Chuck Wagner

Hi all,

It turns out to be a lot easier to post threads here if you use the right email to reach Our Moderator. A function of having hung around the Turkopub for way too long...

OK: Lurking out there in one of the darker corners of the internet was this little piece, not so easy to describe as it is either part of an odd size bag, or a little mini-rug. It's 19 inches long and 17 inches wide, symmetrical knots 9H x 16 V, ivory wool warps & wefts, no knot depression, and in desperate need of a cleaning (suggestions welcome).

I have seen this design several times, almost always rendered in a tight flatweave - a bag or mafrash- and rarely attributed with any confidence beyond NW Persian.

Here are front and back images, w/Peter Stones book for color control::







A closeup of an end, highlighting the warps:




The knots:




A shot of the back sized to get a feel for the texture:



The selvage, such as it is. It's lashed on with dark brown wool, and very possibly not original:




And finally, a couple real close views of the back; nice greens in a couple shades:






I don't know how to classify this one. Comments ?

Regarsd,
Chuck Wagner

Rich Larkin

Hi Chuck,

This is the quintessentially Kurdish mat from Persian Kurdistan, is it not? I have seen many of these in pile in the runner format, most often with the dark field, as yours. It is usually deep blue, brown /black, or often blue and brown/black, alternating in the familiar Kurdish manner. Two or three years ago our friend, Kirsten Karrock, posted a rug with this shrub repeating in the field. I don't recall the provenance of hers, and I posted examples from the Caucasus and Southern Iran; but I think of the design as primarily Kurdish. I would think yours has lost the outer minor border. It looks pretty old to my eye. Nice find.

Rich Larkin

Filiberto Boncompagni

Hi Chuck, Richard,

We are sorry for the temporary inconvenience. Be assured we keep up with the strenuous commitment to satisfy our faithful customers: please find below the relevant references to Kirsten’s post of two years ago.

Kirsten was asking if her rug



was a Luri or a Caucasian.

Richard’s answer was:

I call your rug Kurdish because it has a repeating shrub or flower motif that I understand to be typical of traditional Kurdish work. Certainly, it would be called Kurdish by many persons in the business. However, I can't say for sure that it was made by Kurds. It has that typical Northwest Persian look and color, anyway.

Even so, I am sending Steve a couple of images for posting that show rugs with a similar design, but that are not Kurdish. The blue field one is South Persian. I might suggest Luri based on the design, as I think of the Luri as having Kurdish connections. (Maybe Patrick can set me straight on that.) However, the rug is very light and floppy in weight and texture. I think of Luri weavings as being "meatier" than other South Persian weaving. My blue rug seems more Khamseh to me, but I wouldn't expect this design from them. The rug is 750 cm X 1425 cm.

The white field little runner is about 745 cm wide. It looks East Caucasian to me, judging from the color, the carnation border the blue selvages, and the general handle of it. It is also relatively light and thin, unlike typical Kurdish work. Again, I wouldn't expect to see this Kurdish design on a Caucasian piece. Incidentally, the warps on this item are white wool plied with brown. The wefts are finely spun cotton, which I consider unusual.

Of course, Kurds are everywhere in the rug weaving world, but I would be surprised to learn that the two pieces I've posted were made by Kurds. I do think yours was.





Best Regards,

Your Moderator

Filiberto Boncompagni

Our server is terribly sluggish today. I hope that's temporary too
Your Moderator Again

Rich Larkin

Hi Filiberto,

Wow! What a comeback. I'm impressed you could come up with that. I can't even produce my own images.

Referring to Chuck's mat, his shrub is more elaborate in the drawing that any of them in Filiberto's post. To my mind, that fact plants the piece more firmly in Persian Kurdistan.

Thanks, Filiberto.

Rich Larkin

Chuck Wagner

Hi Rich,

In Hegenbart's "Rare Oriental Woven Bags" there are 3 examples with a similar motif - he classes them as Khamseh-Afshar, all from the Bijar or Zenjan region - whatever that means - and all very nice pieces.

I'll be travelling the next 10 days, so chatting may be sporadic. I must have missed that thread on Kristen's piece - I would have remembered seeing that. I'll be interested to see if anyone has any more specific attributed examples - and suggestions for washing...

Regards,
Chuck

Steve Pendleton

>Khamseh-Afshar, all from the Bijar or Zenjan region - whatever that means

"Khamseh" is used two ways (1) S.W. Persian Tribal Confederacy and (2) District of Hamadan South of Zenjan. As to "Afshar," the memorable group is near Sirjan and Kerman, but there are pockets of Afshar elsewhere. So this phrase probably means "ethnically Afshar people living in the Khamseh district of Hamadan." Similarly Ford attributes some of the "fancy" Herati Bijar rugs to Afshars living north of Bijar (not Kurds as you'd expect).

