Glenn Ross

I have attached a few photos of a Tibetan Piled Band. What I find interesting and would like the group to comment on is how similar the design elements are to Turkomen bands

Chuck Wagner

Hi Glenn,

I'm not sure I'd draw too many close comparisons to Turkoman work beyond the decision to represent a plant form on the band. Certainly, there has been trade communication between (now) western China and the 'stans west of the mountains, but those cultures are more closely linked than that of Tibet & Nepal, which is more closely aligned to the culture of old India.

One must consider the nature of the media here: an elongate drawing area with a fixed rectilinear knotting geometry. This lends itself to the same angles and proportional constraints found on many Turkoman bands.

I can't speak to construction without a closeup of the back - maybe someone with more direct knowledge will care to comment.

Regards,
Chuck Wagner

Louis Dubreuil

Hello Glenn

Yes there is undubitabily a correspondance at the level of what is drawn. Despite the differences of style and technic this band and numerous turkmen bands show the same things : flowering plants on stands or vases.
This is indeed difficult to make links between the two cultures, but as Chuck says, the comercial links are not impossible.

In your band the vase seems to be at the top of a moutain. Maybe ther are some legend or beliefs about a sacred flower on the top of a moutain (nearer to reach the sky ?)

Very fine object


Cordialement

louis

Rich Larkin

Hi Glenn,

Do you know the function or purpose of the band?

Rich Larkin

Marvin Amstey

A source that I found useful in learning about the script on my Tibetan door rug is the Snow Lion organization in Ithaca, NY. This is a group of Tibetan refugees and sudents whose goal it is to maintain Tibetan culture. Here is their address: http://www.snowlionpub.com/
They may be able to help in defining the use of that band.

Glenn Ross

This piled band or strap is woven with the Tibetan knot. The bands of this size were normally woven in pairs and used to suspend a bell or other devise around a yak or horse’s neck. These bands or straps are found woven in numerous techniques . I have a number of them and if there is interest in seeing them or in the other Tibetan animal trapping like “Takab” of forehead covers, I can surely post a number of interesting pieces from my collection. I can only state that for all the many bands/straps from Tibetan I have seen this is the only one showing this design and reminiscent to me anyway as having some Turkmen design influence.

Rich Larkin

Hi Glenn,

I'd like to see some. Can you show close-ups of the back of a few, such as that red one? Also, the dimensions of that one. Thanks.

Rich Larkin

Glenn Ross

I have attached pictures of the back of the band. It is 31"x5". Many of these bands have backs not covered in flat weave or it has already been removed or worn off before I acquired them. This piece is interesting because you can see how this one band may have attached around the animals neck....both the loop and wooden clasp are visible.

Will share additional pieces shortly

Richard Larkin

Hi Glenn,

Many Tibetan pile items are lined with material that appears to have nothing to do with the original weaving. This looks like some of the same. I think I have a piece of that material in my kitchen, for drying dishes. I have occasionally wondered where in the production process the lining occurred, whether as an adjunct to the process, or as an "aftermarket" kind of add-on.

Rich Larkin

Glenn Ross

As requested, here are a few more Tibetan Trappings

Glenn Ross

Rich,
With regard to the backing on the piled piece in question, I believe it is original. The pair of piled bands pictured in my post of other trappings, were never backed with a Flat weave. This is clear to me because the original clasps are sewn directly onto the back of the weaving. Tibetan/Nepalese/Ladakh flat weave has always intrigued me and I have a number of pieces. If you are interested in this type of weaving there is a book…..LIVING FABRIC, Weaving among the nomads of Ladkh Himalaya by Monisha Ahmed that may share light on the subject. We all realize there were no walls between borders so maybe this fabric was traded freely across the region. Some of it is quite beautiful and I guess you could cut it up and use it as a dish towel.........have a great day!

Rich Larkin

Hi Glenn,

Those are very cool pieces. I don't recall having seen their ilk before. There aren't any like these in Eiland, Lorentz or Larsson. Eiland shows a couple of Tibetan animal trappings, but not like these forehead covers. One of Eiland's illustrated trappings resembles the bands, except that it has long fringes sprouting across the middle. How did you get onto these things, and where have you found them? Another question: I note that two of the forehead covers show wear around the edges. What would account for that? Are they used in a way that would result in wear?

