| Subject | : | Evolution of structure? |
| Author | : | Yon Bard |
| Date | : | 09-06-2000 on 09:42 a.m. |
| The thread about evolution touched on the role of differences in
structure. I have been intrigued by the question of how it comes about
that elements of structure suddenly change - it's sort of like how do new
species arise in biology. For example, it's assumed that the various
Turkmen tribes descend from a common ancestry and that typical Turkmen
design schemes (e.g., a grid of guls) are derived from common prototypes.
But how about the structure? When new tribes branch off from old ones, do
their weavers adopt new structures just to assert their difference? Do the
daughters suddenly start to use open-right knots while their mothers used
open-left? Altogether, isn't it strange how conveniently for us the structures of Turkmen weavings differ from tribe to tribe? We have three tribes using relatively light field colors who have many design elements in common using symmetric (Saryk), open left (Salor) and open right (Tekke) knots; we have three tribes using darker field colors again with symmetric (Yomud), open left (Arabachi) and open right (Chodor) knots. It's as though one day the tribes gathered and systematically allocated the available structures among themselves. Anybody care to propose more plausible theories? Regards, Yon |
| Subject | : | RE:How does structure evolve? |
| Author | : | Steve Price |
| Date | : | 09-06-2000 on 11:09 a.m. |
| sprice@hsc.vcu.edu Dear Yon, What an interesting question! First, let me correct one thing. You refer to the sudden appearance of major new characeristics in biological evolution. That probably hardly ever happens, and even Darwin, 150 years ago, believed that evolutionary changes are slight and gradual at the level of individual events. The same is undoubtedly true for linguistic evolution. I think the problem you raise is related to the fact that the criteria to which you refer are binary by their nature. That is, a Turkmen's knot is either symmetric or asymmetric, open right or open left if it's asymmetric. That doesn't mean that the differences necessarily arose abruptly. It's more likely that among the ancient Turkmen there were weavers who used each, and that the predominant form within the "modern" Turkmen (meaning, any time after, say, 1700) is a reflection of the influence of some particularly influential teachers (dare I say professors?) of weaving within each group, long ago. If this is true, we might expect to find exceptions from the scheme you presented, and, of course, there are. Ersari weavings are usually knotted asymmetric open right, but some are open left. Yomud are usually knotted symmetric, but not always. Likewise for Saryk. Salor are usually knotted asymmetric open left, but about 20% are open right. And so on. But whatever the history, it really is convenient, isn't it? Steve Price |
| Subject | : | RE:How does structure evolve? |
| Author | : | Yon Bard |
| Date | : | 09-06-2000 on 03:07 p.m. |
| Steve, first a correction to the correction: I said 'new species' rather than 'new chracteristics.' Somewhere along an evolutionary line you have an individual who cannot reproduce with other members of the line, and voila! a new species. And even talking of characteristics, some are quantized, e.g. no. of chromosomes, so somewhere there must be a discrete change. But this is straying from the subject. In spite of the exceptions, I still feel that the association of tribes (of common ancestry we are told) with structural characteristics is nothing short of stunning in its neatness, and is begging for a convincing explanation. Regards, Yon |
| Subject | : | RE:How does structure evolve? |
| Author | : | Steve Price |
| Date | : | 09-06-2000 on 04:30 p.m. |
| sprice@hsc.vcu.edu Dear Yon, You're right, you did say "species", not "characteristics", but the basic line of reasoning is unchanged by that. There are occasional abrupt changes in evolution, like the chromosome number alterations that you mentioned. But the main line of what goes on includes very little of that. It's mostly small, imperceptible changes that accumulate over time. To use your example of an organism that suddenly can't breed with the other members of the population, the outcome is not a new species at all, it is the disappearance of whatever characteristics made it impossible for him (or her) to breed with the others. That is, this individual isn't the beginning of the line, it's the end of one. I ought also to emphasize that I agree with your amazement at the existing association of rug characteristics like knot type with tribal identity. Even though there are exceptions, it is truly remarkable and it would be interesting to see an explanation with less handwaving in it than the outline that I offered. Regards, Steve Price |
| Subject | : | RE:How does structure evolve? |
| Author | : | Stephen Louw |
| Date | : | 09-07-2000 on 07:24 a.m. |
