Steve Price

Hi People



This Belouch group khorjin face has appeared on Turkotek several times. It's one of my favorite pieces, for a number of reasons. A big one is that it was my introduction to Marvin Amstey, its previous owner. Another is the unusual use of silk. There are about 10 silk knots, in two colors. Two are adjacent to each other (in the neck of the upper left bird), the rest are surrounded by wool pile and are virtually invisible from more than a foot or so away.

Here's another Belouch group khorjin.



It has, by my informal estimate, about 20 silk knots; no two of which are adjacent to each other. Like the bird khorjin, there are two colors of silk in the pile. As in the bird khorjin, they are nearly invisible from the front. In fact, the wool is so lustrous and silky that it's difficult to tell the wool from the silk without good light and manipulation of the pile while looking at it. The next photo gives you an idea of the wool's luster.



You can see the silk more easily from the back; there are three magenta silk knots in this photo. I'm not sure as I write this, but one knot of white in the upper left may also be silk.



Here's the selvage.



The knots are asymmetrical, open to the left, 9 horizontal x 13 vertical (117 per square inch). This is similar to the bird khorjin, which is 10 x 10 (100 knots per square inch). The use of white to emphasize the central element is another similarity, although the white in the bird khorjin is cotton and the white in this one is wool. Both pieces are the same size, 2'7" wide by 2'3" high, and have similar palettes.

The use of silk in central Asia is usually pretty obviously a display of extravagance, with the silk being used contiguously in areas large enough to be seen from a distance. Even with most Belouch group weavings, in which silk is an unusual material, when silk is present it isn't hard to see. The bird khorjin and the one I've introduced here are probably both from the same weaving group. I continue to wonder why silk was used in either of them.

Regards

Steve Price

Marvin Amstey

Likewise, Belouch weavers used random (or not so random) cotton knots in very small selected areas. The lime-green knots in the border of this rug illustrate cotton knots forming a small cross device
Anyone with ideas as to why a few knots of silk or cotton??

Steve Price

Hi Marvin

None of the colors look like lime green on my monitor. But if they form a little cross, I assume that there are in a group of several adjacent knots and are visible from a little distance. The question then becomes, why use cotton instead of wool for that color? This is a different question than, why use silk in areas so small that it's virtually invisible?

One possible explanation for the lime green cotton is that they may not have had much white wool, and dying dark wool can't possibly result in anything except dark colors. If white wool was actually scarce in this region of Belouchland, it would account for the generally somber palettes of weavings from the region and would also be the reason why they sometimes used cotton for light colors.

Regards

Steve Price

Marvin Amstey

This rug is on page 80 of Vanishing Jewels and has a white border all around the niche. I don't think that they had a problem obtaining white wool.

Steve Price

Hi Marvin

The one on p. 80 is a Dokhtor-i-Gazi prayer rug. It does have a white border around the niche, but that's still a relatively small amount of white wool overall. I don't know whether white wool was at a premium in certain Belouch groups; maybe, maybe not. But I'm not quite ready to abandon the notion, since it would account so nicely for their overall dark palette and could account for the use of cotton for some light colors.

Do you know of any other Dokhtor-i-Gazi prayer rugs with cotton in the pile? I don't think I've run into that before.

Regards

Steve Price

James Blanchard

Hi Steve,

That is a very intriguing question, and one I have wondered about from time to time. Occasionally I have had a dealer in Asia tell me that a bit of silk symbolizes and important event (e.g. birth of a son). I have also been told that it is featured in dowry or gift rugs. I never put too much stock in this lore, but it doesn't seem too far-fetched to people from that region.

Among tribal weavers, the Baluch seem the most inclined to use the visual approach of a generally monotone colour scheme punched up with a dramatic or subtle colour "punch". I wonder if this is carried through into the more micro level of the individual silk knot.

