Posted by R. John Howe on 05-27-2007 06:16 AM:
A Fragmented Yastik
Dear folks -
Another piece that I encountered and bought in Konya is
this fairly seriously fragmented yastik.
It exhibits a mild red, a nice blue
and a strong yellow.
It has field devices reminiscent of some Turkmen
usages.
And its main border design
(although done in various colors) is that used on many Turkmen
engsis.
This yastik fragment is
attributed to the Konya area.
I am not sure, of course, but think it has
some age.
As usual, thoughts and comments are
invited.
Regards,
R. John Howe
Hello John
Two weeks after ICOC, we were in Istanbul and found this
yastik.
And now it is in Sweden!
The image is from the
dealers web-site, I have not my camera ready.
I called it "Malatya area"
but the dealer call it "Elazig". There is not a long distance between Malatya
and Elazig, and somewhere in that area I guess your yastik was born.
A
lot of similaritys, except for the colours.
The main pattern i your
border can be seen in different places all over the textile world. I think it is
stilized rams horn.
Regards
Lars Jurell
Hi John,
That looks pretty old. You'd like to think the Turkmen-esque
elements are vestigial. What is the design in that narrow end border adjoining
the flatwoven end? I can't quite make it out.
__________________
Rich
Larkin
Hi Lars,
Are the warps in your yastik cotton (excepting a small
section at one edge)?
__________________
Rich
Larkin
Hi
The white warp is ivory coloured wool. And 4 cm dark brown wool in one
end.
And I agree with the dealer that the yastik is 80 - 100 years
old.
This thread is about John´s yastik but if you want detail images
from mine I can send it later.
Lars J
Thanks Lars,
I inquired because the warp ends look strikingly white on
my monitor. Yet, it seemed that the piece was too old to have cotton warps on a
Turkish yastik.
I don't think John minds the extra images, especially
where they provide an interesting comparison with his.
__________________
Rich
Larkin
Dear folks -
Lars' manners are exquisite, but Rich is right: I think
it appropriate that we discuss these two pieces together, especially since some
aspects of mine are more visible on the "Swedish" piece.
Richard, the small border before
the kilim, on my fragment, that is almost unreadable, is a "quinque" design
(like the "five" on a set of dice) that is very visible on the Swedish
piece.
Lars, the Swedish piece makes clear why some of my friends shake
their heads about some of my purchasing decisions. I will sometimes buy just
short of unreadability and this piece tempts that line. Good purchase on your
side. Thanks for sharing it.
Is there any indication that the pale green
of the field in your piece is from a "sulphonic blue?" That would permit dating
it fairly closely, would it not?
Regards,
R. John Howe
Hi John,
Can you direct me to a source, online or otherwise published,
where "sulphonic blue" is discussed knowledgeably? I know it's a dye used in
Turkey before the advent of the earliest synthetics from Europe.
__________________
Rich
Larkin
Rich -
I may have misspelled it a bit. It may be more researchable as
"sulfonic blue."
Here is what the Eilands say on page 54 of their most
recent survey:
"...When indigo is treated with concentrated sulfuric
acid, it produces a compound called indigo sulfonic acid. This is a
water-soluable dye (ed. indigo is not) which may be used - by much simpler
methods than indigo - as a direct or mordant dye. The range of colors produced
is slightly different from indigo: light to medium blues predominate, at times
with a torquoise or slightly greenish tone. This process came into use in Europe
during the 18th century and appears to have reached Anatolia by the first part
of the 19th..."
I had thought that there was also an approximate date
after which sulfonic blue was no longer used much in Anatolia, but there is no
reference to that in the Eiland's treatment.
Regards,
R. John
Howe
Hello Richard, John, et al.,
On p. 230 of Bohmer's "Koekboya" is a
note "Indigo Sulphonic Acid: The First Half-Synthetic Dyestuff". He says that it
was first produced in 1740, does not require vat-dyeing as with oridinary
indigo, but is water-soluble. Consequently, "in older textiles, if the blue has
run into the white, or washed out almost completely to a pale blue tone, then it
was dyed with indigo sulphonic acid. Use of this dyestuff for ... carpets
expanded into the Orient after the middle of the 19th century . . .
