Gordon Priest on Persian, Kurdish, and Caucasian Bags, Part 1

On January 26, 2013, Gordon W. Priest, Jr.

gave a Rug and Textile Appreciation Morning program, here at The Textile Museum in Washington, D.C., on “Bags from Persia, Kurdistan, and the Caucasus.”

Gordon is a long-time collector from Baltimore.  He is a corporate lawyer in real life.  He is an active member of the local rug community, served as president of The Washington Textile Group, and has frequently presented “rug morning” programs here at the TM.  Gordon is also a serious ranked doubles squash player (he told me, as he was setting up for this session, that he plays five days a week).  That sounds serious to me.

Gordon began by saying that the bags he would be talking about were mostly of the “saddle-bag” type and size.  “Khorjin” is the term most frequently used to describe this format.  Anatolian saddlebags are termed “heybes.”  He said that he would treat mostly Persian and Kurdish material, with only a couple of Caucasian examples.

He started with a complete khorjin set.  This is a Qashqa’i weaving with a “potpourri” field design on its pile faces.

This is the front, with its two bag openings visible.

The two bag compartments are connected by a bridging piece.  Here is a closer detail of the bridge area in the bag above.   This bridge is narrower than is usual in Persian saddle bags, about four inches.

In the image above, you can see that the upper bag has slits and then brown and white striped loops below them.  This is a Persian-style closure system.  The loops are put through the slits, then linked through each other.  In the image above, the top of the lower bag shows what seems a continuing brown and white striped horizontal line.  This line is the loop and slit assembly put together.  The loops engage one another (after being inserted through the slits) and have a finished effect like a primitive “zipper.”

Here is the full plain-woven back of this khorjin set.

And a closer detail. 

The stripes on the bridge are also visible on the front side.

Gordon said that there might be a temptation, when one encounters a complete saddle bag, like this, to think that it might have been created using separate pieces, because the various parts of it have different weaves. 

But, in fact, such bags are made in one continuous piece, woven on a single set of warps.

Gordon has created a visual aid to demonstrate how a khorjin set is woven in a continuous single piece.

This khorjin set was started at the bottom and one of the pile faces was woven first (red sheet) but with the design up-side down in relation to how it would look on the completed back (this latter to be explained later).  Next, the weaver shifted to plain-weave and wove the back for the first bag (blue sheet).  The weaver, then moved to another structure and wove the bridge (yellow).  The back of the other bag is woven next (blue sheet), and its second pile front is done last (red sheet), this time the pile points down and the design is done right-side up.

Once woven, the piece is ready for assembly.  The bottom red sheet is folded up and behind the blue sheet above it, and the top red sheet is folded down behind the blue sheet below it, and these four sections are made into bags by sewing up their sides.

Following the visual aid, one pile side of the completed bag looks like this.

Notice that, although the pile on this side of the completed bag set points up, the animal (in its design) is right-side up, because it was woven upside down in a pile-pointing-down orientation.

Here is the other side.

Here the pile points down AND the animal is right-side up.

Notice that the yellow connecting panel is at the top of both assembled images above.  It is in the position the bridge would be in if the completed bag was carried over one’s shoulder or placed on an animal’s back, with the bags hanging down on both sides.

Here is how one pile side of this complete khorjin set would look when assembled and either carried on a shoulder or placed over the back of an animal.

So that’s lesson 101 on how a khorjin set is made in one continuous piece.

Gordon said that complete khorjin sets can still be found, but that most often bag “faces” are what you see in the market. 

He said that khorjins and other bags were, for a long time, not valued.  Bags might be thrown into a shipment of rugs for the dealer to use as a kind of teaser: complimentary customer “favors.”  Flat-woven pieces were even less valued (collector interest in flat weaves was really only visible beginning in the late 1960s), and because shipment charges depended importantly on weight, the backs of such bags were often cut off and thrown away.

As a result, Gordon said, while he would show a few complete khorjin halves (one, continuous, front and back), most of the pieces he would show would be single pile fronts.

With this introduction, Gordon began to treat the pieces on the board.

GP1

Comment on GP1:

A  Baluch bag, with the face and back intact. The other half of the pair is in my collection, but they are separated and, of course, the bridge panel is missing. Similar coloration, but the pile has had almost no wear, and the wool is even richer than the preceding piece. A Baluch such as this really needs to be viewed at poolside for maximum appreciation.

Here is its back.

Most Baluch pieces tend to have a similar, darker palette.

Here are some detail images of GP1.

A second Baluch piece was also a complete khorjin half.

GP2

Comment on GP2:

A Baluch (northeast Persia / northwest Afghanistan)  khorjin half, consisting of a pile face (with closure panels)  and corresponding flat-woven back, which has been un-stitched. A typically somber palate, but very lustrous wool.

Here are some details of GP2

The next piece, another Baluch, was smaller: closer to a “chanteh”, or vanity bag, in a leaf design.

GP3

Coment on GP3:

This piece has more tan and brown in it, but also a seeming purple that would attract collector eyes.

Here are some details of GP3.

A much better view, which may have been caught directly in the spot lamps. This again demonstrates how these Baluch weavings  require a lot of light to strut their stuff.

Comment on GP3:

Interesting, abstracted “leaf-like” devices in its field.

Gordon said that the next piece has the look of a saddle rug, but is not one.

GP4

Comment on GP4: A khorjin face from the Qashqa’i, from southwest Persia, presented in a faux saddle-cover design. A typical palate from this tribe, with bricky red and deep indigo, complemented by white, orange, and blue-ish green elements.

The inner border features miniature boteh. Note the fugitive red dye in the corner of the white outer border.

Three-pronged floral devices in its field.

The next piece was also Qashqa’i.  Not a rare design, but very well executed.

GP5

Comment on GP5:

This is an Afshar piece, from Kerman Province, in south central Persia. It was brilliantly composed by a veteran weaver of considerable technical skill and artistic flair. There are 3 aspects particularly worthy of note: The strikingly-hued floral blossoms and latch-hook motifs seem to float in the midnight-blue field; the white main border with the delicate meandering vine sharply frames the field and the central medallion; and the multiplicity of design and colors in the brocaded closure panels constitutes a distinct work of art within the overall production.

Here are some details of GP5.

The next piece was the one below.

GP6

Comment on GA6:

A bit of a puzzler; perhaps a Khamseh, from southwest Persia, but plenty of room for other opinions. The whirly-gigs appear to hover above the darkened sky of the field, and are reproduced in the closure panels.  It has significant warp-depression, and thus a fairly stiff handle.

A close-up of the whirly-gigs, or pin-wheels:

With complementary application in the small spaces between the loop slits at the top:

Four borders surround the field.

A white-ground, striped and instrumented main border is flanked on both its sides by red-blue “checkerboard” minor borders.  Outside that array is a narrow border in which, 2-1-2 ( “quicunx”) elements alternate with solid-colored squares, each with a contrasting center dot.

The next piece was an Afshar chanteh.

GP7

Gordon said that he likes the asymmetrical treatment of its field design, as well as its Art Deco look.

Its white-ground border also frames it effectively.

Here are some details of GP7.

The next piece was a smaller Afshar chanteh with very similar designs in its field.

GP8

This time, the border treatment is minimal.

But the dominant flower form in the field is nearly identical.

The next piece was also a Bakhtyari, from southwest Persia; typically, it is single-wefted.

GP9

Good color and more attractive asymmetry.  Another nicely framing white- ground border.  A very good green. Gordon was most captivated by the over-lapping waves, or flying bats, in the field. But Michael Seidman noted that this motif is referred to as “split-leaf”.

Here are some details of GP9.

I mentioned from the audience that there are some Tibetan flower form usages that resemble this field device.

The next piece was this one.

GP10

Comment on GP10:

This one has the same dimensions as the first bag face, but the field features a barnyard of stylized chickens (“morge”), a ubiquitous motif in Khamseh rugs and bags. It is, however, another Afshar; as Harold Keshishian would observe:   “just look at the hubcaps; they say ‘Afshar’ ” (ivory warps, 2 thin orange wefts, a supple handle, and expertly-contrasted uses of midnight-blue, scarlet, cornflower-blue, and white. Another indicator is that Afshar saddle bags tend to have more width.

Next was a complete, probably Kurdish, half-khorjin, with an abstracted dragon motif in its field.

GP11

Comment on GP11:

It’s had little wear, and is surprisingly heavy; one is able to feel how sturdy and durable these utilitarian items were in their original condition.

Triangulated groups of squares in the corners of the field may be intended to represent lilies.

Here are some additional details of GP11.

Note the pile panel that continues to form the bottom of the bag (it continues up the other side to the red-blue barber pole border before moving into a flat-woven back). This is where the most kinetic contact with the flank of the pack animal would have occurred, and the plain flat weave in the upper 80% of the back would not have long sustained such wear.

Comment on GP12:

The next piece was possibly a small wagireh (sampler), or, like GP18, a practice piece by a young weaver. Weighing against the latter is the fact that all elements of the design appear to have been executed with fair precision. There are actually 4 distinct border designs within only 2 borders, per se, and the off-center placement of the bold medallion, as well as the serendipitous positioning of the other field designs, argues for a sampler. If this was its purpose, it certainly serves as a strong advertisement for the skills of this weaver, for the overall impact is one of significant primal power, of which her use of autumnal hues and a dense, rich highland Kurdish wool are significant elements.

GP12

Here some details of GP12.

Comment on GP13:

The next piece was an unstitched khorjin face, in reverse sumac, with pile elem (where the bag has maximum contact with the pack-animal), and plain-weave back, produced by the Shahsevan, in northwest Persia.

GP13

Not an electrifying specimen, but accomplished with great technical skill, such as the spacing of the field octagons and the resolution of the corners.

Note the fine mix of colors within each of the border stars, as well as from one star to another.

A broad palate in the field, as well.

The image below is of the bottom band of pile that continues, briefly, unto the back.

The back itself is striped tapestry with a few lines of two-color twining.

A handsome piece.

The last piece on the top level of the board was this one.

GP14

Another smaller square-ish bag face, attributed to “Kozak”, which seems to be largely synonymous with Bergama, in western Anatolia, and outside of our theme. Of course, it would thus be a “heybe”, rather than a khorjin. In any event, it has a rustic charm, and a successful use of earth-tones.

Here two details of GP14.

Gordon moved to the next level of the board.

Note: There is no piece GP15, nor is there a GP16.

GP17

Comment on GP17:

Kurdish bag face, with an overall repeat field of rectilinear floral forms.  Contrast with the Khamseh piece displayed earlier (GP6).  Here, the somewhat cramped and overly complex motifs, and the more mundane blue of the field, create none of the drama of the former.

Here are some detail images of GP17.

An unusual main border of blocky “Zs”.

GP18

Comment on GP18:

Here’s a curious item with an appealingly primitive simplicity.  Best guess: Probably not a bag face, but a practice set by a young weaver just learning her craft. Things are a bit off-center, and the stepped polygons in the upper third get crushed; she runs out of beige yarn at the end and has to complete the top 7 or 8 rows of the border with the red wool used in the field. But the colors are complementary, and it possesses an uncanny visual power. Probably Kurdish, but one’s gut reaction is some sort of Kazak sampler.

 

Details of GP18.

GP19

Comment on GP19:

An odd Kurdish bag face with muted coloration, but a hauntingly archaic rusticity, to which the simplistic totemic figures in the field contribute significantly. Again, the unconventional horizontal orientation adds interest.

Details of GP19.

GP20

Comments on GP20: This is a side panel of a 3-dimensional bedding-bag, known as a mafrash.  The blue-and-red horizontal plain-weave at the top is actually about one-third of what would have been the bottom of the container. This one is a Saj Bulaq Kurd. Deeply-saturated colors.  Main border is seen in some Caucasian pieces.

Details of GP20.

GP21

A Karabagh bag face from the southwest Caucasus, with an accomplished use of color throughout. As with many khorjins, it frames a single representation of an infinitely repeated pattern, in this case, the Herati.

Cochineal dyes likely in central medallion

Detail images of GP21.

GP22

Comment on GP22:

As opposed to the many thousands of soumac khorjins woven by the Shahsevan, pile-faced bags are rare. This one features what we might call a “calamari” central medallion. The blocked rabbit ears in the main border are likewise unusual. It has a floppy handle and soft wool.

Detail images on GP22.

Gordon said that the next few pieces would be variations on a familiar latticed-diamonds design employed by the Jaf Kurds.  Most likely woven in northern Iraq.

GP23

Comment on GP23:

This Jaff has quite striking colors, but it is generally darker in tone than the pieces immediately  following, and could have been better appreciated in a bit more direct light. The simplicity of the single blossom border contributes to its impact, but its most compelling feature is its extremely lustrous pile: a tactile feast.

Detail images of GP23.

GP24

Comment on GP24: Fewer, and relatively larger, diamonds in the field of this one, with more vertical elongation. The lattice is outlined by white dots, rather than the black lines in the preceding piece. The border blossoms here are separated by vertical bars.

Detail images of GP24.

GP25

Comment on GP25:

Gordon’s favorite among the thousands of Jaff Kurd bag faces he’s seen. The broad Carolina blue lattice is highly unusual, and frames each diamond in a more dramatic fashion than the more conventional black, brown, and/or white-dotted outlining. The diamonds are comfortably spaced, and there’s a relaxed, flowing character to their relationship to each other that brings a kinetic quality to the piece. The stepped polygon border, while not unique, is not often seen, and has a skillful juxtaposition of mellow colors, such as the soft green and pumpkin. Even the shape is unusual, being considerably more horizonal than the typical square, or even vertical, Jaff format. Funky, but powerful.

Details of GP25.

A zoom-in on that soft palate and the Tar Heel lattice. Note that the elem, which belongs at the bottom in actual use as a complete bag set, appears here at the top, so that the piece can be displayed with optimum light effect (with the pile running downward). This tells us that, as with the Shahsevan “calamari” bag face (as well as, statistically, 50% of the single khorjin faces extant), this one was the first panel woven in the 5-panel set.

GP26

Comment on GP26:

This Jaff has more of a Williamsburg tonality, which even extends to the powder-blue border, which would more customarily have been white. As is frequently encountered in Jaff bags (including the last), there is a diamond at or near the center in white or, in this case, yellow.

Detail images of GP26.

GP27

Comment on GP27:

A Jaff Kurd khorjin face, from northwest Persia or northeast Iraq, in an extraordinarily large format. In poor condition, this is nevertheless the sort of acquisition one of limited resources and/or experience might well make for a study of color, design, and structure.

Detail images of GP27.

The main border consists of a highly abstracted, but classical, dragon-and-phoenix motif. The diamond lattice enclosing  latch-hook devices is, of course, the universal field design of the Jaff tribe. The ample use of green and aubergine are particularly attractive here.

GP28

Gordon says this is his wife’s favorite piece. White dots, again, off-setting the lattice. A very bold, and somewhat unusual, border.

Details of GP28.

Notes: Apron a very plain colored tapestry weave.  Lattice lines are dotted.

Gordon took us next to a more fulsome Kurdish bag face.

Here is an overall view of it.

GP29

Comment on GP29

This Kurdish double-panel large-format khorjin face has several noteworthy features: the reciprocal blue-on-red and vise-versa of the panels, the strong framing of the mustard border, and the elem in what appear much like Turkman motifs.

Details of GP29.

GP30

Comment on GP30:

Another Kurd in the same large size, but here the two medallions are twins, and are not paneled off. The navy-white-green-red transition from perimeter to inner field is also quite effective in drawing one’s eye into the piece.

Details of GP30.

A corner close-up accentuates the color and design dexterity.

The last of the pieces Gordon had brought was this one.

GP31

Comment on GP31:

Notes:  A small Caucasian rug, not a bag face.  Warps modestly depressed. Likely woven in the Seychour sub-set of Kuba, in the northeast Caucasus, where the meandering border of carnations is ubiquitous, and the sea-foam green seen here in the outer-border is amply employed.

Detail images on GP31.

Quite a bit of material had been brought in.  To view that and the comments on it, click on the link below.

http://rjohnhowe.wordpress.com/2013/05/16/gordon-priest-on-persian-kurdish-and-caucasian-bags-part-2/

Gordon Priest on Persian, Kurdish and Caucasian Bags, Part 2

This Part 2 of a Textile Museum “rug morning” presentation by Gordon Priest.  In Part 1, Gordon treated the material he had brought to this session from his own collection.

You can see Part 1, using this link: http://rjohnhowe.wordpress.com/2013/05/16/gordon-priest-on-persian-kurdish-and-caucasian-bags-part-1/

Members of the audience had brought in quite a few things as well, and Gordon moved to treat them next.

The first of these was the one below.

BI1

This is constructed from pieces of various textiles.  Such composites are often of “Greek Island” embroideries, but its owner said that this one is from southeastern Europe: the Balkans.

Details of BI1.

BI2

Comment on BI2:  This is a complete, Anatolian khorjin set woven in the Kars area.  It is different from most Anatolian saddle bags (called heybes), in that the connecting panel is very short.  Here is the more usual look of an Anatolian heybe (not shown in the session) with a long connecting panel with a center slit.

Detail of BI2.

BI3

Comment on BI3:  This small bag is Bakhtyari.  A number of tassels with beads are used as edge decorations.

Detail images of BI3.

BI4

Comment on BI4:  This piece is Kurdish, but off-topic in the sense that it is a small “rug,” a “pushti,” rather than a bag.  It was woven in Khorasan and demonstrates the fact that the diamond field design, so frequently encountered with pile Jaff Kurd bags, is also used farther east in sumac.

Details of BI4.

BI5

Comment on BI5:  Its owner thought that this complete  Caucasian khorjin set was woven by Armenians.  Tapestry weaving with edging of the tops of both bags in brocade.

Detail images of BI 5.

BI6

Comment on BI6:  This piece has a cotton foundation and depressed warps.  The knot is asymmetrical.  The dominant opinion in the room was that it was Veramin.

Detail of BI6.

BI7

Comment on BI7:  This small bag is silk-embroidered in a way similar to that used in Central Asian suzanis.  Good graphic design.

Detail images of BI7.

(Reverse side)

BI8

Comment on BI8:  Its owner says that this small bag with either Qashqa’i or Bakhtyari, and drew attention to the nice light blue on its pile face.

Details of BI8.

Its back with stripes in two different sets of alternating colors and a narrow, decorative panel at the top is very attractive.

(back)

Notice that the striping of the lower panel in which the light blue is used, is in fact of three colors, with the alternate stripe composed of a dark blue or black and, then, brown.  This two-color stripe has the same width, combined, as do the light blue, the red and the green.  A nice, subtle, enriching touch.

BI9

Comment on BI9:  There was debate in the room about whether this complete, but opened, khorjin half was NW or SW Persian.

Details of BI9.

It has black wefts.

 

BI10

Comment on BI10: This small, pile-faced bag has a charming “tree of life” design.

Its back is also colorful and striking.  I didn’t look closely, but it appears to be warp-faced.

(back)

 

Details of BI10.

BI11

Comment on BI11:  This complete khorjin half was seen as Kurdish.  The aqua blue was noted.

It has an attractive, striped back in plain-weave.

Detail images of BI11.

(back)

BI12

Comment on BI12:  A mafrash side panel in sumak.  Shahsavan or Caucasian.  Nice, crisp drawing.

Details of BI12.

Top and botton border systems are interesting and seem unusual.

Larger quadrupeds in the field were seen possibly to be dragons.  There are a number of smaller quadrupeds as well.

BI13

Comment on BI13: An interesting, varied, complete, khorjin half.  A yellow-ground pile panel, with star medallions, moves from the bottom of the front sumak panel and continues around to the back.

Details of BI13.

The sumak front panel has what could be seen as near gul forms, but which are, in fact, abstracted versions of the “dragon and phoenix” motif.

The back is mostly tapestry, but with bands of brocade decoration.

A line of camels marches across.

BI14

Comment on BI14: This is another Jaf Kurd complete khorjin half.  It has more sober tones than some.  A narrow border, with a chalky white meander, surrounds the field, and there are mostly white dividing lines between the round devices in its main border.

Details of BI 14.

There is a nice, colorful, strip of pile chevron, and a pleasantly varied striped tapestry back with some good greens.

BI15

Comment on BI15:  A complete khorjin half with a single medallion on its pile front panel.  Its back is more varied, unusual and interesting.  Its owner suggested a Veramin attribution.

Detail images of BI15.

BI16

Comment on BI16: Another complete khorjin half, this time in a larger, familiar Baluch design.

Detail of BI16.

There is cochineal silk in its center star device.

BI17

Comment on BI17:  Next was a more recent Baluch piece in a “balisht,” (cushion cover) format.

Details of BI17.

Dark goat hair selvedges.  There is apparent cochineal used in some of the leaf forms in the field.

BI18

Comment on BI18:  Another Jaf Kurd face.  The design is a little different because the half diamonds at the edge of the field, and the next set of diamonds toward the center, have reciprocating “hooks” on their edges.  Produces a zigzag effect.

Detail images of BI18.

Color of the plain weave sections between the closure strips varies.

BI19

Comment on BI19:  A larger complete Baluch khorjin half with a familiar “bird” design.  There are five identical (except for color) birds on this front.  The Baluch are fond of “hiding” things by using close analogous colors next to one another.  Front has the look of a piece that has been chemically washed to “antique” it.

Detail images of BI19.

(back)

Colors on the back are bright and don’t look like they’ve been chemically washed.  Could back and front be from different pieces put together after the front was chemically washed?

BI20

Comment on BI20: Its owner said she had it because: “an old boyfriend owed me some money.”  She described it as “Baluch-related.”  A dark tonality.

Details of BI20.

BI21

Comment on BI21:  Someone said that Jaf Kurd bags are like potato chips.  You can’t have just one. 

