TurkoTek Discussion Boards

TurkoTek Discussion Boards

Subject	:	So-called Simurgh and Dragon
Author	:	Michael Wendorf
Date	:	05-22-2000 on 09:29 p.m.

Dear Steve:

Interesting group of embroideries for us to compare. I noted that you refered to the group as the "so-called" Simurgh and Dragon embroideries. Going back to the Herrmann catalog I note he too refers to his example as Simurgh and Dragon. He also suggests that the group probably had a function related to birth and/or in the cradle. He does not note the fire aspect you reference from the dragon, but he does discuss the powerful tail of the dragon and the fact that each Simurgh is drawn and colored somewhat differently, but each has an auspicious seven feathers. Beyond that there is little to substantiate a connection between this group of embroideries and a Simurgh and Dragon connection.

Is there more evidence and what is it? If all we have is Herr Herrmann, I would remind everyone that the publication of Band Four in the series was dominated by supposed connections to the big bird and mathematical expressions. Soon after, personal catastrophe for the author and his family.
Perhaps someone can lay out the connection a bit more clearly. In addition, the Phoenix and Dragon connection has been discussed elsewhere in this Salon. Is there a connection, maybe we ought to think it through a little more before we assume there must be. What would be the basis?

Finally, most if not all of the Kaitag embroideries I have seen were woven on a fairly coarse cotton foundation in an open-faced plain weave (like a tabby weave), some of these have been pieced. Are the examples you illustrate pieced or not? Also why are some grounds dyed and others undyed as are the examples you illustrate? Is is connected to function or something else?

Thanks for the interesting Salon.

Michael Wendorf

Subject	:	RE:Smug Simurgh?
Author	:	Steve Price
Date	:	05-23-2000 on 08:15 a.m.

sprice@hsc.vcu.edu Dear Michael, You raise some interesting points. First, the question of whether the main motif really is simurgh and dragon. I agree that the fact that Herrmann says so is not compelling evidence. Chenciner also says so, I presume on the basis of what he was told by the people he interviewed in the Kaitag and Dargin districts. They could be wrong, of course, but they could be right, too. Meld that with the very widespread significance of that combination of animals in Asian cultures and the fact that at least in some of the older pieces the motifs look like dragon and simurgh to western eyes, and the likelihood that this is what they are becomes at least high enough for provisional acceptance. Do we know for sure? No, and we probably never will. What basis is there for supposing that the motif has a connection to the dragon and phoenix? Only the resemblance and the fact that bird and dragon motifs are so widespread in Asia. What, exactly, might that connection be? Who knows? Not me. You also ask about the ground cloth on which the embroideries are done. This is a sufficiently different question that I will open a new thread on it to make it easier to follow if the subject should generate any discussion. Regards, Steve Price

Subject	:	RE:Smug Simurgh?
Author	:	Christoph+Huber
Date	:	05-28-2000 on 02:45 p.m.

huber-ch@pilatusnet.ch Dear Michael I share your doubts about the connection between this group of Kaitag embroideries and dragons/simurghs. Why don’t we see peacocks instead of ‘dragons’? The dotted and frayed out tails on the embroideries share much with those of peacocks seen on Safavid carpets and following them for example on the Animal & Tree carpets. The little ‘crown’ which peacocks wear on their heads could be responsible for the emanations on the heads of the ‘dragons’ of the Kaitags. On the ‘Milan carpet’ (HALI 73, p. 98) for example, there seems to grow a plant from the back of the peacocks. This is a quite widespread feature with a long tradition and one which may helps to explain the ‘simurgh’, which doesn’t make much sense anymore if we consider the ‘dragon’ to be a peacock. Especially on the Kaitags No. 2, 3 and 4 in the Salon the ‘simurghs’ have to my eyes much in common with palmettes and perhaps they are meant to be such... I think that without enough material for comparison much of our interpretation is only a guess. By the way, shouldn’t we address the ‘simurghs’ on the other thread, with their four legs, their flame-wings and horns not as ‘qilins’? Please note that with ‘horns’ I don’t mean the crescent like forms: the single antler of the east Asian quilin survives in the outgrowth on the forehead. This quilin was most probably not adopted directly from China and as intermediary (Safavid) Persia seems to me the most probable possibility. And with this the circle closes... Kind regards, Christoph