Identification of indigo sulphonic acid in a textile allows a rough dating." I
think it's worth adding that the UNIFORM pale blue (no blotchiness) seen on some
older Anatolian weavings is probably NOT indigo sulphonic acid.
Lloyd
Kannenberg
Hello John and all
Below is an image showing both front and back from my
yastik.
John: I can not see anything that indicate what kind of
blue is used to get the green colour. The green is a little darker on the back
but for me it is normal for the age.
My guess is that blue is natural
indigo, both for the blue and the green colours.
And as there are three
different nyances of blue, two dark and a little bit light blue, they should be
pale if not real indigo.
Regards
Lars Jurell
Hello everyone,
I am studying a group of rugs stylistically related to
the field design of these yastics. I wonder whether someone knows something
about the central square.
Regards
Camille
Ms. Khairallah -
No one is answering quickly, and I wouldn't pretend
to anything particularly authoritative but here are a few thoughts.
I
assume this is the "center" piece of interest:
If so, the boxed device has some
similarity to some Turkmen chuval guls. Here, below, is a Turkmen chuval gul
from a recent discussion.
This one is from a chuval
seen to be Ersari but similar guls are used by several of the Turkmen
tribes.
The external outline of the yastik device has lost the "lobing"
that seems sourced in more curvilinear usages, but is pretty close in basic
shape. But in this version it's almost entirely rectilinear. Diagonals, for
example, are not used on the outside outline, but only for the internal
instrumentation.
The internal devices in the yastik "gul" are quartered
as many Turkmen guls are, but the color usage is not diagonal. Most turkmen
chuval guls exhibition diagonal color usage in the four internal quarters. There
is also, no white used to color the internal elements of the yastik device. Such
use is very frequent in Turkmen chuval guls.
The "brackets" (sometimes
"banners") that are part of the internal instrumentation of most Turkmen chuval
guls of this sort are messing in the yastik device.
I suspect that we
cannot make too much of the similarities and distinctions between these two
devices. Turkic weavers in broadly separated locations seem to share a design
vocabulary of which this gul-like device, is likely only one
example.
Hope that helps a little.
Others may have more to say
about your question.
One book that might well be useful in a study of
such designs is Peter Stone's "Tribal and Village Rugs." This volume is a
serious comparative study of patterns and motifs." It is widely available at
reasonable prices. I saw it even in Turkey recently.
Welcome to
Turkotek,
R. John Howe
Another direction
Camille,
If you feel like investing more than time in rugs, you could
pick up a copy of Antique Rugs of Kurdistan, A Historical Legacy of Woven
Art, by James D. Burns.
In it he discusses a 3-medallion carpet,
saying "It is probable that this combination is meant to represent a stylized
garden with pools. It is interesting that some weavers in the Caucasus refer to
such medallions as guls, meaning not "flowers", the interpretation favored by
writers on Turkoman weavings, but "lakes", the alternative meaning of the word
in several Turkic languages."
The brilliant blue-ground "guls" in Lars
yastik certainly have a lake-like appearance.
Describing another rug with
"Karaja"-type medallions, he notes: "This is a stylized garden design. The form
of the medallions seen here is said to represent an abyss (hauzi) where Kidr
lives according to followers of the Yazdani native Kurdish
religion."
There is another rug with a central medallion with a 6-pronged
device in the center which he says may be a turtle that lives in the
hauzi.
And John has shown a Turkmen ensi, too, which I believe is also
based on a garden design.
I think I will go out and cut a couple of roses
off my rose bush now.
Patrick Weiler
Thank you both John and Patrick,
First I wish to correct a small
common mistake, I am a male and my name should be pronounced in Arabic as
Kameel, but as I am French educated, I always wrote it the French way.
I
would also like to apologize if my English is not always a proper
one.
Well, let me tell you that your comments will make me "release a
spring" that I have been compressing for quite a while. And as I often find in
this site threads enclosing some brain-storming, I will allow myself to give an
opinion that might not be taken for granted.
Although all what you said could
make sense, I will personally retain from your ideas the words gul, medallion
and garden.