This was another nice one.  An interesting and effective “S-in-cartouche” white ground main border.

Detail images of BI21.

BI22

Comment on BI22:  The owner of this piece seemed to say that it is composed of two separate pieces that have been joined.  “Cut and shut” is the market description.  Kurdish?

Details of BI22.

BI23

Comment on BI23:  Bakhtyari.  Mixed techniques.  Narrow pile strip near the “top” in the image orientation (the holder’s thumb is on it).

Details of BI23.

Narrow brocaded elem at opposite end.

BI24

Comment on BI24: Owner said it was Qashqa’i.  Said he bought it because of the “inter-locking serpent” design in its main border and the flatwoven treatment of the panels between the closure slits..

Details of BI24.

Colorful, chevroned panels between slits in closure system.

Gordon took questions and brought his session to a close.

Conversations started up,

some drifted toward Sheila Freeman’s coffee, but a lot moved to get their hands on this material.

I asked Gordon and Russ Pickering to let me take their picture.

I thank Gordon for this session and for being willing to have this virtual version produced.  Thanks are also due him for some fairly heavy “editing” of my draft.

I hope you have enjoyed this wandering through some nice Persian, Kurdish and Caucasian bags.

Regards,

R. John Howe

Mark Traxler on The Pleasures and Challenges of Weaving Knotted-Pile Textiles

On March 9, 2013 Mark Traxler,

(Mark and his wife Barb at the TM entrance)

gave a Rug and Textile Appreciation Morning program, here at The Textile Museum in Washington, D.C., on his own experiences as a dyer and weaver of knotted pile rugs. 

The Myers Rooms was full.

Mark is a psychologist, who lives near Minneapolis, Minnesota.  Mankato, if you know the geography.

He is handy, and said that there is family background, in which his tendencies are rooted.  He spent time on a farm, where hands-on practicality is ubiquitous.  Early influences include his mother and a shop teacher in school.  And, he said, his grandfather, who had only a sixth-grade education, was a skilled barn builder, and built one of the few octagonal barns in Minnesota: a considerable achievement.  He said that, through his grandfather’s work, he learned that big projects can be accomplished one step at a time.

He said that he came to weaving with a background of skills and experiences as a woodworker.  Turning beautiful wooden bowls such as these, on a lathe,

and in building the cherry table, below, for the family dining room.

He said that old pile weavings, with their their perfect balance of warp and weft, pile, design and color, intrigued him.  He’d look at an old pile mat and wonder:

” How did they do that?”

This question was redoubled when he encountered pieces like this Yomut rug,

and realized that it had been woven, seemingly without error, despite its 6 feet by 9 feet size, by nomads using a horizontal loom.

He brought a couple of older Turkman pieces that he owns. 

The first was a fragment of Tekke chuval.

There are a lot of thing to admire about this piece, but Mark said that one of them is that he is in awe of the spinning abilities of the Turkmen women who fashioned its warps, using drop spindles.  They are very fine and regular and spun, without any “slubs” (thick places).  Remarkable.

Mark’s geographic situation, with regard to his textile -related interests, is pretty solitary.  There are no clubs and few textile collectors within ready reach.  He has depended, largely, on the internet, and knew several people in the audience, mostly, as the result of exchanges on the web.  He attended ACOR in Seattle in 2004.

Drawing on his woodworking knowledge and this book,

he built a loom, in a vertical, Navajo style.  His local contacts for woodworking materials supplied (and milled, when needed) the required wood. 

Here is Mark’s loom.

Notice that he used pipe (for strength) as his warp beams top and bottom and turnbuckles at the top to permit him to make and keep warp tension uniform.

His shed sticks are wooden.

Mark also collected some additional tools either needed or useful for weaving.

Starting at the top in the photo above, there are three, copper, “skein rings” Mark has made, for holding bundle of pile wool of a given color conveniently within reach while weaving. 

In the center section of the picture, are different types of “combs” or “beaters” used to press down, either picks of weft, after insertion, or a row of pile knots, after these have been tied. 

The tool with the blue handle is a pair sharp shears for cutting the pile after weaving, and the small “stick-like” item above them is a spacer bar, permitting the cutting of the pile after tying at a consistent length. 

At the bottom are a red-handled, Swiss Army knife and a sharpening strap.

Next, Mark turned to dyeing the wool needed for a pile rug.

Mark said that his natural dyeing bible is this book.

Mark said that he has found that the most difficult thing to find is the kind of undyed wool needed for pile weaving.  What is needed is wool that it “long-stapled,” (that is, with fibers more than 2.5 inches long) that is “worsted,” that is, 1) has been combed (fibers all point in one direction) and 2) hard spun (smooth surface; no nap).  He said that he finds Navajo wools, that initially seemed a possibility, are “over-processed.”

The next is deciding how much wool of what colors one will need for the pile rug planned.  For this Mark selects a design, decides on a size and what colors he will use, then makes a digital  cartoon drawing of the rug, indicating knot by knot what color each knot will be. 

Note:  As you will see in the calculations that follow, Mark also seems to have selected a sett (number of warps per horizontal inch) and wools that will be used for the pile knots, that produce a square knot.  One result of this is that a square inch of the completed rug will have the same number of knots both horizontally and vertically (a 1:1 vertical to horizontal knot ratio, seems to be a characteristic of many older rugs, for example, Turkmen Salors; later Tekke pile pieces often have nearly a 2:1 ratio with many more knots vertically than horizontally).  A 1:1 ratio also facilitates drawing, since designs “build,” vertically, in the same increment that they move, horizontally.

Next, Mark calculates the total number of knots that will be required to complete the desired piece.  To do that:

• Measure the height and width of the rug and multiply them to get the total number of square inches the rug will contain.
• Measure on the cartoon how many knots there will be per inch, both horizontally and vertically (for Mark this is usually 100).
• Multiply the total number of square inches in the rug by the number per square inch to get the total number of knots it will take to complete the rug.

Here is an example:

This is a nearly completed rug that Mark wove.  Before starting, he calculated that:

• Finished piece would be 24 inches wide and 16 inches in height.
• 24 x 16 = 384 square inches.
• There were 10 knots per both vertical and horizontal inches for a “knots per square inch” (KPSI) count of 100.
• 100 x 384 = 38,400 total knots in the piece.

Mark said that he allows 1 inch of pile wool for each knot.  So he needs a total of 38,400 inches or 3200 feet of pile wool.

This calculation does not remove the need to do some estimating of how much wool you should dye for each color (you could count knots by color on your cartoon, but will find that pretty tedious).  Mark said he estimates, and always makes more of each color than he thinks he will need and even adds some more for a possible nice sweater (and he has still, sometimes run out of a given color).

Mark was wearing a sweater his mother knit for him using left over pile wool from one of his rugs. (Caution: Sweaters made from pile wool are VERY warm, unless you live in Minnesota.)

This is its front of Mark’s sweater, which is good, but,

the back is to “dye for.”  (Mark approves of this rendition of his dyes.)

As with weaving, there are some supplies and equipment needed for natural dyeing.  He didn’t, and we won’t treat them here, except to say that they are listed in any book on natural dyeing you can get access to (I don’t own the Liles book that Mark uses, but have two others, both of which give good supplies and equipment lists. )  Let’s say that you have obtained what is needed.

The next step is to decide what natural substances you will use to produce the colors you want.  Mark mentioned madder, indigo, cochineal, walnut husks and Osage orange.  Different colors and shades can be produced using each of these natural dye substances. 

The possibilities seem infinite.  As we will see, Mark has produce a very bright, beautiful green, using osage orange and indigo.  

I read once that someone encountered a room in which a natural dyer had arrayed 600 colors and shades, all produced from madder.

So you’ve collected your dyeing supplies and equipment, and have selected and obtained the natural dyestuffs, for producing the color you want. 

Mark said that the basic steps in natural dyeing are:

• Cleaning the wool to be dyed (called “scouring”).  This (if you are buying already spun wool) is usually just a matter of washing it in water with a mild soap.
• “Mordant” the washed wool [a mordant is a natural substance that makes the wool "sticky" (think of Velcro) so that when dye is added, the dye "sticks" to the wool].  Alum, tin and iron have frequently been used as mordants.  Note that the bond between the mordanted wool and the dye is mechanical, not chemical, as is sometimes misunderstood.

We won’t describe mordanting with a specific recipe, but it involves placing the wool in a bath in which a particular amount of the mordant has been added and allowing it to simmer for a specified amount of time.  Let’s assume you have mordanted the wool you want to dye with the mordanted yarn you want to use.

The process for each dye is different, and a good “recipe” is essential. Before dying, the dye-bath is prepared in some fashion, usually by simmering the given dye-stuff at a given temperature for a couple hours. Once the dye is extracted from its source, the process of dying begins.

• Place the mordanted wool in a prepared bath of the dye.  This is the place where natural dyeing is very like cooking.
• Multiple immersions into the dye-bath are generally helpful, and giving the yarn oxygen is often helpful.
• For the darkest shades of a given color the yarn may have to be dyed on two or three separate occasions.
• Indigo dying is a complex process, is very rewarding, and is rather like “magic,” since the dyebath is amber in color, and the yarn turns blue after it is removed from the dye-bath.

Mark said that dyeing with natural dyes is very much like cooking, including dye specific aroma and feel.  He said that, initially, you get and follow a recipe for dyeing with a natural dye for the color you want, but find, after a while, that you can diverge from it for your own purposes and as a result of your own experience.  You learn as you go along.

He said that the results you get the first time you dye a color are probably unavoidably serendipitous, but by keeping good records of what he has done: ingredients, amounts, temperatures, times, etc.,  he has found that he can replicate a given color and shade pretty precisely.

So now you’ve built your loom, collected the needed ancillary weaving supplies.  Have selected a size and design, calculated the number of pile knots you will be tying, dyed enough pile wool for each color you will use.  You are now ready to weave.

Mark said that he decided that he would use a symmetric knot for his pile.

(Notice that the balanced construction of the symmetric knot contributes to the fact that Mark’s knots have a square shape.)

One more structural decision was how many picks of weft he would insert between each row of pile knots? The structure Mark used on his first weaving [below] was single-wefted (pace Marla Mallett).  On subsequent pieces, he used a structure employing two picks of weft, with the weight of the “rigid” weft shot twice the weight of the “sinuous” weft shot. This produced about 45 degrees of warp suppression.

Mark had brought some of the pile pieces he has woven but, as we mentioned above, also two antique pile pieces he has collected.  You’ve seen the first Tekke chuval fragment above, let’s look at the second antique piece. 

It was the face of a lovely Kizil Ayak torba, found at an antique store among several other “lesser” textiles.

Here is the most comprehensive image I managed of it (taken from one end).

It is also quite fine, with brushy, white warps, and lots of individual fiber definition that seem likely to be goat hair rather than wool.

Mark seems to do fairly well, scrounging around the more “tribal” areas of Minneapolis. The use of two shades of juxtaposed red is very effective in this piece, as with all good Turkman pieces.

Mark now moved to the rugs he has  woven himself.

His first effort was, unavoidably, experimental.  He described it as his “humble beginning.”

• He used one shot of sinuous weft, between rows of symmetric knots.  The pile is Brown Sheep Company, commercially produced/dyed wool.

• Warps were in the same plane (no depression).
• Cotton string for warps.

• LOW warp tension!
• 8 knots per inch, both horizontally and vertically, for a KPSI of 64.
• His design was a composite (he said that he “stole” whatever he liked), with some taken from tribal sources, and some of his own making.

The finished rug looked like this.

Rug 1

Mark’s “mused” that the central medallion is rooted in Zoroastrian spirituality, with emanation of creative energy moving out from the center, but also moving back in.

His own design touches include images of his daughter and his son, each with a family dog.

The kids are wearing their Catholic school uniforms and touching the “spirit” emanating from the medallion.

Mark said that he learned a lot weaving this first rug.  One important thing was that he needed to find a way to keep his side selvedges straight and parallel with one another,

without resort to the modern strategy of a “reed,” something village and nomad weavers do not use.

Mark said that his second rug was a version of a “star Ushak” design.

Rug 2

(warps on the horizontal)

with this rug, he moved several steps forward:

• Three-ply wool warp with high warp tension
• two shots of weft, one rigid, one sinuous
• Some depression of alternate warps.
• Dense weave.
• Did his own dyeing with natural dyes (steep learning curve; for example, the light blue is fading)
• Found that he has selected a poor wool for pile (too heavily processed).

Still, Mark said, he felt that this rug was a real advance.

Mark told me that he has university training in religion and spirituality, and his third piece has a design sourced in Islamic mystical tradition.

It is a chanteh-sized bag, the pile face of which the Islamic “zikr,” which means “remember!” 

Spoken in Arabic, this zikr is “La Illaha Ill Allahu.”  The English translation: “There is No God but Allah.” That is,  God is All… 

As we shall see, Mark said some things at the end of his presentation that echo a bit the notions in this chant, suggesting intersections between all crafts, skills, and personal capabilities and aspects of spirituality. The connection is thru the heart, for the good of the community, a la Sufism.

Here are some variations in the scripts in which this zikr can be (has been) written.

Mark selected the version at the top here.  It includes all of the punctuation markings.

This is how it appears within a center cartouche on the almost completed pile face of his chanteh.

And this is the entire piece, almost completed.

Mark cited the following things about the weaving of this chanteh.

• 10 knots per inch horizontal and vertical, for a  KPSI of 100
• Natural dyework was improved
• Back was woven in a flatweave (experimented a little with sumak)
  
• The piece is “too heavy”: has the suppleness of an oak club
• Dyework is better

Mark said that he now felt positioned for the dyeing for, and weaving of, a piece in which he would “get it right.”

For his fourth piece he decided to do another bag, this time closer to a small khorjin size.

• Again 10 knots vertical and horizontal for a KPSI of 100.
• Use a two-ply warp, which was lighter
• Used a lot of madder dye
• Pile wool was from Earthues, a firm in Seattle that also sells natural dyes http://www.earthues.com/merchandise/yarn
• 60/40 wool/mohair
• Design on the pile face features one central Turkman gul
• Motif in border is like some Tekke usages, but came from a 18th century Anatolian piece.

This was the result.

Rug 4

Here is the back. (Notice in the photo above that a strip of the flat weave that appears on the back also appears on the bottom of the front.)

Mark’s mother put in a lining for him, using material with a boteh pattern.

Mark’s fifth rug was inspired by a this Caucasian fragment that he encountered at ACOR in Seattle in 2004.  He called it his “victory dance” Kuba

Rug 5 Inspiration

He gave these specifics:

• Again a 10 knot by 10 knot count, for a KSPI of 100
• A three-ply wool warp
• 60/40 Wool/mohair undyed pile wool from Earthues in Seattle
  
• Design is a visceral, visual delight
• In all modesty, the dyework is OMG (orange is from a spent madder; cochineal is from Michelle Wiplinger/Seattle)

• Used Anatolian borders
• Warp weave end finish

Here is what it looked like completed.

Rug 5

Mark said that this rug won a Merit Award ,and one at the State Fair.

More importantly, it is his wife’s favorite.

Mark said that the piece that inspired his sixth rug is in the Vaklifar Museum in Istanbul.

It is attributed to Konya in 1800.

FLASH!!! Since publication, Samy Rabinovic has written to say that this rug is, in fact, in his personal collection on Philadelphia.  It was exhibited there in 2006 as part of an exhibition of Anatolian carpets.  I put it up on Turkotek, then, as follows:

Pile Rug, 1800-1850, CentralAnatolia, Cappadocia

Collection of Sammy and Sara Rabinovic (ARG7)

This rug has a cochineal purple and its border elements are from an early kilim tradition.

Mark said that, for him, the central medallion and the quadratic elements combine to signal “regeneration.”

• Used 5 pounds of  Lincoln wool from Woodland, CA.
• Excellent dyework
• Warp tension is inconsistent
• 8 kpi H and V = KPSI of 64
• Rug is 48″ x 38″.  Contains a total of 116,736 knots.
• Took two years to weave (Mark hit a “wall” after one year).

Here is what Mark’s finished rug looks like.

Rug 6

Winner of a Merit Award.

Mark said it is his favorite rug by anyone.

Here are some additional detail images of it.

Mark’s seventh rug emerged over a two-year period. It took that long to “want to weave again,” after the last piece!

He perused rug books, looking for designs that captured his interest, and motifs that were within his drawing abilities.

In the Gantzhorn book, a book with a controversial thesis, but which is full of beautiful images of old rugs,

 he encountered a 16th century Anatolian design, with a wonderful green in its field.

For his border systems he chose a Kufic main border and a minor border design that looks Turkmen (and is) but has an older Anatolian origin.

Mark said that most ornate Kufic borders were too big for a small weaving, but the one above was in his weaving “reach.”

He said he considered and planned this rug for two years before he started to weave it.  Among other things, it took that long to work up his willpower. 

His preparations included:

• undyed wool/mohair yarn from Earthues in Seattle.

• Producing the color cartoon for the designs.
• Scoured” the pile wool to be dyed
• Two-ply wool warp
• Mordanting and dyeing the desired colors
• For one color he used a combination of cochineal and madder with a tin mordant.
• For the green he used orange osage, dyed over an indigo blue.
• For black, he used an undyed Borderlichester wool

Started weaving and the rug began to appear.

Liked the field lattice: not static.  Green is wonderful.  Kufic border frames effectively.  Good color choice for border ground.  White enlivens, punctuates.

Almost done.  Really liking the visual effects, 3-D effects.  Notice Kufic border has some “over-under” usages that create the latter, but the color contrast between the green and the blue does it too.  And the red devices “float” on top.

Mark said that he ran out of green and almost stopped with fourth horizontal row of red devices.  His daughter, Mary, convinced him that continuing on to a fifth row to complete the rug would look much better.

Despite three attempts to get the “same” green, his luck had run out!

And finally, finished!!! [the poorly matched green is at the bottom...]

Rug 7

Here are some detail images of Rug 7.

So, what’s next?  Well, Mark’s been considering alternatives widely.

And he’s not entirely sure.  Part of the joy of rug weaving is the anticipation of the next inspiration.  

But the “Transylvanian” design below is a strong candidate.

He challenged the audience to “Seize the Day!” with regard to their participation in the textile world, be it in dyeing, weaving, collecting, reading, or even just museum visiting. 

Learn the power of one step at a time.  Take the first step.  Then, take another. 

“May your hands always be busy…”  B. Dylan

Inspired by his visit to The Textile Museum, Mark ended his talk with a spiritual flourish.

“The Poet John Keats wrote:

“A thing of beauty is a joy forever. Its loveliness increases; it will never pass into nothingness, but will keep a quiet bower for us, and a sleep full of sweet dreams.”

“We are here because we share a certain joy in objects of beauty. I have shared my own creative endeavors with you, aware that we share a deep appreciation for aesthetics. I am also reminded, and have reflected on, the Spirit of creativity that has given us objects of beauty. I am reminded that JOY is said to be a gift of the Spirit, that joy is a sign of the Spirit’s presence. This notion has been observed in both the Eastern [Hindu] and Western religious traditions.

“In First Corinthians, 12:4-8 Paul the Evangelist writes: “There are many kinds of spiritual gifts, but the same Spirit. There are different forms of service, but the same Lord; there are different Works, but the same God who produces ALL of them in EVERYONE. To EACH individual the manifestation of the Spirit is given for some benefit.”

“Art and Spirit, in forms that embody beauty, elevate our Consciousness. The Textile Museum exists as a means of Consciousness raising, where beauty strikes a chord within us, raising us up, and serving a greater – creative – spirit.”

Mark added, “There is a Chinese proverb: A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step”.  He said his is own proverb is that “you can accomplish almost any goal if you take one concrete step every day.”

 Mark had brought one of his turned, wooden bowls as a door prize.

The winner was a gentleman who had been squeezed in on the far right side of the first row.

Mark said that his win was appropriate, since he had listened to the entire lecture, continually in danger of bumping his head against the mantle of the Myers Room fireplace.

The session ended and folks came forward to shake Mark’s hand and to examine his pieces more closely.

One member of the audience wanted good photos of Mark’s antique Kizil Ayak piece,

and was willing to pay the physical price of getting all the perspectives on it he wanted.

Mark’s nephew was in the audience.

My thanks to Mark for sharing his experience as a dyer and weaver of pile textiles and for his well-designed presentation.  Thanks to him, too, for permitting the creation of this virtual version of his session and for some serious editing of my draft of it.

Thanks, again, to Peggy Jones

for another good set of notes.

I hope you have enjoyed this virtual version of a presentation by a speaker who has, largely on his own, built his own loom, assembled the materials and tools needed, dyed with natural dyes, and who, to date, has woven seven pile rugs.  Not just a “talker,” a real “doer.”

Regards,

R. John Howe

Colin England on the Designs of Ishfahan Rugs

On   September 15, 2012,  Colin England

gave a Rug and Textile Appreciation Morning program, here at The Textile Museum in Washington, D.C., on the designs of Ishfahan rugs.

Colin is a long-time member of the Washington, D.C. rug community.  He is an actuary by trade and so has good math skills.  He often says that one thing that attracted him to the sorts of rugs he collects is the small, seeming miracle of being able to create curvilinear designs on the rectilinear grid of warps and wefts that are the basic foundation of weaving.  Colin collects mostly silk rugs and so gets to admire this phenomenon quite a bit.

He began by characterizing “city rugs,” the category within which Ishfahan rugs fall, and then sketched some of the history of  weaving in Ishfahan.

He said that “city rugs” are one category in a typology popularized most recently by Jon Thompson, in his basic book on oriental rugs.

