|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registered: Apr 2002 Dear
all, dear Vincent, Registered: Mar 2002 Vincent,
my first reaction to your post was to think that you may
really be on to something, but then I began to question
the premise. First of all, there isn't a reliable way to
determine whether a particular rug was woven on a vertical
or a horizontal loom. Secondly, haven't vertical looms
with rollers been around long enough that they could predate
even the oldest example yastik shown in this thread? Registered: Jan 2002 Dear
Micheal, Registered: Apr 2002 Hallo
everybody, dear Vincent, Registered: Jan 2002 Dear
Michael, Registered: Jan 2002 Maybe
it's a bit strange, but here's what my elongated dream
brought me: Registered: Apr 2002 Here
are a few thoughts, Vincent, on your “elongated dream.”
Registered: Jan 2002 Dear
Marla, Last edited by Vincent Keers on 10-31-2002 at
12:56 AM Registered: Apr 2002 Dear
Vincent, Registered: Not Yet Dear
Vincent, Registered: Jan 2002 Dear
folks - Registered: Dec 2001 Hi
Folks, Registered: Apr 2002 We could
diagram between 15 and 20 different ways that rug looms
have been set up by Middle Eastern and Central Asian weavers,
with a wide range of devices and methods for controlling
warp tension. It’s a problem that every weaver deals with,
and the solutions range from very simple and primitive
to very sophisticated, even among village weavers. There
is a wide range of ways in which the warps are attached
to the beams, and this is reflected in many of the differences
among the end finishes that we have collected and published
on my website “End Finishes Project.” It is not silly to
look in the rugs themselves for clues to the processes
and kinds of equipment used…in that Vincent is on the mark.
But we need to put all of the information together… design
layout peculiarities, variations in the weave, kind of
weave construction, and end finishes. . I must say that
I’ve never encountered a weaver who retied all of her
individual warps or pairs of warps in the course of producing
a rug—that is sheer madness—though she may loosen ties
between the rod holding the end of her warp and the upper
warp beam. She may do this several times during the course
of weaving the rug. But this would occur with just certain
kinds of loom set-ups, and certain kinds of weave constructions.
Registered: Jan 2002 Dear
Marla,
A Yastik
Adventure: The “Denny Derivatives,” A Dread But Enjoyable Disease
Pages (2): «
1
[2]
Author
Thread
Michael Bischof
Member
Location:
Posts: 25
the idea to come close to the technical basis of weaves
I like very much ! I must confess that I did not fully
understand the consequences of what you outline here. A
"modern" loom does not result in any quality lack, if
I understand you right. So what ? Do you want to introduce a
kind of "hidden" age test applying your system of measuring
the "center" ?
Greetings,
Michael
10-26-2002 10:25 AM
Tracy Davis
Member
Location:
Posts: 5LOOMing
technology
Maybe your hypothesis could be modified to mean that a
lower "center" might be an indicator of something other
than age alone. Commercial demand for certain kinds of
rugs? (Market demand="better" looms, resulting in design
deterioration!)
10-26-2002 07:42 PM
Vincent Keers
Member
Location: Utrecht
Posts: 10
No it's not hidden, it's out there. It seems hidden, because
a lot of rugs are upside down in the books we study.
I'm finding it very disturbing that I only see, semi nomadic
new productions with the centres too high.
It's like the horizon is too high. Not natural. Feels
wrong.
Dear Tracy,
All 17'th century French production. Not one single rug
can be found that isn't pure symmetrical.
Everything had to be in perfect symmetry. The palaces,
the gardens, the rugs!
So in Europe the production had to be perfect because of
the demand.
And so it was.
I didn't study the Indian Mughal production enough.
Taj Mahal is in perfect symmetry. So the state of mind
was there. Did this influence the production?
So somewhere on the line, something changed.
The weavers? No, I don't think so.
The demand for more symmetrical rugs? Yes, in Europe.
Did this influence oriental production? Yes, I think it
did.
Couldn't they get it right before the symmetry wave went
around the world?