Subject	:	RE:Smug Simurgh?
Author	:	Steve Price
Date	:	05-29-2000 on 08:04 a.m.

sprice@hsc.vcu.edu Dear Christoph, Your suggestion that the "dragons" are actually peacocks sets up another range of possibilities. Peacocks seem unlikely to be important icons in the remote reaches of Daghestan (but so do the Ottoman textile floral lattices, from which another group of Kaitag embroideries are very obviously derived!), but fighting cocks seem not unlikely at all. The "tail" looks much more like a rooster tail than a reptile tail, and the overall look of the "dragons" could easily be read as "rooster". To muddy things even more, I mentioned (in the Salon introduction) the curious filler area in the "dragon" belly. It seems completely mysterious to me. The Belouch also have a bird motif, probably a fighting cock, with peculiar motifs within the abdomen. If there's a connection here, it is between two peoples, each living in incredibly remote and isolated areas. In the words of the king in Rodgers an Hammerstein's "The King and I", When I was a boy, the world was a better spot. What was so was so, what was not was not.... Steve Price

Subject	:	RE:
Author	:	Christoph+Huber
Date	:	05-29-2000 on 02:52 p.m.

huber-ch@pilatusnet.ch Dear Steve I think that it’s rather unimportant what we consider to be important for the Daghestanis. And I’m not even sure whether every woman doing embroidery always was really knowing what she was representing... When you go back to the peacocks (for example again to those on the ‘Milan carpet’, HALI 73, p. 98) then you will get a possible explanation for the filler area in the "dragon" belly: the wings of the peacock. That Belouch weavers depicting a rooster would come to a similar solution for the representation of wings is perhaps not very surprising. Regards, Christoph P.S.: I know, ‘simurgh and dragon’ sounds more impressive (and expensive!) than ‘peacock’ - but does this really mean something?

Subject	:	RE:
Author	:	Michael Wendorf
Date	:	05-31-2000 on 09:38 a.m.

Dear Christoph and Steve: I think Christoph's observations are very keen. Whether peacocks or another bird, I think Christoph's theory is just as plausible as Simurgh without further evidence in support of the later. Very generally, I think the influence of Persian art beyond the historical borders of Persia or Iran has not been given enough credit. More specifically, I think that if we put our minds to it, we could put together a group of early 20th century village rugs from a variety of villages and areas that display birds, peacocks or Simurghs that look remarkably similar to the so-called Simurghs in these embroideries. Such birds probably represent a long tradition in Persian art. Whether the tradition extends to the Simurgh and Dragon mythology? Well, that brings us full circle again. Thank you for the Salon, Michael

Subject	:	RE:
Author	:	Steve Price
Date	:	05-31-2000 on 10:30 a.m.

sprice@hsc.vcu.edu Dear Michael, I agree that birds are at least as plausible as dragons, and I'm sure you and Christoph would also agree that this doesn't exhaust the list of possibilities. In HALI of May 1999 there is an auction review in which the reviewer notes that the "dragons" in a "simurgh and dragon" Kaitag embroidery that sold at Sotheby's in December 1998 look like seaweed to him! The whole matter illustrates one of the frustrations faced by collectors of ethnographic art. It seems clear enough that an object that served to protect babies from the malevolence of the evil eye would include iconography that had significance to the folks that used it. In a Christian culture, for instance, such an object would almost certainly include a cross. So, we are curious about what that iconography really is. "Dragons" for the large red motifs on these embroideries is the general belief, based on Chenciner's book. His source, presumably, is the local villagers in the Kaitag and Dargin districts. Maybe they are right about what these motifs represented in the 17th, 18th or 19th century when the pieces were made. Maybe not. Like Christoph, I see things that look much more like birds than like dragons. Either one is reasonable from the standpoint of making sense within the cultural context of the time and place of origin of these items. And it does remind us that the notion of birds as symbols of peace is a fairly recent convention. In Asian (and many other) artistic traditions, birds are fierce protectors and predators. I think it's important to bear in mind as we do such speculating that we aren't likely to be able arrive at conclusions, and to forget that is to deceive ourselves. Most of our readers recognize this, of course. Steve Price

Subject	:	RE:
Author	:	Michael Wendorf
Date	:	05-31-2000 on 11:14 a.m.

