Manfred Bieber

Although I'm sure it was due to a misunderstanding rather than an intentional violation of our rules, one of the two kilims Manfred posted is in his inventory and is for sale. I learned this only yesterday, and have spent some time pondering how to make things right without embarrassing Manfred for making an honest mistake and, at the same time, not losing all of the interesting discussion by deleting this thread.

I'm deleting the images of the first kilim and, to the extent that it's practical to do so, reference to it in posts. This will unavoidably lead to some awkwardness in the thread. I'll try to minimize that and not throw the baby out with the bath water. To those whose text was mangled, I apologize.

Steve Price

Dear ladies and gentlemen

I found these two kilims in Konya, one with unusual design, in the 1980s.




I would like to hear your comments on these pieces. Thank you for your efforts.

Dr. Manfred Bieber

Steve Price

Hi Manfred

I don't know a lot about Anatolian kilims (much less than you do, I'm sure), but one of the things that strikes me about yours is that although their palettes are similar enough to suggest a common origin, the end finishes are very different.

They are very handsome pieces.

Regards

Steve Price

Richard Tomlinson

Hi,

Steve - how are the end finishes different? they look identical to me ???

These pieces strike me as being almost identical in every facet except individual design elements.

The colours, overall 'feeling', ends and everything else (including the fact they were purchased in the same place) lead me to believe they are fairly modern kilims, perhaps best described as modern 'handicraft' and likely woven in the same workshop/factory.

reasonably nice decorative pieces but not collectible in my opinion.

regards
richard tomlinson

Steve Price

Hi Richard

The first kilim has flatwoven ends with the warps extending beyond them as individual strands. The second one also has flatwoven ends, but the projecting warps are collected into what look like braided groups.

Regards

Steve Price

Rich Larkin

Hi Richard,

Can you elaborate on your remarks to the effect these two pieces are "not collectible"? What distinguishes them in that regard from other East Anatolian klims that would be collectible? Do these descend to the "soulless" level? Are other pieces "soulful"? Is it the circumstances of their manufacture? How does one discern the difference in terms of collectibility?

I take your point that Manfred's pair seem like two peas in a pod, but I wonder how much things would have been different in 1880. I agree with Steve, I find these two good looking

Rich Larkin

Richard Tomlinson

Hi Steve

both look braided to me. some looser strands in one.

rich L - i don't believe these pieces are old and therefore uncollectible at present. that's not to say they wont be in 100 year's time.

as for what is 'soulless' or 'soulful' - that is subjective. but one only has to see what collectors are willing to pay to get a general consensus. i don't believe these pieces would generate much interest if sold at auction and would unlikely fetch a good price. unless of course there are individuals who have stacks of money and believe they are super pieces of woven art.

you could argue that general consensus is wrong. i do sometimes, and own pieces some would regard as inferior. such is life. i am also amazed at what some pieces fetch simply because they are considered 'highly collectible' by rugdom.

and by the way, i did not say these kilims were not good looking - simply they are not collectible.

regards
richard t

Rich Larkin

Hi Richard,

Determining "soulful" vs. "soulless" based on what collectors are willing to pay? Somehow, that seems like a bootstrap argument to me. The other side of that coin could be that the consensus crowd, the ones willing to spend, are the victims of mass hypnosis. Then, there are the pieces that once were disdained by the consensus, then got legs somewhere along the line. How do they go from "no soul" to "yes soul" along that continuum?

Rich

Richard Tomlinson

well i don't set current standards, tastes or morals - current society does. that is the way society has always operated. one can choose to be part of the mass, or dwell on the fringes. but things do change - iraq the friend, iraq the enemy. mandela the terrorist, mandela the liberator.

right now, no matter how vehemently you argue, these 2 kilims would not be considered collectible by the majority of collectors. that is fact.

and i'd be willing to bet on that....

richard

Richard Tomlinson

Hi

Rich L - in terms of 'collectible', i would consider the following criteria (especially in relation to collecting rugs) :

I believe in order for anything to be considered 'collectible' there has to be a desire for the object- not only by the person collecting the item but also others. otherwise anything and everything could be considered collectible. I could collect rusty nails and build a great collection (now there's a thought!)

So what makes a rug desirable? Here's my list roughly in order of priority (though these all link)

1. Aesthetics (colour and colour balance, form and design, etc) M/L
2. Quality ( wool, dye, weave, etc) M
3. Age L
4. Rarity L
5. Condition H
6. Historical significance L

Rank
L = low
M -= medium
H = high

I have provided my subjective ranking for these kilims. Thus, they fall on the lower end of the collectible scale in my book. Of course, each criterion may have a different weighting for different people. Trying to quantify something like this is almost impossible.

I wonder how others feel?

Regards
Richard

Steve Price

Hi Richard

Awhile back, we did a Salon on the question of why collectors collect what they do. Here's a link to it. It's a surprisingly complicated question.

Regards

Steve Price

Pierre Galafassi

Hi Manfred,

I am an ignoramus when it comes to kilims, so please take this info with a large spadeful of salt, but Zipper and Fritsche (Oriental Rugs, Volume IV, Turkish, pages 172, 173 and 179) , show several mid-ninetenth century prayer rugs attributed to Eastern Anatolia (Erzurum and Kagizman) which IMHO feature a field motif (Tree of life inside a solid green mirhab.) very similar to your kilims. Fig 2 also has a secondary border of bicolor polygons not unlike one of your kilims.

FIG 1. Turkish. Eastern Anatolia. Erzurum. Kilim. XIX. 182X122138X124.


FIG 2. Turkish. Eastern Anatolia. Erzurum. Pile. XIX. 138X124.



May I highjack a little the thread? The opportunity to ask you a few questions is too good to miss. I liked your highly interesting 1993 publications (1) about the fermentation dyeing technique used by Anatolian and Turkmen dyers. Did you make further research and publications about this topic?

(1) Seventh International Conference of Oriental Carpets. Hamburg. 1993

Best regards
Pierre

Marvin Amstey

Hi Richard T,
Your scale of collectability has too many internal variables; e.g. as age increases, condition decreases. I'm sure that any one of us would be happy with a fragment of a Star Ushak vs. a perfect circa 1900 Shirvan or a half of any rug that Pierre shows in his essay on Renaissance collectors than a 19th c. Yomud chuval in excellent condition. IMHO, I would put rarity and historical value up there at the top. My guess is that any one of us on this forum will have a different set of values. Its all very hard to quantify.

Horst Nitz

Hi all,

after some initial hesitation I am quite willing to put both kelims into the + 90 years category; the first piece with an higher degree of certainty.

The use of different batches of wool across several colours in the first kilim suggests authenticy or extensive restauration by an experienced restorer trying to avoid uniformity. Both kilims do not show the loss of depths and complexity that has become symptomatic for a considerable proportion of the present generation of naturally dyed weaves that go through a stress process before they are released as being antique.

Regards, Horst

p.s. With regard to collectibility and rarity, kelim #1 has a crude but perfectly recognizable face woven into the mirhab. This allone makes it unusual and possibly very desirable to some collectors.

Alex Wolfson

To second Horst's point, I would also consider both pieces eminently collectible. They look as if they were woven for local use. I particularly like the expressionist manner in which the head is depicted at the moment of takbir. 90+ years seems totally plausible.
The end finishes look like they could be kurdish work.

Richard Tomlinson

hi all

i think what this thread proves is that we all have different perspectives, tastes and inclinations.

HOORAY for diversity!

by the way horst, you missed the front-on image of a frog (the second green diamond shape down). that could almost persuade me to consider this rug collectible :-)

Horst Nitz

Hi

thanks, Alex, for your seconding. I can accept that others have some reservations about the pieces, I too was thinking for a moment or two that they might be a superior kind along DOBAG lines because of their immaculate condition.

I had to remember, that in the 1980’s when Manfred bought them it was common practice in Turkey to restore rugs to perfection, they had the skill, means and cheap labour to do wonders on worn rugs in ramshackle workshops like these (Sultanhani near Konya, 1980):







Since then it seems standards have changed from restoration to preservation – and seeing habits have accordingly. Maybe this is behind the scope.

