Home Page Discussion Boards

Salon du Tapis d'Orient

The Salon du Tapis d'Orient is a moderated discussion group in the manner of the 19th century salon devoted to oriental rugs and textiles and all aspects of their appreciation. Please include your full name and e-mail address in your posting.


by Michael Bischof and Memduh Kürtül

If we look back we must confess that all the major exhibitions in Europe in the last years dealt with kilims. Piled pieces were not excluded but played a minor role. Specifically, the exhibitions include "Kult-Kilim" in Köln; the wonderful special show-and-tell on a castle in the Mühlviertel in northwestern Austria (collection Dr. Prammer), Traunstein (kind of "Yayla 2" ), Graz (under the leadership of Helmut Reinisch), the important congress on radiocarbon dating of kilims and the accompanying exhibition in Riehen/Basel (organized by Jürg Rageth), the combination of important kilims and steel sculpture in Essen (my, M.B, personal favourite of all kilim exhibitions until now) and now "Kelim, Textil Kunst aus Anatolien" in the Deutsches Textilmuseum in Krefeld, until May 5, 2003.

A new couple that had its outing in 1999 with the publication "Kultkelim" and the exhibition in Cologne under the same title in 1999 are Sabine Steinböck and Harry Koll, the latter being a ceramic artisan, who mount their flatweaves themselves. It was accompanied by a collector's meeting and there, for the first time, people began to discuss kilims, started to look for and to develop measures for quality. It started with an unusual early Ermenek kilim fragment (1, pl. 16 ; 2, pl. 28, "reconstructed" electronically): is this an unusual creative weave or a mishappened one? Of course there was no generally accepted conclusion, Harry Koll and Sabine Steinböck voting for the first, Peter Andrews and I (M.B.) opting for the second possibility. But it was the first serious public discussion of this theme in Germany.

Now, after 3 years and after enjoying the success of their book (1) they prepared one exhibition more, bigger and more courageous, in the Deutsches Textilmuseum Krefeld. The catalogue includes 60 colour plates of excellent  print and colour rendition quality and a longer text, where general aesthetics are discussed (Harry Koll, Heinz Meyer), a particular type, kilims composed with stripes is introduced (again Harry Koll, Heinz Meyer), a distinct group from a mountainous areas southwest of Konya is dissected (Michael Bischof) and camelid wool in flatweaves is viewed in detail.

Out of view for the normal visitor is the fact that all these major exhibitions have been initiated and prepared by private collectors -   no dealers (1), no museums.  The latter gave space - in this way one should express it. And now, after for more than 20 years the worlds leading museums and ethnographic departments of the Western countries leading universities did not develop anything mentionable (8) it seems that it will be the again the "private sector" of collectors and supporters which will research the background of ethnographically important valuable flatweaves. Strange ...

What is so special about kilims?

The exhibition in Essen and this one mark a new level: until recently hunting, collecting and researching kilims was a non-mainstream pioneering effort. Its first phase one may call "primary accumulation". Of course, while doing it, it was essential all the time to collect and digest all data and develop a kind of picture in the own brain: one cannot run wild and hope to jump into spheres that were hitherto unknown. Hunting and collecting both need an educated, well informed "vision" of the object and its "frames". Only then is it possible to develop an idea where further search might be fruitful.

There were no public discussions about these issues, however,leaving some hot and embryonic talks about the meaning of motives aside. Exhibitons showed acquisitions; "Mr. Miller proudly presents ... ", this type. That is over now. The number of great pieces that surfaced per year did not increase. The saying that prices soured are talks in vain: just the unlucky pieces that did not sell well circulate quicker, some "new" piece in Istanbul had been on offer in Southern Germany a year before ...,  and such items that the target people did not want to buy or that have some inherent problems, known only to insiders, command lower prices now. This is not an entirely new feature.

Kilims have one primary advantage over pile rugs: their degree of authenticity is much higher! Pile weaves are no nomadic habit anyway, a kind of "derivative" exploit of the superior knowhow on sheep, wool, fibre processing and weaving that these Turko-Mongolic cultures developed and therefore a major trading object. But for the own use they are secondary. And: they are much more subject to marketing influences even at very early times.