--Steve Pendleton

Patrick Weiler

Chuck,

Here is the final line in your most recent post:
Regarsd,
Chuck Wagner
Perhaps you were taking your cue from the last two photos showing close-ups of the knotting. The next-to-last shows a rather indeterminate glob of brown knots; it is hard to tell if they offset.
The final photo shows what looks like a red knot at the top left, offset from the red knot below it, although it could be that some of the knots are tied over more than two warps. Kurds are good a mixing up their structure.
Part-trick Weiler

Chuck Wagner

Dr. Weiler,

You've been watching too many conspiracy theory movies, or following presidential politics, or both.

That is to say: Dyslexia of the knuckles.

That said, I take your point and will embark on a search for interesting stuff ,like offset knots. As mentioned above, it may be 10 days or so before I get back into it - I'll be overseas.

Regards,
ChucK Wagner

Rich Larkin

Hi Chuck,

Have a nice ten days. We'll salt in the odd post here and there to keep the thread going. As far as washing, just have a go at it. What's the question? Everybody seems to like Orvus, including me. But I've used Woolite many times without harm. Of course, the thing has to be structurally stable. The important thing is thorough rinsing (hence, the popularity of Orvus).

Patrick,

Good eye, as usual. I don't think that's dedicated offset knotting, though. Your point about the laissez faire approach to structure of the Kurds is a good one.

Rich Larkin

Horst Nitz

Dear all,

it is pure psychology: attributing an item one doesn’t know of to a group one doesn’t know much of is a proven strategy by which one can substitute ones sense of failure by something that feels like getting somewhere. But what it boils down to is in fact avoidance of facing the complexities and uncertainties that go with it if doing otherwise.

In other words, I think we better leave the Kurds out of it.

I had looked at the same plates in the Hegenbart book that Chuck referred to. Heinz Hegenbart was commissioned to scientifically assess a collection of woven bags acquired by dealers Messrs. Adil Besim, Vienna, some time before publication of the book in 1981. He had had first-hand experience as an anthropologist in the relevant field since the 1950’ies, and if for him a number of closely related bags are Chamseh-Afshar, they are for me, as long as no superior evidence suggests otherwise. As far as I can see there isn’t any.

According to Hegenbart the Chamseh-Afshar are emigrated Shasavan. A similar view is taken by Jenny Housego; and Peter Andrews, also an experienced field-researcher in the area, who in his book with Siawosch Azadi presents a number of mafrashes attributed to the Shasavan, in which field and border motives of the piece under discussion here are recognisable.

Eagleton, on the other hand, in ‘Kurdish Rugs’ depicts a rug (plate 37) that bears some similarity, but also expresses doubt, whether a Kurdish attribution would be adequate.

All clarified? I dare doubting it.

Horst


p.s. equally important as proper rinsing in my experience are quick action in cold water and getting as much moisture out as quickly as possible afterwards. In the case of an item as small as this one, preliminary drying between bath towls offers itself to achieve this end.

Rich Larkin

Hi Horst,

Brilliant! You have recapped my entire rug career in one sentence! Even so, I do know that I have encountered hundreds of rugs in the marketplace, generally in kellei (runner) format (unlike Chuck's example), that use some form of this shrub device repeated in regular fashion. They come in many weave styles, and they are usually attributed to Kurds. I am aware that a great deal of the history of oriental rug attribution consists of one uninformed observer repeating the pronouncements of another. Furthermore, the Kurds are often probably the weavers of last resort for the observer unwilling or unable to face the uncertainties and complexities of accurate attribution. It is very likely that many rugs attributed to Kurds were actually woven by others. I am always interested in having these kinds of questions illuminated by credible observers. I hope Chuck (who is on tour) or someone else can post the three comparable examples from Hegenbart, along with a summary of his evidence for attribution to the Khamseh Afshar. Also, Chuck, if you're out there, does Peter Stone say anything about this shrub?







I simply wanted to show another example of this general form in a rug that, in the past, without much authority, I have considered Kurdish. This one uses a shrub closer to Chuck's than my earlier examples (posted courtesy of Fililberto), though his is articulated more fluidly. I wouldn't consider this example to be closely related to Chuck's. For the record, this rug is about eight feet long. It is symmetically knotted with heavy, grainy but good quality wool. The wefts are two red/amber shots between rows, each shot comprising two single strands untwisted. It is meaty and floppy in handle, being loosely woven. Unlike many allegedly Kurdish rugs, it's black/brown field shows no sign of corrosion, and may involve wool from black sheep.

I look forward to others providing images of this general design format with supporting attributions.

Rich Larkin

Marek Szymanowicz

Hallo all..

Here is something to compare....



This is one of the pieces from the Kulczycki's collection that I'm writing about in "travellers" section. A scan from the catalogue (fig. 69); kurdish, NW Persia, 19th cent, cotton warp, grey wool weft, symetrical woolen knots, ca. 650 knots/dcm2, size 170x90 cm

I've seen 1 or 2 simmilar before and as I'm not a specialist on knots, wefts, density and so on.. - maybe that's not a scientific aproach - I base my opinion on some kind of sixth sense

the one Chuck is askin about is a Kurd in my opinion

And it's a feeling based not much on the botehs but colours and the simple flowerish border.

regards
marek

Rachel Armstrong

Hi everyone,
Steve has posted photos for me (after a struggle on his part!) of a small rug in my collection that appears related to this thread. I've never been able to pin it down but I feel like I'm getting closer with this discussion.
The rug is small, 4'3" x 2'11", and is very light in weight, although the rug is not what I'd call floppy. It has a white cotton foundation, wool pile, and the colors are fairly accurate in the pictures. I washed it and there was no color run.
Filiberto posted photos of two rugs that have elements in common with my rug, and the rug Rich posted has a similar border. The flower-form botehs remind me of some Shirvan rugs but the border is not related at all. And then there are all the little birds.









