TurkoTek Discussion Boards

Subject  :  Ala Cuval As a "Source" of Turkman Design
Author  :  John Howe
Date  :  11-24-1999 on 11:13 a.m.
rjhowe@erols.com Dear folks - A salon as carefully researched and constructed as Daniel's here, invites responsible contribution, but what to say? Perhaps the aspect on which I can muse most usefully is Daniel's topic that asks us to consider "ala cuval as a source of Turkmen design." I am interpreting Daniel's suggestion to mean is it possible that the designs on the Cuvallari made in the Bergama area of Turkey are a source for Turkmen designs? On one level this is a topic easily disposed of since the people who weave these storage sacks are themselves Turkmen. Their ancestors came into this area in an initial wave in the 11th century and in a second one in the 13th century. So their weavings are part of the Turkman design tradition. But I expect that Daniel is in fact asking whether the designs in these weavings in Western Turkey can be seen as a source for designs that we encounter in Turkmen items woven in Central Asia. If that is Daniel's question, then the design that seems the most likely candidate for such an investigation is the "dyrnak" gul. Similar designs do appear on storage bags in the Bergama area. (Pinkwart/Steiner, "Bergama Cuvallari, Plate 9 a and 9c.) The treatment of this design element by Jon Thompson in Turkman, (1980), page 158 is typical of what one encounters in the literature. In a chapter in which he traces "the serrated leaf" (c-gul) and the "kepche" gul and the "boat" border to Caucasian palmette origins, Thompson is silent about any source for the "dyrnak" gul. He says only that this is "another 'old' gul" (his quotes on "old") and moves on. So if there is such a connection, it would seem that in 1980 Thompson did not see it. As luck would have it I have just received a copy of a new Turkmen book on the Wiedersperg Collection written by Robert Pinner and Murray Eiland, Jr. Pinner and Eiland use their essay, not only to describe the pieces in this collection, but to provide a summary of the state of the art, so to speak, in the study of Turkmen weavings. The Wiedersperg collection does include Central Asian pieces with the most frequent uses of the dyrnak gul. Plate 34 shows a use as both major and minor guls on a Yomud main carpet. Plate 29 is an example of the way in which dyrnak guls are employed on main carpets in the "eagle" group. Most of the uses of the dyrnak gul are by the Yomud but Thompson shows it used as a minor ornament on an Ersari chuval (Plate 88).and Pinner and Eiland say that it is also used by the Chodor. In their discussion of the various Central Asian Turkmen guls, Pinner and Eiland say the following about the dyrnak gul: "In many Yomut carpets the dyrnak gol (a hooked diamond ornament ubiquitous in Central Asia and different parts of Iran and Turkey) is used in both major (gol) and minor (gul) forms in the same piece (as in pl. 34); in eagle gul carpets it is used only as a secondary devices (see pl. 28)." On page 59, Pinner and Eiland say "The dyrnak gol as seen in plate 34 my have no tribal significance, particularly when it appears among the Chodor and Ersari and it may appear as a minor ornament on other types of rugs as well. Similar lozenge-shaped structures with latchhooks even appear on rugs from Turkey and on various types of Persian tribal rugs. This does not preclude the possibility that these ornaments have taken on a particular significance for the groups using them." And on page18 Pinner and Eiland acknowledge that Turkmen flatweaves have "hardly been studied" but they are referring to Central Asian weavings not to any possible connnection with flatweaves made elsewhere. Finally, Daniel mentions the Pinkwart/Steiner book "Bergama Cuvallari. In the short English summary, the authors say, "Both the "hooked rhombus" and the "cuval-gul" derive from an ancient Turkman traditions….Designs migrate not only from east to west but also from west to east." It seems to me that all this suggests that the literature is largely silent on the question of "ala cuval" as a source of (at least Central Asian) design tradition. Authorities who offered detailed suggestions for some Turkmen design sources are quiet in this area. There is recognition the "ubiquity" of the dyrnak gul and of other similar designs without any indication of direction of flow. Pinkwart and Steiner come closest by suggesting that a west to east flow is also possible. But the literature as I read it describes similarity without connection, excepting that there are Turkmen using these designs in both Central Asia and in Turkey. Regards, R. John Howe