The typology is:

Tribal weaving

Products of cottage industries

Carpets manufactured in town or city workshops

Court carpets

Tribal rugs, are woven from memory, usually without reference to any model, excepting, perhaps, other similar completed examples in the tent or home.  Nomads might buy some dyed wool, but often grew, spun and dyed their own.

Cottage industry rugs may also be woven without reference to design cartoons and villagers sometimes did their own spinning and dyeing, but most cottage industry rugs are/were woven on contract with designs and colors specified by a visiting agent.  Sometimes even the dyed wool was provided.

 City workshop rug weaving (our category of interest here) was and is much more tightly organized and marked by considerable “division of labor.”  Preparatory steps like spinning and dyeing were all centrally controlled and performed by people who were not the weavers.  Designers were also separate and seem to be the important folks in city rug production. And while there is still, in the “city” setting, such a thing as a good weaver, most weaving of city rugs was done by young boys working in “factories,” under clear direction.  Sometimes detailed cartoons were provided to the weavers, but in other instances a caller called out the colors to be woven.  Most weavers of most city rugs were closer to an inter-changeable unit of labor.

“Court” carpets are self-explanatory.

The particular set of city rugs that Colin treated were those woven in Ishfahan in NW Iran.

Antique Rug Attributed to Ishfahan

Colin provided some history of Ishfahan and characterized the rugs woven there.  What follows is a close paraphrase based on his lecture notes.

First with the history.

Ishfahan was a significant city by 9^th or 10^th century.

It was seized and ultimately sacked by Timor in the 14^th century.

It became the capital of the Safavid empire under Shah Abbas, in the late 1500s, and rugs attributed to the Safavid period are also frequently attributed to Ishfahan.  Their quality and the sophistication of their designs resonate with the architecture, arts and general culture of Safavid era.  Sometimes this relationship is direct.  Some designs that occur on Ishfahan rugs also occur on Ishfahan buildings.

Ishfahan was the source of some of the famous court carpets of 16^th and 17^th Century, for example the “Chelsea Carpet,” from the 16th century,

Here are three more Safavid examples attributed to Ishfahan.

The piece above is a Safavid fragment attributed to Ishfahan in 1600. It is 9′x9′.  Its original size would have been about three times as long.

Two more Safavid examples below.

(Remember the field design on the rug above.  We are going to see something very like it in a much younger Ishfahan rug.)

The “Polonaise” rugs of the 17th are nowadays also attributed to Ishafahan.

The “Polonaise” rugs, as most readers here will know, were very fine, woven of silk wrapped (in some areas) in silver and gold.  They are notoriously difficult to photograph well because they are pale, the colors hav e often faded, and (nowadays) the metal in them has often corroded.

Here are a couple more.

You can still occasionally encounter a rug with a 17th century, “Polonaise” attribution on the open market.

Ishfahan was significantly degraded with Afgan invasion in 1722, and was, ultimately,  sacked in 1723.

Nadir Shah moved the capital to Mashad after driving off Afgans in 1736

In 1925 Reza Shah started rebuilding the decrepit city.

Next, Colin characterized rug weaving in Ishfahan.  He drew the following from Eiland’s Oriental Carpets A Complete Guide.

Little is known rug making in Ishfahan from Afgan invasion to prior to early part of 20^thCentury. (ed. Like Kashan, Kirman and Nain fine textiles were woven in Ishafahan for hundreds of years.  Shawls seem to have been frequent.)

 Shawl attributed to Ishfahan in the 19th century

 Rugs woven in Ishfahan and Nain have similar designs and craftsmanship and are difficult to tell apart.

Colin tabulated Eiland’s other indications regarding rugs woven in Ishfahan:

• Usually woven in pairs

• Exceedingly elaborate and complex floral designs
• Ivory fields and light blues are common, often with a heavy use of bright red
• Not unusual for them to be lightly chemically treated
• Since 1970s typically the finer rugs use silk warps, and some use silk pile
• Broad range of colors, with as many as 20 distinct shades
• Medallion designs favored, but with all over patterns and hunting scenes
• May be as high as 800 kpsi
• Very similar structurally to Kashan and other finely woven Persian rugs

He also summarized what Eiland says about rugs woven in Nain, which are similar to Ishfahans and hard to distinguish from them:

• Nain was a textile weaving center for centuries.
• Changes in fashion brought about decline in demand for the fine woolen textiles made there during earlier eras.
• Carpet industry began in the late 1930s, as very fine rugs

• Foundations typically cotton, but also frequently uses silk warp
• Knot Counts 320 to 800 kpsi
• Wool often softer than most other Persian rugs
• Outlining of designs in ivory silk may be used to identify them, as it is much more common for Nain rugs than Iafahan rugs
• Design most closely resemble Ishfahan, often with a ivory field
• Predominately red fields are not typically Nain
• Typically woven in blue and ivory with moderate use of tan

Colin also outlined the indications about rugs woven in Ishfahan by some of the others in the literature.

Caroline Bosley in Rugs to Riches: An Insider’s Guide to Buying Oriental Rugs says:

• Nain produces incredibly fine rugs, with an average of 450 kpsi
• Fine wool pile often outlined in silk
• Major difference between Ishfahan and Nain is that Nain’s use fine cotton and Ishfahan’s use silk for the warp and weft (alleges that 99/100 times Nains have cotton warp and wefts and Ishfahan have silk)
• Nain’s are more likely to be representational designs of flowers, butterflies or small birds
• Typical colors are cool deep sapphire blues blended with ivory, beige and pale primrose yellow

In his Oriental Carpets, Michele Campana says

• “The output of genuine Ispahan carpets may be said to have ended in the early 18^th century, when the Afghan hordes reduced this fine city, known as ‘the pearl of Persia’, to a heap of ruins.”
• Later carpet production resumed, but not comparable to earlier rugs
• However, Compana shows a 19^th century example, saying: “Among the best Persian carpets and of very fine workmanship, Ispahan specimens feature close knotting and exactness of design.”  Example shows scrolling vines and flowers, with occasional birds sticking out of the flowers and a hand at the end of a vine grappling a phoenix.
• Of Nain, “these are very recent types, and represent the best modern Persian work.  Closely knotted, they reproduce the best-known patters of the old Persian carpets, usually against a light background”

In The Persian Carpet, Cecil Edwards (1953, reprinted 1960 and 1967):

• Calls Ishfahan the least significant of the nine urban weaving centers he discusses.
• “The city, indeed, emerged as a weaving centre only about twenty-five years ago.”
• Cites no 18^th or 19^th century examples of carpets that can be ascribed to Ishfahan, nor are there 20^th  Ishfahans before the 1920s
• Attractive designs, but poor dyes and low pile, prior to WWII, when European market dried up; significant drop off in production   
• By end of war, Persians were the primary market, and quality substantially increased (1949 visit)
• He also cites lower knot counts for Nains than Ishfahans; “finer in fiber and softer than the average wool of the Persian plateau”.
• Also mentions that “the Nain rugs – like those of Ishfahan, which they closely resemble – lack variety in design and colour.”  But are a “comparatively rare and excellent product.”

Colin said that an experienced local dealer, Jamshid Aghamolla, who knows his Persian rugs, indicated that:

• Nains have a lower knot count; 4, 6 or 9 strands in cotton warp; cotton weft and silk highlights;
• Ishfahans are finer; more red and dark blue; cotton foundation; don’t have silk highlights;

 Colin also summarized the indications about Ishafan rugs by some “others” in the literature, but without specific attribution:

Largely 20^th century production.

- Most mentions of Ishfahan rugs 1960s and later (earlier references, e.g. 1906, refer to 16^th, 17^th and early 18^th century rugs, often with disputed or uncertain lineage, ending with sacking of Ishfahan in 1722/1723)

     -  Rugs woven in Ishafahan are fine, city carpets.  The designs of rugs called “Ishfahan” may have been executed there, but sometimes may have been woven in other locations.

Next, Colin treated design and technical characteristics of  rugs woven in Ishfahan, in general.  

He emphasized, again, that they were “city” rugs, clearly intended as luxury goods.  Not made for home consumption.   The “art” of Ishfahans is, as it is with all city rugs, largely in their designs, and the designers are the central figures in the city rug weaving community.

He talked about their technical characteristics.

Ishfahans have fully depressed alternative warps and asymmetric knots.

Indicating that design is not everything, he said that extraordinary craftsmanship is required to execute the designs in Ishfahan rugs.  Corners are invariably resolved.  Designs are curvilinear (mostly floral) not geometric, but may contain small geometric  sub-designs.

Ishfahans rugs typically exhibit 500 to 650 kpsi, but some are as high as 800 to 1,000 kpsi (extraordinarily fine for “wool” as distinguished from “pashmina,” which is finer).

Ishfahan rugs have white wefts and cotton or silk foundations.  Silk foundations are most common amongst newer rugs (i.e. 1960s and later).  The wefts may be blue.  May include colored wefts (blue)

Most Ishfahans have wool pile, often with silk highlights.  Occasionally there is more extensive use of silk.

Colin said that, while he has done no close analysis of the wools used in  Ishfahans, often very fine wools were used, including  Merino and kurk or lamb’s wool.

Ishfahans often exhibit silk highlights surrounding flowers, outlining leaves, sometimes flowers within a central medallion.

Colin indicated that the wool and silk used in Ishfahans he has examined are not hand-spun, but the range of colors used is very wide. There are nearly always a least 10, and frequently more than 15 separate colors.  In one example there were 57.  Colin said that in one nude design he counted 32 shades of peach (used for shading, to create different effects of light).  Dyes are not likely all natural (although some may be).

Designs in Ishfahan rugs are mostly three dimensional.  Levels can be determined by examining how some design elements cross above and below others.  

Let’s examine and try to count levels in the small field detail of an Ishfahan rug below.

Now, count levels with me.  Let’s start with the light blue centers of the six darker blue petals at the bottom the central white device in this detail.

Level 1: light tan-blue surrounding line

Level 2: bright blue blade forms.

Level 3: white central flower form

Level 4: white vines at top emerging from under Level 3 flower

Level 5: dark blue ground

Now it would be possible to argue that there are additional levels.  Look again at the six bright blue petals.  

Notice that there are dark edges around them and pinkish-red edges around the dark edges.  

What if these edges are not just outlining but the outer edges of layers that entirely underlie the bright blue petals?  If this latter is the case, then we can count potentially four levels to the outside pinkish-red edges and the dark ground is at least one more level or maybe more beneath it.

So you can see that a claim of frequent three-dimensionality in Ishfahan rug designs is modest and often a real understatement of the levels that exist.

In addition to multiple layers of design there is also occasional use of shading (i.e. close or contrasting colors used without outlining) to give a “rounded” appearance to particular design devices.

Ishfahan rugs usually feature a central medallion that is symmetric on either a horizontal or vertical axis.

There are also frequently bracket designs in the corners of the field.

In many varieties of rug, such corner brackets could be combined to form a complete medallion, resembling the central one.  

But for most Ishfahans, with central medallions and corner brackets, combining the corner brackets does not produce a result replicating the central medallion

 Medallions have “anchor” devices top and bottom.  

Medallions occur that are asymmetical on a horizontal axis.  

Some field treatments are overall designs (without medallion) and others are pictorial. (The example “pair” above had no medallion and we will see pictorial examples below.)

Field designs feature flowers and vines.  

The wide color palette is visible in the field, with prominent use of red, blue, tan, white, ivory and green.

Designs often include “creatures” that are placed in ways that are either laterally or vertically symmetric.  Birds are most frequent, but a variety of animals also occur.  

There are bird images at the top and bird and animal images at the bottom of the image below.  Both are arranged in “reflection,” that is along a line of vertical symmetry.

Human figures are rare in Ishfahan rug designs.

Ishfahan border treatments feature a large main border, typically with vines and flowers.  Sometimes birds may replace leaves and rarely animals do so.

Both main and guard borders are “resolved,” that is border devices are turned at a 45 degree angle to make the turn of the border around the 90 degree turn of the border system aesthetically “smooth.”

Two matching minor borders are usual, with a single color outside border, although multiple colors in the outside borders occur.  Occasionally, there are two sets of minor borders, or none at all.

End finishes on Ishfahan rugs include an area of plain weave with knotted ends.  

End finishes sometimes include a signature, or colored inter-weaving or other fancy endings.

To conclude this initial characterization of rugs from Ishfahan, here are two nice examples that Jon Thompson provides in his introductory book on oriental carpets.

Thompson says that the rug above was woven in the 1970s in a workshop he identifies.

A second example, Thompson said in 1983, was woven “recently.”

Colin now turned to the pieces he had brought.  

He started with four smaller rugs, woven since 1960.  He said two are of silk and wool.  Two have no silk highlights.  The three pieces woven primarily with wool have very soft wool.  There are some unusual medallions and “leaves” that are birds and “flowers” that are butterflies.

I1

Comment on I1:

This rug is from the Spiro Manolas collecton 

• Red field
• Pile Foundation – Wool with silk highlights on silk
• Knot count and type – 25 x 25 per square inch, asymmetric
• Selvedge – wrapped
• Colors – 3 blues, brown/tan, red,  greens, white and white silk
• Design – Center medallion with anchors, curving vines with flowers
• Border design – flowers and vines
• Other – blue/red stripe in end finish, both 1 and 2 color guard stripes
• Size – 26” x 38”

Here are some detail images of I1.

I1a

I1b

I1c

(Note that what appears to be discoloration of the silk, is actually separate silken material that appears to have been black when created.)

I2

Comments on I2:

         No silk highlights, blue field

• Pile, Foundation – Wool on silk
• Knot count and type – 25 x 25 per square inch, asymmetric, open
• Selvedge – wrapped
• Colors – blues, tans, red, white, greens, and orange
• Design – Center medallion with anchors, curving vines with flowers
• Border design – flowers and vines
• Other – soft wool
• Size – 28” x 40”

Here are some detail images of I2.

I2a

I1b

I1b

I3

Comments on I3.

This rug is another from the Spiro Manolas collection.

Single border

• Pile, Foundation – Wool with silk highlights on silk
• Knot count and type – 22 x 22 per square inch, asymmetric, open
• Selvedge – wrapped
• Colors – blues, brown/tan, red,  yellow/mustard, two purples and  white
• Design – Center medallion with anchors, curving vines with flowers; four plants/vases in corners from which all vines and flowers come from; purple birds top and bottom, four additional birds
• Border design – main border with flowers, vines and birds, with two guard stripes and an outer plain mustard border.
• Other – Single border, with birds, soft wool, non-matching two color guard stripes, flat weave end finish
• Size – 26 1/2” x 38 1/2”

Some detail images of I3.

I3a

Note in the image above that not only are the main borders “resolved” by placing a border device at a 45 degree angle, but that this is true for the corners of the field as well.

I3b

I3b

Border designs include well-articulated, white birds, where leaves would ususally be, surrounding the flowers.

I3c

I3d

Colin described the next pieces as  large-lobed medallion rugs.  The designs are symmetric on both horizontal and vertical axes.  

They are classic Ishfahan designs.

I4

Comments on I4:

White Silk Field

• Pile, Foundation – Wool with white silk field and highlights on silk
• Knot count and type – 25 x 25 per square inch, asymmetric, open
• Selvedge – wrapped
• Colors – blues, orange, red, white (and white silk), mauve, brown/tan, and olive green
• Design – Center medallion with anchors, curving vines with flowers and birds
• Border design – flowers, vines and birds
• Other – border birds, field birds, one color (light blue) guard stripes two knots wide.  Furthest outside guard stripe is a different color (brown). 

Here are some detail images of I4.

I4a

I4b

I4c

The “lush” texture of the silk field is visible in the detail above.

I4d

Colin stopped here, momentarily, to note that there are Ishfahans the designs of which are not symmetric on either a horiztontal or a vertical axis.  The rug below, which we will see again, shortly, is not symmetric on its horzontal axis.

I5

Colin took us next to rug I6, a larger, beautiful Ishfahan with 57 different colors.

I6

Comments on I6, which has a white field with a yellow & light blue medallion, and is from the Manolas collection.

• Pile, Foundation – Wool with limited silk highlights on silk
• Knot count and type – 25 x 25 per square inch, asymmetric, open
• Selvedge – wrapped
• Colors – 57, including blues, brown/khaki/tan, reds,  greens, yellows , white and white silk
• Design – Center medallion with anchors, curving vines with flowers
• Border design – flowers and vines
• Other – four lobe structures in main border at the corners; two minor borders; one three color guard stripe (three knots wide) between outer minor borders;
• Size – 59” x 92”

Here are some closer details of I6.

I6a

I6b

I6c

I6d

I6e

I6f

The following rug is the first Ishfahan Colin purchased, in the early 1980s.  As is often the case with Ishfahan rugs, the fringe is  of medium length and looped on one side and quitr long and not looped on the other.  Both end finishes include flat weave with one double  shoot of blue and white tread, apparently for embellishment (visible at the bottom of the picture below.

I7

Comments on I7:

• Blue Field / Light Brown & Green medallion
• Pile, Foundation – Wool with extensive silk highlights on silk foundation with blue wefts
• Knot count and type – 25 x 25 per square inch, asymmetric, open left
• Selvedge – wrapped
• Colors – 4 blues, three brown/tan, red, 3 greens, white and white silk
• Design – Center medallion with anchors, curving vines with flowers
• Border design – flowers and vines
• Other – two color guard stripes; four bottle/vase structure at each end of field;
• Size – 41” x 61”

Here are some details of I7.

I7a

Notice the delicate resolution of the main border using several smll design devices in combination.

I7b

I7c

I7d

I7e

There is no rug numbered I8. 

 I9

Beige Field / Blue & red Medallion

•          Pile, Foundation – Wool, silk warps with white and blue wefts; no silk highlights
•          Knot count and type – 25 x 25 per square inch, asymmetric, open left
•          Selvedge – wrapped
•          Colors – blues, beige, tan, teal, red, burgundy, white, and olive green (light and dark)
•          Design – Center medallion with anchors, thick, curving vines flow from the anchors, with flowers on these vines, and on  thinner vines on a level below.  Designs in the corners appear to frame the oval field design.
•          Border design – flowers and vines; light blue guard stripes wider at top and bottom of rug than along the sides.
•          Size – 43” x 65”

Here are some detail images of I9.

I9a

 I9b

I9c

I9d

I10

Green Field / white & Khaki medallion

•          Pile, Foundation – Wool with silk highlights on silk; silk highlights around and through flowers, as  well as outlining vines in border
•          End finish – flat weave with one red and blue stripe before knotted end wefts
•          Knot count and type – 25 x 25 per square inch, asymmetric open left
•          Selvedge – wrapped
•          Colors – greens, red, magenta, white, blues, orange, tans
•         Design – Center medallion with anchors, curving vines with flower; thickest vines bordered in light blue;
•          Border design – flowers and vines; two guard stripes between each border, of varying colors;  white guard stripe next to field wider along side (two knots) than at top or bottom
•          Other – no end or corner designs in field; more complex than usual vineing in field; multiple color guard stripes;
•          Size – 43” x 62”

Here are some details of I10.

I10a

I10b

I11

The following rug was brought by one of the program participants.  It is approximately 2 x 3, with a dark blue center and three light colored boarders, with a dark blue border at its outside edge.  A line of light blue wool, one knot wide, separates each border from the other.  The center medallion is surrounded with leaves and flowers, and appears to be framed by the light blue corners, giving it the look of a picture in a frame, like many Isfahans.

Here are some details of I11.

I11a

I11b

I11c

I12

We’ve already seen the next rug as an example of a design that is not horizontally symmetric in I5 above.

Here is a more full-faced look at it.

I12

         Parachute medallion

•          Pile, Foundation – Wool with silk highlights on silk
•         Knot count and type – 25 x 25 per square inch, asymmetric open left
•          Selvedge – wrapped
•          Colors – blues, red, white, dark green, olive green, tans, and dark orange
•          Design – Center “medallion” filled with birds; surrounded by with anchors and birds, curving vines with flowers; large purple flowers below bottom anchor; corner designs only at bottom of rug 
•          Border design – flowers and vines; three color guard stripes (white, light blue, light brown)
•          Other – 3 color guard stripes;
•          Size – 43” x 68”

Here are some detail images of I12.

I12a

I12b

I12c

I12d

I12e

I12f

I13

       Blue field, red medallion

• ·         Pile, Foundation – Wool with silk highlights on silk; very limited use of silk highlights, only in field and corner design
• ·         Knot count and type – 25 x 25 per square inch, asymmetric, open left
• ·         Selvedge – wrapped
• ·         Colors – blues, brown/tan, reds,  greens, white and white silk
• ·         Design – Center medallion with anchors, curving vines with flowers; two levels of vines, bright red and white on top level and dark red on lower level, with flowers above and at ends of vines
• ·         Border design – flowers and vines; flowers in outer guard border larger than in inner guard border; two guard stripes (red and white)
• ·         Other – very soft wool
• ·         Size – 36” x 60”

Some detail images of I13.

I13a

I13b

I13c

I13d

I13e

I13f

The following rug is laterally symmetric, but not asymmetric from top to bottom.  The large vase-like structure at the bottom sprouts vines both from the top and bottom.  These vines loop all over the rug.  the vines from the bottom of the vase are generally the top level of design (that is, other designs appear underneath these vines, including those deriving from the vines exiting the top of the vase), except at the top corners, where some of these vines go over and others under the grey top corners of the field.  Twelve birds are either flying through the design or resting on vines, while a pair of butterflies approach flowers.  The birds are generally between the top level design of the vines from the bottom of the vase and the lower level design of the vines from the top of the vase.  Note that the corner design is only at the top of the rug (and is outlined with thick, brown vines), the opposite of the “parachute medallion” rug at I5 and I12.