It is not unique to the Baluch though. Turkmen weavers occasionally add small flourishes to their weavings that don't contribute much to the overall aesthetic, but must either convey some sort of meaning or perhaps serve as some sort of talisman. Here is a small detail in the border of a Tekke engsi, which has a small cluster of knots in the middle of a border element. This is the only instance in the rug. It was obviously intentional, though hardly noticable from any distance. So although it must have some meaning or purpose, it is obscure.



With so many Baluch rugs having ivory wool warps, it seems unlikely to me that scarcity of light wool would explain the use of cotton.

James

Steve Price

Hi James

Use of small flourishes seems different to me than the use of silk that is essentially invisible to the observer. Maybe it was thought to serve some protective function for whoever owned it. If so, it raises the question of why it doesn't occur more often. Khorjin of the general type of the one I introduced here are fairly common, but silk knots in them isn't.

You point out that using ivory wool in the foundation is a strong indication that light colored wool wasn't a precious commodity. That's convincing enough for me. The hypothesis that the somber palette of some subset of the Belouch group reflects a scarcity of light colored wool is, therefore, in conflict with facts. Too bad. I thought it was a lovely hypothesis: simple, neat, and wrong.

Regards

Steve Price

James Blanchard

Hi Steve,

I agree that visible and essentially invisible details might have different purposes or motivations. But I think it is possible that both might serve some sort of talismanic function. Here's another hypothesis... these bits of silk were used as a "name tag" for identification of the weaver or owner. Try to disprove that one!

By the way, I think you have given up on your simple and neat hypothesis much too easily. Now is the time to defend it to the hilt... facts be da**ed. If you are able to include questions about my knowledge and/or character in your riposte, so much the better.

James

Steve Price

Hi James

Yes, both might be talismanic. Another thought that's crossed my mind about the use of single knots of silk that are essentially invisible is that they might be entirely for the benefit of the person for whom the piece was woven, a sign of respect or esteem from the weaver. If that was the case, the fact that nobody else would know that they exist wouldn't be important.

I think the "somber palette because those people couldn't get white or ivory wool to dye with bright colors" can be put to rest. The hypothesis served it purpose - it allowed a possible explanation to be discarded.

I won't say anything about your history as a child molester, of course.

With vindictive regards.

Steve Price

James Blanchard

Hi Steve,

I like your new hypothesis...

It is almost immune to definitive rejection based on evidence, so it must be true, of course.

James

Steve Price

Hi James

It doesn't rise to the level of being a hypothesis, for exactly that reason. I'd just call it a conjecture or a notion.

One thing most people don't understand about science is that an untestable hypothesis is rejected by default. This has an interesting consequence: if something that's untestable today becomes testable in the future (for example, as a result of technological progress or the discovery of new documentation), it can morph from being scientifically false to being scientifically true.

You already knew that, but most folks don't (and many scientists never think about it). My students usually find it to be terribly disturbing. They see science as a body of knowledge that grows, but is otherwise unchanging.

Regards

Steve Price

Joel Greifinger

Hi Steve,

Wouldn't you draw a distinction between "scientifically false" and "empirically unverifiable" for the sake of clarity? After all, we know that some claims are scientifically false precisely because they are falsified by empirical testing. For the untestable ones, I'd rather just bask in the glow of agnosticism.


Joel Greifinger

Steve Price

Hi Joel

Strictly speaking, the method of science (that's what science is, a codified method for testing truth) rejects hyotheses that are, in principle, untestable. Miracles are an obvious example. By definition, miracles are events that occur outside of natural law. The hypothesis that an event was a miracle is always rejected in science because it is, in principle, untestable. Lots of scientists believe in miracles anyway, and this is accomplished by abandoning their formal method of testing truth now and then. We seamlessly flip back and forth between systems for testing truth (so does everyone else, of course). It doesn't seem to create much discomfort.

Hypotheses that can be tested usually wind up being rejected, too. In fact, in formal terms, nothing is ever proven by the scientific method. The convention is that if we have subjected a hypothesis to many tests and failed to find one that rejects it, we promote it to a theory. If repeated independent tests still fail to disprove it, we call it a law. Not surprisingly, laws are rarely found to be incorrect, and when it happens, it's usually just a minor adjustment.