Subject  :  RE:Ala Cuval As a
Author  :  Christph Huber
Date  :  11-24-1999 on 08:20 p.m.
huber-ch@pilatusnet.ch Dear John I would like to add another (possible) design connection between Anatolian ala-cuvals and weavings originating further in the east. Like Daniel I came some weeks ago across the "black eye" motif on the Budapest Crivelli rug, but I did so in relation to the Baluch bag face depicted as plate 18b in Tribal Visions (Peter E. Saunders, 1981). And now, looking at the same motif on the ala cuval I feel a connection with the Yomud “Hatsch-Gül” (German spelling...). Uwe Jourdan (Turkmenische Teppiche, 1989, No. 184) tells that this design on a Djaffarbai/Göklan bag can also be found in Seljuk Anatolia. He doesn’t give any reference and I’m not sure whether he really is suggesting a design migration from west to east or not (but I suppose he doesn’t). Interesting in relation to the topic of this salon seems to me his remark, that the “Hatsch-Güls” also appears on flatwoven chuvals and that even more designs of the bag under discussion seem to have sources in the same technique. The contemporaneously execution of a certain design in different techniques is according to Harald Böhmer, if I understand the quotation of right, the cause for the offset knotting found in the Anatolian carpets under discussion. I think there were similar conditions for the weavers of the above mentioned Djaffarbai/Göklan bag. Why didn’t they (as I suppose) use offset knotting not as extensively? To decide where a certain motif originated (and subsequently in which direction it migrated) seems to me a very difficult task. I find it difficult enough to distinguish mere similarity of motifs from a real evolutionary connection - and I think that there is a need for a certain “standard” which helps to do so. Regards, Christoph

Subject  :  RE:Ala Cuval As a
Author  :  Patrick+Weiler
Date  :  11-24-1999 on 10:37 p.m.
jpweiler@worldnet.att.net Christoph, Your desire for a standard to allow distinguishing "similarity of designs" from "evolution" of designs is akin to finding the "holy grail". There has probably been too much time passed for such a standard to be reliable, much less accurately articulated. However, the inablility of researchers to determine not only the relative age of weavings much less their design evolution is and will continue to be fodder for many an author to explore their personal insights (Gantzhorns Armenian hypothesis comes to mind) The ubiquity of the "dyrnak" in weavings from Western Anatolia to Eastern Turkestan could probably be explained by a Goddess theorist, but a simple explanation could be that it represents the sun. To include previous posts in this line of reasoning, the design limitations of weavings could explain the change from round to diamond shape. The universal attraction to the sun as an icon of considerable importance would argue for the popularity of the design and the widespread distribution of a variety of versions could explain the disintegration of the original ideal into a "lowest common denominator" version, the diamond latchook version. Patrick Weiler

Subject  :  RE:Ala Cuval As a
Author  :  Daniel Deschuyteneer
Date  :  12-03-1999 on 12:51 p.m.
Dear John, When I was preparing this Salon I didn't consider a west-to-east migration of designs. Your comments are very interesting and I searched to find a rug which wasn't Turkmen or without a Turkmen ancestry which could illustrate such a transfer. Kurdish tribes are well known to copy designs from their neighbors and I searched in this direction, without result until yesterday. This small circa 1900 Kordi Khorjin, from Northern Khorassan, illustrated as plate 180 in Wilfried Stanzer "KORDI" book, is the best example I could find. The borders are reminiscent of Azerbaidjan khorjin and the field design is exactly the same as the rugs and alla cuval discussed during this Salon. Western - Eastern migrations of designs seem well to have exist and its logical. Why would designs only follow an east-to-west direction? Tribes migrated or were displaced just as designs following the two directions. Cordially, Daniel

Subject  :  RE:Ala Cuval As a
Author  :  Marla Mallett
Date  :  12-03-1999 on 10:23 p.m.
marlam@mindspring.com That is a truly startling example! Not only the main motif, but several of its peculiar details, such as the colored background change within the hooks, the linear division of the field, the secondary motif, the diamond-shaped finals, etc. are there! Just as in the Bergama area sacks and carpets. How these things actually traveled may always remain a mystery, but Halil Inalcik does tell us that favored occupations for Turkoman tribesmen in the early Ottoman periods in Anatolia included cutting timber and running caravans. These Anatolian tribesmen rented out their animals and accompanied them from Anatolia into Iran. Rarely was merchandise transported in just one direction. The great wealth that developed in the Tabriz area was largely due to the Turkoman-run caravan trade. Marla

