War rugs are sneered at a bit now, in part because, once it was discovered that there was a market for them, they proliferated. I frequently pass a window of what used to be called a "five and ten cents" store, Woolworth's, etc. Folks in the U. S. will know what I mean. This one has dirt cheap, hand-woven rugs, nothing higher than $199, even for a room size. They always have a couple of war rugs in the window. These are not the sort that have or will be collected.

Here are three examples from Emmett Eiland's book of Afghan war rugs that have already been collected.

A first war rug has interesting color usage and graphics that in places resemble the folk life pieces. But lots of weapons and hands reaching into Afghanistan. Like many war rugs this one is enscribed.

This second one was made in Pakistan by an Afghan refugee in 1992. Full of weapons and protesting symbolism. Since the war started about 1979, I suspect that the early ones will be considered more desirable.

A third piece is very unusual. This one mixes figures and objects from different ages. Some very traditional devices but also some very modern ones and it's clearly a war rug.

One last difference: most war rugs are pile. This one is flatwoven. Dare I mention that there are vases?

I think that Yon may be right. Considerable winnowing will go on, but I suspect that in 2101 collectors will not longer laugh much at war rugs and some experienced collectors of that age will be seeking quality specimens avidly.

I have told this before, but my upstairs neighbor is a retired Smith College professor, a world authority on Roman architecture. He told me that when Afghan war rugs first appeared he bought one as a "historical artifact." Now he doesn't pretend to know much about rugs but he's careful with language and does have a basis for determining when a phrase like "historical artifact" is appropriate. I suspect that the number of rug collectors who take his position will be considerably larger in 2101.

Regards,

R. John Howe

I disagree with the notion that Afghan war rugs will be objects of desire to those who collect ethnographic rugs in the 22nd century. They may attract people who are attracted to examples of the peculiar things to be found in shops around the late 20th and early 21st centuries.

Why? First, very few of them - probably well under 1% - are true examples of ethnographic art. The rest were produced in response to western buyers who thought rugs with pictures of tanks and guns were an interesting example of evolution of designs in response to a local situation. Second, the vast majority are of extremely poor quality in terms of materials and workmanship, not to mention artistry (not to mention artistry because what's seen as good and what's seen as bad can change so dramatically over time). Third, there are so many of them that it's a little hard to imagine rarity ever becoming a significant driving force for them.

I acknowledge that you never really know, and none of us is likely to be there to find out what's mainstream collectible 100 years down the road. But I think it unlikely that Afghan war rugs (except for the handful that can be documented to be early examples) will be among them.

Regards,

Steve Price

I don't think that at bottom we disagree.

I tried to acknowledge that most Afghan war rugs are not likely to attract much collector interest but the three I put up already have.

And while I subscribe in general to the distinction you've made between real "ethnographic" examples and the commercial knock offs, Murray Eiland has written persuasively that this distinction is a difficult one to apply since the commercial seems to have permeated even the "ethographic" rug world very early. And the collector of 2101 will likely not have all the advantages (or disadvantages) of close historical knowledge that we enjoy. This may make it harder yet, then, to make this distinction.

Your thought here reminded me of something else I should have mentioned about the sort of things that may preoccupy those who collect Afghan war rugs in the next century.

It is that some claim that if you have information on the then Soviet army's "order of battle," you can sometimes make guesses about where the weaver who wove the rug lived in Afghanistan. Apparently certain weapons or models of trucks, tanks, heliocopters, etc. were used rather exclusively in particular parts of Afghanistan.

This may lead to vigorous future ACOR presentations in which Afghan war rug collectors debate vehemently about where a given war rug weaver lived in much the way that we sometimes debate about whether a give piece is Yomut or Ersari or whatever.

Regards,

R. John Howe

Regards, Yon

John, your argument about interest in thse things being related to interest in details of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan is probably much more relevant today than it will be 100 years from now. The event is unlikely to be seen as having much historical significance except as a footnote item in descriptions of the Soviet Union's last hurrah. My guess is that the destruction of historical artifacts wrought by the Taliban once they broke free of the Russians will be seen as much more significant than the fact that the Russians occupied Afghanistan by force during the late 20th century.

Yon, you may be right, of course, but for me to be persuaded that Afghan war rugs will interest the 22nd century rug neurotics I'd need to see some basis for that interest. Maybe 22nd century collectors will simply have what I think is very bad taste. That would do it.

Regards,

Steve Price

Shall we start that "vigorous debate" right now?