I note the appearance of speckled blue and white on one of the pieces. That's an effect usually found on Kurdish weavings, including some Bijars, coincidentally, I'm sure. I guess it is also a feature of early 20th century Chinese rugs, such as Nichols types.

Thanks for posting the images.

Rich Larkin

Glenn Ross

I have added two scans from the book OF WOOL AND LOOM by Trinley and Kesang Tashi. It’s a great book on Tibetan weaving and show a number of pieces worth looking at if you are into Tibetan rugs. It’s hard to state the older the piece the more wear and I believe some of the better condition forehead covers were used on special occasions. Some of the worn pieces were definitely used on yaks. I also believe the border material is replaced when it wears out and may hide some of the wear. Most of these trappings are 20th century but I do believe a few I have maybe older because they have natural dyes. I have traveled to this part of the world and have always been intrigued by the shapes of things and the fact they are more difficult to find and more fun to collect. No more can you find many of these in the market and when you do they have become very expensive. The one photo showing a group of three pieces is interesting because one piece is embroidered, one piece is appliquéd and the third is piled. The “salt and pepper” use of blue and white is unusual but I do see this technique on other Tibetan weaving. The forehead cover with the dragon is very unusual but I must say the cover I do not have but have seen a few is one with the tiger strip design. At some time we always remember the piece we let go because at the time it was just….to expensive Now you think of it as being cheap

Steve Price

Hi Glenn

Living with the pieces we acquire, we eventually discover their flaws. But the ones we passed up keep getting better with time.

Regards

Steve Price

richard tomlinson

Hi all

nice collection glen !! I especially like the forehead covers. and i think you have way too many, so you will need to offer me some :-)


while we're on the topic of tibetan rugs, i'd like some advice on the Kuloy book "Tibetan Rugs"

There seem to be many versions and reprints. Each seems to have a different cover and there are H/C and Paperback versions. And different numbers of pages... It's all rather confusing.....

Can anyone advise which one is the best? (or are they essentially the same?)

I am eyeing a 1988 version (H/C) with a brown/grey cover and gilt writing. 228 pp.

Would this version be OK?

regards

Richard Tomlinson

Glenn Ross

Richard,
When I became interested in Tibetan Rugs, the Koloy book was about the best available. I have seen many additions and think they are all about the same. The soft cover version maybe less expensive. Over time a number of other books have been published. I personally enjoy the book mentioned below….OF WOOL AND LOOM. It has some good information and color plates. Koloy’s book is about flooding the pages with lots of pictures of many standard formats.

If interested in forehead covers, I see them from time to time but turn many of them down because their design is similar to something in my collection. I can always let you know if something comes available.

Derek Dyckman

Hi Glenn,

Your yak bands appear to have the 'plant of long life' growing out of the mountains. This chinese theme is not uncommon in 20th century Tibetan rugs, albeit often hard to discern/interpret when stylized & crowded amongst other iconography.

I don't know enough about turkomen weavings to draw any analogies, but people do try to tell me that the tibetan swastika is an exact replica of the nazi hakenkreuz or vicaversa.

Hues, structure, field presence/importance, & accompanying icons (if any) - all should be considered when comparing rigid flora & geomtric renderings from different regions. My 2 cents .....

Regards,

Derek Dyckman

richard tomlinson

hi glen

thanks for the heads-up re: 'of wool and loom'. i have just purchased a copy online.

i am currently completing an MA in Asian Studies and the unit i am doing now focuses on the arts of asia.

for my first assignment, i am toying with the idea of doing something on tibetan rugs/weaving culture.

apart from the books by kuloy, denny and the above mentioned book, i'd be grateful if anyone could point me to online resources that may be useful. i will have a look at the website marvin suggested and i know tom cole has some useful essays but apart from that, there doesn't appear to be a great deal of literature on the subject.

regards
richard tomlinson

Richard Larkin

Hi Richard,

Best regards. What is the Denny work on Tibetan rugs?