So any guesses, comments? The rug is in my storage space at the moment but I can retrieve it if need be.
Thanks!
Rachel

Dinie Gootjes

Hi Rachel,

The back of your rug reminds me of my Afshar-that-was-not-a-Shirvan in the other thread. It looks like the warps are reddish in the picture, but I cannot really tell. Cotton and boteh would go well with an Afshar attribution. For the rest I will leave it to better qualified people.

Dinie

Richard Larkin

Hi Marek,

That is my kind of rug! Do you know whether there is a record of the dates of acquisition of the pieces in the Kulczycki collection; and if so, when this piece was acquired?

Many rug enthusiasts are prone to attribute rugs with certain characteristics to Kurdish weavers, including the use of extreme abrash, unusual colors, patterns of repeating floral devices that are drawn and arranged in a regular but free spirited manner, and what might be called a bohemian approach to the weave and finish. This rug certainly looks like one of them.

Regarding Chuck's little rug, I agree with you that the border of rosettes on the light background seems Kurdish, though it can also be found elsewhere. I would imagine that Chuck's rug had an additional minor border on the outside that has been lost.

Rich Larkin

Richard Larkin

Hi Rachel,

I agree with Dinie that your rug seems to be an Afshar product, much as hers does. It is a case of both rugs exhibiting many Afshar features without a more convenient or obvious (to me) label to apply to them; and the fact that the Afshar nation is known to produce several different and distinctive rug types. In contrast, I think most people in the field would attribute my khorjin to the Afshar instantly. As a matter of fact, yours is very much in the Afshar tradition as I look at it, including the color palette. Is the red in your main border much stronger below the tips of the pile? It may be the same red as in the border of the khorjin I posted. Incidentally, I think Dinie meant to say the wefts look reddish, a common (but not invariable) Afshar practice.

Something I particularly like about about your rug is the very graceful and pretty main border. Being a known sucker for the Mina Khani design, I appreciate the way the weaver handled the white petaled flowers there. And one can never go too far wrong on a rug liberally sprinkled with little birdies.

Rich Larkin

Horst Nitz

Hi Marek,

that is an interesting small rug you are showing, which in my opinion is probably not Kurdish though. I would attribute it to the Urmiah/Rezadijeh area outside the Kurdish belt and to an indigenous Iranian weaveress. In the region cotton had been cultivated for a long time.

The collection it is from sounds really promising and calls for the renewal of a combined culture tour and skiing trip in the Beskides.

Regards,

Horst

Rachel Armstrong

Hi Rich and Dinie,

Thank you for your educated opinions. I went to my storage space and got the rug out - the border red is the same at the base as at the tips, no fading that I can see. The weft is more of an unbleached beige while the warp is white. It's fairly finely knotted - 12 x 12, if my count is correct.
I think it's a really pretty rug overall, and I agree that you can't go wrong with birds in any rug.
I guess I need to do more research on Afshar variables ~

Best regards,
Rachel

Rich Larkin

Hi Rachel,

Regarding Dinie’s comment that your wefts (warps?) look reddish, it seems to be based on the corner detail of the back of the rug. The apparent color is more on the violet side, and it occurred to me that it might be a stain. Is that possible? Anyway, your rug is a charmer. Incidentally, is that a true purple in, for example, the outer minor border, as appears from the image?

Following are a couple of links to interesting articles about Afshar weaving on Tom Cole’s website, which is among the links on the home page here.

http://www.tcoletribalrugs.com/article46AdraAfshars.html

http://www.tcoletribalrugs.com/article2.html

Regards,

Rich Larkin

Rachel Armstrong

Hi Rich,

I looked at the rug again and there are no color runs or stains, so it must just be the way the light in the photos is affecting the colors. In person, the wefts are clearly beige and the warps are somewhat lighter.
The actual violet shade is accurate in the photos and it's the same front and back - I love the way it plays off the turquoise in the border design.
Thank you for the links; I need to be reminded to check Tom's website more often. I still wouldn't necessarily have come to the conclusion that the rug is Afshar from the articles there, but I did see two other rugs like ones that I have.

Regards,
Rachel

Dinie Gootjes

Hi Rachel,

Funny how we keep on finding that we cannot automatically trust the colours on our monitors. Those wefts (you are right of course, Rich, wefts, not warps) still look reddish/violet on my monitor. I must say that I really like the drawing of your rug. With an all over pattern like this one, things can easily become stiff and boring, I find. But then you look at the individual birds and botehs, and you see a nice variety in the way both are drawn. That keeps the eye going from the one to the other. Enjoy.

