Brooke Jaron on Symbolism in Chinese Qing Dynasty Textiles, The Lecture

On January 30, 2016, Brooke Jaron,

*

*

gave a Rug and Textile Appreciation Morning program on:

*

*

Brooke is a textile historian and artist who will help us interpret the symbolic language of Chinese textiles. Brooke will discuss examples ranging from home-crafted children’s hats and clothing to purses and fan cases by the imperial workshops of Qing dynasty China.

Brooke is also a collector of Asian textiles and antiques. She has lectured and written numerous articles on the subject of symbolism in Chinese textiles. Her latest article on the “year of the Monkey” appears in the January issue of “Textiles Asia Journal.” Recently, she participated in the Textile Museum’s first-ever Pecha Kucha presentation during its annual Symposium, with a talk on the symbols of the Chinese zodiac. She also designs jewelry.

This is Brooke speaking:

*

*

For the past 30 years I’ve been collecting Chinese textiles. Most of them were purchased during the more than 40 trips that my husband and I took to China between the early 1980s and the present. I noticed early on that there were images that appeared on many different articles and I began to wonder why it was that there were so many bats, or cranes or odd looking old men with huge foreheads. What started out as curiosity, eventually led me to many years of asking questions, studying whatever material was available, and trying to decipher the hidden meanings in the pieces I gathered in my travels.

*

*

The Chinese have for centuries believed that by surrounding themselves with lucky objects and images, they would increase the likelihood of a happy, healthy and prosperous life. Over the years, a language of symbols has evolved, images that we can find repeated in the art they created, the buildings they lived in, the household goods that they used every day, and most particularly in the clothing and ornaments that they wore and carried.

The Chinese spoken language, Mandarin, is made up of many one or two syllable words with a similar or identical sound, although the written characters are not the same. Many of the symbols are based on these homonyms and when several are combined, they form a rebus. This is an example of a rebus in English. 

*

*

The eye and the ewe are different words that sound the same as I and you, and the heart is an easily recognized substitute for the word “love”.

*

*

During the Qing Dynasty, which stretched from the 17th to the early 20th century, these rebus-based symbols appeared in all areas of daily life. There were also other symbols that were based on folk tales, associations with mythical characters, and the practice of assigning symbolic meaning to various objects, fruits, flowers and animals. These symbols would have been recognized and understood by almost all of the population, and their application was especially appropriate in a society where many people did not read or write.

The image of five bats is an example of a symbol based on a homonym. The word for bat is bian fu, or fu for short; the word for luck, good fortune or blessing is fu, so identical in pronunciation.

*

*

The image of five bats is an example of a symbol based on a homonym. The word for bat is bian fu, or fu for short; the word for luck, good fortune or blessing is fu, so identical in pronunciation. 

Five bats represent 5 blessings; the original five: longevity, health, wealth, a virtuous life and a natural death were first mentioned in an ancient text from the Warring States period, approximately 450 BCE. 

*

*

Later, the five blessings became less specific, meaning “may every blessing come to you.” Among the possible choices for the five blessings, we’ll look at those most commonly depicted on textiles: good fortune, longevity, prosperity, happiness in marriage and many children.

*

*

Most of the representations of the five blessings/ five bats motif have the Chinese character Shou in the center. 

*

*

Shou is a decorative variation on the character for longevity. Of the five blessings, long life represents the greatest wish of the Chinese people, so it is not surprising to see a doubled wish for long life in this popular design.*

*

*

*

*

A single bat is a symbol of general good fortune and luck.

The bat is often pictured in a descending pose with head down.  The Chinese word for upside down, dao, has the same sound as the word meaning “has arrived,” so an upside down bat means Fu Daole “good fortune has arrived.”

*

*

*

Two bats facing each other represent “double luck” Shuang Fu, and may be found on clothing and objects created for weddings. 

A bat descending over an ancient coin means good luck before your eyes because the word for the square opening in the old coins sounds the same as the word for eye and the word for “coin” or “money” sounds like “in front of”. So Fu Zai Yan Qian illustrates a popular four character saying meaning “good luck before your eyes”.

This child’s hat has two bats descending over the ancient coins, as well as many other auspicious symbols for longevity and fertility.

*

*

On the back of another child’s hat, we see a silver ornament with the same image and meaning “good luck before your eyes”.

*

*

Although the bat is the most common symbol for good fortune, there are other emblems that would have also been recognized as wishes for good luck.

*

*

The dragon, unlike the dragons in western cultures, has always been considered an extremely lucky image in China. The mythical dragon was a creature that inhabited the skies and was believed to be responsible for the bringing of rain, and the resulting good harvest.

*

*

This embroidered panel shows a successful scholar posed in front of a very friendly looking dragon. The four characters in the corner are Fu Gui Ru Long, which mean “Wealth and Honor like the Dragon.”

The tiger was also considered a lucky animal and a great protector against all types of evil forces.*

*

*

For that reason, we see many tiger depictions on clothing and hats made for children. *

*

*

*

The character Wang on the tiger’s forehead means “king,” because in China the tiger was considered the king of beasts.*

*

*

*

The word for “vase” Ping An sounds like the words for safety and peace, so the vase with various things inside of it was popular design motif; here it’s seen on a silk pillow end 

*

*

and also shown on a small purse*and a card case both of which would have hung from a man’s belt.

The top of the ruyi scepter is a symbol meaning “as you wish” so it can appear with other auspicious objects or stand alone to mean “whatever your desire may be, let it be as you wish.” * This child’s hat has a ruyi shape on the back .

*

*

The actual scepter was made of carved wood, various stones, ivory or in this case, gold. It was often given by the emperor to high ranking officials as an acknowledgement of their service.

The Buddha’s hand citron is a fruit that looks like the hand of Buddha

*

*

*

*

The Buddha’s hand citron is a fruit that looks like the hand of Buddha. 

The name in Mandarin is fo shou which is a literal translation of Buddha Hand. It’s similar in sound to Fu, meaning luck and Shou meaning longevity, so because of this, it is a symbol of luck and long life. The foshou is often shown with the peach and the pomegranate .

*

*

The three fruits represent the Three Plenties: Good Luck, Long Life and Many Children.

*

*

The desire for a long life ranks high among the five blessings and there are many symbols representing the wish for longevity. As we saw in our examination of the five bats/five blessings images, Shou, the stylized Chinese character for longevity, is often placed in the center of the circle of bats. 

Shou is also a popular emblem by itself and can be found on many varieties of textiles.

*

*

Here we see a set of belt hangings created in a professional workshop, possibly even made for members of the court. The set includes a pair of scent pouches, a card case, a watchcase and a box for holding a carved stone archer’s thumb ring.

*

*

*

An eyeglass case was probably once part of an equally elegant and elaborate set.

Sometimes instead of using the character shou in a design, the wish for longevity is conveyed by the mythical figure Shou Lao,The God of Longevity. *

He can be recognized by his large forehead, and white beard. He is usually holding a peach and a tall staff, and accompanied by other symbols of longevity such as the pine tree or deer.

*

*

The pine tree and the crane are both popular longevity symbols and they are often shown together.* Ancient pine trees can be found in many parts of China where they are cared for and honored.

*

*

The crane with its white feathers was reputed to live for many years.

*

*

The pine and crane together form a popular birthday greeting meaning “May you live as long as the pine and the crane”. This motif is also used on wedding gifts as they can also be symbolic of the bride and groom.

*

*

*

The deer is another common longevity symbol; it is the only animal capable of finding the Lingzhi fungus, which is known as the fungus of immortality. The deer and a stylized version of the fungus are frequently shown together.

*

*

In this embroidered panel we can find three of the most common longevity symbols: the deer, the pine and the crane.

The peach, which we have already seen as one of the fruits in the Three Plenties, is a longevity emblem that appears alone and also in many combinations. It is found in virtually all areas of Chinese art decorative, including porcelain, wood and ivory carvings, silver ornaments and all types of clothing and accessories.

*

*

In an ancient legend, the Queen Mother of the West had a heavenly orchard with peaches that ripened only every 1000 years. Eating one of these peaches would insure immortality.

The image of the monkey with the peach is based on an occurrence in the fantasy adventure novel “Journey to the West” in which one of the characters, the monkey king, stole magical peaches of immortality from the Queen Mother of the West. The novel, which was written in the 16th century, was considered one of the four great classical novels of China and was also widely performed by story tellers, shadow puppet troops and regional opera companies all over China. Because of the popularity of the story, Sun Wu Kong, the Monkey King, was an easily recognized character and a symbol of immortality.

*

*

This is a painted, appliqued and embroidered monkey on the back of a child’s hat. We can identify him as Sun Wu Kong, by the fact that he is wearing a vest and also because of the two very large enormous peaches he is sitting between.

*

*

The eight immortals are well known figures of a more serious nature. These seven males and one female figure represent the Daoist ideal of immortality. They appeared in the 13th century as paintings on the ceilings of tombs, but in the Yuan Dynasty, their popularity spread and they have remained, as an easily recognizable group until the present time.

*

*

The two sides of this hanging pouch have embroidered depictions of all eight of the immortals.

* 

*

Sometimes only the attributes of the immortals are shown, but they would also have been familiar to most people in the Qing Dynasty.

The butterfly is a motif associated with summer and romance. It also has symbolic meaning based on the sound of the word in Mandarin, which is hu die. The second syllable of the name, die sounds the same as the word for septuagenarian.

*

*

It also sounds like the word for continuous, so as a symbol, the butterfly means “may you continue to enjoy longevity into your 70s.”

*

*

*

The shrimp is another symbol for long life based on a homonym. Shrimp in Chinese is xia and the word for advanced age is xia, so almost the same, except with a different tone. While the butterfly was a popular motif on gifts for older women, the shrimp was its counterpart for men’s gifts.

In addition to longevity, prosperity was also one of the primary desires of people in the Qing Dynasty. Consequently there are many symbols for Lu, the Chinese word for prosperity.

*

*

Although written differently, the word Lu is also the name for deer, so in addition to being a symbol of longevity, the deer is a symbol of wealth and success. 

Lu literally translates as “official’s salary” because in the Ming and Qing dynasties, becoming an official was one of the only ways for a young man to gain status and wealth. Beginning in the Song Dynasty, a system of national examinations was put in place. A young man from any station in life was eligible, and anyone who could do well on this examination would be awarded a position in the government. Those with the highest scores would even have a place in the government of the Imperial court. There are numerous symbols connected with passing the examinations and bringing honor, prestige and wealth to one’s family and village.

*

*

The horse became an emblem for success in the examinations because the winning candidate would often return to his hometown on a white horse. 

There are many depictions on textiles showing a young man, mounted on a horse or resting beside his horse, and often wearing the mandarin’s hat that would identify him as an official.

*

*

On this purse flap we see five little boys playing together with a military helmet. The helmet kui is a homonym for the word meaning eminent or great, a word that was used to describe the one who placed first in the Imperial Examination.

*

*

The five boys refer to the five sons of a scholar who lived in the 10th century and raised five sons who all had the highest marks on the examination.

*

*

This red silk dudou shows a scholar wearing his official’s hat and standing on the head of a mythical dragon-fish, known as an Ao. This was another symbol to describe gaining first place in the final civil service examination. The candidate who captured first place in the exam was known as the one who stood on the head of the ao. A four character saying du zhan ao tou meaning “seizing Alone the head of the Ao” was used to describe this accomplishment.

*

*

I’ve mentioned several four character sayings, known in Chinese as cheng yu. These are similar to our proverbs and many of the symbols represent these well known sayings. Li Yu Tiao Longmen is another cheng yu which means Carp Jumps Over the Dragon Gate.

In an ancient Chinese myth, a carp that could swim upstream in the Yellow River and jump over the rapids at the dragon gate would instantly be transformed into a dragon. This was a well known metaphor for a scholar passing the Imperial examinations.

*

*

The rooster was also several associated with success and prosperity.

*

*

The word for rooster in Mandarin is gongji. The first syllable gong sounds like an official rank, “duke’, while the second syllable ji sounds the same as the word for “good luck”.

*

*

* 

*

The crab is yet another symbol for passing the national examination with high marks.

