Richard Larkin

Hi all,

I'm starting this thread because the existing one took off on a question of dimensions as being diagnostic; and it has become quite full of images.

Following are a few more images from Iten-Maritz. As an active dealer in country through much of the middle of the twentieth century, his observations have to be given consideration. His volume is profusely illustrated, and he recognizes a distinction between “Kurdish” rugs and “Yuruk” rugs, though he does not acknowledge the historical fuzzing of the distinction, nor does he provide clear criteria by which his readers can make the distinction.

As mentioned above, he indicates that many Yuruk rugs resemble the production from settled peoples in the areas within which the Yuruk move, which seems to be at odds with his other statements cited by Joel concerning the highly original work of the Yuruk. In
any case, the following piece is from Obruk, where Iten-Maritz says there is a settled Yuruk population that weaves pile rugs.


He places this rug in 1900.


The next was illustrated by Joel earlier. I-M says that the Yuruk have few designs to call their own, but this is one of them, apparently derived from a Yuruk kilim. The rug is said to be 1930.




The following examples are town related Yuruks, the latch hook model (1900) attributed to Bergama, and the other (1925) to Ghiordes.




For comparison to alleged Yuruk rugs, the following hooked lozenge example is attributed to Kurds by I-M (c. 1930). He makes much of the precision of the weaving and drawing, saying it resembles work done from cartoons, though the piece was not woven in that manner. I agree with his assessment of the precision as looking somewhat non-Kurdish in that regard. It has more of the look of some South Persian drawing in my estimation.




The following detail is of a piece attributed to Kagizman in Eastern Turkey (c. 1930), i. e., Kurdish work. It is a familiar pattern from this Kurdish region.



It is beginning to seem clear that the Kurdish work masquerading (historically, in the marketplace) as Yuruk is reasonably recognizable to persons having handled a good number of rugs from these venues. However, the diagnostic criteria for genuine Yuruk work appears to be more elusive. It may be that Iten-Maritz is right about their work being largely imitative of their neighbors' weavings; and that circumstance may account in some measure for the fact that their work isn't readily recognized, or accurately discerned and described in the literature.

I have some other images to post that will be forthcoming shortly.

Rich Larkin

Richard Larkin

Hi all,

I have a nicely produced exhibition catalog on my shelf called, ANTIKE ANATOLISCHE TEPPICHE, Aus Osterreichischem Besitz. I can’t find a date, but judging from the latest dates in the bibliography, it was published in the early 1980’s. It has lovely plates, including several attributed to Kurds of Eastern Anatolia that would probably be called Yuruk by many in the trade; and two pieces actually called “Yuruk.”

The following attractive piece is one Yuruk, mid-nineteenth century from Central Turkey according to the catalog. It looks like an earlier version of the one I posted in frame #10 of the first thread, though I would predict the texture and handle would be different. The commentators relate it to the large patterned Holbein type of early Turkish carpet.



Though the catalog calls it “Yuruk,” the hooked vine inner guard border is noted in the commentary as “typical for Kurdish work,” leading one to wonder whether the authors are themselves distinguishing Yuruk from Kurdish.

The next piece is the other Yuruk and is described as frequently published. No wonder, as it’s a beautiful thing. The authors place it in Eastern Anatolia, and though they don’t mention a Kurdish connection, the question arises on account of the location.



The next piece is called Kurdish from Eastern Anatolia, and it bears a strong resemblance in the field to the G. G. Lewis example called by him, "Yuruk," posted by Joel in frame #12 of the first thread in the salon. The authors believe the dark palette is typical for Kurdish work from Eastern Anatolia in the second half of the mimeteenth century.



Three more Kurdish rugs from the catalog were attributed to Kagizman. The principal motif in the first of the images is referred to as an hourglass by Iten-Maritz, not in this example, but in others in that book. He goes on to comment on the ephemeral nature of earthly things in the perception of the very religious Kurds. Perhaps so, though one wonders about the popular custom of identifying rug patterns with the first image that comes to mind, as in a Rorschach test. The Austrian catalog doesn’t mention hourglasses. Note the resemblance of the second of the three rugs to the detail from Iten-Maritz in my earlier post.





The last image, above, is a familiar, sort of eye-dazzler pattern from Eastern Anatolia. The Austrian catalog cites Brüggemann for a thorough discussion of the pattern as having been derived from a flatweave. In any case, it is a classic from the region.

And now, as they say in Monty Python, for something completely different. The following is attributed to Kurds of Eastern Anatolia. The warps are orange, an unusual characteristic. Except for the end treatments, and black wefts, I wouldn’t expect it to take on a “Yuruk” label in the marketplace. A sweet little rug, though, whatever it is.




Rich Larkin

Joel Greifinger

Hi Rich,

Your posts in this thread provide a lot of new visual input, but let me just focus on the first rug in the first post, the one Iten-Maritz attributes to settled Yuruk in Obruk in central Anatolia.

The text explains that Yuruks adopt the motifs of their region of settlement but "interpret these very freely and often reproduce them carelessly." He goes on to illustrate this by pointing out the lack of symmetry and accuracy in the execution of the design. He concludes that when the weaver "ran out of brown wool for the main border, she simply substituted another shade!" Perhaps this "sense of freedom" is what Iten-Maritz was referring to in the quote I cited on the "originality" of their work.

Unfortunately, in terms of sorting out the Yuruk/Kurdish distinction, this just gets us further into the soup. Every element of Iten-Maritz's description of Yuruk "freedom" has frequently been used to describe the work of many Kurdish groups, as well. Abrupt color shifts, particularly in the borders, are a common feature in Kurdish rugs from the area. Lack of "symmetry and accuracy" are virtual trademarks, no?

So far we still haven't found much in the way of solid ground for Yuruk pile weaving. Still, I am intrigued that as recently as 1988, Eagleton would write that in Turkey, dealers have "no problem separating the weavings of one group from the other." I echo Detlev's request (in the "Dimensions" thread) that we hear from some folks in Turkey who have greater experience sorting these out.

Joel Greifinger

Steve Price

Hi Joel

One cautionary note: I'm sure Eagleton was telling the truth when he wrote that dealers in Turkey have no problem separating the weavings of one group from the other. This doesn't mean that they were actually separating them accurately. Some dealers make attributions with astonishing precision on the basis of nothing more substantial than how they feel about the piece or what they'd like the buyer to believe (about the rug and about the dealer's expertise). When asked how they do it, they simply tell the customer that they know because they've handled thousands of rugs. This is just as absurd as believing that someone can become fluent in Mandarin Chinese by handling thousands of books written in that language.

One of my favorite illustrations of this is in the catalog of the exhibition, Wie Blumen in der Wuste. It includes images of Yomud bags of essentially identical dimensions, labelling one as a spoon bag and the other as a spindle bag. It is as though I handed someone two empty drawers from the dresser in my bedroom and he was able to tell which one had held my underwear and which one had held my socks.