Yes, they could, but mostly didn't bother that much about
it.
Did this, as a consequence of lack of interest in symmetry,
led to rugs with the centres too high?
No, this led to rugs with the centres low in most pre-industrial
production.
Only when the demand for rugs increased, the production
changed, the looms changed etc.
and as a result, the centres got too high.
Think in pre-industrial production the average, oriental
loom was very simple indeed.
As a weaver you had to pull yourself up, or you had a horizontal
loom.
Thanks for sharing this very frustrating dilemma with me
for a while.
And if you look at a rug next time "18'th century", ask
yourself if the pile's up, or down.
Best regards,
v t
i n
n e
c c
e n
n i
t v
10-27-2002 01:11 AM
Michael Bischof
Member
Location:
Posts: 25
as I like any statement that comes close to the technical
basis of these weaves I want to ask you for your intentions:
do you want to find a kind of indirect measure for age
of yastiks ?
As far as I understand you there is no reason to assume
that the younger pieces, out of center as you express it,
are weaker in technical terms. Is this right ?
Greetings,
Michael Bischof
10-28-2002 06:25 PM
Vincent Keers
Member
Location: Utrecht
Posts: 10
Not only for Yastiks.
It can be used for the caucasian production also.
Have a look again at Jerry's, Ed's, Tracy,s Fachralo. Jerry's
Fachralo destroys my story but ok it's a nice test for
my idea.
It is said that Jerry's is very old because of the date
and because of the colours based on a digital image. Well
the date is 3 digits and if the image is flipped horizontal
it reads 321. If the first digit is omitted by the weaver
because this event only happens once in a thousand years?
That's more likely then omitting the last digit.
If it's 123 and the first digit was omitted then it should
be 1123. If the date is supposed to be read from right
to left it's 1231 (1321). If the date has only 3 digits
it's 123 or 321.
So in this case the 1230 date has a 20% probability. (Is
this ok Steve)
Now if we look at the centre, it's way too high.
Do we think this is normal?
Why isn't it in the middle?
So this is a sloppy production. Is it?
The dyes seem perfect. No dull madder, so that's nice.
The weaver had colours available that could astonish most
weavers.
So everything is perfect. But the weaving is sloppy?
In the lower halve the rug shows elongation and in the
upper halve it shows compression.
The knot count in the lower and the upper halve are the
same. (This is mostly the case)
Something went wrong in the production.
I think this has to do something with the looms available.
In the old productions I see rugs with the centre low (Compression
in lower halve and elongation in the upper halve)
In new production I see rugs with the centre high (Elongation
in the lower halve and compression in the upper halve)
So in the old production the weaver started with low warp
stress and ended with high warp stress.
In the new production the weaver started with high warp
stress and ended with low warp stress.
Shoot, and now I'm stuck again.
I see, but I can't explain this.
Fixed loom, high loom, low loom, roller beam loom. Weft
ease, warp depression. Cotton warps, woolen warps etc.
Maybe I'll see the light tomorrow,
I'm sure I'll see the light tomorrow,
But for now,
elongated sleep for me,
Best regards,
Vincent
10-29-2002 01:08 AM
Vincent Keers
Member
Location: Utrecht
Posts: 10I saw the
light
As you can see, it's very difficult to label the looms
with dates. On the other hand it does give me a sort of
extra insight in the way some rugs are made.
First loom, the most simple one, gives elongated design.
Cottage industry
Second loom, a bit more sophisticated, gives elongation
in the lower halve, compression in the second halve. Mostly
used when light weight loom is needed. Cottage industry
Third loom, most sophisticated, gives everything ok. These
are mostly used in Iran, India, Pakistan, China. Big production
centres.
I made a mistake in my previous cartoon. With a fixed heddle,
the upper halve gives compression because the warps are
more open as the work level rises. So the wefts eat less
warp length.
Why do I like yastiks? Well, to be deadly honest, I don't
like them. Designs way to big.
But I like them because of the size.
The old Yastiks are woven on the first, most simple loom.