I14

       Red Medallion, white field

•          Pile, Foundation – Wool with silk highlights on silk
•          Knot count and type – 25 x 25 per square inch, asymmetric open left
•          Selvedge – wrapped
•         Colors – red, white, pink, purples, orange, blues, greens, brown, and tan
•          Design – Niche at top, vase at bottom, center medallion with anchors, curving vines with flowers and birds
•          Border design – flowers and  vines; large red main border, surrounded by dark blue minor borders, and an outside red border. A double row of light blue knots separates each border.
•          Other – asymmetric (top to bottom), 12 birds and two butterflies in field
•          Size – 43” x 65”

Some detail images of I14.

I14a

I14b

I14c

I14d

I14e

I14f

The next rug has a design with deep historical roots.  We’ve already seen one similar example in our brief look at Safavid carpets.  This rug has a strong visual impact due to the wide, white vines or leaves, swirling throughout the design.  These generally constitute the top level of the design, although some of the birds are flying above the vines, and the leaf endings are often above the vines.  Note that unlike most of the Ishfahans, the field in this rug does not have corner designs which frame the medallion and center field of the rug.  Matching bird pairs have supplanted some of the leaves in the main border.

I15

        Blue field, red border

•          Pile, Foundation – Wool with silk highlights on silk
•          Knot count and type – 25 x 25 per square inch, asymmetric, open left
•          Selvedge – wrapped
•          Colors – blues, teal, greens, purple, peach, gold, red, white, brown, and tan
•          Design – Center medallion, curving vines with flowers and birds, large swirling white vines
•         Border design – flowers, vines and birds.  Main red border, with surrounding white borders and an outside red border.  Borders separated by a line of white knots and a line of red knots, with the red knots closest to the white borders and the white knots closest to the red borders. Note that bird pairs in main border are being attacked by odd “grotesque” fox headed vine (like gargoyles, but with red mouths), which are actually grasping the birds in their mouths.  Creatures at the end of a vine are present in many old Kerman rugs.
•          Other – bottle with stopper, asymmetric top to bottom, symmetric laterally,
•          Size – 43” x 68”

Here is another 17th century, Safavid rug with a similar design.  This sort of rug seems clearly an antecedent of the large swirling usages in I15′s more recent arabesque design.

Back to some detail images of I15.

I15a

I15b

I15c

I15d

I15e

I16

The next rug is from the collection of Jamshid Aghamolla.

White field

•          Pile, Foundation – Wool with silk highlights on silk
•          Knot count and type – 25 x 25 per square inch, asymmetric, open left
•          Selvedge – wrapped
•          Colors – blues, brown/tan/peach, red/rose,  greens, orange, white and white silk
•         Design – Center medallion with anchors, curving vines with flowers
•         Border design – flowers and vines
•         Other – two color guard stripes; signature
•          Size – 41 1/2” x 60”

Here are some detail images of I16.

I16a

I16b

I15d

I16e

I16f

The following rug is also signed.  While signatures are no guaranty of a rug’s quality, weavers tend to only sign their better work. The field design is laterally symmetric, but not top to bottom symetric.  The clumps of white flower attract the viewers attention, while several levels of vines (in different colors, as shown below) support the large number of leaves and flowers.  A pair of deer like creatures (mother and fawn) on small grassy areas at the bottom are mirrored by pairs of flying birds at the top of the field.

I17

         Blue Field, brown border, signed

• ·         Pile, Foundation – Wool with silk highlights on silk
• ·         Knot count and type – 25 x 25 per square inch, asymmetric, open left
• ·         Selvedge – wrapped
• ·         Colors – blues, teal, pink, white, red, yellow, browns, and greens
• ·         Design – Center medallion with anchors, curving vines with flowers, birds, and deer-like creatures including fawns
• ·         Border design – flowers and vines, main border light brown, with minor borders light blue, and the outer border dark blue.  Three lines of knots separate each border (brown, white, brown) 
• ·         Other – 2/3 stripes in guard border, vase at bottom, asymmetric,
• ·         Size – 40” x 64”

Some detail images of I17.

I17a

I17b

The image below shows clearly the devices in the top two corners, which are part of the floweral border to the main field, which is visible along both sides and across the top, further framing the center drawing.  Note that the two field corner devices are above the vines, at or above the level of the birds.

I17c

Notice in the image below, that there is a vase and the drawing of the three roses and some other flowers that move out from its top.

I17e

I17f

Next, Colin took us to a pictorial Ishfahan.  While pictoral Ishfahans exist, they are relatively rare.  However, many of the pictoral rugs are extraordinarily fine.

I18

Here is an unobstructed, straight-on view.

I18

I18

(Pictorial)

• ·         Pile, Foundation – Wool with silk highlights on silk
• ·         Knot count and type – 25 x 25 per square inch, asymmetric, open
• ·         Selvedge – wrapped
• ·         Colors – blues, gray, orange, white, greens, yellow, pink, red, and mauve
• ·         Design – Man and women sitting in a tree, with a very small pond at their feet, and surrounded by flowers, vines and corner objects.  A second tree to the man’s right provides, in combination with the tree they are sitting on, a flowered paradise. 
• ·         Border design – flowers, vines and birds, non-traditional design.  Outer dark blue border, with thin white border with cross like devices. Note that while central field is neither laterally or horizontally symetric, the oval border of flowers, corner medallion quarters and birds is completely symetric.
• ·         Size – 41” x 61”

Here are some detail images of I18.

I18a

I18b

I18c

I18d

I18e

I18f

The next three rugs were older (before 1950)

       Common characteristics:

•          Slightly less fine (around 500 kpsi)
•          Wool pile, cotton foundations
•          No silk highlights
•          Fewer colors
•          More complex borders in these examples

 I19

Red border, ivory field, red border

•          Pile, Foundation – Wool on cotton, blue silk wefts
•          Knot count and type – 22 x 22 per square inch, asymmetric, open left
•          Selvedge – wrapped
•          Colors – reds, ivory field,
•          Design – Center medallion with anchors, curving vines with flowers; large floweral structures in four corners of field 
•         Border design – flowers and vines
•          Other – two sets of minor borders; relatively spacious (for an Ishfahan) field; geometric leaf structure in corner; all over vine and flower pattern in field around and under medallion;
•         Size – 58” x 83”

Here some images of details of I19.

I19a

I19b

I19c

I19d

I19e

I19f

I20

This rug is another from the collection of Jamshid Aghamolla.

•         Pile, Foundation – Wool on cotton
•          Knot count and type – 23 x 23 per square inch, asymmetric, open left
•          Selvedge – wrapped
•          Colors – reds, white field,
•          Design – Center medallion with anchors, curving vines with flowers
•          Border design – flowers and vines
•          Other – added fringe; multiple borders;  two sets of reciprocating borders, two color guard stripes; vases in corner
•          Size – 57 1/2” x 89”

Some details of I20.

I20a

I20b

I20c

I20d

I20e

I21

This rug is owned by a local collector.

Center medallion, surrounded by vines (which go under the medallion, as well as under the corner structures).  The vines start at the end of the anchors and wind themselves across the field.  Another, lower level of vines and flowers, fills in the field.  The corner structures serve as a frame over the field, providing the highest level of the design.  The main border is flanked by matching guard borders.  The large palmettes in the border are flanked by sprays of small, white flowers, visible in 21b and 21e.

Here are some detail images of aspects of I21.

I21a

I21b

I21c

I21d

I21e

The following rugs mimic Ishfahan rugs in design, or in fineness and use of silk highlights.  The first is a Qum, with a white field, yellow and blue medallion with corner designs like many of the Ishfahans.  The rug is silk pile on a silk foundation.  However, the knot count is lower, at least in part becaue the warp is not fully depressed, making this rug easy to tell from an Ishfahan, by feeling the back.

I22

A second full short of I22 below.  Different lighting affect color.

This is a Qum with a Ishfahan design.

One indicator that this is not an Ishfahan is that the alternate warps are only partly depressed (“cordoroy” look and feel to its back).  Ishfahan’s have fully depressed alternate warps.  Their backs are smooth. 

Some details of I22.

I22a

I22b

The close-up detail below is close to the actual color of this piece.

I22c

I23

The rug above is a Tabriz with an Ishafahan pictorial design. 

Tabriz rugs are readily identified because they feature symmetric knots woven using a hook and their knots have a very uniform, almost machine-made look on the back.

Some details of I23.

I23a

I23b

I23c

I23d

 

I24

This rug has an Ishfahan design, but was woven in Pakistan.

Here is a little closer overall view of it.

I24

Colin said that these Pakistan rugs are very finely woven (around 800 knots per square inch).  The wool is good and the Ishfahan designs are accurately rendered.  They are, though, frequently subject to a problem that finely woven rugs are generally exposed to, namely that they do not always lay flat.  They have a tendency to curl on their sides.

Here are some detail images of  I24.

I24a

I24b

 The last rug Colin showed was the small Tabriz mat below with an Ishfahan design.

I25

Here it is, full-faced.

I25

Comments on I25:

Here are some detail images of this last small rug, which Isfahans, has extensive silk highlights in the field and is woven on a cotton foundation.  For a rug of its size, the number of colors used is unusally high, requiring a skilled weaver to complete this rug.

I25a

I25b

Colin took questions,

and brought his session to a close.

The audience moved toward the material.

My thanks to Colin for permitting this virtual version of his program to be fashioned, for providing me with an electronic copy of his presentation notes, and for his extensive on-line editing of my draft.

I hope you have enjoyed this examination of a very specific sector of Persian pile rugs: the designs of “city” rugs from Ishfahan.

Regards,

R. John Howe

Kirk Keshishian and John Howe on “Repurposed Textiles,” Part 1, the Lecture

On December 1, 2012, Kirk Keshishian,

and John Howe (that’s me),

gave a Rug and Textile Appreciation Morning program, at The Textile Museum, here in Washington, D.C., on “Repurposed Textiles.”

Kirk is the older son of Harold Keshishian, for whom the RTAM programs are now named.  He  is a 2007 graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where he earned a B.A. in economics and classics. 

He currently serves as the senior analyst for a financial services firm in Bethesda, Md. 

Born and raised here in Washington, Kirk became interested in textiles at an early age. He attended numerous rug mornings with his father, since he was a child, and has served on the Textile Museum Advisory Council since 2009. 

Kirk’s other interests include backgammon, mathematics, economics, and cooking.

Most readers will know that I am a collector, who lives within walking distance of the TM, and who “haunts” these programs, sometimes from the front of the room. 

During my work years, I was an instructional designer in private business, government and academia.  I retired in 2003.

 I been a collector for over 20 years and am a member of the TM’s Advisory Council.  I write and publish two internet blogs that treat textiles: 1) Textiles and Text (the one you are reading), devoted to providing virtual versions of some of The Textile Museum’s RTAM sessions to a larger audience, and 2) Eccentric Wefts, where I hold forth on aspects of the textile world that catch my eye.  I am active in the local rug club and, with Mark Keshishian (Kirk’s cousin), recently designed and conducted a workshop for it on “handle.”  I have presented more, previous, RTAM programs, than my level of knowledge and experience warrants.  But I do have a keen, continuing interest in textiles.  I try, always, to focus on the enjoyments that textile collecting affords.

 My wife Jo Ann and I live in a one-bedroom condo, populated by one champion collie dog, hundreds of collie artifacts (Jo Ann collects in this area), and way too many rugs and textiles.

During parts of 2011 and 2012, The Textile Museum had an exhibition, Second Lives, on recycled textiles.  You can still see a glimpse of it on the TM’s web site using this link:

http://www.textilemuseum.org/exhibitions/upcoming/Secondlives.html

The material in this exhibition was often opulent and rare, and, when it was up, I wondered whether it might not be useful to prepare an RTAM program on more accessible repurposed textiles, items more like those that might be found in our own collections.

I mentioned my idea to another experienced collector, who said, “But what could you say?  After you indicate that they’re “repurposed, there seems little else.”

He did have a point.  An array of additional things one might say, usefully, did not immediately suggest themselves.  

But, at bottom, I disagreed.

It seemed to me that the varieties of repurposing, even of textile repurposing, human beings have both considered and indulged in,

Courtesy of The New Yorker

might be wider than our initial sense of them suggests.

The program Kirk and I presented was composed of the two most usual RTAM components: first, a lecture (which you are about to begin to read), and, then, a show and tell of pieces brought in. 

This latter is treated in a separate, Part 2 post that you can find at this internet address:

http://rjohnhowe.wordpress.com/2013/01/18/kirk-keshishian-and-john-howe-on-repurposed-textiles-part-2-the-material-brought-in/

In our lecture, we “passed the baton” back and forth, so to speak.

I began:

One of the first things we might consider is “why do people repurpose textiles?”  What is its “logic,” so to speak.

An initial set of reasons seem reflective of general tendencies toward frugality.  The Japanese have a category of textiles called “boro,” which means “rags.”

“Boro” items are made originally by sewing together such things as remnants of old clothing.  Boro items look to be made from patches, but are “patched” further as they become worn.

There are large “boro” items, like futon covers, but some instances are quite small, like this rice bag.

A second seeming frequent reason for repurposing is the need for inexpensive weaving materials.  

It has been known, nearly world-wide, and for a long time, that various worn-out and cast-off textile items can be woven into “rag” rugs. We are going to see that there are rag rugs in the U.S. and Scandinavia and Japan and Morocco and, in fact, it might be easier to attempt to identify what places in the world have not resorted to them.

Meanwhile, this is the sort of thing you will see frequently in antique shops or flea markets.

Third, repurposing occurs because folks find a particular application of a textile outside the context of its traditional use, interesting, attractive, useful or economically advantageous.

This is a big category and we will examine some of its components.

Here is just one example.  At ICOC XII in Stockholm, there was a dealer with two antique chairs upholstered with materials that were originally parts of Turkmen bag faces.

He said that he had six, with a matching table.

From another perspective, we could ask “what is the nature of a given repurposing?”

The most frequent and, perhaps, fundamental, kind of repurposing is something we don’t really think of as one.  It is when we “collect” a textile, or worse, place it in a museum.

No longer does it, nor can it, serve its original purpose(s).  We have, in one move, sundered it from the context of its creation. Joseph Alsop argues that the fine arts items we now “admire for themselves” rather than for any purpose, were all originally made to serve a purpose, be it conveying of a religious setting, or as “decoration” in a Renaissance palace or Greek public building. 

So, when we “collect” a textile, we force it into the “art for itself alone” category.  A fundamental repurposing.

Let me illustrate this point with two other pieces: first a Dida tube skirt from the Ivory Coast.

It is couched onto a backing and hangs on one of my walls, entirely separated from being worn at one of the  “prestige” occasions for which it was created.It is now a modest work of “art.”

A second piece makes this point in a somewhat less emphatic way.

This, most will know, is a fragment of a Central Asian silk ikat panel. It was , likely, once part of a coat, which it cannot hope to be again. It has been repurposed, initially, by being fragmented. But then, more permanently, as the result of being collected.

The more usual kinds of repurposing we see include:

Textiles woven, or otherwise produced, using materials taken from other textiles.

There are textiles , sometimes only fragments of textiles, used as covering of various sorts. 

We’ve already seen one upholstery use, but some pillow coverings were not originally made for that purpose, and are one of the most frequent instances of repurposing.

Textile fragments assembled to resemble other formats.  Coptic clothing or Greek Island embroidery fragments assembled to look like rugs or other formats. A particular textile made by cutting down a larger textile from another format.

Some salt bags are made this way. (Warning: Some textiles that may seem “constructed” in this way are not.)

Resizing.  Cutting down or supplementing a textile so that if fits a particular space or a different person.  (Perhaps a marginal case, since the basic purpose is unchanged.)

Let’s examine some of these kinds of repurposing more closely.

First, “Rugs woven or otherwise produced using materials taken from other textiles.”

We mentioned rag rugs, above.  Let’s do them first.

There are at least two different types of the “rag rugs” that are important components of this category.

The most common type is flat-woven in a weft-faced plain weave.  Here are two examples of this type.  

The one below is Swedish. 

The detail, below, you have seen above, and is from a runner woven in the U.S.

Here are a two more rag rugsfrom Sweden.

Rag rugs have been woven for a long time and in many of parts of the U.S. 

Here is a 19th century example.

And it’s still going on…vigorously.

There is an internet site you can find called “Rug Talk,” almost entirely devoted to the discussion of problems and techniques by folks actively weaving rag rugs. They are serious about their focus.  If you try to talk about anything except actually weaving rugs, they will throw you out.  Peter Collingwood, the late, famous English weaver, used to join their conversations.

The Amish frequently wove rag rugs. Here is an Amish example.

The colors look somewhat different in the closer detail, below, but this is the same rug.

I mentioned, early, that the Japanese wove rag rugs.  I only have one example, but it’s a formidable one.

This large, pieced rug was used as a bed cover.

I mentioned earlier that most rag rugs are flat woven and made with a weft-faced weave. 
But not always. 

Here is one flat woven rag rug that is warp-faced, a more difficulty and limiting structure.

There is another kind of rag rug that has rather recently emerged in Morocco. As settling occurred and traditional materials, especially sheep’s wool and goat hair became less available, Moroccan weavers have moved to other materials. These Moroccan rag rugs are called “Boucherouite,” (from scraps of material)

and are made from a variety of “non-animal materials , such as old clothes cut up in strips, synthetic fibers, Lurex, nylon and plastic.” The designs, only sometimes, echo the traditional, and the colors are often vibrant.

Despite having been woven in numbers only since the early 1990s, these rugs have already earned their first Hali article (in Issue 162) and several exhibitions.

Some “hooked” rugs are made from various cut up fabrics.  Often, old clothes.  But not all hooked rugs are in our “repurposed” category, since some are made with yarns that have not had a “previous textile life,” so to speak.  The fragment below is of a hooked rug made from yarn.

In the U.S., hooked rugs seem to originate in the mid-19th century.  Despite the fact that they could be sophisticated and opulent, they were known as “poor man’s” rugs.

The rug on the below is a 19th century rug of this more sophisticated type (notice the “3D” effects in the drawing of its field).   A poor man could no longer afford it.

Sometimes, the designs in hooked rugs seem nearly a matter of chance.  Color is used, but, mostly not to any real design purpose. This practice is a mark of economy.  Any color can be used anywhere without worry.  So no strip of hooking material is wasted. Only the narrow black strips in this rug need to be of a given color This is a hooked rug I bought in the local flea market. 

It may be older, but I do not know that.  It IS, though, made in a way that older “poor man’s” rugs were often made, largely, without design.

The need for borders point to a need, even with impoverished hooked rug makers for materials of a single color, for use in such borders and in background areas around specific designs.

This need, in turn, has called for strategies for producing a single shade from a series of materials to be used in hooking from a variety of colors.

One morning, looking around the internet for something else, I ran into some rug hookers, who acquainted me with a new term “marrying the coats.” Here’s their description of what that is in their own words:

“We rughookers call overdyeing fabrics without using any dyes at all – just using the ‘bleeding’ from one fabric color into another - the marrying of the coats.  While I am sure no one knows how the name came about, people used the technique to make varying colors of black, navy, wine etc. to meld together in a hooked mat especially for a background. One article of clothing was not large enough to complete the project so they put enough fabric together in a pot and simmered it on the back of the wood stove until the colors ran into each other. Usually, that is not what we want for our usual laundry, but for rughooking it’s ingenious…. using what we have without buying a thing.”

There are also the terms “marrying the colors,” stewing,” and even “marbling,”
(the latter has features of “tie-dye” in its process).

In each case, the process is approximately the same.

First, one selects the items to be used.  Some pay no attention to the various colors in the pieces, but in most versions, items are combined that have, say , “complementary” colors, or “analogous” ones together.The items selected are put into a large container to which water is added.  Then heat is applied to the container so that some of the dyes in the pieces are loosened and begin to color the water (if wool, actual boiling is avoided to prevent felting). The mix is “simmered” until goodly amounts of dye have been loosened and mixed together, re-coloring the items. Then vinegar is added to help set the dye as the temperature is reduced.Drying is usually done in a dryer, with a softener sheet added The result is a quantity of hooking material with the same basic color.

Designs of hooked rugs, since the process is digital, can be anything.

There are floral designs.

Geometric designs.

Landscape designs

Animals are popular.  One variation is the “animal-tree,” a design with deep historical roots.

Hooked rug type fabrics are employed for a variety of purposes. Room-sized and scatter rugs, and pillow faces were hooked.

Even the, historically, controversial ,“carpet bag” was often a hooked rug fabric.

It might be tempting to think that finer hooked rugs are more likely to have been made from yarn, rather than from cut-up textiles of with previous textile lives. Not so.  At least, not historically. “Grenfell” hooked rugs are among the finer sort and were made from cut up women’s silk stockings and other underclothing.

This is my favorite Grenfell from Paula Laverty’s nice book.

Let’s end our look at this large category of repurposed textile with this unusual hooked rug.  The dealer, on whose site I found it, indicates that it is unique in her own considerable experience. 

I am a sucker for compartmented designs.

One further instance of our category “Textiles woven, or otherwise produced, using materials taken from other textiles, is textiles made from raveling other textiles. 

Some Navajo weavings were woven, in part, from raveled cloth. Early, the Spanish “bayeta” cloth they raveled was fine, worsted wool, 100 threads per inch. Later kinds of bayeta were from “Germantown” (a mill near Philadelphia)  and included synthetic dyes.

This Navajo blanket is dated 1870 and indicated as partly from raveled materials.

As we have considered our first category of “repurposed textiles, “Textiles woven, or otherwise produced, using materials taken from other textiles,” it is not surprising that the first two occupants of it that came to mind were rag rugs and hooked rugs.

But if we think about repurposed textiles that seem clearly to reflect a general urge toward economy, it would be difficult to exceed that visible in the group of Japanese textiles called “boro.”

