Posted by Steve Price on 10-31-2002 10:49 AM:

Geographic Attribution of Anatolian Kilims

Hi People,

Have I just missed it, or is there little or no published information on geographic attribution of Anatolian kilims? Apart from all the books with pictures and statements of where this or that kilim was made, I'm not aware of much helpful stuff for attribution.

If there is no good source, would anyone like to create one within this Salon? It seems like an appropriate place for it. If there are good sources already, it would be useful for them to be cited here.

Regards,

Steve Price

Posted by R. John Howe on 10-31-2002 06:25 PM:

Steve -

From my own Anatolia kilim books it appears that attribution is a tricky thing.

Cootner commenting on the Jones collection says almost nothing about attribution.

Petsopoulos, in his larger 1979 volume gives geographic attributions but does not justify them. So also with Peter Davies.

Oddly the book that seems to come closest is the fairly unpretentious, bargain book, "Kilim: The Complete Guide" by Hull and Luczyc-Wyhowska. This book presents kilims by the location in which they are claimed to have been woven and provides a box for each location, in which it describes typical features under the headings of:

Design
Size and Shape
Materials
Structure
Colours
Fringe
Selvedge
Remarks

I don't know what experienced kilim hunters like Michael Bischof would say about these characteristics or whether they function to permit one to make attributions based them, but they seem to come closest to what you are talking about.

Regards,

R. John Howe

Posted by Michael Bischof on 11-02-2002 03:50 AM:

Hallo everybody,

to use this book as a raw and first approach is a good idea. It is written for dealers and consumers of kilims that are woven today
so it sorts pieces according to their design as they are produced by contemporaneous cottage industry. In some cases, and as the most easy first step to begin with, it is sufficient.

For deeper studies it will not help, however. With kilims a lot of basic things are unknown. As we had written in the Krefeld catalogue
( "Early kilims from the mountains west of Konya" , text in German ) in detail if one uses the term "origin" it must be defined. "Origin" might express



Now imagine a particular design was woven by a distinct group that was focussed at a certain area near Sivas at beginning of the 17th century, moved later to a place in Cappadocia and, from the beginning of the 19th century onwards, partially to a place near Isparta. - In this case one might find the same design in at least a triple set of variations ( not the design will be different: the yarns, especially the dyes, certain minor details in the design which do not affect the overall image) in about 3 "areas". As most of the "origin" is traded as dealers fairy tales one normally would know only the next big trade center: the area near Sivas would result in Sivas or Kirsehir, the Cappadocian area in Aksaray and Isparta would result in something between Isparta or Burdur.
Proper research would aim, of course , to find out what is the case. Notice, please, that without doing that we cannot try to establish
whether the design (the motives) have any "iconographic content" or not as we cannot place the weaves into their original context.

Some years before this thing surfaced in Munich in a setting that I found fascinating:
Jürg Rageth, the textile worlds most likely best congress organizator, lectured on the discovery of a small sized white-ground prayer rug in Switzerland. He had been busy to collect a lot of parallel pieces and it was an impressive show of slides. While he did this a similar sized white-ground prayer rug ( dated, as far as I remember, and somehow "earlier" than the pieces that Jürg mentioned) owned by the Museum für Völkerkunde was displayed on the same stage where Rageth did his speech, 5 m or so distant from him. Jürg treated "his" carpet as a workshop carpet, as well as the other pieces that he showed. Later the same morning a lady ( from the museum staff or from the Munic University, as far as I remember) lectured about Ottoman price lists for carpets. There workshop pieces from this area (!) were mentioned and local cottage industry carpets: the prices differed more than 10fold !
Later, in the break after his speech, one could enter the stage and have a close look at the white-ground rug. Just looking to the yarns and dyes one could easily identify this rug as a workshop product: all the yarns there are made in the same fineness, as a "standard". The dyes: top of the quality range possible for those huge factory-like dyeing plants that accompanied the workshop centres, uniform quality, for instance a deep blue-like violet from madder only. The weave very fine, extreme fine standard wefts - a perfect workshop product, technically for sure the upper end of its class.
But the pieces that Rageth showed were completely different though of the same (!) design principle:
these were all from an interesting group of local cottage industry born small sized "Selendi" prayer rugs from the 17th century: local people copied with own yarns, locally dyed by professional dyers for them, using their own design variations of the basic workshop design. But, as we have stressed here in our essay ( see, please,original and geometrical for details ), the motives of the border may be changed, certain details in the mihrab may be done in a different way. Whatever, as long as the basic lay-out and the white ground is kept all the numerous carpets of this origin are recognizable immediately and they are clearly the results of individual efforts, some good, some bad, but always without the unformity of the workshop product. Technically they are more coarse, the dyes sometimes excellent, more often than not they cannot rival with the results of the best dye masters of their time - who worked in these workshops, of course. But certain very high flying results that a professional workshop guy would not be allowed to do, may come from this background: especially madder rosy-red or similar expensive nonesense, to express the basis idea of "plenty" or "look, we've got it ..."