Who did make those war rugs? Geographical differences aside, were they made by Pashtun? Baluch? Uzbek? Ersari? Pakistani copyists? Do we know for sure?

We seldom are able to make tribal distinctions between weavings produced in the Veramin area, even with Mr. Tanavoli's article in Hali separating a lot of them into groups. Some of them, particularly those large rectangular bagfaces with the midnight blue field, seem similar enough that they may have been made commercially. Will the same problem exist with the war rugs? Will anyone really care?

Our "close historical knowledge" is not universal, even today. Especially with the movement of weavers away from their "homes" who then make rugs of designs they are told to make and with materials from various areas such as Australia, Nepal, etc. (I believe many Iranian rugs in the late 19th century were made with Merino wool, but it is documented by which firms and what styles of rugs they were.)

By the year 2101, someone will hear the familiar lament: "Those collectors who started a long time ago in the 2070's really had the choice of good old rugs. We are stuck with just this commercial dreck that is left."

Already too late,

Patrick Weiler

NK

BTW, I'll mention that I'm an NRA life member and a handgun collector, only because I think it gives a little insight as to why I personally like these rugs.

Forgive me, please, if I offended you. You are not the only gun collector I know who is attracted to war rugs, and, like him, you recognize the connection between the two collections.

Mainstream rug collectors, though, don't find war rugs (or guns) beautiful. I suspect that you already knew that. I'm sure there will be people interested in 20th century weapons 100 years from now, and it would not surprise me at all if the same people were interested in war rugs.

I should emphasize that I am aware that some war rugs are done very well and are, in fact, authentic ethnographic art objects. I suspect that the folks who collect war rugs find the other kind not very interesting.

And, finally, there are folks who think rugs with birds and flowers are beautiful, others who prefer the geometric motifs; there are all sorts of preferences with regard to color. it isn't a moral issue of a sign of intelligence to prefer one kind over another. I suspect that the war rug genre will not be mainstream collectible in another century. I'll never really know, though, will I?

Steve Price

You wrote in part that "mainstream" rug collectors of the present, don't find Afghan war rugs "beautiful."

Well, I'm not entirely sure why some folks who we would all agree would be accurately described as "mainstream" collectors are buying some Afghan war rugs but they are. Two of those I put up belong to a gentleman we all know who is quite mainstream.

So while the thrust of your critique is likely sound, there is a contradictory devil or two in the details.

Regards,

R. John Howe

No matter what object we're talking about, somebody, somewhere collects them. Jean and I have a number of mainland southeast Asian skirts. They're beautiful, sophisticated, and almost unknown to most mainstream collectors. The fact that we collect them doesn't make them what I think of as mainstream. Likewise for Afghan war rugs.

If we don't make this kind of arbitrary distinction (mainstream collectibles to day are central Asian, Persian, Turkish and Caucasian stuff predating the 20th century, for all practical purposes), then the answer to the question, "what will collectors collect in 2101?" is "everything". This is not a very informative answer, although it's true.

Steve Price

We are likely now dealing with "nits" that may not be worth "picking," but they can be interesting.

I think your initial claim was that "main stream collectors" do not find Afghan war rugs "beautiful."

But in your last post you position seems to have shifted somewhat. You say in part: "...The fact that we collect them doesn't make them what I think of as mainstream."

No one is claiming that the fact that a "main stream collector" collects a piece makes the piece itself "main stream," only that the fact that some main stream collectors are collecting such marginal pieces suggests that they may in fact find them beautiful.

Regards,

R. John Howe

My position, more or less, is this:
1. I think most people would accept the assertion that you and I fall within the group, "mainstream collectors".
2. I collect, among other things, textiles from mainland SE Asia. You don't. You collect, among other things, stuff from Chris Walters' production. I don't.
3. I don't think mainland SE Asian stuff or Chris Walters' stuff is, currently, within the rug collector mainstream, notwithstanding the fact that there are some mainstream collectors collecting each.

The line of where the mainstream begins is poorly defined and arbitrary. The alternative to living with that fact is to simply acknowledge that everything will be collected by somebody in the 22nd century, which would leaved us precious little to talk about under the rubric of your topic.

Steve Price

Despite the views that he has set forth here, Steve has been even-handed enough to include in Turkotek's links (actually it's the first one) a site entirely devoted to Afghan war rugs.

Here is the link:
http://www.gowerhome.freeserve.co.uk/

I had not actually looked at this site until last evening but if such things interest you, you will find many of the things we talked about in this thread rehearsed there again, often in much greater detail.

Regards,

R. John Howe