Rich Larkin

richard tomlinson

hi rich L

sorry - my mistake - DENWOOD


cheers
richard

Glenn Ross

Richard,
Another great little book on Tibetan rugs is AUSPICIOUS SYMBOLS or JEWELS ? on Blurb.com Blurb is a self publishing site and this book appears there. It’s about a time when good rugs were still available in Tibet and Nepal. If you decide to also do other non piled woven textiles from Tibet….here are a few monastery runners. Not a lot written about these.

richard tomlinson

hi all

as i am not very well read on the subject, and given the relative scarcity of literature and/or images avaliable, i would like to pose a few questions regarding tibetan rugs and the concept of 'art' in general. i am hoping more knowledgeable folks out there can help me out.

1. as far as i can tell, asian art (especially indian) is very much linked with religion. tibetan art (sculpture / painting / architecture) seems to follow this general trend.

am i correct in saying that, by and large, tibetan rug weaving and rugs are not connected?

2. my understanding is that tibetan rug weaving is a craft, developed over many centuries, and that we should view their makers as artisans rather than artists.

i am confused by an article that tom cole wrote [Tibetan Rugs - A Tribal Tradition] where he points out the merits of a throne back rug (C1840) depicting 2 dragons.

he says (quote) 'A very few rugs of this quality came through the marketplaces of Kathmandu, suggesting a limited production in an urban environment by master weavers, true artists rather than craftsmen.'

is tom cole suggesting that urban workshops existed in tibet prior to late 19/early20C commercial workshops? is he suggesting that these rugs are superior to home crafted rugs? tom also talks of 'sedentary weavings' - i am assuming he means these pre 1880 workshop rugs by this?

3. if tibetan rug weaving is essentially a craft, are we correct in assessing these weavings by western standards of aesthetic judgements? for example, tom talks of the use of space as a merit of certain pieces. how do we know tibetan craftsmen judged pieces in the same way? i hope i'm making myself clear here...????

4. rugs that were made for monastic use - who wove them? monks? ordinary folk who provided them as gifts? specialised weavers (artists/artisans)?

5. authors talk a lot about early 20C tibetan pieces a being part of the commercial trade that was established at that time for export to foreign markets. they say that most of these rugs copied 'earlier' designs. my question is this - surely there would still have been non-commercial or domestic weaving continuing at that time? how can we know which pieces were 'workshop' or not (especially considering the workshop weavers tried to emulate older rugs in every way - structure, design, dye, wool, etc..

for example, if someone presents a late 19C khaden with an all wool structure and excellent vegetable dyes, course weave and good design, how do we know if its a late 19C workshop piece for export, or a 'true' home-woven khaden to sleep on?

i hope there are people out there who can help in answering some of these questions.

regards

richard tomlinson

Steve Price

Hi Richard

In reading your post, the thought that came to mind is that you're asking the same questions as those to which many collectors of "mainstream" collectible weavings believe they know the answers. They often get angry when asked by the Unilluminati for the foundations of their beliefs. I think the questions that can be (and are) legitimately asked about most western and central Asian weavings include:
1. Are the weavings part of the local religions?
2. Were the weavers artists or craftspeople? My own take on this is that the terms are so poorly defined that the question is unanswerable.
3. Can we (or should we) apply western aesthetics to the products of eastern cultures? If the answer is "no", how can we know the aesthetics of each time and place in Asia? The most difficult ones will be those of tribal peoples, especially those in more remote areas.
4. Who wove the rugs found in houses of worship? Why did they weave them?
5. How do we distinguish between pieces woven for trade and those woven for community use?

My guess is that monastery weavings may have documentation on which to rest conclusions. I confess, though, that this opinion is based on my stereotypic vision of monks holding writing implements.

Regards

Steve Price

Derek Dyckman

Hi Richard,

The article states 'possibly circa 1840'. I think there is a lot of wiggle room there. It would been nice to have seen a closeup of the back, and a count & description of each color used. Unfortuately, this is not possible to discern from a 384 x 366Jpg image. As far as I know, the overwhelming majority of early thronebacks were woven in China & accordingly mimicked chinese textile design - as this one does.

This is not to say that there were not cottage industries or pockets of pile weaving communities operating throughout Tibet circa 1840 & before. One internet source states the the fifth Dalai Lama was a regular consumer of Wangden meditation mats & that new sets of runners were woven each year for monks participating in the Monlam Prayer Festival in Lhasa.