Older cottage production
John's Yastik has been woven on the second loom. Later
cottage production.
I think this is the way things go in most, simple, cottage
production.
A Caucasian with the centre low, it's older cottage production.
Simple working conditions.
So when I see a Caucasian rug with the centre too high,
it can't be older then 1870/80. Later cottage production.
When I see a Caucasian rug with everything under control,
it's more likely a 1910/1930 production. Russian production.
And because everyone thinks I'm crazy as can be,
I'll give myself a,
and I'll return to my private dark dungeons.
Best regards,
Vincent
10-29-2002 11:31 PM
Marla Mallett
Member
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Posts: 4
With a fixed warp, several things can happen. First, the
tension can increase, causing wefts to pack down more tightly
in a weft-faced weave. This is the kind of foundation we
find in most Caucasian and Turkish rugs. What you describe
as wefts “eating” warp length is real indeed: In weavers’
terms this is “warp take-up.” In such a case, in the second
half of the rug the wefts would pack more tightly, and
the design would be more compacted, not looser and more
spread out. It’s a different matter with weaves that are
not weft-faced.
Second, depending upon atmospheric conditions, wool warps
can stretch and become looser. In this case, a weft-faced
weave would tend to spread more vertically toward the top
end.
Another factor: weaver fatigue. I don’t know any weaver
who doesn’t get eager to finish a piece when it’s been
on the loom for a long time. Thus there is a natural human
tendency to occasionally skip rows in some parts of the design
near the top end, compacting the layout. Of course miscalculations
in the warp length and design can also cause weavers to
shorten a design at the top—a possibility that many people
have commented on in the past.
For me, the easiest explanation of regular versus irregular
layouts is probably commercial pressures. If weavers know
that straight and symmetrical pieces bring better prices,
they’ll try hard to produce such items if they’re serious
about selling their rugs—no matter what kind of loom they’re
working with. Fancier roller beam looms certainly helped
them to achieve such products.
Best,
Marla
10-30-2002 05:35 PM
Vincent Keers
Member
Location: Utrecht
Posts: 10Oi!
You make me very happy indeed. Think you're much to gentle
with me.
It's like this.
I see something. For me it's very obvious. (Mostly the
case with lunatics)
Nobody else seems to see the same thing, and the more I
think it's ignored, the more I'm obsessed with it. (Mostly
the case with lunatics)
So get ready for my block headed reply.
If all high centre rugs are made on fixed looms, modern
production is in big shit. Cause, it's all I see nowadays
in the semi-nomadic
Iranian/Kurdish production.
If the warps are fixed and tightly fixed the wefts will
eat warp length (pick up).
The tighter the warps get, the more difficult it is to
get the wefts true. Anyone can practice this on a small,
"do it your self" made loom.
If, however, the wefts are given more length, more sinuous,
the rug will get wider when finished. (Don't think that's
the solution)
And, I do understand that a weft-faced weave gives no problems.
But the weft-faced weave is the construction platform
for the knots.
The wefts need to be "laid in' more straight, tight, then
in a kilim construction. (A kilim needs to be pliable)
If the fixed loom is equipped with a fixed heddle, then
elongation is in the lower halve. This is what you can
see in the Moroccan production.
This is loom nr. 2 in my cartoon above. I have some "Haut
Atlas" production that shows this very conveniently.
Yes, wool warps stretch and get hurt every time the wefts
are pulled true. I've been thinking about this for a while
and came up with this:
Wool isn't like elastic. If stretched, then they stay stretched
so this has nothing to do with elongation. Only less tight
woollen warps in the finished rug.
But if it's only happening with woollen warps, I don't
think I could have invested the time in this subject. With
cotton warps, it's even more obvious, because cotton will
not stretch that easy. But we only have to look at Kurdish/Hamadan
production to see what has happened especially in the
Kelly
production.
Weavers getting tired of weaving do very strange things
at the upper border design. I know this, and a simple knot
count will show this.
