Here's one to wonder about: the germetch. Conventional wisdom says it is sort of a barrier at the threshold of a yurt, keeping the kids in and the chickens out. The evidence for this? The width is about the same as that of an ensi, and the design is similar to the skirt of an ensi (like an elem without a rug attached to it).

What's wrong with the conventional wisdom? For one thing, the things seem to have had a fringe at the bottom, about 15 inches long in the few in which it's intact, making the total height close to 3 feet. The fringe isn't much of a barrier to kids or chickens, and the thing is a whole lot taller than anything an average height central Asian is likely to be able to step over.

So, what did Turkmen do with that thing?

I raised this matter in a letter in HALI a few years ago (issue number 99), and would like to hear some opinions or, if possible, some facts.

Steve Price

That's an interesting thought. Here's a problem, though. I rooted around my bookshelf this evening and found three photos of germech. One, an Arabachi, is in HALI (#96, p. 99). A second is a Tekke, in The Rickmers Collection (p. 37). The third is in Wie Blumen in der Wuste (p. 51).

Guess what? All three have fringes at the bottom. Guess what none of them have? A border at the bottom end (each has a border at the top and both sides).

Us lab slobs refer to a situation like this as an encounter between a beautiful hypothesis and an ugly fact.

Regards,

Steve Price

Don't grieve over a fallen hypothesis. That's what they're for.

At least one author (I think it's Jourdan, in his book on Turkmen) suggests that the germech was hung in front of the ensi, at the top of the doorway. That seems even less likely than using it as a 3 foot high threshold with a flimsy fringe at the bottom to keep low-flying things out.

I'm not aware of any photos of one in use, or even of any traveler reports of seeing one. I'm not bothered by that; they are pretty rare items, after all, probably no more than 20 known examples if you don't count 20th century Ersari (one Arabachi, the rest Tekke), so it seems unlikely that every yurthold had one.

The question of what Turkmen did with bokche probably deserves a separate thread.

Regards,

Steve Price

Any clue as to the meaning or etymology of the word Germetch? Is it pronounced "jermech" or "gurmetch"?
The configuration of a long, narrow panel with a fringe invites speculation regarding how it was used. Were there separating devices between the men's and women's side of the yurt?
If it was a dowry weaving, was the purpose to separate the area of the newlyweds from the rest of the family?
Are there any known germetch's with a back? (indicating a use as a storage device)
The use as a trapping is certainly speculative, considering the length. Was there a tradition of making items purely for decorative purposes? Even asmalyk's were used on the side of a camel. A germetch was even longer, too long for decorating a camel?.!? Could they have been an alternative to a kapunuk or torba? Is it possible that no such thing as a germetch actually exists, and it is just a misnomer?

Sorry to not provide any answers, but only more questions.

Curiously,

Patrick Weiler

Without asking questions we never find answers.

First, the easy one: how is germech pronounced? I'm not really sure how the Turkmen say it, or even if they say it at all. The way I've heard it said is with the first syllable sounding like the one in "Gertrude", not like the one in "Germany".

As for it being too deep to be a camel trapping, the pile part is not as deep as the pile part of an asmalyk, and if you count the fringe on the germech, then you need to also count the pompoms on asmalyks. So, I think camel trapping is a possibility.

I don't know of any examples with backs, but there are so few examples known that it is not inconceivable that one will come up. The fringe, though, is not like the fringe on torbas. On germech the fringe is an extension of the warps (come to think of it, that eliminates the possibility of a back). On torbas the fringe is a row of very long pile - that is, it is knotted around the warps on the foundation.

There were textiles that separated the yurt, but I don't know that any of them were done in pile. This is a possibility.

Regards,

Steve Price

Here is a guess on the derivation of germetch (pronounced as a hard ‘g’, as in ‘get.’) “Gir” (or “ger”—‘e’s and ‘i’s often change in dialects) is a Turkic root for “enter” or “entering.” The modern Turkish word for entrance is “girish”. If a germetch really had to do with a tent’s entrance and threshold, this would be a possible derivation.

Or did it come from the Mongolian ‘ger’ (yurt)? I know little about Mongolian, so I have no idea why a ‘ger’ is called a ‘ger’.

But how would you use a germetch? To keep visitors from stepping on your threshold ? One website says the following

“The door's threshold is believed to contain the spirit of the house and it is forbidden, and a great offense to the ger's owner, to step on it.” (http://www.chaingang.org/yurtquest/FAQ.html). Did a germetch remind visitors about this?