Subject  :  RE:Ala Cuval As a
Author  :  Patrick+Weiler
Date  :  12-04-1999 on 12:06 p.m.
jpweiler@worldnet.att.net There is a web site now that is devoted solely to US dollar bills with notes on them showing where they have been. I am unaware of a web site that was devoted to the travel of weave designs, but the travel of this ala chuval design could have been as a result of the turkoman caravans, or, as noted in the book, Tribal Rugs, by Jenny Housego: "The Kurds of Khurasan...are an amalgam of two Kurdish groups, one from the Elazig district of central Turkey...(who) fled into Persia to escape from the Ottoman Turks in the 16th century. In 1602 they were moved on...to the northeast, (Quchan and Bujnurd) where they were to provide a bulwark against the Uzbeks." Housego describes a Khurasan saddle-bag, (plate 135) :"...it resembles the work of the Kurds of Kurdistan, though remains unmistakably characteristic of the eastern Kurds" This geographically closer transmission of a diamond lattice design from west to east does show that Kurdish designs went east with them. Granted, the ala chuval design is from western Turkey, but it is not a great geographical leap from the western Turkish origin of the chuval design to the central Turkish Kurds that gave this particular design a jump-start on the way to its ultimate destination. Patrick Weiler

Subject  :  RE:Ala Cuval As a
Author  :  Wendel+Swan
Date  :  12-06-1999 on 02:13 p.m.
wdswan@erols.com Dear Daniel and all, I have not yet read Harald Bohmer's paper in OCTS IV, to which Daniel refers, but Bohmer and Bruggemann did a superb job of describing design creation and evolution in Peasant and Nomad Rugs of Anatolia. However, I cannot accept, at this point, the concept that the pile rug in question was derived specifically from an ala cuval or that this cuval format is itself the "source" of Turkmen design. Why choose the storage sack format as THE SOURCE of this or any other design? Pat Weiler's analogy to the search for the Holy Grail is apt. And who is to say what the "source" is anyway? We know that similar hooked devices have appeared in various textiles for hundred of years and across thousands of miles. In OCTS V, Bohmer revisits the obvious relationship between the "black eye" motif of the ala cuval and the octagonal motif in the Crivelli carpet. He no longer discusses the thesis of the origin being in flatweave and, on the topic of East-to-West or West-to-East migration of designs, Bohmer pleads for the third alternative of "some imaginary source in between to both the West and to the East." The "black eye" is nothing more than one variation of a design that I associate with small pattern Holbein carpets. Since the "black eye" is everywhere and in many structures, I cannot see that any conclusion can be drawn from the fact that it can be found in a cuval and on the Crivelli carpet. I believe it is virtually impossible to conclude that there is any general movement of design in any one direction and, as much as I admire Harald Bohmer, I don't believe any single "imaginary source" for our rug designs will ever be found. Further, we must look at broader cultural contexts than the textiles themselves or even the migration of the actual weavers. I strongly suspect that interaction between the royal courts (on many levels) probably accounts for the movement of designs, but many specific aspects of that interaction can be considered: trade, religion, diplomacy, pillage, tribute and the movement of court designers. The loom is a terrible vehicle for experimentation in the creation of any design. The fundamental design may be shared with some other medium in the culture: tile, architecture, garments, manuscript covers, metalwork, etc. Even finding, as we can, certain motifs in early architecture does not necessarily mean that architecture is the "source" for the motif or even that the culture producing the architecture is responsible for the creation of the motif. Wendel