Regards

Steve Price

Joel Greifinger

Hi Steve,

I often think about the possible parallel with expert chick sexers (who determine the sex of day-old chicks on the basis of very subtle perceptual cues). Unfortunately, the analogy breaks down because, even though many chick sexers can't make explicit how they make their distinctions, their decisions are not only quick, but highly reliable. In that case, unlike with these rugs, we eventually know for certain whether they have gotten it right.



Joel Greifinger

Steve Price

Hi Joel

Chick sexing is a craft in which the knowledge can be traced to people who have actually seen the adult genders of chicks with different characteristics. It is important to their livelihood that they accurately sort the chicks by gender

The knowledge that rug dealers acquire for their craft can often be traced to dealers in the bazaars who make guesses (sometimes not even guesses, just fabrications). There's usually no way to find out whether their guesses were right or not, and just sounding confident is the basis for their credibility. Whether their attributions are correct is unimportant to their livelihood, but being believed is.

Regards

Steve Price

Rich Larkin

Hi Joel,

I agree that the conglomeration of rugs I posted muddles more than clarifies the picture. That’s really my point. It’s probably not an accident that “true” Yuruk rugs are not well identified or understood in the collective wisdom of rugdom. Apparently, there isn’t a common group of designs, weaving style, palette, or other characteristic that sets the true Yuruk apart from other rustic Anatolian production. Rather, it seems that the several groups of nomadic peoples to whom the name, “Yuruk,” is given produce a very diverse array of weavings. I believe that circumstance accounts for the fact that no widely recognized group of weavings produced by these peoples are called "Yuruk."

Ironically, it is the weavings of another group, i. e., certain Kurds (not to be called “Yuruk” under any circumstances according to Brüggemann and Böhmer), that do have a recognizable character and have long since taken on the label, “Yuruk.” This historical fact probably is an accident. Whether it was caused by Mumford, or merely reported by him, is hard to say. But his description of what he called “Yuruk” sounds very much like what are in my opinion the principal recipients of the “Yuruk” label over the years.

Though many rustic weavings from Turkey are apt to be called “Yuruk” from time to time, in my experience there is a particular type of rug that is most often identified by this name. The characteristics are many, and they are not necessarily all present in any particular example, but there is a certain “Yurukness” that is quite distinct. They are somewhat like Baluch rugs in this respect…quite a range when you think about it, but you usually know when you are looking at one. One prominent issue is the palette, which often features cochineal red, a very characteristic burnt orange, and a powerful mid-blue. The corrosive black one finds in them is usually very intensely black. There tend to be many secondary colors, often unusual relative to other rugs. Unfortunately, I don’t have a nifty example to put up, but following is a slightly tattered kilim that uses a good bit of the palette, including two oranges.



The rug you opened your essay with is very Yuruk, though the handling characteristics are a bit off the norm I am thinking of (I handled the rug at the sale from which you purchased). The one I posted in frame #10 of the dimensions thread is also very "Yuruk," though exhibiting atypical qualities of wool. That may be a function of later production.

Looking at the other rugs that have already been posted, the most typical example of what I have been talking about would be the first of Alex's posts in frame #8 of your first thread. The orange and the mid-blue are especially apt. Another prime Yuruk is the black and white photo you posted from Jacobsen, the fourth image in frame #12 of that thread. I am sure it exhibits the general palette I mentioned. The shape of the hooks on those three vertical diamonds is very typical for the group of Yuruks of which I speak.

Other recognizable features of the central group of Yuruks are very soft, often glossy wool, baggy shape (as shown by my kilim, above), and an advanced state of suppleness and pliability. The chronic shape problems of Yuruk rugs are said to be a function of nomad looms, staked on the ground and taken up for transport in the middle of the weaving. That may be, but I think a second factor is the use of relatively finely spun foundation materials to support relatively stout pile yarns that accounts for some of the shape problems of the rugs. I think these components also dictate the handling qualities.

I don't know what groups of Kurds weave the Yuruks I described, and it seems other Kurds in Turkey weave rugs with different characteristics. Many of the rugs illustrated in these threads, and elsewhere, attributed to Kurds of Eastern Anatolia around Kagizman, are not what I would call Yuruk, though the label can find them as I suggested above. In any case, I think the situation is complex around your Yuruk/Kurd question. In this respect, I am reminded of Patrick's salon on Shahsavan. He did a good job of pulling a number of characteristics out of the barrel to define what seems to be a definable Shahsavan product. But there seem to be several others as well, and no apparent consensus about what is what. In those cases, the rubric, "Northwest Persian" has been implemented to get past the confusion respectably. So, as you say, it will be good if some knowledgeable folks can step in here and allay some of the ignorance. However, it doesn't seem there are, or have been, too many of that ilk. That's why we have the problem you astutely identified.

Rich Larkin

P. S.: What do you think of the fact that nowhere in the 1982 Baktiari Rug Co, calendar devoted to "Yuruk" did the term, "Kurd," appear? Were you as shocked as I?

Steve Price

Hi Rich

You wrote,
... it will be good if some knowledgeable folks can step in here and allay some of the ignorance ...

One of the important things that knowledgeable folks know is the limits of what they know. My guess is that this is what's keeping them from resolving this issue.

Regards

Steve Price

Joel Greifinger

Hi Rich,

If I understand your post, the label ‘Yuruk’ has historically been applied to a group of rugs that have the ‘family resemblance’ characteristics you describe. While there aren’t any necessary and sufficient conditions for attribution, competent observers know them when they see/handle them and there would be a fairly broad agreement on which pieces are excluded. What makes the category problematic is that these rugs were made not by the people who refer to themselves as Yuruk, but rather by a particular group of Kurds in eastern Anatolia, probably from areas other than Kars/Kagizman. If this is the case, the often used label ‘Kurdish Yuruk’ that I derided as a misnomer in the salon may well delineate this category despite all of the linguistic/ethnographic ironies. It appears Eagleton may not get his way when he implores, "Let us be done with calling Turkish-Kurdish rugs ‘yoruks’!”

Here’s a rug that Eagleton categorizes as from the Kars region that “some dealers would call…Kagizman.” Does this fit into your Yuruk category?





Joel Greifinger

Joel Greifinger

Hi Steve,

Since we’re speculating on the motives of dealers who propound the origins of their wares with an air of certainty, what about the presumably knowledgeable folks who preside over the Oriental Carpet departments of the major auction houses? What is the incentive to label a rug that has characteristics that fit with much of the production from eastern Anatolia as specifically Yuruk, when there seem to be no commonly accepted attributes that distinguish it from examples generally called Kurdish? Why not simply label the piece Eastern Anatolian (much as many pieces of uncertain ethnic origin are simply labeled ‘NW Persian’)? It’s not as if the name ‘Yuruk’ carries market cache and thus higher hammer prices. If such labeling is based in market lore, you would think that such lore would provide enough consistency so that there would be a rough consensus on the basis for the attribution, even if it didn’t reflect the underlying reality of which weavers were really the producers. But none of this appears to be the case. The epistemological state of this corner of rugdom seems even sorrier than most of its other rather uncertain precincts.



