Yohann Gissinger

Hello to all of you,

I bought this poor little rug wishing to learn about.
It’s in very bad condition, but for me it's the first baluch study piece in my collection. I didn't take a risk it was very cheap.



Experienced persons will probably appreciate its origin at first glance.





After a brief surfing on the web, I think one can call its central design “Mushwani”, maybe a commercial designation. Besides that, the palette and the borders look like the Timuri/Taimani examples.

Am I partially right? What precise attribution can we make?
What criteria to appreciate age and origin of this kind of rugs?

Thanks in advance,
Y.

Marvin Amstey

Nice rug. My guess is circa 1900.
Mushwani is a tribal designation,and this rug satisfies everyone's description of what that is. However, Azadi attributes a very similar rug to the Bahluri tribe in Khorasan, Kainat region. A direct quote from Azadi: "This design is characteristic of a group of carpets of the Kainat region and is not confined to Afghanistan, as assumed by George O'Bannon in his essay on Mushwani." This is from Azadi, S. Teppiche in der Belutsch-Tradition, 1986.

Steve Price

Hi Yohann

The matter of Mushwani attribution seems to come up every five years or so. It received some attention in Tom Cole's excellent Salon, especially in this discussion thread.

Regards

Steve Price

Paul Smith

Hi Yohann--

By my twisted standards, your lovely small rug isn't in such poor condition, and such fine colors! And cheap, you say. Bravo! I have a main carpet, shown before on Turkotek, that I think is from the same group, whoever they are, though the end finishes differ in style somewhat.

It seems that some names seem to be more meaningful than others; perhaps "Mushwani" is just about useless, while "Timuri" or "Taimuri" does seem to imply a pool of designs and a style of weaving that may actually apply to the people called that, and in figuring out what attribution to give my carpet, "Timuri" is where I ended up. My carpet has significant repiling in places and is thin in others (so I suppose it would be in "poor" condition too, but the repairs themselves are beautiful)...I don't know that there are too many rugs of this ilk and age with full pile, but I would heartily encourage an onslaught of killer old "Baluch-group rugs with latch-hook medallions."

Paul

James Blanchard

Hi all,

Well, just to add to the mix, here is my contribution of a "latch-hook" Baluch. It looks quite similar to both of yours. I really like this sort of "Baluch", even if I couldn't say for sure who made it or where. Note that mine has a rather loose and "casual" structure. Accordingly, the handle is very floppy, though a bit "chunky". The wool is very soft, and plush.

James

Chuck Wagner

Yohann,

Some time ago we had an interesting discussion regarding a particular subset of this ilk of rug that is constructed from two pieces; here's the link:

http://www.turkotek.com/misc_00026/two_piece_belouch.htm

Regards,
Chuck Wagner

George Potter

Hi all,

Lovely rugs. Here is my contribution:



This rug is not as old as the one I posted back in 2005, in the link provided by Chuck. The rug is made from three sewn strips; it has nice thick silky pile.

Regards,
George Potter

Rich Larkin

Hi George,

Very interesting. Are you quite sure it was woven originally in three strips (as contrasted with cut twice and rejoined)? I've seen two-piecers joined down the middle, but this is the first of this type I recall seeing.

Rich Larkin

George Potter

Hi Rich,

Yes I am sure, it shows on close inspection of the weaving and how it is sewn together. There is another example of this type of rug in three strips in R. D. Parsons book “Oriental Rugs”, Volume 3, “The Carpets of Afghanistan”, page 93. The advantage of three strips is that the field matches up, which was probably a hassle for those who wove their rugs in two strips. Unfortunately my scanner gave up a while ago so I can not scan Parsons rug for you.

Regards,
George Potter

Frank Martin Diehr

@ Yohan:

That's a pretty decent example of the type, and if you think that it is in poor condition you should see some of mine ... the condition is fair, and the dyes all look good on my screen, a good find I should think.

To my mind, it is Timuri, ca. 1900, and seems to be a rather small main carpet. We call the latch-hook diamonds in the field a "Mushwani" design, but that's just a convention, because your rug was certainly not made by a Mushwani weaver.

The other rugs that have come up in this thread have similar designs, but "Rugs in the Baluch Tradition" are a minefield, and superficial design, structure or colour scheme similarities should not lead us cocky assumptions, but of course they do.

Anyway, nice one, if you keep at it you're doomed, take it from the horse's mouth ...

Frank

__________________
This is just an uneducated guess!

Frank Martin Diehr

p.s.

In "Three Dusty Dozen", pl. 47, I show my own, simlar, fairly large example of the type, which I called "Timuri, with the so-called Mushwani diamond" design. I dated that carpet to ca. 1860-1880.
The Timuri and the Mushwani are two distinctly different tribal groups.

Frank

__________________
This is just an uneducated guess!

Yohann Gissinger

Hello Frank,

I don' have this book yet, could you be pleased to post a copy of the plate 47?

Thanks in advance and best regards,
Y.

David R E Hunt

Hi Johann

Yes, an interesting find. But please, tell us more if you can. Dimensions? Knot count and type of knot? If I had just found this flea market gem, my first move would be (besides the obvious looking for comparators in my small selection of rug books, and on the internet) to give it a bath, condition and dye fastness permitting. If it's small enough, one need no more than a bath tub, a bottle of Johnsons Baby Shampoo, and a scrub brush. After washing, just spread it out flat and let nature take it's course, being sure to give it a good brushing after it dries. I find it difficult to tell weather the obscured pattern of the rug is due to it's being dirty, the photograph itself, or of low pile.

I don't have Frank's "Three Dusty Dozen" so I can't put up Plate 47, but I do have his "Treasured Baluch Pieces From Private Collections" from whence the following, on page 91.



The caption reads (among other things) that " This is a spaciously drawn example this standard type of rug", and "Salmon pink and yellow nicely compliment the chocolate brown field and give the rug a fairly light pastel tonality". 40 in (86cm) X 73 in (186cm), symmetric knot,910 per square dm.



This one is from "Baluch Tribal Weavings, The Wisdom Collection" Plate 14 on page 41, of which Wisdom states

The spacious drawing displays substantially more ivory pile than is normally found in this grouop which inherently has darker palettes, complex medallions, and multiple border framing. However, ivory ground borders of the wine-glass variant or stylized vine designs are quite common in this group. Complimented by two running-dog minor borders and long striped plain-weave end skirts, this rug represents a unique group of baluch weavings.

3'2" X 5' 1", Turkish knot open right, 64 kpsi..