The word for the crab’s shell jia is the same as the word meaning first place. One crab, yi jia ,means finishing in the group of fist place candidates and two crabs is er jia would be the second group.

*

*

The peony is the most popular botanical motif in China. One of the names for this flower is fuguihua, which literally means “wealth and honor flower.” It has been a symbol of success since the Tang Dynasty in the 7th century. It is often combined with other auspicious symbols to form a more complicated and comprehensive
message.

*

*

*

The cricket or katydid is a symbol of prosperity and success.

*

*

*

It is usually depicted with a cabbage, baicai or lettuce shengcai, both prosperity symbols because cai the second syllable of each vegetable name sounds similar to the word cai which means wealth.

*

*

The gold fish is a popular motif in Chinese art. Keeping live fish, either inside the house or outside in ponds is a common practice. 

The name in Mandarin, jinyu is an exact translation: Jin meaning gold and yu meaning fish. A reference to gold creates an obvious emblem of wealth. Yu the word for fish sounds like a word meaning abundance, and yu, with a different tone is the word for jade. So, the goldfish as a symbol is either abundant gold or gold and jade.

*

*

We’ve seen symbols of high position, wealth, gold and jade in our examination of prosperity symbols, but we cannot forget to mention the humble pig as an emblem of wealth and comfort. During the Qing Dynasty, China was primarily an agricultural society and having a pig in the yard (or in the house) was a guarantee of food for the winter and throughout the year. In ancient Chinese script, the character for home was a pictogram showing a pig under a roof, so it has always had the connation of comfort and abundance.

So, we’ve covered the first three of the five blessings. These are Luck, Prosperity and Longevity, Fu Lu Shou. They are often represented together as the three star gods, Fu Xing, Lu Xing and Shou Xing.

*

*

Next time you’re n a Chinese restaurant take a close look, especially at the entrance. If you see three statues of imposing Chinese figures you can be pretty sure they’re the three star gods, Fu Lu and Shou.

Beyond the big three, there are several other groups of popular auspicious motifs to be found in Chinese textiles.

*

*

The Chinese word Xi represents happiness and most particularly happy marriage. Arranged marriages were the norm in Qing Dynasty China. Marriage was sometimes a way to bind powerful families together for political reasons, or to raise the status of the family by having the daughter marry an official, or is some cases, sadly, just a means of relieving a family of the burden of supporting a daughter. Once a girl left her home to marry, she became a member of her husband’s family and on some cases did not return to the home of her parents. Only a son stayed close to his parents, usually living with his wife and children in the same house.

*

*

You have probably seen the double happiness characters, Shuang Xi on everything from porcelain to paper cuts. Red cutouts of the double happiness were used to decorate everything connected with weddings.

*

*

A pair of magpies has the same meaning as the Shuang Xi double happiness characters. The name of the bird in mandarin is xi que so literally, the bird of happiness.

If a magpie is shown on a branch of a plum tree, the message is happiness before your brow, because the word for plum, mei sounds like the word for brow.

*

*

This small hanging may have decorated a wedding bed, or have been suspended from the buttons on a bride’s clothing.

*

*

Mandarin ducks are known to mate for life so they are a good example of fidelity and happiness. If the ducks are shown with the lotus, which is a symbol of many children, then the symbolic meaning is a happy marriage blessed with many children.  If a magpie is shown on a branch of a plum tree, the message is happiness before your brow, because the word for plum, mei sounds like the word for brow.

*

*

The dragon and the phoenix are two mythical animals, both representing good luck. The dragon represents the Yang principal in Chinese cosmology and the phoenix represents Yin. Together they form a balance between Yin and Yang and they also represent the emperor and empress. They were a very common motif for wedding attire in the Qing Dynasty, usually embroidered on a background of red or rose silk, the colors of celebration.

*

*

The word for fish yu sounds the same as the word for abundant. A rebus is formed when two carp are shown hanging below a stone chime.  The word for an ancient chime, qing, sounds like the word for joy and happiness, so the two fish with the chime would be recognized as “May you have Abundant Happiness and Joy”. * A pair of carp also symbolized love and harmony because they often swim in pairs. The four characters, Fu Gui You Yu, mean “Wealth and Honor in Abundance.”

*

*

The last group of symbols that we’ll look at today are those that express the wish for many children, especially many sons. In Qing Dynasty China it was important to have sons for several reasons. China was mainly an agricultural nation and sons were needed to do the work necessary to maintain a farm. Secondly, in order to advance in society, only a son could hope to study and receive high marks on the Imperial Examinations. The most important reason was that a son would stay with the family after marriage, perpetuate the family name and perform the necessary rites to worship the ancestors.

Fruits, especially those with many seeds, provide a large number of symbols for many children. 

The word for seed zi sounds like the word for child, or son, so any fruit with seeds is a symbol of fertility.

*

*

The melon, a popular fruit image, is depicted on this little girl’s band hat, and also on the spectacle case. The vine which surrounds the melon is an additional symbol meaning continuous, so the message we can read here is “continuous birth of children (or sons).”

*

*

*

Grapes are also a symbol of fertility. In the Qing dynasty, the seedless grape had not yet been developed. Often shown with a rat or squirrel, the grapes and rat are a symbol for many children.

*

*

The pomegranate, which is a fruit made up almost entirely of seeds, was perhaps the most popular child related symbol, at least among the fruits.

*

*

*

As we saw earlier, it is frequently combined with the peach and the Buddha’s Hand citron to form the motif known as the Three Abundances: a hope for many children, many years of life and many blessings.

*

*

This is another set of belt hanging purses. These elegant sets were made in workshops where accomplished embroiderers were employed. All of the work was, of course, done by hand, but there may have been one person doing the embroidery, one stitching up the purses, another adding the trims, fringe and hanging ribbons.

*

*

Although not a fruit, the lotus has many small seeds, so it is also a symbol for many children. It has additional meaning because the name of the lotus, lian is a homonym for “continuous”. The lotus seeds, called lianzi sound the same as words meaning continuous sons.  A child with a lotus has been a popular auspicious motif since the Song Dynasty, the 10th through the 13th century.

*

*

*

*

This elaborate and amazing child’s hat has a giant lotus blossom on its crown.

*

*

Perhaps the easiest design motif to interpret, is the depiction of groups of children that symbolize the wish for many sons. A popular theme is 100 Boys, which you may have seen in paintings or on porcelain vases. The number didn’t have to actually be 100 to express the same wish.

*

*

The Qilin is a mythical animal which has the body of a deer, the forehead of a wolf, the tail of an ox and the hooves of a horse. It also has either one or two horns and blue or green scales covering its body.  It’s a popular subject for sculpture, paintings, silver ornaments and clothing. If you’ve ever visited the Summer Palace in Beijing, you may remember the large statue of a Qilin at the entrance to the park. The qilin is a powerful emblem of good luck, said to appear only when a benevolent and virtuous ruler is in power. In myths and legends, it was the bringer of sons, and not just ordinary sons, but illustrious sons who would bring honor to the family.

*

*

*

*

We’ve now seen examples of the five blessings in many different kinds of textiles. Symbols for good fortune, longevity, prosperity, happy marriage and many children have all been represented. I’d like to close with one of my favorite pieces* a rather humble embroidered pillow cover section, undoubtedly made at home, possibly as part of a bride’s dowry. Although it’s certainly not the most elegant or valuable piece in the collection, I think it has great humor and charm. It reminds me of the British author Roald Dahl’s children’s book “James and the Giant Peach.” It also makes a suitable ending to our exploration because it shows symbols representing all five blessings in one picture. We see a bat which represents good fortune, the giant peach stands for long life, a child expresses a wish for a successful son, the stone chime symbolizes happiness and joy and a pair of fish represent the traditional new year’s wish nian nian you yu “May you have abundance year after year.”

On February 8th we’ll enter a new year in the Chinese calendar, the year of the monkey. It’s only a little over a week away, so I’d like to be the first to wish you a very happy new year. The Chinese have several greetings for New Year. One is Gong Xi Fa Cai which means “Have a Joyous and Prosperous New Year.” The other is Xin Nian Kuai Le which is just a simple “Happy New Year”.

Brooke took questions and brought her session to a close.

*

*

Thanks again to her for working with me, after a long hiatus, to let you enjoy this excellent program.

‘Til next time,

R. John Howe

Gordon Priest on “My Starting Line-up”

On February 8, 2020, Gordon Webb Priest, Jr.

*

*

(the above photo is from an earlier RTAM in the former Textile Museum building)

gave an RTAM here at the Textile Museum in Washington, DC. 

Lori Kartchner, the TM Curator of Education, introduced him, saying that

(click on the image below to get a larger version)

*

*

Gordon would be showing us pile rugs, wagireh, khorjin, and yastiks from the late 19^th century tribal, village, and nomadic production of Persia, Kurdistan, the Caucasus, and Anatolia, from his collection, and would tell us why each is on his first team.

She said further that Gordon is a semi-retired Baltimore corporate lawyer and long-time textile collector, now living in Delray Beach, Florida. He has served as President of The Washington Textile Group, and has frequently presented Rug Mornings at The Textile Museum.

She added that his other interests include doubles squash, wine-collecting, thoroughbred racing, and international travel.

This is John Howe, intervening after the fact.  Gordon has done something unusual in his descriptions of the pieces he brought to this session. He talks about how these pieces came into his collection: something not often shared in these sessions.

Gordon began with this piece:

1

*

*

Textile 1 is a complete Qashqa’i (southwest Persia) saddle bag (khorjin) set, acquired at an Alex. Cooper & Sons auction in Baltimore. It is in near mint condition, and I fancy its asymmetry.

Full sets like this are relatively scarce, because at the time these pieces were coming into the western world 100 years ago, they had little commercial or even folk-art value, and were just thrown in with shipments of room-size rugs as sweeteners for the importer. Since freight cost is determined by weight, and the largely unadorned flat-woven backs had little aesthetic interest, they were frequently cut off and discarded, and the 2 pile-woven fronts were shipped off, almost always becoming separated from each other over the decades.

Here is a visual aid I constructed to demonstrate that these are produced on one continuous set of warps:

*

*

The piece is woven from the bottom up. So the bottom red portion is woven first in pile (notice that the design on this section is woven upside down).

Then the lower blue piece which will become one of the backs is woven (usually in flat weave).

Next, the yellow bridge section is woven, including part of the closure system.

Then, the other blue back is produced.

Last, the top pile face is woven, this time with the design right side up.

The complete bag is assembled by taking the bottom red panel back and up behind the blue back and sewing it up on the sides. 

Similarly, the red top portion is folded back and down behind the upper blue panel and the sides are sewn up. 

The saddle bag will now be complete with the front of the pile sections facing to the back. 

It looks like this:

*

*

The whole assembly is turned around to show the pile front panels of the two pockets and their designs, and we have returned to our first image of this complete saddle bag set from the front:

*

*

Below is one lower quarter of the upper bag showing the slits in its closure system:

*

*

Then there is a full look at the entire width of the closure system:

*

*

Last, there is a detail of the field of the pile face without its borders; a riotous melange of floral motifs:

*

*

2

*

*

Textile 2 is a Qashqa’i sofreh (bread cloth).

Despite the more limited English translation, these are flat-woven textiles in various sizes for a number of different uses concerning food-production and serving. This example is, in fact, one used to cover and serve bread.

The embroidered end finishes here are a dynamic contrast to the open field and simple deep indigo border. Procured from an Oregon participant at the legendary annual Buena Vista Motel Oriental Rug Dealer’s Fair in San Francisco’s Marina District.

Detail of 2:

*

*

3

*

*

Textile 3 is a Qashqa’i wagireh (sampler), one of my 5 favorites of any type in my collection; acquired, perhaps 30 years ago, from John Murray, a collectible rug dealer who worked the mid-Atlantic antique-show circuit, and a very nice guy.

It has 5 different border samples (including the wonderful forest green section on the right center), 3 separate field panels, and a classic 4-armed medallion that serves as the trademark of this tribe.