| As a sceptic who believes that almost all Turkmen weavings were woven with a commercial purpose (of some sort) in mind, I was taken by Steve’s comments. Quite possible similarity in tribal weaving structures might be explained in terms of the influence over time of especially prominent teachers (or, more likely, of respected lines of very good weavers, probably from a single family or “sub-group”). This accounts for a tendency to use a common structure without denying the fact that weavers had the freedom to use alternative structures if they chose. If Steve’s suggestion is true, then this opens up a whole range of interesting social dynamics concerning relationships within and between weavers, weaving families, tribal “sub-groups”, etc., which make for a fascinating anthropology. One issue I would like to explore is the extent to which textiles produced by weavers from a particular linguistic grouping differ from the “structural norm.” For example, and building on an earlier discussion on the “show and tell” board: we could quite conceivably find that there is a far smaller deviation from the structural norm in silk textiles, and a far greater deviation in loosely knotted woollen textiles. The former involved materials that were expensive, which were only obtainable from trading networks, and were almost certainly woven for sale; the latter involving materials that could be obtained locally, and which were usually far cheaper. Surely it would not be far-fetched to expect the influence of prominent teachers or respected weavers to be greatest when expensive materials were used and where weavings were to be sold, than would be the case where cheaper materials were used, with less significant commercial motives. Regards, Stephen slouw@global.co.za |
| Subject | : | RE:How does structure evolve? |
| Author | : | Yon Bard |
| Date | : | 09-07-2000 on 12:01 p.m. |
| The 'Prominent Teacher' theory doesn't stand up under scrutiny. For one, it doesn;t explain the remarkably even division of the three principal structures among the tribes. Nor does it seem likely that women weaving in their tents in a decentralized tradition-bound male-dominated culture would be influenced to change their weaving habits by prominent teachers. And there is too high a correlation between structure and design to suppose that our tribal classsification is a mere artefact created by the likes of Thompson and Azadi which equates tribes with structural groups. I don't see what the question of commercialism has to do with any of this. Certainly the structural distinctions between different tribes antedates their commercialization. Regards, Yon |
| Subject | : | RE:How does structure evolve? |
| Author | : | Michael Wendorf |
| Date | : | 09-07-2000 on 01:17 p.m. |
| Dear Yon: You make an intriguing observation in this thread. However, what do you mean by and what is the basis for your statement: "certainly the structural distinctions between different tribes antedates their commercialization?" Are you stating that, say, prior to 1870 or some other arbitrary point in time Turkman weavings were completely non-commercial and/or devoid of any influence from commerce? Or something else? Stephen's point seems to be that almost all Turkmen weavings were woven with a commercial interest of some sort. It seems to me that this is probably true even if the commercial interest was that the weaving could be bartered or traded if need be. Good thread, Michael |
| Subject | : | RE:How does structure evolve? |
| Author | : | Steve Price |
| Date | : | 09-07-2000 on 01:39 p.m. |
| sprice@hsc.vcu.edu Dear People, Just a couple of points here. First, some questions to Yon. Do you really mean to say that the structural differences between the textiles of different Turkmen tribes antedate (that is, came later than) their commercialization? My suspicion is that you meant to say, predate, (that is, existed prior to) their commercialization. And what do you mean by the "remarkably even distribution of the three major structures" between the Turkmen tribes? Is it really even? If so, what is remarkable about that? Second, I take Stephen Louw's first sentence to mean that he interprets the word "commercialization" very broadly, and would include as a weaving made for commercial purposes just about anything not made for the weaver's personal use (or that of her immediate family). It would include anything made for sale (or trade)outside the tribal community, for sale (or trade) within the tribal community, as a gift or tribute to some dignitary within the community, etc. As I understand things, the textiles the Turkmen wove have been of commercial importance in those senses for a very long time. If that's true (and maybe even if it isn't), it would make sense for the girls to learn to weave from the very best in their community. Certainly, it would make no sense for any son of mine to learn woodworking from me - I'm really lousy at it. On the other hand, there are some things at which I'm not so bad (wish I could think of one right now, but it isn't important to the argument anyway). So, in my tribe, someone who's good at it would teach the boys to make things out of wood, I'd teach them something else or perform some other useful service in return. In fact, I might even be able to persuade the local ruler to make the talented woodworker do the teaching pro bono. If the girls were taught by the very best weavers in their communities, rather than by whoever their mothers happened to be, then the habits of the few would be transmitted to the masses they were teaching. That doesn't sound terribly far fetched to me at all. Steve Price |