All of this is the reason why most scientific revolutions are technology driven. Hypotheses that were, in principle, untestable can become testable with new technology. They can morph from being looney notions to being true when this happens, and the history of science is full of examples.

Rugs, anyone?

Regards

Steve Price

Paul Smith

Greetings, Steve, et al--

There seem to be several levels of ornamentation in Baluchi rugs, from readily apparent to almost-too-subtle-to-be-intentional. While their actual significance to Baluchi people themselves is beyond us (though I'm certain that shamans were involved) I wonder whether your appreciation of the hidden jewels in your fabulous bird bag was similar to theirs, a secret within the pile. Their actual environment, we hear often, was incredibly desolate, and the weavings around them were surely a great delight to their eyes; why wouldn't they develop an appreciation for textiles that involved the tiniest details?



I offer this example, not as secret as your silk dots, but I wondered if it was related. I had this rug for longer than I'd like to admit before I noticed that the top white flower between the birds has a 9-knot camel center, a color found nowhere else in the rug. I suspect it is camel wool and thus a "special material" in the rug. These special materials (which apparently include cotton and metal thread) seem to be common enough that they might indeed be an artifact of a ritual of some kind--who knows about that sort of thing? But they are often not showy, revealed only when you study the piece over time, and I could believe that was a very deliberate effect for its own sake.

I was intrigued by the rug Martin posted, too, since that is the first Doktori Qazi I have seen with something other than wool in it as well. That use is very similar to the use in my example, which is to say not as obscured as the bird bag silk dots. But not ostentatious in any case.

Paul

Rich Larkin

Hi All,

My reaction to Steve's inquiry was similar to Paul's. I think many Baluch weavers are given to including some unobtrusive odd detail in their pieces, and the random silk or cotton knot is one manifestation of the practice. Paul's single point of camel wool or color could be another approach. The notion that these things are talismanic appeals to me.

Marvin, a question. Is the lime green cotton in your posted image the spot where the green creates negative space, forming a proper cross in red, in the meandering arrowhead border? If so, doesn't the same color (and material?) appear just to the left in the bracket form above the Doktor-i-ghazi shrub?

Rich Larkin

Steve Price

Hi Rich

You wrote, ... many Baluch weavers are given to including some unobtrusive odd detail in their pieces, and the random silk or cotton knot is one manifestation of the practice.

It may be that this is the case, although I suspect that unobtrusive odd details are in a different category than unobtrusive expensive material. But if your explanation is correct, it simply raises the more general question of why Belouch weavers did that. Certainly not to deflect and confuse the Evil Eye, unless the Belouch group notions of how to accomplish that important task was different than the ideas of most of their neighbors.

Regards

Steve Price

James Blanchard

Hi Steve,

The other odd thing about incorporating a few random knots of silk of different colours relates to the source of the silk. Presumably, silk wasn't available for sale in such minute quantitities that it would provide for only a few knots. Even a very small purchase of silk would probably provide for a few knots in a very large number of rugs and weavings.

Which leads me to another untestable hypothesis (which would be of no account in science, but could become common wisdom in rug circles if we can promote it effectively)...

Perhaps the source of these small knots of silk come from silk garments or other special textiles owned by the weaver or family members, and they have some reason for weaving it into the rug.

James

Marvin Amstey

Rich,
The only cotton are the 4 tiny boxes forming a cross in the negative red space. The other light areas that you question are white (cream-colored?) wool. Unfortunately my camera did not resolve the colors sufficiently.

Steve Price

Hi James

My thoughts are similar to yours. I suspect that the Belouch (and, for that matter, the Turkmen) used silk that came from unraveling textiles obtained from Silk Road caravans by fair means or foul. Those textiles may have seen service as garments or trappings in the Belouch community before being unraveled. In any case, their presence would give the bag (or rug) some importance independently of the aesthetic value of silk.

I don't know why they used the silk, of course, but certain possibilities can be eliminated. Since it was virtually invisible when used as scattered single knots, it couldn't have been meant to impress other folks with the owner's wealth or for the aesthetic qualities of silk.