Murray Eiland and his son have identified in their books 4 types of wagireh:

(1) The most prominent type (of which this piece is an example) presents all design elements necessary for at least one complete rug;

(2) One that has a few of the possible design elements, but is primarily dedicated to reflecting the colors and textures that could be employed in a full rug to be ordered;

(3) A piece that features no designs, but consists of numbered color blocks; and

(4) A precise replica of a full rug (exact designs and colors in the same juxtaposition), but in a considerably smaller scale (which they refer to as a “strike-off”).

Details of 3:

*

*

*

*

*

4

*

*

Textile 4 is a Bakhtyari (southwest Persia) khorjin face. Good color and attractive asymmetry. Another nicely framing white-ground border. A very good green.

*

*

I was most captivated by the over-lapping waves, or flying bats, in the field; the established term in the rug literature for this element is “split-leaf”.

I’d been keen to acquire one of these, and, coincidentally, about a decade ago, John Murray was liquidating some of his more-treasured inventory to finance a reunion trip to Vietnam to celebrate with the survivors of his Marine Corp company. I was happy to come away with this specimen while supporting his effort.

Another detail of 4:

*

*

5

(click on the image below to get a larger version)

*

*

Textile 5 is a Bakhtyari wagireh.

Typically, as with this piece, Bakhtyari pile weavings are single-wefted. Possibly the rug world’s most diminutive example of the genre, and in addition, it’s limited to 3 border designs.

Out of the inventory of an Ankara dealer via Rug Rabbit.

*

6

*

*

Textile 6, another khorjin face, is abit of a puzzler; perhaps a Khamseh (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.

Picked up in a private transaction with Cooper.

6a is a close-up of the whirly-gigs, or pin-wheels:

6a

*

*

6b shows the complementary application in the small spaces between the loop slits at the top:

6b

*

*

6c, below, shows, in close-up, the 4 borders that 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:

6c

*

*

7

*

*

Textile 7 is my most recent acquisition, having been bestowed upon me by the creator and devoted steward of this long-running virtual series, John Howe himself, as a gift of gratitude for our having driven up here from Delray Beach, our Volvo loaded to the rafters with the core of our collection, to make this presentation.

He’s seen (and photographed) enough of our stock to recognize that it would hit most of my hot-spots — as it does: A tiny jewel with primitive power.

*

*

And here’s the back, with the same quantity of design, but with sufficient variation from the front to provide an interesting contrast.

Because it is made of one continuous piece sewn up the sides, there has always been a suspicion that it is a “constructed” piece cut down from something larger. However, its assembly has suggested to most knowledgeable examiners that such is not the case, and that it appears in the mode in which it was originally made.

It has vibrant natural colors, is woven in very coarse sumak, and its drawing has an undisciplined character that is indicative of Luri (southwest Persia).

Harold Keshishian observed, upon looking closely at it, that he had seen a piece, in quite a similar coarse sumak stitch, which was known to have been from the Chahar Mahal sub-region:

*

Textile 8 is an Afshar (south central Persia) “main carpet”, fairly large, as the name implies, for a “tribal” (as opposed to urban workshop) weaving.

This is obviously the product of a very experienced and talented weaver, as evidenced by the highly-effective juxtaposition of colors, the uniformity of proportion in the elements, and the corner resolutions.

How do we know it’s an Afshar? As Harold used to say: “Look at the hubcaps; they scream “Afshar!”.

He meant the creamy warps, the orange wefts, the midnight blue field, the white-ground main border, the ample use of orange (in this case, in the lattice framing the botehs), the alternating cornflower blue, white, aubergine, and scarlet in the botehs themselves, and the barber-pole selvages.

I’d acquired a significant amount of my collection over the years at Alex. Cooper Sons auction house in Baltimore, and one day about 15 years ago, Jon Levinson, who ran the rug operations, called me up out of the blue and said that their companion retail sales department had just taken on some stuff out of the trunk of an itinerant picker who came by a few times a year, and he wanted me to have the first crack at something he thought would interest me. This was it. He demanded a very fair price, and I closed the deal without a whimper.

Further detailed images:

*

*

*

*

9

*

*

Textile 9 is another textbook Afshar, in this case a khorjin face.

The 4 latch-hooked diamonds and the whirly-gigs surrounding them seem to float above the midnight blue field that surrounds the central medallion.

Like most Afshars, it has a pleasantly floppy handle (the main carpet, no. 8, has an unusually stiff feel).

The white-ground main border with the meandering vine dramatically frames the piece. The most distinctly artistic feature, however, is the intricate embroidery in the closure panels, as well as the horizontal multi-color barber poles above and below.

This was the first of a few pieces I acquired over the years from Peter Papp, who always had very high quality, but priced accordingly. I felt very pleased to get this one at a modest number, figuring it was a get-acquainted deal.

Some detail shots:

*

*

*

*

*

*

10

*

*

Textile 10 is another khorjin face, with the same size, handle, horizontal orientation, and color combinations as No. 9, placing it firmly within the Afshar lexicon.

This time, however, the field features an entire barnyard of ornamental fowl, what are referred to as “morge” (presumably in Farsi) when they appear, as they frequently do, in Khamseh rugs and bags.

This came from a Pacific Northwest dealer at the San Francisco ACOR. I got to the dealers’ fair early, and, in a rare happenstance, the guy had both face halves of the khorjin set, and I had my pick.

Aija Blitte, a fellow Hajji Baba Society member, turned up about 20 minutes later and snagged the other half. I was hoping she would attend today, so we could have a side-by-side comparison and note the subtle differences, as we did at an earlier TM Rug Morning.

*

*

*

*

*

11

*

*

Textile 11 is an Afshar chanteh (vanity bag) face.

As contrasted with khorjin, these bags are more diminutive, and only have a single pile face with a single flat-woven back, normally with some sort of cord-like woven handle, long enough to drape over a shoulder, as with a woman’s purse.

I fancy the asymmetrical treatment of its field design, as well as its Art Deco look. Its white-ground border also frames it effectively. It came from an Istanbul dealer through Rug Rabbit.

Details of 11:

*

*

*

*

12

*

*

Textile 12 is a smaller Afshar chanteh face. This one lacks a border, other than the truncated polygons at the bottom. The dominant kinetic flower form in the field, however, is nearly identical, in this case offset in the northwest corner.

A follow-up sale by the same source as 11.

Details of 12:

*

*

*

*

13

*

*

Textile 13 is a large Kazak (southwest Caucasus) “long rug” (the length roughly twice the width) with the bold coloration typical of rugs from this region.

This was a fairly recent acquisition from a Cooper auction.

The multi-toned mother-and-child latch-hooked diamonds in the field give it a lot of energy, and the 2 white-ground minor borders create a pleasing framework.

Details of 13:

*

*

*

*

14

*

*

Textile 14 is another Kazak scored from a Cooper auction recently.

A bit smaller than 13, but with the same vivid tonality and the same duplicative minor white-ground borders (this time with a meandering vine, rather than stars).

I’m a sucker for a diagonal format, particularly here, where the ribbons are over-sized.

The sense of the borders marking off a random sample snapshot of an infinitely repeating design is a ubiquitous device in the Oriental rug vernacular, and here there is an interesting twist manifested in the bottom of the field, where it’s revealed, by the 90-degree angle, that we’re actually looking at what may be a tilted rectangle.

Details of 14:

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

15

*

*

Textile 15 is a Genje (southwest Caucasus) long rug. Its field features multi-colored renditions of the pear-shaped device, known as “boteh” and ubiquitous throughout the Oriental rug cosmos, particularly so in this Caucasian genre.

I love the bold simplicity of the main border, the white figures on which are highly-abstracted dragons. The yellow inner border is a very attractive contrasting touch.

Check the many little floaters in the blue field: The oft-observed horror vacuui, but in this case, they don’t distract from the purity of the format.

From a Cooper auction about a decade ago.

Details of 15:

*

*

*

*

*

16

*

*

Textile 16 is a Shirvan (northeast Caucasus), with the characteristic white one-cord edge finish, a floppy handle, almost no warp depression, as evidenced by the flat back, and more squarish dimensions than encountered in the southwest.

Other than the stepped-polygon main border, it is a study in carnations.

This was my only epic “steal” in decades of collecting. It had come into the large shop of a Baltimore dealer in UK and French furniture, along with a few chests and tables from the same source in West Sussex.

It was so filthy that one could barely discern the colors and, of course, the proprietor hadn’t a clue what it was. She was content to take a few hundred to get it out from underfoot.

I ran it through the bathtub a few times with Orvus Paste zero-PH textile detergent, and those big white blossoms just exploded off the field.

Details of 16:

*

*

*

*

*

17

*

*

Textile 17 is a Kuba (northeast Caucasus), with the usual 3-cord selvages, usually in blue or, as here, in red, and a stiffer handle due to more warp depression.

The dominant elements, and what drew me to this piece, were the powerful “shield” devices (actually, impressionistic pomegranates) arising from the seldom-seen jet-black field, with the white-ground quartered-diamond main border lending a crisp contrast.

Another Cooper auction.

Details of 17:

*

*

*

(top border)

*

*

(side border)

*

*

18

*

*

Textile 18 is a Kuba of the Seychour sub-variety, characterized by the meandering carnations in the inner and outer borders, with the latter on a seafoam green base.

The unusual bit here is the central field and inner border, as a unit, dropped down like a separate 3-dimensional object on top of what would have otherwise been a much larger field consisting of diagonal ribbons of alternating colors.

The clueless furniture dealer from whom I acquired it at the Hunt Valley Antique Show had it marked as a Talish, probably because a just-enough-knowledge-to-be-dangerous rug dealer buddy told him that’s what it was based on the entirely open field surrounded by medachyl devices, the sine qua non of those southeast Caucasus rugs.

This is all wrong, because the structural aspects are Kubaesque, and the piece is also much smaller than the nearly invariable “long rug” dimensions of Talish.

Details of 18:

*

*

*

19

*

*

Textile 19 is in the top tier of my inventory. This small-scale gem is a Seychour Kuba of the Bijov sub-subset, characterized by the symmetrical array of abstract floral and leaf designs on a royal blue field. It has a very supple handle.

The macrame end finishes are typical, but it’s rare for them to have largely survived what may have been 150 years of multiple ownership.

The simplicity of a single white-ground border creates an impact. The weaver started out with a more elaborate border formulation, but then abandoned it as she moved northward in favor of a straightforward chain of “S” shapes (but in “Z” orientation on the right side), and then in favor of an interlocking “running dog” motif in the top border.

There is also an interesting amount of abrash in the background of the field. About two-thirds of the way up, she runs out of the royal blue dye lot, and has to substitute a much lighter shade that only carries on for about 3 vertical inches of pile, before that runs out, and there follows several different sections of only a few inches each, culminating in the nearly white stripe all the way at the top.

Of course, it’s frequently the case that these contrasts are accentuated as the colors mellow with age.

I’ve had this one for several decades, acquiring it from Peter Papp. I’d seen it in his inventory twice before, but had not been prepared to pull the trigger on those occasions.

The third time was at a Baltimore antique show at which he annually exhibited and I figured it was going to get away from me if I didn’t make a move. I avoided paying it any attention, and walked the dog for about 20 minutes asking about other stuff in which I was only mildly interested.

Finally, I gave him an “oh, by the way”, and gestured toward this lot as if I’d never seen it before. Peter was born at night, but not last night. He wouldn’t budge on the price, and I didn’t blame him, as it was a superb piece in and of itself, and my lust for it was way too much for my Oscar-losing performance as “Mr. Casual” to contain!

I was content to consider this as my comeuppance for the good deal he gave me on the Afshar khorjin face (no. 9) a few years before.

Details of 19:

*

*

*

20

*

*

Textile 20 is something relatively unusual, a khorjin face from the Caucasus (where most of the pile weavings are rugs). In this case, Karabagh, the historically-embattled, Armenian enclave detached from the main body of that nation and entirely surrounded by predominantly-Islamic Azerbaijan.

The 2 white guard borders successfully set off the scarlet-ground main border. But the real genius lies in the vivid colors employed in the single Herati motif which constitutes the bag’s focal point on a midnight blue field, the most dramatic of which is the purplish red in the central medallion of the Herati.