Joel Greifinger

Steve Price

Hi Joel

If I cast aspersions on the motives of most dealers, that wasn't my intention. My experience with dealers who more or less specialize in antique ethnographic textiles is that theirs is a labor of love and their motivation is at least partly evangelical.

But if we try to find the basis of their knowledge, it's often impossible to trace it beyond marketplace myth, and marketplace myth is usually self-serving for the mythmaker; often based on nothing concrete, and often fabricated. The rug collector who became a dealer (the path a great many of them followed) brings to his new vocation a store of information that he's accepted pretty uncritically. That's not a criticism of his integrity, just a fact that applies to most collectors.

I don't place great store in the atttributions given by the experts at the main auction houses. Their education in this regard isn't much different than anyone else's. They have real expertise in estimating market value because they make an enormous number of estimates and, very important, they get feedback on the accuracy of their estimates. But even with this, their estimates are wrong by more than 20% about half the time, and are as likely to be too low as too high. Imagine how far off attributions might be!

Regards

Steve Price

PS: The differences of opinion may just reflect the fact that the people involved had different mentors.

Rich Larkin

Hi Joel,

You summed up my point of view. Looking at your essay piece, the following items (referring to your numbers) strike me as within the Yuruk ambit: 1-4 (yours, though I thought the handle was somewhat atypical); 6-9;11-13; 15 & 16. I wouldn't be inclined to call the one you posted yesterday a Yuruk, but I will if you'll just send it over. I like that one.

Have you seen the exhibition catalog of 1978 called, Yörük, The Nomadic Weaving Tradition of the Middle East? It featured an all star cast, including some persons with very strong Turkey credentials (e. g., Walter Denny, Belkis Acar, Ursula Reinhard, Ralph Yohe, Anthony Landreau, et al), and professed the purpose of documenting some of the weaving tradition of nomads before it was too late. In spite of the promise of the title, it barely mentioned the dichotomy between true Yörük peoples and others (i. e., Kurds), and said less about the distinctions among their weavings. Looking back on the catalog, the omission of these topics was conspicuous by its absence. If that bunch had had much to say on the subject, it would surely have come up. In fact, the exhibition was more widely focused on nomadic weaving across the Middle East. The catalog does include four good Yuruk examples (in black and white photos) according to my lights, but says virtually nothing about the production of people properly called "Yörük," judging from my brief re-perusal.

Incidentally, on the topic of who should be called "Yörük," you never know whom to believe. My 1981 edition of Murray Eiland (Comprehensive Guide) says that nomadic Kurds are called "Yörük" by the populace at large, but they don't refer to themselves by that term. If so, it might explain some of the apparently conflicting information we encounter. It could also have something to do with the use of the term to describe their pile rugs over the years. It makes sense. You have a broad range of nomadic peoples who are weavers. Many of them weave material that is hard to distinguish from the production of surrounding populations, but one group (Eastern Kurds) weaves a very distinctive product. Hence, the label sticks with them.

Your salon is a brave effort here, and the question has needed asking for a while. But the more I think about it, the more it seems unlikely that anybody is going to step out of the ranks and explain the true Yuruk rug. I don't ever recall seeing a rug forthrightly offered as an antique piece from the true "Yörük" provenance. The closest is the rug illustrated by Iten-Maritz as "Bergama-Yürük," estimated by him at 1900. It is the third image (left side) in frame #1 of this thread.

Rich Larkin

Richard Larkin

Hi Joel,

This piece might be viewed as off topic, but since it has features suggestive of Central Anatolian prayer rugs (e. g., the skinny border stripes), and is wooly and "Yuruky," I thought I'd stick it in.



It is yastik sized. Though the palette is similar to my paradigm Yuruk, it isn't quite the same. The rug is all wool, as I mentioned, but not what I'd call basic Yuruk. As to palette, the apricot and brilliant cochineal red are close. There is something different about the blue, the slightest hint of yellow in there. In fact, when I purchased this piece (ca. 1980), I thought some of the colors in it might be chrome dyes, and I'm not certain on that point today. The abrash in the blue might suggest not, but the red is quite uniform. I say chrome because if the colors were produced synthetically, they didn't use the poor quality dyes familiar on many early/mid twentieth century Turkish rugs.

The feel of the rug is pleasantly full, soft and meaty (this is getting dangerous) and very supple; and in no way harsh, in the manner of some (Yuruk) rugs with a lot of hair content. Though the white wool wefts are not all that visible between rows of knots, there are three to four fine shots between rows. The selvages are similar to the Yuruk I posted a few days ago (on the wood platform), but without the extra twist along the top.

I cannot say I have seen or handled another rug with just this set of qualities. That's in part why I bought it. Since it does resonate a little bit within your inquiry, I tossed it in thinking it could be true Yuruk. Ironically, I've called it a Yuruk yastik anyway, lacking a better label. Anybody's thoughts or insights would be welcome.

Rich Larkin

Joel Greifinger

Hi Rich and all,

Harald Bohmer has been studying nomads in Turkey since 1960. In his most recent book, Nomads in Anatolia, he brings together his knowledge of the history and current status of Yuruk, Turkmen and Kurdish nomads and their weavings, past and present. While the book focuses on the varieties of flat-woven items produced, his brief section, Knotted Rugs, is relevant to our discussion.

"Knotted rugs are not part of the furnishings of the black goat-hair tents of the Yuruks or the felt yurts of the Turkmen. Among the Anatolian nomads, apparently the creation of knotted rugs for use in tents is a tradition only among the Kurds. Yuruk women now also make knotted rugs, but this may be primarily to take advantage of an increasing demand for them, since they are more easily marketable than kilims."

None of the Yuruk groups to which he refers live (or have lived) in eastern Anatolia, having stopped in south-central Anatolia. He writes that, "in the nineteenth century there was a general eastward movement of the Yuruk tribes from Western Anatolia-until they were halted by the nomads or seminomads in the Kurdish regions." It seems that if we want to consider the people who refer to themselves as Yuruks and are so classified by ethnographers, we have to probably assume that whatever pile weavings we find, particularly from eastern Anatolia, are not their product.

Bohmer cites one possible exception in the case of knotted rugs called Karakecili. The Karakecili are Yuruks who have been settled in Western Anatolia for at least three generations. Their earlier nomadic dwellings may have included pile rugs as Bohmer saw temporary examples of such dwellings erected at a Yuruk festival in 1975 that had such rugs decorating the outside walls. Here is one that he attributes to the late nineteenth century:



In terms of "so-called Yuruks" (my preferred designation of the moment), here's a piece that Skinner sold as an eastern Anatolian Yuruk Yastik in 2007.