Regards

Steve Price

Rich Larkin

Hi all,

I don't mean to shift the thread off the silk focus, but I think Paul's suggestion about the isolated silk highlights being one manifestation of a broader impulse among the Baluch group weavers is also worth thinking about. Marvin's example of the one little cross formed by cotton outline is a good one. If Paul can post a close-up image of the back of his spot of camel wool without reviving the camel wool wars, that might tell us something, too. (The obverse view of that material often looks distinctly different from the other wools.)

Following is a bit of a wreck of a Baluch I've had (in this condition) since the mid sixties.



The four orange knots in the detail are the only occurrence of this color in the rug. The detail image is from the lower right corner, immediately adjacent to its location in the left side image. I assume for the discussion that the orange was dyed with a synthetic product, and the other colors with natural substances. It isn't such an impressive example of the point I'm making (we have to work with what we've got!), but it does beg the question why the weavers would have elected to use that yarn so sparingly in just that one spot, at the beginning of the weaving. It happens that I've seen a number of Baluch rugs obviously related to this example over the years, featuring the salorish guls arranged in this manner (sometimes two across, sometimes three, noting that mine tries both strategies), with the alternating green and orange outline effect. The secondary gul of mine, or something very like it, is also typical, as is the full use of purplish brown. In just about all of the ones I recall having seen since obtaining mine, the synthetic looking orange was used.

Of course, there may be a very prosaic explanation for the phenomenon. The grandmother may have said to the little girl, "No, we're not going to use that yarn." Mystery solved. My point isn't really about this rug, so much as the occurrence of these subtle and apparently random touches. Though the odd touch in my example seems to have been simply stuck in there, in Paul's and Marvin's examples, it seems to have been quite focused, but far from ostentatious. All of them, including Steve's, can be interpreted to have used "special materials;" even my own, if synthetically dyed yarn might have been "special" among these weavers when my rug was woven.

It seems there are two distinct issues. One, was the choice of material for these little flourishes significant? Also, what was the purpose of them? One of the early books mentions, perhaps dubiously, that in old Baluches, one could find celestial constellations sprinkled through the rugs. If my rug is showing an attempt at the big dipper, it was a poor rendition.

Rich Larkin

Paul Smith

Hi Rich--

Here is an image of the camel-colored flower center from the back. It is a little shinier, and the texture looks different to me in person, but who knows.



It would seem to me that if they acquired silk from raiding caravans that the use might be more ostentatious, the Baluch equivalent of the cow horns on the Cadillac. But James' theory of putting in a few threads from a family member's clothing is a very plausible explanation and explains its sparing use. So it still could come from the raid, but spent a few years in grandma's robe before ending up in the bagface.

Paul

Dinie Gootjes

Hi Steve and all,

Back to pondering the imponderable: why did they do what they did?
There is one point I would like to make: the silk knots you mention are now often practically impossible to find in the wool pile. Would this not have been different at the time of weaving? Many of these silk knots were a bright magenta, pink or purple, all colours that have now faded, but which would have stood out well, probably even as a single knot. Not from any great distance, but certainly at somewhat close quarters. Also, silk wears fast, many of them are lower than the surrounding wool, which contributes to their disappearance as well. We have a small, dark rug in which both factors contributed to them remaining unnoticed for many years, actually until someone mentioned hidden silk knots in some old thread on TT.

Dinie

Steve Price

Hi Dinie

I don't think the silk knots in the two Belouch bagfaces that I have with silk in them are faded; the colors on the back are virtually identical to those on the front. The height of the silk pile is more or less the same as that of the wool pile surrounding it, too. The silk isn't really invisible from the front, but is extremely inconspicuous from distances of more than a few feet. That is, unless the Belouch folks were pretty tolerant of having others within their personal space, those silk knots would not have drawn attention.

Whatever the reason for including silk was, it must have been independent of receiving compliments about it from other people.