Here we have plate #2 fromn Craycraft's "Belouch Prayer Rugs", (with Johann's rug to it's immediate right). The Craycraft piece is characterized as being baluch and of North Andraskand origin, being of asymmetric knot open left and 75 kpsi.

Notice the striking similarities between the two rugs, how close the color selection. And these borders, down to their sequence and barring minior variation, are the same. Even the innermost stripe, executed in white in Johann's piece, is just a simplified rendition of the inner border of the Craycraft piece. Notice also the dark blue field to be found in both rugs.

So it seems, just for our purposes here, that we have two classes of "Mushwani" design carpets, those of symmetric and asymmetrical knots, those of the symmetric knot sporting the "white ground border" group, and what I assume to be the larger class of darker colored asymmetric knotted rugs open left. Anyone have any structural data to go along with the photos of the rugs posted to this thread?

Dave

David R E Hunt

Hi Johann

So these two groups are of the Bahluli, a Kurd affiliated group which weaves the latch hook diamond motive rugs in a lighter palette and a symmetric knot, and the Mushwani, a Baluch group of the Andraskand region which weaves the darker rugs in the asymmetric knot. But how do the Timuri fit into this nexus? Are the Timuri more at a setteled group, or are the majority nomadic?

If you follow the link to the discussion regarding Mushwani weaving cited by Steve, you will find this statement, made by Chuck Wagner which states that;

"I think it would be aggressive to automatically assign any of the "latch hook medallion" rugs to the Mushwani, although it's a common practice by dealers. That pattern is more correcty associated with the weaving groups in and around the Adraskand area, which include a number of nomadic Baluchi and non-Baluchi transhumants as well as settled tribal groups".

Interesting, in light of the fact that Craycraft cites the Andraskand region as the origins of the excellent and so kindered Baluch prayer rug,#2, cited below, as did Boucher and McCoy Jones in the 1974 IHBS X Mas Catalogue in regard to a Baluch fragment, # 21, which is close analog to a Baluch fragment in my collection and discussed earlier here




After obtaining my fragment I did what any good baluchophile does, and began looking for analogs. One of the best matches I could find was that of the #2 prayer rug from Craycraft. They really have much in commom; knot type and count, colors, the use of a dark ground, and the tree of life motive. But perhaps even more telling is the high correlation between the two weavings in regard to the design motive and layout. Both have a kindered floral meander border. Both the 'Meder Stars" and the quartered design elements of the major border are found in the field of the fragment, in fact most all of the design elements found in the Craycraft rug are found represented in this large fragment. The dark ground color seems possessed of a similar tonal variability.




In his brief discussion of prayer rug #2, Craycraft asserts that this piece may have been made within the town of Andraskand proper. Is it possible that this large fragment is of a similar origin, as in made in the town of Andraskan? What of the ethnic composition of Andraskand? Are they Baluch (possibly the Mushwani?) or of Timuri origin, or even of both?

Johann's carpet sports the same design elements (most all again are found in the large fragment) as the Craycraft piece, and it seems to follow that all, once again are of kindered origin, what so ever the relationship may be. Johann, you had posted a query in regard to dating of baluch rugs, and while far from science, the conventional wisdom (more at art?) states that intensity and clairity of color differientiate the elder from more recent, among such other factors as spacing, it is my understanding...

Dave

James Blanchard

Hi Dave,

I think we might actually be considering three different rug groups, but I am not sure.

The structure of my rug is as follows: ivory wool warps, no alternate warp depression, wool wefts (brown, grey and ivory) with 2-3 wefts per row, knotting asymmetric open left at about 7v x 5-6h per inch (35-42 kpsi). The selvedge is two thick cords wrapped in goat hair. I have previously attributed my rug to the "Farah" region. I hesitate to call it "Timuri", even though it has a naive version of the "crab" border and mid-blues. Frank Diehr suggests that those two features are associated with the Timuri.

A couple of these rugs might well be Timuri, as Frank has suggested. The symmetrically knotted ones that you have referred to seem to be in a separate grouping, one of which Frank has attributed to the "Mushwani".

So, we have "Farah" (or maybe "Taimaini"), Timuri and Mushwani. But perhaps these distinctions are false or naive. Still, it does seem that there are some differences in these rugs with the "Mushwani" latch-hook design.

James

Yohann Gissinger

Hello to all,

Here more details about the rug:

Dimensions : 114X124 cm without the kilim bands
Warp: Z two ply S natural ivory wool
Weft : two shots of oxydised black wool between each row of knots
Knots: asymmetric open left (6/cm2 or 39kpsi)
Colors (>): (8) aubergine (not brown like on my screen), blue (2 tones), brick color (2 tones), oxydised black, white, little spots of yellow
Sides: missing

After all, what to think about that extract, is it always verified? :
(From the Horses Mouth-Talking 'Baluch' with Jerry Anderson)

HALI: Did the tribes copy designs from one another?
JA: Not until recently, never. Copy artists in the Baluch confederation began to work after about 1945. Up until 1940 or so, the traditional system of tribal identity among the Baluch tribes in Sistan, Khorasan and Afghanistan remained intact. Of course intertribal marriages did occur, and a blend of design and styles naturally ensued. The woman would weave her tribe’s or clan’s border design around her husband’s tribe’s field design. Among adherents, defeated clans or tribes who adhered to a dominant tribe, weavers would put their border around the field design of the dominant tribe…

Thanks and best regards
Y.

Yohann Gissinger

P.S.
oxydised black turned into green

Steve Price

Hi Yohann

Your quote from Jerry Anderson's interview in HALI,

HALI: Did the tribes copy designs from one another?
JA: Not until recently, never. Copy artists in the Baluch confederation began to work after about 1945. Up until 1940 or so, the traditional system of tribal identity among the Baluch tribes in Sistan, Khorasan and Afghanistan remained intact. Of course intertribal marriages did occur, and a blend of design and styles naturally ensued. The woman would weave her tribe’s or clan’s border design around her husband’s tribe’s field design. Among adherents, defeated clans or tribes who adhered to a dominant tribe, weavers would put their border around the field design of the dominant tribe…

This is pretty puzzling to me. Jerry Anderson probably knew more about the Belouch groups from first hand experience than anyone in Rugdom before or since (notwithstanding a recent on-line claim from a self-professed expert who thinks he's actually able to identify Belouch group archetypical weavings). Yet, his opinion here seems to be almost obviously incorrect. Belouch group weavings that include distinctly Turkmen designs, motifs and layouts are routinely attributed to pre-1945 dates, and I'd be surprised if there aren't at least a few that can be documented to have been collected before then. If that's true (I believe that it is, although I can't put my hands on firm evidence at the moment), then they clearly copied/borrowed/imported Turkmen elements. Why would they not do the same with designs, motifs and layouts of neighboring Belouch groups?