R. John Howe describes a recent exhibition in Washington and cites Walter B. Denny on some early rugs: "And third, are the few recently discovered carpets that can be conceivably dated to the 13th century. He also makes much of vertical to horizontal knot ratios as a likely indicator of age, with those close to 1:1 estimated as both older and closest to other design sources (e.g., ceramics, bookplates, etc.) from which the designs in carpets may have been transferred." - For those readers who could manage to come close to the making of rugs the net content reads then like this: this 1:1 ratio is the most easy available way to transfer alien motives to carpets - but leads to weaves of a much lower degree of sophistication, much less appropriate, than a gabbeh type of weave with a highly asymmetric ratio and many very fine wefts (as shown as early on some porcelain camel figurines of the T'ang dynasty in China, together with some Turkic camel drivers - we mean this extreme flexible but highly stable kind of weaves that one could put over a camel) would have been. So even in the 13th century there is documentation of alien design sources of carpets. The younger carpets (14th-17th century) are more evolved then and, as our guess is, in future evaluation in a textile art discussion frame would rank higher!

In the 13th century a kind of evolution started (but did not yet reach its peak!). Flatweaves like kilims or other utility weaves in flatweave techniques have not been subject to such commercial considerations. It is easier for the weaver to "invent", or change, the design at work - so there is a much higher degree of command that the artist has: from a textile art point of view an upmost desirable status (2). Even with quite old village rugs it is very difficult to sort out such alien influences. And a coarse village adaption ("absteigendes Kulturgut") of a court design we propose to place lower in any evaluation scheme, however handsome it might appear at a first glance.

Kilims therefore are much closer to the primary source of this textile art tradition and, in the long run, impress especially people with a very long "textile education", including early classical carpets as well as plain beginners who are shocked off by the late pile carpets and their contemporaneous carpetoid followers. This keeps their attractiveness high although most of them have one disadvantage: they are too big for normal sized appartements. Why this interest is so much higher in Europe than in Northern America, where it had a splendid start at the ICOC in San Francisco, we do not know. Maybe this success killed the ambition of potential collectors who thought they could not equal the high quality seen there? Erroneous: the following years did not give witness for such thoughts, just the opposite - but the great pieces went mainly to Europe. The most comprehensive reference books for the "leading kilims" are (3) and (4) and contain mainly material that is in European collections.

Collecting early kilims is still a kind of pioneering enterprise. As such it brings much more chances for the collector when compared with walking on well known and established paths - but, of course, also additional risks. No risk, no gain. There are serious "holes" in what we shouldknow about kilims in order to go on with better "educated" collecting. As a matter of fact, and with certain good reasons, all the important kilims have not been in auctions and have been purchased and "processed" on a kind of side track, apart from the established trade. This way of dealing with this matter posesses quite new risks that we had mentioned here before.

In a flatweave the wool must be of quite higher quality than in a pile weave. One views nearly the whole length of the fiber. Therefore the dyes must be much more saturated and clear to display a striking beauty - with a pile rug a more mediocre quality might still achieve a good result. Because of this factor, leaving aside any design considerations, the pure sensorial pleasure of colour is quite higher with striking kilims.

As kilims are more close to the originalenvironment of a weaver and in most cases woven for the own use the amount of self-made supplemental dyes is in kilims much higher than in piled pieces. This is an ambivalent situation: as far as we could find out the valuable primary dyes in all antique pieces had been made by professional dyers, not by the weavers themselves, so these must have been costly in the pre-synthetic era. In order to save money or, may be, just because this dyer was half a day or even further removed in the next township but certain dyes were used up, own dyes were applied.

Here we have a problem: though, theoretically, any motivated person can develop to be master dyer even without any technical or scientific background (3) very often "minor" dyes were made (4) and woven into kilims. Sometimes this can result in gorgeous and skillful colour combinations (where the minor dye is used to highlight the major dyes in a sophisticated way) or increase a certain "naive charm" (by enhancing abrash), but very often this lowered the aesthetical quality of the flatweaves. Especially the common walnut browns are not very fast against light oxidation and fade to some quite ugly "faecal" brownish-green-grey - big areas of this particular dye make the piece look "flat" then (compare 2, pl. 56 and pl. 60, late stripe kilims, for this effect of "minor dyes"). Therefore, much more than with piled weaves, the rule is: the unique piece is unique...

Early kilims from the Southern Central Anatolian Toros Mountains

The earliest (?) and most important flatweave from one of later mentioned "lots" is this kilim with a bold and "archaic" appearance. It is the oldest dated Anatolian kilim ( 1178 = 1765 AD.). Its graphic is unique as well. One "hook" is approximately 70 cm (!) in height.