“Boro,” is a Japanese word the literal meaning of which is “tattered rags.”  But the term “boro,” is also used to describe patched and repaired bedding, clothing and some utilitarian bags, for example,
“rice bags.”

Items of boro are not only made by sewing together pieces of textiles, originally, part of something else.

When the pieced items become worn, the patches are, themselves, unembarrassedly, patched.

Boro is made in a number of formats. Futon covers are frequent.

Coats and jackets are also made in the boro mode.  Here is the front of one.

And here is its back.

Smaller formats, like rice bags, are also made in the boro mode.  This is the level of boro that I have been able, personally, to afford.  Rice bags can be quite small.

My own example is about 11 inches square when flattened out.

As you have seen, blues, grays, and some mild whites dominate boro coloring.

I have found one,  predominantly white, boro coat, but it seems more recent.

While researching boro, I came onto “Zokins,” traditional Japanese multi-layered  cleaning cloths.

“Zokins have been used for centuries in Japanese homes, temples and schools to hand clean wooden
floors and tatami mats.  Zokins are made from layered pieces of old fabric held together with“sashiko”stitching.  They were boro-patched, regularly, as holes appeared, reused again and again.”

I suppose that “zokins” could be considered a kind of boro, but an experienced Japanese textile collector told me that it makes no difference, in this case, since this example is not “collectible.”

So, if you want a challenge, look for zokins that are worthy of collection.

As I was completing my work on boro, Jeff Krauss, the serious Japanese textile collector, wrote me about another instance of Japanese textile repurposing.He wrote:

Did I ever tell you about my collection of Nagajubans (under-kimonos) made from
previous year sample bolts?

Each year the kimono fabric salesman would go around to the kimono shops with sample bolts showing the patterns that were in style for that year.  The following year, new patterns were created,
so some of last year’s sample bolts were cut up and made into nagajubans. They look like patchwork but they are continuous lengths of fabric with one pattern after the next.

The piece below is such a naganjuban, made from such sample bolts.

Here is another.

Kirk took us into our second category of repurposed textiles:

Textiles , sometimes only fragments of textiles, used as coverings of various sorts. 

He said: “Perhaps the largest number of objects that fall into this category are pillow coverings, not originally made for that purpose.”

We exclude from our “pillows” group those, like yastiks,

or Baluch balishts,

that were originally made for that purpose.

Here are some pillows made from textiles that were originally something else.

Here is a pillow made from part of a quilt with the difficult “cathedral window” pattern.

Quilts of this design, you can see, COULD, in turn, be made from material taken from old clothes, although they are often made from store-bought material.

This large pillow was made from a full width of an interesting NW Persian rug.

Here are two pillows made from flat woven materials from other 19th century formats. The one on the left is Anatolian: a Sivas cicim weave, wool and cotton, with brocading.

Courtesy of Marla Mallett

The one on the right is Kazak from Azerbaijan, wool in slit tapestry.

The pillow, below, is from the fragment of a Tekke Turkman main carpet.

Its maker shaped this pillow to make sure its designs were restricted to one part of the field of a Caucasian rug.

In 1980, Pinner and Franses edited a self-consciously serious piece of rug literature, “Turkoman Studies I. But contained in it are a few articles of a lighter sort. One of these is by G. Lownds, and is titled “The Turkoman Carpet as a Furnishing Fabric.”This is a broader version of the second category in our initial outline of kinds of repurposed textiles, which is:

Textiles, sometimes only fragments of textiles, used as coverings of various sorts.

Lownds admits that he does not know how long it’s been going on, but does know that it’s been for a very long time.

Here are two chairs which have been covered with 16th century carpet materials of recognizable designs.

The first is covered with a Lotto rug;

the one on the right with a “Holbein.”

In a recent issue of Hali, a similar chair was offered for sale.

Its description was:  Flemish tapestry, 17th centuryon Renaissance revival chairframe.

Lownds also provides an illustration of a view of a room in which Turkmen weavings have been used for particular furnishing purposes.

I’m going to show you a few more chairs upholstered with a variety of traditional textiles not originally woven for that use.

But first, one more Turkman example:

a settee covered with material from a Tekke main carpet, with pillows made from Tekke bag faces.

Here are some more chairs covered with a variety of antique textiles. The first example, below, is upholstered with an Indian, Robari wedding shawl material.

Below you can see what such an embroidered shawl looks like before this application of it.

The next example is done in a spectacularly colored and designed Uzbek suzani embroidery.

A third chair upholstery example is plural, and takes us back to Japanese “boro” materials.

The chair below is  upholstered with a Bangladesh textile that is pieced very much like Japanese boro. It is called “kantha.”

Kantha (pronounced kahn-ta), whose name is derived from Sanskrit word for rags, is the original recycling art.

Traditionally, old, well-worn saris were layered together and quilted using colored threads from the sari borders, to make warm, kantha blankets or clothing.

Hali, 174, that just arrived, as we are publishing, includes in its auction reports a pair of “verni covered armchairs.”  Hali admired the color and the quality of the upholstering. The pair sold for over $22,000, so someone else liked them, too.

And, Kirk said,

  John, reports, that he has done it himself. 

This is his favorite reading chair done in materials taken from a Caucasian rug.  He said that it gets admired even by experienced textile collectors.

John also has a small footstool, upholstered to match his chair.

This stool is a double example of repurposing. 

Inside, it has a horse-hair center, but its undulating edge is produced by placing tin cans around this core.  In some ages, nothing got thrown away, not even some of the tin cans.

Sometimes the “covering” is more casual, as in the case of this strip of Tekke main carpet, converted to serve as a table runner.

The next category, Kirk said,

in our “kinds of repurposing” outline is:

Textile fragments assembled to resemble other formats.

The most impressive example we have encountered is this Czar’s throne coverlet,

composed of pieces of two different Persian embroideries.

It came into the Russian Czar’s possession in 1582, but is much older. (from Daniel Walker article in Hali, 161)

Greek embroideries have also, famously, been assembled to convert “fragments” into sale-able formats, like this piece, a little over 2 feet square.

Here is a little closer look at this textile which has been assembled from the embroidery trim on fragments of old Greek tunics and costumes.

In 1982 , in a TM publication on Greek embroidery, Kirk said,

My father, Harold Keshishian,

wrote: “…the Greek peasant kept all fragments of embroidery from old tunics and costumes” and sensing demand “capitalized” (ed.) on it and “skillfully fabricated these fragments into so-called Greek Island embroidery” (ed. he references the one we saw in black and white above).

Here is another similar one. Again, put together from smaller pieces.

Despite being constructed, some of these Greek embroideries were bought, knowingly, by experienced collectors.

They are, after all, comprised of pieces of 19th, sometimes 18th century, Greek embroidery.

My father, Kirk said, owned a large one, with a niche design.  It hung sometimes in the hallway of our home.

Here is a poor photo of it, taken there, during a holiday party.

The next piece is a complete, constructed khorjin set that John thinks may have been put together to deceive.  Here is its front.

And here is its back (the back is pretty obvious, but might fool a novice).

Fragments of quite different textiles have been combined to create this “khorjin” set.  John found it a couple of years ago, in an antique shop in Pennsylvania, and bought it, inexpensively, as a teaching example.

Ten fragments have been put together to create a “complete” khojin set that might fool someone.

John has another entirely constructed bag, given to him by a dealer friend.

This time we don’t think anyone was trying to fool anyone; and they did manage to pick some old fragments for their combination.

That is, if you like a Yomut tent band front,

and a jajim back.

John handled our last constructed example,

because it requires a preliminary story from his experience.

John said:

‘My wife used to breed and show collie dogs and we’ve spent a lot of time, over the years, at dog shows.

One morning at one I was seated near an elderly woman who was a distinguished judge.

Soon a young man come in with a group of seeming acolytes to whom he was holding forth about the merits and faults of the dogs in the ring.

After awhile the acolytes left, and the old lady judge said “Young man, to like dog in spite of its faults, is understandable. But to like a dog because of its faults suggests that re-education is in order.”

It is usually thought that a constructed piece is inferior to one that is not, but I bought the next piece BECAUSE it was constructed, and following the old judge’s point, this seems to suggest that I need re-education, something may be the case regardless of how my tale here turns out.

Here is the piece.

It’s Coptic and, easily, the oldest textile I own.  Estimated 5th to 7th century.  It’s composed of pieces of decoration taken from Coptic garments.

This is the kind of Coptic tunic on which these pieces occurred.  

One description of such tunics indicates that: Such Coptic tunics “often have stylized humans or animals and geometric designs, such as octagons or interlacing near their hem or running their entire length.”

These are the ways in which these kinds of decorated bands and areas were arrayed on Coptic textiles.

My piece has an interesting dense central medallion with four outlying ones.   I’ve looked for representational indications in these dense devices, but haven’t found any.

Its main border has a, nicely, spacious “bird” design, with more medallions in its corners.

This textile is ancient, and has some interesting graphic features, but I wouldn’t have bought it if it didn’t look like a little rug.

So you see, the old lady judge was talking about me.

I have bought a piece and like it, mostly, because of what is widely seen as a “fault”: It is constructed.

Here’s how badly I apparently need re-education.   I understand the judge’s point, and agree with it, in general, but like this piece, anyway, for the wrong reason.

Kirk went on with the fourth item on our initial tabulation of kinds of repurposing.  It is this one.

A textile format made by cutting down a textile of a different format.

We were thinking of something like a salt bag that had been cut out of a piece of a larger textile and we don’t have one in the wool.

But we can show you what we mean.

Here is the back of a khorjin set.

You can see a loop about halfway down that marks it center.  If one needed a salt bag quickly and didn’t have time to weave one properly, it would be a relatively simple matter to cut this khorjin back down like this.

One would, then, simply fold it along its horizontal center line and sew up its sides.

When finished and ready for use one side would look like this.

And the other would look like this.

This exercise give some hints of how one might detect a bag that had not been made originally for that purpose, but was cut down from a larger format.

One might look for material that is continuous front and back of a bag without changing its character of its fabric or designs as is the case with our example above.  Not just shared warps front to back, but continuation of both the structure and the design.  

Or in the case of a salt bag, a separate piece as a neck might be worthy of further examination.

This “continuous” fabric indicator is not infallible.

There are bags made originally by folding over and sewing a single piece of material.  Sometimes you can tell that a suspected single, continuous piece was woven at the size of the bag (i.e. on a narrow loom).  Here is a bag that seems to have been made in this way.

Side 1

Side 2

This bag (the guesses have been Luri or Char Mahal) was woven at the width this one exhibits, then, simply folded over and sewn up both sides.

A more, difficult to detect, legitimate, “constructed” usage is one in which the bag was, in fact, cut out of a piece of material larger than either of its woven dimensions, but was still made originally as the kind of bag it currently is.

Here’s an example of this second sort:

a piece made from what is likely a woven piece wider than its dimensions, but still not “constructed” in the sense we are talking about here, since, it was part of an apron-bag combination and likely made from a piece as wide as the apron.

It is folded vertically and sewn up the sides.

The back is exactly like its front.

Alberto Boralevi told me what it is. Likely, part of an apron-bag ensemble carried/worn by a Dalmatian lady. My bag was likely cut from a weaving as wide as this apron.

You would be able to tell that this bag was, originally, and legitimately, constructed only by being familiar with this costume combination and some of its features (like the top edge treatment) as Mr. Boralevi, who has collected and studied such apron-bag ensembles for years, is.

Here is my bag, again, together with a similar bag from Boralevi’s collection.

As for his being familiar with this format, Mr. Boralevi has an entire wall of such aprons,

and has published a small catalog them and their accompanying bags.

We should note here that all of our upholstery examples, above, entailed cutting down a larger textile.

We have retained one upholstery example for treating here, because it is such a clear case of cutting down.

This is a part of a quite old Tekke chuval that someone has cut down, very obviously, to fit as a seat cover on a particular upholstered chair.  Places for the chair legs of a specific chair have been notched out.

Our fifth and last category is sometimes another instance of cutting down, but it can also be the occasion for enlarging.

We’ve called it “resizing.”

Resizing can be seen as a marginal category, since it doesn’t change the purpose for which the textile was made, but let’s include it, anyway, because we have a minor instance of it that we like.

This is a boy’s great coat, in a West Point cadet-like style and shade, and estimated to have been made in the 1930s.

Here is a view of its back ‘

and attractive lining, with a boteh design.

But the reason for including it as a repurposed example is that, when one looks more closely at it inside, one can see that it was cut down from its original size to be worn by a smaller child.

It is an example of repurposing if you are willing to count its being adjusted to be worn by a different person.

By the way, so-called “cut and shut” rugs and textiles are in this category.  That is, rugs, cut, reduced in size, and then sewn back together to permit their use in a particular space.

John ended the lecture with a repurposed item that is, actually, an instance of our previously discussed category: creating a textile using materials taken from other textiles.

Here is the material taken from another textile.

It is the shoulder patch from the uniform of a U.S. Seabee in WWII.

The Seabees built roads, bridges, airfields, during the war, under battlefield conditions.  Recruiters were told to look for smart troublemakers.

In 1949, a known Seabee veteran in Virginia, decided to use his unit’s shoulder patches in a quilt he was making.  So he bought a goodly number and quilted them on a red backing in a medallion-like arrangement like this.

He made and quilted on a number of these medallions.

The result was this small quilt.

To a Turkman collector, the result was too interesting to pass up.

He even quilted in a minor ornament between the gul-forms.

My quilting expert friends tell me that his quilting is quite good.

I think this bizarre little quilt illustrates nicely our early caution that we should not be quick to say that the last word on repurposing has been spoken.

Kirk and John took questions, then, moved to treat the material in the room.

To see that you need to press your Control key and left click the link below.

http://rjohnhowe.wordpress.com/2013/01/18/kirk-keshishian-and-john-howe-on-repurposed-textiles-part-2-the-material-brought-in/

Regards,

R. John Howe

Kirk Keshishian and John Howe on “Repurposed Textiles,” Part 2, the Material Brought In

This is Part 2 of a program Kirk Keshishian and John Howe gave on “Repurposed Textiles.” 

It was preceded by a lecture that you can access using the link below:

http://rjohnhowe.wordpress.com/2013/01/18/kirk-keshishian-and-john-howe-on-repurposed-textiles-part-1-the-lecture/

In this virtual version of  our “show and tell” segment, we will treat, again, some of the pieces, in the room, that that you have seen in our lecture,  but not all of them. 

And we didn’t observe the sequence of our lecture outline.

We began with the piece below:

This is a hooked rug from Kirk’s family’s collection.  It features a version of the “log cabin” design, used frequently on quilts.

This piece is one that has definitely been made from cut up pieces of other garments.  Perhaps the most emphatic sign of this is that the red squares are hooked from cut up strips of a knitted item of some sort.

With this piece in hand, you can see the knitted stitches in the red strips.  The yarn in these knitted strips was not raveled.

The next piece had been brought in by a member of the audience.  She said that it was a panel composed of the fronts of women’s blouses.

I think she said she bought it in India.

The next piece was a small, shallow, zippered bag with a front made from a fragment, perhaps from a Caucasian rug.

Kirk had two small Uzbek bags: one side in ikat, the other in needle point.

The next piece was a round pillow, made from a field area with a single gul device from an Afghan “Ersari” main carpet.

The next piece was a sleeveless vest, made from some, seemingly, Anatolian slit tapestry kilim.

Next, was pair of boots decorated with slit tapestry material.

Next, were two mounted and fragment fragments of exquisite Turkish embroidery, perhaps from the edges of garments.

My photos do not do them justice.

Next, a small bag, composed of at least three different fabrics, its striped area being entirely of silk.

Its owner was unsure of an attribution, but it resembles a bag published by Robert Nooter in his Rugs and Textiles from the Caucasus, Plate 226.  Nooter attributes his to the Shasavan.  I have seen one other similar example, owned by a Canadian collector.

Although this little bag set is clearly “composed,” it may not be “repurposed” (like the little Dalmation bag in our lecture), because it was made, originally, to be what it is.

John had a knitted sleeveless sweater that was an odd instance of repurposing.

The wool in this sweater came an Anatolian project that was primarily producing naturally dyed wool for use in weaving pile carpets.  Some of this wool was redirected and used to knit sweaters of this sort.  There are a number of known  sweaters knitted with wool from this project and we may talk about them more generally some day.

Next, was a fragmented Yomut okbash, with very good color. 

Most will know that okbash designs are woven at right angles of their warps.

Okbashes can have features that seem constructed, but in this case, no new format has been attempted.  This piece was repurposed in our broadest sense, when it was fragmented and could no longer serve to encompass and decorate yurt pole covers.  It has been more permanently repurposed by being collected.

The next piece was an example of a “Boucherouite,” the contemporary Moroccan rag rug, treated in the lecture.

You will recall that these rugs are not weft-faced plain weave, but instead woven with symmetric knots and pile that can be lengthy.

Here’s are a couple of closer looks at details of this piece.

The pile points down in the image above.

Here is a look at its back.

The rows of pile knots are separated by multiple rows of weft.

John rehearsed his comments on the large, conventional hooked rug he found at a flea market.

He said that this rug is not important in itself, but rather because it seems such a typical example of the “poor man’s” type hooked rug.

Despite its clear urge toward economy,

the result is not unattractive.

Next, was a composed Uzbek panel.

Applique with ikat.

Its back was a faded Russian commercial cotton that might have been pretty interesting, once.

Jeff Krauss had brought in several repurposed textiles.

First, was the interesting shirt he was wearing.

Jeff said that “It’s ikat, silk, from Thailand.  Made from material used for sarongs.  Purchased in a shop in Chiang Mai.”

Jeff had, also, brought the Boucherouite rag rug from Morocco, but is, mostly, a serious collector of Japanese textiles.

First, he had brought three examples of “nagajubans,” which you may remember from the lecture, are “under-kimonos.”  The variety that Jeff brought is those that are “last year’s samples,” and are continuous lengths with one pattern after another.  They can seem to be patched, but are not.

Jeff asked for his examples to be modeled and volunteers did that.

A second example was this one.

We managed a front and back image of a third example.

All three of these nagayuban examples seem more deliberately put together, pattern-wise, than those we saw in the lecture.

Jeff had one more example, a Japanese vest, made in the weft-faced plain weave variety of rag rug.

Here is it’s back and a closer look at its weave.

Notice the white, reinforcing “sashiko” stitching in the detail above.

Another narrow pillow had a center panel take from another textile.

This seems an item of sumac or brocade.

I’ve seen very similar pillows made from repurposed parts of woven hats of various sorts.

There were a couple of constructed contemporary purses.

Someone had brought the still connected side panels of two cargo-type mafrash bags to show the original format from which his following constructed khorjin had been taken.  Here, below are his, original, mafrash side panel examples. 

And, below, a khorjin composed of such cargo-bag, type mafrash panels.

The next example was a panel composed of sections of a quite lovely Kyrgyz tent band.

Its owner agreed that the dark ground is unusual.

The colors were remarkable.

At one point a young man came to the front of the room wearing clothing into which textiles, from other sources had been inserted.

The “athletic” jacket he was wearing had a vertical panel that was predominantly yellow, and seemed, possibly inserted, but which, I think, was an original feature.

But the truly repurposed aspect of this jacket is that it had been lined with a man’s shirt that had not be disassembled.

The shirt had been inserted whole with its buttons, button holes and shirt pocket all still intact.

The young man’s blue jeans also featured strips of cloth and decorative piping that also seemed likely not part of them, originally.

It was not clear whether he had undertaken these insertions himself, but he was enthralled with our program and group, and said that he had thought there were no other people in the world like him. 

We ended with several pieces from Kirk’s family’s collection.

First, a saddle cover,  with the dramatic “butterfly” shape.

This shape looks exotic, and there may be a temptation to think it was sourced in the East.   But, in fact, attributed to British cavalry units.  It was only used in Tibet since the early 20th century, after a known, expedition there by a British colonial cavalry unit, that had this style saddle blanket as part of their uniform regalia.

Here is a British military saddle blanket with this shape from 1750.

And here is another, viewed from the side and looking as it would when it was on a horse.  This one is for a major general in a  U.S. cavalry unit during the Civil War.

We do not have a clear attribution for the Keshishian example.  Its rich, pictorial fabric looks, vaguely, Chinese.

Here are some closer details of it.

It is a quite beautiful piece of fabric that seems ill-suited for wear.

A second piece from Kirk’s family’s collection was this interesting “crazy” quilt.

One has to look more closely at this colorful piece to see its most dramatic feature.

Its patches are all of “satiny” fabrics of various sorts.  But the feature that draws the eye in a closer examination is that, at the joined edges of all the patches (and on some of the patches, too) this quilt face is full of large, exposed stitches that would invite damage in use.  These stitches are in contrasting colors and are, clearly, intended for dramatic effect.

Kirk says that he likes the bird.

This interesting piece was meant to be seen rather than used.

One last seasonal piece, just for fun (it was December 23, 2012, as we wrote this part).

Kirk had brought his father’s Christmas stocking.

It was cut from a piece of Caucasian sumak, with a nice, unusual light blue.

Kirk said his father did actually hang it up. 

I knew Harold, a little, and suspect that he also expected to find something in it on Christmas morning. 

Kirk and I took questions and adjourned the session.

I want to thank Kirk for his work with me to produce and conduct this program, and for his editing of my draft of this virtual version of it.

Thanks, too, to my wife, Jo Ann, who took the photos in the room.

I hope you have enjoyed this post, and agree that, it may well be the case, that there is still be more to be said, usefully, about repurposed textiles.

Hope you have had fine holidays,

R. John Howe

Saul Barodofsky on “Camel Flowers”

On December 8, 2012, Saul Barodofsky

gave a Rug and Textile Appreciation Morning program here at The Textile Museum, in Washington, D.C., on “Camel Flowers.”