Regards,

Steve Price

Yohann Gissinger

Hello Steve,

My english is not perfect, maybe I misunderstand you. I beg your pardon in advance.

The woman would weave her tribe’s or clan’s border design around her husband’s tribe’s field design. Among adherents, defeated clans or tribes who adhered to a dominant tribe, weavers would put their border around the field design of the dominant tribe…

In my opinion, Jerry Anderson's sentence means that copying is tightly "sewn" with assimilation of people from other clans or tribes. It's not that copying doesn't exist before 40's, it is only that the rules which governed the copy before 1940 are not any more strictly respected after this date...

Even about turkmen designs, why copying would not obey the same rules before the 40's ?
Are there some historical incompatibilities?

best regards,
Y.

Steve Price

Hi Yohann

Your reading of it may be right. But there's an awful lot of Belouch group weaving with Turkmen roots, and I'm a bit skeptical about whether great numbers of Turkmen women married into Belouch communities.

Until not so very long ago, a common criticism of Belouch group weaving was that it was dominated by copying/borrowing/importing of elements from other weaving groups, especially Turkmen, and therefore lacked originality. Jerry Anderson's position seems to be that copying/borrowing/importing of design elements almost never happened among the Belouch groups. I suppose it's possible that nearly all of the examples were woven after World War II. The alternative explanation is that Jerry Anderson was mistaken. I suppose that's possible, too.

Regards

Steve Price

Yohann Gissinger

Hello to all,

Here another extract from the Jerry's interview:

HALI: And the Mushwani?
JA: They are the Sarabani Mushwani, a huge group who came from Caucasia after the fall of Khazar, a Turkic state which converted to Judaism. The Sarabani left after the Swedish Vikings ransacked that area. They escaped into what is known today as Afghanistan. Now the Mushwani are just one subgroup of the Sarabani. They are located in various places. There are some near Quetta and some in southeast Afghanistan. There are even some in the vicinity of Islamabad here in Pakistan. Depending on where they are located they speak different languages, including Farsi, Pushto, Brahui and Rakshani Baluchi. But the rug weaving groups called Mushwani are located near Adraskand in western Afghanistan and in Sistan.

Here a picture of a caucasian rug:



Any comment?
Regards,
Y.

James Blanchard

Hi Johann,

That is very intriguing. I must say I had forgotten that assertion in the Anderson interview. To add a bit more interest, Diehr offers a couple of Mushwani examples in his books with symmetrical knotting, another feature of Caucasian weaving.

I tend to agree with Steve. Although some designs might have been quite stable within Baluch tribal groups, it is hard to survey the broad area of Baluch weavings and not come away with the impression that they were adept at adapting designs from other traditions and making them there own. In addition to the Turkmen-inspired designs, consider also the Baluch "mina khani" designs. The "tree-of-life" design also seems to find its way into more than one group of Baluch weaving. But the idea of looking at borders separately from the main field is an interesting concept.

James

Richard Larkin

Hi all,

I've observed that this design tends to appear in variant conformations, with the distinguishing factor being the extent to which the interlocked, curved hooks dominate, or the nested, concentric lozenges with serrated edges. Following are a couple of small format bags that nevertheless illustrate the two component designs. (Apologies on the second example for any number of reasons, including the lighting, my failure to rotate it ninety degrees, etc.)





For no reason I can support, I have considered the predominance or proliferation of the interlocked, curved hooks to be the "purer" version of the design. Do others have views similar to or opposed to that take?

Incidentally, I don't think there's any doubt that the design was employed by a variety of weavers within the greater Baluch group. My own two are clearly from different venues. As far as the term "Mushwani" is concerned, I recall a few years ago some very spirited debate whether there was a definable group that passed under the name. If memory serves, one commentator swore there was no such group. Meanwhile, Wegner may have been cited as having said he had provided medical services to the phantom group over several years. Etc. Does this ring a bell with anyone?

Rich Larkin

James Blanchard

Hi Rich,

Those are both interesting, but very different bag faces. I am not sure which one you think has the more "classic" "Mushwani" drawing.

I do recall the debate about whether or not the "Mushwani" is a tribal group, and don't recall that we came to any definitive conclusion. My own sense is that such a sub-tribe does exist, based primarily on my discussions with folks in the region.

Here are a couple more very different small pieces that could be broadly referred to as "Mushwani" in design. But it would be hard to group these into the same category...

James

Simon Knight

Hello,

Having followed the discussions with intrest for a number of years, I thought you would be interested in some images of what I would consider to be the oldest of the many so called 'Mushwani' weavings that I have handled. This small rug; about 5ft x 3ft is very close in design to those published by Frank Diehr. The borders are of particular interest as is the dotted line that seperates the rug into three panels. The colour range gives a very soft and natural feel; later 'Mushwani's' often seen to be bolder in their drawing with brighter colours.

Regards,

Simon.

James Blanchard

Hi Simon,

That is a lovely one, and it does look old.

Here is one that I passed up several years ago. I think it is also an old one, with some appealing features. But for some reason it looks like it comes from a different pool than yours, doesn't it?

James

Dinie Gootjes

Hi Rich and All,

There was a long thread dealing with the Mushwani in the end of 2007 I think. At the time Gene Williams made a number of summaries of the different viewpoints on who made the the rugs with the "Mushwani" design. I saved three of them . I will copy the last and most comprehensive one here:

Gosh, here we go again; It seems that there is eternal hope that some rug book might actually be authoritative, in spite of all we’ve written above. To illustrate my (by now extreme) skepticism, here is my reading of various claims about who wove the “Mushwani” design piled carpets”

Jerry Anderson:
…Tribe: Baluch (connected to the Sarbandi’s).
…Lang : Baluch
…Loc : Sistan and near Adraskand (the rug weavers).
…More: Also found in Southeast Afghanistan, near Quetta, and near Islamabad. These extended family Mushwanis speak Farsi/Dari, Pashtu, Brahui, Rakshani Baluch.

Jerry Anderson:
…Tribe: Baluch (connected to the Sarbandi’s including Sharaki and Balul).
…Lang : Baluch or Sistan Farsi dialect
…Loc : Sistan
…More: Sharaki, Balul, and other Sistani groups wove the design per Tom Cole's interview.

Jerry Anderson:
…Tribe: Taimani Chahar Aimaq
…Lang : Dari
…loc : Ghor Province, Farah Province
…More: At one time Taimani were credited with weaving all of the Mushwani designs. However, we established they didn’t really start to market their stuff until 1920’s and then it was mostly bags. There is no/no/no way they could have woven the Mushwani-like designs from Seistan.