Many thousands of tiny beetles called cochineal (and only the females of the species) sacrificed their souls to produce this magical dye-stuff.

A Seattle dealer had this in his booth at the Denver ACOR. Understandably, it got a lot of attention, but he declared it was not on offer.

He must have been gradually worn down, because on the last day, I pressed him as to whether there wasn’t some price at which he couldn’t afford to hold on to it any longer.

After some hemming and hawing, he gave me a number and I coughed it up (wondering to myself how long I was going to have to hide this in the attic to obviate a marital crisis).

All these years later, I have no regrets, and have had a lot of offers.

Details of 20:

*

*

*

*

*

21

*

*

Textile 21 is a Bijar (northwest Persian Kurdistan) wagireh, produced in and around the rug-market-center city of that name.

These are referred to as the “rugs of iron” due to their extremely stiff handle (they can’t be folded, only rolled up) and consequent durability. This structure is the result of employing at least 3 weft shoots, and pounding them down very tightly with a mallet striking a comb-like device resting on the top weft of the set.

This large-format sampler features 5 border examples and 4 field specimens, with a multiplicity of floral motifs and a bit of the Bijar trademark arabesques (“strapwork”) in the lower left mustard field. There are at least a dozen colors, even though the predominant tonal theme is earthy.

The provenance was as compelling as the piece itself. It had been in the William Randolph Hearst collection at San Simeon. As was my custom at New York auctions, I dropped a modest absentee bid at the Sotheby’s weekend preview, so as to avoid coming back at mid-week for the sale itself.

I was not optimistic, due to the back-story, so was pleasantly surprised when it succeeded.

Details of 21:

*

*

*

*

*

*

22

*

*

Textile 22 is large Kurdish double-medallion khorjin face in a horizontal format. It came from a Connecticut rug dealer who exhibited at the Baltimore Museum of Art Antiques Show about 25 years ago.

As always, the white-ground inner border provides sharp framing. I have another one in the same format, but with a mustard inner border, and with contrasting medallions (blue on red v. red on blue), and more compartmentalized.

They are fairly common, and Jim Opie published one nearly identical to it in one of his books. I brought this one instead, because it’s more unusual.

Details of 22:

*

*

*

*

*

23

(click on the image below to get a larger version)

*

*

Textile 23 is a Saj Bulaq Kurdish mafrash side panel. It also includes about half of what would have been the top (if situated in the tent) or the bottom (if tied to the flank of a pack animal).

These are 3-dimensional bags that are for transporting and storing bedding. In its complete manifestation, there would have been another side panel more or less identical to this one, and 2 end panels each about half this size but in the same design, and, of course, the flat woven top/bottom.

I acquired it from London/Vienna rug dealer James Cohen at the last Boston ACOR.

I was drawn to the deeply saturated reds, and their contrast with the indigo and yellows; I’m also addicted to aubergine, as featured in the central medallion and some of the border leaves.

The preponderance of mafrash tend to be entirely plain flat weaves or soumac, so this pile example is more esteemed.

Details of 23:

*

*

*

*

24

*

*

Textile 24 is a Kurdish salt bag, obtained from a Midwestern dealer through Rug Rabbit.

It’s a garden-variety version of this utilitarian weaving, with a successful use of complementary colors.

Details of 24:

*

*

*

*

*

25

*

*

Textile 25 is a Kurdish wagireh, bought at a silent auction at the Chicago ACOR, where it had been donated by an upstate New York dealer.

It’s got thick, lustrous wool, 4 different borders, and an array of field devices, including the striking off-center diamond medallion. The buttery main border and chocolatey field (with some abrash about two-thirds the way up) combine for a very earthy appeal.

Details of 25:

*

*

*

*

*

*

26

*

*

Textile 26 is a petite jewel, a Senna wagireh, woven in the Kurdish rug market town of that name, and having the characteristic cotton warps, single wefts, and fairly high knot-count.  This gives them a delicate look and feel and the ability to achieve something closer to curvilinear designs, such as the blossoming flowers on the southeast quadrant of this piece.

I got it from a Boston dealer at the Denver ACOR.

27

*

*

Textile 27 superficially presents itself as another wagireh, but it’s far more likely a Kurdish child’s practice piece.

The 2 diamond and latch-hooked medallions turn out off center, and the stepped polygon on the left gets truncated.

And you know she’s working with left-over dye lots, because she runs out of the beige about a third of the way up the top border, and has to swap in the red that had been used in the field.

The unintended result is something of considerable primitive charm.

I picked it up at the now long-defunct Sloan’s auction house in D. C. It was sitting under a lamp on an end table off in a corner of the preview room, so I doubt many others noticed it, and there was only one other half-hearted bidder.

Details of 27:

*

*

*

*

*

28

*

*

Textile 28 is a Kurdish khorjin face, purchased at a Cooper auction, featuring a zoom-in on a Mini Khani design.

I was particularly keen on the apricot in the bottom and top blossoms, and the cornflower blue in the center one, all of which popped quite smartly after I gave it a bath.

Details of 28:

*

*

*

*

*

29

*

*

Textile 29 is the first in a series of Kurdish khorjin faces from the Jaff tribe (predominantly in northeastern Iraqi Kurdistan).

Their trademark is the multi-colored latch-hooked diamonds, each enclosed by a larger diamond lattice.

If I had to pick 3 out of the whole collection to go into the coffin with me, this piece would probably get the call (along with 3, Qashqa’i wagireh, and 19, Bijov; and maybe 20 and 43, but I have to leave room for some doubles squash trophies).

It was also acquired from James Cohen at the most recent Boston ACOR.

It’s loaded with unusual elements that distinguish it from the typical production of the Jaff canon: The horizontal proportions (most are either square or more vertical); the Carolina blue lattice (I graduated from Chapel Hill, so that grabbed me straight away); the stepped-polygon border in earth tones (most are either floral blossoms or octagons in primary colors); the overall autumnal vibe; and the relaxed irregularity of both the diamonds and the surrounding lattice, which lends it a kinetic quality.

This was not the work of a master weaver, as evidenced, for example, by the pumpkin latch-hook within the brown diamond on the right side, which gets a bit mangled where it meets the border, but even these flaws contribute to an overall primal power.

Details of 29:

*

*

*

*

*

*

30

*

*

Textile 30 is a Jaff khorjin face found in the inventory of a New England dealer via Rug Rabbit.

I like the relatively large and vertically-elongated diamonds, and the unfussy alternating octagon and mini-barber pole border composition.

Details of 30:

*

*

*

*

31

*

*

Textile 31 is the first Jaff khorjin face that I acquired, from a Maine rug dealer at the Baltimore Museum of Art Antique Show.

It has perhaps the softest and most luxurious wool of any rug I own.

The proportions of the diamonds and of the piece overall are about average for this type, but note that, when she has to abandon full diamonds as she runs into both the left and right side borders, she eschews the ubiquitous latch-hooks in favor of up to 5 straight-forward half-diamonds within half-diamonds.

And then there is the strange vertical line of knots inside the right inner border (but not matched on the left, as if she was more concerned about showing the same portion of disappearing diamonds on the right as appears on the left, even if it meant encroaching on the field with this ham-handed space-filler).

Details of 31:

*

*

*

*

*

32

*

*

Textile 32, the next Jaff khorjin face, is done entirely in what I think of as Williamsburg pastels, including the powder blue border, which unfortunately would have been more effective in white.

A D. C. rug dealer traded me this for a large Peking rug that he intended to carve up into pillow covers.

If one looks at a substantial number of these over time, one notices a fair number with a single yellow or gold diamond, at or near the center. Some sort of totemic significance? Who knows?

Observe that the weaver here employed the same diamonds-within-diamonds design, rather than latch-hooks, on the 3 half-elements on the right side, just as was done on 31.

Details of 32:

*

*

*

*

33

*

*

This Jaff khorjin face, appearing as Textile 33, has the ubiquitous white dots-on-black lattice, but more pronounced here than usual.

The hexagons in alternating colors, enclosing opposing snakes, elongated on the bottom and top but of uniform proportions on the sides, create a bold surrounding for the field.

Details of 33:

*

*

*

*

*

*

34

*

*

Textile 34 is a Melas prayer rug (western Anatolia) and a textbook example of the genre: The bricky red, angular “arrowhead” mihrab, the mustard-ground main border with aubergine floral elements, and the quartered rosettes on the outer minor border.

Even in more exotic incarnations far removed from the prayer theme, the color palate reveals these rugs as Melas from a mile away (I was enamored of a stunner, which I couldn’t afford, in a cane design, that an Oakland dealer had for a few years back in the 90s).

This came from a Christie’s auction, previewed in New York, but with the sale held at the deceased owner’s Bucks County farm to exploit a Pennsylvania sales tax exemption on dispositions by executors.

It was primarily of his collection of Americana, including the catalogue cover lot, a pair of mid-19th century hand-painted wooden fire house Dalmations which brought a quarter of a million (back when that was real money).

But he had accumulated a modest quantity of Oriental rugs, as well, many of admirable quality.

I was delighted to get this on a left bid, but my principal quarry had been a Konya village prayer rug in striking saturated colors and “German” condition. Jim Ffrench told me he hadn’t seen much activity around it, or had many inquires, and opined that an absentee bid modestly above the high estimate might well bring it home.

I did just that, and when we got back from whatever extended weekend trip we were on, I called the Christie’s recording (this was way pre-internet) that would recite the successful bids on all the lots that sold.

What I heard was a number about 5 times what I had bid. I was sure it was some sort of clerical cock-up, and called for a warm body the next day to get the real story.

Well, that was the real story. Turns out that Eberhardt Herrmann, a Munich collector who published an annual catalogue of his spectacular world-class acquisitions for about a decade before he ultimately crashed and burned (putting the rug departments of the international auction houses and their consigners on suicide-watch), had taken a shine to the Konya and emerged the winner (as he always did) in a fierce bidding war over it.

Details of 34:

*

*

*

*

35

*

*

Textile 35 is a heybe (the Turkish version of a khorjin) face from Kozak, in the Bergama district of northwestern Anatolia. It came from a down-market country auction in Baltimore County.

The designs are crudely drawn and poorly aligned, and thus it may be a child’s tutorial piece like 27, but its rustic charm is undeniable.

Note the abrash in the top third.

Details of 35:

*

*

*

36

*

*

Textile 36 is the first in a series of 4 faces of yastiks, which are Anatolian cushion covers.

This one is considerably more impressive than what you’re seeing in these photos, which oddly turned out darker and with a brownish tint, belying the attractive orangey red that actually predominates.

This piece, unusually long and thus encompassing 4 connected medallions, is likely from central Anatolia.

Out of a Cooper auction.

Details of 36:

*

*

*

*

*

37

*

*

Textile 37 is a central Anatolian yastik face.

Despite its distressed condition, the juxtaposition of its motifs and the combination of its colors create a whole equal to more than the sum of its parts.

The yellow-ground border is a stroke of genius through simplicity.

From a West Coast dealer on Rug Rabbit.

*

38

*

*

Textile 38 is a Konya (western Anatolia) yastik face, obtained from a Chicago dealer at the last Boston ACOR.

It’s entirely given over to a highly abstracted manifestation of the frequently-encountered dragon-and-phoenix theme, with the exception of the red bottom and top borders, which are referred to as “lapetts”, in this case with pentagons.

*

39

*

*

Textile 39 is a western Anatolian yastik face, acquired from James Cohen at the last D. C. ICOC.

I was instantly drawn to the contrast of the powder blue and raspberry.

Check the abrash: She runs out of the blue about three-fourths of the way up, and subs in a seafoam green.

The circular boteh in diagonal formation lend a sense of tranquility.

*

40

*

*

Textile 40 is a Shahsevan (northwest Persia) long rug, sold by a San Francisco dealer at the Los Angeles ACOR.

The fascinating aspect here is that it’s in pile, but the weaver was copying the design of one or more plain flat-woven rugs and covers from the area, since all of the devices are drawn at right angles, as is mandated by the structure of such flat weaves.

It has a very supple handle, and a harmonious range of colors, including cerulean blue, cornflower blue, seafoam green, and 3 shades of yellow. The mordant employed to fix the probable walnut husk dye in the borders has caused a corrosive oxidation that give it a bas relief effect.

