I have selected two features to present data on because these are the least subject to alternative interpretations and because, once spotted, are most indisputably there. I have omitted from the sample irregularities occurring near a corner, since corner resolution is not something these weavers went for, and therefore irregularities arise perforce in these spots without carrying any significance.
I have labeled the side-border area from just above the bottom to just below the middle of the field as 'the zone.' This may appear to be a looser definition than 'about a quarter to a third of the way up,' but with most of these pieces (chuvals, torbas, etc.) the difference is miniscule.

The first class is the one-or-two odd knots case. here I am just repeating my previous data: Six cases all within the zone in the right border.

The second class is that of an aberrant border motif appearing in either one or both side borders, and differing strikingly from all other instances of the motif in shape, color, or size. Illustrations 4, 6, 7, 8, and 11 in my introduction are cases in point. The results are:

10 cases are in the zone (7 in the right border, 3 in both), and 1 outside the zone (top left border).

Taking both classes together, there are 17 cases of which 16 are in the zone. That's 94%.

Supppose in fact the distribution of these anomalities was uniform from top to bottom. Then you would expect 50% of the cases to be in the zone. What are the odds of observing 16 or more out of 17 samples to be in the zone? The answer can be calculated using the binomial distribution, and it is 7282 to 1!

Regards, Yon

Thanks for doing this little study. Some reactions:
1. As a general rule, I distrust databases that anyone in the rugpublic can't access fairly readily. The outcome of the little study I tried to do amply demonstrates the importance of that.
2. I don't doubt the accuracy of your descriptions or the fact that your database was not preselected to show the features you find in it. That is, I accept it as being exactly what you say it is.
3. The "zone" that you define in this group is really a pretty precise location, since it includes only the border and excludes the field. The "zones" generally used by the proponents of the "internal elem" have, up to now, included the field and the borders. "Any spot in the lower half" of a rug is very much less precise than "any spot in the border of the lower half of a rug".
4. The argument about the likelihood that so large a percentage appears in the lower half, assuming that the arithmetic is right, is correct.

I have no problem at all accepting the reality of the phenomenon you describe in the borders of some Turkmen bags, or that they are there by intent. Do you have any speculations about the significance?

Regards,

Steve Price

Regards, Yon