The four pieces I used for illustration, seen in the order I presented them, make up a series increasing in irregularity of drawing and of density of the embroidery. What, if anything, do these characteristics have to do with age?

Here are some possibilities:
1. Perhaps the most sparsely embroidered, most regularly drawn examples are the oldest. This was my gut reaction based on the widely accepted (maybe even correct!) belief that the oldest Turkmen weavings are spacious, the younger ones are more crowded and "busier". But we need also consider how the Turkmen progression was driven - by the wants of foreign customers as the products became commercially interesting during the second half of the 19th century. No such forces operated in the Kaitag area. Nobody even knew that these things came from there until about 1990. A historical progression from spacious to crowded is by no means universal, but seems to be associated with Turkmen work and for the reasons noted. So, while the most spacious of these embroideries may well be the oldest, I know of no evidence on which to base such a conclusion.
2. Perhaps the most irregular and densely embroidered examples are the oldest ones. This may be true, but I know of no evidence on which to base such a conclusion.
3. Perhaps neither irregularity nor density of embroidery are age-related. This may be the easiest alternative to accept. We could attribute the degree of irregularity to the interpretive style (the artistic license, if you will) of the person who made the piece. The density of embroidery may have simply been a financial consideration. Silk was an expensive commodity in remote parts of Daghestan, and one of the striking characteristics of the technique used in these embroideries is that they use the silk very efficiently. Nearly all the silk is on the surface that is visible, in contrast to most other embroidery techniques, in which much of the floss is hidden on the back of the item. Perhaps the most densely embroidered pieces were made by or for the wealthiest people.

Just some thoughts.

Steve Price

You conclude that the irregularity of the different weavings may be due to the capability of the weaver rather than the relative age of the weavings. They do all look similar enough that they could all have been woven by one weaver with an obsessive-compulsive disorder. Remember that the impressionists would paint the same scene over and over again in different ways. (Are these weavings contemporaneous with the impressionists - 3rd quarter 19th century)?
I also noticed a motif included in all of these weavings that you did not note; the appendages to the lobes of the 4-part central medallion. They are red in some, blue in others, but there definitely are "things" sticking out from the 4 lobes in all of the weavings.
Any thoughts?

Thoughtfully yours,

Patrick Weiler

I don't think the differences in drawing style reflect differences in the embroiderer's ability per se, but may be manifestations of artistic expression (using the term fairly broadly).

It's conceivable that a particular design group like this one is all the work of one embroiderer, but unlikely. If, as Chenciner reports, these items were used sort of draped over the head of a cradle until a baby was a year or so old, no family would need more than one of them at a time (except when twins happened, presumably not very often).

The consistency of so many minor details, like the one you just pointed out, makes me believe that there's something important about them to the embroiderer, and the things that are inconsistent (like whether all the containers are closed) are seen as not very important. We know so little about the culture, and the traditions were so badly disrupted by the Soviet era.

Regards,

Steve Price

You mention tradition as the reason for the similarities in these weavings. Are there any differences, other than the obvious details in their designs, in these weavings that would allow one to better group them? Do you have any close-up photos showing the construction?
We often debate the finer points of construction versus design, but seem to have no basis to do so with these embroideries. To many rug collectors, this is like walking with only one leg. Has there been any comparative study showing the comparable design features with a contemporaneous historical progression in any other art forms?
(It is hard to "drop the other shoe" if you only have one foot )

Patrick Weiler

Embroideries within this design group have a number of things in common. They have a rather broad palette compared to many other Kaitags, for example. Most of them are done on a single ground cloth, although most other Kaitag embroideries are done on ground cloths consisting of 3 to 9 pieces sewn together. Most (perhaps all) the members of this group have the outline of the design done in ink; most other Kaitag embroidery does not.

I don't really understand how date attributions on most Kaitags are done. With some, it's obvious. If the ground cloth has an inked stamp showing that it was a Russian grain bag, the embroidery can't have been made prior to about 1875. Likewise for those with synthetic dyes (although judging dyes by eye is not so easy on silk textiles). Nevertheless, the examples I've shown and the other published examples I've seen in print are all attributed to the 18th century or earlier by people who, I suppose, know how to make this judgment. If they are correct, then a historical progression in design development is probably not what these represent. There is only one dated Kaitag embroidery that I know about. I'm sure it came out of the Kaitag or Dargin district, but the embroidery technique is quite different than the corpus of known Kaitags, so it's hard to know what to make of the date in terms of using it as an anchor on which to judge the others.

There are marked differences in the luster of the silk between Kaitag embroideries (and even within single specimens). They are embroidered with wild silk. Unlike cultivated silk, the length of the strands is often rather short, and floss made from shorter strands lacks the high sheen of that made from longer strands (or from cultivated silk, in which the strands are long).

I guess the short answer to your question is, I don't know.

Regards,

Steve Price