Details of 40:

*

*

*

*

*

*

41

*

*

Textile 41 is a Shahsevan khorjin face, and what I call my “calamari” rug, in reference to its central medallion.

The fact that it was woven in pile is unusual, as so many bags from this Turkic tribe appear in soumac. Also seldom seen is this border pattern of boxed-in opposing sets of rabbit ears. Further note the odd outlining of the medallion with a very fine surround of red knots.

Bought at a Sloan’s auction in D. C.

*

Details of 41:

*

*

*

*

*

*

42

*

*

Textile 42 is a Shahsevan khorjin face, woven in the more characteristic soumac stitch.

Very crisply drawn, and the forest green field is quite compelling as accentuated by the white-ground border.

Found in a Frederick antiques emporium.

*

43

*

*

Textile 43 is a pile Shahsevan khorjin face.

Harold sold it to me about 15 years ago, in part perhaps because of my long-running expression of admiration for Wendel Swan’s very similar piece.

Harold used to opine that the primus inter pares of the 4 rugly virtues is “colora”, and, given the simplicity of the overall pattern, cruciform devices within a diagonal lattice, surrounded by a single white main border, that’s the name of the game here.

Every one of the diamonds is a separate minute masterpiece of tonality, and a testament to the dyer’s art that preceded that of the weaver, who reveals her own genius in the way the contrasting hues feed off each other.

Details of 43:

*

*

*

*

*

44

*

*

Textile 44 is a face of a Balouch (Balouchistan) balisht, which is this Central Asian tribe’s (or, more accurately, broad set of tribes’) version of the Anatolian yastik.

It came to me from a Cooper auction. I felt bad about it, because when I walked into the auction room, a guy who worked there on the sales side, and whom I’d befriended as a fellow collector, asked me what I was after, and when I said “that little balisht”, he looked crestfallen, knowing that he couldn’t bid against a customer.

As befits the Balouchi lexicon, browns and dull reds predominate, but the blue, orange, and brighter red caught my eye as a deviation from that standard palate.

Details of 44:

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

45

*

*

Textile 45 is a Balouch rug with a “crab” main border and a profusion of stepped polygons on a camel-colored field.

It has the characteristic 4-cord goat-hair selvages, but what seems quite odd is that, despite its pristine condition, the ubiquitous 3-4 inch flatwoven end finishes are non-extant.

The wool is luxuriant, and it has a wonderfully floppy handle. It’s the work of a very skillful and experienced weaver, as evidenced by the corner resolutions on the border, and perfect uniformity of size, shape, and spacing of the polygons.

Note particularly the uniformity of the partial polygons as they disappear beneath the framework on the bottom, top, and both sides.

One of my earliest Cooper auction acquisitions.

Details of 45:

*

*

*

*

*

*

46

*

*

Textile 46 is one combination face, back, and closure panel of a Balouch khorjin set.

I have the other half of the set at home. I acquired them as pillows (at a country auction in Baltimore County) , and the reason they have remained together is presumably that they were stuffed many years ago and just moved from hand to hand as companion decorative accessories at either end of a sofa.

It’s well executed with rich wool, and achieves a bold effect despite the inherently limited palate of rugs from this area.

Note the “zipper” has survived (a rare occurrence), and is presented in the “closed” position.

Also observe another example of the sculpted effect from corrosion of the mordant in the brown stars.

Details of 46:

*

*

*

*

*

47

*

*

Textile 47 is a Malayer or Hamadan (northwest Persia) wagireh, sold to me by the late Roger Cavanna at his Jackson Square shop in San Francisco.

It’s single-wefted, but with a fairly stiff handle. There are 4 different borders, and 4 or 5 field designs, including a quadrant of a large yellow central medallion. The salmon is unusual in the overall rug universe, but more prevalent in this weaving area. Lots of abrash in the cocoa field. Here it is vertically reversed:

*

*

48

*

*

*

Textile 48 is a pile Camel Caravan long rug from northwest Persia.

I picked it off for next to nothing at an Eastern Shore antiques auction. It’s 4.5 x 9 feet, and most of the red-ground field is unfortunately as distressed as the small bit that’s shown here, but the blue-ground border around all 4 sides (varying from navy to cornflower in hue) is in pretty decent health.

The only other one like this that I’ve seen was in the flesh at a dealer’s booth at the San Francisco ACOR. It looked like it had just come off the loom, and was magnificent, along with a second-mortgage price tag.

Some of the elongated rectilinear dromedaries have riders, and there are other abstracted animals and humans scattered about. Note the “dice” inner and outer minor borders.

That concludes the pieces which I’ve brought. Following are those which came in from collectors in the audience. I unfortunately did not take notes on these, and can now only guess at their ethnographic identities based on the photographic images:

49

*

*

Audience piece 49 appears to be a Kurdish long rug, with an unusual and fascinating 5-color border, and a very striking combination of aubergine and emerald in some of the field motifs.

Details of 49:

*

*

*

*

*

*

50

*

*

Audience piece 50 appears to be a Malayer wagireh (although it may be a Bijar, but I’m not now able to feel whether or not it has the rug-of-iron structure and handle which would indicate the latter).

Three different borders and a profusion of impressionistic floral designs in the field, but the salient features are, of course, the various surprisingly naturalistic tigers in pursuit of antlered prey.

Here’s the right-side-up version, and then some details:

*

*

*

*

*

*

51

*

*

Audience piece 51 looks like a Bijar wagireh.

The absence of any border samples is unusual, but if it is, instead, a fragment, somebody would have gone to a lot of trouble to add the end and side finishes.

With no tactile or structural insights available, the Bijar case is furthered by the general coloration and floral design elements, including the arabesque “strapwork” in the southeast corner; and I get a hint of tightly-pounded wefts peaking through the worn-down pile along the right side.

The various shades of madder provide a vivid contrast to the midnight blue field.

*

52

*

*

Audience piece 52 is a small complete khorjin set, a micro-treasure in a state of perfect fitness.

The multi-color barber-pole side finishes suggest southwest or southern Persia, the latter what the trade calls “Shiraz” when it can’t make a more specific ID.

The cartoonish animalistic and humanoid figures are quite charming, and I find the border scheme very attractive, reminiscent of the field in the Shahsevan khorjin face, no. 43.

*

53

*

*

Audience piece 53 is an even tinier titan, another full khorjin set, also looking like it had been squirreled away from human and elemental interaction since bestowed as a dowry piece.

I’m again guessing Shiraz, but in any event, the rich colors and geometric figures on a white canvas give it an archaic power.

Gordon took questions and brought his program to a close:

*

*

I want to thank Gordon for driving over 1,000 miles, each way, bringing this strong material, and taking us knowledgeably through it. I’ve tried to recognize that a bit by giving him the modest bag he described above and a book he didn’t have on Kurdish textiles:

*

*

I hope you have enjoyed Gordon’s session.

“Til next time”,

John

Steve Price on Artful African and Asian Garments

On September 21, 2019 Steve Price

*

*

gave a Rug and Textile Morning Appreciation Morning program on “Artful African and Asian Garments.”

*

*

Tom Goehner, the TM Education Curator, introduced Steve, saying:

“Steve is a collector and the leading editor and technical manager of the textile discussion site Turkotek.com.  He written for such textile journals as Hali and Oriental Rug Review, and has given previous RTAMs here at the Textile Museum. 

In his professional life, Steve is Emeritus Professor of Physiology and Biophysics at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond.”

Since he was a professor, Steve felt obliged to give a framing lecturette, but promised that it would be short.

*

*

He started by taking a step back, saying “Why to we collect textiles?”  He suggest that sometimes it is rooted in aesthetics, sometimes it begins when we acquire travel souvenirs, and sometimes it may originate in acquisitive, psychological tendencies best not discussed in public.”  But, he continued “a related question is Why do we wear clothes?”  He ticked off some of the reasons:

• Modesty: in most societies it is seen as desirable to hide the genitals

and, with women, breasts.

*

*

• Protection from the elements.  Also to lessen the impact of surroundings, jungle-like plant life, etc.  Below is a Chinese coir raincoat assembly

*

*

• Adornment: the wearer’s view of what is “beautiful.”  (Steve said that he had selected the shirt he wore to make him look nice).

*

*

• Heraldic purposes: a military uniform, 

*

*

(above is Prince Charles in one of the military uniforms he is eligible to wear)

A priest’s cassock, or even just a clerical collar.

*

*

• Talismanic (believed to have occult powers, especially protective).  Varies from culture to culture. Materials and designs in costumes and clothing are often used to invoke such powers. 

We didn’t have any African masks in the room, but some like the one below were believed when worn in ceremonies to have such powers.

*

*

Chinese garments are often full of symbols thought to make long-life, happiness, good fortune, etc. more likely.  Below is a fragment of a Chinese child’s hat the includes many such symbols.

*

*

Steve said that he would present garments that he brought, starting with those from Africa and proceeding to Central Asia and finally, from mainland Southeast Asia.

P1

*

*

P1 is a Nigerian man’s robe, made by the Hausa or Nupe of Nigeria.  It is indigo-dyed and embroidered. There would be trousers of the same “stuff” worn loose and flowing.

Details of P1.

*

*

*

*

*

P2

*

*

Ewe people.  Motifs on stripes have meaning.

*

*

Notice that the motifs don’t go all the way to the borders.

*

*

*

*

P3

*

*

Ashante.  Note that the motifs go all the way to the borders.  This is similar on the back.

*

*

*

*

*

P4

*

*

Ashante, 1930 or older. silk and cotton.

Several designs suggest a village chief or leader.  Motifs are not specific to a locale, but are selected by what the weaver or wearer wants to convey.

Details of P4.

*

*

*

*

*

*

Now Steve moved to Central Asia, coats in particular.

P5

*

*

This coat is an Uzbek ikat coat.   It’s for a man, although small by western standards.  It’s said that Uzbek warriors were awarded such a coat for each enemy head.

*

*

Lined with Russian printed cotton.

Other details of P5.

*

*

*

*

*

P6

*

*

Another Uzbek ikat coat.  This time probably for a woman.  It appears  to be all silk.

*

*

Inside is Russian printed cotton.

*

*

*

Additional P6 details.

*

*

*

*

P7

*

*

Turkmen chyrpy.   Embroidered in silk. 

*

*

Worn as a mantle, not as a coat.  False sleeve hang down the back.

*

*

Again the lining is Russian printed cotton.

Additonal details of P7.

*

*

*

P8

*

*

Another Turkmen chyrpy.  Inside Russian cotton {below) is more muted.

*

*

*

Notice that different printed cottons are used at the inside edges and slits.  This seems to be general Turkman usage.

Other P8 details.

*

*

*

Steve put P8 on to show how it is worn.

*

Here he is with it on front the front.

*

*

And here is what he looks like with it on from the back.

*

*

Notice the small piece in the image above that connects the two false sleeves.

I said that I collect on a budget and here, below, is as much of a chyrpy as I can afford.  🙂

*

(actual size: H, 5.25 inches, W, 2.25 inches)

*

*

P9

*

*

P9 is a yellow-ground Turkmen chyrpy.  Again, the bridge and sleeve extensions are different.

*

*

The usual Russian printed cotton lining, with striped designs used at the edges, except for a boteh design at the top and shoulders.

*

*

*

*

A question arose about whether chyrpy ground color had meaning.

Some say that chyrpy ground color signals social status:

• Dark ground – unmarried girls and women
• Red ground – married woman
• Green and yellow ground – more mature women, 40-ish.
• White ground – a woman of at least 60 who is seen to have been a “good citizen”

The conversation in the Myers Room suggested that this is a market construction and that there is little evidence of it in the literature.

I knew that Elena Tsareva had indicated in Hali, 198, pp. 50-59 that she was engaged in a study of Central Asian garments (a particular ikat coat collection).  I thought that she might have or or encountered some information on this chyrpy ground color question and so I wrote her.

She has responded and agreed to let me quote her:

Coloring of chorpy does have meaning.