Belouch weavings often have lots of invisible stuff in the form of hidden motifs that are hidden by the low contrast between them and the colors that surround them. The bird Khorjin has 9 birds of nearly identical morphology, but you probably wouldn't guess that unless you were less than a foot away. The other bag has 10 rosette-based motifs that are nearly identical except for color, too, but only half of them are obvious from more than a foot or so away.

Regards

Steve Price

James Blanchard

Hi Steve,

I fully agree with your assessment of the "Baluch style", which is in some respects unique among the weaving groups. Unlike other weaving groups, many of the "Baluch groups" avoid the sorts of high contrast designs of Caucasian weaving, the detailed and busy drawing and vibrant palettes of S. Persian tribal groups and the geometric dimensions of some Turkmen groups. Instead, many Baluch weavings seem to focus on sometimes complex admixtures of design elements that are rendered in relatively low contrast. However, many of these weavings of sombre palette use a sparing punctuation with colour to add interest and life to the composition. This can be somewhat dramatic, such as the use of one white bird (as in Steve's "bird bag"), or the dotting of white floral elements on a Mina Khani rug. In other cases it is even more subtle, but nonetheless important. Consider the following couple of examples. The first is a balisht that has a relatively pedestrian design and layout punctuated by two minor field elements that are outlined in orange, whereas the rest are outlined in a more subdued shade of red. The result not only draws attention to those elements, but also livens up the whole composition.



The second example is a Baluch group prayer rug. Again, the overall design and composition could be a bit bland, but the weaver uses two colour devices to liven things up. For one, she uses a vibrant blue abrash (at the top of the rug). Another more subtle device is the use of a light orange in the centre of the two central design elements in the middle of the field. Again, these draw attention to those elements, but also enliven the whole composition.



I don't mean to suggest that the use of colour in these examples is akin to the use of individual knots of silk or other special materials. But I think it illustrates the Baluch tendency to focus attention on seemingly small details within an otherwise uniform design, and this is one aspect of what I think is a unique "Baluch aesthetic".

James

Steve Price

Hi James

Your post reminded me that we did a Salon 10 years ago about the Belouch practice of "hiding" design elements by using colors with so little contrast that the elements were virtually invisible. Here is a link to it.

Regards

Steve Price

James Blanchard

Hi Steve,

Thanks for the reference to the previous Salon and discussion. It is an interesting read. For the benefit of others, I am inserting your summary remarks on the discussion here.

Perhaps this sums up why some of us have become Baluchophiles. There is a "je ne sais quois" about good Baluch weavings that stirs our interest.

James

Chuck Wagner

Greetings all,

Here's yet another example that fits the larger conversation: a couple silk knots, and, really low contrast in the color palette. In the second row of medallions from the top, there are two (rightmost, and second from left) that have a single knot of pink silk in the center of the upper interior red diamond:



As you can see, this bag is quite worn down in spots. Still, the silk knots are still in reasonably good shape and stand out when close to the bag:



My feelings on the details ? I suspect it's something more like: I put a little something special in your bag, dear, so you'll think of me whenever you use it.

If my wife wove saddlebags, that would certainly be the case...

Or, the husband really likes silk but doesn't want to be perceived as a silk-liker by the rest of the boyz (), so the wife added a couple bits to make him happy ?

Regards,
Chuck Wagner

Dinie Gootjes

Hi All,

Looking through the pictures posted up to now, it looks to me like there are two kinds of silk details. One is the kind where the silk, however little there is of it, has a function in the design, be it on a micro level. Examples would be Marvin's rug in post #2, James' Tekke engsi, Paul's mina khani and Chuck's bag. The silk knots either form little design elements or they are in the centre of a design element. I could very well see a weaver put in these little flourishes for herself or for anyone who would take the trouble to look up close at her work. In the same way other artists put in tiny details that get lost in the big picture, but form a reward for anyone willing to look up close. I once saw an etching of a kitchen scene in which few people noticed the mouse tail sticking out from under a cupboard. In the same way a weaver would notice it herself, every time she was close to the rug/bag, and everyone taking the trouble to take a good look at her work would notice too. Certainly in a culture where this kind of thing must have been part of the tradition. So the silk would not be there to impress, but to reward.
The other kind is best exemplified in Rich's orange dots. These seem to be placed at random, though they are where you would expect knots of the same salmon colour. I cannot see a design function for those. Maybe a child was allowed to put in a few beautiful knots as a reward for her help, as was suggested by a dealer we know? Steve, I cannot see where the other silk knots are in your bag faces. The ones in the bird's neck do not look random to me, the rest I cannot make out. I cannot even find the magenta ones on the back view of the second bag on my monitor .
Does the above make sense to anyone out there?