I agree on the generic use of the word gul especially that
what are considered more proper guls in rug literature have nothing to do with
flowers and I am referring here for instance to the ertmen pattern... But if
these are not flowers then what could they then represent?..
I might have
further comments about that in a more adequate thread.
As for the
medallion, I just conferred Peter Stone Lexicon where the explanation ends on:
"One theory holds that the medallions of the earliest medallion court rugs were
derived from book bindings."
I guess the book in question is the Holy Qur'an
and the medallion represented symbolizes a "smaller Paradise", the terminology
of the Arabic word "Junaynah" which means in current Arabic "garden" (!) and
that is derived from the word "Jannah" (Arabic for Paradise).
Hence this
explains the existence of a medallion inside the mihrabs of certain early
-Ottoman- prayer rugs, the mihrab itself representing the gate of
Paradise.
Returning to our yastiks, the major field design is clearly a
double-ended mihrab and the central square might represent now for me a smaller
Paradise-medallion.
In fact I would like to show you a prayer rug with a
similar mihrab where a squarish device is inserted but I still do not know
technically how to.
There is no doubt Burns's book should be a great
reference for me and a major work on Kurdish rugs but It will cost me a lot to
receive it here in Beirut.
Regards
Camille
Hi Camille
Don't apologize for your use of English - it's just fine,
and easy to understand.
If you'd like to post pictures, it's easy if you
ahve them in digital form (scans or from a digital camera). Attach your image
files to an e-mail message to me (sprice@vcu.edu; or to Filiberto). I'll adjust
the size of the files and the dimensions of the images, and put them into our
server. Then I'll send you instructions for how to make them appear in a
message. There's nothing to it at all.
Regards
Steve Price
Hi Steve,
Thanks for your prompt help.
Here is the picture I
wanted to post
The square inside the mihrab here has hooks all around, a
feature that is sometimes considered by some -and I agree- as protective
elements.
Regards
Camille
Dear Camille -
First, an apology for not discerning your gender
accurately.
Your most recent post shows an enthusiasm for analysis of rug
designs and, in truth, that is likely the oldest, most prevalent endeavor in rug
literature.
But I would caution about moving too quickly to conclusion as
you examine and compare rug designs.
You say in part: "...the major field
design is clearly a double-ended mihrab and the central square might represent
now for me a smaller Paradise-medallion..."
Now, it might be that this
gul is in fact a "double-niche" form but it is not "obviously" so.
(A
related point: Richard Farber, the composer, who has sometimes written on
Turkotek, advised long ago that terms like "mirhab" are often too conclusionary
in ways that are unearned. In most cases, the most we can likely say about such
a form is to describe its shape. "Niche" does that. Whether a given "niche" is
also intended as a "mirhab" would require a separate demonstration. This why the
term "prayer rug" is also sometimes called into question (although still widely
used).
One additional difficulty with moving to conclusion that the
yastik "gul-like" form is a "mirhab" is showing under what conditions one would
be forced to conclude that it is not one. That would need to be described at
least hypothetically in order to demonstrate that there was such a
distinction.
There is another familiar argument that may also apply to
the shape of this yastik "gul-like" device. It is that the severely rectilinear
character of the drawing is not required in pile weaving which is very flexible
despite being done on a rectilinear structural grid. The retention of this
rather strict rectilinear character of this device might suggest that the pile
weaver was using a device that came from a weaving in which a more restritive
technique (like slit tapestry) was used. Slit tapestry would require the
stepping character of such a design in order to maintain structural integrity of
the fabric.
I encourage you in your interest in rugs and the analysis of
them, but would advise that quite often the designs in rugs and other weavings
are not necessarily what they might initially appear to be. At the very least,
you can expect that something you state is "obviously X" will be seen as
controversial.
Regards,
R. John Howe
Bonjour Camille,
quote:
...Peter Stone Lexicon where the explanation ends on: "One theory holds that the medallions of the earliest medallion court rugs were derived from book bindings."
I guess the book in question is the Holy Qur'an
Dear John
Thank you for all your comments.