Parsons:
…Tribe: Pashtun (Mushwani) (what branch is not stated).
…Lang : Dari speakers (previously Pashtun).
…Loc : Baghdis and Herat Province; Some near Shindand/Adraskand.
…More: Some found around Gulran District and Qala ye Nau (Baghdis). Some make Mushwani piled carpets near Karokh (50 km NE of Herat) and “Seh Mirab”’s near Shindand/Adraskand

Parsons:
…Tribe: Pashtun (possibly the Durrani Noorzai?)
…Lang: Pashtun
…Loc : Southern Farah Province
…More: Taught to weave the design by the “ Sarhodi Baluch”

Parsons:
…Tribe: Baluch (“Sarhodi Balouch”)
…Lang : Rakshani Baluch
…Loc : Khash river, Northern Nimruz, Southern Farah Province
…More: Taught the Farah pashtuns; Baluch, Pashtun, Dari. (my extreme skepticism re the Parson's identification of "Sarhodi Baluch" being in the Khash valley is subject of a post above.)

Craycroft:
…Tribe: Hazara Chahar Aimaq
…Lang : Dari
…Loc : Baghdis Province, Qala-ye-Nao area.
…More: Maintains he can identify the sub-tribe and the village where each “Mushwani” is produced.

Hull & Lucyc-Wyhowska:
…Tribe: Pashtun (branch not specified)
…Lang : Pashtun
…Loc : Not stated.
…More: Discussion of Mushwani is in the Pashtun section of the book not the Baluch.

Wegner:
…Tribe: Jamshedi Chahar Aimaq
…Lang: Dari
…Loc : Bagdhis, Herat Provinces
…More: Originally claimed the Mushwani were a sub-tribe of the Jamshedi. Later said he was not sure if they wove piled carpets at all or even if the exist. Not sure if they are Baluch or Pashtun.

Wegner:
…Tribe: Taimuri
…Lang: Farsi/Dari
…Loc : Western Herat Province, Eastern Khorrasan Iran
…More: Managed to leave the impression that the “Mushwani”’s might be Taimuri.

Eiland:
…Tribe: Pushtun (Pathan)??
…Lang: Dari, Pashtun or Baluch
…Loc : Northern Herat Province
…More: Eiland began by claiming the “Moridari Julge Barkarz” wove the design and were related to the Kuduani. He placed the Kuduani into Kunar (NE Afghanistan). The Kuduani, however are in fact a subtribe of the Jamshedi Chahar Aimaq.

Eiland:
…Tribe: Baluch
…Lang: Dari, Pashtun or Baluch
…Loc : Northern Herat Province
…More: Eiland began by claiming the “Moridari Julge Barkarz” wove the design and were related to the Kuduani. He placed the Kuduani into Kunar (NE Afghanistan). The Kuduani, however are in fact a subtribe of the Jamshedi Chahar Aimaq.

Eiland:
…Tribe: Baluch
…Lang: Baluch
…Loc : Northern Herat Province, “West of Qala ye Nao”
…More: Mushwani rugs, particularly those with a slightly lighter color tonality and heavy use of red and blue, bear considerable resemblance to latch hook designed rugs from Anatolia

Eiland:
…Tribe: Jamshedi Chahar Aimaq
…Lang: Dari, Pashtun or Baluch
…Loc : Northern Herat Province
…More: Eiland began by claiming the “Moridari Julge Barkarz” wove the design and were related to the Kuduani. He placed the Kuduani into Kunar (NE Afghanistan). The Kuduani, however are in fact a subtribe of the Jamshedi Chahar Aimaq.

Janata:
…Tribe: Kuduani Taimuri
…Lang: Dari/Farsi
…Loc : NW Afghanistan, or NE Afghanistan or wherever.
…More: they might consider themselves Baluch today. Their ethnic orgin is “controversial.”

JBOC:
…Tribe: Pashtun??
…Lang: Pashtun??
…Loc : Originally in Eastern Afghanistan/NW Pakistan
…More: From JBOC’s site: “Many Baluch weavings are dark but the darkest of all the Mushwani. It is clear that the Mushwani are neither ethnically nor linguistically Baluch. We know the Mushwani were in Eastern Pashtunistan where the Mushwani fought valiantly against the cruel heal of British Imperialism. At some point many of the Mushwani migrated into Afghanistan. The migration occurred during the reign of Abdurrahman. The Mushwani migrated primarily into areas that had been Hazara. Keeping those two facts in mind it is a virtual certainty that the Mushwani were mercenaries and were paid in land." (ghw comment: see my previous comment on the alliance between the Sayed Mushwani Pashtuns in Pakistan and the Brits)

JBOC:
...Tribe: Pashtun?
...Lang: Pashtun?
...Loc : West Afghanistan?
...More: from JBOC's site: "There is a group of rugs, bags and trappings from western Afghanistan that are identified in the market place as Mashwani. The Baburnama of Zahiruddin Muhammad Babur places a tribe called Mashwani in the area in the early 16th century. The late George Washington O'Bannon who traveled the area in the 1960s as deputy director of the Peace Corp also placed a tribe called Mashwani in the area and attributed these rugs to them. Tom Cole seems to place them in the Baluch tribe.

JBOC
...Tribe: Pashtun?? via Azerbaijan?
...Lang : Pashtun? Dari?
...Loc : West Afghanitan?
...More: From JBOC site: "It makes sense to group the Mushwani with the Pashtuns but weaving is a minor art with the Pashtun. The Mushwani have elaborate Dowry items much like some of the Southern Azeribaijani and Turkomen peoples." and: "Culturally these pieces are odd. Mashwanni would appear to be a Pashtun tribe at first glance. However Pashtuns do not seem to have tradition of pile weaving of this sort of piece. Further I do not know what language the Mashwanni speak. It is rather frustrating that for all intents and purposes Afghanistan is closed to fieldwork and there is no existing Anthropological study on the Mashwanni."

JBOC
...Tribe: Taimuri?
...Lang : Dari?
...Loc : West Afghanitan?
...More : JBOC comment: "I am still trying to sort out this group. I strongly suspect that what I think of as a related group may break out in to at least three distinct groups. Compare this piece to The Craycraft / Arabesque Timuri Bag Face. The size, the wool, and structure seem to call for a relationship. Peter Bruce did not describe the structure with this one but I expect it has a ribbed back and brown wool wefted. Michael Craycraft calls his Timuri and I can not rule that out however with this piece the Mushwani attribution seems appropriate."

