Thanks to Steve Price and R. John Howe who helped me to edit this
salon and its summary Thanks to all the participants for their interesting
participation.
SUMMARY OF RUG
ONEThis unusual rug has been presented in
the first part of my "salon". Citing Georges O'Bannon : " it appears to me
that this rug is the oldest of the published examples and the only one
with the idiosyncrasies associated with spontaneous village and tribal
weaving. The border patterns change vertical to horizontal, no reconciled
corners, and color usage is not regular although balanced"
 Warps: fine 2
ply white wool Z2S. very slight depression of alternated warps (10°)
Wefts: fine 2 ply white wool Z2S, 2 shots. Colors: natural Pile : 5 - 8 mm
handle floppy Viewing a closely related picture in Wright and Wertime
book, "Caucasian Carpets and Covers" (p. 72 - Zakgorstorg lithograph
1928),a Baku district pile rug, Chaili village one of the topic raised was
: Except for Wright and Wertime, I found no authors who attribute examples
related to my rug to Chaili. The lithograph referenced in that book, the
design of hooked medallion in the tradition of Chaili products, as well as
the structure are consistent with this attribution. Did this type preceded
the well known three medallion textbook Chaili rugs. George O'Bannon
commented this rug as follow: This rug presents several interesting
questions and problems for not only the new but experienced rug collector
because it is not a common Caucasian type and the name you use, Chaily, is
not the most common spelling if one starts searching in the literature. 1.
Chaily as given in Wright/Wertime is correct by direct translation from
Russian to English. It is the spelling given in Kerimov's Azerbaijan
Carpet II (1983), p. 226 and III (1983), pp. 102 and 135. The most common
spelling of this name is Chajli or even Chagli in English publications.
The newcomer might assume these are different words, but a common problem
in rug terminology spelling is transliteration from, as in this case,
Azeri Turkish to Russian to German (from when the term enters English) to
English. 2. In Kerimov III, he illustrates a rug (plate 74, 2/3 of rug)
like yours on p. 102 with two large medallions and smaller ones between.
The caption calls it "Fyndygan carpet, Baku group, XIX century." The text
about this rug is not translated into English. However, to me it has all
of the hallmarks of a Kustar product with reconciled corners, identically
drawn motifs, and perfect balance between paired motifs. On page 135 is a
section of a more typical Chaily rug with large octagon medallions, plate
92, described in the caption as "Demirchilyar carpet (first variant),
Kazakh group, XVIII century, Kirovabad town, Bagbanlar Mosque." Plate 93
is a similar rug described as "Demirchilyar carpet (first variant) Kazakh
group, made in 1332 (1913)." The date is clearly visible in the
illustration. Although the 18th c. date is questionable, 92 is certainly a
generation earlier than 93 based on the photos. These are the type of rugs
commonly called Chajli in rug books. 3. In all of the 100s of
illustrations in Kerimov's two volumes, no Chaily rug, as such, is
illustrated. In his diagramatic sketch of the weaving villages by region,
Chaily is listed under Gyanja/Genje. Fyndygan is under Baku and
Demichilyar is under Kazakh. Gyanja/Kazakh is considered as a unit with
two subdivisions. 4. In Kerimov's Azerbaijan Carpet, 1985, plate 67 is
called "Fyndygan, Baku group, 19th c." It has three large medallions, no
small medallions, small stars instead of rosettes around the edge, and 10
borders. No Chailys are illustrated. The translated text has Fyndygan
under the Baku group which is divided into two subgroups, Apsheron
Peninsula and Khizy. Under Khizy "we may mark in this district such
carpets as Fyndygan and Gaadi as well as Zili, which are manufactured here
in big quantities. In spite of similar technology in these three groups
(Kuba, Shirvan, Baku) ornamental designs as very different." One finds
Chaily listed again under Gyanja/Kazakh with Chaily under
"Kasum-Izmailovo: Chaily, Shadly and Fakhraly." The illustration in this
volume again has a very Kustar look to it with a precision, end finish,
and some border patterns I associate with Chi-Chi rugs. 5. The book of
Kerimov's most readers may have is Rugs and Carpets from the Caucasus, The
Russian Collections, 1984. One can read here, p. 19, the term Chaily and
see Kerimov's rug divisions but no Chaily or Fyndygan rugs are
illustrated. 6. Chaily rugs because of Schurmann's Caucasian Rugs are
usually placed in the Shirvan group. These are the type with two or more
large octagonal medallions. Stone, Rugs of the Caucasus: Structure and
Design, 1984, on pp. 149-54 presents some technical/design information
(based on only 5 rugs) that shows how varied technical features can be in
these. 7. In considering names for Caucasian rugs, one needs to remember
that this area, perhaps more than any other, is one where Western names
differ very much from the Russian literature and their experts terms. Our
terms are derived from Schurmann, who was accused by a European dealer,
from whom he gained much of his "Kerimov" terminology, of having 'jumped
the gun' and published these terms before he had learned them properly.