By the way, Rich, what did you find un-Yuruk-like about the handle of my so-called Yuruk?

Joel Greifinger

Richard Larkin

Hi Joel,

The following piece is about khorjin sized. It resembles your Karakecili examples, though it may be superficial, based on the triangular devices in the border filler.



It has offset knotting in the manner of Jaff bags, and on that account, I've always considered it to be Eastern Anatolian Kurdish work.

Regarding your Yuruk at the top of the salon, I thought I recalled the texture to be heavier, or stiffer than the typical Yuruk. Many of them are supple to a fault, and don't lie flat. I have often found them torn, and I consider them to be more prone to this harm than most rugs on account of the odd curl or high edge, hanging out there to be tripped over. I think some of them have very finely spun foundation materials in comparison to the pile, so that they don't have a lot of heft or body relative to their weight. Was I wrong about that in regard to your piece?

Rich Larkin

Joel Greifinger

Hi Rich,

I just hung the rug I began the salon with. Your description of the handle of the "central group of Yuruks" fits exactly.

At the auction, it was displayed hanging from a rack. I asked them to take it down to see if there was any possibility it could be cajoled into lying flat. Not a chance, even with much gentle persuasion. But, since I have no intention of putting it on the floor, that just added to its nomadic mystique.

Joel Greifinger

Richard Larkin

Hi Joel,

No doubt, my recollection of the handling characteristics of your recent purchase is faulty. I took particular note of it at the sale preview (hanging on a rack, as you say) because I thought it was one of the better pieces in the sale. I thought I recalled it as somewhat stiff in feel, but not so, you say. Anyway, it's a classic of its type in color and design, and highly collectible inmy opinion. The house's estimate of the date is quite plausible, I think.

Rich

Richard Larkin

Hi Joel and all,

This is a detail of the back of the yastik I posted in frame #13, below.



I'm posting it to illustrate that there are rustic rug types that are vaguely Yuruk in character, but not in the "classic" mold, that are generally nameless in the trade, at least to me. I won't be repetitive about the various characteristics of the piece. A distinctive aspect of it is that though it has multiple wefts, as many as four between some rows, and even areas of five where there was apparently overlapping done with discontinuous wefting, it does not look in any way like a Yatak from the back; nor is the pattern indistinct on the back, as is often the case with rugs having high numbers of weft rows. This is because the wefts were spun very fine. All in all, the weaving techniques and style are quite distinctive, yet, I've not seen another piece I consider like it in those respects. I think there are many weavings that are from rural settings, and not seen in the markets in high volume. These kinds beg a name, and it is this sort of situation that gives rise to catch-all rubrics like "Yuruk."

Rich Larkin

Lloyd Kannenberg

Hello Joel, Rich, and all,

I understand that Joel's main interest is in identifying East Anatolian Yuruk pile weavings, but as a reference point it is perhaps instructive to look at a few West Anatolian examples. In particular, Bruggemann and Bohmer illustrate examples of "the group of so-called Kutahya Yuruks from West Anatolia," which have "not only peculiarities of colour" (the red is madder, not cochineal), "but [are] also characterized by the use of cotton in warp and/or weft." Here are the three rugs they show:







The first two are obviously yataks, I'm not so sure about the third. To my mind, at least, the lesson to be learned here is that disentangling "true" Yuruk pile rugs (if they exist) from Kurdish rugs is extremely difficult - at least for this amateur. And at some point the effort of trying to do so distracts from the enjoyment of the rugs themselves, whatever their origin; they are, or at least can be, beautiful objects in themselves.

Lloyd Kannenberg

Marla Mallett

Just a couple of thoughts to throw into the mix:

I have several Turkish/Kurdish dealer friends with extended families living in Eastern Anatolia--many in Malatya Province. Some of them have commented that sure--there are both Turks and Kurds living in their families' villages. Whenever we have talked about the weaving done there, and I've asked how the weavings of these two groups differed, the reply has always been a surprised, "It's exactly the same." So sorting these products into two groups obviously makes little sense, unless we are talking about weavings from areas populated entirely by Kurds. In fact, Westerners seem to make much more of a distinction between Kurdish and Turkic cultures and products than do people in Turkey (except for the radical PKK). The "politically correct" term for Kurds in Turkey for a long time was "Mountain Turks" and Western publications that referred to Turkish ethnic groups were often banned in the country. While various governmental prohibitions have been in effect from time to time, intermingling of the groups has been common throughout Anatolia. After 1991, when most of the official prohibitions were finally lifted--against Kurdish language use, Kurdish publications, Kurdish music cassettes, etc.--we even heard prominent Turkish politicians begin to proclaim publically that "after all I am half Kurdish!"

Over the past 25 years I've visited many semi-nomadic Turkic groups in Anatolia. (There are virtually NO groups that are completely nomadic remaining now, except for perhaps a few Sarakecili in the Southeast.) Over the years my friend Josephine Powell visited virtually every one of these groups still actively weaving in Anatolia and documented their weavings--visiting some multiple times. Harald Bohmer has likewise visited innumerable weaving groups and photographed their products. We all found the same thing everywhere: NONE of these people produced pile rugs until AFTER they settled . But once in permanent winter quarters, many of the young women eagerly learned to weave pile rugs for sale, copying either pieces produced by their neighbors or examples they saw in the markets . Occasionally kilim, brocade or warp-substitution motifs appeared in their knotted pile work. Meanwhile, only the older women continued to produce a few kilims and bags for their own families' use. These families, with their typically more spread-out settlements, have often been referred to as "Yoruk" by more sophisticated city folk or villagers nearby, whether or not parts of these rural groups still took animals to higher pastures in the summers. It's a stretch to call their commercial "cottage industry" pile rugs "nomad" or "tribal" products , however. Outside of rug circles, the term "Yoruk" has often been a pejorative term, while Turkish merchants have found it a useful label for coarsely woven rugs, since the "nomad" fantasy always sells well.

Marla

Rich Larkin

Hi Lloyd,

Nice posts. I haven't seen Bruggemann and Bohmer (alas!) and wouldn't have leaped to attribute those rugs to Western Turkey. Did the authors estimate age for the three? You say the first two are "obviously yataks." I think of yataks as having very long pile and widely spaced rows of knots due to multiple wefts. True? Other than that issue, why are the first two obvious and the third, not? I assume the sizes are approximately 4 to 5' by 5 to 6'. Yes?