On the one side — it was the mark of age: thus, the white ones were used by aged women, no difference the tribe or her family status in the tribe.

Green (made of yashil keteni) and probably also red ones (of gyrmyzy keteni) were worn by brides since wedding and until 40 years old [Morozova A.S., 1971, p. 216].

The less studied are the yellow ones, although they are most numerous in Turkmenistan and Russian museums’ collections. One of the reasons is that that yellow chyrpy were out of use in the late 19th century already, so local population sold them rather eagerly to the Russians when the latter started to buy local works of folk art for museums [1] and international exhibitions [2]. Though pretty numerous, yellow head mantels are no way enough studied, and basic reason is the same – people who sold the pieces and gave information about them did not remember their origin and manner of wearing for sure. Thus –Morozova said they were used by women after 40 [3], while Samuil Dudin wrote that yellow chyrpy were made for unmarried girls, and were out of use before the beginning of the 20th century [4]; while general modern opinion is that girls did not wear head mantles at all.

What I know is that most of yellow silk chyrpy were mostly made and used by Tekke. Yet another tribe to use yellow silk as a material for female headgear were the Salor: their brides put on a yellow dastor head cover on the second day of wedding, and wore it until 40 years old.

Below is quotation of my never published cataloque of textile objects from Halili collections.

The chyrpy under description belongs to the so-called yashyl – green colour – group, though here the shade looks more blue than green. This unclear definition of the tint could have happened because of the age of the piece.

Green was obtained through a two-baths system of dyeing: the textile was dyed dark blue first, and then with yellow. Depending on the quality of dyeing the pigment could have disappeared with time. On the other hand, in many languages there are no special words to differentiate green and blue (Persian kabu+d, for example), so this peculiarity can be another possibility to explain the case. Still the third variant can be that the name of the whole piece was defined by the colour of the collar, which is of beautiful green shade.

If compared to the yellow chyrpy in the collection, the piece has slightly different cut, as has additional gores at the sides. This element makes silhouette more fitting at the waist which is a typical feature for green/blue kind of head mantles as a whole. If to speak about chyrpy cut in general the number of small details we see is amazing: possibly there is no other similar complicated piece of clothes in Central Asian costume, with numerous tiny details, made of various textiles and with different finish.

Most visual part of that variety is textiles, here we find blue, green, violet (side gores) and red (details of lining) keteni silk of local work; imported red cloth; urban-produced cotton print of Central Asian and Iranian work. Amazing thing is that all that variety is not accidental, but follows a stable tradition, with none or very little variations from one piece to another.

This, again, underlines a special ritual meaning of the piece for Turkmen female society which had its own priorities, believes and rituals, not known or very little known to the men. Much of that knowledge is now gone and possibly lost forever as was never described by early ethnographers. The latter were mainly men thus had no chance to talk to women in a pretty much closed Central Asian world, so there is very little hope that we can identify the reasons which rouse Turkmen women to make extremely complicated cuts, follow a very strict order of putting parts of their mantles together, use different linings, and so on.

One should not forget that all that was made in absolutely inconvenient conditions, and that fine silk is a very difficult textile to work with.

[1] One of the first collections of Turkmen clothes we know was composed by K.P. von Kaufman (1818—1882), first Turkestan General Governor. In 1902 his collections were partly sold, and partly donated to the former Dashkov Ethnographic Museum in Moscow, which museum was broken up in 1930s, and handled to several Moscow and St-Petersburg museums. Turkmen chyrpy from K.P. Kaufman collection now belongs to the Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography (Kunstkamera), coll. no. 8761

[2] The first exhibitions which showed Turkmen costume to broad European public were: Russian Ethnographic Exhibition in Moscow, 1867, Turkestan Exhibition in Peterhof, 1869, International Textile Exhibition in ST-Petersburg, 1870, Moscow Polytechnical Exhibition, 1872; International Exhibition in Vienna, 1873 and so on.

[3] Morozova A.S., 1971. Turkmenskaya odezhda vtoroi poloviny XIX—nachala XX v.//Zanyatiya i byt narodov Srednei Azii. Sredneaziatskii etnograficheskii sbornik (Turkmen clothes of the second half of the XIX—early 20 c.//Occupations and way of life of the people of Central Asia. Central Asian Ethnographic studies), issue III. Leningrad, pp. 168—223.

My thanks to Elena for these indications, some, never before published.

More recently I happened on to some email exchanges with Peter Andrews and a German friend of his Hermann Rudolf, who collects Turkmen embroidery.

I mentioned this question about whether the ground colors of Turkman chyrpys had social meaning and they both indicated that they did.

Peter spoke first, saying: “

“The information of the colour code to Turkmen chirpis was published decades ago by, I think, Beresneva, and I subsequently repeated it, so far as I remember, in in the Turcoman of Iran catalogue…I remember we repeated it at the TM in Washington when Mugul gave a talk on Turkmen costume some 30 years ago.”

Then Hermann said more specifically: “

“With regard to your query about chyrpys and the meaning of their colours, according to all accounts the various colours – green, blue, red / yellow / white – do have meaning. Chyrpys are worn by married women, and the different colours indicate the woman’s age group. They are therefore a social indicator. I have been told this several times during my stays in Turkmenistan (I was there 12 times, since 1993, about 9 months all in all), and read it in various articles and books.

“This applies to the Teke:

“Green, blue-green, and red chyrpys are worn by newly-married and young women (and older ones, if the woman simply keeps wearing her old chyrpy)

“Yellow ones are worn by women from about 40 years of age onwards

“White ones are worn by women from about 60 years of age onwards

“You can quote:

“Peter A. Andrews: “Crowning the Bride. Some Historical Evidence on Turkmen Women’s Costume (…). With Drawings by Mugul Andrews”.

                           In: Folk 33 (1991): 67-106. See p. 101

“Hermann Rudolph: “Schutz und Segen. Abwehr- und Fruchtbarkeitsmagie in der turkmenischen Frauentracht. In: Eothen 4 (2007):303-356.  Colours see pp. 325-328.

                            (Protective and fertility magic in Turkmen women’s costume.)”

Then, Peter spoke again: 

“Hermann has it right. There is no need to look further.

“The only things I should add is that the age of 40 is drawn from the Prophet Muhammad’s own marriage, and that the Turkmen appear to regard indigo blue as a variety of green. When the Yomut used the chirpi (they no longer do), it was green, but plain apart from applied silver ornament (see my article cited by Hermann). The Teke ones are invariably indigo.

“Both, so far as I know, are referred to as yashil chirpi, green chirpi. By the way it is a nonsense to use an I and a y in chirpy: the Turkmen letter is a dotless I in both positions, sounding like the e in butter.”  

Now Steve moved to southeast Asia.

P10

*

*

P10  was woven in Laos by one of the Thai-speaking people, the T’ai Daeng.  It is a head cloth worn by a priestess.

*

*

Snake images.  One reason many cultures consider snakes to be sort of magical is their ability to move without appendages.  

*

*

*

*

P11

*

*

Details of P11.

Laos.  Motifs include what appear to be birds and elephants.  Birds are considered special in many cultures because of their ability to fly.  Humans can’t even do that badly.  The elephant’s power is obvious.

*

*

*

*

*

*

P12

*

*

Laos, T’ai Hun skirt.

Tapestry borders.  Ground is cotton. patterned areas are brocaded in silk.

Ends (top and bottom) are  are subject to wear and are replaced when necessary.

Details of P12.

*

*

*

*

P13

*

*

Laos, T’ai Hun, skirt.  Similar to P12.

It’s Steve’s opinion that the most sophisticated weavings in the world are those of Laotian hill tribes.

Details of P13.

*

*

*

*

P14

*

*

Cambodia ikat skirt. Silk

Details of P14.

(color difference due to camera and lighting)

*

*

*

*

*

P15

(folded double; it’s twice as wide)

*

*

P15 is another Cambodian ikat skirt.

Details of P15.

*

*

*

*

*

P16 and P17

Two large pieces had hung on the front board and Steve moved to treat them next.

*

*

Steve said that he believes these two pieces were used either as temple hanging or as pantaloons.  He thinks the patterns suggest that they were temple hangings.  Very fine silk.

Let’s treat them one at a time, the one on the right first (we’ll call it P16)

*

*

One detail of P16.

*

*

P17

(the one on the left above)

*

*

Details of P17.

*

*

P18

*

*

P18 was shown horizontally.  It is Cambodian, silk.  It is a type of unisex pantaloon that you might remember seeing in movies like King and I, Kismet, and Alladdin.

Details of P18.

*

*

*

Steve demonstrated how this panel was converted into a pantaloon.

First the panel is taken behind the wearer’s back and then twisted together in the front.

*

*

Next the twisted part is taken down between the wearer’s legs, brought up in back and tucked into the back.

*

*

My camera work wasn’t quick enough to capture this pass and tucking.  But Steven has given this demonstration before in another session and for clarity I have put it in here.

Here’s a TM volunteer modeling this same hipwrapper.  It starts by being put around her, kind of like a horizontal sling. 

Next, she holds the two sides together around her waist (I think a clip of some sort was used by the Khmer; she’s holding it closed with her hand).   

Steve is holding the ends of the sling, and twists them together to form sort of a rope.  The rope then get’s passed through her legs and the end is tucked into the waist at the back.

This is a unisex garment.  Yul Brynner wore one in his role as the King in The King and I.

  *

P19

*

I brought five pieces to Steve’s program.  The first one I want to show here is African and relates to the mainland SE Asian piece P18.

I own only one, sub-Saharan, African textile,

 

a Dida, tie-dyed, tube skirt from the Ivory Coast.  Finger woven from raffia fibers.  The Met bought one, a while back, and took out a page in Hali to brag about it. 

I showed this piece, recently, in another RTAM and had Julie Geschwind in the audience, who knows such textiles, said that she had another, and a hat that goes with it.

She also knows how such pieces are made and demonstrated that, a bit, in this session.  

*

*

She had said, previously, that the big toes are important in the way that such pieces are “plaited” (her term).

She said the plaiter sits on the ground with her legs extended and stretches a cord in a double pass between her big toes.  This cord goes around these two toes and forms an oval basis for the beginning of this plaited garment (which is woven as a tube skirt).  The plaiter works with strands of raffia plaiting them toward her from this “waist” cord.  This plaiting process uses no equipment except the two big toes.

Once the garment has been plaited, it is tie-dyed in a way that creates a definite external texture on the tube ‘skirt.”  (The  inside of this garment remains smooth and comfortable to wear.)

*

*

This garment is put on, initially, as a tube skirt, open at the bottom.  But it is not worn in that way.  Like the process demonstrated in P18 above the strands at the bottom of the skirt are twisted together taken through the legs front to back and are tucked into the waist in the back, converting the seeming skirt into a pantaloon.

She said that such pantaloons are worn by both sexes.

I brought a second piece that I think may be African.  It could be a garment.  It is cotton, woven in six strips and then sewn together.  Nice, fresh colors.  I think it has no particular age.

P20

*

*

*

The closest thing I’ve seen is:

Aso oke fabric, (Yoruba: așǫ oke, pronounced ah-SHAW-okay) is a hand-woven cloth created by the Yoruba people of west Africa. Aso oke means “top cloth” in the English language, denoting cloth of high status.^[1][2] Usually woven by men, the fabric is used to make men’s gowns, called agbada, women’s wrappers, called iro, and men’s hats, called fila.

Aso oke is from the Yoruba culture in Ondo, Oyo, Ogun, Ekiti, Lagos, and Osun States in southwestern Nigeria and Ajase in southeastern Benin Republic.

The way of making the cloth has remained the same for centuries, however new techniques and production methods have been looked into to eliminate the weight and thickness of the aso oke cloth, and to make it more accessible for casual wear.

*

*

But I’m not sure at all.  I don’t think this is an important textile,  but I’d be interested to hear from anyone who can tell me more about it.

My second piece was Chinese and embroidered.  It was a decoration for the lower edge of a gown sleeve.  The embroidery in silk is very fine.

P21

*

*

Details of P20.  I think it might have some age but to not know.  A curator I showed it to said that real collectors collect them in pairs, confirming my lowly place in the textile collector world.