One only has to compare the terms in Kerimov's Rug and Carpets with
Schurmann to see this difference. However, we are probably stuck with
Schurmann's errors because these design names have become so ingrained in
usage by dealers and collectors that it simply cannot be changed. 8. To
return to your rug and the Wright/Wertime example. The Chaily term fits
with Kerimov and their footnoted source is his heir as head of the
Caucasus Kustar weaving. This illustration may even be a cartoon not an
actual rug. This type of rug is totally different from Schurmann's Chajli
type, that we "know". 9. According to Kerimov your rug is a Fyndygan, Baku
District. Chaily or Chajli does not conform with usual western
terminology. Structurally your rug has more in common with the
Gyanga/Kazakh group or even Kuba than with the Baku. In closing could a
rug like yours have been the model the Kustar industry used and later
promoted it among the weavers in the Baku region? References: all having a
post Kustar period look Mac Mullan, Islamic Carpets, NY, 1965 Plate 52.
HALI 44, April, '89 O’Bannon, "Oriental Rugs", #36, picture from Peter
Pap). Kerimov III, he illustrates a rug (plate 74, 2/3 of rug) like yours
on p. 102 Wright and Wertime - "Caucasian Carpets and Covers" p. 72
SUMMARY OF RUG
THREEThe third rug in this salon was an
unusual runner (440 cm x 140 cm - 14'5" x 4'7") with a freely executed
Caucasian design.
 Technical
analysis: Pile : medium to long 2 ply wool , knots symmetrical. Warps: 2
ply (Z2S), natural ivory wool, no warp displacement Wefts: thick singles,
natural light brown or red dyed wool, 2 to 6 shots Selvages: 4 units of
three twisted 2 ply white wool reinforced by the ground wefts interlacing
and overcast by thick brown or red yarns of four singles interlacing the 4
units. Ends: weft faced plain weave plied and sewn at the back at the top
of the rug. Handle: very floppy The spontaneity and the strong character
of this Caucasian-like design (some might see faulty execution), full of
stylized animals and geometric flowers, led Daniel Deschuyteneer, the
salon host, to think it was woven by Kurds. “The zigzag meandering design
(even if not specific) of the borders points to the Kurds of Khorassan as
does the color palette, especially the tomato red, gold yellow, blue and
white. Finally, the structure is consistent with this attribution.”
Deschuytneer: “This attribution may be correct but after this salon I do
not feel really comfortable it and it was suggested, as the salon
proceeded, that it is also possible that this rug comes from a variety of
other areas as Eastern Anatolia or South-Caucasus.” The discussion of this
rug began with an exchange between R. John Howe, Steve Price and Wendel
Swan. Howe said that he was puzzled about the point of most analysis of
rug design tradition and asked where does the description of patterns,
pattern similarities and possible pattern evolutions take us? Are these
things being noticed and are they to be enjoyed as ends in and of
themselves? Or is there something more going one here? Steve Price
replied: “We talk about rugs at a number of levels and with a number of
aims. One is aesthetics, then there's attributions, geographic and
temporal and third is, more or less, the history of designs and motifs on
rugs. Wendel Swan spoke of the character of his own interest, saying “Over
the last decade or so, I have become increasingly fascinated by the
continuity and repetition of certain designs over vast territories and
times. Like anyone else, I may use designs to make an attribution, but I
am just as interested in how those designs evolve as I am with who
employed them. Design motifs are but aspect of rug and textile enjoyment.
Color, tactile quality, wool, craftsmanship, etc. are equally important.”