Rich Larkin

Rich Larkin

Hi Marla,

It's always a treat, and a novelty (), to hear actual facts from the field. Judging from your findings and those of your colleagues, are you inclined to believe that nomadic weavers in Turkey in the nineteenth century did not produce pile rugs? Many of the older rugs traditionally named "Yoruk" in the marketplace are characterized by severe shape and "flatness" issues. These things have frequently been attributed to the fact that rudimentary looms were taken up and reset one or more times on the trek, creating warp tension problems.

Rich Larkin

Marla Mallett

Hi Rick,

There is NO evidence that Turkic nomads in Anatolia ever produced pile rugs before settling, and the most accomplished and experienced scholars, such as Dr. Bohmer, have told me flatly that it never occurred with Turkic weavers in Anatolia. The matter is more unclear among Kurds. Over and over again, elderly women have told me that their grandmothers, great grandmothers and all of their neighbors wove only kilims and bags, as did they. They saw pile carpets if they visited a mosque occasionally, but these things were considered village and city items, not things that were practical for them . The fact that some of the rugs we collect are misshappened is not evidence to the contrary. It is VERY EASY for inexperienced weavers to create products with tension problems, under even the best circumstances on a primitive loom. In fact, it is the rare individual who, with the first few tries, can produce a piece absolutely even in width and also flat, unless she is working alongside an experienced weaver under constant supervision. Until recently, when commercial producers began furnishing looms with rotating beams and metal ratchets, Anatolian village weavers typically used looms with two stationary beams and circular warps; they pulled the completed portions of their rugs around the bottom beams and up the backs of their looms. Perfect tension control is a very difficult matter on such a warp, and great skill is required. Relatively new weavers working with unfamiliar techniques have a particularly difficult time controlling such a thing. I've seen such looms with the most amusing solutions used to try to correct tension problems--sticks stuck in the warp when problems occurred, or more commonly, old socks. (At home, even on my own sophisticated looms, old washcloths have occasionally performed the same function!) These makeshift solutions help the artisan during the weaving process, but almost guarantee that the piece will be crooked or rumpled once the piece is removed from the loom.

In the circumstances I described before, where there were family conversions from the old traditional nomadic flatweaves to the production of pile rugs (with the younger women learning to produce pile rugs because that is what they could sell), several features characterize the work: First, the pieces tend to be more coarsely woven, longer-piled products, as these women searched for a satisfactory, but unfamiliar weave balance. Second, the designs tend to be simple--quite natural when there were not rugs at hand to copy knot-for-knot. Third, slit-tapestry, brocade or (less often) warp-substitution motifs appeared occasionally in the designs. Fourth, and most important, the pieces display technical problems. These characteristics are the same whether the pieces were woven in the 20th century or 100 years earlier.

The old saw, that crooked pieces are nomad work because the looms were moved frequently, is just not verifiable. Among the remaining semi-nomads in Anatolia, serious weaving is winter work, when the families are stationary in winter quarters. Any women who go to the yayla mountain pastures in the summer are much too busy taking care of the young animals and handling milk processing chores. If they weave at all, it is likely to be simple storage sacks or something of the sort that can be finished quickly. If you visit any of these people in the spring--in April, say--they are all hurrying to finish up the work on their looms, and gathering their belongings for the summer trek. Their very heavy looms stay empty for a few months in the winter houses, firmly implanted in the earthen floors. One reason for producing kilims in narrow panels that later are joined, is to avoid the prospect of having to move anything.

Marla

Richard Larkin

Hi Marla,

Once again, the bracing and unfamiliar dose of facts. Fascinating. Thanks for the comments.

Rich Larkin

Lloyd Kannenberg

Hi Rich,

As I understand it, a yatak is squarish in format, with thick, heavy pile (not as long as in a tulu or filiki) and usually a pattern of repeats. Maybe I shouldn't have said "obviously", though; I had help from B & B in the identification! As for the third rug, its format is not so square, and the field with a central medallion is less common in yataks. As for the wefting, the first two have 1 to 4 of what B & B call "packing wefts", the third 6-8 wefts (not identified as "packing wefts") between rows of knots. The "yellow ground Konya" rugs also typically have many wefts per row of knots, but I don't think they could all have been yataks.

Lloyd Kannenberg

Joel Greifinger

Hi Marla,

Like Bohmer and others, you make the point that Turkic nomads and semi-nomads in Anatolia did not start weaving pile rugs until after they had settled and then did so because of their marketability. As you say, the situation among Kurds is more ambiguous. Bohmer does seem to imply that nomadic and semi-nomadic Kurds are and have been weavers of pile rugs:







In Nomads in Anatolia, he documents knotted rugs as a feature of Kurdish tents (in the photo and #4 in the diagram). Doesn’t this suggest that some number of pile rugs were being produced by Kurdish nomads and semi-nomads for use in the yayla, whether or not this is where they were woven?

Your comment on the “old saw” that crooked weaving implies nomad production raises provocative question on the topic at hand: Do you think the coarsely woven (and frequently misshapen) rugs that have long been referred to as Yuruk in the trade have largely been the product of relatively inexpert settled Kurdish weavers? Would you say that this difference in technical competence has been a differentiating criterion between those so-called Yuruk rugs and others attributed as simply ‘Eastern Anatolian’? While I realize I am asking you to speculate, your experience renders you a particularly valuable resource in this area where reliable knowledge has clearly played so small a role.

Thanks for your input,
Joel Greifinger

Marla Mallett

Hi Joel,

As several people have noted in this discussion, the term Yoruk has become almost meaningless as used in the trade. It's been slapped on just about any slightly long-piled, coarsely-woven rug, when there's not been a better label available. Such pieces have been produced just about everywhere in Anatolia. Kurdish and Turkic populations are so mixed in some areas of Eastern Anatolia that sorting their products is an almost impossible task...though I'd caution anyone who assumes that pieces from the areas surrounding Kagizman, Erzerum or Kars are Kurdish to be careful. At least the most important nomadic weaving groups in those areas were not Kurds.

Weavings with technical problems can't be assigned to any one group. Inept or inexperienced weavers existed everywhere, as almost every weaver was exactly that at the beginning. Kurds and Turks. Anybody can produce a crooked rug on a primitive loom. Likewise, long-piled rugs glamorized in the trade as Yatak were produced by fringe elements just about everywhere. Dye palettes are often the best diagnostic features when trying to pin down the origins of such pieces.

I can speak with absolutely NO authority about Kurdish weavers, since I don't speak Kurdish and have concentrated my gadding about to visits with Turkic weavers. Since I've most often been in Turkey in the winter, many areas in the far East have been snowed in, and warmer areas were much more appealing when one expected to routinely be put up in unheated quarters (though I'll never forget one January blizzard in a village near Bergama). Over the past 25 years there have often been official military prohibitions against foreigners wandering about in the most densely populated Kurdish areas of Southeastern Anatolia where the PKK has been concentrated. Also, for years, rumors were rampant about drugs being planted on visitors in certain villages on main routes, and arrests then made on down the road. There are several good reasons why rug people know so little about those areas, and why most of what we read is market lore. Adventuresome, but non-Kurdish-speaking Turkish friends with whom I've travelled have simply been unwilling to venture into some of those territories. So my knowledge of Kurdish weaving practices is based almost entirely`on hearsay--on accounts by Kurdish friends who have family roots in the East.