Here it's even more clear: The rug starts compressed, then
becomes elongated in the second halve (same knot count)
but then the border gets very compressed suddenly and yes it
has a lower knot count so the weaver was 1. Tired 2. Run out
of warp length (because of elongation)
But it can be rather disappointing news for some people.
Because a 1309 AH dated Caucasian rug could be 1931 AC
instead of the 1892 AC.
Oops! Wrong calendar.
I will not yet start with taut wefts and depressed warps.
Because then my story is much to easy.
Thanks for the help,
Vincent
Checking out again
10-31-2002 12:52 AM
Marla Mallett
Member
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Posts: 4
I don’t think the same factors apply with cotton warps and
Hamadan single-weft constructions as with the Turkish and
Caucasian wool weft-faced constructions. I think your theory
fits pretty well with the Hamadan weaves—THEY are NOT
weft-faced, and as the weaving progresses, such a weave should
indeed tend to spread vertically on a fixed warp in the
top half as you show in your diagram.
Of course when we talk about fixed warps, we have to remember
that similar conditions apply if the warp is a continuous
one that encircles the two beams—one in which the rug is
pulled around and up on the back side of the loom as the
weaver goes along. Such a warp is also of a fixed LENGTH.
Anyone who has done any tapestry weaving (where the weave
is WEFT-FACED) knows for sure that whenever the warp tension
is uneven, it’s in areas where the warp is LOOSER that
the sinuous weft does not pack down as well. Such a weft
compacts best where the warps are tight.
I’m glad that I’m not the only one who comes up with theories
sometimes viewed as wacky!
Best,
Marla
10-31-2002 01:43 AM
Unregistered
Guest
Location:
Posts: N/A
Congratulations on your epiphany!
Think of a loom as just another string instrument -- say,
a guitar. Say you know how to play a tune in the key of
"G" but want to play it in "A" and you don't know how to
read music. You can put a devise across the neck of the
guitar that will depress all the strings on a certain fret
which will change the key to "A". Imagine that this devise
is a heddle bar and that the thing that holds the lower
end of the guitar strings in place is the rug's fell line.
The closer the fixed ends of the guitar strings, (the
fell line), is to the devise depressing the guitar strings,
(the heddle bar and heddles), the higher the notes will
sound which is analogous, in weaving, to compression.
Early vertical cottage loom's warps were wrapped on sticks
stuck into the ground and then one of the sticks was strapped
to the lower loom beam. On these looms the lower beams
were movable and the upper beam was fixed. Warp tension
was adjusted from below. The upper end of the warps were
removed from the wrapping stick and tied, by twos, to the
upper beam. Their long loops, (which would be for the latter
part of the rug), hung toward the back of the loom. As work
progressed, and the fell line approached the heddles, the
tension on the warps would increase whenever the shed was
changed. At this point all of the looped warps tied to the
stationary upper beam would have to be untied so the rug
could be pulled down and around. Then they would all have
to be retied to the upper beam. Then the tension would
have to be reestablished. I don't know, but I imagine that
most of the rugs made on these looms were about twice as
long as they are wide just to keep this drudgery to a
minimum. At least that's the way I would do it, half and
half.
So, in other words, I think you can solve your dilemma.
Factor into your figuring this new stuff and the effect
on warp tension the ratio of space between the fell line
and the heddles has on rug compression. You're almost there.
Sue
10-31-2002 06:55 AM
R. John Howe
Member
Location:
Posts: 22
I am not a weaver and have not grappled with the issues
of warp tension and weft ease first hand, and it is true
that sometimes nomadic weavers had to take up a loom with
an uncompleted piece on it to follow the sheep, water and
grass, but ----
it is my understanding that even tribal weavers made great
efforts not to move a loom or to disturb the warps seriously
unless this was absolutely necessary.
I have not heard that it would be a routine thing to weave
half of a rug that is twice its width and then readjust the
unfinished piece on the loom so as to weave the second
half. That would predictably cause serious problems as the
result of the inability to re-establish the original warp
tension.