What I meant by
“major field design” is of course the contour of the field itself ( the double
yellow/brown line) and not what is inside that field (what you called /or might
be a gul), a misunderstanding that engendered a long commentary. I knew it was
going to happen somewhere!
But regarding that field contour, I guess I am
quite sure about it and this is a major part of a chapter in a book that I am
writing. So I think I have strong proofs for that. And here the double-ended
prayer niche does not of course mean that it was intended for prayer, therefore
the design in this case is symbolic.
As for the square inside the field,
I am still exploring the ground and of course do not intend to jump to quick
conclusions. But I do rely on certain basics that in general, nothing is
“baroque” in Oriental art and at the origin, everything had a precise
meaning.
The “purely decorative” always came in second phase and was
definitely affected by a certain commercial demand.
I fully agree on the
comment that you put forward regarding the rendition of the inner -gul- design
as could be taken from a kilim and I guess this applies to the motif included in
the square of my prayer rug. But on the other hand, in general, the less busy
the field of a non-commercial tribal or village tug is the more expressive it is
and the more symbolic its motifs and elements are. I don’t know whetheryou agree
with me on that point.
Regards
Monsieur Boncompagni
bonjour!
Thanks for your reference but I don’t really see that it goes
against what I wrote.
In such proposals I always prefer to keep the safe aide
and I leave some room for doubts comments or criticism.
But what does a
medallion mean inside the niche of a prayer rug especially when it encloses
nothing else?
When I first had this idea, I asked a friend of mine who wrote
a book on Islamic art and he agreed. Still, I shall not stress on
it.
Regards
Camille
quote:
Thanks for your reference but I don’t really see that it goes against what I wrote
Hi Camille -
If your focus is on the area inside the double-yellow,
brown line,
and
if you are insisting that this is a "double-ended prayer niche," then the
question becomes, under what conditions would you be forced to say that such a
design does NOT earn the word "prayer?" Under what conditions should such a
device be described, instead with a phrase like "anchored medallion?"
It
may well be that many devices had very specific meanings (and you can find folks
who think they know what they were and are; I had an experienced dealer in
Turkey recently insist that the literature is all wrong about the "hands on
hips" device being a reference to fertility; he says that it was used by young
female weavers to express indignation about such things as unwanted arranged
marriages) but I doubt very much whether we have any longer much evidence of
what these meanings might have been. The people we want to talk to have been
dead for at least 200 years. So I personally think it is pretty pointless to
speculate about them. That doesn't stop lots of folks from doing
it.
Regards,
R. John Howe
Hi Camille
I have some problems with the notion that the central
medallion is a double-ended prayer niche, too. They are:
1. I don't see
the dimensions of this textile, but it is described as a yastik fragment. If
it's yastik size, it's too small to be a prayer rug. If it's not a prayer rug,
the arch isn't a mihrab. There are some who believe that every rug with
an arch form in it was made for and used in Moslem prayer and that every arch in
a rug is a mihrab. I think they're mistaken.
2. The mihrab on a
prayer rug is presumably to be oriented in the direction of Mecca. That can't be
in two directions that are 180 degrees different.
The matter of what we
really mean by the term, prayer rug, has interested me for some time, and my
thoughts on the subject were presented as a Salon awhile ago. You might find it
(and the accompanying discussion) interesting; here is a
link to it.
Regards
Steve Price
"Double-niched prayer rugs"...
Hi all,
The subject of double niched rugs has been written about in
relation to Baluch rugs (sorry to drag us all back to the Baluchophile
territory, just a bit). There are a small number of Baluch rugs that look very
much like prayer rugs but they have mihrabs (niches) at both ends. Jerry
Anderson and others have referred to these as "funeral rugs". However, when I
have asked some experienced dealers from Herat about this they found that
suggestion quite surprising. They thought that it would be odd to use a piled
rug for a funeral. Perhaps they are wrong, but I wonder how firm the basis is
for describing these as "funeral rugs". When I asked what else could explain
these somewhat unusual rugs, they suggested that perhaps it was made specially
for someone who was blind or had very poor eyesight. That way your prayer is
always correctly oriented with respect to the rug, and it is somewhat more easy
to orient oneself to face Mecca if you are in familiar surroundings. As always
in rugdom, there is more than one opinion for most mysteries, and the challenge
is to figure out where the truth lies.
