Posted by Tom Cole on December 25, 1998 at 10:25:05:
In Reply to: Tom, thank you for joining the discussion posted by Larry Joseph on December 24, 1998 at 06:38:18:
: Dear Tom,
: It is not so much that many of us are having difficulty seeing the reciprocal space/design which Jim describes, or that we are having a hard time believing it even exists.
: The difficulty started in the acceptance of the underlying permise that somewhere in the Turkoman history there is a proud tradition of successfully using leopards and lynx as personal hunting animals, and the Turkomen extracted this symbology into their weavings symbology.
: From there, it has been clouded by what appear to be many historical and anthrapological inaccuracies, and refusal to address questions that have been raised during other's attempts to investe the underlying premises and supporting "facts".
: I belive that given your broad depth of historical and anthrapological knowledge, you have much to add to these discussions that would add credability to the topic.
: For example, I would greatly appreciate your take on the latest elephant posting. See: http://www.turkotek.com/salon_00006/messages/46.html
: Regards,
: Larry
I have no problem with reading the white ground of this border as elephants, but in keeping with a dualistic interpretation of design, I also see the tail of the mythical beasts which we see in the 'animal rugs' which have come out of Tibet. These rugs are presumed to be of Anatolian origin, a presumption which has not been undeniably confirmed and there is little doubt, even if we assume they are Anatolian, that the weavers share a common heritage (direct or otherwise) with Central Asian peoples. I am not aware of the 'curled leaf' design having any significance in the mythology of these people, but the depiction of mythical beasts is a recurring theme. I think it is safe to say the term, 'curled leaf', is a western term which we use to identify a motif with which we are not familiar nor truly understand the significance.