Thanks for this very interesting presentation. We just finished two weeks on "stray reds", which began with my thinking that was a single phenomenon and ended with me convinced that it includes at least half a dozen different things that get manifested as visible blotches of red.

I suspect that the "internal elem" is another such category of phenomena. Your example of oddly placed single knots of color, for instance, seem unlikely (to me) to have the same cultural origin as the abrupt changes in border dimension and field width.

I was among those in Shiv Sikri's audience who thought the abrupt changes in field width, typically occurring within the first inch or two of the appearance of the field, were simply the weaver changing her mind about things. I still think that. My "shred of evidence" is that this is the simplest explanation and requires the smallest number of ad hoc hypotheses about why it makes sense. That's Occam's rule, and we use it all the time as a test of truth. It is one of the major intellectual developments that led us out of the dark ages.

After Shiv's talk, I asked whether this is observed on both faces of intact khorjin pairs when it occurs at all, or if it occurs on only one face. The latter would constitute another shred of evidence in favor of the conventional wisdom (my view) if the face with the "internal elem" was the one woven first and would virtually prove the conventional wisdom wrong if this occurred only on the face woven last or if it occurred on both faces.

The response was that the truth of the proposition that the internal elem is put there by the weaver intentionally is so obvious that further testing of the sort I suggested was unnecessary. I disagree.

Steve Price

It was I who raised the question of the paired bags at Shiv's talk, and at the time I thought the answer would be decisive. Actually, it is not. Whatever is observed could be explained by any one of the rival theories; for example, it might have been part of the tradition to apply the irregularity to only one of the pair, or the tradition may have left the decision up to the weaver.

Regards, Yon

I want to be sure it is understood that my opinion about the "internal elem" being a change in mind or correction upon realizing that things weren't going to look so good applies only to the abrupt changes in field width that are seen so often. The other kinds of internal elem are not so easily explained.

Having said that, let me respond to the points you raised in the previous message.

Your first point: Occam's razor actually works in the internal elem's favor, as it subsumes ALL these phenomena under one explanation, instead of only the ones that can be construed as 'change of mind.' Whether an explanation subsumes all phenomena is irrelevant. What counts is how many additional assumptions must be made. For instance, suppose someone offers the following argument: "Every design, every pattern, regular or irregular, is a reflection of God's intervening and guiding the hand of the weaver." This is obviously untestable. Equally obviously, it accounts for all examples of the internal elem, including those that haven't even been reported yet. The point is, the fact that it accounts for all phenomena is only a strength if it makes predictions that can be verified or falsified. Therein lies the problem with the universal explanation of all examples of internal elems as the plan of the weaver. That hypothesis says that it is a manifestation of some undefined and unknown cultural traditonal force. If such a force or tradition were known and could be used as a foundation it could be the beginning of a convincing argument. But the fact is, the force or tradition is an ad hoc hypothesis without which the explanation fails.

The paired-bag test is decisive if my position is incorrect. For example, if the internal elem only occurs on the face woven last, or if it occurs on both faces, my explanation cannot account for it. My hypothesis makes a prediction that is subject to falsification. That makes it useful.

The alternative allows for any possible outcome by simply adding ad hoc hypotheses whenever it becomes convenient to do so. You say, ...it might have been part of the tradition to apply the irregularity to only one of the pair, or the tradition may have left the decision up to the weaver. That explains nothing at all, it simply assumes the "intention" hypothesis to be correct.

Why does it seem unlikely that not all of the things defined as internal elems have the same basis? Do we think that all rugs with red fields are made that way for the same cultural reason? That all rugs with overall designs are made that way for the same cultural reason? That all birds on rugs have the same importance to the weaver that made them?

Regards,

Steve Price

This "paired test" that you propose seems to rest on an assumption that I thought we had agreed awhile back cannot be made. (You said that it is the design on the second pile face that is decisive in this test.)

The erroneous assumption is, I think, that pairs of bags were woven with a pile section first (design upside in relation to pattern) then two sections of plain-weave are woven, then a second section of pile, this one design right side up.

Marla Mallett, I thought, disposed of this assumption by indicating that there is no single necessary order in which these four panels that are used to form two bags must be woven.

One could for instance weave a panel of flatweave first, then a pile panel, then another flatweave panel.

So there seems to me no necessary pile panel on which an imperfection "needs" to be woven and the occurence of such defects on one pile panel or another does not seem to indicate much in and of its self.

Have I misunderstood?

Regards,

R. John Howe

Regards, Yon

Regards, Yon

Marla

1. What, exactly, is the "quite common" feature? Is it a break in the border on one side (as in this example) or on both sides? If it's on one side, is it always on the right (as on this example)? Is it always on the end woven first (is that the case in this example?) or does it occur at either end?
2. Just how common is this peculiarity compared to the remarkable irregularity characteristic of Luri bagfaces in general? Do we think that most or all of those irregularities were intentional and have some mysterious (to us, at least) meaning?

These questions bear on how to answer your rhetorical query: Are we to believe that all these weavers repeatedly start off with the wrong width and then say "oops! I better adjust?"

I also think a key word in the sentence is "repeatedly". Certainly, if you (or Barry) have evidence that a weaver creates the same irregularity repeatedly - that is, in different bagfaces (even in two faces on the same khorjin pair) - the rhetorical question becomes very difficult to answer in the affirmative. If, on the other hand, there is no such evidence (which I suspect to be the case), the word "repeatedly") is a red herring and the sentence becomes, Are we to believe that all these weavers start off with the wrong width and then say "oops! I better adjust?" I'd respond to that question as follows: Why not?

Regards,

Steve Price

Regards, Yon

I never called Luri weavers (or any other weavers) consummate artists or giggly nitwits, so I'll forego that part or your post under the assumption that it's directed at Marla.

It is a matter of fact, easily confirmed by observation, that Luri bags are full of irregularities. The one you showed is an example of an irregularity in a Luri bag. Our difference of opinion on it, if I understand you (and myself) correctly, is more or less as follows:
1. You think this is a special kind of irregularity, that it defines the lower part of the rug as intentionally different than the upper part, for some unknown but important reason.
2. I think this is simply another example of Luri irregularity, not unexpected given the general characteristics of Luri stuff, and neither more nor less important than any other irregularity. I also wonder why, if it meets the Sikri hypothesis, it only occurs on one side.

Regards,

Steve Price