| Subject | : | RE: |
| Author | : | Michael Wendorf |
| Date | : | 09-07-2000 on 01:48 p.m. |
| Steve: I think antedates is the correct usage, meaning "precedes in time" like antediluvian or before the flood or antecedent. Otherwise we ask similar questions of Yon. Michael |
| Subject | : | RE: |
| Author | : | Steve Price |
| Date | : | 09-07-2000 on 02:07 p.m. |
| sprice@hsc.vcu.edu Dear Michael, You're right. In fact, according to my Webster's, one of the definitions of "antecedent" is "precedent". Who dreamed up the language we use, anyway? Next thing you know someone will tell me that "flammable" and "inflammable" mean the same thing. Steve Price |
| Subject | : | RE: |
| Author | : | Michael Wendorf |
| Date | : | 09-07-2000 on 02:20 p.m. |
| Steve: Flammable and inflammable mean the same thing. Oh, and one more thing - white is black. Best, Michael |
| Subject | : | RE:Similarities and differences |
| Author | : | Patrick Weiler |
| Date | : | 09-07-2000 on 03:18 p.m. |
| jpweil00@gte.net It may well be that it is getting close to my lunchtime, but I see a parallel between the arguments for structural similarities/differences in, say Turkmen weaving and the recipes and foods eaten by various groups. There are regional differences in the food of, say northern Italy compared to southern Italy or eastern France compared to western France, but generally they can be determined to be Italian food or French food. A lot depends on the type of foodstuffs available (dyestuffs/sheep types/water sources/mineral content) and in addition, it depends on the regional specialties which would be shared in community events such as a harvest time celebration (wedding ceremony/market day, etc). This would indicate that the best weavings and techniques would be shown and shared by the group/tribe at these important times, along with the passing along of designs and structural characteristics. The rival tribes would not very likely share their weavings OR recipes and this would mean that dis-similarities would become entrenched, except at the "fringes" where the tribes overlapped in territory, arranged marriages, etc. In fact, tribal rivalries might even hasten differentiation in structural characteristics simply due to the competition and antagonism of the rivals. As usual, all of the above suggestions are made with the disclaimer that 1. I have done no research whatsoever on this topic, 2. commonly available resources may conclusively disprove such theories and 3. I am hungry. Szechuan or Mandarin? Patrick Weiler |
| Subject | : | RE: |
| Author | : | Yon Bard |
| Date | : | 09-07-2000 on 04:13 p.m. |
| There have been some questions posed for my attention. I'll try to respond: 1. What do I mean by "remarkably even distribution of the three major structures?" I answered that in my original post, where I said: "We have three tribes using relatively light field colors who have many design elements in common using symmetric (Saryk), open left (Salor) and open right (Tekke) knots; we have three tribes using darker field colors again with symmetric (Yomud), open left (Arabachi) and open right (Chodor) knots." 2. On the question of commercialization, prior to, say, 1870 production may have been somewhat commercial, after that mostly or completely commercial. But, for the purposes of this discussion, why does it matter? Commercial demand clearly influences design (one weaves what'll sell) but why would it influence the structural parameters (knot type) under discussion? I can't see a rug dealer demanding open-left knots from his sources; and anyway the roughly equal presence of all three types indicates that there was no preference in this respest. 3. Patrick says "The rival tribes would not very likely share their weavings OR recipes and this would mean that dis-similarities would become entrenched." But how did these structural dissimilarities form in the first place, if they all have a common ancestry? I think the only reasonable explanation is that in the ancestral population there were weavers using all possible techniques on a more or less random basis. Each claimed their technique was the best and they quarelled so much about it that they decided to separate into independent tribes along weaving-technique lines. Regards, Yon |
| Subject | : | RE: |
| Author | : | Michael Wendorf |
| Date | : | 09-07-2000 on 05:40 p.m. |
