The introductory essays for Archived Salons can be accessed by clicking on
those words, or you can return to the Turkotek
Home Page. Our forums are easy to use, and you can get
HELP or you can SEARCH the Discussion Boards.
Please enter your full name (name by which you are usually addressed plus your
last name) in the field labeled "NickName". Anonymous posting, ad hominem remarks, comments bearing on the value
of any item currently on the market or on the reputation of any seller are not
permitted.
Offset Knotting in Turkmen Ak Chuval
(read 146 times)
Marla Mallett
1. Offset Knotting in
Turkmen Ak Chuval
Dear Folks,
On my second web page I illustrated bands from one Tekke
“ak chuval” contrasting offset and non-offset sections. I
would like very much to see detail scans of bands from other
such pieces. We tend to assume that such bags originally were
ornamented with brocading or perhaps weft-substitution, but
illustrations of such knotted-pile details are normally so
tiny in book illustrations that they are impossible to study.
Can any of you scan details from chuvals in your own
collections? Either front or back—whichever shows the
structure most clearly. The fact that some of these are solid
pile, while others combine pile and a weft-faced flat weave
makes this group more interesting. Perhaps we could contrast
band details that are offset with those from bags that include
no offsets.
Best,
Marla
Date: 09-24-2001 on 02:15
p.m.
Christoph Huber
2. Re:Offset Knotting in
Turkmen Ak Chuval
Dear all To me, offset
knotting isn’t bad weaving at all - on the contrary. Offset
knotting (almost) doubles the number of the possible places
where a given knot can be wrapped. The weaver gets more
freedom in articulating designs and she isn’t anymore bound to
look at warps as being always in the same pairs. She can draw
a diagonal with “one-warp-steps” just as she could do for
example by brocading. But if a weaver is adopting an
ornament with flatweave characteristics she most probably
faces different kinds of difficulties, as can be seen on my
fragment of an ak chuval elem. It is worn and has some dye run
but I love it for the many, many irregularities and oddities.
Some difficulties are inherent to the ornament itself: The
ashik with its many changes of vertical and diagonal lines
calls for constant transitions, mostly done by knots on three
warps, sometimes warps are left unknotted. Would the ashik
have been turned by 90° all difficulties would have
disappeared at once. The problems are slightly different in
the border: Since all diagonal design elements are joined to
the (horizontal) upper and lower ends of the vertical design
elements no transitions are needed in the ornament itself but
they are in the background. And that’s an important
difference to (for example) brocading where the background
doesn’t “resist” to an uneven number of warps between design
elements. I’m rather convinced that most of the above
discussed distortions along the side borders of Jaf Kurd bags
belong the same “background-problem”. But the need for
transitions and the difficulties with them isn’t limited to
pile knotting. Any flatwoven technique which has units of a
given width and which covers the whole surface faces exactly
the same problems. That’s the reason why I here prefer
brocading for my reasoning. From this point of view a
weaving which has only its ornamentation offset knotted on a
plain ground would be more appropriate, technically “purer”
and possibly more faithful to its flatweave (brocaded?)
precursors, wouldn’t it? ‘Woven Structures’ 2.87 shows an
ak chuval elem done with pile on a plain cotton ground.
Ironically this piece doesn’t seem to be offset knotted and
therefore a knotted background wouldn’t have posed any
problems. Nevertheless does it exemplify one possible way for
the evolution of these kind of weavings from flatweave to
partially knotted to full pile. The knots adjacent to the
upper left side of the lozenge in the vertical border are all
knotted over three warps and disclose a case of dubious
workmanship which actually has nothing to do with offset
knotting: The two ornaments should have been separated by
either one warp more or one less... Best
regards, Christoph
Date: 10-01-2001 on 06:19
a.m.