The horizontal Turkman demonstration loom I worked with
last summer at the Folklife Festival had been built for
the rug being woven on it (which would be when completed
about 4 X 6 ft). That loom was long enough to permit that
size to be woven without any readjustment of warps. I think
the usual strategy was to build the loom long enough to
permit the rug to be woven on it without disturbing the
warps.
Regards,
R. John Howe
10-31-2002 10:10 AM
Steve Price
Administrator
Location:
Posts: 37A note
about posting as "unregistered"
One of the messages in this thread, signed "Sue", shows
up with Unregistered as the user name in the left hand
column. This might be a good time to say a few words about
how to avoid that.
For registered members who are logged in, the software
will automatically fill in your name and display it. For
people who are not registered or for registered people
who are not logged in, the screen that lets you type in
your message if you are posting has a field called "user
name", and that field will have the word "unregistered" already
in it. It shows up as being gray, like a word that can't
be edited or selected in many Windows applications. But,
in fact, it can be overwritten and will display the name that
gets typed in.
We prefer full names - most of the time we insist on them
- so, please, if you get the "unregistered" user name in
that field, overwrite it with your own name.
Thanks,
Steve Price
10-31-2002 10:33 AM
Marla Mallett
Member
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Posts: 4
The one loom characteristic that has NOT seemed to change
throughout Western and Central Asia is the kind of shedding.
Unlike most other weaving done by primitive peoples around
the world, virtually all Asian rug makers have used a fixed
heddle arrangement—that is the primary shed is held open
constantly, and a secondary shed is opened or partially
opened within this. The heddle rod may be moved along the
warp as the work progresses--propped up on rocks if it’s
a horizontal loom, or moved up the frame if the loom is
vertical. But the primary shed is NOT opened and closed
as the work is done. That’s too difficult with the tension
required on a closely set rug warp.
Best,
Marla
10-31-2002 07:27 PM
Vincent Keers
Member
Location: Utrecht
Posts: 10
A quote:
"I don’t think the same factors apply with cotton warps
and Hamadan single-weft constructions as with the Turkish
and Caucasian wool weft-faced constructions. I think your
theory fits pretty well with the Hamadan weaves—THEY are
NOT weft-faced, and as the weaving progresses, such a weave
should indeed tend to spread vertically on a fixed warp
in the top half as you show in your diagram."
This is the problem. In Hamadan, Kurdish kelly sizes, it's
compression in the top half, and crystal clear elongation
in the lower half.
Woollen warps, cotton warps or whatever warps. This is
what we're getting nowadays and for the last 120 years.
I have a dated 1221?!, (That's what is says) sort of Malayer.
It's ±292 x 173 cm.
Single weft construction. Warps Z2S ply & wefts 2S ply
wool mixed brown/white.
Knots: Wool. 2 singles. No twist visible. Symmetrical.
This rug doesn't show signs of compression. It's 5 cm's
elongated in the top half.
It's perfect for me, because the centre is grounded and
the centre is the centre. It just feels right.
Some of us may feel the colours are all wrong. So be it.
The construction is great, the weaver was an ok crook and
maybe the dye-master was a crook
or "they" just liked it this way. I like Pop-art as well,
so sorry.
(Image)
And, for the moment I'm grounded. I know you're right,
but I can't stand it.
Not because you're right and I'm looking for clues that
can't be found, I think, but because I keep on seeing things!
Help, here it comes again.
No, I'll keep on banging this drum for the rest of my life
or as long "they" are feeding us rugs with the centres
to high.
Think in the end, I have to agree with you, after all.
"Sloppy jobs" Which makes this a two year lasting discussion.
Best regards,
Vincent the elongated (slow) thinker.
PS. But if plain-weave, all wool rug, has been knotted
on a horizontal, fixed loom? No heddle, no shed. Pull up
the warps with fingers. The wool warps have to untwist,
or elongate, because of the stress. That could result in
elongation in the top half.
Ooops.
All times are
GMT. The time now is 06:27 AM.
Pages (2): «
1
[2]
A
Powered
by: vBulletin Version 2.2.6
Copyright ©2000, 2001, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.