| Dear Yon: Your response to my and Steve's question about commercialism relating back to Stephen's point really is different from what you wrote in repsonse to Stephen. If I understand you now, you are saying not that the structural distinctions you group arose prior to commercialism, but rather that commercialism is irrelevant because there should be no commercial preference for one structure over another; witness the fact that there is some sort of even distribution among subgroups. I do not think you can justify that conclusion one way or the other. Certainly in a cottage industry environment that was common over broad areas of the weaving world in more recent times, weavers were sponsored by someone who supplied wool, a loom etc. I do not think it is a stretch to believe that the sponsors could or did dictate such things. But then you really get into a chicken or the egg loop, why did a sponsor have a preference and how did the preference arise. I have no answer, but I do think that the influence of commercialism, however defined, could have played a role. Best, Michael |
| Subject | : | RE: |
| Author | : | Stephen Louw |
| Date | : | 09-07-2000 on 06:09 p.m. |
| Hi Michael, Yon and Steve If I may, let me clarify the point I made originally, as I did not mean it the way Yon seems to have interpreted it; and I think that it is also able to avoid the chicken-or-egg problem to which Michael refers. With reference to commercial pressures. All I wondered was whether there was a relationship between the influence exerted by a particular teacher -- or line of prominant weavers who served as examples (cultural transmission belts?) that other weavers followed -- on structural choice, and the type of weaving. In cases where commercial pressures were strongest, I suspect this relationship would be quite strong, as the weaver (family) producing the weaving would have a stronger incentive to produce a commodity which would sell, and would therefore be influenced by what the local experts did. Silks would be a case in point, given their high production cost. Where the production cost was lower, the influence of the teacher would be corresponding less. Thus the point was not that the person supplying the wool, etc., would choose the structure as well. But rather, that in cases where production was predominatly for a commercial motive, the stakes were higher, and the influence of the person/families known to have great skill highest. The influence here is thus one of example: the local teacher would be emulated, and weavers might tie knots the same way because that is the example they were exposed to, not because they thought that knots open to the left would fetch higeher prices. In Steve's original posting he suggested that this might, almost accidently, help to account for structural similiarities within linguistic groupings, tribes, etc. I am not committed to this idea at all, but think it worth exploring. Regards Stephen |
| Subject | : | RE: |
| Author | : | Steve Price |
| Date | : | 09-07-2000 on 07:15 p.m. |
| sprice@hsc.vcu.edu Dear Yon, I continued to be puzzled, so much so that I suspect that I am simply missing something that's obvious to everyone else. When you say, in describing the remarkably equal distribution of technical factors in Turkmen products, We have three tribes using relatively light field colors who have many design elements in common using symmetric (Saryk), open left (Salor) and open right (Tekke) knots; we have three tribes using darker field colors again with symmetric (Yomud), open left (Arabachi) and open right (Chodor) knots, the unit you have adopted is tribal name. Let's ignore for the fact that Salor, Saryk, Chodor and Arabachi make up a very small percentage of the total extant textiles, which would might make the choice of "unit" seem a bit odd. Let's look at some complications to it: 1. If we use Azadi's taxonomy, there are many more tribes than these and the "equal" distribution of characteristics vanishes. 2. Yomud don't use symmetric knots exclusively, some Yomud stuff is asymmetrically knotted and, most interesting, some is symmetrically knotted with asymmetric knots at the edges (What makes this interesting is that it proves that at least some Yomud weavers were able to make either type of knot, and did so when they wove). It isn't true that all Ersari work is asymmetric right, that all Salor is assymetric left or that all Saryk is symmetric. So the remarkable correlation is not nearly as strong as the assertion seems to imply. And then there's the pile decorated tent bands, which differ from tribe to tribe mainly in palette, not in structure. That is, the evidence suggests that the weavers had reasonable facility with either knot type and could use either one when the occasion called for it. 3. My inclination is to think that what's really remarkable is the variation in predominant structural characteristics within the Turkmen group. It is, comparatively speaking, culturally and historically fairly homogeneous. Yet, in most other western and central Asian weaving, the geographic line between the use of symmetric and asymmetric knots is fairly distinct and covers very wide areas of diverse peoples, tribal, village and urban. Vis-a-vis the influence of commercial forces, I agree that no rug dealer was ever likely to insist or even suggest that one kind of knot or another would sell better. But the dealers might very well express preferences for rugs that turned out to be the work of certain weavers and their pupils, and the local chief would, in turn, make others work to her specifications. I don't know that it happened that way, but it's plausible and at least fits the data (such as it is) that we have. And, so far, I haven't seen a proposed alternative explanation. I'm not nuts about this one, but until something else appears or until we find some fact that it simply can't accomodate, it's where I am. What am I missing here? Steve Price |