O'Bannon
...Tribe: Mushwani?
...Lang: ?
...Loc : West Afghanistan
...More: from JBOC, "O'Bannon ..also placed a tribe called Mashwani in the area and attributed these rugs to them.

Tom Cole:
...Tribe: Baluch
...Lang : Baluch
...Loc : Sistan
...More : Per JBOC, Tom Cole believes a "Mushwani" is simply a design name. There is no such tribe. He believes the Baluch in Sistan wove the design originally (see his salon on color and his interview with Jerry A.).

And I haven’t even begun to list the confusing information about who wove the Dark Kelims. Again, it looks like this whole “Mushwani” stuff originated with Eiland and Janata. Virtually none of it is supported by Military and Anthropological studies made before 1972. So lets stop posting rug guru snippets. I have to believe some of those identifications came out of the Herat carpet-wallahs…And I have decided they don’t know much beyond a very limited horizon.

Finally, its clear that somehow the Mushwani Pashtuns in N. Pakistan have gotten confused with the supposed weavers in W.Afghanistah. Even JA implied this. This has I believe conclusivelt been resolved.

Gene

I’m working on creating a map I can annotate. I’ll go back into this post and add it along with arrows to show everyone where these places are and where are these peoples. Whatever, let me summarize my feelings:

Gene Williams:
...Tribe: Baluch
...Lang: Baluch or West Iranian Seistan Farsi dialect
...Loc : Seistan
...More: The design was brought into Seistan by the late arrivel from Anatolia of the Sarbandi Baluch. (not clear on what the "late arrival" means. It could imply anywhere from 1150 AD to 1600 AD). It may originally been woven by the Balul, supposedly a Turkish origin group who became associated with the Baluch. The design may have subsequently been picked up by the Taimuri...and still later by the Taimani Chahar Aimaq.

That was Gene Williams. Thanks Gene, there is nothing I can usefully add to this. My longest post and hardly a word of it my own .

Dinie Gootjes

Steve Price

Hi All

Once upon a time it was believed that the "Lesghi star" was virtually diagnostic of Lesghi weaving. It's now recognized that the motif is/was used by many groups. Nevertheless, "Lesghi star" is useful for communication, and most ruggies know what you mean if you say you have a Lesghi star rug. They also know that it probably wasn't woven by a Lesghi weaver.

The Mushwani design isn't diagnostic of something woven by a Mushwani weaver, but the term is a useful descriptor and serves to communicate information between ruggies. That's of value. In fact, it's probably of greater value than knowing the name of the village in which a rug was woven if the ruggie doesn't even know where to look for that village on a map, a fairly common situation.

Regards

Steve Price

Rich Larkin

Hi Dinie,

Ah yes! A blast from the past, the prodigious Gene Williams approach. Towards the end, Gene said, "This has I believe conclusively been resolved." I trust he was referring to the proposition that some Mushwani Pashtuns in Pakistan had gotten confused with some weavers in West Afghanistan (see earlier part of that quotation), rather than the larger question of who wove the design. One of the many useful things Gene used to demonstrate for us is how very complex these questions actually are, notwithstanding the simplistic categories Rugdom loves to deploy. If anyone has clarified the question of the provenance of Mushwani designed rugs from the greater Baluch family of weavers, it has eluded me.

An interesting side point buried in his chart is the observation attributed to Murray Eiland that many of the "Mushwani" style rugs resemble latch hooked rugs from Anatolia. It is true, and I've been looking (without great success) for some representative examples to post on this thread. If I'm not mistaken, some of them are attributed to Döşmealtı. There may be other Anatolian names associated with the type. The resemblance has struck me over many years, but on close examination, it appears to be somewhat superficial. The deep blue and amber red coloring of many of the Anatolian ones, along with plainweave ends and reciprocally nested hooks, recall the Baluch article strongly; but the details of the designs beyond those similarities don't, in my estimation. Interestingly, a few of the rugs in Takan Hazecan's interesting new thread suggest earlier prototypes of the Anatolian type of this design. On the other hand, though I've seen many of the blue/(amber)red kind that I presume Eiland was referring to, I don't recall having seen any of that particular type that I considered especially old.

Rich

Rich Larkin

Hi all,

The following image is from Iten-Maritz, Turkish Carpets (1976).



He calls it "Döşmealtı," and dates it about 1900. Pardon the quality of the image but it is about what the book provides for this particular rug. Iten-Maritz makes much of it in regard to quality. It is not an especially apt example of the Anatolian rugs that seem similar to Mushwani style Baluch, and probably not the type Eiland must have been referring to, noted in the revived post by Gene Williams. Nevertheless, it does utilise the design concept of concentric interlocked diamond shapes on a vertical axis. I wonder whether there is any historical connection between the two (Anatolian and Baluch) regarding these rugs.

Rich

Yohann Gissinger

Hello Rich and all,

There's something rare with this design.
I mean, I'm not used to observe some reciprocal positive/negative design in the field of knotted pile rugs, sometimes in the borders , but more often in the field of anatolian kilims...

Here pictures of anatolian knotted pile rugs with hook interlocked design (border and field):


Orientalische teppichkunde band IV 1922 (R.Neugebauer/J.Orendi)


Der orienteppich band II 1922 (W. Grote-Hasenbalg)

Have you some other examples of knotted pile rugs with reciprocal positive/negative field design?

Regards,
Y.

Steve Price

Hi Yohann

It's hard to be sure from a black and white photo, but the first of those three looks like what would generally be attributed to the Caucasus (Borjalou Kazak) rather than Anatolia. The third one doesn't look much like what I've grown accustomed to associating with Bergama, either. Attributions have changed in the past 90 years or so.

Regards

Steve Price

Yohann Gissinger

hello Steve,

My first thought was for Bordjalou-Kazak to (pic1), but the author took a strong position:

Anatolisher yürük-teppich. Im handel irrtümlich auch als daghestan-oder kazak-teppich bezeichnet=Anatolian yürük carpet. In the trade erroneously also designated as Daghestan or Kazak carpet.

What to say after that?

Regards
Y.

Steve Price

Hi Yohann

Maybe he was right, maybe those in "the trade" who thought it was a Kazak were right. I'd feel better about the Anatolian attribution if it had been made more recently or if I saw similar rugs published during the past 50 years or so attributed to Anatolian weavers. Maybe the palette reduced the likelihood that it was a Kazak; that's unknowable from a monochrome photo.

An aside, but perhaps relevant: In Amos Bateman Thacher's important book on Turkmen rugs published more than 50 years ago, he illustrates a Yomud asmalyk hanging upside down (point at the bottom) and labels it as a storage bag.