I can't speak for the past, but it
is my impression that many Muslims who can afford prayer rugs own them and use
them for prayer. Some households have many prayer rugs, in case there are
guests. Some have special prayer rugs which are kept as keepsakes and used very
rarely. It seems very likely to me that the origin of the prayer rug concept was
for ritual prayer, even if a "prayer rug industry" developed subsequently to
meet Western market demand. Similarly, the origin of the chuval is as a storage
bag, even if in the 19th century it became largely a commercial item. Ditto for
the engsi (even if we don't know exactly what it was used for
originally).
James.
Hi John,
I have many hints regarding the double-niche attribution if
not for this yastik, for the group of rugs I am studying and you know it is an
attribution that is applied for instance to the famous Kiz-Ghiordes; these were
dowry pieces although they could have been used for prayer as well. In the
yasrik, it is a double-ended sultan head mihrab design but not a prayer rug
because of its small size. This design could have joined the dowry idea as
well.
I am really sorry to tell you that I won’t discuss further about
that precise point for I will then be obliged to pre-publish here a good part of
my work that relies on observations, references, field-research and interviews,
all starting around 1996.
You are right for the little -or lack of-
evidence that we have about design meanings or symbolic but I believe we should
make an effort to re-discover these because a rug is not a only a useful object
where the pleasure stops at the eyes but a piece of art where the message is
intended to the soul as well.. Some dealers use tales to sell their rugs... It
is definitely not my style.
Hello Steve,
I already mentioned the
following: And here the double-ended prayer niche does not of course mean that
it was intended for prayer, therefore the design in this case is symbolic. But I
discovered in a book a painting dating to the mid 19th c. where a sheikh is
praying on a double-ended niche rug.
As for the direction of a prayer
rug, it is not as important as the facing direction of the believer who is
praying. Nevertheless, most Turkish prayer rugs and even some Baluch are woven
top-end first so that the pile leans towards the top and does not disturb the
hands of the praying person.
Regards to all
Hi Camille
I understand that you cannot release information that will
be published as original findings in your book, and we're happy to read anything
that you are able to share. Thank you for being willing to do
so.
Regards
Steve Price
Hi Camille,
quote:
But I discovered in a book a painting dating to the mid 19th c. where a sheikh is praying on a double-ended niche rug.
Hi Steve,
I’d always be glad to share my experience with all of you as
I too appreciate the interesting and great contribution that this serious site
is offering.
Thank you.
Hi Filberto,
The artist I am
referring to was not at all the kind of passing tourist who bought some bargains
and went home to paint them and impress people. Here too, I guess I well studied
the case. Please be patient till the opus is out.
Thanks anyway for your
note.
Regards
Camille
Hi Camille -
I think things might go better if you provide a stable
picture of the issue(s) you want to and can discuss.
You started with
this sentence.
"...I am studying a group of rugs stylistically related to
the field design of these yastics. I wonder whether someone knows something
about the central square..."
The term "central square" seemed
straightforward and I responded in terms of this device in the
yastik.
But then
you seemed to say that we had mistaken your interest and that you really
intended to reference the broader nature of the field design: what I have
described as an "anchored medallion."
And you seemed to begin to discuss
this broader device somewhat (comments about hooks on the medallions being
"protective" devices, etc.) but now have announced that you cannot go forward
with some arguments you can in fact make because that would entail revealing
prematurely some of your unpublished research results.
Well, we're not
advising that, but are now puzzled both about what you want to, and can talk
about, at the moment. Please clarify.
I would also be interested in your
sense of some viable ways in which the meanings in rug designs might be
sought.
Regards,
R. John Howe
Hello John,
You took what I called “major field design” for the
central -what you called- “gul”.
I corrected that misunderstanding and since,
I guess I am doing my best to be the clearest possible.
You are always
referring to the yastik while there is a prayer rug detail that I posted and
about which I am talking as well. Where I am talking about hooks as protective
device is right bellow my prayer rug and these are around the square that is
inscribed inside the niche. Nevertheless, the hooks around the double
yellow/brown line in the yastik could also have the same meaning.