(1) Ermenek kilim, 334 x 123 cm (2 , pl. 29)

Similar to being forced to explain a joke, here we have a problem: the photograph can by no means transport the impact of the dyes of this piece. Its fluorescent red is stunning - but admittedly not seen on this picture. For sure even more unique is the blue. Normally collectors like to talk about dyes, as most of them, unfortunately, do not see them. Here it is different: a lot of collectors immediately asked whether the blue is "real Indigo" when this kilim was first shown in Essen. No, it is not - it is far better. Most likely it is a mixture between natural Indigo plus woad (the area has quite some of it). Drawing parallels of dyeing experiments that we have done we can conclude that this leads to a shift in the composition of the dye (more Indirubin in relation to Indigotin ) and the vat dyes are "deposited" in the fiber in a different way. It seems, at the same time, to be deeper and much more vivid, more "eye catching". Until today this is the only kilim that we have seen that shows this woad blue. The yellows are mixed, the upper one quite faded.

Weaving is a kind of "body language", controlled by a "muscle memory". In case we have a telephone talk and, while talking or listening, draw some "abstract" figures on some paper, the ideas coming directly from the underconscious brain. This kilim shows in some details how the weaver assembles big motives out of such small units and how she can play with them successfully - as long as she accepts the "grammatical rules" which are incorporated inside this "geometrical" motif system.We recognize three different attempts in the 3 lower "hooks". Was the creative brain empty with the two upper ones?

As a conclusion: try, when viewing the picture, to imagine its real space - and then see it "live"! Photos, and this description, are not a substitute for this real experience.

Because of the importance that the visual impact has for such early pieces greatest care was taken of the wash.

Such pieces are never found by accident. It is always more than one piece, it is a whole "lot" of mixed pieces, "mixed" in quality, age, size, etc. The working principle is "the winner takes it all", but the lot is too big for one hunter-dealer and/or not the whole thing is appropriate. So the material is distributed: dealers who can sell for $15,000 get that pieces, dealers able to sell for up to $1,000 get those. And, like the real retail business works alike, each dealer is shown only "his" kind of material. So he would not know about the total content of the lot. That is the exlusive privilege of the people that are close enough to the "picker".

Together with this kilim a very unusual small kilim surfaced with a total different design. Its end shirts are like Rageth (4, pl. 45), the wool is the same, the weave a bit finer, even some dyes (went to the above mentioned dealer). And a bold little prayer kilim. Again: same wool, some dyes are the same, same weave - this went to another dealer, at the same time (!).

According to our system of grading all these were "B-pieces". Just by chance we could trace them back and, together with other material that surfaced some years later - again with identical wool, weave, dyes like pl. 45 in (4)- we can conclude now from which area they all came. In addition this is an excellent confirmation for a thesis that Dr. Jasmin Hofmacher and I (M.B.) introduced at a workshop of the Freundeskreis orientalischer Teppiche und Textilien as early as 1991: that in order to compare kilims (and rugs!) one should not pay attention first to the design (as this is the most easily variable element! see footnote 6), but to the wool, the dyes, the weave and to the small design elements that are not essential for creating the overall picture of the piece. These elements are far less variable.

Another early kilim from this region, but not from this lot, is shown here:

Getting back the picture - "Reconstruction"

A common problem of early kilim is their condition. As they are more sensitive to use as compared to pile weaves they are "used up" more quickly. Early material more often than not comes on us in a miserable condition, even in fragmented forms. So it is not easy to imagine the original image. If washed properly it is possible to prevent further losses of dyes and to recover the necessary vividness of the dye lakes. But this cannot fill holes. To restore early kilims is normally not a recommendable idea. A newly introduced technique which is used here first in a bigger scale is what Harry Koll and Sabine Steinböck called "reconstruction" with electronic means, something obtained from processing digital pictures, and shown with several examples in the catalogue (2): compare please pl. 28 of the catalogue with a picture showing the piece in its original status.

We guess that this is a far more "soft" method than those "new" techniques that are too often used in "improving" the picture of such fragments since about 1992 and about which we had reported here. This kilim is as well an early Mut-Ermenek piece and had stimulated a lot of fruitful discussions about "creativity" in "traditional" art.

