A first minor point. There might be a little fuzziness with the term attribution. You talk about gerographical attribution and the ability of people to "know" that a rug is from Persia . . . Turkey whatever. Than there is the use of attribution to a group -- whether something is Salor or Tekke or whatever. I am not too sure that these two activities should be described by the same term.
The s second point I would like to raise is about your stress on the "she" who creates the rugs. I believe that some of the carpets that have survived from previous centuries where made in workshops associated with rulers. These artisans where often moved - given as gifts - taken as trophies of war -- uprooted because of war famine etc -- from one production center to another BRINGING WITH THEM THEIR STRUCTURAL KNOWHOW. From an area which is very highly documented think of the movent of composers and instrumentalist throughout Europe in the last many hundreds of years. . .from the low countries to Italy and later from Italy throughout the world -literaly. In carpets just thing of great Mughal ordering carpet makers from Persia . . .you will know many more examples than I do. So here we have a situation where either the professional would use his [or her] structural techniques to make carpets to comform with the stylistic requirments of his patrons . . . or the professional quickly and easily learning sructural techniques later to be used when he [or she] migrated or was moved again

This movement of artisans in the area of complex textiles -- gold brocades for example -- is discussed, if I remember correctly in When Silk was Gold.

Thanks for the mental exercise at four in the morning local time

Richard

Everything you say is absolutely correct, although I think the attribution to a particualr tribe within a geographic area presents the same challenges and problems as attribution to a geographic area per se, albeit usually at a somewhat finer level. And if we don't call that attribution, what can we call it?

Regards,

Steve Price

I believe that the question of attribution of workshop pieces, whether rugs or textiles, might need to be considered differently to the attribution of tribal pieces becuase of the movt. of artisans as I suggested at the start of the thread. Just because we [science?] uses a term in too wide a way does not mean that we should not feel the need for different terms

I am thinking of three "nurata region suzanis, one in my living room, one in my bedroom and a third at a local dealer. They have differnt stichwork-very different stichwork. One is mostly in chain stich, the second mostly in couched stich and the third with basma and chain on a quilted cotton. I still group them by design. . .

Try to know if a brocade is Indian or Persian or Russian or Chinese by the structure . . .

Not too coherent a letter . . . .

Sincerely

Richard