| I'm not quite sure of the relevance of linguistics to weaving, but
there are several aspects of language and weaving that come to mind that
illuminate the interconnections between groups of weavers. Most know what
a mafrash is and probably associate it with a specific Shahsavan bag or a
Turkmen small bag. The word mafrash is associated mainly with Azeri
Turkish. Actually in Turkmeni maprach is more commonly used than mafrash.
These changes in pronounciation tell us something about the user and also
reflect changes that occur gradually over time. This same word in Uzbek
and Kyrgyz is variously napramach, mapramach, or mafrage (used by Farsi
speakers in Kabul). All are associated with bags but made in different
ways and sizes. What language shows is a common origin, at some time in
the past, for a type of carrying bag. It does not seem that this word has
survived into modern Turkish. If it does it would appear to be where it
abuts Azeri. Yet two other bag terms common to parts of Central Asia
persist: chuval and torba or tobra. I don't know what the significance is,
but it does point to how language can show us a relationship across a wide
area among people with a common base language. An underexplored area where
language and patterns may ultimately help to show tribal relationships is
in patterns. My experience is greatest with Central Asian weavings, and I
am convinced that an indepth study of woven patterns and names for them
could illuminate specific groups of weavings. In Turkmen rugs we can
immediately spot a Tekke main carpet by the shelpe gol for the main
border; ovadan on white for Yomud; naldag for Saryk, etc. The only
substantial work along this lines is that of the Rautenstengel's on the
Eagle Group where not only main border but minor border patterns are
presented. Clearly, once put together in this way, they standout as a
group even without consideration of the major gol of the field. I used
this same approach to identify Saltiq Ersari carpets. It has always
interested me that the most common main border on these carpets is the one
identified with Salor main carpets. In working with Uzbek and Kyrgyz rugs,
I increasingly rely on a combination of border patterns to make an initial
determination before looking at structure. The field patterns in these
rugs are less reliable than Turkmen weaving. But the border patttern
combinations function like a language that communicates with the eyes.
This is not always clear cut. A pattern called toya moyun, I consider to
be a 90% indicator of Uzbek origin. Yet it occasionally appears in Kyrgyz
rugs. The term is the same in both languages, which I believe shows a
borrowing by Kyrgyz from Uzbeks and interaction between the two groups.
This is no different from English which has borrowed from most European
languages to enrich itself. In the names for patterns, in many cases, the
names bear a similarity. The horn pattern for example is kaikalak,
kuchkor, kuchhorack, kojanak, gochak. Specific meaning of each of these
terms may vary slightly, but most refer to a horn, ram's head, or bent
pattern. But if spoken almost all of these speakers will understand the
meaning; in looking at the carpet they understand its meaning. If a
sufficient number of examples of Kyrgyz weavings were available, I believe
that a distinction between rugs made in southern, northern, southwestern,
and eastern regions could be identified by a combination of border pattern
and structural analysis. The distinction between Akhal and Merv Tekke
weavings is murky, but a similar analysis of a large number of pieces,
coupled hopefully with some sound collection data, could help solve this
problem. The problem with doing a pattern analysis of these type is
usually the paucity of material and building a sufficiently large data
base to make tentative conclusions. It could probably be done with
weavings made from the last half of the 19th c. to now. There aren't
enough examples of earlier pieces to reach conclusions. It is generally
said that the identity of a tribal group was reflected in its weaving. It
seems to me that these linguistic aspects of pattern names and their use
or disuse among different tribes could aid in unlocking a part of the
language of carpets. For those interested in learning the diversity of
these patterns and their names, Klaus Troost's "Muster in Teppichen der
Turkmenen und Deren Nachbarvolker" is a must. There is no text, just
drawings, names, and language group. The hurdle is from German
transliteration to English. It should be coupled with another book with a
good glossary of such terms. George |