Marla Mallett
3. Re:Offset Knotting in
Turkmen Ak Chuval
Dear Christoph and all,
I think your observations above are brilliant! I wish I had
thought of describing the problem of "transitions" as you’ve
outlined it. Of course the positive figures can be articulated
smoothly and perfectly with no problems in offset
knotting—exactly as in common overlay-underlay brocading—when
the background is a plain weave. Transitions only become
necessary when the background is filled in with knots. It's
different with the reciprocal brocading or reverse offset
soumak we’ve discussed in another thread, as in those
structures the two-warp-wide pattern units typically cover the
surface completely.
Now I want more than ever to see some examples of ak chuval
bands (and skirts) that combine knotting with plain weave.
Let’s see if we do find adaptations of brocaded designs, or if
the approach has been used for other design material. If
anyone knows of bookplates that are clear enough to show some
detail, please let us know. Then, we can take a look at some
more solid pile examples.
As for the ashik motif in your example: It’s ironic indeed
that the common slit-tapestry serrated form was typically
turned sideways by pile weavers because it could be
articulated more clearly that way, while here in your piece
with offset knotting, it would have worked better if presented
in the original tapestry manner. The ashik in the Woven
Structures Figure 2.87, which you noted is pile on flatweave,
is already turned so that it’s not the original tapestry form,
while other parts of the motif—the hooks—are brocade forms.
The background of that one seems a little scrambled.
Many thanks, Christoph!
Marla
Date: 10-01-2001 on 02:01
p.m.
Marla Mallett
4. Re:Offset Knotting in
Turkmen Ak Chuval
Folks,
Sophia Gates has sent photos of her very beautiful ak
chuval. The band and skirt of this weaving are solid pile,
with offset knotting. The skirt motif, in the first photo,
offers an example of Christoph’s “background problem,” while
knotting in the entire narrow band, in the second photo, is
offset, except for its vertical elements. Comments, Christoph?
Larger versions of the motif in the narrow band have
appeared in Anatolian reciprocal brocades where they have
different proportions and more detail. I’ll try to find some
examples. Can anyone give us some background on the skirt
motif?
Many thanks, Sophia!
Marla
Date: 10-02-2001 on 01:23
p.m.
Marvin Amstey
5. Re:Offset Knotting in
Turkmen Ak Chuval
Here we go again: what does
the motif represent? A plant, a tree, two animals on top of
two more animals, or as Jim Allen might surmise, a soaring
eagle? Anything you want it to be is the correct answer. The
motif is known on other Ak juval skirts. This is a nice one,
Sophia. Regards, Marvin
Date: 10-02-2001 on 04:43
p.m.
Patrick Weiler
6. Re:Offset Knotting in
Turkmen Ak Chuval
Marvin,
The design represents a two-headed Turkotek with arms out
in the traditional "HUH?" position.
Helpfully,
Patrick Weiler
Date: 10-03-2001 on 12:19
a.m.
Christoph Huber
7. Re:Offset Knotting in
Turkmen Ak Chuval
Dear all
A very nice ak chuval and quite near to Moshkova/O’Bannon,
Carpets of the People of Central Asia, Fig. 93. The white
pile is cotton, right? On my one it’s white wool. The
ornament of Sophia’s elem sits on every second ashik-“tree” on
my elem and I think it’s interesting to compare the two
versions.
Both versions have in the down pointing jags (the elbows[?]
of the two-headed Turkoteks - Patrick, I think you’re right)
two little parts which need some transitions in the ornament
itself. The main difference in the context of our
discussion seems to me that in my version those areas of the
white background which need some transitions are “encircled”
by elements of the ornament. I mean, if Sophia’s elem would
have been decorated with my version of the ornament, every row
of knots would have been “entering” or “leaving” the ornament
crossing a diagonal so that the whole background between the
ornaments would have been offset. But that’s not the case
on both elems which can be seen on the front quite easily if
the piece is as worn as is my one.
The reason why areas of the background offset knotted on
the left of the ornament are regular on the right can be seen
on the back.
Transitions (here knots over three warps) are always on the
left edges of the ornament. The weaver knotted as long as
possible either regularly or offset until she reached a
vertical or diagonal which forced her to change the way of
knotting. Would she have made the transitions (where
necessary) on both sides of the ornaments she could have made
the background either fully regular or fully offset knotted.