This information may have come from the Fifth Dalai Lama's autobiography - however I have not been able to substantiate this due to absence of anyreferences/links accompanying said claims.


Regards,

Derek Dyckman

Derek Dyckman

Hi Richard,

My understanding is that by the last quarter of the 19th century Tibetan rugs were being exported. Not exported abroad but to trading post in Kashgar, Kashmir, Nepal & Darjeeling primarily. Of course there was ongoing trade/gifting with China. Apparently by 1897 a missionary's wife in Darjeeling had opened a rug weaving center that was mimicking the craft. As an aside, I wonder how many other cottage industries or private concerns sprung up throughout the Himalaya as a result of this weaving style's growing exposure/success cum Tibetan migrations?

According to Perceval Landon's observations ("The Opening of Tibet", Page 110-11, 1905) in 1903-04 at Little Gabshi on the GYantse-Lhasa road:

"The difference in quality between one rug and another is often a matter of expert knowledge. At first one is surprised and inclined to resent the great differences in price of these rugs, two will be shown you, one slightly shorter in pile, perhaps also slightly looser in design. You will get that for three rupees. The other one, crisper in touch and, if you will look closely, far richer in color, they will not sell for you for less than twenty-five. But when the eye is once taught to recognize the difference, the cheaper rugs are easily seen to be inferior from every point of view. They are however more than good enough for the London market."


Of course Landon et al were imprisoned before any trade agreement could be worked out. But my interpretation of his description is that, the brighter, more multi-colored weavings were far better market eye candy, sold better & thus prestige priced over the less eye-catching prototypical utilitarian weavings of yor. A human preference tendency that plays out many times with textiles & ceramics throughout this era , & in hindsight, causing great asthetic decline. In sympathy to this trend, I can't see a diplomate/official/royality being as pleased in receiving a loosely woven, more rustic utilitarian rug (that we all appreciate so much today) over a brightly hued, iconography loaded conversation piece. The former may well have been perceived as a 'slap in the face', for that time & place!?

Unfortunately, these market trends/activities only precipitated non-vegetal dye use as the 19th century turned into the 20th. KPSI was increased (and eventually cotton foundation infilitration) for export, to justify the 8x increase in cost & to prevent any overly premature foundation malfunctions.

... the rest, as they say, is history.


Regards,

Derek Dyckman

richard tomlinson

hi derek

thanks very much for the most interesting info. there's so little literature on the subject.

i wish there was more info on rugs supplied to the monastries. this is one area i'd love to explore more.

and design....

dealers talk of 'pure tibetan design' and 'older tibetan designs'. where does one find this information about what constitutes 'pure' and 'old' ? books don't seem to help much. if there are no really old tibetan rugs, how can we say what is pure or old? i find this very confusing. so many of the motifs seem ubiquitous throughout asia.

can ANYONE show me some examples of 'pure' tibetan rug designs (or point me to a book), and tell me how they know they are not designs borrowed or copied.

regards

richard tomlinson

Derek Dyckman

Hi Richard,

This is the first time I've heard the 'pure' & 'old' designations to be honest. My understanding of Tibet & Tibetan Buddhism origins is - that it is the result of economic, political, & cultural/linguistic interaction with Central Asia, China, India & Nepal. With that in mind, where to we begin & what time constraints do we impose on iconographical designations - with respect to usages by cultures in assessing ultimate originality?

For example, if an 18th century Wangden meditiation mat with primitive thunderbolt/dorje symbol was to turn up & be authentisized through some kind of dating method &/or accompanying literature - would this suffice as a purely Tibetan design? Perhaps for some, but others would argue that the dorje was in fact adopted from the ancient Indian, vajra, also a thunderbolt, and chief weapon of the Vedic sky-god Indra. So how far back should we go in labelling 'purely Tibetan iconography cum rugs?

One thing that is clear is that the schism between 'older' & 'newer' Tibetan rugs became more & more apparent as trade/demand & material availablity increased.