Subject  :  RE:Ala Cuval As a
Author  :  Marla Mallett
Date  :  12-06-1999 on 08:36 p.m.
Wendel, Are you actually challenging Harald Bohmer's position without having read his paper or looked at his illustrations?! This particular paper has nothing to do with arguments presented in the book he co-authored with Werner Bruggeman. In fact, only the dye material in that book is Harald's; none of the design-related text is his. Harald's own forays into considerations of design material tend to be more grounded in reality--with the results much less dependent upon flights of fancy and less easily dismissed on structural grounds. In the OCTS piece (his 1990 ICOC lecture in San Francisco), Harald draws conclusions about a design transfer between ONE small group of ala chuval made with reciprocal brocading and ONE small group of carpets from the same area with designs so nearly identical in detail that it is hard not to recognize a connection. The parallels even extend to the single-warp diagonal steps of reciprocal-brocade weaving and the use of offset knotting to articulate the same motif in pile. He makes no claimn as to the influence of this hooked motif on any other, in any place. From my perspective, the hooked motif in those bags almost certainly originated, for structural reasons, in slit tapestry--SOMEWHERE among Turkic weavers. The northwestern Anatolian Karakecili ala chuval surely represent an intermediate development, as do superficially similar reciprocal brocade or knotted-pile designs elsewhere. Marla

Subject  :  RE:Ala Cuval As a
Author  :  Wendel+Swan
Date  :  12-07-1999 on 12:48 a.m.
wdswan@erols.com Dear Marla, Not having read Harald's paper, I am certainly not in a position to challenge it and I have not done so. The proposition presented by Daniel, at least as I understand it, is that the pile rug he saw in Milan has a design which originated in a specific type of reciprocally brocaded ala cuval. That is what I challenged when I posted: "I cannot accept, at this point, the concept that the pile rug in question was derived specifically from an ala cuval or that this cuval format is itself the 'source' of Turkmen design." Daniel cited Harald Bohmer's paper in support of his (Daniel's) possible hypothesis of the origin of this design. I cannot either agree or disagree with a proposition that I have not read. The issue is not whether SOME pile rugs have design characteristics that originated with SOME flatweaves, but whether the design of the Milan rug originated specifically in an ala cuval format done in reciprocal brocading. If you are here supporting Daniel's thesis of the design origin in reciprocal brocading, why do both of you cite other structures in the argument? The evidence of reciprocal brocading as the origin of the design rests in part, according to Daniel, on "the shape of the S motifs in the minor borders. Their blocky design provides a superb example of warp patterned weave, each block imitating warps float." I could easily agree that warp patterned weaves create distinctive designs, but how does that relate to the connection between the ala cuval and the Milan pile rug? The ala cuval is reciprocal brocading, isn't it? You, Marla, then bring slit tapestry, saying: "From my perspective, the hooked motif in those bags almost certainly originated, for structural reasons, in slit tapestry -- SOMEWHERE among Turkic weavers." Your paper in Milan clearly demonstrated that slit tapestry does leave its imprint on design and you may be correct in saying that these hooked motifs originated with slit tapestry. Perhaps we could address that issue at another time. But that is not the question that Daniel has raised before us. Nor is it whether the reciprocal brocading represents "an intermediate development," as you say. I have read Daniel's salon several times to see whether he really contends that there is a direct connection between the ala cuval and the pile rug or whether he is merely raising that question. I may be wrong, but it does seem to me that he is making that contention. Daniel has made some interesting observations in this Salon, but I remain skeptical about the direct connection between these two quite specific pieces and, further, the ala cuval as the "source" of Turkmen design. Regards, Wendel

Subject  :  RE:Ala Cuval As a
Author  :  Marla Mallett
Date  :  12-07-1999 on 12:41 p.m.
marlam@mindspring.com Dear Wendel, The connection laid out by Harald Bohmer in his 1990 lecture (and referenced by Daniel) is indeed between "two quite specific kinds of weaving" (Karakecili brocaded sacks and pile carpets with nearly identical designs). Precisely! Why in the world should there not be a "direct connection" between two objects made by the same people? Harald made NO reference to either of these objects as a "source of Turkmen design." You may of course "remain skeptical," of Harald's claim (as related by Daniel), but reading the piece or examining the objects might alter your opinion. It seems peculiar to discuss the matter without having done either. Please note: A motif's origins and subsequent developments in diverse media are quite different matters. The most common motifs in Central and West Asian textile art have been copied, re-copied, altered and appear in many incarnations. Harald (and Daniel) have discussed one specific design transfer only--NOT the ultimate origins of the motif (or motifs) in question. It's a surprise to me to learn that the loom is "a terrible vehicle for experimentation in the creation of any design!" Marla