The following image shows one of my pieces from the Erzurum / Kagizman region; the white is cotton, some silver thread, 4th quarter 19th c. Perhaps this helps to see Manfred’s kelims and my age estimate in reasonable perspective:





Manfred, I wonder whether you could specify what you are thinking of when you say, ‘one with unusual design.’ I have an idea, but so shortly after the ‘Kufic border’ thread I don’t feel the urge of jumping into the deep end of a discussion on Anatolian weavers’ collective unconsciousness and its multi-cultural heritage, unless there is a strong point for doing so.

Regards, Horst

Manfred Bieber

thanks to all writers,
collectible or not collectible is a very interesting point of view for the collector
by himself.

For me another question is more important.
Would it be possible, that these kilims are woven by a non islamic tribe?
KIZILBAS, ALEVITS or Ahl al Haqq!
Regards
Manfred Bieber

Guido_Engel

Hi Manfred,

First of all: I don't know the answer. Looking at your first piece; I also saw an old Australian rockpainting presenting a composite being plant/man (the author of the book calls it a symbol of trance and sees a shamanistic context); there are some Ersari trappings, which show a more simplified form of a composite being plant/man with an adorans gestus - I will show an example below. By the way, in old Egypt the adorans gestus meant asking God for the force of life (maybe some remember my "qut" posting last week). Perhaps this tribe is islamic, but the drawing has - in my opinion - older roots.



Regards

Guido

Horst Nitz

Hi Manfred,

as Wikipedia tells us none of the groups you mention is or traditionally was mainstream Sunni Islam. What do you think it is in those kelims that would make it important to distinguish?

Regards, Horst

Manfred Bieber

Hi Horst,
I hope the research is going on.
Michael Bischof suggests, the kilims belong to the Jirki or Herki tribe.
I believe the kilims came from Bayburt/Kizilkilesi.
The technical analysis gave some hints to this region.
As I heard from Udo Hirsch. he has seen theses pieces and photographed them in the 1980s during his discovery with belkis Balpinar.
Unfortunatly he is still in Georgia. Therefore I cant get no further information.
Regards
Manfred
http://www.exoriente.de/

Manfred Bieber

Hi Guido,
thank you for your information.
The investigation is going on.
Regards
Manfred

Marla Mallett

It's hard for me not to throw in my two cents worth when the subject is Anatolian kilims. In my opinion, these two weavings belong firmly in the Kagizman/Erzerum area. Definitely NOT from the Kurdish tribes of Southeastern Turkey. I'm in agreement with those folks who have guessed them to be in the 90-year-old range.

As for "collectible" or not...What a difficult question. There seems to be nothing technically about the pieces that would "disqualify" them. The dyes look good, and though it is difficult to judge the weave balance and materials from just these photos, I'd assume that they are adequate. Condition? They appear to be in the condition that we all hunt for. Rarity? Well, small namazliks, prayer kilims, from northeast Turkey have always been in demand by collectors, though most prefer the earlier examples that have become very pricey. So in the end we are left with aesthetic judgments. Are the pieces thrilling, or just satisfactory?

Aesthetic questions are of course very much a personal matter. In these namazliks, I would prefer a more clear "hierarchy of values." In other words, a clearer focus. When all of the design elements are given almost equal emphasis--in both borders and field--the result can be scrambled and disorienting. When guard borders are too strongly emphasized and thus jump out at the viewer, this can be disconcerting. If the various colors in a piece are arrayed without clear purpose, again, the results can be scrambled. There's no substitute for sensitivity to a whole range of issues on the designer's part. There's no doubt that a dynamic, beautiful piece can be produced in any time period, and I'd argue that aesthetics trumps all other features in making a weaving a "collectible" piece.

Marla

Donald Ruyle

This is a wonderful discussion I just looked in on. Richards criteria is a good starting place for standards but I add one of mine. It is always very pleasing to see rugs that look as if they were woven from yarns that could have been dyed with indigo, madder and yellow and the combinations of those dyes, what I believe to be the basics in color. When seen in rugs that show some wear, I tend to think early; when seen in rugs that show little wear, I tend to think last half of 20th century probably in natural dyes (revival efforts) and likewise, something that looks like it has been extensively re-woven in the '60's to the '80's by the fine Turkish weavers. Admit that I am very ameture but I would probably be buying rugs like these if offered in range. I like both of them.
Regards, Don

Richard Tomlinson

hi all

marla - i wish i could articulate my thoughts as clearly as you! i think you have hit the nail on the head.

regards
richard tomlinson

Horst Nitz

Hi all,

Manfred, with all due respect, Bayburt and Hakkari province are definitely not the areas of origin of your kelims.

Regards, Horst

Richard Tomlinson

hi all

horst - 'to me it is just playfulness, no far reaching philosophy or religious concept behind it probably.'

if we are to assume that this is indeed a prayer rug, to be used for prayer, and woven by a Muslim for use, i cannot possibly see how a weaver could disrespect the Islam faith by 'being playful'.

unless of course we are to believe that this rug was not woven by a Muslim? that seems to be what manfred has been wanting us to believe right from his very first post when he mentioned that one of the two kilims had an 'unusual design'.

regards
richard tomlinson

Guido_Engel

Hi all,

In my very last posting I would like to express some ideas (don"t worry, not too much on symbolism); sorry Manfred for disturbing.

1.Looking at this Gunduzlu-Luri bagface I am asking since two hours what it is showing. I thought until now that it is a symbol for expressing an idea (I personally see a head, a body, two arms and two legs and I wasn't the worst student in anatomy). The feet are replaced by plants(?); so it is a composite being, which are as old as the history of human art.



2. The last two years I had to learn that the weavers were illiterate and didn't understand what they were weaving; so all the rugs I own are just copies (none of them is older than about 150 years; no prototype in my "collection"); this means that they are-more or less- decorative, but not collectible or is the copy of a Picasso painting collectible?

3.Maybe Azadi and Andrews will bring this dispute to an end. I would like to cite them (Mafrash, page 7-8): "The interest in the textile arts of the Middle East takes two principal directions. One is an aesthetic view concerned with quality, which relies largely, and often exclusively, on the criteria it has itself developed, and thus of course emphasizes the ideas of the connoisseur. The other is a socio-cultural view,which is focussed more upon the criteria of the weaver's own cultural norms, and their particular characteristics, and tries to become familiar with them. These two views do not necessarily contradict one another, and we need both of them. Nevertheless it can be seen that overemphasis of the first attitude has become a justification for the ethnocentricity of industrial civilisation, for it has promoted its own selective demand. The superimposition of its own criteria has led to a standardisation of originally different cultures.

Best wishes to all,

Guido

Steve Price

Hi Guido

I'm not the person to comment on reading the iconography, but I take issue with this:
The last two years I had to learn that the weavers were illiterate and didn't understand what they were weaving; so all the rugs I own are just copies (none of them is older than about 150 years; no prototype in my "collection"); this means that they are-more or less- decorative, but not collectible or is the copy of a Picasso painting collectible?

Village and tribal weavers were nearly all illiterate, so they couldn't read the inscriptions that they wove (dates are probably exceptions, at least sometimes - illiterate people are often able to read and manipulate numbers). But some probably understood the iconography and its meanings, although the meanings may have been very different than what they were centuries earlier.

I doubt that many of us have prototypes in our collections, but that doesn't make everything decorative (as opposed to authentically ethnographic) and very little of it is analogous to a copy of a painting. A hallmark of rustic and tribal work is that there are hardly ever identical pairs, even pairs that came off the loom together (intact khorjin, for example) are seldom identical.