Swan, continued: “Some of these qualities are particularly difficult to
assess through one's monitor. What's important is to view an object in a
broader cultural context than whether it was made on one side or the other
of an amorphous political boundary. And how people living in relative
proximity may choose to play variations of the same tune.”
 The salon
discussion next focused on the central medallion design in this piece.
Michael Wendorf said that he believes that “this basic medallion became
ingrained and adapted into several weaving traditions, among them Kurdish
and Kazak. Though each group adapted the medallion in their own way, there
is remarkable consistency within each group's adaptation as well as in all
of the different adaptive groups.” Messrs. Wendorf and Swan agreed that
the basic drawing of the medallion and its interior elements suggest that
it is a possible variant in the design continuum of a rare group of Kazak
rugs of the Yohe/Rudnick line. Wendorf: In 1971, Mike Tschebull first
illustrated a great example of this type in his … book "KAZAK"… plate 40.
 That
carefully executed rug with ivory and mixed brown warps and rose red
wefts, 2-3, mostly 2, loosely piled, featured a ivory ground center
medallion with six memling guls divided into two vertical rows above and
below the medallion. This rug was recently sold (Sotheby's New York, lot
177, sale 7191, October1, 1998) with an estimated date circa 1875.
Numerous other examples with this format have later appeared including:
Hermann E, Seltene Orientteppische IV, Hermann E Kaukasische Teppichkunst
picture 45 page 61, Sotheby's London April 1993, lot 16, Christies London
April 1993 lot 357, Rippon Boswell May 1997 lot 106, Rudnick " Through the
collector's eye" plate 20, Hali 69, Gans Ruedin plate 118, Bennett
Caucasian plate 66, Hali 82 page 140 labelled Shirvan. “In this Shirvan
rug, however, the central medallion is an eight pointed star rather than a
six-sided device as is found in the Yohe/Rudnick. This medallion may be
derived from 17/18th century west Anatolian star medallions. “ Wendel Swan
responded: “The Shirvan example in Hali tracks closer to the Ushak models,
but the Yohe/Rudnick rug group does not differ significantly - except for
having six sides to the medallion rather than eight. This may be due to no
more than interpretation or evolution of the design, for the internal
elements are nearly identical. Michael Wendorf, took the conversation in a
slightly different direction: “Quite apart from this group is a
distinctive group of Kurdish rugs with a related central medallion usually
on a aubergine-purplish/red ground and usually attributed to around
Kagizman. These sometimes have blue wefts and all have long glossy wool
with a floppy handle. On this group the medallion is again six pointed,
usually red, with straight sides as with the medallions on the group above
and the runner format illustrated in your rug. The Kurdish group has a
distinctive border and lacks the field arrangement of the Kazaks where
memling guls are employed. Instead a 2-1-2 format is utilized. Yetkin
published an example of this type in Early Caucasian Carpets in Turkey,
Volume 1 as plate 98 from the Carpet Museum of Vakliflar. Inv. No.
100(52). Warps there are reported as white and brown twisted together Z2S
with wefts as Z2S w, 2 shoots and fine short pile. I have recently
examined a distressed example on a red field with purple wefts, see Hali
68 page 173 where other examples are listed. Daniel Deschuyteneer,
illustrated a similar one in poor condition showing exactly the same
pattern and the distinctive main border. These rugs are sometimes labeled
Kurdish Karatchov.
Wendorf: “I think that identifying these two distinguished groups
may help to place this rug in context. It has some elements of the Kazak
medallion but simplified with only the elements that may be palmettes
drawn above and to the sides. Some of the field like elements comprising
the 2-1-2 orientation of the Kurdish group are compressed into the
medallions which are then multiplied. Wendorf continued: “One unusual
characteristic that distinguishes the Kagizman group from all the Kazaks
is that the top vertical point is often jagged, suggesting a mountain or
hill perhaps while all the other lines or points are straight diagonals.