Dinie

Richard Larkin

Hi Folks,

Steve's link to the earlier treatment of low contrast coloring in Baluch rugs is very interesting. I note that in one post, Tom Cole cited Ronnie Newman for the proposition that often, the simplest and most mundane reasons account for what might seem mysterious in rugs. I have often wondered whether the appearance of low contrast coloring in Baluch rugs was usually a conscious aesthetic decision; or merely a reflection of the fact that they only had so many colors to work with, and made the best of them. The following piece is exemplary of the issue.



The two very low contrast reds are apparent from the repeating lozenge design in the field. This is a very familiar design in the Baluch group repertoire, and it often appears utilizing two shades of red, presumably madder. Sometimes, the effect is similar to the image I've posted, and sometimes the contrast is much sharper. For example, a similar looking Baluch appears in a black and white illustration in the Hajji Baba Club's Christmas Exhibition catalog of 1973 or 1974, in which the effect is described as "sunlight breaking through clouds." On the other hand, I have a khorjin employing the same pattern, and the madder reds are quite distinctly dark and light.

The aesthetic choice to mimic sunlight breaking through clouds is appealing. However, I wonder if it wasn't just a case of the weavers of this rug I've posted carrying out two madder dyeing projects in anticipation of the upcoming weaving season, and having the results come out very close. By all accounts, they lived their lives in very stark and harsh conditions, and were generally poor, and perhaps they couldn't afford to scrap the results and try again.

I have had a fondness for Baluch weaving for the more than forty years I've been a ruggie, and I've always had a notion of the Baluch as poor, hard-pressed, and living under very difficult conditions. The fact that they could produce spare but often very beautiful textiles under those conditions is part of what has attracted me to their work. The triumph of the underdog. That may be somewhat idealistic and unrealistic, but that's the way it is in rugs.

A related issue involved with the use of low contrast yarns is the technical challenge of successfully drawing and weaving intricate patterns. The detail shot of my piece illustrates a fairly complicated and intricate border treatment. Essentially, it consists of the indigo and two reds as the primary components of the design, with background and accent colors of brown and white. I would imagine the challenge of keeping the reds straight in the execution of this border to be difficult.

Notwithstanding my comments above, I find the various comments about the intentional use of low contrast colors for aesthetic reasons, as exemplified in early Turkoman rugs and earlier Mamluk rugs, to be interesting and compelling.

Rich Larkin

Dinie Gootjes

Hi Rich,

As to the weaving with low contrast colours, I have wondered how they did that.Was it done by keeping the yarns in fixed places? These patterns were worked in different colour combinations, so maybe the memorizing would not be along the lines of '3 red, 2 blue, 4 light red', but more like '3 colour A, 2 colour B' etc. Then as long as you keep the yarns in fixed spots, your hand would automatically go to the right colour, whether you could make out the exact shade or not. Does anyone know about this?

Dinie

Richard Larkin

Hi Dinie,

I suspect the weavers approach it somewhat as you suggested. I recall that at the London "Carpet Magic" conference of about 1983, they had installed a Turkish woman weaver at the Barbican venue. I think she was connected with the DOBAG people. Watching her manipulate her yarns and the rest of the whole business was a revelation. There were skeins of yarn hanging everywhere, some of them on swinging arms attached to the loom, and had I ventured into the thing, there would have been a very real risk of strangulation. But this woman moved those things around with the greatest of aplomb, and never seemed to be challenged by the apparent chaos of the set-up. Neither did she appear to be concentrating especially hard on keeping her task straight, but rather more on smiling at the onlookers. Anyway, it was clear that she would carry one color fully across the width of the weaving, inserting it wherever it was needed. Then she'd move to the next color, and so on. It seemed that she understood the design in terms of placing specific colors at known intervals, rather than as a graphic taking shape as she wove it.