To address your more speculative question: Since Turkic weavers travelling to the mountain yaylas for the summer have sometimes rounded up special weavings and carted them along if a wedding was planned, I suppose we can assume that Kurds might well have done the same thing--with either flat weaves or pile rugs. Weddings were always major events, and the yaylas were the places favored for these affairs.

Marla

Steve Price

Hi Marla

For the benefit of those who don't know it: When Turkey became a republic in 1922 with a revolution led by Kemal Attaturk, it adopted as an official policy that the government would not recognize subgroups of Turks, a policy that I believe still exists. Kurds were referred to as mountain Turks, Kurdish radio and TV broadcasts were illegal and Kurdish language stations in western Europe were jammed. Teaching the language was forbidden, as was possession of audio tapes of music sung in Kurdish. The principle was/is that national unity was best fostered by not having an awareness of ethnic diversity. That's very different than the attitude in the USA. Are they right, or are we? I have my opinions, but history will ultimately tell the story.

Jean and I have been in eastern Anatolia as tourists; four visits between about 1995 and 2002. Nathan, who was born in 1991, was with us for the two most recent visits. In two of them we were traveling with a dealer whose name everyone here would recognize (I'm not mentioning it because we don't promote dealers). He's Kurdish, as are many dealers, and we met his family and a number of his childhood friends in and around Van. I have no reason to suspect that any of them was involved with the PKK. Several emphatically volunteered to us that they weren't. Do I know for a fact that this was true? No, but neither do they know for a fact that I'm not part of some hate group in the USA (being a Republican or Democrat doesn't count). They were openly resentful and frustrated by their government's restrictions on expressions of Kurdish heritage and the enormous signs on the mountains with Turkish pride slogans.

Anyway, we have spent time in Van, Kars, Diyarbekir, Gaziantep, Urfa, etc. Most or all of the largest Kurdish population centers, many small villages and towns as well. We never felt unsafe or threatened, and our impression was that the Kurds of eastern Anatolia were as hospitable, warm, and outgoing as the Turks we encountered everywhere in the country. The only place in the country that we found unpleasant and intermittently threatening was Trabzon, which struck me as a miniature Moscow.

As an aside, one year there was some unrest and fears of violence in Turkey, so we vacationed in southern France out of safety considerations. We encountered a convention of pickpockets (yes, I'm not kidding, a convention of pickpockets) in St. Marie sur la Mer. Once we escaped from that we went to Arles, where our car was broken into and all of our belongings (including passports) were stolen.

I apologize for the diversion, but wanted to offer a counterpoint to your take on eastern Anatolia. Not to deny the existence of the PKK or to defend their actions, just to point out that they are by no means a pervasive presence or influence.

Regards

Steve Price

Richard Larkin

Hi Marla,

I'd like to take advantage of your presence at this time and your expertise in technical weaving issues.

In line with Joel's suggestion, I've noted over the years that an unusually high proportion of the rugs I've seen with severe shape or flatness problems have been a certain kind of the sort that have been called "Yuruk" in the trade. Without getting repetitive about their specifications, I'll say that I've thought the rugs that exhibited these symptoms tended to have relatively finely spun fiundations materials in proportion to the density or weight of the pile yarns. Thus, I thought that part of the reason the fabrics were out of balance was that the foundations lacked the strength to handle the full mass of the pile. Alternatively, I've thought that the foundation materials chosen for these rugs might have had a more elastic quality than some other foundation materials, possibly because they were of hair rather than wool. Knowing that you have a keen understanding of "weave balance" issues, I wonder whether you can tell me if any of my notions inthese regards have any valildity.

Thanks.

Rich Larkin

Marla Mallett

Hi Steve,

I don't disagree with a single thing that you have said. I was interested in going to the Kurdish nomadic areas in the Southeast in the 1980s and early 1990s, however, not the areas you listed. Van has always been a prime tourist destination, and so that has never been a problem for anybody, while Kars is hardly a Kurdish stronghold. Likewise, Gaziantep has a very mixed population, and is an area accessible to anybody. Cities like Diyarbakir and Urfa and their surroundings have always been accessible. But it is the nomadic areas farther to the south and southeast that are problematic.

I was in Turkey for the duration of the first Gulf War, when President Ozel finally lifted the official prohibitions against Kurdish language, publications, etc., and I witnessed at first hand the reactions of both Turks and Kurds to those proclamations. Everybody was incensed, because it was such a transparent and blatant ploy at that time to win over the Kurdish communities when officials were contemplating a land grab, and had their eyes on some of the rich oil-producing areas in Iraq around Kirkuk. Gaining that oil-rich land would have also increased Turkey's Kurdish population, so Ozel was hedging his bets and trying to smooth things out with those populations! Perhaps ONE good, but unpredictable, result of the Gulf War.

There have been parts of the southernmost Kurdish areas that have been under tight military control off and on throughout the past 25 years, however, and roadblocks where outsiders were routinely turned away. About five years ago when I worked on a Djezire twill-herringbone covers project with our mutual friend Daniel D and a Kurdish Belgian dealer (it's posted on my website Structure Updates pages), that Kurdish guy with family in the Cizre area had great difficulty travelling there to hunt for the pieces we all wanted to study. He talked about going to several villages at that time, and though they were within sight, he was not allowed to enter them. In the 1980s the situation was more difficult. Travelling with your friend (whom I have known since the early 80s) would have been a different matter, as visiting the Kurdish-dominant cities you've mentioned and certain other selected nearby areas would have been easy enough. PKK activities have been centered in the nomadic regions along the Syrian and Iraqi borders--exactly those places in which "field research" into relatively undisturbed ethnographic weaving traditions would be the most interesting. I presume that currently, with heavy military concentrations along the Iraq border, that area is still inaccessible.

I have always been pretty fearless (foolhardy?) in my travels, but in my earliest travelling years Turkish friends who were closely in tune with the realities of the situations and thus more prudent than I, were feeling very cautious. Among these friends were persons who had grown up in kilim weaving families in the mountains and thus were more comfortable in rural communities than our sophisticated city friends and rug dealers, but they were individuals who had also served time as officers in the Turkish military, and thus knew the hazards from that perspective. One of these individuals had also spent extended time incarcerated simply because he was caught in the crossfire of a demonstration! THAT would make anyone cautious. Anyone who has spent time in Istanbul over the last few years knows young Kurdish guys who are routinely picked up as terrorist "suspects." They are held for a few days and then released, only to be picked up again a couple of months later. One young rug dealer friend has been jailed over a dozen times, at last count. I love Turkey, and go there at every opportunity, but one is foolish not to remain aware of the realities.