Regards

Steve Price

Maurizio Scalco

Hi all,
just to give a little contribution to the previous pics, what do you think about this prayer rug?



Thank you

Maurizio

Richard Larkin

Hi Mauricio,

That piece is packed with energy. The colors look questionable for the purist. What do you think about that? Even so, the design is such a success (in my opinion), maybe we can overlook any dye issues. Maybe there are no dye issues. Does it look like that on the back?

Rich Larkin

Maurizio Scalco

Hi Richard,

you're right, the colors have faded (picture), the brown is strongly corroded. I love this piece, maybe that's not valuable but the palette gives an impression of "good age".



Regards

M.

Richard Larkin

Hi Maurizio,

Age is relative, and I usually break out in hives when the Baluches have the "wrong colors," but this rug really has a good, mellow look, and an exciting design. I can well appreciate why you like it so much.

Rich Larkin

Dinie Gootjes

Hi All,

First I would like to put up two other little rugs with the Mushwani design. Both are very dark in a different way. The first one was part of a piled shoulder khorjin and has lots of great aubergine. The other one does have the latch hooks, but in diagonal stripes. Would that qualify? They have quite a different feel. The first one is soft, glossy and supple, the second one feels harder and a bit dry.





We now have a reasonable number of Baluch type rugs with the Mushwani design here. It would be easy to find more, as many more T'Tekkers will have a few. Frank Diehr also shows two more in his "Three Dusty Dozen". We are not going to be able to solve the riddle of who the Mushwani are/were here, but I wonder if it would not be possible to get further than in previous discussions. Several people have remarked that these rugs do not look like they all come from the same source. Is there anyone out there who can see the woods in all these trees? Can we divide them into groups, on the basis of colours, weave, end treatment or whatever? Or even say which ones look Afghan and which ones Iranian?

Dinie

Steve Price

Hi Dinie

I think the so-called Mushwani design is generally understood to refer to concentric diamonds with latchhook-like things along the length of each side of each layer. That is, unless the latchhooks are arranged into concentric diamonds, the motif isn't the Mushwani design (sometimes called a Mushwani diamond).

Your very attractive bagface with latchhooked bands arranged as diagonal stripes doesn't get the Mushwani label. That's probably just as well, since extending that label to geographic or tribal attributions doesn't seem possible anyway.

Regards

Steve Price

Rich Larkin

Hi Steve,

What is properly understood as "the Mushwani design" is mostly a semantic question. I was trying to get at a part of it with the post in panel #23 of this thread; i. e., is the definition of it limited by the way the edges of the concentric elements are drawn? On the other hand, there is also the question being considered here whether there is a tribe called "Mushwani," and further, whether they weave in this design (whatever it is). More broadly, we are looking at identifying specific weaving areas that can (we think) be identified by palette, weaving style, etc. However all of that comes out, I think the drawing style relative to the interlocked hooks is an important factor. Though we've established pretty clearly that several of the weaving groups under the greater Baluch umbrella produce some version of the design, it is still worth investigating whether the drawing style is or tends to be diagnostic of a specific group or area. My own (not very well informed) sense of it is that the curved hooks, as exemplified by Dinie's excellent khorjin, is at the heart of the "Mushwani" idea. At least, I think the use of this form makes for the most exotic and attractive version of the design. Dinie's piece has a terrific look on that account (not to mention the one inspired strip of camel brown), and so does the six-sided saddle piece James posted on November 11. Moreover, I have no doubt that the weavers of those two pieces, Mushwani or not, produced their respective shares of rugs with nested concentric diamonds.

Rich Larkin

James Blanchard

Hi all,

This is an interesting discussion, though I am not sure where we might go with this.

Let me throw out another notion.

I wonder if we are looking too much at the "curved hooks" as the basis of this design, when in it might be that those designs arose as a "negative space" byproduct of a more basic design motif.

Consider the following examples...

The first is a prayer rug of mine, which has a similar field design to one illustrated in one of Frank Diehr's books (I am travelling, and can't specify which book). I think he ascribed it to the Taimani.

The rest are from a diverse group of Baluch-type rugs. The point I am making is that this basic design of a central diamond with latch hooks is quite basic. Notice how it even appears in the "khaf gul" that is attributed to the Timuri, but with less curved hooks. Below that, note the examples that follow the same basic structure, but with a central square and angular hooks.

If one considers this to be the basic motif that is shared in various ways across Baluch groups, one might postulate that the "Mushwani" design of concentric curved (or angular) hooked designs arose out of the replication of the negative space created by the basic designs. That concept can be seen in the Baluch saddle piece that I posted earlier, and reproduce below.

Anyway, something new to think about...

James

Steve Price

Hi Rich

I agree, there are several issues to sort out.

One group of issues revolves around the question of whether there's ever been a population called Mushwani, and what they wove.
1. Is or was there a tribe or community called Mushwani, or something close to that? The answer to that seems to be yes.
2. Did they make weavings with the so-called Mushwani design? Again, the answer seems to be yes.
3. Did any other Belouch group use this design? Again, yes.
4. Can we use the design as a diagnostic tool to identify Mushwani weavings? If the answer to #3 is correct, the answer to this has to be no.

The second issue is the so-called Mushwani design. Since it doesn't identify the tribal origin of a piece, the only use I can see for having the term at all is that it's a communication shorthand. And it's only useful for that if the definition of Mushwani design is more or less agreed upon by the ruggies. Until this morning, I believed that it included concentric diamonds and a peculiar kind of latchhooked line making up those diamonds. Thus, if someone said to me, "I have a 4 x 6 Mushwani design Belouch rug", I thought I'd have a decent notion of what it looked like without seeing it. But if there isn't consensus among ruggies about the definition of the design, then I don't see how the term "Mushwani design" can be of any use. And if you and I, two members of a very small community of ruggies, don't understand the definition to be the same thing, it's probably safe to assume that there's enough disparity about it within Rugdom that it's best not to use the term at all.

Regards

Steve Price

Richard Larkin

Hi James,

Your point is very well taken, and could be "the whole game." To understand the dynamics of all this requires, I think, a better understanding of the drawing process from the weaver's point of view than I can muster. I assume the ability to draw as a weaver involves the skill to reproduce a wide variety of design elements by reproducing as needed a code or formula for the insertion of knots of yarn of the appropriate color. The little scattered rosettes and whatnot one finds in nomadic pieces would be the simplest examples of the skill. Getting past that level of complexity, I assume further, would be implementing or blending isolated design motives or elements into a larger design format. The sky must be the limit on how complex this process can be.