Regards,

Derek Dyckman

Glenn Ross

The trading routes between the east and west have passed through Tibet for centuries. It’s interesting how a number of very old Turkish rugs and fragments which have worked their way to the market were found in Tibetan monasteries. Found under more recent examples just like as in mosques where the oldest carpets were revealed under layers of newer pieces. With as much trade between the many cultures along the silk road, doesn’t it make sense Tibetans found it easier or more convenient to trade for carpets and textiles used in monasteries then to make them themselves? If the answer is yes, then the Turkish connection and more importantly China might be a good reason why so many Chinese pieces were found in Tibet. As time passed and the need or market increased the Tibetans used their own resources to develop their own weaving centers. I am sure they always were weaving utilitarian and in some cases making piled pieces for their own use. Not sure I would place an exact time when the shift away from trading might have happened. I wish I had a crystal ball allowing me to go back in time and actually see some of the pieces I own in use so I could better understand how old they might be….I can’t So I will keep from trying to determine the age of a piece and leave that to the experts who in most cases are wrong because they don’t have a crystal ball either. I have included two examples of Throne Backs. One Chinese and one Tibetan.

richard tomlinson

Hi Derek, Glenn and others

Thanks again for your valuable and informative comments.

Glenn, Derek - my understanding is similar to yours. Tibetans traded rugs and goods and would have inevitably incorporated ideas and designs from other cultures.

Clearly China has had a great influence on Tibetan designs. With regard to ‘pure’ and ‘old’, I have seen examples on the Internet which point to Chinese rugs exhibiting ‘Tibetan’ designs, or e.g. the clouds on a piece being ‘Tibetan’ rather than Chinese. I start to wonder whether design swapping is/was a 2 way process?

I’ve got a lot of reading to do…….

Below are 2 Tibetan (actually the only 2) rugs I own. Some of you will have seen the khaden on Turkotek before.
















Both rugs have all wool foundation and beautiful natural dyes (I do not detect any synthetics and all dyes are 100% fast with no bleeding). They are both woven in the typical Tibetan style.

The longer meditation rug has had both ends rebuilt and extensive and rather crude repair to the central field of the centre meditation mat. Despite these condition issues, I bought this fairly inexpensive piece as I thought it exhibited wonderful colour and it’s quite rare to find these longer pieces (Most mats are separated and sold individually). I would imagine this might have been longer as I believe they were woven with 8 mats.

If you look at the image comparing the backs, you will see that the meditation rug is woven more coarsely than the khaden. While both rugs have lovely soft wool and appear similar on the front, the khaden‘s wool appears shinier on the back in comparison with the long run. (Perhaps because it’s more tightly woven? Or perhaps the quality is better?)

It’s hard to tell from these images but the khaden also has a beautiful cinnamon color field as opposed to the buff brown field in the mediation rug. The red in the border of the long rug looks madder derived whereas the reds in the khaden are more purplish and could be a lac dye. There is a similar but darker purplish dye in the central floral elements of the meditation rug.

It has been suggested that the khaden was probably made around 100 years ago for export. This might account for the better quality in dyes and the tighter weave. I’d imagine they are both from around 1900, though the meditation rug might be a little older.

Would anyone care to speculate on either or both rugs? Both workshop rugs? Age comparison? Region where they come from?

Regards

Richard Tomlinson

Glenn Ross

Richard,
I agree both pieces have good color and appear to have good age to them. Age is so difficult but if they were my pieces, I might state age by these phrases….1st Quarter of the 20th century, or around 1900 or possibly 19th century because frankly I wasn’t there to see them made. Your Khaden or sleeping rug has a design known as PEMA CHAKDRO meaning lotus in iron brackets. This design is uncommon and haven’t seen many pieces in the field but is found in the reference books.

Monastery runners many times were reduced for a number of reasons by the Tibetans. Sometimes the longer ones didn’t fit so they cut off a few squares to be used somewhere else. I also believe as the Chinese moved in and began destroying monasteries maybe they were cut for easier transport. And let's not forget what might have happened to them as they reached the market and dealers began cutting them down for easier sale.


Here are a few pieces to share. The first, I believe is a standalone monastery square that was never part of a larger runner. Next is a piece of which I have two disconnected pieces and probably part of a longer runner. The third I believe is a single square but I could be wrong. Next is a new single square with cotton foundation and much more commercial in look. Last the square appears to have been part of a longer runner.

 

For an illuminating addendum to this thread, please see this page.