*

*

A second Chinese piece I brought was a mounted and framed fragment of a Chinese child’s embroidered hat.

*

*

You saw this image at the beginning.  Here are some closer details of parts of it.

*

*

An expert on Chinese textiles told me that the face on this part of it indicates that it was likely made by an non-Han embroiderer.

*

*

*

*

Another Chinese piece I brought was the one below.  It is the front of a child’s rain cape made in rural southwest non-Han China.  It is made of raffia plant fibers but looks like a bearskin.

P23

*

*

Below is a look at its back. It is not woven but instead plaited or knotted.

*

It is one of my responses to the color, color, color mantra that I use to show that texture can also be important.

I quite like it but my wife would like to see it get out of our apartment.

I brought one Central Asian child’s hat.  It was described as Afghan.

P24

*

*

Roger Pratt had brought some SE Asian textiles and we finish with them.

Roger began with a cotton, stole woven in Gujarat, India.  He showed an identical piece from a V&A exhibition in Sarasota, Florida.

*

P25

*

*

P25 is a stole quite similar to one featured in the traveling exhibition of The Fabric of India from holdings of London’s Victoria and Albert Museum and private collections that was at the Ringling Museum in Sarasota, Florida from July 7 to October 13 2019.

Both were the workmanship one of the artisan Dayalal Kudecha in Bhujodi, Kutch, Gujarat circa 2014. (See page 220 of the Exhibition Catalog V&A Publishing 2019, edited by Rosemary Crill, illustrating how traditional techniques are being adapted to a contemporary context).  

This piece was acquired from the artist in Bhuj.

*

*

Details of P25

*

*

*

*

P26

*

*

P26 is a woman’s ceremonial skirt “pha sin”  made by the Tai Nuea people, Sam Nuea region, Laos in silk, cotton natural dyes, weft ikat, supplementary weft weave.  

This is an archaic banded form, alternating between cotton bands of indigo ikat and silk bands of red ikat with highlights of different colors.  The red bands contain the serpent motif (nak) viewed from above, while the blue-black bands show the same creature in writhing profile.  

See p. 216 of Textiles of Southeast Asia by Robyn Maxwell, published by Periplus Editions 2003 (HK) for a similar example.

Details of P26.

*

*

*

P27

*

*

P27 is a Syrian ikat woman’s jacket (salteh) similar to one recently featured at the exhibition of David and Elizabeth Reisbord Collection at UCLA’s Fowler Museum: Dressed with Distinction: Garments From Ottoman Syria which ran from March 17-August 25.  

Late 19th century, silk, cotton, metallic thread, weft faced weave, slit tapestry technique, and metallic embroidery.

Here is a full view of the front.

*

*

Details of P27.

*

*

*

Below is a sleeve extended.

*

*

*

*

A really beautiful coat.

*

Steve took questions and brought his session to a close.

*

*

*

Tom Goehner announced that he was leaving the Textile Museum and this was his last RTAM.

*

*

Tom has been with the Textile Museum for 11 years.  We wish him well.

Hope you have enjoyed Steve’s strong program.

R. John Howe

Fred Mushkat on Warp-faced Textiles of the Nomads of Iran

On August 6, 2016, Fred Mushkat

*

*

gave a Rug and Textile Appreciation Morning program, here at the Textile Museum here in Washington, DC on the subject of

*

Fred said that when he first started to collect textiles he was simply buying the most beautiful things that he could afford.  Then he decided that his real interest was ethnographic and this took him to bands and other warp-faced nomad textiles that seemed most likely to have been made for use rather than for sale.  Fred’s program also provided a preview of a book that he is writing on such textiles.

In his work life, Fred is a medical doctor, specializing in emergency medicine.  He is also a skilled photographer and is dedicated to making the best cup of espresso he can.

Fred began with an illustrated lecture.

*

*

*

Qashqa’i dwellings were rectangular goat-hair tents that did not require tent bands for stabilization. Photo: Julia Bailey

*

*

In this rare photograph, the roof of the goat-hair tent is adorned with lines of animals and large tufts. Hanging from the front edge of the roof are large tassels of colored wool attached to long braided cords. Sometimes a band with similar braids and tassels would be temporarily attached to the front of the roof on special occasions.

* *

In this photo, a Qashqa’i woman sits in front of the baggage pile that occupies the rear of the tent along the entire width. The baggage pile is covered with a flat woven textile. On the right side of the tent, a small bag is attached to the pole. These bags often held cooking utensils or weaving tools such as a spindle. Photo: Peter Andrews, 1970

*

*

Qashqa’i tents could be quite large and tall, as in this photo of a khan’s tent. Photo: Peter Andrews, 1970. 

* *

In this tent, the floor is covered with carpets. A long gelim, typically woven with weft-faced patterning, covers the baggage pile. Along the front of the roof line hangs a cord attached to which are large tassels. Above the baggage pile, along the rear wall is another group of tassels that may be attached to a woven band. Photo: Peter Andrews, 1970

* *

A long gelim covers the baggage pile with bedding neatly piled above it.  The side of the goat-hair tent has been raised to allow ventilation.  The white cloth protects woven textiles from being stained with food. In the foreground on the left is a woman in Western clothing, perhaps a visitor.  The khan on the right, second from the end, wears the traditional hat of the Qashqa’i Photo: Roland & Sabrina Michaud, 1970.

*

*

The baggage pile in this tent is covered by a jajim. This weaving takes less time to make than a gelim. It is neither warp-faced or weft faced, as it is made with a twill weave in which one side of the cloth is warp-predominant, while the other is weft predominant. Reciprocal triangles separate the narrow bands of color; the wider section has a long row of stepped diamonds. Large tassels are attached to the bottom length of the jajim. >Photo: Peter Andrews, 1970>

* *

The baggage in this photo is placed upon a bed of rocks to keep the bedding bags dry. The baggage (bedding bags) is then covered by an elaborate long gelim with horizontal panels, no two of which appear to be alike. Photo: Peter Andrews, 1970

*

*

This is the same baggage pile with the gelim folded back to expose the separate bedding bags. Commonly called mafrash, the Qashqa’i refer to these woven containers as marfaj. They are generally woven with various structures of weft-faced patterning. Rarely, these were made with a warp-faced structure. Photo: Peter Andrews, 1970

*

*

During transport, the bedding bags, which were made in pairs, were loaded on each side of a pack animal to balance the load. This required the work of multiple men. In this photo a camel is being readied for the day’s travel. Photo, Ullens de Schooten, 1956

*

*

Here the man is loading a donkey in preparation for transit. He is using a plaited cord to secure the load on a donkey. In former times, warp-faced bands were used for this purpose. Photo, MohammadReza Baharnaz.>

*

*

In order to prevent slippage that would cause the load to be unbalanced, the cord (or band) must be tightened as much as possible.

*

*

Digard, an anthropologist who lived among the Bakhtiyari, drew a schematic for wrapping a load on a pack animal using a cord. In the drawing, there is a buckle that can be used to pull the cord as tight as possible to secure the load. 

* *

In this photo by Roland and Sabrina Michaud, Qashqa’i tribespeople are migrating. Donkeys, mules and camels are the pack animals; horses were considered too special to be used for carrying loads. In this photo from 1970, all of the visible loads are secured with plaited ropes. All of the buckles are intentionally placed on the right side of the baggage load. The buckles on the left and right of the photo appear identical.  

*

*

Fred then moved on to discuss the various structures used to make warp-faced weavings. The most basic of these structures is warp-faced plain weave, as seen in this slide. Each warp goes over a weft, then under the next weft repeating succession. This gives the fabric the appearance of horizontal ribbing. Image from The Primary Structure of Fabrics, Irene Emory.

*

*

By comparison, weft-faced weaving creates patterns by moving under and over warps. In this slide, each weft goes over a warp, then under the next, repeating until a color change is desired. This structure is known as slit tapestry weave. At the color change, the yarn reverses direction. This structure creates vertical slits between colors. To improve structural integrity, the vertical slits are minimized in length. Small cruciform designs and stepped triangles are used for this purpose. Note that the background pattern in weft-faced weaving creates a vertical ribbing.

*

*

This structure is warp-faced plain weave with warp substitution. The pattern is created by warps moving over and under wefts, as in warp-faced plain weave, The unneeded warps float on the back of the weaving until a color change is desired to make a given pattern. At that point the different colors change position, with the former now floating on the back while the latter begin moving above and below the wefts. These are one sided cloths, as the pattern is clearly visible on the obverse, while the reverse side shows lengths of warp floats. Image from Woven Structures, Marla Mallett.

* *

This slide shows a structure known as warp-faced alternating float weave. A warp goes over three wefts then under one. The adjacent warps are one over then one under. The next warp goes under one weft (the middle weft of the three that the first warp traveled over) then over three. Image from The Primary Structure of Fabrics, Irene Emory.

*

*

Alternating the float of the warps creates a slotted appearance of the face of the weaving. The Qashqa’i call this structure kalak. The repeating mirror image design of this band resembles the letter “A”placed sideways.

*

*

On the back side of the weaving, the design can barely be made out.

*

*

This is a detail of a Shahsavan band made with the same structure. The repeating motif is an identical detail to the sideways letter “A” seen in the previous Qashqa’i band. This design, which is rare in any other structure, is a reminder of the common origins of the Shahsevan and Qashqa’i.

* *

The most common structure for warp-faced bands is warp-faced one-weft double cloth. This structure is two-layered, with a common weft thread that moves from front to back as the weaving progresses. Used for tensile strength to hold loads on animals, this structure is the strongest of all the warp-faced weavings. The strength is derived from the two layers, but just as important, it is the exchange of warps moving from one side to the other that locks the two layers together. A limiting factor to the strength of double cloth bands is the absence of horizontal pattern exchanges, because the warps are not changing position between the layers. This band broke at this place because of a longer run without many such warp exchanges.

*

*

Here the two layers are peeled apart up to the area of a horizontal exchange that covers the width of the field.

*

*

Warp-faced one-weft double cloth creates a textile with the colors reversed between the layers. One side of the cloth “reads” better; in general, the side with a dark ground color in the field has clearer design elements. Light motifs on a dark ground in the top photo are more distinct than the reverse side in the middle photo. A common weaving error in weaving double cloth is “dropped warps on the underside as the weaving progresses. The bottom photo shows multiple areas in which the red warps miss, or drop, a weft on the underside of the band.

*   *

These two photos are the outer and inner sides of a rare marfaj woven in double cloth. Unlike a narrow band, this weave is about a meter wide. When Fred examined this container closely, he noticed that  the outer side had dark blue wefts that are most visible between the undyed cotton warps that make up the quadruped (top photo). When he looked at the inside layer of the container, he noticed that the wefts were red (bottom photo). Rather than being one-weft double cloth, this weaving has two wefts, one for each side. This warp-faced two-weft double cloth is not documented anywhere in the textile literature. After finding this structure, Fred began looking at other containers and has discovered the same two weft construction on another marfaj and on a number of Qashqa’i single and double bags. At this time, no other weaving culture in Iran is known to have used this structure.

*

*

At the beginning of the weaving of a band, it is difficult to pack the wefts tightly. The effect of this is to make the band wider, looser and weaker at the start of the weaving. To improve the structural integrity of the band and consequently to minimize breakage, this band had a few rows of wefts woven after which the end of the band was removed from the loom in order to tightly pack the wefts more than could be done on the loom. After the wefts were tightly beaten, the band was reattached to the loom and weaving was continued. Bands that had this treatment were significantly narrower at the start of the weaving, as this slide demonstrates.

*

*

Qashqa’i women often marked the start and/or end of the weaving of a band by making one or more rows of weft twining. Typically these rows are in colors that strongly contrast with the rest of the weaving. In this slide, two weft twining rows are spaced a few centimeters apart at the end of the weaving, just before the braided end. Rows of weft twining also appear on gelims, skirts of rugs, and on bands of other groups, including Khamseh and Shahsevan.

*

*

Bands are secured by pushing a loop of the body of the band through a hole in the buckle. A wooden peg is put in the loop and the band is tightened. This method makes a securely tight load on a pack animal.