This "cottage industry 17th century" cannot be compared to today ( where the weaver is forced to execute ready designs from millimeter paper). Weavers worked on the ground of their own textile tradition ( the workshop designs have been extracted from this and subjugated to a kind of refinement process applying painters who worked out the designs: nearly all classical carpets that incorporate the geometrical style have this source , the floral "revolution" was later !) and could modify and enhance ( or "en-worse") these basic designs lay outs. The results of this approach ( to be exact: some of the best results that we found) we estimate, in the sense of art or aesthetiques, higher than the workshop pieces. But as we stressed so many times: the artist is in command in this socio-economic frame-work.

A pity that Jürg missed this difference. For these reasons we think it is indispensable to get hold of the real origin of the piece - this is the condition sine qua non to be able to define the character of weave - and then we can start to build measures.

Greetings,

Michael Bischof

Posted by R. John Howe on 11-07-2002 06:10 AM:

Michael -

Since you've made determination of georgraphic source of a piece so important in your proposed grading system, it seems to me that it also becomes important to ask whether we are in a position to make this determination.

I asked this question in another thread and Mike Tschebull has spoken to part of it, but is the testimony of a picker about where a piece was found going to be a reliable basis for determining the place where it was made?

It's clear to me from what you report above that you believe you can distinguish workshop pieces from those woven in the country-side by individual weavers, seemingly mostly on the basis of the uniformity of the materials. Workshop pieces are made from materials with greater uniformity than are country-side pieces.
But this set of recognitions doesn't seem to advance the determination of where a given country-side piece was woven.

What seems troubling about accepting the picker's testimony is that the hallmark of the picker is that he/she is directly and primarily involved in the commercial side of things. As I think, Tschebull has also suggested, a picker is very likely to be working under pressures that make him/her shade reports of where given pieces are found in terms of what might be seen as desirable or what might bring a larger price in the market.

And it does not seem possible to replicate the picker's experience even if one returns to the indicated site and asks questions. Those reports too can be shaded.

You have been so careful and demanding with regard to evidence and standards in other areas of your scheme, why are you so ready to accept the testimony of pickers about where they say they have found these pieces?

Perhaps I am misunderstanding deeply.

Regards,

R. John Howe

Posted by Michael Bischof on 11-08-2002 07:04 AM:

Hallo everybody, hello R. John Howe,


" It's clear to me from what you report above that you believe you can distinguish workshop pieces from those woven in the country-side by individual weavers, seemingly mostly on the basis of the uniformity of the materials. Workshop pieces are made from materials with greater uniformity than are country-side pieces.
But this set of recognitions doesn't seem to advance the determination of where a given country-side piece was woven."

Yes, but not only that: the crucial point is whether the weave was done without or with a ready design or, what applies for the cottage industry "village rugs" of the second half of the 19th century, from a set of basic "design units" but with the aim to have a certain standard quality in a short time - to earn money. From this point of view the piece of Tracy differs from the other later ones in this respect: "her" weaver admitted more time and creative thoughts, as I guess.

" And it does not be possible to replicate the picker's experience even if one returns to the indicated site and asks questions. Those reports too can be shaded."

Several reasons: the areas where they work are fixed by an informal kind of agreement between them. The "nex-level" dealers know the area too. In case something comes up that does not fit into the hitherto collected experiences they would check it anyway, for the sake of their own business. You are write : one tends to believe to the picker because there is no alternative. On the other hand:
within quite more than 20 years I never came across one example where a picker seemed to have lied. What we propose on how to secure the information would never work when there is the slightest smell of by-passing the picker. In many cases one knows the picker and knows even from exactly what place he got it. In other cases which I will not describe here in more details one has to do with even a group of people and knows even where the pieces in question have been. In one case ( that I could witness, of course) we recommended a specialist collector/dealer even to view particularly the place where a group of pieces was from. He went there on his own. Himself he does not speak Turkish, but the taxi driver with whome he makes all such trips since many years is a Turk.

The number of pieces that one get directly from private houses is small - and even more so when we speak of early material.

To repeat it again ( what we described in detail in the Krefeld catalogue discussing the origin of a certain group of early kilims from the Hinterland of Konya): it is never clear whether a certain type of kilim belongs to a region/a village/a certain ethnic group that once regularly passed this place where the piece then is taken from. This must be checked by following reserach - but in case on does not even know this place how and where can one start to research ?