Dinie

Rich Larkin

Hi Horst,

You suggested that the fragment posted by Marek was from the area around Lake Urmia/Rezadijeh, north of Persian Kurdistan. Are you aware of other rugs of this type from that region? And if so, can you direct us to sources that illustrate or discuss them? Or are you merely making an educated guess, linking the cotton warps with an area where cotton is produced?

Rich Larkin

Rich Larkin

Hi Horst,

I had a particular reason for wondering whether you can place the fragment from the Polish museum outside the Kurds. As everyone who knows anything about rugs is aware, nobody really knows anything about rugs. So we are left to our guesses, theories and rules of thumb. One of my firm, long standing rules is that coarse, heavy rugs with two particular and distinctive colors, along with a few other indicators, belong to the Kurds. The two colors are a strong mustard yellow and a strong pinkish red shaded to salmon. The following image is an example.



I thought Marek’s example with its border coloring fell under the rubric quite well. The repeating shrub device, like the large scale boteh in mine, supports the attribution, in my opinion. However, if you have firm grounds to put Marek’s posted item in the hands of other weavers who aren’t Kurds, I would have to reconsider my principle.

Rich Larkin

Horst Nitz

Hi Richard,

you asked about my perspective on the rug from the Kulczycki's collection: its coloration is that of the Kurdish mountains, its design breathes the plains, the Persian plains. On the Iraqi side of the border coloration may be similar, but design more geometrical. Cotton belongs to the plain; Kurdish rugs with cotton structure can be found in the Bidjar and Senneh areas not very far off, but coloration is different there. In summary this (to me) points to the fertile Urmiah plains in clear view of the Kurdish mountains.

The Kurds were the traditional enemies of the inhabitants of the plains. Once or twice a year they came down and raided the villages and took and drove away whatever was valuable and they could get a hold of, sheep, young woman, carpets etc. Easiest prey were the Christian villagers who still constituted a substantial minority in the 19th century and who were unprotected or less than half-heartedly protected by the Persian authorities.

Rugs from the Kurdish mountains and those from the foot-hills are difficult to tell apart. However, if you look at details of the Kulczycki collection rug you can see many tiny crosses, not only as filler motives in the field, but also in central position in those "shrubs". It would make no sense if a Kurdish rug would so prominently flash the once or present symbolism of the their adversaries. In the plains however, Christian and Muslim populations had lived in peace with one another for centuries and some reciprocal migration of patterns would have occurred. Therefore it seems impossible to say whether the rug is from a Muslim or from a Christian village, but in accordance with the argument, I do not consider it to be Kurdish.

All this is not covered by standard rug literature. William Eagleton's 'Kurdish Rugs' and 'Discoveries on Kurdish Looms' by Robert Biggs are two good general texts on the topic.

Regards

Horst

Rich Larkin

Hi Horst,

Thanks for the reply. It's an interesting and entertaining analysis, but we'll have to disagree that it effectively closes out the Kurds with regard to that rug. I believe the design is well within the Kurdish range, and so is the use of cotton in the foundation. I don't think diminutive crosses strewn about a rug like so many flower petals have anything to do with Christian symbolism, either, apologies to Mr. Gantzhorn.

Best regards.

Rich Larkin

Horst Nitz

Hi Rich,

you are suggesting a lack of historical awareness that frightens me .

We are talking about probabilities. It isn't a question of either or, it doesn't 'close the Kurds out' effectively and neither has Volkmar Gantzhorn much to do with it. Given the long tradition of rug designs you would expect some Christian influence to remain in an area that 600 years ago was half Christian and a base to American, British, French, German and Italian missions in the 2nd half of the 19th century until less than hundred years ago.

I think I know he colors you are referring to and have three rugs before my inner eye that correspond. One is Kordi, one probably is Kordi with design roots in West Persia and East Anatolia, the other one is a rural Boteh Chila from the Aspheron peninsula (Baku) that displays the typical 'impressionist' palette including the light blue and also some old times shade of aubergine. It is my turn now to be somewhat sceptic, but admittedly you are making an interesting point which I before had never thought about.

Horst

Rich Larkin

Hi Horst,

I agree it is a question of probabilities, not an "either/or" proposition. You had said, I took that to mean you were eliminating the Kurds from the discussion. On the other hand, it would seem to me the probabilities point towards, not away from the Kurds. Your speculation about Christian people on the plains of Lake Urmiah fearing the predations of the Kurds from the nearby mountains was very interesting but not so probable.

Here's another Kurdish item for the record that implements that distinctive color pairing. If you happen to have a copy of Jon Thompson's Carpet Magic, there's still another style of Kurdish rug on page 39 that uses the two colors. In fact, I'd like to see the Kulczycki rug in the original to see whether the border is as yellow as I am thinking it is.



No doubt there are traces of Christian influence among the myriad of other influences reflected in historical rugs. I don't happen to think the little cross forms such as appear in the Kulczycki rug are there for Christian reasons; not even residually, in the way bird's heads may once have occupied the ends of "latch hooks," regardless of what the weavers were thinking more recently, as postulated by James Opie.