This points to the possibility that she didn’t care much how
the weaving looks after it has got some wear, doesn’t
it? Does anyone know of an ak chuval elem with either
wholly regular or wholly offset knotted background?
There is an additional way she made the transitions in and
between some of the ashik-jags.
In the tip one warp remains without a knot, in the next row
follows a normal knot in the third two overlapped knots (I
think) in the forth two normal knots and so on...
Plate LVII and LVIII in Moshkova/O’Bannon show patterns of
ak torbas and ak chuvals. 4 of the total 27 ornaments could be
offset knotted without any transitions. One of them, LVIII/1
is a variant of my border, lacking the vertical stems. A
related ornament adorns the (surely wholly offset knotted)
three white bands of the ak chuval on Fig. 94. LVIII/2 is
the above discussed motif used as a border-ornament.
Best regards, Christoph
Date: 10-03-2001 on 05:38
p.m.
Marla Mallett
8. Re:Offset Knotting in
Turkmen Ak Chuval
e-Mail from Sophia:
Here's a picture of a pile chuval, Tekke, with a very
similar elem pattern to Christoph's ak chuval.
So I was
very hopeful of finding offset knots. But alas, as you can see
from this scan of the bck, there don't seem to be any
offsets.
Worse, the elem is somewhat the worse for
wear, so we'll never know if there were any Turkoteks
attached.
PS, the pile on the ak chuval is cotton. I
hadn't noticed the similarity of the ornaments to the ones
crowning Christops' ashiks! That's really neat. I had assumed
they were shrubs, or trees, now I wonder if they aren't birds?
Best, and many
thanks, Sophia
Date: 10-04-2001 on 12:52
p.m.
Marla Mallett
9. Re:Offset Knotting in
Turkmen Ak Chuval
This has gotten complicated.
Someone asked if I could sum up what’s been noted so far, in
simple, plain language. I’ll try.
It looks as though there have been several kinds of
approaches to articulating designs in densely knotted ak
chuval bands and skirts, though we need to look at many more
before drawing conclusions. So far, we can note that the
following occur:
1. Knotting on a plain, weft-faced ground can be offset or
not, as the weaver pleases. (No example posted yet; still
hoping for one…). Christoph has hypothesized that the earliest
examples of (overlay-underlay) brocade motifs copied in pile
on ak chuval may have been these, because no “background
problems” would occur. In other words, because no knots need
be “filled in” for the background, no irregularies are
confronted there (as with common brocading), no knot
transitions need be used outside motifs. Designs can include
both vertical and diagonal design parts, although combining
them may require knot transitions within the motifs--if a
single design part has both vertical and diagonal edges, side
by side.
2. Designs in full pile, including only diagonals. These
can be executed completely with offset knotting, continuously
across the weaving’s width, with no knot transitions
necessary. (Examples, Moshkova, p. 227, Plate LVIII, 1, a
couple from Plate LVII, and the white narrow bands in
Moskova’s Figure 94.) These seem most likely to be designs
derived from overlay-underlay brocading.
3. Motifs in full pile (such as the narrow band from
Sophia’s bag), which may also have come from brocading, with
only small vertical elements (central triangular forms, in
this instance) providing pattern breaks and requiring knot
transitions.
4. Designs in full pile with both verticals and diagonals,
derived from a variety of sources, altered and combined to
suit the weaver’s fancy. (Examples: Sophia’s all-over skirt
motif, and Christoph’s askik tree.) Offset knotting cannot be
continuous, because between diagonal and vertical pattern
lines transitions of some sort are needed—skipped warps,
single-warp knots, overlapped knots, or knots on three warps.
What have I left out, Christoph? Or mistated? Any more
theories?
The lesson is that from a close study of the knotting
techniques involved, we should learn something about how the
designs evolved, and probably trace their sources in other
structures.