Saul, many readers will know, is a rug and textile dealer in Charlottesville, Virginia, who has been traveling to Turkey, the Caucasus,  Central Asia and other places, for 34 years,now, buying rugs and textiles.  He has presented RTAM programs at the TM a number of times, and has a definite “sticht.”  Harold Keshishian used to say frequently that Saul should have been in vaudeville.  And he is entertaining, but he also knows his “rugs.”

Saul has a number of “collections” which he does not sell, including over 300 animal decorations.  The pieces in this show & tell have been selected from this group.  He has been collecting animal decorations since 1978.

It should be noted that there are very few written materials of this subject.  Saul brought 3 books that had some information in them:

Animal Regalia by Moria Broadbent – self published – London, 1985.

Textiles of Baluchistan by M.G. Konieczny – British Museum, 1979

Horse & Camel Trappings from Tribal Iran by Parviz Tanavoli, Iran, 1998

The TM’s Members Magazine promised that Saul “…would show about fifty traditional Persian, Kurdish, Anatolian and Baluch nomadic animal decorations that are used to identify, beautify and protect prized animals…” and Saul delivered.

He began by discussing how important camels and horses are in tribal, especially nomadic, societies.  Owners of camels and horses want first for their animals to be protected, but also want them to look good, especially for important events.  And they achieve both of these objectives by decorating them, sometimes, lavishly.  Saul’s shorthand for one such decoration was “Camel Flowers.”

“Cowrie” shells, traditional trade goods from the Indian Ocean, are often used in these animal decorations, as are blue beads.  (For a discussion of their implied properties, see Saul’s previous T.M. talk on Nazarlik. also posted on this site.)

Saul told a story about how such shells have sometimes been, in his experience, implicated in the pricing of animal decorations.

Once, Saul said, driving from Ankara to Konya, he came to a crossroads,  a little south of Ankara, and there was a villager by the highway, selling animal decorations.  He had a great many of them.

Saul looked them over and then asked about price.  The man picked up the nearest decoration, counted the cowrie shells on it and gave a price of $1 for each shell. 

This is not as odd as it might seem, because there was a time when cowrie shells were trade goods, a kind of primitive currency, like the U.S. Indians’ use of “wampum” (also shells).

Saul listed the various components used to embellish the animal decorations he would be showing.

Mirrors to ward off the “evil eye,” which does not like to see it’s reflection.

Cowrie shells, as we have seen, bring intrinsic value, but are also felt to bring fertility in animals.

Hand-forged metal objects, often shiny, are seen to be protective.

Dangling things, like fringes and tassels, thought to distract “the devil.” 

Bells are included because their sound provides another kind of distraction.

Bright colors can also distract evil.

Buttons are very common.  Among their advantages is the fact that they are already pierced and so ready to sew on.  And they come in a wide variety of sizes, shapes and colors.

Coins and found objects (image repeated) are also thought to give protection.

Saul had arrayed many of the pieces he would treat in three layers on the front board. 

This was the top layer.

Asked from the audience, he said that the objects on this level of the board were all decorations that went around the camels neck and/or dangled at its throat.

 This group of Camel Flowers, are all Anatolian.

You’ve seen closer detail images on some of them, above, but here are some more.

Saul moved to the next level on the front board.

He began with three baby camel head pieces.

Saul said these three pieces came from southeast Anatolia.

Next was a large animal headpiece, featuring spun hemp, beads and bells – with spaces for missing mirrors).

Next was a long ,narrow band, used to decorate the chest.

Its cowrie shells are arranged in an attractive graphic design. 

Here, it is turned to let you see it in an even larger version.

Saul said that these kinds of pieces are meant to decorate the animal is ways that “show them off.”

The next piece was a particularly elaborate example.

This is complete (connected) neck and head piece with part of what dangles down.  Notice the intense use of cowrie shells.

Here are two closer images of parts of it. 

First, just a slightly closer detail of its bottom part.

And below, a rotated image of its top part.

The pieces above are Anatolian, but the next neck piece was attributed to the Baluch of Afghanistan.

Below is this comprehensive image rotated to increase its size somewhat.

A second rotated detail takes us closer to the massed button decoration.

Next, was a large camel neckpiece, by the Taurus Mountain nomads, and found in the old Konya bazaar.

It may have been made for a small camel.

Heavily embellished with cowrie shells, it also featured distinctive, circular, disk devices in its tassels.  Made from various cloths with twined edges.  These discs are strung on wrapped, vertical strands that pass through their centers.

Saul said that the next decoration was from Central Asia.  It is a hanging chest piece.

When it was purchased, Saul said, he was told it was Uzbek.  Note the shells and beads and hanging tassels.

Below it on the board, was this felt neck piece.

Here is this comprehensive image, again, rotated to bring it closer.

And here are two more, horizontally oriented, detail images.

It’s attribution is old Turkish.

On the lower left of the board was this piece.  Notice its use of bells.

Saul said that the work in this decoration is very fine,

especially it’s tassels.

On the sides of this board were two decorative rope whips – used for show.  Cowrie shell and button decorations, in addition to colorful wrapping.

Here are two additional head pieces from Anatolian nomads and camel herders.

A detail of the piece above.

The last piece included on this level of the board.  Smaller and nicely composed.

An “at the throat” decoration – also Anatolian.

Saul moved to the third level of the material on the front board.

In general, Saul said, the pieces on this level o are very finely made.

He started with bright orange-red donkey head and neck piece with lead rope, from South East Anatolia.

He said that this is his “youngest” piece and that it features cowrie shells, traditional beads, wrappings, a length of chain, and pompoms.

The next  item was a Central Asian head piece – probably made for a Arabian horse.  Finely embroidered and embellished with mirrors.

A lovely, well-composed little piece.

Here is a Central Asian donkey chest decoration.

A closer detail.

To the left facing the board, were two similar pieces.

First, a Central Asian horse head piece that featured good color and reflective disk decorations.

Below it was this piece, explicitly attributed to Uzbeks in Northern Afghanistan.  Another donkey chest piece.

Colorful beads, weaving and “mother-of-pearl” buttons.

The next pieces were by the Baluch in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran.

The first of these was this piece, featuring tassels with nicely done bead bands.

The next piece is a single rein from South East Anatolia, and has many hand blown blue glass beads, and tassels.

photographs a little vaguely.

Along the lower left side of the board, were three similar camel knee decorations.  These are from the Baluch in the tribal area of Pakistan.

Here they are, left to right, a little closer.

Notice the embroidery work on the banding of the tassels.

Saul had an even more elaborate instance of this fine Baluch  embroidery, used at the top of one of the pieces that he held up. 

Here is a comprehensive image of this piece.  I want to treat it out of sequence here for comparison.

Here is a little closer detail of the fine work at its top.

There was one more camel knee decoration, but it has a different embroidery feature.

The distinctive feature was this small area of embroidered cloth.

The piece next to it,  had the same embroidery feature.  Same people – different purpose.  Probably used as hanging decorations from the reins.

Here is is in close-up.

An interesting decorative feature.

The next piece was a neck piece with carved wooden hangings.

Saul said it was from southeast Anatolia, and showed the artistic genius of poor artisans, with little ability to purchase beads, cowry shells, or other nazarliks, and had to create their own.  It is one of his favorites.

The next Anatolian chest piece featured horsehair tassels.  Probably West Anatolia.

Here is a rotated, comprehensive image to give you a little more size.

But a detail image is best for that.

The next piece was a slight departure: a plaited and embroidered horse head decoration.  Saul said it was sold to him as  Syrian and is made from mercerized cotton which looks and feels like silk. 

Nice, crisp, graphic design.

On both sides of this piece were plaited leather whips.

Saul took us next to two Qashqa’i chest pieces.

Here is the top one a bit closer.  Note the set of fortune teller discs, used as decorative nazarlik.

A half detail, that is closer still.

Here is the second Qashqa’i neck piece.

This time a center detail.

The next piece was donkey necklace nearly solid with turquoise-colored, hand-blown, glass beads.

Across the top of the board ranged a lovely, long-narrow band with a fringe.  Possibly made for horse or tent.  Saul brought it because it is the finest example he’s ever seen.

It is maybe eight feet long, and you can’t see it at all in the comprehensive horizontal image above.

For that you need a close-up detail, like this,

or this, that lets us see its embroidery, plaiting and tassels.

Saul said this it’s Central Asian, and, perhaps, Turkmen.

He took us, next, to a Taurus Mountain donkey belt on the far left side of the boards,

with lots of cowrie shells.

Saul said this piece is a donkey necklace from the Taurus mountains.

Nearby, was a metal-handled whip from the Caucasus.

Saul ended his presentation with a number of animal decorations too large, and three-dimensional, to place on the board.  They were held up instead.

This is a Qashqa’i headpiece with interesting features.

It has areas of intense beadwork.  Persian lions, appear, some with swords in paw.

Its tassels are luxurious.

One of them even has a design on its top.

A second “held up” piece was similar, but is estimated to be older.

Again, there are areas of intense beadwork, and lions with swords in paws, but there are also elk, a good luck symbol.  And the piece is inscribed. Note the sun rising behind the lion.

Here are the lower parts of its decorations.

The next “held-up” piece was a large Baluch assembly.  Headpiece and both reins.

Again, you cannot really see it in the more comprehensive image above, but, we’re going to work it over, a bit, with details.

This is a difficult piece both to display and photograph.

First, here is a detail of its very top.  Notice the feathers.

It is “seeded” nearly everywhere, in its main body, with small, white beads.

There are also buttons and beads, and plaiting with ending tassels.

The long reins, moving out on both sides are also heavily decorated.

The next piece was less extensive: Anatolian, without reins.

But it featured hand-blown glass beads.

A fifth “held up” piece was also Anatolian.

It hard to see with the pieces behind it on the board, but it has a red rein at its right side, and a blue on on its left.

Here is another view of most of it.

A plain blue rein with long tassels.

A sixth held up piece was also Anatolian.

Another comprehensive image of this piece.

A closer image of some of the bells.

The last of the pieces Saul had brought in was this example from Anatolia.

This elaborate camel head piece has lots of features.

Here are close-ups of some aspects of it.

Folks in the audience had brought in some pieces and Saul treated them next.

The first is a pretty spectacular camel headdress.

Here are a few images of it from different perspectives.  It was shown on a “paper mache” camel head, also the property of its owner.

This colorful, elaborate head dress is the, dust jacket, cover piece for Tanavoli’s book on such animal trappings.

The next brought in piece was the one below.

This is an embroidered fragment of a Turkman headpiece, probably Tekke.  This part would be on the animal’s “forehead” with the pointed end down.

The image below is a detail of a modestly decorated camel girth from northwest India.

Here is a comprehensive image of a similar one.

They are about 8 feet long, about 3.5 inches wide and have a palpable thickness of 1/4 inch.  They are/were used to attach saddles on riding camels.

They are made with a distinctive “split ply” technique, done with a needle, but without a loom, and that is a form of plaiting.  The material used is a very hard, scratchy goat hair.

Such camel girths seem crude and primitive, but Peter Collingwood, the late, famous English weaver once invested ten years and several trips to India to document the “split ply” technique.  He came away admiring the skills of the crafts people who make them.  The book he wrote as a result is  The Techniques of Ply-split Braiding, 1998.

The next “brought in” piece was this pile animal necklace attributed to the Luri in about 1900.

I have turned a detail of it here to let you see it better.

You may have noticed in the comprehensive image, above, that there are opulent tassels on both ends of this band.

The next piece was a long, narrow Qashqa’i band that stretched across the entire front board.

You cannot see it at all in the comprehensive image.  For that we have to resort to closer details.

That is a little better, but for real closeness we need rotated details.

You can see that this band is done in mixed technique with pile decorative devices on a flatwoven ground.  The designs on the front are nearly invisible on the back,

the knots are likely symmetric and tied on alternate raised warps. like Turkmen mixed technique tent bands are.  (I have a Siirt horse cover with the same structure.)

These same owners also had another small, mixed technique weaving, maybe also an animal decoration.

The next brought in piece seemed Baluch.

These bands are impossible to really see in these comprehensive horizontal photos, but I want to give you a sense of their length.  This one likely about 8 feet long.

Here is a beginning of seeing this piece: a rotated comprehensive image.

But we can only see it only, really, in closer, rotated details.  Here are a few.

A very nice band.

Saul, held up a small neck piece.  Seemed Central Asian.

Opened up and oriented vertically, it looked like this.

Here is a, marginally, larger detail.

The last piece of the day was this one.

Another band that you can’t really see in a comprehensive, horizontal image, except to note that is has a tassel system.

Here is the comprehensive image above, rotated.

It was suggested that this is a “chest” piece.

Here is an, additional, horizontal detail of it.

Saul took questions

and brought his program to a close.

People moved briskly to the front, and the after-session activity was more vigorous than usual.

You can eavesdrop.

I want to thank Saul for this interesting session on formats we don’t usually see in such profusion.  It permits comparison, and an in depth evaluation of the genre.

Thanks, are due, too, to Michael Spencer, Saul’s buddy,

who always appears to assist, when Saul speaks at the TM.

Thanks, also to Saul for permitting the production of this virtual version of it and for his editing, which in this case, was very much needed.

Amy Rispin, again, took a good set of notes for me.

I hope you have enjoyed this virtual version of Saul’s RTAM on “camel flowers.”

Regards,

R. John Howe

Ali Aydin, On Restoration and Conservation of Rugs and Other Textiles

On November 17, 2012, Ali Aydin,

conducted a Rug and Textile Appreciation Morning program, here at The Textile Museum, in Washington, D.C. in which he discussed “appropriate measures to take in conserving, protecting and repairing rugs and textiles.”  He also talked about some of the things to consider when choosing among the various repair/conservation alternatives.

Ali is a long-time restorer of, and dealer in, rugs and other textiles.  He is associated with Mark Keshishian and Sons, but also deals and repairs, independently.  He is active at collector shows, visible in Hali, and was one of only two U.S. dealers to exhibit at ICOC XII in Stockholm.

He said that if one has a damaged textile one was considering, a first question is whether it would be best only to conserve it rather than repair it.

During his talk he treated a number of things that affect repair/conservation consideration:

o  The seeming value of the piece.

o   How unusual it is.

o   The degree and character of the damage.

o   What can reasonably be accomplished.

o  Whether a restoration should be when completed “invisible” to those other than experienced experts.

o   How much one is prepared to invest in the conservation or restoration.

o  How the owner plans to display or use it.

This listing is not exhaustive, but does provide a good introduction to some of the issues involved.  It should also make clear, that, and why, sometimes, it is better to conserve than to restore.

Ali had brought a number of examples to illustrate such considerations.

The first piece he treated was the one below.

A1

This was Ali’s example of an older, flat-woven, bag face in excellent condition.  Its edges are all there and in good shape, and there is no visible damage to the interior areas of the piece.

Here are some closer details of A1.

A second piece was the one below.

A2

This is another, older,  flat-woven bag face, but one that is not in as good condition.  Even in the comprehensive image above, one can see damage on the lower left edge and to the multi-colored slit panels at the bottom.

Here are some closer details of A2.

There may be minor damage in the brown part of the center of the gul-form above.

There is also some damage along the top edge of this piece, but it is older, has good color and graphics and its interior areas seem mostly sound.  Ali said that, in his judgement, this is a piece to invest in restoring.

The next piece was a Caucasian pile rug with Lesghi guls in its field.

A3

At first glance, this rug seems to be in pretty fair shape.  All its edges seem undamaged and there are no readily detected difficulties with its field.

But this is an example of a rug that has been badly repaired.

Here are some closer details of A3.

Those of its back make clear that has been repaired at a low level of quality.

This rug has apparently been repaired using what is called “Kashmiring.”  Kashmiring is a method of simulating pile knots on the front by using a “wrapping” approach (much like that used in weaving in sumak).  No effort is made to tied individual knots on the warps in the areas being repaired.  Instead, the warps in such areas are wrapped with pile yarn of the same color as that used in the knots in sound pile areas.  The result can look quite good on the front side.  But Kashmiring is always readily detectable on the back of a rug on which it has been used.

Kashmiring is not always an inappropriate repair technique for damaged pile rugs.  If a rug is worthy of repair on other grounds, but has pile worn down so that only the “collars” of the knots are visible any longer, Kashmiring may be the only way to produce a repair that looks like the surrounding areas.  Tied knots can, sometimes, not be clipped closely enough to make their “brushy” ends essentially disappear.

But Kashmiring can be done faster and less expensively than can a pile repair in which knots are tied on the warps.  So one needs to be alert, when one encounters it (or has it proposed) to whether it is being selected for sound reasons. 

The use of Kashmiring in this particular repair is seen to be inappropriate because the pile of this rug is not worn enough to make it necessary.  The repair person who used it here was likely “cutting corners.”

The next rug was Chinese.

A4

Ali said that this is a younger rug with “old” repairs. 

Chinese wool and been used but the original colors have been changed in the repairs.

Here are some additional detail images of A4.

The next piece was half of an Anatoian kilim.

A5

Let me rotate this image 45 degrees so you can see it a little closer but comprehensively.

It has good colors and some unusual design features.

Here are some closer details of A5.

There is some work to be done here on ends and edges, but Ali said that he would recommend repair of this kilim.

This is a good place to talk about one of the most difficult aspects of sound repair; obtaining and using the right repair material.

If one wants a repair that is largely undetectable, one needs to find old wool with the colors one needs.  The colors of new wool will shift differently than those of old wool and repairs made with it may become visible after a few years. 

Old kilim fragments are a frequent source of such old wool.  The kilims are unraveled to permit this wool to be used in high quality repairs.  You can see with the kilim above that a wide variety of shades can be harvested.

The next piece was a Tekke engsi with good age.

A6

Notice in the upper right of the image below that a patch from and entirely different rug has been used to fill in a missing corner.

Here are some additional details of A6.

Ali said that he would fix only the edges and ends on this engsi.

Many Turkmen pieces present a special challenge, on the “old wool” dimension, because the materials from which they were woven are often so fine.  That difficulty might be a strong reason for resorting, on more a few occasions, to conservation rather than to repair of a weaving for which more repair material is be needed.

Someone from the audience asked whether restoration adds value to a piece.

Ali said that this is a good question, but in his experience the answer is, usually, “no.”  Restoring a piece (even some instances of conserving one) will, mainly, usually, allow its owner to enjoy it in a condition closer to that it had when it came off the loom.

The next piece was another Chinese one.

A6

Again, let me turn it so you have a larger comprehensive image of it.

We can see in the comprehensive images that this rug is missing some from both ends.

Let’s look more closely at some details of it.

Here we can see that it’s missing some pile in the left side of the image above.

This detail suggests that the sides are intact.  There is a transfer of red in one area, but that is likely from another rug since there are no reds in this one.

The detail above confirms that the sides (this detail is with the warps horizontal) and the ends “bobtailed.”

There is, in the detail above an instance of loss of pile.

The piece is nice, but not really unusual.  Fixing the ends is going to require the extension of two sets of warps across the entire width of this piece and then the reweaving of approximately this much of both ends (acknowledging that this is a detail of a side and selvedge).

I’m not sure that Ali said this, explicitly, but the quality of the rug seems not to merit what would be required for restoration of it.  Instead, it might be best to secure both ends (my notes say “binding the with cloth” an inexpensive procedure) and consider whether any repiling at all should be undertaken (probably not).

We took a little side trip at this point to deal with an example of conservation.

A7

The piece used for illustration is one of my own, so we can talk frankly about it.  This is a piece I bought long-distance out of a Jordanian flea market.

It is, it may not be too redundant to say, fragmented, worn in places and features holes.

It is no surprise that is was, from the beginning, a candidate for conservation only.  The conservation needed was of two sorts: 1) to secure all it edges (including some interior ones) so that no more of it is lost, and 2) to minimize the holes in it.

The conservator chose a backing cloth close in color to the red ground of the piece.  Here is the comprehensive shot again.  Check your sense of whether the “minimizing holes” objective has been achieved.

The couching of the piece onto the backing achieved the second “securing” objective.

I recently had it up on a wall, and a visitor noted that it seemed to sag a bit, and it would have been better to use a “stiffer” backing cloth. 

I think this observation is correct, but it draws attention to the fact that,  often, a number of variables would, ideally, be simultaneously addressed in either conserving or repairing a piece, and it is frequently impractical to do so.

I give this conservator high marks for choosing a ground cloth the color of which minimizes the holes in this fragment.  It seems unreasonable to me to ask that she also take on the task of finding a backing cloth of an ideal stiffness.  In fact, if I had to choose between a good color selection and “stiffnes,” I have no problem choosing the color match first.

This not to argue against the likely correctness of the suggestion that a little stiffer backing cloth would likely present this piece a little more crisply.  It merely acknowledges the complexity of the decision-making entailed in repair and conservation undertaking and the fact that compromises with the ideal almost always have to be made.

The next piece was a Caucasion pile rug from Shirvan with a niche design.

A8

The comprehensive image above suggest that this rug is in good condition. Let’s look at some closer details of it.

The color is quite gorgeous.

The cotton selvedges are classic, but look chalky white.   Restored?

Don’t see any obvious problems. 

Ali said that this is an  example of a good repair.  The lower end had been restored and some edge work had been done to it.

The next piece was another Caucasian with “Memling” guls in its field.

A9

Nice size, good color.  Some damage visible on the right side in the image above.

The damage on the right side seems restricted to the selvedge.

Ali looks at the back in this area.

Some details of aspects of this piece.

Ali points to something wrong on the right side of one gul.  Looks almost like a patch.

But there is rather little serious damage.  This rug is a candidate for repair.

