Joel Greifinger

Hi all,

One of these is Number 102 in Morehouse's Yastiks, the other belongs to me. Morehouse attributes the published one to central Anatolia, though he thinks it might be from further east, around Sivas. Can you guess which is which?





For those of you who got that one, let's go on. I don't think the latter yastik (mine ) qualifies as ugly. But, ducks or not, I do think it rather odd, color-wise. It is a sort of pale copy of the prototypes (see #102-104 in Morehouse). The colors, which are the same on the front and back of the rug, seem to be from natural dyes. There are no runs and no obvious fading. The wool is soft and rather lustrous. It's just so...subdued. It has none of the dramatic hues I tend to associate particularly with eastern Anatoloian pile yastiks. Here are some closer shots:





Odd palette, no obvious fowl involved. Thoughts?

Joel Greifinger

Richard Larkin

Hi Joel,

I don't have any compelling answer to your question, but I think you've raised an issue I have often wondered about myself. Some rugs seem to fall squarely within a recognizable tradition, and demonstrate the expected palette, but they are generally dull or dingy looking; whereas other examples look relatively bright, clear and fresh. I don't know what accounts for the difference. Causes that have come to mind are: differences in the skill of dyeing; differences in wool character or quality; treatments to which some of the rugs were submitted at the time of manufacture, i. e., "bleaching" or other chemical jobs.

I suspect the last syndrome as the culprit in many cases. I have found that Baluch rugs often exhibit the same problem; and a number of the older books (ca. 1900-WW I) complained about the fact that large numbers of Baluch rugs of that period were being treated chemically. Thus, I assume many of those rugs survived, and the dingy appearance of many of them is the vestigial result of the treatment process. However, I'm just guessing.

Rich Larkin