The coloration is also completely different. The Kagizman group has a
distinctive and unique main border system. I believe the Kagizman group is
a separate and uniquely Kurdish interpretation of the same or related
design source. And I do not see them or the design as market driven. Many
of the examples, in fact most that I have seen, remain in wonderful
condition with signs of hanging and being shown great care by their
previous owners, and with dark, deeply saturated colors not normally
associated with more commercially oriented rugs. Wendorf concluded: “I do
not know where this rug was woven, if it was Khorasan by Kurds this would
have interesting implications for relatively early design transference and
independent degeneration since those Kurds were displaced relatively
early. It may also be that the Kazak, Kurdish and Khorasan designs groups
evolved out of a single source independently and that the similarities
suggested are mere coincidence. It may also be that this rug is a
Caucasian rug woven from a simplified and repetitive cartoon of these
earlier rugs. What may relate the two groups is the six sided medallion
and the interior elements found in the medallion. On both groups the
medallion is powerful and fairly consistent over the different examples.
Wendel added: “While we can only speculate on how designs evolve, I
believe these groups as well as the Karachov Kazaks trace their lineage
back to (and well beyond) the Holbein carpets and Ushaks. The Kagizmans
are one version of the 2-1-2 and the Karachovs are another. For the most
part, there is little fundamental deviation within each of the groups (as
Wendorf has pointed out) and yet they remain distinct from the other. Like
certain other designs, it is plausible that these two design groups
developed rapidly in the second half of the 19th Century (possibly due to
increased market demands). I cannot recall seeing either a Karachov or a
Kagizman (as we are here applying those terms) that I thought was
significantly older than the others in the group were. However they may
have separated on the evolutionary chain, their common Holbein 2-1-2
heritage is evident. While the Holbein 2-1-2 format is at least centuries
old, during the 19th Century there can be seen a profusion of
interpretations of this format which do not seem to change radically.
We'll probably never know why the Kagizmans and the Karachovs so resemble
one another in the fields and yet differ so significantly in other ways. I
have always seen the Karachovs as simply another design in the Kustar
repertoire, however stunning and attractive they may be. The much rarer
Kagizman version of the 2-1-2 may well have been adapted as a result of
the commercial explosion, but that is not to say that they were woven for
commercial purposes. Wendorf and Swan provided this final exchange,
concluding the discussion: Wendorf: “You can take all the Kagizman Kurd
examples known, I am personally aware of at least ten, and see not just
the identical unique border. You will also note consistencies in the
outlining of the medallion, the juxtaposition of colors, the interior
elements and overall format within this adaptive group of rugs woven by
Kurdish weavers. Likewise, you can take all the known Kazak examples and
see yet another distinct adaptive group. They all share certain qualities
such as colors, drawing and shared design elements. Certainly the number
of these rugs extant is sufficient to call them a group. In fact, I
believe we have sufficient samples to accept that these are each adaptive
groups. I think that each of these adaptive groups in turn arose not out
of coincidence but because tribal or village weavers were exposed to and
influenced by similar models or traditions, here the Holbein tradition,
and adapted or expressed that tradition into something that each of these
distinctive groups thought beautiful. I also think that these adaptive
groups then may have given rise to the spate of later rugs woven with
multiple medallions such as the rug presented in this salon which do not
appear to be as old or careful in their drawing or creation (as measured
by among other criteria the quality of wool and range of color). Of
course, one could articulate an argument that rugs such as this one are
themselves an adaptive group separate from influence of the other groups I
mentioned or that they all arose uniquely in a specific time and place and
any design continuity is coincidence.” Swan responded: “The rug
illustrated here, on the other hand, may be much later and/or created in a
different weaving culture. I think it may be Eastern Anatolian, although
Southern Caucasus is possible. The design ancestors of all of them can be
seen in old Islamic architecture (12th - 15th Centuries). There are other
examples of the adaptation of designs by different groups that parallel
what may have happened with Kagizmans and Karachovs. The Lesghi star is
found in Caucasian rugs and Shahsavan sumak bags (plus in a few Turkish
rugs) but not elsewhere. The cruciform medallion is also found in
Shahsavan sumak bags and in some Turkish pile rugs, but not elsewhere. All
of these are within the broad Turkic tradition that traces back to the
Holbein carpets and beyond, but each pairing seems to have surfaced almost
simultaneously and yet with very distinctive characteristics.”
SUMMARY OF RUG
FOURThe fourth portion of this salon
examined and discussed a pair of unusual bag faces, only one being
reproduced here.