Subject  :  RE:Ala Cuval As a
Author  :  R. John Howe
Date  :  12-08-1999 on 06:11 a.m.
Dear folks - Oh my! I didn't intend to raise all this heat without some associated light. Perhaps a couple of further explications from Daniel would help. First, Daniel, could you restate your thesis concerning the connections you see between the major pieces you initially posted in this salon? Also if Mr. Bohomer's comparison is a narrow as Marla has said, what is it's application to the thesis you are proposing here, which seems much broader? Third, since I apparently also misunderstood your suggested topic that seemed to invite speculations about designs in these Western Turkish flatwoven bags as a possible "source" of Turkmen design tradition, what possible relationship were you in fact suggesting with this topic? Regards, R. John Howe

Subject  :  RE:Ala Cuval As a
Author  :  DESCHUYTENEER+DANIEL
Date  :  12-08-1999 on 09:41 a.m.
Dear all, It's time to clarify the situation … To paraphrase Wendel I would want to say that my poor English is also "a terrible vehicle" for saying what I wanted to explain when introducing this Salon. I apologize if it hasn't been more understandable but it's not always easy to clearly express your thoughts using another language. First, I didn't use Böhmer's thesis to comfort mine. In fact I have been widely if not totally inspired by his 1990 ICOC lecture and I share "HIS" thoughts. We can, I think, summarize Böhmer's thoughts as follow: Böhmer made the following observations: A "specific" design, the hooked "Turkmen" medallion discussed here, appears nearly identically in Western Anatolian Karakecili ala çuval and in a small group of rugs from the same area. He also notices the parallels between weaving structures, offset knotting in the diagonals of the rugs and offset wrapping, (in fact single warp diagonal steps of reciprocal brocading) in the storage sacks. Why would the weaver use offset knotting in the rugs if it wasn't to imitate the reciprocal brocading structure of the sacks? Having an old flatweave background she copied exactly the design from the sacks and transposed the weave structure of the sacks into the rugs. Using these two concrete observations and doing an well-argued demonstration Böhmer suggests that "this" design in the rugs has been transferred from the flatweave sacks. Doing so he also follows Marla Mallett thesis that some technique-generated designs were transferred from flatweave to rugs. Sharing his (their) thoughts I think we may comfort Böhmer's thesis using two other observations. First, the warp-pattern blocky "S" borders and twice the very unusual kind of selvages suggest clearly a flatweave background. We may agree or disagree with his thesis but, I think, that it's really difficult not to accept a thesis based on four concrete observations. If we disagree we need to refute each of the following arguments. 1/ Is the design nearly identical in the sacks and the rugs? My answer: Yes 2/ Is it possible that a very similar design has been used by the same weavers, in the same small area, in flat weave and in pile rugs. My answer: Yes 3/ If it is, where do appear a beginning of disintegration of the design? My answer: In the rug. The white secondary motifs in the sack have an additional small rhombus that is missing in the rugs. Citing Marta Mallet: "Design purity is most likely to be maintained over long periods when motifs remain within a single weaving medium…. It is design migration from medium to medium, however that truly encourages design changes and disintegration". 4/ Are there any other reasons than "structure imitation" borrowed from flat weave to rugs to explain the unusual use of offset knotting in western Anatolian rugs. My answer: No 5/ Are there any other reasons than "structure imitation" borrowed from flat weave to rugs to explain the selvage structure. My answer: No 6/ Is the blocky "S" border typical of warp patterned weaves. My answer: Yes. Or is it a truly technique generated design? Marla Mallet's answer: Yes 7/ Does the main hooked medallion in those bags originated in a flat weave? Marla Mallet's answer: From my perspective it almost certainly originated for structural reasons in slit tapestry. Are ala çuval "Source" of Turkmen designs or were their West-to-East transfer of designs? It's, I agree, the unclear part of this Salon. In fact I wanted only to suggest that ala çuval storage sacks are (a source) the "mirror" of "early " Turkmen designs which followed their migrations centuries ago and which stayed unchanged in restrictive weaves. Yes, you are right Wendel: some things didn't change. Hoping it helps or at least that it's clearer. Cordially, Daniel

Powered by UltraBoard 2000 <http://www.ub2k.com/>