Regards

Steve Price

Richard Tomlinson

hi

<sheepishly> ... sorry for my comments regarding age and quality of this rug. the closeup images clearly show i was totally incorrect.

now i will let the experts consider the origins of this kilim. interesting stuff !!!!

regards
richard tomlinson

Rich Larkin

Hi Martin,

I hadn't noticed that there is metal-covered thread in the kilim. Is it concentrated in the area you have shown in the close-up, or is it elsewhere as well? Also, is the pale red in the two small devices to the left side of the top image in your last post a different dye from the larger areas of red? If so, is it much more saturated in the unexposed parts of the yarn (i. e., under the surface)?

Guido,

You have posted your Luri bag upside-down relative to the perspective of the weaver. Does that bother your notion of a figural representation?

Rich

Marla Mallett

Two points:

I have been told repeatedly by villagers in Turkey that the diamonds (or occasionally triangles) that appear at the peak of a prayer kilim's mihrab--either just within it or just above it--represent the ritual kerballa stones placed under the worshipper's forehead when he or she kneels in prayer. These diamonds are usually plain, but occasionally have markings that represent the inscriptions on kerballa stones. There are a couple of weaving groups in which this detail does not appear, but in most, they do.

With that said, in Turkey, prayer kilims are normally hung on the wall of a village house to indicate the direction of Mecca for the women and girls who say their prayers at home, while the men go to the local mosque. Knotted-pile prayer kilims, on the other hand, have most often been commercial items, made for sale.

Marla

Horst Nitz

Hi

same story in the Caucasus, the symbol underneath the ark of a prayer rug (if there is any) is usually referred to as 'tash' (stone); here probably represented by the red rhombus on the forehead of the face. In view of the very good colours and the state of corrosion of the metal spun cotton threads I consider to adjust my age estimate to +120 years. The Kagizman / Erzurum attribution stays, i.e. the kilim was likely woven in Russia.

Regards, Horst

Marla Mallett

...Except that Erzerum and Kagizman are in Turkey, not Russia.

The area is inhabited by Turkmen, Circasian Turks, and Kurds.

Marla

Horst Nitz

Hi Marla,

you are right of course in describing the present state of affair. In the 19th and early 20th centuries however the town of Erzurum was taken (and restored) by Russia several times, John Buchan's famous novel 'Greenmantle' is set into one of the occasions; Kagizman as a district of Kars province remained with Russia from 1877/78 until after WW I and the peace treaty of Brest-Litovsk.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Turkish_War_(1877%E2%80%931878);

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Brest-Litovsk

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenmantle

Regards, Horst

Steve Price

Hi Horst

Although it seems likely that these were woven within the borders of what was Russia at the time, I don't think I've ever seen geographic attributions of rugs made to anything except the present. For example, Tabriz was not only in Azerbaijan until fairly late in the 19th century, it was the capital of Azerbaijan. I've never seen a Tabriz carpet attributed to anything except Persia or Iran (in rugspeak, the terms are interchangeable).

The only exception that comes to mind is Karabagh, often referred to by Armenian authors as Armenia and by Azeri authors as Azerbaijan. Please, let's not pursue that explosive topic here.

Regards

Steve Price

Note added: Tabriz wasn't the capital of Azerbaijan after 1392 AD. I don't know where or when I picked up the misinformation that it was in the 19th century, and I apologize to anyone misled by what I wrote. The point that geographic attributions nearly always refer to present day boundaries is correct, though.

Joel Greifinger

For a very interesting breakdown of the demographics (including ethnicity and religion) in the Erzurum/Kagizman area in 1892 and 1897, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kars_Oblast

Joel Greifinger

Horst Nitz

Hi Steve, Joel,

don't worry, all quite on the eastern front, no explosives. I simply introduced those historical facts in preparation of my argument regarding 'the face.'

Good link, Joel, especially the map.

Good night. Its late here.

Horst

Marla Mallett

Joel,

Thanks for that link. Over the years people have persistently asked whether kilims from the far northeast areas of Anatolia have been "Kurdish", "Turkish", or what? Both Turks and Kurds whom I've known with family roots in that part of the country have insisted that it is impossible to say, with any certainty. Though they report that villages in the area tend to be predominantly one ethnic group or another, when asked how the weavings of the ethnic groups differ, they are puzzled, and inevitably reply, "Well...they're all about the same." The only group we can safely exclude when speaking of kilim origins are Armenians, as they were rarely nomadic, and thus, rarely kilim producers. It's interesting that in the material you posted, "Turks" and "Turkmen" are listed separately. That's hard to understand, unless those designated "Turkmen" were relative newcomers to the area, and thus those most likely to still be nomadic.

Marla

Horst Nitz

Hi

some of the aspects raised in Marla's last post are addressed here:

http://www.rugreview.com/113vanm.htm

Regards,

Horst

Manfred Bieber

Hi all,
our discussion will ending in a one way road.

The hints given, will end in a one way road.
I suggest, that the use of using madder for aubergine leads us to
the mith of the 19th century.
Nevertheless the discussion of the use and the origin of this unusually prayer kilim must go on.
Thank you very much to all for the discussion.
Regards
Manfred

Richard Tomlinson

to be honest, now i don't even know why this thread started ... ????

it's like it was just one giant riddle without a solution.

absolutely amazing ......

Steve Price

Hi Manfred

The link to an image that you posted doesn't work.

Regards

Steve Price

Guido_Engel

Hi Rich,

The important thing of my figure in the last posting is the navel-point, which is in "primitive" (I absolutely dislike the term in this context) art the place, where a certain force enters the art object. I don't think that this being is thought to represent a god, a ghost or a human being, but it expresses an idea. Btw, it is a chanteh face and chantehs are normally very personal items.

Hi Cornelius, next to Filiberto ("....to create a divine presence") you made for me the second big point this year ("nothing accidental or meaningless exists in primitive art"). The third point is for me that primitive art is aiming at "making the unvisible visible". These three points are for me the key for understanding "primitive" art.

Hi Manfred, sedentary people are building houses (temples,churches... ) to create a divine/ supernatural presence. Why shouldn't nomadic people use other items like jewellery or textiles for the same purpose? Not each house is a temple and not each textile can be seen in a ritual context. Looking at "your" face I personally wouldn't exclude a ritual context (the hands are more important I think). In a remote area of Central India you find on the walls of every house a painting, which is called "the house of the benevolent ghosts" protecting the family. The frame of these paintings is very similar to a well known Balouch border of many bagfaces (sorry for the bad picture).



Sorry that I can't help you more, but maybe it is an interesting hint.

Regards

Guido

Manfred Bieber

Hi, my very appreciated kilim enthusiastics,
from the very beginning of the the discussion, there were two kilims, perhaps from the same time and the same geographical origin.

What do you think about the age of both kilims.
Regards
Manfred

Horst Nitz

Hi Filiberto,

In the meantime, could someone perhaps take care of Manfred's request as to the age, function etc. of his kelims?

I can't make it older than I honestly think it is - or make it a Kizilbash. I wonder where your claim derives from, that they would still be living all over the countryside. To my knowledge they were a historical Turkoman military order on which early Safavid rulers built their reign, but vanished from influence latest under Abbas.

I have felt frustration too when faced with age attributions that crossed my own estimate. Shaban, my restorer in Istanbul, is the best man on the job I know of and a very kind man - the only grudge I can possibly muster against him occasionally, is, that he seems to see all my rugs and kelims as being 25 years younger than I do - so what!

Regards, Horst

Pierre Galafassi

Hi Horst,

Awfully sorry, but Manfred is perfectly right: a population called kizilbash is indeed still important in the Dersim region of Anatolia and some smaller pockets in Eastern Anatolia.

Their origin is multiethnic with Turkmen-, Kurdish- and various smaller components (Contrary to the Persian Kizilbash Safavid supporters, which were predominantly Turkmen).

The modern Anatolian Kizilbash tribes belong to a branch of the Shia Alevi religion. Contrary to the mainstream of the Alevi they are characterized by a very large dose of syncretism: They are nominally Shia, but with large traces of pantheism, Sufism, shamanism and even Mazdeism.

The Anatolian Kizilbash were partisans of the first Safavid Shahs, like their Persian brethren. Many were killed or exiled by Selim I during the first decade of the sixteenth century. The survivors adopted a sensible policy of «takiyya» (dissimulation) and lived at the margins of the Sunnite Ottoman power in remote regions.