The basic approach - spaces and stripes

If one leaves aside the possibility of using only one colour for a weave the most basic approach in creating an image in kilim technique is the alternate use of stripes and coloured spaces between them. This type of striped kilim is, by the way, the most commonly seen design idea in Anatolia.

The vast majority of striped kilims - early, very old or "semi-antique" does not matter much - are simply boring. Being a normal utility piece weavers apparently had no motivation to think too much about what they do when weaving striped kilims. In old or even early pieces one has the pleasure of nice yarns and saturated dyes together with a tendency to either a joyful overall colour atmosphere or to a severe dark gloom. In late pieces (all natural dyes, in remote areas till about 1960 they used partially natural dyes for this type) the taste of combining colours is different: though often enough the saturation is not that bad they are put together so that the overall look is much less contrasty and appears to be somehow "flat" (again, compare (2) ,pl. 60).

In case one offers good natural dyed yarns to ambitious modern weavers the least thing they want to do is a striped kilim. Maybe such answers surprise. But they have a logic: the smaller the amount of "allowed" stylistic elements are the more difficult it is to create a not boring or even charming, entertaining kilim. They know that top quality natural dyes are expensive and they fear not being able to achieve a convincing result. In old times no other dye material was available anyway. So this was used. And by chance sometimes a weaver had the ambition and the time to think a bit about what she does - these "lucky stripes" then can be overwhelming - as this approach is the furthermost consequent in kilim weaving. Stripes and spaces can create wonderful rhythms - and rhythm brakes.

Avanos kilim, 309 x 166 cm (2 , pl. 47 )

It was woven in the township of Avanos in Cappadocia and reflects the favourite dyes of the local dyer craftsmen as they also appear in the early kilims and pile pieces of this region. Therefore one has a sound basis for comparisons. What creates the apealling sunny effect? Of course this type of yellow (from Rhamnus petiolaris) plus the many variations of this one dye that occur in the piece. In case these variations (admittedly enhanced by obvious effects of dye fading) would not be there it would have effected the rhythm of the weave in a negative way. In this case we admit that most likely this kilim in mint conditions would have had less impact than in its present condition. There were a lot of handwoven Calvar fabric pieces (made from very fine handspun yarns; black, but dyed! A luxury habit - natural browns and blacks are visually "poor spots" in a weave when compared to real dye lakes) sewn to fix the holes. Therefore this piece must have some age...

The exhibition is the first one (another pioneering detail) that has the courage to show a lot of striped kilims. The earliest one is in our opinion pl. 35 from the Karaman-Eregli area which comes close to the oldest known material of this type from this region. Sometimes the concept of striped kilims is losing strength by placing stripes with smaller motives. In case the space in between is made up with slightly abrashed camelid wool the result can still be quite convincing as shown in (2, pl. 7).

Streifen-Kelim mit Kamelwolle 225 x 79 cm (2, pl. 7 )

(Striped Kelim with Camel Wool)

Building "measures" ...

After the "primary accumulation" seems to be finished more or less now the urgent aim is to research and understand what the harvested material means. In other terms: one has to develop measures as this type of art is unknown, still. "Standards" are necessary. Without advocating a dogmatic schedule pieces are evaluated now and put into some order of quality. There are simplistic claims (this is art because it has some impact on me...) or, even more one-eyed: this piece is older ... (and therefore better). This attitude which stratifies weaves according to the (subjective emotional) impression of "early" that they create seems dominant - how many people are around to have enough experience to realize that the ghostly early condition of many fragments does not tell anything about their real age? This not outspoken preference for the "appearance of age" (as the real age is unknown in most cases), the great pretender, we take as a cry for establishing measures.

All countries in the Near East are multi-ethnic. To know a certain region where a kilim came from therefore cannot tell much. One must know the real origin (the village or a certain group of villages where a particular group established a certain textile culture). Then, and only then, there is the chance to find out for which purpose, with which possible expectations, a certain weave was once made. To know it is a chance, not yet an answer.

When collectors come together and discuss pieces one often hears the art dealers argot phrase "...message of the artifact ...". The most cruel thing one can do is to stop the conversation at this point and ask back: "Could you be so kind and tell me what exactly the message of this piece is?" Silence...

If we do not know whether an impressive kilim had been made to add a kind of pitiful dignity to a funeral procession or, quite opposite, to make up a joyful ground for a spring time picnic at Newroz festivities - how can we claim then: the solution that this artist found is great but this other kilim there is less successful, lower in quality? This is the ultimate reason why we stubbornly insist that it is of vital importance to know the real place of origin.