In the same vein concerning entrance and threshold-related words and textiles, “eshik tish” literally means “outside the threshold.” How does an eshik tish relate to a germetch? One puzzle leads to another.

Finally, in case you wondered about whether bags still hang in yurts, here is a link that speaks for itself. http://www.chaingang.org/yurtquest/img/ger1c.gif

Best regards, Ken

Marvin asks above whether we have anywhere a photo of a germetch in use. I think not. In fact, as far as I know, only one ensi has ever been photographed in use.

In their recent Wiedersperg collection catalog (page 29 and in a footnote), Eiland and Pinner refer to it. It is a Saryk ensi, the photo of which was republished together with an article "The Khan's Kabitka," in the London Illustrated News, March 28, 1985, 318. This photo was apparently originally published in 1885 and only recently rediscovered. Eiland and Pinner do not provide a copy of the photo and I have been pursuing it. A copy of this 1985 London Illustrated News should be within reach.

As to the conjectures we are making about how to identify a germetch, I have been watching the features that seem frequent in instances I encounter and it seems to me that germetches are being identified most frequently on the basis of design.

Specifically, "torba-shaped" (although usually wider) pieces that have two particular design features seem likely to be called "germetches."

First, they seem most usually to have the doubled and opposed "rams horn" borders that occur on a great many but not all ensis. Second the field designs seem usually to be those seen in elems and often have at their bottom a panel of the design that occurs often in the elems of ensis in particular.

It is clear that those using these designs characteristics as their defining criteria (Azadi, in Plate 22 in his "Turkoman Carpets" book, shows and argues for such an example) are looking for pieces that seem to be "design extensions" of ensis.

Azadi's example also has the feature that Marvin mentioned, the main border goes around the top and sides but not the bottom.

Wendel and Bob Emry and I recently saw a large number of transparencies of pieces in three major Turkmen collections and there were a number of pieces labelled as "germetches" among them. I cannot, though, retrieve from memory, the characteristics used to define them. (It is possible that ensis will be one of the themes of the in-hotel Turkmen exhibition at ICOC X and we talked about whether we might be able to show ensis together with possibly associated germetches.)

I did notice that the person showing us these transparencies seems to define as ensis (without taking his definition very seriously) pieces that have the double opposed "rams horn" border.

This surprised me a litte since I have seen a number of pieces thought to be ensis (usually on the basis of size, i.e., about 4'X5') that do not have this design feature.

But as I said, this person, did not treat his indicator as particularly "hard-edged."

Regards,

R. John Howe

I think photographic evidence of 19th century practices in remote places like the steppes of Central Asia is a tough standard, and probably unrealistic. A camera that you could carry around conveniently didn't exist until well into the 20th century. And, for all I know, there may be such photos in the anthropological literature with which we aren't familiar.

There are traveler's sketches of ensis in use. One of them was on the Oriental Rug Review website for awhile, although I can't find it there this morning.

The usual criteria by which things are identified as ensis include the size and a vertically asymmetric layout with a skirt at the bottom. The border you mentioned and a quartered field are common as well. Were some of the things we call ensis simply rugs? Were some of the things we call rugs used as tent doors? Who knows?

There does seem to be a grammar (or, at least a set of rules of some sort) for ensi designs and for germech as well. It would be good to have better evidence for their uses, and I am convinced that the germech was not a threshold cover at all.

Regards,

Steve Price

I quite agree and thought I said so. The person who said that was the primary critierion he used, was also quite loose about it. He wouldn't defend it at all as conclusive.

Just to be absolutely clear here are some ensis that do not have the "opposed rams horn" design in them.

Azadi, "Turkoman Carpets," Plate 16 (Yomud). Cassin and Hoffmeister, Plate 38 (Ersari) although some might argue about the bottom panel. Jourdan, Plates 138, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 149, (all Yomut) and Plates 205 and 208 (Arabatchi) and Plates 221, 222, 224 (Chodor) and Plates 247, 250, 254 and perhaps 242 (all Ersari).

And that's just the first three Turkmen books I picked up.

I was just passing on and remarking about the "soft" indicator this person said he was using. I was not, nor was he, at bottom, advocating it.

Size seems a far better possible ensi indicator but there are also some small rugs of about the 4' X 5' size that seem clearly NOT to have been ensis.

Regards,

R. John Howe