IMHO their endogamous behaviour and the remoteness of their communities could have created an ideal conservatory for antique Turkmen- and/or Kurdish traditions, including in rugs. I can see no reason at all to dismiss curtly, as you do, Manfred's hypothesis.

Source: Dersim Site. Pascale Faure. Qui sont les Kizilbash?
Secondary sources mentioned:
Thierry Fayt, Les Alévis. 2003. Paris
Bruinessen, Etudes Kurdes, Le débat sur l’identité ethnique des Alévis kurdes , N° 3, 2001.

Regards
Pierre

Filiberto Boncompagni

Hi Pierre,

Interesting, especially the indication to religious syncretism and Kurdish components.

Let’s stay here for a moment.

The link posted by Joel mentions that 15% of the Kars Oblast population was Kurdish (Sunni Muslims and some Yazidi).

I searched a bit on Yazidism… It seems that in spring they celebrated a Festival, the “Paitshahya” in honor of “Mahmad Rashan” a saint and a protector of the harvest and of the rain (no rain no harvest, of course).

Regards,

Filiberto

Pierre Galafassi

Hi Filiberto,

- An Eastern Anatolian origin for Manfred’s kilims does not seem unreasonable to our true specialist of the region, Marla.
- The main home for today’s Anatolian Kizilbash (or Sofiyan as they are also called today, since Kizilbash has a pejorative connotation for the Sunni) is the region of Dersim, Kemah, and the adjacent Tecan & Erzican, which indeed belong to the central part of Eastern Anatolia. There are smaller enclaves of these Alevi people further to the North (Mus, Varta, Kars) and further to the east of Dersim (Bingöl). (1)
- Even an attribution to Erzerum would be compatible with Manfred's opinion, since it is one of the largest city of the East, and it could have been an emporium and logistical center for all kind of rugs woven in Eastern Anatolia, including Kizilbash ones.
- A population mainly based on ethnic Turkmen and Kurds is extremely likely to have been weaving kilims and rugs.

These facts certainly do not contradict Manfred’s hypothesis and it would be very interesting to know his own informations which led to his opinion.

The Kizilbash’s religious syncretism (with «cults» for trees, rain, the moon, snakes, fire etc..) could certainly justify some interpretations of the rug motifs which could seem closer to pantheism than to strict Islam. Including faces or rain drops.

My own monthly quota for harebrained hypothesis is achieved and probably Steve’s brows already raised to the max (not by my fault though), thus this is as far as I dare to go now.
Best regards
Pierre

P.S. If you find a source for crystal balls on e-bay please order one for me too.
(1) Source of info is the same as mentioned in my previous post (Mrs Faure)

Manfred Bieber

Hi to all and their interesting comments,
for further information I have to wait for the news of Udo Hirsch, who knows
these kilims since 1980th during his field work with Belkis Balpinar.
I hope, I will get the news in short time.
Regards
Manfred

Horst Nitz

Hi Pierre,

well done, the Kizilbash flag is up again. My crystal ball seems to have a blind spot in some direction; it saw the last Kizilbash vanishing with Nadir Shah in Afghanistan.

And for what its worth, a link to a note on the Armenian element in the ‘Kurdish Kizilbash’ (page 531).

http://books.google.de/books?id=WYO1BqdvX9EC&pg=PA531&lpg=PA531&dq=encyclopedia+of+islam+1913+Kizilbash&source=bl&ots=FVvGdQk8N_&sig=a392VlL-okVfGXoLzuOFX-9wilY&hl=de&sa=X&ei=FGw2UNTbDo6L4gT9noGwBg&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=encyclopedia%20of%20islam%201913%20Kizilbash&f=false

Regards, Horst

Marla Mallett

Anyone attempting to read deep symbolic meaning into the first Erzerum/Kagizman kilim needs to take a good long look at it... The piece, with its constant inconsistencies,irre gularities and quite inept drawing is obviously the work of a very young, inexperienced weaver...or maybe two young girls. Take a good look at the full piece, starting at the bottom end, at the portion developed first on the loom. For all of its "charm," it's a mess. There is no way that this could be the product of a mature weaver. If it is children's art, it must be interpreted in that vein, and no other.

Marla

Richard Tomlinson

hi marla

'There is no way that this could be the product of a mature weaver.'

would you say the same of the second piece manfred showed?

regards
richard

Marla Mallett

Richard,

No. That one is a quite different matter.

Marla

Steve Price

Hi Horst

Exactly. I have great admiration for the participants whose first language isn't English. It's quite an accomplishment to be able to do that, and occasional miscommunication is just a fact of life. The smilies can help, but can't always solve the problem.

Thanks

Steve Price

Patrick Weiler

Wishful Thinking seems to be endemic in the rug collector world. And that is one of the benign afflictions.

Patrick Weiler

Guido_Engel

Hi all,

I would like to give a short remark on the "hands up" gestus. In old Egypt it means "ka", the force of life, people are asking for and which is given by a god; so human beings and god are presented with the same gestus. Two days ago I saw in the ethnological museum of Berlin this item.



It is from Polynesia (early 20th century) and was found on the wall of a house, which was used for the initiation rite of young girls; probably the same meaning as the "ka".

Regards

Guido

Guido_Engel

Hi Manfred,hi all.

Maybe this helps.

I am just reading Jan Assmann"s book on "religion and cultural memory". He says that memory is determined by the rhythm of remembering and forgetting. The reason why books like the bible or the Koran were written is to prevent this forgetting of religious ideas in everyday life and to be aware of the collective knowledge of a community.

The only open question is, whether the weaver was exactly aware of this collective memory. It is also possible (as an Eskimo once said) that tradition (and traditional forms of art) are the premise for the continuum of the universe. In both cases the weaver at least knew that the drawing had an existential meaning for herself and her community (of course, commercial items are excluded).

Regards,

Guido

Joel Greifinger

Hi Guido,

To the contrary, I think your theory raises (rather than settles) many more questions, since it is based on an almost dizzying array of metaphysical assumptions...

not the least of which is: why is an artifact that enters into commerce excluded from this expression of transcendent universal meanings?

Joel Greifinger

Guido_Engel

Hi Joel,

The easier question first; commercial items are excluded, because the ornaments are mostly influenced by the taste of the market; no personal items.

In my very first posting I said to Manfred that I can't answer his question and in my last posting I used the terms "maybe and perhaps"; so I clearly expressed that a definite answer can't be givenm, in my opinion. In this thread we are discussing on a kelim we don't know the weaver or her intentions, so each posting can be only a reflection.

Concerning the "metaphysical assumptions"; Jan Assmann is a very well known expert in the religion of old Egypt. In the book I mentioned, he is explaining the different ideas of religion and the very early forms of religion or archaic religious ideas, which differ from the later ones, but are very important to understand the development of religion; it is impossible to explain such a special book of 200 pages with a few words. Btw the lecture of Assmann"s books is recommended by the archaeologist, who discovered Goebekli Tepe in Turkey.

I personally find his idea that a rite or a book like the bible help people not to forget the origin and history of their community very logical. The next step for me is to reflect on the question, whether illiterate people used textiles,rockpaintin gs or pottery for the same purpose. I think they did.

Last week we went to Berlin and I visited several museums. In the Pergamon-Museum has been a special exhibition "The Formation and Transformation of Space and Knowledge in Ancient cultures"; 220 experts of philosophy, theology, astronomy... were c o m p a r i n g the old cultures from neolithic age to the Roman Empire from differnt points of view and tried to work out what these cultures had in common.

In Berlin I had the chance to see and c o m p a r e Mesopotamia, Egypt, Syria, prehistoric cultures, the islamic period, Byzanz, Polynesia, Africa, Australia, India ...... I often saw this "hands-up" position and always in the context "to connect; to be or to become part of a community". When you shake hands, you also come into contact with a person, you are connected with this person; during a catholic mass people also shake hands to confirm their religious community and if you want to shake hands with God, you must lift your arms.