You were spot on, however, about the lack of historical awareness of your correspondent. Your own is admirable. It can be frightening in its own right, though, when it stimulates too far-fetched an analysis about the origins of a humble little [Kurdish] rug. I enjoyed it, though.

Rich Larkin

Rich Larkin

Hi Chuck,

After you finish perusing these posts, lend your Farsi/Arabic skills to the decipherment of the inscription on Gerry Gorman's yezd rug, if your so inclined.

Regards,

Rich Larkin

Marek Szymanowicz

HAllo all..

here is some more interesting Kurds and not Kurds to compare..

kurd?



hamadan? Serabend?



gianja ?



regards
marek

Rich Larkin

Hi Marek,

Nice pics. By chance, can you provide pictures of the backs, especially the mat in the middle? If not, do you have any structural information?

Rich Larkin

Horst Nitz

Richard,

I think I understand your dilemma better now. If indeed you are perceiving a myriad of influences in historical rugs, understandably it must all be very confusing. Hence, the desire for an unambiguous attribution without complications to some established group. What you probably need is a working epistemology that helps to organise your data and test your hypotheses, especially if you eventually want to emancipate from the preconceived ideas of others.

In your last post you were quoting me as saying: “I think we better leave the Kurds out of it” and you went on saying “I took that to mean you were eliminating the Kurds from the discussion.” I posted that sentence in view of Chuck’s bagface along with bibliographical references on 11th May. It can’t have been anything but perfectly clear that the bag-face was meant since Marek only posted the image of the Kulczycki rug on 13 May. The quotation is correct in its wording – but you took it out of one context and inserted it into another, which you perhaps should not have done.

I normally would not have discussed an issue as controversial as the one of Christian rugs here, but when the image of the rug was up I could not collude against it and pretend it was something other than what I am convinced it is. My scientific consciousness does not permit it.

As to the Kurds, we can’t leave them out of it with regard to the Kulcycki rug. Rugs from that section of the Kurdish mountains and those from the adjacent foot-hills or from the fringe of the plain are difficult to tell apart, and it will always be, or better, at the present stage of knowledge on the matter it has to be a differential assessment. The crosses that go into the assessment are not spaced at random; they are carefully set into the centres of the main motives. They comment or qualify the cultural context of those motives, which probably are symbols of the hope of resurrection. When I say they probably are, this is the same as saying they are with only about 80 or 90% certainty. Absolute certainty is not possible since the area, rug-wise, is barely charted.

Now, you took it with such good humour (is it?) what you called my “speculation about Christian people on the plains of Lake Urmiah fearing the predations of the Kurds from the nearby mountains … was very interesting but not so probable…”

Since what we are discussing here is read or may eventually be read by others, I can’t let it go uncommented that you call it speculation what in fact has been reasonably presented and properly researched. What at first merely appeared to be a lack of historical awareness on your part, as the discussion progressed, has gone from bad to worse since now you are ridiculing historical facts and tragedy. It is quite weird. Let me fill you in on just some documented report:

“Although the Persian Government has been tolerably successful in subduing the Kurds within its territory, the Christians of the slopes of the Urmi Plain are exposed to great losses of sheep and cattle from Kurdish mountaineers, who (it is said) cross the Turkish frontier and return into Turkey with their booty. Later, I heard the same accusation brought against Persian Kurds by a high official in Konstantinopel.

(Letter XXVII/VOL II, p. 241; Isabella Bird (1891) Journeys in Persia and Kurdistan II)


Merwana (on the edge of the plain, H.N.) is a village of 100 houses, chiefly Christian, though it has a Kurdish ketchuda. It is a rich village, or was, being both pastoral and agricultural. The slopes are cultivated up to a great height, and ox sleds bring the sheaves to the threashing-floor. The grain is kept in great clay-lined holes under ground, covered with straw and earth. I write that the village was rich. Lately a cloud of Kurds armed with rifles swooped down upon it towards evening, drove off 900 sheep, and killed a man and woman. The villagers appealed to Government, after which Hesso, a redoubtable Kurdish chief in its pay, went up with a band of men to Marbishu, a Christian village in Turkey, drove off 1460 sheep, and offered to repay Merwana with the stolen property. As matters now stand 700 of the poorest of the sheep have been restored to Marbishu, Merwana loses all, and Hesso and his six robber brothers have gained 760.

(Letter XXVIII/VOL II, P262f; Isabella Bird (1891) Journeys in Persia and Kurdistan II)


Horst

Marek Szymanowicz

Rich..

those are scans of Kulczycki's collection again so no chance for back pics but some info...

1st one,
Kurd, XIXc. warp: cotton, Z3S and wool, S; weft introduced in turn with grey wool, red wool and cotton, S; symetrical knots, density ca. H 20 x W 32 ca. 650 kn/dm2
size 237x90 cm

2nd
Hamadan Serabend, bag face, mid XIX
warp; cotton in natural colour, weft: red wool S; Asymetrical knots
density ca. H 40 W 36 ca 1440 kn/dm2
size 57x49 cm

3rd
ghianja, XIX cent
warp: beige wool, Z2S,; weft: ivory wool, 2Z; two shoots after each row of knots; symmetrical knots of wool
dens. ca. H 25 W 25; ca. 725 kn/dm2
size 226x124 cm

all after the catalogue
I don't understand the code
but I'm sure You do, and someday I will

regards
marek

Marek Szymanowicz

Horst..