Dear Steve: Seaweed indeed! I guess that would be the influence of the multiple historical transgressions of the Caspian Sea over the entire area. Certainly you are correct that the plausible explanations are numerous. But just to followup on the Persian influence, let's keep in mind that some of the most significant archeological remains, at least in Daghistan, are Persian. The Sasanian ruins there, as one example, such as Khosrow's Wall date well back in time. This is not to suggest that there are not significant indigenous sites that date back even to the chalcolithic and bronze ages, there clearly are, or to minimize the area's place as a major artery for the transmission of ideas and technology between north and south (as David Stronach described it). Rather that some explanations are more plausible than others in our democracy of plausible ideas and Christoph's suggestion of a Persian influence seems to be among them. Still, it is hard to argue with seaweed, or is that "proto-seaweed?" Thanks again for the interesting Salon. Michael

Subject	:	RE:
Author	:	Christoph+Huber
Date	:	06-01-2000 on 10:51 a.m.

huber-ch@pilatusnet.ch Dear Micheal and Steve Michael, thanks for your support, although I want to replace the dragons (and not the simurghs) by peacocks. In the simurgh I see something floral, an palmette if you want.

Persia, early 16th century (HALI 100, p. 102) Steve, sure everyone can see what he wants to, and I agree that we aren't likely to arrive at final conclusions. I also have to agree to a certain extent if someone is saying “it looks to me like seeweed” but that’s not what interests me: I’m not interested in what something is “looking like” to me or to someone else. Because nothing is evolving out of a vacuum, I’m trying to get a better understanding of an ornament by looking for possible predecessors and parallel evolutions. An example: Today I checked some Halis in search of ‘classical’ peacocks which I could use as further support for my hypothesis and I came across two qilins on Persian carpets:

Jaipur Garden Carpet, (HALI 5/1, p.10) Sickle-leaf carpet, northwest Persia, ca. 1600 (HALI 71, p. 91) Both showed a conspicuous ‘cloud-tuft-tail’. So I had to go back to the Kaitag embroidery on the other thread whose animals I above tried to identify as qilins. And there they are again: Did you see the curios tails of these animals? Would you have an explanation for them without knowing other representations of qilins? But let as turn the tables: What support is there for the ‘dragon and simurgh’-hypothesis? First, two references in publications, of which one is perhaps based on field research. Second, ...? I don’t see much more. But there are things which seem to contradict: Most representations of dragons on ethnographic textiles are somehow S-shaped and I’m not aware of any single one with a thickened tail. (I would be very interested to know what Mr. Herrmann is telling about them!) Dragons usually have more than two feet. The simurgh would be missing a proper head and would actually consist only of a body and tail-feathers. There was laid some importance on the ‘auspicious seven feathers‘ of the tail, but most phoenixes depicted on Near Eastern textiles have much less then seven tail feathers and are not drawn in such a symmetrical way. For me it not enough to read that this ornaments are representing dragons and simurghs – I want to see them myself too! And if I’m not able to do so, and if I don’t get any help by reference material, then I prefer to be cautious. To me not every hypothesis has the same probability – maybe I’m not democratic enough, but I think democracy wouldn’t help much in this case... Regards, Christoph

Subject	:	RE:
Author	:	Michael Wendorf
Date	:	06-01-2000 on 12:03 p.m.

Dear Christoph: Fantastic post. I apologize for transposing simurgh with dragon, but I really am following you and the peacock here. Rather than seaweed, I suppose you could also call it a hydra (genus). But that only would serve to demonstrate again that in every democracy some hypothesises (yours) are more plausible than others (seaweed). Thanks for working through the hypothesis. Michael

Subject	:	RE:
Author	:	Steve Price
Date	:	06-01-2000 on 01:52 p.m.

sprice@hsc.vcu.edu Dear Christoph, I am persuaded that the "dragon" of "simurgh and dragon" Kaitag embroideries is most likely to be a bird, probably a peacock or fighting cock. The "simurgh" of those embroideries looks enough like many of the floral elements I've seen on very old Ottoman embroideries, that I think it likely that these are flowers. The "qilin" interpretation of the animals on the piece Yon Bard introduced to the Salon is also pretty persuasive. As for the "seaweed" comment in the HALI auction review, I'm sure the reviewer was being facetious and simply expressing doubt about the "dragon" interpretion of the motif. Steve Price