With that said, Turkey has "modernized" so much recently, in the effort to gain EU membership, and so many governmental controls have now been relaxed, that it is difficult to remember the days not so long back when huge numbers of "dissidents", authors, and journalists were routinely jailed. Not just PKK members or suspects. It is difficult now to remember the days after the films "Midnight Express" and especially "Yol" were receiving widespread viewing in the West, and Turkish officials were especially uptight and concerned about more "bad publicity" if foreigners visited "backward" parts of their country.

Anyone in the rug business has lots of Kurdish friends, as those guys dominate the business in Turkey, and they are fantastic friends. I couldn't agree with you more that both Turks and Kurds are almost without exception exceedingly warm and hospitable, or I would not have spent so much time in their homes over the years. When travelling, there is ALWAYS someone nearby willing to help if that is need. But it's hard to fight officialdom.

Marla

Marla Mallett

Hi Rich,
(First, I apologize for writing Rick before! Simple typo.)

I think your observation is quite astute. When there is one kind of technical problem in a rug, it's hardly surprising to find others as well. It goes along with being an inexperienced artisan. When pile rugs are first produced in communities without a substantial history of that kind of weaving, it's quite natural to find the materials a bit out of balance. The relationships between the sizes and character of warp, weft and pile yarns are critical. Warp sett (spacing) must be exactly suited to these features. Elasticity and the kind of spin and ply of each element are part of the mix. The ways wefts are inserted can vary a lot. In fact, there are lots of different factors to juggle...Change just one element, and everything else is thrown out of kilter.

Of course heavy pile on a flimsy ground weave is ridiculous. Actually, goat-hair warps are considerably LESS elastic than wool warps, so their use can increase the potential problems. A stretchy wool warp can be quite forgiving. But just think of what stress any rug warp is subjected to, with fingers continually poking through it and tugging at individual warps when tying knots. It's a wonder that more pieces aren't a mess, and particularly those with goathair warps. Anyway, it takes a lot of experimentation to achieve a perfect weave balance and when this is NOT present, it's a good guess that the weavers are part of a group which doesn't have much of a history with that kind of production, i.e., weaving groups in transition from one kind of weaving to another.

Marla

Steve Price

Hi Marla

My comments were only intended to help head off the reactions that many others could have had by failing to fully understand yours. As you note, Van is a popular tourist destination and has probably never been a threatening environment for westerners. But here's a little anecdote. About 14 months ago I posted some remarks about having had pleasant interactions with an unnamed Kurdish dealer in Van. It promptly elicited a reaction on a blog called Turkotek Watch that was maintained by a prominent Rugdom web personality at the time. The blogger wrote, ... it sounds as if Steve found his way into one of the PKK fronts that sell Kurdih (sic) rugs to fund the rebellion against the Turkish Government.

It made me aware of how ill-informed and bigoted a few (I hope it's only a few!) of our fellow ruggies are, and I wanted to be sure we don't contribute to that here. Thinking that supporting the PKK is the norm among Turkish Kurds is about as ignorant as thinking that all Muslims support the Taliban. But, some people believe it.

Regards

Steve Price

Marla Mallett

One more thing...About Turkish/Kurdish rug production confusion in the literature: Back in the early 80s I was having conversations with Turkish friends about the possibility of collaborating on a book devoted to Anatolian storage sacks, saddlebags, etc. I commented that it was a shame certain Turkish authors had not identified the ethnic origins of rugs and kilims in their publications--even museum publications. I got a very surprised retort: "They wouldn't dare!...And neither could we!" My friends were so shocked at my audicity, that the project essentially ended at that point. Thus in NO Turkish publications, until just the last few years, have Kurdish or Armenian weavings been identified as that. Once many years ago when I was intending to take a well-known book on Armenian inscribed rugs as a gift for an Armenian rug dealer friend, and asked in advance if he had the publication, he said Yes...When I got to Turkey I found that he had just told me that so I wouldn't get into trouble if my luggage was inspected! I have heard numerous reports of foreign publications with substantial accounts of Kurdish weaving being routinely banned, or "offensive" pages torn out or blacked out with magic markers. So it is hardly a surprise that the whole Anatolian Kurdish/Yoruk rug thing is confused.

Marla

Steve Price

Hi Marla

Things have certainly changed in the last 25 years or so. I've never experienced or witnessed any unpleasantness or discomfort with Turkish customs agents (first trip was around 1995, though, not in the 1980's) except for the absurd cost of the entry visas.

Visiting the USSR in 1979 as guest of the USSR Academy of Sciences, I saw and experienced the sorts of things you described. I had not been aware that they were practiced in Turkey in what was then the fairly recent past. By the time I left the USSR (after 3 weeks), I understood why Soviet scholarship in the sciences was as weak as it was. They were constantly laboring and making discoveries, but most of the things they discovered were well known in the rest of the world already.

Regards

Steve Price

Joel Greifinger

Hi Marla,

Thanks for the useful reminder that any discussion of why we lack greater clarity about the ethnic origins of Anatolian weavings has to be rooted in the political and historical context of the suppression of non-Turkish identities. To briefly summarize for readers less familiar with the relevant details of the Kemalist project: In accordance with the provisions included in the Treaty of Lausanne which was signed in 1923, the Turkish Constitution recognized three groups of non-Muslims residing in Turkey (Armenians, Greeks and Jews) as ethnic minorities. All Muslims within Turkey’s borders were to share an exclusive national identity as Turks. Kurdish was one of the unnamed languages that was banned by law and Kurdish publications were suppressed whenever they reappeared. It was dangerous to assert that Turkish Kurds existed at all.

This is a particularly interesting moment for us to be having this discussion, since Turkey’s ruling AK Party has undertaken what is being referred to as the “Kurdish initiative”. On October 19th, thirty four PKK militants in uniform came across the Habur border crossing from Iraq. Five who were arrested and brought before judges were released within hours without any statements of remorse for their past actions. Such statements are generally the requirement for release under Article 221 of the Turkish Penal Code. The opposition parties (the MHP and long-ruling Kemalist CHP) are denouncing such moves towards reconciliation and, according to commentary in the Turkish press, inciting anti-Kurdish sentiments in the Western part of the country. Whether the pro-Kurdish DTP (Democratic Society Party) will tone down its sometimes separatist-tinged rhetoric may have a crucial impact on how things go from here.

Over the past six years there have been various reforms giving citizens limited rights to broadcast in Kurdish and teach the language in some private schools. Nonetheless, Article 42 of the Turkish Constitution still states. “No language other than Turkish shall be taught as a mother tongue to Turkish citizens at any institutions of training or education.”