Kelim ortasi bos, reconstruction, 395 x 130 cm (2 , pl. 38 )

This kilim half is shown here in the above mentioned "reconstruction style" in order to imagine the complete picture. This impressing design type had a specific aim: within a Turcoman wedding the wedding party leads the bride from her parents home to the house of her future husband. All the dowry is placed on camels or horses and thus exhibited to the whole community who comments, of course, the quantity and quality shown there. If such a kilim is spread over a camel the main part of the empty middle field is not visible (as it is covered by the dowry), but its shirts are visible. This custom and this type of kilim we know from several places in Anatolia. Serife Atlihan reported it at an ICOC congress; many collectors believe this type of flatweave originates from Fethiye in the far Soutwest. But we know it also from Northwestern Anatolia, from some places near Afyon and, a tiny amount, from Cappadocia (a classical habitat for Turcomans!) where the earliest known examples of this type come from.

The purpose of attracting the spectators eyes is served best with a graphically bold eye-catching skirt design. We can state then that according to the best of our knowledge this should create the necessary standard for the evaluation of such kilims. Note, please, that in addition a very big central field (whose space exists on the expense of the space left for the skirts) would be less good (!) then, opposite to what collectors here would spontaneously think! And, indeed, as a kind of confirmation: the very early pieces have smaller central fields than the younger ones. Most collectors and leading dealers however think and prefer that a very big, "bold" central field is essential for this design.

The place of origin of this particular kilim half is not known in the sense of the required first hand knowledge. Another much more battered half exists somewhere in the US (according to what we have heard) , which looks older from its more battered condition but has in fact the same dyes, yarns and weaving details (sold as a C-piece in our system of grading). It does not show the same design but certain design elements (like these big "hooks") are identical, same size, same "style" of execution etc. - one could virtually take them out and place them into this kilim half without seeing any difference). There is not a single argument available why such a piece should be one day older than the one presented here. But this is another reason more for being careful with the term "archaic".

And there exists a complete piece of this type, exactly the same dyes where they are identical, so most likely from the same village, which is an "A -" - piece (5) and which is radiocarbon-dated (245 +/- 45 years ). This has by far the boldest and absolutely unique skirts from all such designed kilims, including the other above mentioned areas. In fact its skirt design does not have even one parallel in any known Anatolian kilim. At the same time it is not "alien", rather a stylistically very consequent early form. It was shown in Essen but is not published in the catalogue.

So one has to digest slowly the conclusion: In the only known case where we know the authentic original intention of any weaver for this design, which is therefore the only case where we can build a measure for evaluating the aesthetical benefits or mistakes of a weave on knowledge instead on "impressions", the result is just 180° contrary to the spontanous imagination of collectors and leading dealers. This is a heavy blow against the fans of subjective "aesthetic" approval (whatever fun this brings up!) and against any attempt to group kilims according to undefined feelings of appearing somehow "archaic".

The second conclusion: without knowing the real place of origin it seems impossible to get hold of the potential primary intention of the artist and therefore one cannot find any substantial basis for evaluating this kind of textile art.

The future of collecting kilims

Finally one more word on how we see the near future of collecting early kilims. This Krefeld exhibition is one more step forward to support collectors about todays state-of-the-art treatment to deal with this material. It has the courage to do what the single collector avoids: to present many different kilims of one type (the collector tries to get hold of the best specimen of a certain type - but for doing so he first must learn how this might look like) and there is a thematic coherence in this presentation that the early exhibitions (understandably) did not have. One can even start to build informed measures.

The gossip types of talks like "where can one buy cheap?" or the usual dogfights for bringing down the prices of important kilims are nonsense and even the beginning collectors started to learn this. A "nabob" (7) style of collecting is no solution either - a collection must be made, it cannot be bought. In case one cannot see the individual collector "growing" while he goes on just some more heap of mediocre things (9 are put together. There must be a kind of "dialogue" between the selected items, their background stories which must be researched, and the personality of the collector. This dialogue forms the inner "red line" of great collections. Even if one groups the leading dealer/authors to write the catalogue one would not get much more than an important reference picture book.

As an urgent need to guide the ongoing collecting process we need serious resarch now and discussions about measures and standards for evaluating early kilims, respecting their original context. In this way the approval of this culturally most important segment of Near Eastern weavings will rise continuously.