I wouldn't call your infomations on Christians as speculations remembering that the whole area was for ages populated with lots of Armenians.


I've seen a map somewhere which shows not only the big cities but EVERY armenian church or community in XIX cent NE Persia, It was realy a lot of it.

I'm sure that ideas, designs and techniques mixed thru ages, and as I'm sure that crosses or cross-like designs may be atributed to Christianity - it is mostly influence of armenians into kurdish more primitive textiles.
: a kurdish highlander goes down to a valley village to sell his few rugs and sees that the local armenian gets more money or sells his staff easier so his starting to think about using different colours, maybe simpler design but more knots and so on.... He starts copying and it gives him better profit - than after 150 years many kurds do rugs in a design that they don't understand anymore.. and we are elaborating now is it or is it not kurdish..
Best thing is to leave is to" Kurdistan SW Iran maybe Kurdish ..


Anyway howcome kurds from eg. Senneh make rugs and kilims so delicate, so "hi-tech" in comparison to Kurds from SE Iran? Is it only a matter of workshops? less tribalism in that particular place? Or maybe there is a big and old influence of well-skilled armenian artisants from near-by ??

regards
marek

Horst Nitz

Hello Marek,

that was another bunch of really good rugs you sent. Are they all from the same collection? Definitely worth visiting. What I would love to know is whether records exist as to when they were acquired and where. Maybe the catalogue you mentioned says something to that end?`

Horst

Chuck Wagner

Hi Rich, Horst, et al,

Just got back to the US - thanx for keeping the thread alive and apparently quite busy - I'll read thru it and try to get back to typing over the weekend.

Regards,
Chuck

Marek Szymanowicz

Hi Horst

That's true - collection is quite impressive but exept occasionall exhibitions it's devided by 2 museums - Zakopane and Wawel Castle in Cracow - see my "travellers report", second thing is that only few items out of 200 are on the show.

There is records of aqisition, bills, recipts and collectors notes - mentioned in the catalogue, shown in pieces on exhibitions but no printed research in that matter was published as far as I know..
have a look at the "travellers section" - there is all about it

regards
marek

Rich Larkin

Hi Horst,

You're right. In my post, I fixed upon your comment about Chuck's rug in regard to the Kurds, rather than your comment about Marek's. My apologies for that. I wanted to refresh my memory about it and scrolled too hastily to the wrong post.

I don't think it makes much difference in regard to the larger point, though, at least my larger point. In respect to Marek's illustrated example, I began by asking you your basis for placing it as you did in the immediate area of Lake Urmiah but outside the Kurdish domain; and, in particular, whether your opinion relied on the use of cotton warps. You responded by mentioning characteristics of mountain rugs contrasted with plains rugs in that area, and also on variations from either side of the Iraqi border. However, you didn't state your evidence or other bases for making these distinctions, which is what I was interested to know. Rather, as I understood your post, you pointed to the difficulty in distinguishing Kurdish rugs of the foothills from those of the mountains. That comment seemed to beg the question of whether the rug is Kurdish at all; but you went on to make your cross argument, perceiving them to have been put into the rug with a purpose, and concluding that Kurds, the ad hoc foes of the Christians in those regions, wouldn't have used such symbols. I found the analysis very interesting, but far-fetched, and hardly "probable" in the light of the sparse evidence. If it doesn't rest on an underlying base of firm knowledge documented by hard evidence of definable rug types coming from specific sources in specific periods, I don't believe it can rise above the level of imaginative speculation, albeit well informed speculation.

The flower or shrub forms as symbols of the resurrection are quite a bit more far-fetched in my opinion, notwithstanding the imaginative approach, considering that these forms don't look like anything more than slight variations on a familiar device of which several examples have been posted in this thread. I realize now that you are pointing to different crosses than I was considering; you are speaking particularly of the crosses just above the stem of the flower in the center of the blossom. Too bad there isn't a clear close-up picture of a few of those forms for more precise study. To be fair about it, the central crosses do seem to be carefully formed and placed, though I'm not certain all of them are formed as carefully as you would like. In any case, it is possible to discern crosses in some of the other examples in this thread as well. The fleecy example I posted in panel #12 even shows some crosses in negative space (we have some negative space devotees here on TurkoTek), though I realize that observation is also far-fetched.

A word on the epistemologies of rug study. In my opinion, the many of them floating around are not much more than virtual systems and models that are not up to handling the rugs in the field. They may often be counter-productive, in that the users have the tendency to try to force the rugs into the models. In my opinion, the knowledge represented by the collective body of rug "scholars" is much overrated; and the knowledge among the collective body of dealers, including the remembered knowledge of those who have gone before, is much underrated. Unfortunately, the latter is difficult to test or verify, but it is hardly useless. My rule of thumb about the combination of strong yellow and coral red as an indicator of probable Kurdish manufacture, for example, was given to me about forty years ago by an Armenian dealer of about eighty years who told me he was employed in rug repair in Turkey at the age of ten. I took this information to be as good as I was likely to get on the subject.