Joel Greifinger

Steve Price

Hi Joel

Everything you say is correct, but it's important to remember that there's another important reason for the present day confusion about how to distinguish east Anatolian yuruk from Kurdish weavings: the fact that nobody really knew made it easy for a number of people to pretend (or deceive themselves into believing) that they did know. This fostered the myth that bona fide experts like themselves could tell the difference between yuruk and Kurdish weavings from the region. It is yet another example of the absurd belief that if someone has handled enough rugs he will be able to reliably attribute any rug he handles. Handling lots of rugs is a necessary condition to being able to do that, but not a sufficient one.

The fact that nobody knows is different than the fact that many believe that there are folks who actually do know, and they spring from different roots.

Regards

Steve Price

PS: No language other than Turkish shall be taught as a mother tongue to Turkish citizens at any institutions of training or education ... isn't the same thing as forbidding Kurdish language broadcasts or recordings. The only western nations I can think of that have more than one official language are Canada, Belgium and Switzerland, and not many North Americans or Europeans think that it's oppressive to have only one official language.

Joel Greifinger

Hi Steve,

I didn't mean to conflate the ban on teaching the Kurdish language as the basis for the restrictions on Kurdish publications, broadcasts and recordings, though they are of course related. Until very recently Article 42 has been interpreted not merely as an endorsement of Turkish as the official language, but as prohibiting the teaching of the Kurdish language to Turkish Kurds in any educational setting. While France certainly has a single official language (that they monitor quite closely), they don't impose legal restrictions on the teaching of other languages in private schools set up for that purpose. While far from 'multiculturalist', the French state (and the EU overall) recognize this as legitimate tolerance toward the desired survival of ethnic communities. It is not accidental that the movements in this direction taken over the last six years in Turkey in relation to Kurdish language and culture coincide with Turkey's attempt to align itself with EU regulations in its bid for membership.

Well put.

Joel Greifinger

Marla Mallett

In talking about "bans" of one sort or another, and legal statutes, one must be aware that Turkish law and what the military enforces are sometimes quite different matters. Since the mid 20s, the Turkish military has been very independent, and they consider themselves the guardians of democracy in Turkey. When the military brass feel the politicians are going the wrong direction, they move in, take over, and once affairs are restored to a "proper order," they move out. The last time this happened I believe was around 1979 or 1980...I don't remember exactly, but marshal rule was in effect for a time. There was lots of serious talk recently about the same thing happening again after the religious party won national power, as the military has always been strictly secular. You won't find these facts in "official" publications, but they are the reality.

Marla

Steve Price

Hi Anyone

We try to keep politics out of our discussions because of the risk that if we include them, we'll wind up being so occupied with it that we won't have time for our central purpose - rugs. Geopolitics is interesting and important, but there are lots of other places where it can be pursued.

The nature of Joel's Salon topic has inextricable links to Turkey's relations with its Kurdish poplulation, and we've let that enter the discussion because it's an important element. But I ask that those planning to discuss it further please consider the relevance to our main focus before doing so. If what you intend to say is important to developing an understanding of Joel's Salon topic, please say it. If not, please don't.

This applies to me, too, of course.

Thanks.

Steve Price

Marla Mallett

Sorry Steve, for my part in the diversion. Politics has, unfortunately, sometimes determined what's in the rug books and what isn't; political concerns have curtailed academic and museum studies as well as field work in important areas, thus limiting and distorting our knowledge. Anyone wanting to know more about current relationships between various groups and "official" Turkey, may wish to check out the online Amnesty International Report 2009 before assuming that they're getting the full story in government-sanctioned press reports.

Marla

Steve Price

Hi Marla

Politics has, unfortunately, sometimes determined what's in the rug books and what isn't; political concerns have curtailed academic and museum studies as well as field work in important areas, thus limiting and distorting our knowledge.

That's why I've allowed geopolitics to enter the discussion. On the other hand, we've gotten closer to the edge of relevance than I like to go. There are a number of Armenians angry at me for not allowing them to express their opinions of Turks, and a number of Azeris are angry at me for not allowing them to express their opinions of Armenians. We simply can't allow Turkotek to become a forum in which national and ethnic differences are debated.

I think it's safe to assume that our readership is sufficiently intelligent and educated to take government sanctioned reports from any country with grains of salt.

Steve Price

Patrick Weiler

Marla,

When I was on a bus tour of Turkey for the most recent ICOC, we visited several museums showing rugs from many areas of Anatolia. The museum guides invariably described virtually all of them as Turkish, regardless of their obvious Armenian, Kurdish or Thracian origin.
It is likely that this was not due to ignorance or indifference, but political expedience.

Patrick Weiler

Horst Nitz

Hello all,

the old Ottoman Empire was a multiethnic-multinational body with the Ottomans as the ruling elite, fierce towards its enemies and at times of war, quite liberal in religious matters. Until the cataclysm produced in the 19th century by nationalism and European imperialism, it had worked well enough for many for a long time. The Kemalists’ revolution that followed, in contrast, relied on nationalism in its fight for national survival and renewal. They were much to smart and modern to have encouraged nomadism. But nevertheless, Yörükdom received some upgrading because of its reference to the epic past of the Turks and became functional in the erection of a national identity. However, everything associated with Yörükdom remained very remote to modern literate city Turks, and eventually it served the projection one might say, of the undesirable and unmentionable: Armenians, Kurds, those who dwelled in the East with its backwardness and old-fashioned traditions. A term of convenience, really, as applied to rugs by most but for a small number of knowledgeables. With ‘YÖRÜK’ in 1978 it became the bandwagon everybody jumped on and the label became ‘all-inclusive’, i.e. the umbrella for all those unmentionable until quite recently. Admittedly, I would not have argued this way in 1978 – but isn’t one always cleverer some time after?

Steering away somewhat from the dire straits of politics. I always wondered about the similarity in name of another tribal people now settling on a stretch of the NW coast between California and Washington. Should some fraction really have made it all the way from Central Asia? And what about their rugs? I was unable to find out.

Regards,

Horst

Richard Larkin

Hi Horst,

Interesting analysis. Is there a tribe on the northwest coast of the U. S. named "Yoruk," or something similar?

Rich Larkin

Horst Nitz

Hi Richard,

sorry, I forgot to paste the link:

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/cultural/northamerica/yurok.html

Regards,

Horst

Marla Mallett

One further matter of terminology that just occurred to me...I should note that in the Turkish rug business--dominated as it is by Kurdish merchants--whenever possible rugs and kilims from Asian Turkey (most of them) are identified as "Anatolian", not "Turkish". This is also one way around ethnic identifications in Turkish publications and it's a much more comfortable label for Kurds. So we hear repeatedly, simply, "Anadolu." This may seem like a small, insignificant matter, but it's important to some people.

Marla