The next piece was another Tekke engsi.

A10

It appears to have a complete outside parameter, but the field is very worn.

A look at its back reveals a backing apparently needed to reinforce this worn center.

Estimates in the room suggested that this piece is younger than the earlier one.  Tekke weaving is pretty fine.  Damage is extensive.  Would be very expensive to repair and it’s not that unusual.  Probably best kept as a “study” piece.  No repair or conservation recommended.

The next piece was yet another Turkmen engsi, this time a Yomut, with a design sometimes associated with age.

A11

Here are some closer details of A11.

Minor damage on the right side of the image above.  Looks to be mostly selvedge.

A restricted look at its left side seems OK.  Color in this piece seems very good.

Let’s look more closely at its back.

More damage, old repairs visible here.

More of the same.  This piece not in the condition the first images suggested.

Problem is general: little bare spots all over and lots of old repairs.

This piece could be repaired, but the extent of the damage to it, and the fact that repairing it might not raise its value, makes it one difficult to decide about.  If retained no real conservation work is needed.

The next piece was a Yomut Turkmen asmalyk.

A12

Ali puts his finger on a problem area.

Some repairs in several color areas visible here.

Outside perimeter seems sound here but a few more repairs visible.  Note that weaver changed the white-ground border as she moved up.

This part of the bottom edge seems OK.

Possible repair on the left side of the central blue diamond.  Possible bare spot on the lower right narrow, diagonal, “barber pole” stripe.

This is an attractive asmalyk.  Repair might not be extensive.  Consider for repair.

The next piece was Anatolian with a Melas niche design.

A12

Its outside perimeter seems OK at this distance.  There is a color change under the niche that seems too irregular to be abrash.  Also a brighter yellow area in the left border.

Here are some closer detail images of A12.

A large bare area.  Structural level seems pretty good.  Mostly repiling work.

Ali puts his finger on a bad repair.

There is quite a bit of work to do on this piece, but it is an old type and the work is mostly repiling.  Consider for repair.

The next piece was half of a sumac khorjin.

A13

Very good color.  It has damage on it sides.  But not a lot of work.

 

Some repair of sumac in the field visible in the image below.

Repair this piece.

The next piece was a classic six-gul Tekke Turkman torba.

A14

Initial impression at this distance is quite good.

Here are some closer details of A14.

Ends a little irregular and ends show slight damage.

Something suspicious in the lower left part of the upper gul in the image above.

Yes, some damage here.  Closer image also shows that there is some additional moth damage.

More moth damage visible in the image above.

This is a well-drawn classic type with good articulation of the interior of its major guls.  Robert Pinner once told me that he considered the apricot orange this piece has to be an indicator that it was woven before 1850.

Ali said that he would fix the ends and edges and leave the holes and the moth damage.

The next piece took us back to China.

A15

This little mat is in pretty bad shape with both edge and field problems.

Here are some closer looks at parts of it.

This is a piece to conserve, not to repair.  Ali said that he would all of its edges with cloth.

Ali held up the next piece, small and in pile..

A16

Although it may not be apparent, initially, this is the front of a large-ish Anatolian yastik.

This piece is unusual in several respects. 

It is yastik size, but lacks the top and bottom lappets that many yastiks have (although quite a number do not). 

Its field devices are a version of the so-called “baklava” design, although the diagonal use of color with the baklava devices is very unusual.  Morehouse provides several examples that use this device, but all of them turn it 45 degrees from their orientation in the image above.

Its simple, compartmented border is similar to usages in several Eastern Anatolian yastiks and all of Morehouse’s “baklava” examples are in his eastern Anatolian section (although he admits the this device was widely used).  The yellow ground and its reddish wefts may press its attribution back towards central Anatolia.

Here are some closer details of A16.

Notice that the reddish areas are not color runs, but rather the reddish wefts of this piece visible where pile is missing.  It seems to invite repiling.

The question of whether not to restore this piece likely bears, in part, on how old we estimate it to be.  It has a bright orange that some would see as a likely synthetic, but there are 13th century Anatolian rugs with oranges that are (still) equally bright, so we might be justified in giving it an earlier date.

There’s a lot of repiling here, but it might be justified, if the piece is seen to be older, as well as very unusual for a yastik. 

Ali said that he and the owner have agreed that this large yastik, which is almost a fragment, would be too expensive to repair, so they are mounting it on a cotton fabric for wall display.

The next piece was this nine-gul Turkman torba.

A17

Here are some closer details of A17.

This piece, Ali said, is an example of a pretty well-done repair, mostly for moth damage.

He said that older pile rugs with long, thick pile are another potential source of old wool for such repair jobs.  You can remove such pile, thread by thread, and use it to fix small areas of missing pile, such as those that limited moth damage can present.

He did note one poor color match in one border.

Here are two more close details of A17.

The next piece was an Anatolian nich design with detailed, delicate design elements.

A18

Ali looked at one area of its edge from the back.  Selvedge damage is visible.

A check of the ends from the back shows that they have been secured using a species of “whip stitching.”

If the side selvedge repair is all that is needed, this piece is a definite candidate for repair.

The next piece was a large square-ish, pictorial kilm woven in Romania or Serbia.

A19

Ali and a member of the audience  considered it.

Let’s look at some closer details of it ourselves.

There is lots of damage to the kilim structure.

And there are some color runs.

Ali said there is too much repair work here to undertake.  He would do “minor things” and back it with cloth.

The next piece was the fragment of a rug attributed to east Anatolia.

A20

This piece has lost edges all around, has holes and was one medallion longer at its lower end.

Here are some detail images of A20.

It is a clear candidate for conservation on a backing.

The next piece was Caucasian with unusual large medallions.

A21

Here are some details of A21.

Interesting designs but another candidate for a backing conservation.

The next piece was small.

A22

Unusual and attractive design and color use.  Its owner thinks it is Kurdish.

Here are some closer details of A22.

This lovely little piece might be worthy of nearly complete restoration, but it would be expensive.  An alternative would be to repair the sides and make sure that the top and bottom are secure.

The next piece curved a bit on the front board.

A23

It was attributed to east Anatolia in the late 19th century.

Unusual border.  Also a lot of damage.

Here are some more details of A23.

Ali said that the condition of this piece is too poor to restore.  He would fix the ends and put it on a backing.

The next piece was very colorful.

A24

Ali said that it is Caucasian, but he is not sure of what part.  It projects very good condition.  Someone in the room wondered whether it might not be a reproduction.  Ali said subsequently, that he knows its provenance and that it is late 19th century.

I took more than a few images of it.

Top and bottom borders are different from the design used on the side borders.

Some signs of wear and of small repairs? 

Not much repair need or work here.  Remarkable condition for an old piece.

The next piece was a Borchalu Kazak.

A25

Looks to be in pretty good condition.

Here are some details of A25.

Ali looked at its back.

An example of a rug skillfully repaired.

The next piece was another Tekke Turkmen engsi with an older look.

Large scale “candelabra” devices at the sides are unusual.

Ali took a look.

A little damage on the left here.

This is a rug with relatively little damage, it may have some age and is worthy of the repair needed.

The next piece was Baluch.

A26

Some damage visible right away.  Looks like moth.

Camel field are frequent in Baluch piece but the borders in this one are unusual.

Borders, especially the one based on the “mina khani” motif, are interesting, but moth damage is extensive.

Here are some more details of A26.

A look at a back edge.

This piece is an interesting rug but not a candidate for repair.  Damage is too extensive.

About 15 years ago I bought a fragmented Kazak, thinking that I might experiment on it by attempting some repairs.  Time passed and no experimentation had occurred and so I sent it off to Turkey and had it restored.

I brought it to this session and asked Ali to assess its repair in unvarnished terms.

He was good.  He started by saying that the repair job was “not too terrible.” 

Then he was specific about what he meant.  He looked at the top edge and said that the repaired area was clearly noticeable, in part, because new wool had been used.

You can see in the image above that in the rewoven areas, the “new” knots cover the under-lying structure more completely.

And, of course, warps have been extended at both ends and added at the sides.

The repairer told me when he returned it that he “hadn’t made any money” on it.  Perhaps, he had to “cut corners” somewhat.

Readers of these posts will remember that I have said from time to time that I collect on a budget and as a result look in places and buy things that most collectors, who see themselves as serious at all, would not considered.  So I’m positioned well for participating in a session such as Ali’s here, especially with regard to conservations.

The next piece is one of mine that presses the question of “when should you conserve” a piece?

A27

This piece is in a state of pretty advanced decay.  And it came to me without a backing.  BUT it has great color, so I invested in one.

Let me turn it so you can see it a bit closer but still comprehensively.

The conservator and I agreed on a blue similar to the top stripe of this piece (it would also, we thought, “pull out” the lighter analgous blue in the middle.

Earlier in Ali’s session the question came up of when to stop repairing a weaving.  Here, having decided to start conserving, the question became when to stop putting in additional “couching” stitches?  The conservator said to me, “Frankly, this is a piece where you could continue that almost indefinitely.”  She smiled.

Here are some closer details of A27.

This kilim is Anatolian and I asked Marla Mallett where in Turkey she thought it might have been woven.  She said that, these kinds of kilims were what were used to cover floors in Turkish homes and that they were woven everywhere.  She added that the strong yellow did suggest that it was not woven in western Anatolia.

The next piece is also mine and in very bad condition of another sort.

A28

This, most will recognize is an Anatolian yastik face that has retained much of its basic perimeter but lost most of its pile.  It was likely woven in central Anatolia and, I think, it has some age.

Here are some details of A28.

Now the truth is that this piece could be entirely restored, and if I didn’t have limited disposable income, I might have it done.  I would enjoy seeing it more like it looked before it became largely bald.

But it would be very expensive, and most would say, instantly, that it’s too far gone to repair.  Reluctantly, I agree.

The next piece was a kind of curiosity: a scarf made in the structure and known design of a U.S. coverlet.

A29

Coverlets are frequent, even quite good ones.  But I’ve never before seen a scarf in a coverlet structure and design.

There are two problems with this scarf.

First is has a stain in one area.

And it has some damage on one edge.

 

I’m talking to a museum quality conservationist about this scarf (she’s not seen it yet).  It is not an expensive item, so I think I will ask her to try to get the stain out and to stabilize the area of edge damage, unless it can be repaired very inexpensively.

My last piece, and it was the last of the day, is a kind of “hair shirt” of mine.

It is a rug likely woven in the Middle Amu Darya (we used to say “Ersari,” or if something looked more urban, “Beshiri”) with a field that features a “mina khani” design.

A30

Ali looked at its, less than appropriate, selvedges.

I quite like the rendition of the “mina khani” and the devices on its elems suggest age to me.

But you can see that it has a lot of damage, and things get much worse when you look at its back, because there is a wide area of glue that continues across its entire width (the white spots are glued on fragments of newspaper).

Now some say the presence of glue means the rug is entirely ruined, but others say it can be removed (there is something called “Zip Strip,” a paint remover, that some have employed with some success to remove glue).  But the general condition of this piece has immobilized me and it has sat in my stack for a number of years.

I had about decided to cut up its “good” parts for pillows, when Elena Tsareva’s new book on the Hoffmeister collection came in the mail and, there, in it, was the piece below.

Now there is a great temptation to associate something one owns with published, perhaps remarkable material (Elena estimates the Hoffmeister rug as 18th century).  Mine is much younger (lots more borders); BUT the elems are nearly the same.  And the visual “feel” of the two pieces seems similar to me.

I’m not ready to restore my rug, but maybe I should consider trying to get the glue off its back.

Ali took questions,

and brought his session to a close.

Conversations and the surge to “pet” the rugs began.

I want to thank Ali for permitting this virtual version of his interesting session to be produced, and for his editing of my draft.

Thanks are due as well, to Ruth McDiarmid who took a useful set of notes for me.

I hope you have enjoyed this brief consideration, with the help of a professional, of some of the issues and decisions one often confronts when thinking about either repairing or conserving a weaving one owns.

Have fine holidays,

R. John Howe

“Potpourri” with Mark Keshishian

On November 3, 2012, Mark Keshishian

gave a “potpourri” session at The Textile Museum, here in Washington, D. C.

Mark is active in the family rug business, is a accredited appraiser, and used to be successfully active in competitive  “strong man” events.

He had brought several pieces, some from his family’s collection, and he started with these.

P1

Mark said that this is a fragment of a Caucasian rug woven in Karabagh in the late 17th century.  It is from a rug of the “dragon” type that is long and relatively narrow.  He said that there are a number of such fragments in the family collection.

Here are some detail images of P1.

Mark’s second piece was this one.

P2

This rug has a field dominated by Lesghi stars.  It was published in Harold Keshishian’s (Mark’s uncle) book.  It is attributed to Armenia in 1903.

Here are some detail images of P2.

The next piece was the one below.

P3

Here is the most comprehensive image I can manage.

This is, of course, what is popularly known as a “cloud band” or  ”Khondzoresk” Kazak.  Mark said that “Khondzoresk” translates to “the worm in the apple.”

As the detail below shows, this rug has some anatomically correct human figures in its designs and is dated 1833.  It is thought to have been woven in Armenia and was likely published, Mark thought, in his father’s book on Armenian rugs.

Here are close-ups of two of its medallions.

The next piece was the one below.

P4

This piece is a contemporary rendition of a familiar Kazak type (Fachralo Kazak design), woven in Turkey by Woven Legends.  Its dyes are alleged to be from natural sources.  Mark said this piece just needs to get “a little dirty” to look better.

Some detail images of P4.

Mark’s fifth piece was another contemporary one, this time a Bijar replica also by Woven Legends

P5

Details of P5.

With the next rug, below, Mark went back to older material.

P6

This mat is a “Manchester” Kashan, with a design seen with fair frequency here in the U.S. for obvious reasons.  A finely woven rug with a good range of color and precise drawing.  The pinkish ground of its field is somewhat unusual.

Mark said this is one of his favorite rugs.

Details of P6.

The next piece was another Manchester Kashan, this time with a niche and “tree of life” design.

P7

It has a wider color palette than an initial look at it suggests.

Here are some closer detail images of P7.

Mark drew attention to the back of this piece, noting its lighter colors. 

He said that more definite reds, especially wine-reds, were preferred, in the U.S., to these light shades, and so the market arranged for such rugs to be “painted” in more desirable ones.

Mark said that such painting started in the early 1920s and ended by the mid 1930s.

The next piece was this one.

P8

My notes indicate that this is an Indian rug done with “Manchester” type wool.  Mark said  that the front of  this piece looks different from a typical Manchester Kashan, but that the wool feels better than the Persian one.

Details of P8.

Here is a closer detail of the back of P8.

The next piece was a Ferahan Sarouk.

P9

Some details of P9.

The next piece was another Ferahan Sarouk.

P10

There was talk in the room about,  since the warps of this piece are parallel to its short side, whether it could have been the face of a chuval.  The consensus was that while there are, on rare occasion, pile chuvals in NW Persia (some Bijar instances were remembered) no one knew of a Ferahan Sarouk example. These pieces tended to be seen in pairs, with the pair to this piece actually now owned by a member in the audience.

Some details of P10.

The next rug had a very different look.

P11

Mark said that this rug is a contemporary piece, woven in Turkey with Ushak designs.

Wool quality is great.

Here are some closer detail images of P11.

The next rug was the one below.

P12

This is a silk Kashan, woven, just before or after WWI.

Mark used this rug to talk about some distinctive characteristics of silk, particularly with regard to washing it. 

He said that silk doesn’t have a “memory,” like wool does, that lets its individual fibers return, after washing, to their previous, “separated” posture.  That is, when washed, silk’s fibers often tend to stick together. 

He said, that ideally one should avoid washing a silk rug, but that there are some solutions (not available at the retail level) that can help prevent this “sticking together” tendency.  It is also necessary to comb a washed silk rug frequently until it is dry.

Here are some closer detail images of P12.

The next piece was the small, Tabriz mat below.

P13

Here are some details of P13.

The next piece was Caucasian
.

P14

This ivory-ground rug is a small Kazak.  Its design is described by Bennett as a hooked polygon.  He groups it with some “miscellaneous” Kazaks of no great age.  Its ivory ground is attractive and its restricted color palette is graphically effective.

Here are some detail images of P14.

Mark called attention to the nice, enriching, touch of “barber pole” centers of the “leaf” forms.

The next piece was another silk rug.  Its owner has given me a detailed description of it after the fact. 

Modern Qum.  Silk pile on silk warp and weft.  Knot is asymmetric open on the right.  Relatively finely woven (600+ kpi).  Signed top and bottom.  Lobed medallion with center flower, surrounded by red carnations, on bed of leaves, with outer row of flowers.  More flowers in lobes, with leaves in field.  Flowers surrounding center field. Asymmetric borders, with flowers in cartouches in main border.  (There are good detail images on all of this below.)

P15

Mark said that such Persian silk rugs are “drying up” in the market, due to the U.S. trade sanctions aimed at Iran. 

He estimated that it could be as much as 25 years old.  Its owner volunteered from the audience that it was woven quite recently.

Here are some detail images of P15.

Mark attributed the next rug, another “tree of life” design, to Kerman.

P15

Asked whether this rug has the distinctive, three-weft between rows of knots, Kerman structure, Mark said that he bases his attributions mostly on such things as design, color palette and character of the wool, and doesn’t usually delve deeply into structure.

He said this size is called a “meditation” carpet.

Mark said that he wondered whether this piece might not have been painted.

I do not have a comprehensive, unobstructed shot, but here are some details of P15.

The next rug was Caucasian.

P16

Its central medallion could be an abstracted version of some seen in rugs woven in Karabagh. 

Its owner said that it was purchased in Baku.  He said that this is an old rug, and was woven in the 1880′s.

Its border was seen to be unusual.

Its owner said that this piece had at one time been cut up into four quarters, but was subsequently restored in Istanbul.  Mark, examined it, more closely and noted that the ends were too perfect for the wear this rug would have had had it been used on the floor.

The next rug was this one.

P17

Its colors were said to suggest that it is an Azeri weaving.  Its owner said that it was purchased in Istanbul.

Here are some details of P17.

Design devices like the one below, are of the sort that invite fanciful names, like “space-shuttle.”

The are six such devices in the rug.  The four like this one are oriented at the side.  I have turned it 45 degrees here, just to cause trouble.

The next rug has the look of a classic “Seichur.”

P18

As you can see, it features a great green an unusual coloration for this type.

This rug has the classic “Seichur” running dog border, but its owner also drew attention to its inner “cabbage” border which he said is a Kuba usage.

The field of this rug features three so-called “St. Andrew’s cross” devices.

Its owner estimated its age as 1880-90′s.  Nice corrosion.

Here are some additional detail images of P17.

Its owner said that its structure is closer to other Kuba pieces, since its alternate warps are depressed.  Shirvans usually have warps on a single level.

The next piece was another Caucasian, this time with a white ground and monumental-sized field devices.

P19

 

The owner of this rug, collects mostly eastern Caucasian rugs and so this piece seems likely to be from that area. 

The borders and collect seem similar to Shirvan usages, but the white ground of the field and the large scale of the devices in it, are unusual.

Here are some detail images of P19.

The next rug was Anatolian.

P20

This rug has good color and a nice complexity of design.  It is estimated to have been woven about 1875.

Its owner said that when we think of Anatolian rugs woven in Milas, we tend to think of “niche” designs, but this Milas is not of that sort.

Here are some details of this piece.

This rug has a good purple.

The next rug was another woven with silk.

P21

Its owner said this it was woven in the Kayseri area of Anatolia.  He said that it was woven properly for a silk rug, that is, with the pile pointing toward the niche-end, but that this makes it “upside-down” when hung as most prefer the the pile pointing down.

This rug has cross-panels, a design usage rare in Persian rugs, but that we see in Turkmen ensis and a few varieties of Anatolian rugs.  They occur with some frequency in the once, very desirable, but now largely neglected, Ghiodes rugs.

Here are some details of P21.

The next piece was a compartmented design.

P22

It owner said that the dealer called it “Baluch,” but that others have said it’s “Middle Amu Dyra.” 

Mark said that is an unusual and interesting piece.

It has a wider range of color in the lower parts of its field, as if the weaver had run out of some colors.

Here are some closer details of P22.

Here is a look at the back of this piece.

The next piece was this bag, attributed to the Luri-Bakhtiari .

P23

This khojin half has some interesting features that are worthy of closer examination.

The motif on the front face of the bag clearly comes down from the device that appears on the famous Berlin phoenix-dragon rug.

Courtesy Peter Stone

This motif appears in both Persian and Anatolian weaving.  There is a comment on it on p.75 of John Wertime’s sumak bag book. 

One question that remains is whether the motif on this bag (below) is the dragon or the phoenix?  To me, the top horizontal strip of the Berlin device is the more plausible candidate for the halves from which the “gul-like” device,” below, is formed.  Maybe it’s the phoenix being used.

As a former Turkmen collector, my initial reaction was less elevated, and based on what I “see.”  The field of this piece contains six devices that seem like “fractured” guls.

Their horizontal division, is “clean” enough, although the shapes of the top and bottom halves are such a half rotated 180 degrees.  The result is that the outside perimeter outline of the comprehensive “gul” form seems slightly askew. 

This “broken” character is strongly reinforced by jagged vertical division of the two halves. 

This drawing (and a rich use of attractive colors) heightens the aesthetic interest this piece projects.  If, as seems to be the case, these field devices are not gul forms at all, but rather come down from the “dragon and phoenix” rug in Berlin, so much the better.

There are also quadruped devices in the field of this bag’s front,

and in one stripe on its back there are camels.

Here are a couple more details of this interesting piece.

An attractive yellow-ground pile panel at the lower edge of the bag’s front, a frequent Bakhtiari usage.