Otherwise, as the fever for investing in shares has created headaches for the middle run, it seems to be a good idea to go back to real values. Art is such a value.


(1)   Ermenek kilim, 334 x 123 cm (2 , pl. 29 )

(2)   Ermenek kilim, 252 x 157 cm (2 , pl. 27 )

(3)    Fragment , original (1 Kult-Kelim Tafel 16, 206 x 142 )

(3.1)  "Rekonstruktion" : (2, pl. 28 - "360 x 142" ,)

(4)    Streifen-Kelim mit Kamelwolle 225 x 79 cm (2, pl. 7 )

(5)    Avanos, Streifenkelim,

All photographs by Udo Hirsch (Adenau, Germany)


(1) Kelim-Connection; Koll, H. (ed.): Kultkelim , ausgewählte anatolische Flachgewebe. Aachen, 1999. (available in the US from Internet-bookshops)
(2) Kelim-Connection Aachen (Hrsg.): Kelim : Textile Kunst aus Anatolien. Aachen, Eigenverlag 2002. (available in the US from Internet-bookshops)
(3) Pelz, Dietmar; de Werd, Guido (eds.): Gewirkt - Geschweisst, Linie und Farbe im Raum. Essen, 2001. Zollverein-Ausstellungen.
(4) Rageth, Jürg (ed.): Anatolian Kilims & Radiocarbon Dating. Riehen, 1999.


1. In two cases, as co-odinators, as far as we know.

2. Of course a talented, motivated weaver can (theoretically) obtain a similar degree of command with piled pieces as well. But it is less likely - until people are settled. Then the amount of piled pieces apparently went up quickly and even "weaving centers" evolved. Even then to change the design of a piled piece is more "risky" (it takes much longer, needs more unsuccessful "trial-and-error" approaches till the desired result is there). Please have a look at "yastik adventures" for an illustration of this point: the youngest piece is, in our opinion, better.

3. Imagine a girl helps her mother, learning by doing, and she starts early. If, hopefully, some mistakes happen she can even learn from them and therefore her knowhow would develop as time goes by. There is no reason to assume why sometimes masterful dyes could not have been developed this way - but looking on early material we are tempted to state: as the exception, not the rule.

4. Like brown from walnuts or from walnut leaves, "direct" green from the combination of iron compounds and flavonoles (Rumex sp., for example), "turbid" broken madder tones, dark mixed yellows...

5. Imagine one has a certain amount of yarns, dyed by the local dyer in the next township, and starts to weave a kilim now. The weaver from this Ermenek area now may weave whatever she likes to weave - but she could not get rid of these particular yarns and dyes and their "fingerprints". Let us suppose she would like to copy a fine Ottoman fabric design: forever this would look like an Ermenek area copy of an Ottoman fabric, impossible for educated people to mistake it with its original (as this has totally different yarns, dyes and weaving characteristics - but the same "overall picture" if the copy was successful). - As we have confirmed in field research as well: the design is the least significant feature of a weave! But for the end customer, the collector, it is most likely the most important one.

6. Just buy early kilims according to the latest fashion from the "big names" ... these "big names" could not contribute much when we look to the leading exhibitions (who are compiled by independant people). When we look to those pieces which we believe to be important the ratio is even higher in favour of "self-organized" purchases. But these are ambivalent: more entertaining for sure, but often enough more risky (read the "discussion" part of that salon, please).

7. From the Ägäis coast of Western Anatolia to Northern China the female part of the Turkic populations created for at least 1500 years the main cultural contributions of these nations - having been able administrators (organizational skills, not some "fighting spirit" has been the axis of their political successes, comparable to the Romans) the male part did not develop much that one can mention. The "classical" skills have been mainly generated by the international Islamic community, so this material should be second ranked in an ethnographical museum sensu strictu, but not the weaves - and especially not the flatweaves. Except for some shopping trips to the Near and Middle East these museums have not much to show when it comes to "bringing light into the backyard" of this culture.

8. Quite often, very early fragments of flatweaves are not much more than a very pale and fragmented echo of a distant past. They are not, on their own, pieces of art. But they might be very important in understanding this specific art as an object of study. In this case its importance depends totally on the proper documentation of what it is - as shown above this is not self-explanatory. The spontaneous impression might be or is most likely wrong. Do we need to focus the readers attention to the problem of "fair pricing" related with this proper documentation?

Discussion Boards