| Subject | : | RE: |
| Author | : | Yon Bard |
| Date | : | 09-07-2000 on 07:46 p.m. |
| Michael, there is no dicotomy between my two positions and I maintain them both: The tribe-structure relations arose before commercialism was predominant, but even if it didn't it would be irrelevant to the present argument for the reasons I gave. And nobody that I know of believes that early Turkmen production ocurred in workshops (except perhaps some Ersaris, who are settled maverics Turkmenwise), but, again, this point is irrelevant to the discussion so let's not argue about it. Curiously, my point (actually, I am asking a question rather than making a point) is being attacked from both sides: One faction attempts to explain the uniformity of structure within each tribe by positing influential teachers and commercial pressures. Since such uniformity was part of the premise of my question, this faction is bursting into an open door. The second faction argues the opposite, namely that there is no uniformity of structure within each tribe, and therefore my premise is fallacious. To these I reply that even a mere 80% adherence to this neat structural classification scheme is, to me, startling and begging for an explanation. Regards, Yon |
| Subject | : | RE: |
| Author | : | Michael Wendorf |
| Date | : | 09-07-2000 on 09:59 p.m. |
| Yon: Actually I'm not so sure. You initially wrote that: "Certainly the structural distinctions between the different tribes antedates their commercialization." Then you acknowledged that prior to 1870 production may have been somewhat commercial but that it doesn't matter because although commercialism clearly influences design, it shouldn't influence structure. Now that you assert again that tribe structures formed before commercialism became predominant and that no one asserts early Turkmen work was done in workshops. Well maybe and maybe not. On this last little point, I don't know that anyone really knows, but I really wonder about many early main carpets. On the larger point, I think you need to understand my and Stepen's points before you dismiss them. Commercialism, if we could agree on what it was, could have worked in a variety of ways to create this groups. Specifically, I referred to a cottage industry environment in my post. (This is quite a bit different from workshop production. In a workshop weavers come in to weave to the shop and the designers requirements.) In a cottage industry a weaver is sponsored but has much more freedom to weave within much broader parameters. I could imagine structural traits appearing easily in different settings. In any event, I do not know enough about all the types of Turkmen weaving over different times to really know all the influences of commercialism or whether cottage industry settings or other settings had an influence on design, structure or both. But I don't think anyone else does either. I don't want to belabor the point. And I am not attacking or supporting one side or the other, I'm just trying to make sure we are all talking about the same thing and that we consider all the possibilities. Best, Michael |
| Subject | : | RE: |
| Author | : | Yon Bard |
| Date | : | 09-07-2000 on 11:04 p.m. |
| Perhaps I should restate my questions that opened this discussion: 1. How did it come about that Turkmen tribes with a common ancestry end up using different structures? 2. How come the six possible combinations of palette (bright vs sombre) and knot type (right, left, and symmetric) correspond (to a large extent) to the six best known weaving tribes? None of the responses that I've seen so far answer these questions. The discussion of commercialism, while interesting in itself, sheds no light on my questions, whether or not my views on the subjects lack consistency. Regards, Yon |
| Subject | : | RE: |
| Author | : | Yon Bard |
| Date | : | 09-07-2000 on 11:09 p.m. |
| P.S. please contrast the Turkmen case to the rest of the Turkic world: You won't find anything but symmetric knots from the Caspian to the Bosphorus. I cannot think of any mechanism other than a deliberate decision by the Turkmen tribes to each use a different structure. Regards, Yon |
| Subject | : | RE: |
| Author | : | Steve Price |
| Date | : | 09-08-2000 on 06:24 a.m. |
| sprice@hsc.vcu.edu Dear Yon, I'm also struck by how the heterogeneity of textiles within the Turkmen contrasts to the homogeneity across large geographic areas outside the Turkmen group. The time for this Salon is almost over, but I think I've persuaded one of our readers to prepare one on the topic of geography, knot type and the driving forces relating the two, so it will recur very soon with enough time to be pursued wherever it takes us. Steve Price |