Regards,Guido

Paul Smith

Hi Guido,

That was not an easy question, excluding "commercial items," because determining what exactly constitutes a commercial item is not as simple as you make it seem. I think it is a highly debatable assumption that weavings sold in the market have no "personal" elements, and as we have seen here over the years, it is not at all simple to determine whether a particular item is "purely" authentic or commercial in the way you describe.

Regards,

Paul

Joel Greifinger

Hi Guido,

Good, let's start with the easier question: If these meanings are universal and transcend specific cultural contexts, why should market taste interfere with this transmission? If a tribal weaver made an item for trade and not for personal or communal use, would this have kept such meaning from being encoded? Since the weaver's intention seems to not be central to meaning, why should the intention to sell the weaving?

While starting a statement with "maybe and perhaps" does acknowledge its fallibility, it also means that just about any predicate that follows can count as true.

Joel Greifinger

Guido_Engel

Hi Joel,

I am sure you misunderstood my posting; sorry, my fault.I pronounced the word c o m p a r e and I told you about the exhibition in the Pergamon museum,where experts are working in the same way by comparing; that's the way modern archaeology and ethnology are working and I don't see a better one at the moment.

Using the terms maybe, perhaps, I believe, I think ... expresses that I am r e f l e c t i n g on Manfred's question, if this kelim could be seen in a ceremonial context. As I am dealing with ethnology for a very long time, I am aware that sometimes an item is used in a ceremonial context a n d a profane context or the drawing of an originally ceremonial item was later used in private items .... ; so it would have been quite foolish to say:"I am absolutely sure." But I wouldn"t exclude a ceremonial context.

I gave a personal answer to a question and tried to explain it by mentioning the "hands-up" gestus and in this case I am s u r e. For me, "maybe" means: that's my opinion, but another opinion is also possible.

Btw are you always absolutely sure that you know what other people (especially people you don"t know like the weaver) are thinking? I am not, and that's why I also use the term maybe, when I reflect on the intentions of another person.

Now let's move to tribal attribution. I showed the bagface below to 3 very well known dealers (two of them are living in America). They started their answers with perhaps; maybe, might be, but could also be; I am very anxious to see if anybody will give - after a period of reflecting and comparing - a tribal attribution starting with "I am absolutely sure that this piece is from ......" The three dealers gave three different tribal attributions. You see tribal attribution and motif interpretation are sometimes difficult and express a very personal and subjective opinion.





To come to an end: the term "commercial"; last year I was asked if I think that all items could have been used in a ceremonial context, even the commercial ones. To prevent a dicussion on this point I excluded the commercial items. Btw "commercial" means for me "intended for selling from the first knot". But the commercial items are really not the point of my postings.

I am sure our discussion has lost the topic and we should finish at this point and return to Manfred's kelim.

Best wishes to all,

Guido

Rich Larkin

Hi Guido,

What attributions were offered besides Afshar? Nice piece.

Regarding the "hands up" posture, and numerous other postures, gestures and habits, it would seem many of them are instinctive, and if not universally present in humans, at least universally potential or available. The views attributed to Noam Chomsky that human language is grammatically structured according to formations of the brain must also apply to many other habits. Whether we are seeing the application of such instinctive impulses in a given weaving may be another question.

Rich Larkin

Richard Tomlinson

hi guido

nice bagface!

dealers said

1. probably afshar
2. possibly shahsavan (nwp)
3. possibly luri

I am absolutely sure that i have guessed at least one of the dealer guesses.

Guido_Engel

Hi Rich and Richard,

1. Could be Gashgai; I showed the piece also to a German dealer (the only one who could touch it) and he also gave the Gashgai attribution

2. South Persian,probably Khamseh; M.Craycraft once told me that some Khamseh pieces are very similar to Afshar work

3. Possibly Gashgai, but might be Luri

I also saw a piece very similar concerning the colours and the structure, which was attributed by Rippon-Boswell to a Luri tribe influenced by the Gashgai. As I like Luri pieces very much, I take this attribution.

I think a discussion on motifs should be also seen more relaxed, because nobody knows the last truth.

But now I would like to stop; I am again on the best way to interrupt a discussion.

Regards,

Guido

Richard Larkin

Hi Guido,

Thanks for the information. Did your consulting dealers have it in hand, or did they view it on a screen?

I agree with Craycraft that some Afshar and Southwest Persian things are closely similar. If the wool is actually of the glossy, transparent kind, as appears in your images, I can accept a Southwest Persian tribal attribution. The matching inner and outer borders are very common in Afshar work.

Rich Larkin

Richard Tomlinson

hi

i think most would agree it's south persian but that's the easy part.

i'd be interested to know what pat weiler thinks - this is his area.

regards
richard

Guido_Engel

Hi Rich,

Sorry I made a fault in my last posting, too tired from discussing"maybe".

I bought the bagface from the second dealer ("maybe Khamseh") in America; I am quite sure that he acquired the piece from dealer number one in England ("Gashgai"), because I found an absolutely identical piece -even the restored areas - of the same size on his home page under "sold pieces". Either it was the same piece or the second half of the khourdjin, but with absolutely the same areas of restauration done with the same colours at the same places? He told me that he would attribute it to the Gashgai.

The third one ("possibly Gashgai, but might be Luri") viewed it on the screen.

I also showed it to a German dealer I often meet and he was absolutely sure that it is Gashgai; btw some time ago I bought the piece below from M.Craycraft as Gashgai and this German dealer attributed it at once - without knowing Michael's attribution - to the Gashgai,so I think he should know Gashgai pieces. For me a Luri attribution would also be possible.



Returning to the bagface of my last posting:I wouldn"t exclude an Afshar origin and there were Afshar-subtribes among the Gashgai.

At least two -probably three- dealers had the piece in their hands and not only one as I wrote in my last posting ("the forgetting rhythm of my memory was working").

Regards

Guido

Patrick Weiler

The first bag face Guido shows with the rectangles could be Qashqa'i. This one below has their typical dark blue and white frieze at the bottom. Unfortunately, Guido's piece does not have ends extant. The border of reciprocal boteh devices is found in Qashqa'i weavings. This one has that reciprocal border, but a lighter color range:
Both have light wool warps, often a signature Qashqa'i feature.
The back of this one shows a flat, non-depressed warp. Later workshop Qashqa'i rugs have depressed warps, but not as much in earlier pieces:

A Khamseh attribution is more likely in my estimation. Although darker warps are indicative, they are not exclusive to Qashqa'i. This Khamseh piece also shows the same boteh border, and lighter warps.

And the construction has more depressed warps, similar to the Guido piece:

Afshar is a less probable attribution. The square shape is unusual for Afshar bags, although the depressed warps are common. I haven't found an Afshar with that border, but a lot of designs were shared around the region.

Patrick Weiler

Horst Nitz

Hi all

Whilst depictions of pleading humans vis-à-vis a divinity are known in Mesopotamian art, Ishtar’s gesture seems to have a different connotation: she holds something like a rule and a coil or tape (-measure ?) in her hands, possibly suggesting justice or judgement. Actually, in spite of her looks, does one want to get entangled with her? Just take a look at those claws! They may suggest, the model represents an underworld aspect of Ishtar, or perhaps represents her sister Ereshkigal, the queen of the underworld. This, and her being the goddess of sex, war, prostitution etc, really puts her in an different class to Mary, who may be seen as a tame successor of the old Anatolian mother goddesses – which Ishtar isn’t.

Guido, nice to hear you enjoyed your visits to some of my favourite museums. When the children were little we sometimes took them to Dahlem on rainy Sunday mornings to play among the Polynesian multihull boats, which I remember caused a raised brow or two on occasions.