Greetings,

Michael Bischof

Posted by David R.E. Hunt on 11-15-2002 10:25 PM:

Attribution

Michael and All-An interesting and telling question, this wondering why the formal reasearchers and museums seem to shun carpets and related textiles. I believe that this phenomena can be attributed to the presence of three major obstacles, (1) in respect to the arts in general,and the allocation of scarce and finite resources in particular, western museums tend to concentrate their energies upon indigenous arts (i.e.,painting,sculpture, ect.,) and (2) the multidisciplinary nature of weaving research, the requisite integration of such broad and diverse research data presents a daunting and formidable task. And (3)provenance is for the majority of all carpets, and especially antiques, unascertainable to the exacting degree required by serious research. It is one of lives great ironies yet should come as no suprise, that it is these three said qualities, exotic, multidiscplinary, and guile, which I believe most attract us to Oriental weavings, representing such as they do a form in diametric opposition to our metered and westernized lives. This is not to state that weaving research is futil or pointless, but an attempt to identify and understand it's limitations. I find especially promising this Josephine Powell Anatolan kelim project , for I personally believe that neither, design, materials, or weave technique in themselves will provide enough information to correctly assess the development of weaving history and adequately divine the progressions of a weaving culture. It is through some Multidisciplinary Theory of Design Evolution, in which a convergence of facts, based upon a three point criteria of design, materials, and technique, will emerge and form a natural, linear chronology representative of the history and evolution of weaving.-Dave

Posted by Patrick Weiler on 11-16-2002 12:09 PM:

Beneath

David,

I also suspect that kilims (and rugs) have not been collected and displayed by museums because they fall into the category of "decorative arts" as opposed to "fine arts". This gives them less "value" as art in the eyes of the "Art" world. That has caused the historical lack of care in documentation, such as where they were made, by whom and for what purposes. Kilims are said to have been used to wrap rugs for shipment to the West. For one thing, they were big enough. For another, they weren't as "valuable".

This seems to parallel the situation with Japanese woodblock prints. They were used to wrap goods shipped to the West also. Only now is their value appreciated. Many were destroyed as "packing material" when they arrived.

Similarly, I recall going on a salmon fishing trip some 30 years ago. We caught several salmon, but also some albacore tuna which we threw overboard. They weren't any "good" back then. Now we know better. We would keep the tuna. And the wood block prints and the kilims.

Patrick Weiler

Posted by Michael Bischof on 11-17-2002 07:32 AM:

Hallo everybody, dear Dave, dear Patrick,

"This is not to state that weaving research is futil or pointless, but an attempt to identify and understand it's limitations. I find especially promising this Josephine Powell Anatolan kelim project , for I personally believe that neither, design, materials, or weave technique in themselves will provide enough information to correctly assess the development of weaving history and adequately divine the progressions of a weaving culture. It is through some Multidisciplinary Theory of Design Evolution, in which a convergence of facts, based upon a three point criteria of design, materials, and technique, will emerge and form a natural, linear chronology representative of the history and evolution of weaving."


" I also suspect that kilims (and rugs) have not been collected and displayed by museums because they fall into the category of "decorative arts" as opposed to "fine arts". This gives them less "value" as art in the eyes of the "Art" world. "
Patrick Weiler said. I agree: but the perspective is important. What I cannot understand is the fact that "ethnographic" museums in most cases hold big collections of city-based artisanry ( ceramics, metal-work), where we have indeed an international Islamic culture - but this is insignificant, more or less, for an anthropological point of view. When there are weaves in most cases these are again insignificant city-based things ( or "city-inspired"). Very old cottage-industry based weaves, like Siebenbürgen or early Ladiks,
one many indeed find in Romania or over the whole Balkan or may be in Mossul - because of their inherent character they have been traded in the moment they came from the loom. Of course such a thing may occassionally happen with kilims or real village rugs as well, especially if their source is not too far from the coast.
I heard ( but could see no pictures) that some "Antalya" type of kilims were found in Ethiopia and I saw a Central Anatolian saf type kilim on the floor of a mosque in Kanton/China. But this is the exception.
May be I am naive. But this weaving culture is at the root of the peoples in the Near and Middle East and should have much more attention by professional anthopologists as we guess - and then one would have a better balance against legitimate dealers interests
in this field, which, until today, produces too much "tapitolyrics" type of "intelligence". The subject is fascinating enough. We do not need this type of auxilliary.

"This is not to state that weaving research is futil or pointless, but an attempt to identify and understand it's limitations. I find especially promising this Josephine Powell Anatolan kelim project , for I personally believe that neither, design, materials, or weave technique in themselves will provide enough information to correctly assess the development of weaving history and adequately divine the progressions of a weaving culture. It is through some Multidisciplinary Theory of Design Evolution, in which a convergence of facts, based upon a three point criteria of design, materials, and technique, will emerge and form a natural, linear chronology representative of the history and evolution of weaving."

Yes, of course, that's why we supported that in our starting essay. But such research should not be left to private initiatives as long as one has professional stuff at museums and universities.
For the significance I find the wood block print example excellent !

Greetings,

Michael

All times are GMT -5 hours. The time now is 08:43 AM.
Show all 8 posts from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.2.6
Copyright © Jelsoft Enterprises Limited 2000, 2001.