 Dimensions:
H 52 cm V 62 cm (1'9" x 2'1") Knots: symmetrical, 36v x 32h per 10 cm (72
knots/square inch),pile height : 3mm Warps: three ply hand spun cotton
(Z3S) no warp displacement. Wefts: two different wefts between two rows of
knots. One is a two or three ply hand spun cotton (it varies from place),
the second is a very thin sinuous single of brown wool. Selvage: round,
interlaced by the ground wefts and overcast by an additional selvage yarn.
2 cords units (1,1), of three ply hand spun cotton (Z3S) reinforced by
interlacing of the ground wefts. In the other selvage there is an extra
ground warp (error of weaving). The additional selvage yarn is a thick
single of wool encircling the selvage without interlacing. The wefts are
interlocked at the selvage In their examination of these bag faces, salon
participants discussed related design examples, Turkmen design residues
and the question of where this piece was woven. In his Oriental Rugs from
Pacific Collection, page 195, plate 205, Murray Eiland presents a piece
with a similar design. He says, "While this intriguing piece is here
categorized as Caucasian, some have felt it to be Anatolian, and it does
not neatly fit into either category. The cotton weft, however, would be
unusual, but not unprecedented, in a 19th century Anatolian village rug."
In his Caucasian Rugs volume, page 215, plate 75, Ulrich Schurmann
presents a long rug with a similar central medallion, which he labels
“South Shirvan.” Notice that the main borders of this rug which are quite
common in North West Persian rugs. Michael Wendorf pointed out that other
pieces with related designs have appeared recently on the market, all of
them being marketed as Shasavan. For example, at the most recent ACOR in
Denver, Mark Santos, the Portland, Oregon dealer, offered a similar piece
with a “Shahsavan.” label. The German dealer Frauenknecht also advertised
a bag face fairly recently and the late Michael Andrews marketed yet
another about three years ago". Wendorf said that in his view the
Shahsavan label never fit these pieces well, quite aside from any debate
about whether the Shahsavan wove in pile. Some salon participant saw
evidence of Turkmen design residues in these bag faces. Daniel
Deschuyteneer, the salon host said in his initial comments, “These bag
faces have a central medallion which is widely used among "Turkic tribes"
and must therefore have an old "Oguz Turkmen" ancestry " Mike Tschebull
seemed to agree, saying, "The octagonal medallions in your bag faces, and
the similar bag medallions you illustrate (Murray Eiland and Schurman
pieces), look like “Holbein” medallions, and the Eiland piece, in fact,
has vestiges of the “endless knot” or “turret” design around its periphery
(transTurkic design - see “Salor” guls for another comparison) as evidence
of the common design source." Wendel Swan concurred, observing: "The
connection between these bag faces and the Turkic tradition is
unmistakable. The shape of the perimeter of the medallion in the Rothberg
example illustrated is quite similar to the 2-1-2 small pattern Holbein
rugs. Wendorf dissented slightly from part of Tschebull’s comment, saying
“the interior design element contained in the medallions seems somewhat
less like an endless knot than some I have seen and more as if it is
derived from a leaf like floral element found routinely on the Afshan
pattern rugs that are common throughout North West Persia and Azerbaijan
over a lengthy historical period commencing, at the latest, in the 18th
century. Villagers seem to have been very adept at isolating design
elements out of more classical patterns and interpreting them in their own
way. Michael Wendorf. The salon also considered who might have woven these
bag faces. Mr. Deschuyteneer suggested that the candidates included, at
least, Southeastern-Caucasian, Shasavan, Anatolian or NorthWest Persian
weavers. He then opted for a North West Persian or Transcaucasian origin
for these pieces because “we know that Turkmen settled in Northwest Persia
after their migrations at the end of the 12th century and as the main
border design often used in this area and the structure seems to fit this
attribution. " Mike Tschebull offered a more accurate and different
opinion and a detailed rationale. "This octagonal red medallion, but with
a serrated ivory or yellow surround, representing the “turrets”, is a
usual motif in old (19th cent.) Qarajeh kennereh, and is reproduced almost
exactly in one early bag face that I know. The pile-woven kennereh from
Qarajeh have the same colors, color use, and border conventions as your
pieces, although the older kennereh almost always have all-wool
foundations. “Another design for pile bag faces from the same area - also
red on dark blue - is an eight-lobed medallion (See Hali 54, p 183). The