I don't know whether the foregoing is an accurate description of the process from the point of view of a weaver. I note that Edwards, in The Persian Carpet made much of the reputed ability of weavers from the Heriz area in the early twentieth century to adapt design concepts that had been painted or printed on small silk squares to fit size and format requirements of the rugs they were producing. This was not a cartoon situation, in which each knot is accounted for, but rather a remarkable ability among those weavers to improvise on the basic concept and produce a smooth, balanced product. Apparently, weavers from other areas were not up to such standards, and the shy, modest girls of Heriz were duly proud of the fact that they were. On the other hand, in Frank Diehr's Treasured Baluch, there is an interview with Dietrich Wegner, the famous physician of the Baluchi, in which he relates that he tried on one occasion to get a highly regarded Baluch elder weaver to produce in pile what he considered a simple pattern. Apparently, it was outside her repertoire, and she had much difficulty managing the job.

It seems that the whole business of how these design elements work in the functional context of a weaver trying to implement them as an exercise in drawing and designing is esoteric. Nevertheless, until guided out of the darkness, I will continue to view these designs in terms of weavers having numerous individual elements in their repertoires and varying levels of skill in incorporating them effectively in larger patterns. From that point of view, a given weaver, for example, might be a master of the "curved hooks," and thoroughly flummoxed by the "sharp hooks," depending on what her grandmother was able to impart.

Rich Larkin

Rich Larkin

Hi Steve,

I take your point about the limited usefulness of the "Mushwani" label if it isn't accurate about either the weaving group or the design (as firmly understood). On the other hand, I happen to think most labels we use to get a handle on the rugs we encounter are inaccurate, vague, or at least overly generalized; so we'll have to toss out a bunch of others with "Mushwani." Joel's recent salon demonstrated the point regarding the term, "Yoruk." It seemed pretty clear in the salon that the great proportion of the rugs in the trade that have been getting the label for over a hundred years were not, in fact, woven by persons who would call themselves, or be called by others, "Yoruk." Furthermore, though many familiar rug types with a distinctive character are commonly and regularly called by that name, many fall along the fringes, and the use of the term is of limited utility.

As far as the hook-laden khorjin Dinie posted is concerned, I think the term has some qualified usefulness. The idea is that the wide use of this classic design is probably confined largely to specific groups or areas, though we aren't able to define them sharply. Dinie's piece probably came from one of them. It's loose, but so is nearly everything else we say in this realm.

Rich Larkin

Rich Larkin

Hi Dinie and all,

Following are a few more examples for the pot, all from Volkmar Gantzhorn. (Thanks, Dinie, for the tip.)





Two are “straight” Mushwani types from the Baluch matrix. The other two are Anatolian, of course, and quite intriguing in my opinion. The fragment is placed very early by Gantzhorn (I don’t have the volume handy just now to be more precise in that regard), and exhibits the basic design element of the Mushwani. I’m not suggesting that a contingent of weavers moved from Turkey to Seistan in 1294; but I would be disappointed if it turned out that the basic Mushwani design vocabulary didn’t trace back to these rugs in some fashion.

Rich Larkin

Patrick Weiler

An internet web search turned up the tidbit that the Baluch may have been remnants of Greeks in Alexander The Great's army who did not return home. Greece occupied what is now western Turkey for many years and these folks may have brought their "Turkish" design vocabulary with them when they settled in eastern Iran.

Patrick Weiler

Rich Larkin

Hi Patrick,

Now you're talking! Count me as a yes for any "Alexander's Army Remnants" attribution for any provenance questions about any of my rugs.

James,

By the way, I meant to comment more specifically on your point that the design is very much about positive and negative spaces. That's clearly so, and the idea of it is consistent with notions of the Islamic approach to art (though our involuntary contributor, Gantzhorn is a one issue man:viz., that these are all Christian rugs). I don't doubt that the basic design idea of interlocked hooks has roots in that tradition. My own point was that I imagine the use of the design by rustic weavers in practice has a lot to do with the mastery over generations of the techniques that allow them to reproduce it with such skill.

Rich Larkin

Steve Price

Hi Patrick

Yup, and the Timuri are direct descendents of Tamerlane. Those warrior types must have been mighty antisocial to retain their bloodlines for millennia.

Regards

Steve Price

Richard Larkin

Hi Steve,

Of course, we do allow for a little blending.

On a side note relative to Patrick's comment: I happened to be browsing in an old rug book (reprinted), Kendrick and Tattersall, written ca. early 20's. I think they were British. Anyway, they were commenting that sedentary Turkish people did little weaving, and most of the village and commercial production in Turkey was the work of people of Armenian and Greek extraction. They probably didn't all trace a direct line to Alexander and his men, but I wonder about the broader issue.

We're straying a bit from the theme of the thread, but all that will change if some archeologists can manage to dig up a shield in western Turkey with the Mushwani design on it.

Rich Larkin

Rich Larkin

Yohann Gissinger

How to call the distinctive balouch group medallion,with its specific “T” ends?
Any idea ?

Regards,
Y.

Patrick Weiler

Steve,

Recent genetic Y chromosome testing has shown that 8% of men in the Central Asia region conquered by Genghis Khan are genetically related to him, along with one group in the Pakistan region also having Genghis Khan genetic ties.
In the Afghan/Pakistan area, testing has been done on Greek genetic relationships:
"An extensive analysis of Y diversity within Greeks and three Pakistani populations – the Burusho, Kalash and Pathan – who claim descent from Greek soldiers allowed us to compare Y lineages within these populations and re-evaluate their suggested Greek origins.
From http://www.nature.com/
"it provides strong evidence in support of the Greek origins for a small proportion of Pathans"
"There has been no known Greek admixture within the last few generations, but in addition to Alexander's armies, the possibility of admixture between the Greek slaves who were brought to this region by Xerxes around one hundred and fifty years before Alexander's arrival, and the local population, cannot be discounted. At that time Afghanistan and present day Pakistan were part of the Persian Empire. Nevertheless, Alexander's army of 25 000–30 000 mercenary foot soldiers from Persia and West Asia and 5000–7000 Macedonian cavalry perhaps provides a more likely explanation because of their elite status and substantial political impact on the region."

All of which may indicate that the Mushwani-type design, along with many other rug designs and motifs, are "Greek to me".

Patrick Weiler

Steve Price

Hi Pat

My smartass remark wasn't intended to cast doubt on whether there are Greeks and Mongols among the ancestors in some central and western Asian tribal groups. The genetic evidence you cite is persuasive, and the geography and history make it pretty obvious anyway.

Whether the Mushwani design (whatever that means) is a remnant of a culture founded by stray soldiers from Alexander's army is a different question. It strikes me as a hypothesis that's untestable even in principle, and my knee jerk reaction is to reject such hypotheses unceremoniously.