Watching her shift those sheds and and swing those yarn covered arms and so forth was like watching Horowitz play the piano. This lady was wearing two dresses my grandmother would have called housedresses, one on top of the other, in conflicting colors and patterns, and a sweater on top of all that, and all of them about two sizes too snug. Yet, so graceful and confident were her movements at the loom, after about an hour of watching, you felt like you'd just had about an hour of soothing massage. Whether things were the same in the Baluchi camps, I can't say.

Rich Larkin

Doug Klingensmith

Greetings-
This thread reminded me of an old rug of undetermined age and origin that I picked up years ago. Its principle purpose is floor covering suitable for a 100lb Labrador retriever, but I liked it because it's woven entirely from various shades of undyed yarn, with a few tiny exceptions-


Perhaps the weaver couldnt stand the humdrum result and inserted some "bling". The little additions (which I believe are synthetically dyed silk and could have come from a pair of socks) may have been added afterwards. they seem to be loops rather than pile.



it doesnt seem like a rug that was woven for sale, so the little features were probably perosnal touches. They could have also been inserted well after the rug was made...

cheers, d.k.

Patrick Weiler

Rich,

You described the Baluch:
"By all accounts, they lived their lives in very stark and harsh conditions, and were generally poor, and perhaps they couldn't afford to scrap the results and try again."
It reminds me of my early rug collecting.

Dinie,

You said:
"I could very well see a weaver put in these little flourishes for herself or for anyone who would take the trouble to look up close at her work. In the same way other artists put in tiny details that get lost in the big picture, but form a reward for anyone willing to look up close."
I was in an art museum looking at pre-impressionist 19th century paintings and was admiring a still life of a vase of flowers. I wondered if the artist had truly painted it "from life" and looking very closely, I could see that he had actually painted the reflection of himself in the glass vase.
I mentioned this to another viewer, pointing at the location of the "self-portrait" when I was rudely interrupted by one of the docents "Don't get too close to the painting!"
So, yes, it is not only likely the weavers inserted little flourishes for others to find but that it was possibly even a common practice among some groups of weavers. And painters.

Patrick Weiler

David R E Hunt

Hi Patrick

I think you have gotten to the bottom of this (with the aid of Dine of course).
The purpose of the use of conspicuous amounts of silk is pretty much self explanatory, it seems, and so should follow the use of silk "highlights"?

Different cultures and people define their personal space in various ways, and Americans have particularly large personal spaces. By contrast (if memory serves) many peoples have a much smaller personal space. Would this smaller personal space lead to a greater degree of social intimacy, and by extension, to greater scrutiny of such personal objects as Khorjin?

The following photo is from British photojournalist Peter Sanders' book,
"In The Shade Of The Tree", and is accompanied by the following caption;




My search for a traditional wedding in Turkmenistan took us on a long drive through the outskirts of Merv (presently named Mary) Once we had permission, I was allowed into the house to set up my equiptment. I had assumed that I would be photographing the bride and groom, so imagine my surprise when this whole entourage of women and children came in and sat in front of me.

True, Turkmen aren't Balouch, but still it seems appropriate.

Dave

Steve Price

Hi Dave

I suspect that the gregarious nature is a characteristic of the cultures throughout that area. It's certainly true among the Turkish, where the concept of wanting to be alone seems foreign to their thinking. This is one of the things that makes visiting that part of the world such a pleasure.

I think the invention of cell phones liberated these people, freeing them to be physically remote but still in direct voice contact. They were in the hands of everyone in Turkey long before every American had one.

Regards

Steve Price