| Subject | : | Saul Barodofsky's Post |
| Author | : | R. John Howe |
| Date | : | 01-10-2000 on 06:17 a.m. |
| Dear folks - I have been trying to draw on the limited resources we have on Turkish weaving in this discussion. As most of you know, Saul Barodofsky, is not only a member of the Turkotek "managing group" but is a dealer in Charlottesville, VA, who has traveled extensively in Turkey purchasing weavings and textiles for many years. So Saul knows something of Turkish weaving. Although he is currently, necessarily preoccupied with moving his shop, he has provided us with a comment. I worried that this might not be sufficiently visible since he posted it in response to my musing about whether my fragment might be older than 19th century. To make sure that it is not missed, I have copied it again into this post below. I have also asked two questions about it to which I suspect Saul will be too busy to respond. But others may have answers. Saul's Post: Dear John, Firstly many thanks for the splendid example of an early Western Anatolian weaving. Looks neat. Would need to feel the piece before I agreed on your dating, but provisionally, I concur. In fact, 18th century might be a bit conservative. The major problem in dating Anatolian village and nomadic pieces is that we are used to equating condition with age, and the very active dowry process amongst the Anatolian peoples have given us many pieces which look much younger than they are. I must also add that the piece "reminds" me of Demetji Kula and an occasional Yunji that I have seen. No reasons, just feelings. Have you checked out "Rugs of the Peasants & Nomads of Anatolia" by Bruggerman & Bohmer (1983)? Neat section on the 'early" rugs of Western Anatolia, plus a great section on viewing color in weaving. Please also note that these pieces were exported to the west in large numbers in the late 19th century. Thus, there are certainly more of these floating around in the west than there are in Turkley - excepting Mosque's and Museums. Excuse the brevity of my response, but am amidst the trauma of moving the gallery after 20 plus years in one location. Happy hunting saul My (John's) questions: 1. Does anyone know what Saul means by "the very active dowry process" and how this might make pieces seem younger than they are? Does it means simply that dowry pieces were carefully conserved? If so, that would seem to run counter to what we find, since there seems fairly wide agreement that older Turkish weavings found are often in poor condition. 2. What is Saul referring to with the terms "Demetji Kula" and "Yunji?" I don't own the Bruggerman and Bohmer book. If someone else has a copy and a scanner perhaps they could favor us with an image or two. Regards, R. John Howe |
| Subject | : | RE:Saul Barodofsky's Post |
| Author | : | Wendel Swan |
| Date | : | 01-10-2000 on 11:56 a.m. |
| Dear John and all, Demerci (a town to the north and east of Ghiordes) rugs were long referred to in the trade as Demerci Kulahs, although the Demerci rugs and those from Kulah (another town) are structurally and stylistically distinguishable. Both share with Ghiordes rugs (and others in the region) the prominent use of relatively small-scale floral elements. In his book, Murray Eiland discusses and illustrates why the additional "Kulah" appellation is inappropriate for Demerci rugs. Saul may well have encountered Demerci rugs in Turkey that are similar to the rug John has presented but those that I have seen called Demerci are completely different. Demercis tend to be square, on the dark side (despite the frequent use of a strong yellow and a light blue) because of the use of a characteristic reddish brown and two to four times finer. The knots of a Demerci are not as elongated on the warps and the warps generally show at least moderate depression. As you would expect, the handle is not similar to John's rug. The Keshishian brothers had, and may still have, a Demerci in their inventory for several years. Its failure to sell is undoubtedly due to the lack of collector interest in this type of rug, as has been discussed in this Salon previously. The Yunji (one of many spellings) are a tribe in Anatolia that is (I believe) now essentially sedentary, but I just can't say much more. Although I have encountered the Yunji attribution a few times elsewhere over the years, I am most familiar with the term through Saul's use of it. He has shown many utilitarian objects (generally with a dark palette) and provided the Yunji label, undoubtedly because of his direct contact with the people who made these objects or dealt in them regularly. I have one fragmentary yastik that Saul calls Yunji. It has dark brown wefts and bears no resemblance to John's rug. IF (I emphasize the if) my Yunji yastik is characteristic of Yunji weaving, I just can't make a connection between Yunji and the Salon rug. In short, I think it will be difficult to find in the literature any illustrations of either Demerci or Yunji rugs that will be helpful in this discussion. However, both Bruggerman/Bohmer and Iten-Maritz's Turkish Rugs illustrate many turn-of-the-century Turkish rugs that are quite attractive and which we seldom see. Quite a few of them seem to be made with natural dyes, in sharp contrast to the hideous rugs with the Day-Glo synthetics that we are so used to seeing and which have given relatively recent (i.e., in the synthetic period) Turkish rugs a bad name. Wendel |
| Subject | : | RE:Saul Barodofsky's Post |
| Author | : | Deschuyteneer Daniel |
| Date | : | 01-10-2000 on 04:27 p.m. |
| Dear all, I agree with Wendel, but knows the Demirci rugs only under their Demirci-Kula trade label. The only difference I know is that Kula rugs have a clearer color palette with a bright use of yellow and light blue, and that silk was sometimes used for the white. I would be pleased to know what Murray Eiland said upon the inappropriate additional Kula appellation. Demirci has produced almost prayer rugs, with one or mostly double flat and slightly stepped arch, The niche has a characteristic dull and dark reddish brown and is decorated with small stylized flowers often emerging from opposite vases. In the spandrels small flowers (carnations, tulips) are scattered on a blue field. The main border is often decorated with an angular vine bearing clusters of flowers. In style they clearly derived from the so called Transylvanian rugs. They have an all wool foundation and are finely woven with a knot count between 1000 and 1600 /dm2, and as Wendel said are coarsely ribbed on the back, because they had one straight weft and one or two sinuous wefts between rows of knots. At their ends there is usually a small red-brown plain weave skirt. Lazy lines may be present. In handle they are heavy and somewhat pliable. Nothing to do with the rug presented by R. John. Concerning the Yunji label. Yun in Turkey means wool. I once heard it was a label used for rugs woven by the Obra Yüruk settled in Yuntdag (south of Bergama and west of Gördes). Cordially, Daniel |