I am still
searching for a meaning of the central square and if the inside is a gul as you
suggested, I did not find any meaning for it knowing that no one yet suggested
what that kind of original [Ersari bag] gul could have represented and I don't
think it was a flower unless we refer to Dali's imagination for
metamorphosis!
About
the meanings, I cannot pretend to have discovered a great many things and this
is not easy at all as you already mentioned, but I could make a logic connection
between the name given by weavers for a certain motif and the global meaning of
the whole design or even with a technical feature
(!).
Regards
Camille
PS: It is not that easy for me to
attach pictures as I should refer to Mr. Price.
Dear Camille -
OK, maybe we have at least one focus of yours that we
can discern.
You say in part in the last post:
"...Where I am
talking about hooks as protective device is right bellow my prayer rug and these
are around the square that is inscribed inside the niche. Nevertheless, the
hooks around the double yellow/brown line in the yastik could also have the same
meaning..."
Me: I have heard before the notion that such hooks are seen
by some to be protective devices. But some others see them as likely "bird
forms," and I'll bet we could examine the literature and find other
interpretations of them still, including the notion that they may have no
symbolic meaning at all, but are merely one of the purely geometric devices that
populate Islamic art.
Do you hold the view that such hook devices in rugs
and other textiles are intended as protective devices? If so, please indicate
the basis for that view.
Regards,
R. John Howe
Hi John,
Your yastik “fragment” raises the issue as to just what a
fragment is. How much must be missing for it to be a fragment and not merely
excessively worn? I know that you attended a meeting of the Philadelphia Rug
& Textile Society last year that focused on collecting fragments. I’m
working to bring that discussion to Washington this fall.
I encountered
the following yastik fragment at the Carpet Fair in Istanbul and thought it to
be especially beautiful.
Wendel
Hi Wendel
That one has great colors. And no matter where the line is
that separates very worn from fragment, it's on the "fragment"
side.
Regards
Steve Price
Hi Wendel -
You raise the question of what qualifies as a
"fragment."
I would say that, while it can be argued, a "fragment" is a
piece that is in some respect only part of an original whole.
For me, the
question of "excessive wear" is separate.
I too, think the fragment you
saw at the ICOC XI dealers' fair is beautiful. I obviously don't claim that for
mine. (I'm not entirely sure that I can explain the appeal the piece I bought
has for me, but it is definite.) My piece is both a "fragment" and "excessively
worn."
I do think the condition of something that is a clear fragment
still affects its price. The very expensive Turkish village rug fragments at
ICOC XI were so in part because they were full pile. My own more modest, Konya
yellow-ground fragment was more reasonable because it is not of the full pile
sort.
By the way, referring to last November's Philadelphia in-person
"salon" on fragments, I wrote that up, with illustrating photos, for the
Philadelphia Rug Society club board, but it has never appeared (I just checked
their site again).
They suggested that I put it up on Turkotek, but too
many of the pieces used were and perhaps still are on the market.
The
Philadelphia folks did good preparation work for this subject and the session
went well in part because of the questions they posed at the beginning to
structure it. Their initial question was a little different. It was "When is a
Fragment 'Collectible?'" (These structuring questions were so successful in
fostering useful discussion that after over an hour had passed we had to remind
ourselves that we had some examples of fragments to look at.)
Craig
Wallen, hosted and led this salon discussion and I no longer have the actual
questions he used to structure it. What I do still have are my own thoughts
given to him
beforehand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Musing
on “Fragments”
I think that useful “cuts” into the world of oriental rugs
are often a matter of finding or fashioning good questions. In this case the
question of “what fragments might be seen to be ‘collectible’?” is less
interesting to me than is something more like “what can we learn from oriental
rug and textiles that are fragmented?”
Some examinations we can make with
fragmented pieces:
1. Sometimes re-assemblage is possible (TM “Pieces of
a Puzzle” exhibition; Kircheim in Orient Stars volume).
2. Sometimes can
reconstruct at least part of a large piece.
