Also, strictly apart from any considerations of where this version of the gul stands historically, I find the drawing of it very elegant, more so than some of the other examples.

Your last post discussing the broad evolution of the gul is very interesting. We've seen it before, of course, but you state the broad case very efficiently. The question that has always intrigued me is, how far back would one have to go to find a reasonable direct ancestor of the basic Turkoman gul in which the bird forms are well articulated, as in the Marby rug, or even the Lemmi version? The Lemmi bird would seem to recall a time where the figure was actually rounded, as are birds in the world. I'm waiting for another frozen tomb to show up.

Congratulations on acquiring that torba. I don't mean to pry, and feel free to let my question pass. But I wonder whether the source from which you acquired the torba realized what it was? I'm reminded of the spectacular Baluch rug in the Wher collection that was illustrated by Thompson in his "Carpet Magic" exhibition in London in about 1983. Thompson mentioned in the catalog that the original owners of the rug had no idea of its quality.

Rich Larkin

Martin Andersen

Hi Rich

I acquired the Torba from a large professional source which described it as:
“Tekke 6 Gul Trapping, Turkestan, circa 1870. Condition: This trapping is pretty straight forward; no problems other than obvious wear, ragged edges and ends”
I obviously didn’t quite agree with the “pretty straight forward”, but I must admit I didn’t put up an argument. If it had been a private person I hope I wouldn’t have bought it without giving my sincere opinion on what it was.

Regards Martin

Paul Smith

Martin--

I am part of the silent majority who don't feel qualified to say anything of substance about your fabulous find except "congratulations "! I do think the blue gul centers are wonderful, with the two subtly different shades of blue. It seems to be a deliberate contrast, since they are apparently quartered. You asked about similar ones, and I saw a couple in your 6-gul Tekke torba thread from last summer. Clearly you were preparing yourself, training here in Turkotek, for your expedition in search of the Holy Grail.

The ethics issue you raise is intriguing. I guess if this were your professional business it might be a different situation (though maybe not), but since so much of what we are trying to figure out here is speculation I don't know that you would be obligated to report to the seller on something that is so nebulous. It might be different were these things of known value and attribution was a more mechanical affair, but you took the risk here. There are probably people reading this thread who still think you have a 19th-c. item. If someone said the thing was a Czech head wrap from the 1920s, maybe you could enlighten them about its general identity, but I question whether you would be obligated to express your opinion about your own appraisal of its potential rarity and great age, since that would be open to debate.

I remember a very honest dealer I know telling me about a trip into Central Asia right after the Soviet Union fell apart. He was in a village, asking if anyone had old pieces when someone said, "what about that old thing in the chicken coop?" Sure enough, under six inches of chicken poop, was a shredded but salvageable 18th-c. (apologies to Steve, but this is how it was reported to me) Turkmen main carpet. I asked him whether it bothered him to score something for so little from people who didn't know what they had (this guy was a pro after all), and he said that they thought he was a complete idiot for paying them two months wages (so, a few hundred bucks) for something so ridiculously disgusting, and he had little sympathy for people who would allow their chickens to foul (or is that "fowl"?) a major piece of weaving art. Was he obligated to tell them that after he sunk serious money (thousands of $$ as I recall, not to mention the cost of travelling, etc) into restoration that he might be able to sell it for five figures? These things are not so simple.

Paul