Regards

Steve Price

Patrick Weiler

Steve,

Are you saying that my rug design motif origin suggestion is "a hypothesis that's untestable even in principle"?
I knew that! On the other hand, I have German roots, therefore I am related to Einstein. Wait, that's not Einstein!

James Blanchard

Hi Pat,

Now I get it...

Greek soldiers conquering their way through Central Asia were thoughtful enough to bring along rug designs from "back home".

Or maybe Greek soldiers found all sorts of nice rugs in central Asia and said "Hey, how come we can't make nice rugs like this?", and took some home as examples for their own women-folk.

Actually, the second "hypothesis" seems much more closely aligned with what we know about the Mongol empire. In their vast conquests, they assiduously acquired artistic, cultural and engineering ideas from those they conquered and integrated them into their own society.

James

Dinie Gootjes

Hi Pat, Steve, Rich, James and whoever,

How about female camp followers who in the end settled down with the soldiers in the new country? They would know weaving and the patterns from home. This also is untestable.

Dinie

Steve Price

Hi Patrick

Aha! I've got it! The Mushwani latchhooks are actually curlicues, a motif designed by Alexander's hairdresser, and a symbol of Alexander's power, authority, and fashion sense. This head captured his expression when presented with the first khorjin pair done in the Mushwani design.



Regards

Steve Price

Patrick Weiler

Steve,

Now we're getting somewhere.
Rational conclusions from untestable hypotheses.
I therefore assume that Alexander's hairdresser was an Armenian Christian named Volkmar.


Patrick Weiler

Paul Smith

Steve--

I think you're onto something. Your image not only covers the curlicues, but also the "T"-shaped ends that Yohann was asking about...it is the stand that Alexander's head is on.

Paul

Steve Price

Hi Paul

Yup. Actually, any ruggie who isolates attention on every detail in that head will find lots of things related to common rug motifs. It is a beautiful illustration of the fact that getting excited about such observations is more likely to hinder than to advance what we know and understand.

Regards

Steve Price

Rich Larkin

Hi Steve,

You're right, they caught Alex as he was taking in the khorjin pair in the Mushwani design. However, the precise moment of the pose occurred as they were advising him the test results had just come in. The red was definitely Ponceau S. I recognize the expression. It's unmistakeable.

And believe me, having conquered the world is small consolation.

Rich Larkin

Paul Smith

Hello, All...

I was digging around in the rug internet world on an entirely different errand yesterday, and happened upon the following article on Tom Cole's website that suggests some design roots for these curlicue figures in Baluchi rugs.
http://www.tcoletribalrugs.com/article58Imprints.html
I found it interesting not just as an ancient source of Central Asian designs, but also the speculation of far more sophisticated urban-based civilization in the region at an earlier time than I thought existed. I wondered if any of you knew about this, and had a sense for the size of the complex shown in the article--the scale is very hard to decipher. Is it a village-sized structure or a very large building?

Nevertheless, there are some intriguing curlicues in the images with the article...

Paul

Rich Larkin

Hi Paul,

That is a cool article that I also had missed. Regarding your question about the scale, doesn't he mention that the structure is 65 metres square? I assume that references is to the structure within the structure. Doesn't that provide a basis foe scale?

BTW, are you buying the theory that those shapes as echoed in the 15th century Anatolian rug are no coincidence?

Rich Larkin

Paul Smith

Hi Rich--

You're right, he buried the 65 meters thing in there between images. That's the problem with any literature related to rugs for me...I get lost in the images and reading comprehension can go out the window.

I would be extremely hesitant to say, "Oh yes, those lobes on that square are clearly echoed in later rug designs." But I think that there is some connection, and it certainly goes a long way to refute Gantzhorn's conclusion that the presence of quartered designs with four arms in Central Asia represent the influence of Armenian Christianity. What I liked about Cole's writing in that article is that he didn't proclaim the connection, he just presented the possibility.

And it does demonstrate a very ancient source for diamond shapes with curlicues in the general region...

Paul

Richard Larkin

Hi Paul,

I agree with everything you say. And now, for the final question: Do you think any of the good folks in of those dwellings at Gonur Tepe enjoyed the benefit, comfort and edification of pile rugs (hooked or not)?

Rich Larkin

Paul Smith

Hi Rich--

If I were to propose that the people of Gonur Tepe had rugs of any type I would be making it up, though I would think it would be worth sorting through all that rubble for evidence of textiles, were I an archeologist working that site.

Paul

Rich Larkin

Hi all,

We must have beaten the topic of rugs with hook into unconsciousness, if not submission, by now. However, I've been looking for a good, representative image of a type of Anatolian rug I think of as "Döşmealtı," and I finally found one in the last place I'd have thought. That would be Islamic Carpets (1965), celebrating the McMullan collection.



Unfortunately, the image does not do justice to the extraordinarily deep and luscious color one sees in the plate. That may reflect deficiencies in the scanning technique of YHS.

Anyway, the original point would have been to illustrate the (possibly superficial) resemblance between this type of rug and many of the so-called “Mushwani” types. This one from McMullan exhibits not only the multiple hooks of the Mushwani rugs, but also the distinctive palette of deep but limited blue and red hues characteristic of many Baluch rugs. I had posted an image from Iten-Maritz in frame #30 of this thread illustrating a Döşmealtı, somewhat later than McMullan’s (which he assigned to the nineteenth century). It showed substantial similarity to his rug in the design vocabulary, but with a different palette, or at least a different look, owing to the apparently lavish use of sky blue. (I have some doubt whether the Iten-Maritz plate is accurate for color.) Yohann posted an image of an excellent example in frame #31 that also shows a strong relationship in design to McMullan’s rug, but with a broader palette. Having regard to the limited palette of McMullan’s and its resemblance to the familiar Baluch palette, I note that I have seen many more recent (twentieth century) Döşmealtı rugs with similar color and design.

I have always thought that the resemblance between the Anatolian type and the Baluch type in these regards was largely coincidental; or at least, that any connection was remote. Close examination of the design elements indicates that there isn’t that much similarity, once one gets away from the look created by all those nested hooks. Dinie’s image (the top one) posted at #39 in this thread is close to the look of the McMullan hooks, but it probably doesn’t go much deeper than looks. It’s worth noting that McMullan made little of the multiple hooks and the positive/negative space created by them in the comments on his plate in Islamic Carpets, emphasizing instead the design format of the central medallion with large arrowhead-shaped pendants at each end. That is a familiar approach on older Anatolian rugs, usually found in an open field.

Rich Larkin