3. Often can produce a
computer simulation to suggest what a larger area with a design available only
in a fragment might have looked like (this seem more easily done with “repeat”
patterns. e.g. TM “Pieces of a Puzzle” exhibition and one Christopher Alexander
needlepoint reconstruction)
4. Smaller fragments of large pieces (e.g.,
some rugs in the TM “Pieces of a Puzzle” exhibition) can be more readily
compared (physically) than could the larger pieces from which they
came.
5. It is sometimes possible to learn things from a fragment that
are important for puzzling out some aspect of the whole [e.g. TM fragment of a
large Khorusan carpet has one finished side edge without a border, suggesting
that it might have been part of a mult-part assemblage to be fitted together
(design reinforces this suggestion since some devices are interrupted precisely
at a midpoint at this selveged, but borderless, edge)].
6. Sometimes the
“raw” edge of a fragment makes the materials used and the structure of a piece
more accessible.
7. Other Potentially Advantageous Qualities of
Fragmented Pieces.
- Sometimes one can afford a fragment, but not a whole
piece.
- Sometimes a fragment can still project remarkable
“wholeness”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those
familiar with Dan Walker's "Piece of a Puzzle" exhibition on classical Khurosan
fragments, will recognize that some of my questions are taken from those Dan
cited as advantages fragments can offer in his "walk-through" of this
exhibition.
The "Pieces of a Puzzle" exhibition is now on-line on the
TM's site. Here's the link:
http://www.textilemuseum.org/pieces/index.html
Good
intervention, Wendel.
Regards,
R. John Howe
Hello All,
A while ago there was a Salon, "Relics, Wrecks and Rags,
Fragments of the Imagination", by Patrick Weiler,
http://www.turkotek.com/salon_00110/salon.html
. Patrick
provided useful definitions of rags, wrecks, fragments, etc., I thought. Maybe
it would be helpful to use those definitions (with supplements) here as
well.
Still green with envy over those who attended
ICOC/Istanbul,
Lloyd Kannenberg
Dear John,
The hook we are talking about is too widely applied and for
quite a long time to be given just one signification especially that simple as
it is, it is too expressive for me to give it a simple decorative
value.
It could have been first inspired by the “Aleph” (A) letter used
in one of the ancient Kufic calligraphic styles. It then looked like a capital
“I” bearing a triangle at its top. By articulating the triangle 45 degrees
clockwise, we will have a hook. Moreover the triangle itself is known to
practically be one of the basic elements in Islamic abstract art.
This
hook for me has always taken different meanings:
If you take a look at the
dragon in the famous “Dragon and Phoenix” rug, the hooks with their sharp angles
and, being consecutive, creating other complementary hooks, look like claws and
a lot to the wildness and aggressiveness of the beast. Around the mihrab or the
spandrels, they do appear as protective devices. When you insert an eye inside
the triangle, you cannot but see it as an animal head, while in a dowry rug, a
double hook often seen as ram’s horns could well have the role of a symbol of
fertility.
Regards
Camille
Camille -
But this is speculation. The literature is full of such
speculation already.
I thought you were proposing to move beyond
that.
Regards,
R. John Howe
Hi John.
It is very easy to reject non-prooved ideas. If we've got to
be like Thomas all the way, I guess nothing will progress; after all, we are not
dealing with a clear science. I believe that in tribal and rural art, one should
always leave room for imagination, expression, feelings, symbolism,
superstitions and all what is related to the soul.
If you never lived in the
Orient, you can never value the amplitude of these values.
Now you can
call that speculation, I won't pretend it is the ultimate truth, but for me, it
is a good way to progress untill I am convinced about other suggestions that
rely -or not- on stronger proofs.
Regards
Camille
Camille -
I would not insist on hard-edged positivist-type proof, but
rather that the claims made for some meanings offer some basis for treating them
seriously other than "special insight," the latter open perhaps only to those
who had lived in rug-producing societies.
The basis should be such that
reasonable people looking at the evidence offered for the meaning(s) of a given
design or symbol would come to similar conclusions.
Assertion is not
demonstration.
Regards,
R. John Howe
Monsieur Camille,
quote:
If you never lived in the Orient, you can never value the amplitude of these values.