The following kelim is also very much out of the ordinary. Obviously, its theme is giving birth, but who is giving birth to whom and why should it be a theme befitting a prayer kelim? If it was a Christian icon, the representation of Mary as Theotokos would not surprise, only the explicitness would:




(Plate 23, Konya area. From: Frauenknecht V & Frantz K (1978) Anatolische Gebetskelims. Also In Praise of Allah I 2)


Perhaps the Theotokos theme continued to be inscribed in the ‘collective memory’ (Guido) of the subconscious of Anatolian weavers, and has risen to the surface in an individuals creative moment. At the same time, quoting Marla, in terms or technical accomplishment, the kelim “is a mess.”

Regards,

Horst

Rich Larkin

Hi Patrick,

Here's an Afshar with that border.




I agree with the rest of your analysis, particularly the extraterrestial source for the woman in the kilim. Some sort of Southwest origin for the khorjin.

Rich

Marla Mallett

Horst,

My "It's a mess" remark was not intended to disparage the kilim under discussion, but merely to point out evidence that it was almost certainly the work of a child--based on practices that I have seen at first hand, probably a 11 or 12-year old girl. It is simply essential to realize that this was children's art before burdening it with layers of speculation over symbolic meanings. The same could surely be said of the namazlik you have just now posted. This matter is completely separate from aesthetic reactions to the pieces.

Marla

Richard Tomlinson

hi patrick

i assume you rule our luri. may i ask why?

some of those colours, especially that gold (in conjunction with the black and green) led me to guess luri.

cheers
richard

Guido_Engel

Hi Horst,

My daughter (8 years old) enjoyed Dahlem and the boat in the same way as your kids did. The museums of Berlin are a great chance to show a child the diversity of human culture and I think it is important to educate a child to become an openminded person in a certainly changing world. It is a pity that we are living in Bavaria near to the Austrian border and Berlin is not the next way, but it is also a good oportunity to see 35 Salor pieces from European collections, which will be shown next weekend near Linz.

You mentioned Ishtar as a goddess of fertility and war. I once read an interesting interpretation on goddesses showing these two aspects: fertility means life and war means death and the goddess is the symbol of regeneration (the rhythm of death and birth).

Regards,

Guido

Guido_Engel

Hi all,

Iin my opinion the border is originally Luri. The khourdjin half below is Luri from Western Persia (Luristan) and - according to M.C. -" older than most Luri pieces around"; I think the border was later used by the other tribes.



A personal question to Patrick. I read this afternoon your interesting salon on Luri weavings and you cited J.Housego that Luri weaving could be inspired by an extremely ancient culture. You also mentioned the Luristan bronzes and that Mamasani (I think the Luri-subtribe) means "followers of the Great Mother Goddess". Below I would like to show you a chanteh face according to M.C. a Luri piece also from their heartland Luristan-btw. the same border. Do you totally exclude that this piece was inspired by an ancient culture like the Luristan bronzes?





Regards

Guido

Joel Greifinger

Hi Guido,

Can you, perhaps, provide some explanation for this opinion?

If the devices in the border are derived from boteh, an "obvious urban influence" (as opposed to, say, animal forms like those seen on Luri/Bakhtiari flatwoven bags), wouldn't that make it more likely that this was picked up later by the relatively more isolated and culturally-insulated Luri?

There are some clues (mostly structural) about which S. Persian group each of these may be from, but not enough to have much confidence in my opinions:







Tanavoli shows a flatwoven Afshar khorjin with this border in his Afshar: Tribal Weaves from Southeast Iran (pl. 87, p.163).

On the other hand, we know with reasonable certainty that Luri weavers were putting geometricized botehs in their borders by the turn of the 20th century:



The citation of the boteh as an urban influence comes from Opie's presentation of his theories of design origins in Tribal Rugs, Chap. 4-6.

Joel Greifinger

Rich Larkin

Hi folks,

Here’s another khorjin with that border.



I’m calling it Khamseh, though not with very much conviction. In any case, it doesn’t seem to be very closely similar to any of the examples posted earlier in this thread. It further illustrates the fact that it is likely to turn up in the work of many discrete weaving groups in the larger vicinity of southern Iran. The reality of weaving among tribal groups there must be far more complex than a simple four way breakdown of Qashqa’I, Khamseh, Afshar and Luri. Meanwhile, it would seem likely that a border design like this one would have gained popularity based on its familiarity in the region, rather than its descent among one group from ancient forms.

Edwards indicates the output of the Luri was very mall in comparison to the other tribal weaving groups in Fars province.

Rich

Guido_Engel

Hi Joel,

Nice piece, the first one.

My reflections are based on the fact that Luri people can be found almost all over Iran. Opie, i.e. mentions in "Bauern-und Nomadenteppiche" (the English version is I think "Tribal Rugs") that Luri people lived in the Kerman area before the arrival of the Afshars and they might have settled in the Fars province very early; they are also found in the Caucasus (Lori Pampak) and this "Boteh" (the term is okay to give it a name, but not more) is found in a similar form in the corners of the Kufic border as I have already mentioned.

I first started to reflect on this "boteh",when M.C. attributed the two pieces below to Luristan . In both cases the "boteh" fills the m a jor border.







This bag above should be a Fars Luribag (forget the colours, the camera didn't function) estimated by Rippon-Boswell around 1900; the boteh is in the m i n o r border - maybe it has lost importance. I studied my books on South Persian weavings and the catalogue on the "Kossov-collection" and found there 5-6 pieces with the "boteh" in the major border woven by Khamseh or Gashgai, none of them older than 1885-1890 (for the people careful with age attribution: not older than 1900).

As M.C. attributes the Luristan khourdjin half to mid 19th century (for the people careful with agettribution: certainly not later than 1880), it is the oldest one I personally know with this "boteh" in the m a j o r border and it was woven in Luristan.

I am absolutely aware that I would need some Luri, Kurd, Gashgai, Khamseh or Afshar pieces from at least 1800 or earlier to see if my reflections are right or not, but personally I don't think that this boteh question is of great importance. For me, the meaning of this "boteh" would be more interesting.

Regards

Guido

Joel Greifinger

Hi Guido,

OK, let's get on to the interesting and important stuff.

When you say, "the meaning of this boteh", do you mean the meaning of its possible Scythian, Sassanian or Zoroastrian precursors? Or, do you mean its meaning to the late 19th and early 20th century South Persian weavers who produced the bags and rugs we've been considering? Do you believe that they are the same?

Were those urban-influenced botehs woven in order to connect those people to their "mythical origin" and "prevent forgetting" of collective memory? (as per #57) And, if the weaver's conscious intention wasn't critical, does this mean that she can be viewed as merely a vector for a preexisting meme seeking to propagate?

Yes, you would. Oddly enough, it's exactly that sort of empirical presentation and discussion of the weavings (and their creators) that I find both intellectually and aesthetically satisfying. Well, they say it takes all kinds...

Joel Greifinger

Jim Miller

It seems this is a rather common border in SW persian bags (at least in my limited collection.

Here are some additional examples (and my naive attempts at attribution)

Afshar sumac mafrash end, which is interesting because then motif stays as singlle horizontal elements rather than "running" down the side borders.



A Chamseh bag, where it is used both on the inside and outside borders



A Luri bag where is is used just on the outside border (all the way around, it is folded onto the back on the bottom of the bag)



Jim

Manfred Bieber

Hi to all,
I apologize. It was due to a misunderstanding rather than an intentional violation of the TURKOTEK rules. I hope the discussion is going on.
Regards
Manfred Bieber

Steve Price

Hi Manfred

No apologies are needed. This sort of thing happens often with newcomers, and doesn't upset any of us.

Regards

Steve Price

James Blanchard

Maybe this?



James

James Blanchard

While my speculation is rife, why not take a stab at the origin of the "running dog" border too?



Hats off to anyone who can guess the link between this and the image in my previous post.

James

Horst Nitz

Hi James,

I havn't got the faintest idea how the images of your last post relate to one another and both to the Anatolian kelims, but I am sure you will explain eventually.

The resolution of the last image is poor, but I think I can make out Greek theta and y (top left), ny and etha ( middle) and gamma and iota or only ny (bottom); tu could be part of theos uios sother from ICHTOS, i.e. son of god....possibly!? If so, the "running dog" border in your last post shows in what probably is a Byzantine mosaic.