small triangles at the edge of the red field in your medallions probably
represent omitted elements. “The weaver was probably a Turkicized Kurd,
living in Qarajeh or another closely village in eastern Azarbayjan,
probably at the end of the last century. Cotton warps are a tip-off for
dating small pieces from that area. A more complex piece of the same type,
with a slightly higher knot count, has wool warps and cotton wefts. A pair
of later bagfaces using the same field motif was sold in Skinner last
spring. In general, Azarbayjani pile khorjin are not common, and seem to
derive their (single) medallions from kennereh, nomad sumakh bags
(rarely), and carpet motives. It is not surprising that the bag motif
would show up on a Caucasian rug.” Michael Wendorf rejoined the
discussion, saying, "Qarajeh seems to fit nicely based on structure and
handle though I do not understand why Mike believes by Turkicized Kurd
hands. Nothing about the weavings speak to me as of Kurdish manufacture
though Kurds doubtless inhabited and wove in the area and though they also
adopted Holbein like medallions with vestiges of the endless knot, albeit
much more freely and loosely. William Eagleton joined the discussion from
the African desert, observing, “The cotton structure does not point to as
Kurdish provenance. Karadagh is a convenient label for such pieces, but
Northwest Iran is perhaps safer. Continuing this discussion of ethnicity,
Mr. Deschuyteneer, quoted Wertime’s Sumak Bags of Northwest Persian &
Transcaucasia at page 109, " Qaradagh also known as Qarajeh Dagh, was
inhabited by six Turkic speaking tribes and five of them are of probable
Kurdish origin. Their presence in Qaradagh goes back to the Safavid period
when they were moved there by the government . The sixth tribe, the Haji
Alilu, is composite of diverse elements from Transcaucasia that entered
the area after 1828 ". "Our knowledge of the weavings of the Qaradaghi
tribes is woefully lacking Generally speaking, their material culture is
very close to that of the Shasavans “ Tschebull: Incidentally, the village
name, transliterated from Turki to English, on paper, looks like "Garajeh"
to me, but the more commonly, if less logically used version is "Qarajeh".
What you're using is the old German version, not appropriate for English
speakers. "Karadja' appears on no Iranian map. “There isn't really an
issue of ethnicity here - the locals don't consider themselves Kurds. I'm
told that after the Afghan wars in the 18th century, Azarbayjan was
depopulated and Kurds from the south moved - or where moved - into the
area. As material evidence of Kurdish in-migration, there are several
designs in east Azarbayjani kennereh that are like those in west
Azarbayjani (Kurdish) pile weaving as well designs and color use that are
very like Kurdish weaving from Hamadan province. For more on this issue,
see my article plus end notes on Sarabs in Hali. Incidentally, I think
attribution for Daniel's bags can be accepted as very specific. Just do
the comparisons with the pile rugs, which I can definitely localize. There
is no question in my mind that such weaving is village work, I only wonder
why it is relatively uncommon. The answer: villagers probably did use many
more flatwoven (warp-faced and weft-faced) bags than pile bags, which were
used up and are hard to attribute.” At one point Jim Allen joined the
discussion to add, “Daniel there is a Turkoman influence in the design of
your piece and I think you got the area of origin correct as well. There
are shahsavan weavings from this area and karajah is a possible place of
manufacture of your bag. It would have been done there by relatively
nomadic people. Wendel Swan enters the conversation to say “The interior
drawing is virtually identical to the center of a Karadja rug illustrated
by Peter Saunders in Tribal Visions (plate 31). The secondary border of
the Saunders rug is also identical. The "Karadja" rugs, however, share
their outlines with the Ushak medallions. Several years ago, the
Washington Textile group exhibited what may have been a mafrash side panel
with two of these "Ushak" medallions, but much more articulately drawn
than either the Frauenknecht or Saunders pieces. I seem to recall that it
had cotton warps. “ “In my view, a Shasavan attribution is one made
incorrectly and only by default - much as the Kurdish attribution commonly
is. These bags are not Shahsavan and almost certainly not Kurdish. An
attribution of Northwest Persian or Azerbaijan village is probably as
specific as one is likely to get, given the widespread use of these
motifs.” “I have seen several bags from this group and I have never felt
that any of them were what we would call, in the broadest sense, tribal or
nomadic. These have a bit more filler than others.” Daniel Deschuyteneer
and all the participants. |