Hello Filberto,
Beirut is different from Chicago as far as East is not
West on one hand, and on the other, it is certainly not the Lebanese, Syrian
Turkish or Iranian countryside and much less where tribes dwell.
I do not
claim to have lived among all these but also did not stay in my shell in Beirut.
Besides, it is not only my oppinion, but I have heard this from many scholars,
the last of which was Siavosch Azadi that I met during the Istanbul ICOC and
that of Jon Thompson as well.
Regards
Camille
PS: Can
someone please tell me how to delete the line + signature bellow?
Hi Camille
I've deleted it, and I've set your profile to not put it
into any more of your posts.
Regards
Steve Price
Hi Camille -
You say in part:
"...Besides, it is not only my
oppinion, but I have heard this from many scholars, the last of which was
Siavosch Azadi that I met during the Istanbul ICOC and that of Jon Thompson as
well..."
Me:
Please specify what your "this" is, in this instance,
and give your Azadi and Jon Thompson cites. That is, relate your "this" to a
specific ICOC XI presentation by or personal conversation with one of these
gentlemen.
Be forwarned that Mr. Azadi is seen, in some circles, to
exhibit "romantic tendencies" in some of his writings. (See for example, Ned
Long's review, in ORR long ago, of Azadi's contribution to the volume in which
the Rautgenstengel's first structurally defined the Turkmen "eagle"
group.)
Regards,
R. John Howe
Hello John,
I feel like I am playing ping-pong against two!
I
am refering to what Filberto commented concerning the Oriental mentality and
"all what is related to the soul" at the rural and tribal weavers.
I met
both poeple many times and I am talking about personnal conversations.
The
one with Mr. Azadi was during ICOC XI.
I feel that Mr. Azadi is often
criticized. I personally feel that he often stretches datings and might have
added some salt and peper here and there. But he agreed on what I mentioned
above knowing also that he's Iranian.
Please, don't ask me where above
Regards
Camille
hi all
john - you stated ;
"But this is speculation. The
literature is full of such speculation already.I thought you were proposing to
move beyond that."
how would it be possible to move beyond speculation?
regards
richard tomlinson
Folks:
Jumping in late on all this very interesting stuff.
I
agree with John that there is a difference between "worn out" and "fragmented."
At the same time, I don't see much to be gained by establishing a finely tuned
definition of "fragment." One has to decide whether, in the whole context of
collecting, the thing is pleasing and desirable (such as the excellent little
item posted by Wendel) or not.
As far as that goes, I have always noted
that some worn rugs look good, and some just look dreary, and it isn't
necessarily a function of how good they were at the outset. I'm not quite sure
how that aesthetic operates.
Rich Larkin
Richard (Tomilson) :
About how to move beyond speculation.
If
you read back you will see that that is my own question. For me, a great deal of
rug literature is "taxonomy" (comparing similarities and differences in rug
designs) attempting to move to "development" (suggesting how rug designs
"evolve") in ways that are unearned. I personally think that suggestions about
what meanings particular designs have or had historically are also often without
much grounding.
Camille seemed at one point to be suggesting that his own
thoughts about designs moved beyond the more speculative. I was asking precisely
for any basis for that. It appears, now that he treats less evidence-based
indications from those in the rug producing societies more seriously than I
do.
Now, to attempt to answer that question, some feel that there is some
historical evidence of some design evolution (perhaps, sometimes, also
meanings). Here is an analysis by Horst Nitz here not long ago:
http://www.turkotek.com/mini_salon_00016/ms_16_t1.htm
Others
argue that it is not pointless, still, to interview older weavers to attempt to
determine what their views are.
But I think we are at least 200 years too
late, maybe much more, and that design evolution/meanings is a subject that we
ought largely to give up.
That's not going to happen and folks as well
thought of as Christine Klose, in Germany are very seriously going about it
still. Here is a link to our report on one of her efforts:
http://www.turkotek.com/mini_salon_00010/ms_10_t6.htm
She
thinks the main "eagle Kazak" device is sourced in Persian "vase" carpets.
Sometimes folks seem to be saying that if we can determine what the designs in
rugs "denote" we will also be able to infer reliably what they
"connote."
Regards,
R. John Howe