Regards, Horst

James Blanchard

Hi Horst,

I have to admit that I was being obtuse. Let me try to explain.

During a recent visit to Istanbul I was struck by how many of the designs that are found in tribal rugs and textiles appear in other forms of artistic expression. I fully admit that much of this is likely a coincidence, but it did make me wonder whether we might look further back and to other sources of design when we are trying to ascribe origins for designs and motifs on rugs.

So, here is what I was thinking with the first image. Could it relate to a number of later rug border designs?



The second image looks very much like what we see in "running dog" borders.

The connection? Both images are from historical exhibits in Istanbul. The first is from the sarcophagus of Alexander the Great, in the Istanbul Archaeological Museum. The second is from a mosaic in the Chora Church in Istanbul.

Wild speculation - both of them.

James

Horst Nitz

Hi James,

I thought it might be Chora / Kariye Cami, one of the spots I like best in Istanbul, and the stroll down through old villages to the Golden Horn / Halic. Clever idea, to associate the well known banded s-form with the swastika fries in the sarcophagus, and a very plausible age context in my opinion.

"it did make me wonder whether we might look further back and to other sources of design when we are trying to ascribe origins for designs and motifs on rugs." - That is like carrying coal to Newcastle in the one hand, and owl to Athens in the other, with me.

Regards, Horst

Horst Nitz

Hi James,

this now is the image I was looking for. Sorry for the bad quality and the delay; it is picking up your idea I think:





‘Running dog’ border in a church floor mosaic in the partly excavated ancient port-town of Soli (Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus), late Roman / early Byzantine period. The Alexander sarcophagus, although older, was probably crafted only two hundred miles from Soli by sea in Sidon / Canaan /Phoenicia (Lebanon).

Considering that the Chora / Kariye mosaics are from around 1320 and that the Soli ones are from about 400, the ‘running dog’ border seems to have had a very long tradition already at the time it shows up the first time in a known rug. Which one exactly this could be I can’t say without further research, but I would expect the Holbein group being a good direction. And to close the East-Anatolian circle of this thread, if we look at a textile from around 1900 with an East Syrian / Nestorian context from either side of the far SE Anatolian borderlands that shows the same border, we realize an uninterrupted 1500 years tradition within an Eastern Christian context of the 'running dog' border.

Regards, Horst

James Blanchard

Good find, Horst.

Of course, I am just a dilettante in these sorts of discussions about design origin and evolution, but seeing these ancient designs gives one the impression that the design pool of tribal weavings that we admire and collect could have many historical origins. How they have been modified and "tribalized" by different groups is, of course, fascinating for us.

James

Lloyd Kannenberg

Hi Horst, James and All,

Here's a running dog border on a Coptic fragment, maybe 600-800 CE. No synthetic dyes, I think.



It could be interpreted as ocean waves, I suppose.

Lloyd Kannenberg

Richard Larkin

Hi Lloyd,

I'd say the running dog is a saluki. I'll have to check to see how that squares with the Coptic attribution.

Rich

Filiberto Boncompagni

No, Horst, that border has nothing to do with Christian/Nestorian tradition:

Spiral, Meander, Key Pattern and the Maze

The spiral is a universal element in all decoration, in primitive as well as in the most sophisticated art. The running spiral (also known as running dog, wave scroll or Vitruvian scroll) and the meander (also known as Greek fret, Greek key, labyrinth, maze, key pattern) are curved and angular variations of the same motif.
Other figures, for example the four-strand spiral and the swastika, are similarly related.

Spiral and meander motifs, and their intermediate forms, have a long history in the Mediterranean. They occur in the earliest farming communities in Anatolia in the sixth millennium BC and as major motifs in pottery decoration throughout Neolithic Europe. In the third millennium BC spirals decorated stone monuments in western Europe, in the Iberian peninsula and on Malta. Later, during the second millennium BC, spirals and scrolls were the basic form from which the Minoan potters created a new art in the Mediterranean. Designs based on spirals scrolls, concentric circles and meandering bands are typical of the art of the Mycenaean civilization on the Greek mainland in the middle of the second millennium BC. Meanders and key patterns are today closely associated with Greek art and architecture. In the formalized Orders of architecture the meander motif was assigned to flat vertical surfaces. In the eighteenth-century European revival of interest in classical Greece as a source of ornament, it was the in the meander and key patterns which, above all others, signified Greek style and taste.
It is generally accepted that the name of the motif refers to the winding river Meander in Anatolia, Turkey. This appears to be an ancient connection, since coins of the late fourth century BC from the towns on this river feature the meander motif. The connection with water perhaps persists in Roman times, when the motif is frequently used on mosaic floors in bath houses. With few exceptions, these motifs carry no symbolic messages in Greek and Roman art.

In Greek vase painting of the fifth century BC, however, the meander became associated with a popular story drawn from the legends concerning King Minos of Crete, the story of Theseus slaying the Minotaur and finding his way in and out of the labyrinth. In these representations Theseus and the Minotaur - part bull, part man - are shown as realistic figures, while the Labyrinth is often indicated by a simple meander border, attached to a door post or pillar representing the entrance. In these scenes, therefore, the meander border became the conventional sign or ideogram for the Labyrinth. When the cities of Crete began to issue coins, the link between this story and the island of Crete was so strong that the motifs chosen to represent Knossos, the Minotaur and the Labyrinth were taken from its legendary history relating to a period some thousand years earlier. At first the Labyrinth took the form of a meander; later, in the fourth century BC, the form of the Labyrinth was that of a 'true' maze, a design which can be traced back at least to the second millennium BC in the Mediterranean. Apparently in an unbroken tradition, the true maze occurs in the east from the Caucasus to Java, as it does in Europe, to the present day.

- British Museum Pattern Books: Roman Designs, by Eva Wilson, 1999, p. 12.


However, in a way this border confirms the well-established tradition of COPYING DECORATIVE MOTIFS from architecture and other decorative arts TO textiles.

Regards,

Filiberto

Filiberto Boncompagni

I’ll seize this opportunity to mildly criticize the tendency of certain visitors to this establishment who see EVERY motif on tribal rugs as having forcefully esoteric meanings and arcane origins. Hence they start explaining those meanings and origins, of which they are the proud, clever and - of course - sole discoverers, without any decent proof.

I do not want to discourage speculation: sometimes, yes, they could be right; but more often than not there are much simpler explanations – such as the outright COPY of a very old decoration, like in the present case.

It is well known that excess of salt is insalubrious in human alimentation. The philosophical “pinch of salt”, however, has no side effects and it’s perfectly healthy, if you see what I mean.

Regards,

Filiberto

Martin Andersen

Hi Filiberto

Just returned from a small trip to Anatolia, including my first visit to the Archaeological Museum in Istanbul. The collection of "Greek" material is breathtaking, and a great reminder that Asia Minor/Anatolia were for centuries perhaps the main area for greek culture.

As you probably know I also have a taste for too much salt and farout speculations, so I can't help seeing no 6 in your illustration as related to the Kochanak border. I haven't seen this specific ornament as greek before. Of course its is, like a lot of the other patterns a very generic pattern, and it is probably rather futile to try to pinpoint a singular origin. One may too quickly end up in Neolithic (and probably random) associations, which doesnt really say much more than humans seem to have a taste for both salt, copy-paste and geometric patterns

best Martin

Filiberto Boncompagni

Hi Martin,
Why not? As I wrote, I don’t want to discourage speculations. And I definitely prefer “eyeball” judgments to “crystal ball” theories….

Regards,

Filiberto

Martin Andersen

Hi All

This tread is growing long, and sorry for introducing yet another topic with the the Kochanak border. As an apology here is an compassion of Guidos Luri with a minor border from one of the Anatolian Seljuk rugs c. 13-14 th.



best Martin
(who has to bite his tongue not to mention kufic )

Joel Greifinger

Hi Martin and Filiberto,

Thanks for the succinct encapsulation. The careful reconstruction of possible design influences, complete with relevant documentation (a la the entire Rugs in Old Masters series) is both fascinating and illuminating.
When the discussion caroms into the sort of speculations that Filiberto refered to as "crystal ball theories", it tends to generate more heat than light.