About the depredations of the Kurds upon the Christians of the Urmiah plains, I have no doubt they occurred. I had no intention either to ridicule the historical statement (admiring your ability to make it) or to make light of the troubles and fears of the villagers of that time. I have the impression that sort of lawless, tribal based banditry was as much the rule as the exception in many of those parts of the world. Given the amount of elapsed time since the events, I didn't feel the need to observe too much solemnity in the context of the discussion. If I was poking any slight humor in any direction, it was towards the notion of you confidently placing that one humble but striking rug among the Christian villagers. Yet the analysis was ingenious, and as I said, interesting and entertaining. I hope no offense was taken.

Rich Larkin

Rich Larkin

Hi Marek,

Thanks again for this excellent information. When you say you don't understand the code, are you referring to the notation about rug structure? If that is the case, permit me to translate a few. Please excuse if I am on the wrong wave length, and telling you things you already know.

"Z3S" means:

-"Z" means that the angle of the twist formed by the spinning process in a single (unplied) strand of yarn is like the letter "Z";
-"3" refers to the number of plies in the entire strand;
-"S" refers to the angle of the twist formed by the plying, i. e., opposite to "Z";

When read aloud, the code would be, "Z spun, three strands, S plied."

No doubt, you understand the references to the type of knot and the knot count per fixed area.

Rich Larkin

Marek Szymanowicz

hallo Rich

Thanks for explanation - it sounds logical.

I understand the density and knots but all the Zs and Ss were too mathematical.

thanks
marek

Rich Larkin

Hi Marek,

It has been a while since I was actively examining many rugs for structure, but I don't remember handling any in which the yarn was S spun and Z plied. Always the other way around. The variation comes chiefly in the number of plies in a strand and the number of passes in the weft between rows of knots.

Rich Larkin

Marek Szymanowicz

Rich..
You wrote...."but I don't remember handling any in which the yarn was S spun and Z plied."

well I checked if it's not some mistake but looks not
AND
there is more pieces with Z yarn and S plies in the catalogue.
mostly caucasians and some kurdish... as much kilims as carpets.

regards
marek

Rich Larkin

Hi Marek,

Are you saying that some of the rugs are described as having yarns S spun and Z plied?

Studying your notes for the first rug, I see there is some variation in the wefts, with grey wool, red wool and cotton. However, it doesn't say whether the variation occurs within a single shed (which sometimes happens, but rarely [if ever] three variations in the shed); or whether it simply varies from one section of the rug to another. That phenomenon (switching materials in the middle of the rug) usually makes me think "Kurd," too.

Rich Larkin

Rich Larkin

Hi Marek,

Looking again at the notes, I see a few entries as S only. I don't know what to make of that. I have had it in my head that hand spun wool is invariably Z. I need to look at a few books to refresh my memory on this stuff.

Rich

Marek Szymanowicz

Rich..


see... I told you it's too much mathematical for me...
If I got you wright
you wrote that you havn't seen a rug that you would comment as eg. "Z2S" or "Z3S" and all were aways other way around so eg. "S2Z" "S3Z"...
If I understand you write...
..what I'm saying is that in the catalogue I've seen more of the first ones -
Z on the beginning...



I'm not sure that hand spun wool is Z only - what if someone was lefthanded? Anyway I read somewhere that you can recognize it more by the irregularities of the spun than by S or Z type..


reg.
marek

Rich Larkin

Hi Marek,

Sorry, I must not have made myself clear. I intended to say my experience was consistent with what the museum was saying for those pieces you posted. The spin generally is recited first in the notation, and they all seem to be Z spun. My comment was that I don't recall having seen or heard about S spun wool. My later comment was about the ones where "S" is recited alone, for example, in the first rug, at the end of both the warp and weft descriptions. I'm not sure what that single "S" is intended to denote in those places.

I've never spun yarn myself, so I don't know what effect the left handedness would tend to have on the process. Are all the implements adapted to either right or left handed use? Or is there an orientation there that makes the lefties come around to our side ()? These are not profound mysteries to everyone, only moi.

Rich

Marek Szymanowicz

Rich..

Now I got it. Don't worry, it's not you but my lack of carpet-english..

I know now what is the first letter and digit after it but still cant get the second letter.
No clue why sometimes catalogue says only S and so on.. Maybe it's only one plie?
it says sometimes 2Z only, and I have no idea how to understand it too..

Author of the catalogue comments published kind of a rug dictionary so I'll read thru it and find out if she says anything about the code system.

marek

Marek Szymanowicz

EUREKA !!!!!!!

I got it...
ok,ok it took some time
but well...



I set on a rug and started to stare at a single weft and ...

I'll read more too (just in case)

regards
marek

Joel Greifinger

Hi Rich,

According to Peter Stone, "In oriental rugs, "S" spun singles are found almost exclusively in weavings from North Africa and in weavings from the western Arabian peninsula."