The next piece was Baluch.  An unusual camel-ground design.

P24

Its owner said that it contains lots of actual camel hair.

Some additional detail images of P24.

Mark looked at its back.

A little closer look for you, too.

Aha! Quadrupeds in this one, too.

The next piece seemed a “face” of some sort.

P25

Mark said that it looked to him like something is missing.  He praised its colors, especially its good green.

I wondered if this could be a fragment of an Anatolian yastik. Yastiks are almost always rectangular and would be taller in this orientation.  If this is a yastik fragment , what might be missing are lappets on both ends.

Morehouse shows at least six Central Anatolian yastiks with a center medallion surrounded by four “armature” forms.  Oddly, the one  with the most similar field design to this one has cross-panels at its ends, but no lappets.

As luck would have it, I’ve been working on a couple of posts, going back and forth and by chance found an instance that will let us test our suspicion that P25,  above, could be a yastik fragment.

This is an older yastik in very poor condition, but with a very similar field.

If the lappets at the ends of the piece above were removed it would look like the truncated image of it below right.

 

 

P25 looks very much like a former yastik that has lost its lappets.

Here are some closer detail images of P25.

The next rug was a long, classical Talish.

P26

This rug has great color and the classic Talish, main border.

Talish rugs, its owner said, are woven in the Southeast Azerbaijan part of the Caucasus.

Fields in such Talish long rugs are often plain.  This one has an attractive, colorful drawing of a lattice design, with stars in compartments.

Some Talish rugs have blue wefts, visible on their backs, moving in occasionally from the side selveges.  Some claim that this feature is definitive for Talish pieces.  Below is a look at the back of this piece.  It has these interpenetrating blue wefts.

The next piece was a flat weave in slit tapestry.

P27

It was attributed by its owner to Karabaugh.  He said that it had been cut in half and has now been sewn back together.

Here are details of P27.

The next textile was another Caucasian flat weave: this time a Shirvan kilim.

P28

Mark said that this piece has great color, great wool and a nice, tight weave.  He said that late 19th century would be a safe age estimate.

Here are some closer details of P228.

The next piece was an “envelope” bag of some sort, complete with a seeming triangular flap.

P29

My notes say only that this is an “end panel” from a Bakhtiari piece, presumably a cargo-bag type mafrash.

Here are some closer details of P29.

The next piece was this pile panel with good graphic punch.

P30

This is one front panel from an Anatolian saddle bag set, Mark said, from the Bergama area.  They are called “heybes.”

 This seems a frequent heybe face design.  I found one in a local flea market.  But it may, also, be a quite old design.  This is what the front of a complete heybe with this field design, likely looked like, if it was reinforced with leather (some were).

Because the back of this analogous piece was likely covered with leather, we do not have an image of it.

But perusal of the only book on heybes (by Bieber, Pinkwart and Steiner) allows the conjecture that its back might look like this.

The striped backs of heybes vary widely, and to some extent, systematically.  They are, more than the fronts, used for determining attribution.

Here are two details of P30.

The next piece was a small Turkman rug.

P31

This piece is the size often called “wedding rugs,” although this one features “chuval” guls, rather than the more frequent small version of the main carpet gul.

The owner called attention to the variation in the size of the guls.  This is something seen in more than a few Turkmen pieces.  It has led to the fanciful suggestion that such size differences are often deliberate and meant to represent birds in swooping flight.

Its owner said that this rug is Tekke.  I didn’t look at it closely, but the main border made me wonder whether it might not be Yomut.

Its owner said that its “chalky” white is from the use of cotton as pile.

Here are some more detail images of P31.

The next piece was a small Anatolian kilim.

P32

It is in slit tapestry and was attributed to the Konya area.

Its green was admired.

Here are some additional details of P32.

The next piece was one I had brought.  It is an Uzbek needlepoint in silk

P33

Mark as whether I knew how old it is and I jokingly said that I thought you “could look at your watch,” that such things are still being made.

Seemingly a little suspicious of my joke, Mark looked around on this piece a bit, and found that it is dated, something I had not noticed at all.

So it’s a little less “fresh” than I would have guessed.

Here are two more details of it.

Although is just a function of the fine silk and the digital needlepoint technique, I like the crispness of the drawing, especially of the Memling guls.

The next piece was a “double-niche” Turkish rug in silk.

P34

Notice the architectural features on the sides of the niches that become floral at the top.  The details of the lamp designs are articulated, made possible by the fineness of the silk.

Here are some additional detail images of P34.

The next rug was a small Malayer.

Mark said that it has a really soft handle for a Malayer.

He noted that it is single-wefted.  There is just one pick of weft between rows of knots (warps are visible whenever the weft passes beneath them) and the wefts are “fat,” and make the warps seem to “undulate.”

Here are a couple more detail images of P35.

The next rug was a fairly large Kazak with three over-sized “Lesghi guls” dominating its field.

P36

Mark noted that there is an orange used, and said that this is unusual for a Kazak.

He admired the greens.

He said that the weft is medium brown and could suggest that it is Karabagh (ed.:although Tschebull found tans, and even dark brown warps in some of the pieces in his catalog “Kazak”).

Here are a couple of additional details of P36.

The next rug was Chinese.

P37

Mark placed it just after WWI.

My notes include an indication that some thought this rug was likely woven by non-Hans in China.  They said something about “Persian” women weaving in the north of China, where the Great Wall meets Mongolia.

Here are some details of P37.

The next piece was the kilim below.

P38

It owners said this piece was woven in either northwest Bulgaria (Chiprovtsy) or southeast Serbia (Pirot).

It has eccentric wefts that follow the curves of it designs.  In the market, these are all called Sarkoy kilims.

Has a border executed in the Serbian style.. 

Recently purchased in Istanbul.

The field is primarily very dark blue green with some small areas of blue. The purple red in this example is particularly nice and may be cochineal or Balkan kermes.

Mid-to late 19th Century. Owner: “We aren’t certain of the origin of the motifs covering the field-perhaps they are a local version of Ottoman floral style.

“Depending on its age, the kilim may have been woven by Orthodox Christian folk or by Orthodox Christians and Muslims living and working side-by-side.  

“Everything changed in this region after about 1868.

Here are two more details of P38.

The next piece was is a Manastir prayer-format kilim from northeast Bulgaria, likely from the Delioman region.

P39

Its owner said that the ivory ground is unusual.

End borders are typical for a particular sub-group of Manastir kilims. 

Attention was also called to the pronounced use of outlining on the sides.  The width of the outlining is varied to produce a three-dimensional effect.

Third quarter, 19th century.

Its owner said Manastir kilims were frequently woven by the women of heterodox (Alevi or Bektashi) Muslim families in Bulgaria for domestic religious use, to provide a protective function against bad luck,  and to serve a devotional function.

There is some debate as to how many of these textiles were actually used for prayer.  However, Ottoman records for the 19th Century in Bulgaria document the practice of requiring Muslim conscripts to the Turkish Army to bring their own “prayer” kilim.  Some Manastir kilims have features that document this practice.

Here are some details of P39.

The next piece was large and delicate.

P40

Its owner said that this piece was woven in Syria in or near the city of Aleppo. 

It may have originally been a wall, window or door hanging (a portiere) which was subsequently been repurposed as a bed or table cover.

The piece consists of two panels sewn together longitudinally. 

Although the piece is relatively delicate, it is also quite heavy due to the use of a large amount of metallic wrapped thread.

This cover dates before 1910 and was reported to have been collected in Adana, Turkey.

Its design reflect a typically Syrian interpretation of the ottoman floral style with lavish use of metallic thread: fine metal wire wrapped around the yellow silk fibers.  This technique results in the textile having a shimmering gold tone and texture

Here are some closer details of P40 and its decorations.

I have rotated the devices below to give you larger close-ups.

The next piece was the one below.

P41

This piece is fragmented in the sense that all of its edges have been bound.

It owner said that it was woven by her grandmother in an Armenian area of Anatolia.  The grandmother wove three of these.  The was a suggestion that it could have been a yastik (it is yastik-size).

Here are two details of P41.

The next piece was a framed Chinese textile.

P42

This is embroidery on silk.

Metallic thread used.

Needle embroidery rather than brocade.

Here are some closer details of P42.

Made in two panels, then sewn together.

The next piece was a familiar type Yomut Turkmen flat woven bag.

P43

I own one that it nearly identical and have a story to tell about mine. 

I bought it from a Selcuk dealer in 2007, in partial recognition of an exception job of hosting he did for us during a several day stay in his town. 

But the interesting thing is that he claimed it was a specialized type of bag and was used to hold seed as planting occurred.  I was skeptical, but he persisted, saying that he had seen a photograph of a Turkman farmer using this kind of bag in this way.

I didn’t debate, but Turkmen were very practical folks, and many bags could be, and likely were, used for a variety of purposes.  This bag is of a size that would suggest that it was not strictly reserved for use in planting.

Here is one more detailsof P43.

The bands with designs on this piece are woven in sumac.  Turkmen uses of sumac are relatively rare, and so noteworthy.

The next piece was a small Anatolian bag in species of brocade.

P44

A relatively coarse, but attractive piece. 

Here are two closer details of it. 

I did not manage a photo of its back.

A potpourri RTAM will always attract at least one recent Turkman piece, and this was the one for today.

P45

Mark said that this is Tekke Turkmen Soviet era production.

I have heard that the white ground stripes at the ends of this piece are nearly a signature indicator of Soviet production.

The last piece of the day’s session was was large and heavy.

P46

It is Qashqa’i.  Southwest Persia.

Here are some detail images of P46.

Odd, “chickens” in the center of the field.

Dark warps.

Here is its back.

Wefts seem less dark than the warps.

Mark took questions,

and adjourned the session.

After-session conversations and explorations started up.

I hope you have enjoyed this virtual version of an, admittedly, long, “potpourri” RTAM.

My thanks to Mark for permitting this virtual version to be produced, and for his editorial work on my draft.

‘Til next time,

R. John Howe

David Weiss: Oriental Rugs and the Art Market

On April 30, 2011, David Weiss

gave a Rug and Textile Appreciation Morning Program on April 30, 2011 on the subject of “Oriental Rugs and the Art Market.” 

David is well-qualified to speak on such things since he is Vice President and Senior Specialist at Freeman’s Auctions in Philadelphia, the oldest auction house in the U.S.  David is also an expert appraiser of U.S painting and you may have seen him on the television program Antique Roadshow.    He was accompanied and assisted by his Freeman’s associate, Richard Cervantes.

                               

The Myers Room was full.

We usually do not treat dollar value of the pieces we see and discuss in The Textile Museum, but for this session, that prohibition was relaxed somewhat, so that David could talk about how they saw particular pieces and decided on what range of value to place on them in the auction estimates.  In general, David’s strategy is to place quite low estimates on pieces offered at auction, since the primary objective is to have them sell.  If the seller is agreeable, that estimate strategy encourages the greatest number of bidders.

In this post, we are able to go a little further.  These rugs were sold in auctions that occurred after this program was given, but which have been completed now.  David and Richard have provided us with the “hammer” price for which each piece sold.  We can watch to see how David’s low estimate strategy worked out.

The first piece shown was described as Kurdish from Northeast Iran.

D1

(Pieces were often displayed by hanging them over the top of the front board and so “all edges” comprehensive shots were not always possible)

This was described as likely from the  Quchan area.  It is mildly worn, with some oxidized areas.  The border design echoes the “beetle” bags.  It feels Kurdish.  The estimate placed on it was $1200 – 2000.

Hammer price: $2700

Here are some details of this rug.

D1a

D1b

D1c

 

The second rug moved us to NW Iran.

D2

This rug was described as a “Malayer-Saruk,” because of its symmetric knots.  It has a single pick of weft between rows of knots.   Some might say “Ferahan-Saruk.”  Its estimate was $1000 – 1500.

Hammer price: $3500.

Again, some detail images.

D2a

D2b

D2c

D2 back

The next piece was a long, Malayer runner.  16 ‘ x 4′.

Its field design is taken from a “Garrus” border.

D3a

Its own borders are less distinctive.

D3b

Its estimate was $1500 – 2000.

Hammer price: $2400

 

The next piece was this small Senneh mat.

D4

It is single-wefted and finely woven.  Estimated ca. 1900.  Auction result estimate: $1000 – 1500.

Hammer price: $850 (as part of a group lot)

Here are some details of it.

D4a

D4b

D4c

D4d

D4e

Here is its back.

 

The next rug was described as a Kurd Karabagh.

D5

It is estimated to have been woven 1900-1920 in NW Iran.  Its “star” design was noted.  Its auction estimate was $1000 – 1500.

Hammer price: $1700

Here are some additional details of this piece.

D5a

D5b

D5c

D5d

D5e

 

David said that the next rug was a Kazak from a private collection in Pennsylvania.

D6

It has a near “mat” size and its condition is not good.  It has red wefts and reddish corded selvedges.  It “tomato paste” red has faded.  It was estimated to have been woven about 1880.

Estimate. as part of a group lot with two other rugs: $200-400.

Hammer price: $750 (as part of this group lot)

Here are some detail images of this piece.

D6a

There was mention in the room that the particular abstraction of the border design was unusual.

D6b

D6c

D6d

Here is a look at its back.

D6e

 

The next piece was another Caucasian Kazak, this time of the Moghan design variety.

D7

The rug has a nice square size and exhibits two large Memling guls,  pronounced abrash and modest wear.  David estimated that it was woven in the late 19th century.

Hammer price: $1100

Here are some details of it.

D7a

D7b

D7c

 

The next rug also featured Memling guls.

D8

Another Kazak type, it has good proportions.  David estimated it to have been woven in the late 19th century.  Its auction estimate was $1500 – 2500.

Hammer price: $2400

Here are some detail images of this piece.

D8a

D8b

D8c

D8d

D8e

Here is its back.

The next rug was still another Kazak, this time with a classic “Bordjalu” re-entrant niche design.

D9

The center instrumentation of the two diamond-shaped guls in the field is unusual.  The size and the borders are typical Kazak usages.  David estimated that this rug was woven about 1875.  Its auction estimate was $2500 – 4000.

Hammer price: $ $2400

Here are some detail images of this piece.

D9a

D9b

D9c

D9d

 

The next rug was a very interesting Shirvan.

D10

The rug, compartmentalized, figural, pictorial, and densely populated, is one of the most unusual Shirvans most of us have seen.

This is a rug that merits detail images.

D10a

D10b

It was noted in the room that some of the compartments have triangular “indentions” (in truth they move “in” on one compartment and “out” on the neighboring one(s)).

A10c

David noted that the naive drawing of the people and clothing resembles some usages in Amish crafts in rural areas not far from Philadelphia.

A10d

A10e

It was noted that there are camels and lions in this rug, something seen to suggest Persian influence.

There seems little doubt that this piece was woven without reference to a cartoon.

The auction estimate was $2000 – 3000.

Hammer price: $3000

The next rug was another Caucasian with recognizable design features.

D11

This rug exhibits a classic Avar design.  The Avars are a Sunni ethnic group in Daghestan in the Caucasus.  Comment in the room indicated that the colors of this piece are typical, including some use of synthetic dyes.  David said that the design derives from palmettes in 18th century “blossom” carpets.

As you can see, this rug has condition problems.  Its auction estimate was set at $1000.

Hammer price: $1700

Here are some closer details of it.

D11a

D11b

D11c

 

David said that aspects of the next rug excite him, but that he has not been able to date to get many others to join him in his enthusiasm.

D12

This rug was described as an Afshan Karabagh, from the eastern Caucasus.  It is 6′ x 5.5′ and has a “blanket-like” handle.  It has both symmetric and asymmetric knots in its structure.

David dates it to 19th century, possibly earlier.  Its auction estimate is $2000 to $4000.

Hammer price: $5500

Here are some detail of this rug.

D12a

D12b

D12c

D12d

 

The next piece was a panel of Uzbek flatweave.

D13

Its auction estimate is $800 – 1000.

Withdrawn from sale.

Here are some closer detail images.

A13a

A13b

D13c

 

The next piece was small, Yomut Turkmen and in pile.

D14

This little piece is a “spindle bag.”  It would have been folded on its vertical axis here and sewn up the side.  Most readers will know that one oddity of such bags is that the warps run horizontal in relation to the design. 

It was withdrawn from sale.

Here are two details of this piece.

D14a

D14b

 

The next rug was a sizable Turkman main carpet.

D15

This is the sort of piece that has traditionally been attributed to more settled Turkmen weavers under the heading of “Beshiri,” and, in truth, that usage, like the term “Ersari,” is very much in use. 

But the scholarship has moved a little and the preferred designation now is “Middle Amu Dyra” a section of that river in which a wide variety of tribes lived and though which, even more, passed.  The contents of “Middle Amu Dyra” is beginning to be defined, but there is much work to do.

As you can see, this rug has some areas with condition problems.  It is dated to the late 19th century.

Hammer price: $1200

Here are some details of this rug.

A15a

The designs and drawing are dense, precise and traditional.

A15b

D15c

Here is its back.

 

The next piece was an interesting, old long rug in poor condition.

A16

In the room, it was accepted, without noticeable dissent, that this piece was probably woven in eastern Turkey.  Subsequently, some students of this area have suggested that it is not Anatolian, but more likely a species of Kurdish weaving in NW Iran.

This rug is estimated to have been woven in the early 19th century and perhaps before that.  It has a lot of what was seen as a good purple and there are two greens.

Hammer price: $2400

I am going to let you look around this rug with several detail images.

D16a

D16b

D16c

D16d

D16e

D16f

Here’s a look at its back.

Eiland and Eiland distinguish four types of samplers (vagirehs).  1) ones from which an entire rug could be woven; 2) ones showing a variety of field and borders available, without, necessarily, including all those required for a complete rug; 3) ones that may exhibit designs, but which are primarily designed to show texture and colors (Zeigler made many such samplers); and 4) those that indicate only colors that are available.

David’s next piece was a sampler of this last sort.  This one is for a Chinese rug.  The auction estimate was less than $500.

A17

Hammer price: $200

Here is the back of this sampler.

 

Next were two Chinese mats.  Here is the first one.  It was described as  a “seating” mat.

D18

Both this piece and its mate, which follows, were attributed to Ningsia in the 19th century.

It was noted in the room that this piece has “eccentric” knotting in its borders.  This term is a global usage referring to several knotting practices that the Chinese use, often to achieve curvilinear designs in fairly coarse rugs.  These knotting variations from the usual practice of knots arranged in columns each on two warps, include “offset knotting,” “stacked knots, “half” knots, and “overlapping half knots.

You can see signs of such “eccentric” knotting in some of the detail images below.

D18a

D18b

D18c

 

Hammer price on D18: $5000 (as part of a two-piece group lot that also included D19 below)

A second Chinese mat was this one.  As yu can see it features dragon designs.

D19

“Eccentric” knotting is also visible in its border usages.

Here are some closer detail images.

D19a

D19b

 

The next rug was a larger one, and for some, the “star” of the morning.

D20

This is a rug described as likely woven in Kansu in western China.   The medallions in such rugs can either be inside compartments (called “coffers”) or simply be placed on the rug’s field.  This instance seems to be of the “uncoffered” variety.

Hammer price: $26,000

This, too, is a rug worth some detail images.

D20a

Again, the knotting variations described in the room as “eccentric knotting” is visible.

D20b

D20d

D20e

D20f

Here is the back.

 

We ended with two East Turkestan safs. 

This is an area in which Hans Bidder’s indications are interesting.  He makes a controversial argument that “prayer” niche designs (in general) do not, he thinks, originate in Islamic “architectural” sources. 

Bidder sees “prayer” niche designs as more likely sourced in the character and decorations associated with  pre-Islamic, pre-Christian, shamanistic burial cults and tombs. 

He also seems to argue that the pile wool saf form became prevalent in east Turkestan during Yaqub Beg’s fanatically repressive Islamic rule (1862-75) and that it stopped being woven there when his regime came to an end and the Chinese took over.

 The first of these two safs was this one.

D21

(Again we are not seeing the entire length of these two pieces, since they were hung over the top of the front board.

I have turned this image 45 degrees to show this piece with its its niches pointing up.)

This piece has at least eight and perhaps more niched compartments.  David estimates that it was woven in the early 19th century.

Here are some details most of the visible niches in this rug.

D21a

One test of whether a piece with a saf design was intended for actual use in prayer is whether the individual niches are large enough to permit an adult to pray on them.  The individual niches on these two safs were.

D21b

D21c

D21e

 

Hammer price on D21: $17,000

The second of these two safs had better color.

D22

Again, the image above is one in which I have turned 45 degrees a photo taken of this piece thrown over the top of the front board.

Here are closer details of most of the visible individual niche-topped compartments.

D22a

D22b

D22c

D22d

D22e

D22f

D22g

 

Hammer price on D22: $30,000

David took questions

and brought the session to an end.

There was vigorous movement forward, to get hands on some of this interesting material.

The gentleman in the striped shirt, below, liked the unusual pictorial Shirvan rug.

I encouraged him to hold it up.

He did, trying to hide his face, but I had already “blown his cover.”

I want to thank David and his Freeman colleague, Richard, for this interesting program and for being willing to have this virtual version of it produced.  Thanks is also due to them for very real assistance in the editing of this post, and for providing the “hammer” prices subsequently realized for these pieces.

David was concerned when he was initially invited to give this session, that the “luck of the draw” with regard to what he might have submitted for auction, might not support a sufficiently interesting program.  But I think you will agree that things turned out very well indeed.  The material was interesting and we got a look at the “hammer results” of David’s” low estimates” strategy.

I hope you have enjoyed this virtual version of another interesting Rug and Textile Appreciation Morning program here at The Textile Museum in Washington, D.C.

‘Til next time,

R. John Howe