Joel Greifinger

James Blanchard

Just another example with that border. Not sure where this one is from.

James

Martin Andersen

Hi James

Looking once more at your visual interpretation of the "running swastika border" I do think it is very interesting in general. We tend do be visual biased with our own cultural background when we look at patterns. And not seeing the swastika as the foreground motif in this border is probably very difficult for us because of the swastikas german history in the 20th. c.

best Martin

Horst Nitz

Hi all,

it looks like a rather joyous parade in that fragment you posted, Lloyd. I like it.

Filiberto, could it be you got the wrong end of the stick regarding my comment about the East Christian / Nestorian tradition? That lengthy BM quotation seems to be somewhat beside the point. The Soli mosaics are there, the Koptic fragment Lloyd posted is there, Kariye Cami is and even the 1900 Nestorian rug is real - and I was not suggesting that the design is of Christian origin !! After the Islamic conquest, but probably not before the end of 12th century, when Christianity was beginning to fade out with increased rapidity, the design had become transformed into the majority Islamic context. This is how history happens. However, it also survived much longer in tucked-away purely Christian communities.

Whether textile motifs were generally copied from stone is not verifiable, it may just as well be the other way round (see Warpalawa in Marvin’s neighbouring thread). With regard to the pattern we are discussing, the scroll / running dog, it was no question of copying either. The late antiquity / early Christian era witnessed the emergence of an international style that moved easily in all directions and belongt to many. This probably is how some of the motifs in the 'tribal' rugs we are collecting today sprung into the repertoire of the tribes - of which many were Christian at the time.

Addressing this development seems to be prerequisite to being able to fully appreciate rug history and design. Of course, this includes with equal rights the origins in the pre-Christian era and in the more remote past.

The synergetic composition in the banded ornament with s-forms and swastikas is not adequately explained in the BM quotation in my opinion. It has an allegoric connotation befitting Alexander, who's dream, as we all know, was to unite the East with the West; this is what the motifs in that ornament do.

Regards, Horst

Filiberto Boncompagni

Hi Horst,
Point almost well taken! I say “almost” because, you see, that is not a decorative pattern taken from a textile and used as a decoration on a different context (sculpture, architecture, etc.): that is, instead, the representation of a textile on stone.

You need to find the same border used as a decoration in architecture - and so on - to sustain your point. Mind you, it’s such a basic geometric pattern that it shouldn’t be too difficult.

Let me repeat instead, MY point of view on the matter, trying to be - I hope - more clear.

As I already said, I criticize the tendency to see EVERY motif on tribal rugs as having forcefully esoteric meanings and arcane origins. Because motives could have very simple, disparate origins, and without any particular meaning beyond their decorative appearance (like the “running dog” rug border). Decorative patterns also travel long distances and are freely copied between different mediums and cultures. Or they may have independent origins, like the pre-Colombian botehs. And let’s not forget that certain patterns may also derive from technical limitations of the weave used, Marla docet. Having in mind these possibilities, THEN we can look for alternative explanations.

Now, to the Nestorian business.

In the “Kufic border” discussion you sustained that the aforementioned border derived from a Nestorian design, hence I though you were doing the same in this case.
If you had presented a picture of such a ”textile from around 1900 with an East Syrian / Nestorian context” instead of contemplating it in your mind, it could have perhaps prevented the misunderstanding.
This being the situation, the “Nestorian factor” still remains a mystery to me (and probably to our other readers too) as well as why you keep mentioning it without showing a shred of evidence, visual or otherwise.

Have a nice weekend,

Filiberto

Filiberto Boncompagni

Hi Horst,

I see now that, while I was writing my answer - that ended on a new page – you had expanded your post from 12 to 23 lines, almost doubling it, so my answer doesn’t cover all of your new points. It doesn’t matter: for the record, either I disagree with them or I do not understand them in full.
Incidentally, if I hadn’t re-visited the precedent page, I wouldn’t have seen the new version of your post.
If one edits his own post to correct a misspelling, grammar mistake or a badly written phrase it’s OK, but if one wants to modify some paragraphs and add new material, I somehow find more correct to do it in a new post, so others are aware of the modifications.
Regards,

Filiberto

Horst Nitz

Hi Filiberto,

"If you had presented a picture of such a ”textile from around 1900 with an East Syrian / Nestorian context” instead of contemplating it in your mind, it could have perhaps prevented the misunderstanding."

I am not just contemplating it, it exists. But you are right of course in that my referring to the "Nestorian business" as you call it, without presenting an example, creates a somewhat awkward situation for all parties. I can accept critcism in that direction and hope, I'll find a solution soon.

As to the question of what was chicken and what was egg in application to the relationship of textiles and stone work, we could lead the same discussion with a focus on East Anatolian rug designs and Phrygian stone reliefs, and
the Pazyryk carpet and Assyrian stone floor decoration. In the latter case we have the advantage of a textile round a bout same age as the Nineveh / Khorsabad decorations (a few centuries do not matter in this case ) and can reasonably assume that direct copying from stone was not possible because of unaccessability of the sites, but a collective (textile design) memory may have survived those few hundred years. I think, we are on the safe side with our assumptions regarding obviously similar designs in stone and textile, if we understand them as expressions in parallel arts. Otherwise we can easily fall into the cognitive trap of assuming that stone designs were precedent, simply because they had a better chance to survive.

Regards, Horst

Filiberto Boncompagni

Hi Horst,
We are speaking about tribal rugs, aren’t we?
(Incidentally, I do not think that the Pazyryk rug is one of them but rather an urban product and I’m not alone in that.)

So, generally speaking, and after all the considerations expressed in the forth paragraph of my post #101… if I see the same motif on stone in an ancient temple or palace or mosque AND on a tribal rug, it makes more sense to me the hypothesis that a tribal weaver borrowed the design from an architect than the other way around.

Regards,

Filiberto

James Blanchard

Hi Filiberto,

I think you make an interesting and important note. Tribal rug weavers were not just transcribing messages through their weavings, but also trying to create something artistic and beautiful. However, they generally had a restricted set of designs, drawing the motifs and designs from a variety of sources. In fact, this is part of the allure of tribal rugs. If each used a jumble of unknown designs and motifs, they would be unrecognizable to the tribal groups themselves, not to mention to traders and collectors ever since. This has made collecting that much more challenging and interesting. How can we assess the relative beauty of rugs with similar designs? What do those designs tell us about the tribal attribution, and age? Within the design, which are the purely decorative elements and what might be the motifs of particular importance or meaning within the tribal context, and for the weaver herself?

James

Filiberto Boncompagni

Hi James,

Thanks.
As for the questions you pose at the end of your post, they were, are and always will be the matter for long discussions here on our forum…
Cheers,

Filiberto

Horst Nitz

Hi James, Filiberto,

the design relation was in focus in my last post, and not the question wether the Pazyryk rug ist town or tribal, either of it or both. Schurmann (1982) in 'The Pazyryk' makes a few very interesting points on that score and suggests the area around Sakic (on the fringe of former Assyrian and Urartian kingdoms) as an origin. In his astute analyis of the rug he also demonstrates, that those 'forcefully esoteric meanings and arcane origins' (Filiberto's post of 12 10 2012) appear to be so only as long as they are not accessed.

Regards, Horst

Filiberto Boncompagni

Hi Horts,

As a matter of fact, I fully agree that there is nothing arcane in the design of the Pazyryk rug.
Regards,
Filiberto

Horst Nitz

Hi Filiberto,

you may have misunderstood me. The rug contains arcane motifs and tells a story (its function in a burial ceremony). Schurmann delivered the key to its understanding.

I also agree: "not EVERY motif on tribal rugs (has) forcefully esoteric meanings and arcane origins" (you; 12 10 2012). But some have.

Regards Horst