The Eilands show a rug from Algeria with "S" spun wool on p. 349 of the 4th ed.

Joel Greifinger

Rich Larkin

Hi Joel,

Aha! I knew there was something like that out there. Arab flatweaves were in the back of my mind. Thanks.

Rich

Rich Larkin

Hi Marek,

You asked about Kurdish weaving in general, and places like Senneh, etc. I recommend the following two salons. Stick with them, they are very informative, and provide the differing views of sophisticated commentators.

http://www.turkotek.com/salon_00057/salon.html

http://www.turkotek.com/salon_00088/salon.html

Rich Larkin

Chuck Wagner

Hi Rich, et al,

Here are the images from Hegenbart; I've left some of the text on a couple so you can see his attribution. As Horst notes, he is pretty definitive about splitting these out of the Kurdish world and into the Shahsavan. I buy that, I guess. Still, he hedges by adding the Afshar tag so you can't really tell whether he neams Afshars that mixed with Shahsavanis, or vice-versa.

Note that the shrubs on mine actually trifurcate (split into three branches), each with blossoms, and are somewhat more complex than many shown in this thread.

I quit like the piece that Marek posted, although I'm not sure I really consider it strongly related to this particular class of design.

Regards,
Chuck Wagner







Regards,
Chuck Wagner

Rich Larkin

Hi Chuck,

Thanks for the images. Hope you had a good trip. Are any of these Hegenbart examples in pile? I can't tell from what I see on my screen. The first one looks like sumakh; the other two, unclear.

For what it's worth, I would separate these three from yours.

Rich Larkin

Chuck Wagner

Hi Rich,

All the pieces from Hegenbart are flatweaves - which is how I had always seen this design presented - as I mentioned before, I must have been on another planet when Kirstens thread was active so I hadn't seen the pile versions before.

And, yes, these three seem quite a bit more regimented (e.g. stiff) than mine.

Regards,
Chuck

Rich Larkin

Hi Chuck,

Looking back at the three examples in panel #3 in this thread, so deftly conjured up by Filiberto, I wouldn't connect them too closely with your mat. One occasionally reads that many Kurdish rugs closely resemble Caucasian types, or that a significant number of the Caucasian weavers are Kurdish. In that light, I'd be inclined to put Kirsten's example among those groups. The second image, mine, is clearly South Persian [Luri?], and in fact has an old Boston dealer label sewn on the back saying "Shiraz." The last, on the grayed white field, is obviously Caucasian of some sort, based on texture, color, finish. Panel #12 is what I would consider more closely akin to yours, notwithstanding the structural and material variations, and probably younger. Whether the two were actually woven by Kurds, I can't say, but I am quite sure they would have been called Kurdish in the trade through the years. Having regard to the shrub motif, I would say the rounder, more fluid and more articulated it is, the Kurder it gets. As between mine in #12 and your mat, I think you would agree mine was going for the same design, but came out a bit clunkier.

Have you tried washing it? I'd like to see a shot of it after the bath.

One last question about that mat of yours. Is the field color actually blue-black? Or blue-green-black? The close-up of the back looks so. If the answer to either question is affirmative, my envy grows. I saw that thing passing through the cybermarket.

Rich Larkin

Chuck Wagner

Hi Rich,

Nope, haven't got around to washing it yet - that will probably be during one of the next two weekends. We can keep this alive till then, or Steve can archive & update when the post-wash pics are in.

As for what manner of blue, I say much more toward blue-black than a green tone. Some of the pics may give that appearance; indeed, there is the occasional knot under sunlight as well. But I think that is more like irridescence than actual color value. Can't say with 100% certainty though. Here's another real close look :



Regards,
Chuck

Chuck Wagner

Hi Rich,

Well, I finally got a round tuit and have a washed ruglet to show you. First, the pre-cleaning sad-plus-filthy-street-urchin-in-a-Charles-Dickens-novel version:



And then, the new and improved clean piece (this image is indoors with flash + natural light and still slightly damp; a little lighter scenario than the previous but comparable):



The rest are sunlight shots. The blues turned out to be the dominant beneficiaries of the Woolite:







Regards,
Chuck Wagner

Rich Larkin

Hi Chuck,

That thing brightened up pretty well. You took the dusty look off it. That border of rosettes looks much better now. "Sure looks Kurdish to me." What is the general feel and weight of it?

BTW, It's just dawning on the old brain that your bagface is lying on another rug, not your front lawn. What's that? Have we seen it before?

Anyway, I congratulate you on picking up this one. Highly collectible, IMO, in this age of crummy rugs. Thanks for posting the "after."

Rich Larkin

Chuck Wagner

Hi Rich,

I can't remember if I've ever posted an image of the whole thing, but you've seen bits at Xmas time. In the early 80's, gabbehs started coming out of Iran and some wound up in Saudi Arabia. We picked up several, before the world decided to pay higher prices for them. The red is oversaturated - I tried stepping on it to get it back to normal, but the other colors went gray on me so I left it alone. It's not as hot as it looks - rather - a darker red. Dang digital cameras.

Here it is:



Regards,
Chuck