* *

Dating of pack-animal bands is problematic. Peter Andrews did research on the Qashqa’i and Shahsevan in the early 1970s and noted that a pack animal band had a lifespan of about ten years. A wooden or forged iron buckle could be removed and placed on a new band. This band may be the only known pack-animal band with a date. There are three places where there may be a date of 1331.  In the solar calendar, the date is roughly 1952; in the lunar (hirji) calendar, the date is roughly 1913.

*

*

Designs on double cloth bands are limited by the risk of weakening the structure. Long areas of solid color are weaker than areas with many exchanges of warps from front to back. Additionally, too much asymmetry from side to side of a design may distort the band and make one side weaker. This design, an “S” shape, has many slotted areas in the yellow design, and the image is symmetrical both horizontal and vertically.  The “S” shape appears in many structures and in many variations. It may represent a dragon. 

*

*

This is a detail of the Berlin Dragon and Phoenix rug, which dates to the fifteenth century. It has an “S” shape in the minor border of this pile rug that is similar to the one in the preceding slide. Marla Mallett has written about how designs from a restrictive format, like double cloth, are more likely to have originated there rather than on a minimally restrictive format such as pile weaving. In other words, it is easier to adopt a design from a restrictive format to pile weaving rather than vice versa.

*

*

This octagonal design is commonly found on Qashqa’i bands. It is named o’i guli, or the flower of the band. This design is also common on Qashqa’i double cloth containers.

*

*

This design is a zigzag that the Qashqa’i call ILANAG. To maintain a sound structure, filler motifs are placed along the zigzag. 

*

*

This is another design found on many Qashqa’i double cloth bands and containers.

*

*

To demonstrate the similarity between this design among the Qashqa’i and Shahsevan, here are three versions on Shahsevan bands, some of which have only this one design in an endless repeat.

*

*

Several known Qashqa’i bands display a snake-like design with what appear to be fangs, adjacent to a rooster.

*

*

Others have human representations.  Some display genitals to distinguish the sexes. In this band, this is a male figure.

*

*

Adjacent to the male is another figure without male genitalia and with blocky areas on the chest representing breasts.

*

*

In this band, a male figure (on the right) is toe-to-toe with a female figure. I have shown this image in other talks and some people felt that the lines for the genitals on both figures are simply weaving mistakes.

*

*

In another Qashqa’i band, there is a similar arrangement of two people, with similar genital representation. One such band with this design could be considered a fluke, but two such similar designs suggest that this imagery may be part of the Qashqa’i design tradition.

* *

Bands are woven on ground looms. In this photo, the completed band is moved underneath the unwoven group of warps on top. The woman is using a plank of wood with a narrowed edge for a weft beater. 

*

*

A Qashqa’i woman wearing a white and pink skirt is riding a camel during a migration in the 1970s. The camel on the right has plaited cords holding the load instead of a woven band.

* *

This is a detail of a Qashqa’i warp-faced one-weft double cloth cover, woven in two pieces that if connected, would be roughly the size of a gelim.  To Fred’s knowledge, no other gelim-like weaving is known with this structure. On one of the panels, there is a single image, seen above, in brown on a blue background. The dealer who sold this believed the design is a representation of the double eagle that is part of the imperial coat of arms of czar Nicholas II of Russia. 

*

*

Here is the double eagle. How could this design possibly appear on a Qashqa’i weaving? I asked Peter Andrews, who did field work among the Qashqa’i in the early 1970s and he mentioned that some Qashqa’i had a Russian samovar in their tent. These were made in an imperial factory and were marked with the double eagle coat of arms. If the design on this unusual double cloth cover is indeed the double eagle, then a Qashqa’i weaver could have copied the design on to her weaving because she liked it.

Fred had brought a number of pieces and moved treat them next.

*

*

FM1

*

*

The narrow bag is a baladan, made to hold weaving tools like a spindle or to hold cooking utensils. These were placed on the rear pole of the tent. It is woven in warp-faced alternating float weave and was made in the United States by a Qashqa’i expatriate. She wove it in 2012. 

*

FM2

*

*

Another weaving in warp-faced alternating float weave, it is the size of a small bag face. A Qashqa’i weaver in Iran made it in 2011. By far, it is the finest alternating float weaving Fred has ever come across. These continue to be made as gifts between family members and friends to be hung on a wall or placed on a table.

*

FM3

*

*

C:This short band (2’2″) is a rump band. It has only one motif- a parade of quadrupeds all facing the same direction. The braids are decorated with small bone segments.  There have been many of these made for the market by breaking up a long band. This old example appears to have been made specifically as a short band for decorating an animal.

*

FM4

*

*

At the top of this photo are two other short bands. The topmost band is about the same size as the previous rump band with braids and tassels. It appears to be unused. It was purchased in the late 1990s during a time in which many fakes of rugs and bag faces were appearing. Since one-weft double cloth became a rare structure after the mid 20th century, it seems highly unlikely that anyone would go to the trouble of making a reproduction (or know how), especially since the demand for such pieces was nearly nonexistent. Qashqa’i and other nomads were known to make containers, gelims  and bands then store them away until there was a need to put them into service.  For this reason, a number of exceptional bands show little or no wear. Small items like this band may have been keep as keepsakes to honor the memory of a family member. Likewise, the same circumstances may apply to the occasional container in other structures which were never put into service and never had edge joins that would close a bag face to its back. Such weavings did not enter the market until there was a significant need to sell it.

*

FM5

*

*

The blue background on the top band is a deep blue-nearly black. This color is made by repeated dying until the blu-black effect is achieved. The Qashqa’i call this sorme’i. The workmanship is excellent; it may well have been saved as a keepsake for several generations before it was ultimately sold into the market.  The lower band is too short to have been used as an animal trapping. It is well drawn and does not appear to have been a practice piece. A number of the small tassels attached to the sides of the band are missing and the braids are worn, suggesting this diminutive band was put to use, but its function remains unknown.

*

FM6

*

*

C:This tiny bag with a single design on each side is made with warp-faced one-weft double cloth. It is about four inches wide. Small bags this size were often the first bag a young girl made, although more often in a different structure. It was used to hold a small mirror. 

*

FM7

*

*

This is an older example of a baladan, used to hold spindles or cooking utensils. These were often made in unmatched pairs, one for each rear corner tent pole. 

*

FM8

*

*

Shown earlier to demonstrate weft-faced weaving, this is a small single Qashqa’i bag made with wool and white cotton in slit-tapestry weave. Each vertical step of the triangles is a small slit. Keeping these vertical slits small improves the strength and longevity of the bag. 

*

FM9

*

*

This baladan is made with goat hair and is rather coarsely woven. It is difficult to determine which side is the front, as the back has an equally strong appearance

*

FM10

*

*

C:A grouping of Qashqa’i bands, the narrowest is on the far left; the widest is third from the right. The two short fragments on the far right are used to help stabilize the tent.

*

FM11

*

A detail of a band woven in warp-faced alternating float weave. the “over three under one structure creates the slotted appearance. Between the two “A” shaped motifs, in mirror image, are large and small “X” forms with additional horizontal arms, creating a spoke-like effect.

*

FM12

*

*

This detail is from what may be the oldest Qashqa’i band known. The deep orange on a dark blue ground is uncommon. The top portion of the photo shows a tree-like design. Like the example before it and the following band, the borders of Qashqa’i bands are often alternating “S” or “Z” shapes in red or orange and green.

FM13

e and the following band, the borders of Qashqa’i bands *

*

This is another rare color combination on an old band-gold on dark blue. The large “S” shape at the bottom of the photo is often referred to as a dragon motif.

FM14

*

*

Fred stated that he did not believe that the  three “X” shapes within its body of the quadruped represent unborn calves. Rather, they are filler motifs put there to avoid long spaces without any color change. Leaving the body of the quadruped empty would potentially create weak spots when tension is applied to the band.

*

FM15

*

*

Tree and shrub forms are common Qashqa’i bands. On some bands, a bird sits or hovers at the top of the tree.

*

FM16

*

*

In this double weave band, the individual motifs are separated by horizontal zigzags with tiny filler designs. The horizontally aligned double-hooked motifs on the ivory ground represent the clever use of ground reversal, in which the background color (dark blue) makes a pattern on the foreground color (ivory). 

*

FM17

*

*

In this band the zigzag is aligned along the length of the band with large filler motifs within the triangles formed by change of direction of the main pattern. The design is reminiscent of the so-called “leaf and wine cup” border often seen on Caucasian rugs. 

*

FM18

*

*

At nine centimeters, this is the widest Qashqa’i pack-animal band. It is also the thickest band of those Fred has examined. The wider format allows for larger motifs, creating a bold and striking appearance. 

*

FM19*

*

This is another grouping of bands that were displayed. The band on the left uses ground reversal to make a dark blue rectangle with six projections that loosely form an octagon, but this can be seen in different ways depending on how one groups the polygons.

*

FM25

*

*

A grouping of bands and bags that Fred had brought in.

*

FM26

*

*

Although not from Iran, Fred brought a couple of Anatolian weft beaters. Intricately carved, both have dates from the early to mid nineteenth century.

*

FM27

*

*

These weft beaters are short because they were made for weaving bands that were narrower than its length.

FM28

*

*

A group of designs from the wide Qashqa’i band, including one in the middle of the photo that may be an animal or animal pelt design.

*

FM29

*

*

The quadrupeds in this band have a distinctive club-like tail

*

FM30

*

*

This band and buckle seem to have been made for one another. The center warps are braided then looped around a narrow opening, then sewn tight around it. The buckle has characteristic stamped concentric circles and carved triangles.

*

FM31

*

*

C:A number of nomadic groups, n one more so than the Qashqa’i. make a design of linked triangles. In this motif all of the triangles are aligned in the same direction and have projections at each base of the triangle.

*

FM32

*

*

In this section of the same band, cruciform designs dominate.

*

FM35

*

*

This portion of the band shows another version of the design shaped like an animal pelt, below which are two human forms.

*

FM36

*

*

When the bottoms of the triangles face one another, an interesting ground reversal pattern in blue is created.

*

FM37

*

*

Another example of ground reversal occurs in the rightmost segment of this band The pairs of white “S” forms are vertically stacked; in the ground reversal image, the “S” forms take on a more abstract shape with half of the “S” forms on each side of it.

*

FM38

*

*

The orange motifs in this band could be a representation of humans with exaggerated arms and hands, or it could be a floral form. Nevertheless, the linked images create a complex zigzag pattern.

*

FM39

*

*

This snake-like zigzag has a slotted structure to maintain structural integrity, which is also improved by having the diamond-shaped filler motifs at each change in direction.

*

FM40

*

*The back of the same area of the band shows the color reversal of the front.

*

FM41

*

*

A well-drawn rooster sits just above a tall shrub that is topped by a boteh-like design.

*

FM45

*

*

A band made in warp-faced alternating float weave is shown (front and back) along with a baladan in the same structure with the same design. Bags with this structure are more common than the bands. It is likely that bands made in this structure were less able to withstand the wear and tear of use as a pack-animal band. This would make such bands less likely to survive and less likely to be made in the first place.

Fred also pointed out that if these weavings were museum holdings, anyone handling them would be wearing cloth gloves. In an effort to demonstrate the value of carefully handling our own rare textiles and giving them the care and respect they deserve, an assistant is wearing cotton gloves. Members of the audience were invited to handle these weavings after the talk and were also asked to wear cotton gloves, which Fred provided.

*

FM46

*

*

The wooden buckle on a band made with alternating float weave is coarsely carved and has a slight twist along its length. The bent piece of wood from which the buckle was carved does not affect its function but does add to its appeal.

*

FM 47

*

*

Because there can only be two colors along any vertical span of a double cloth band, additional colors are introduced by adding tufts or pieces of cloth to the field or the edges of a band. These can be part of the weaving and applied while on the loom, or the tufts can be added after the band is removed from the loom.

*

Fred15

*

*

Fred brought a number of related weavings. This large cover is a jajim. The Persians call this type of cover a moj, a term that the Qashqa’i do not use but is used in the trade. It is not strictly a warp-faced weaving. Made with a type of twill weave, it is warp-predominant on one side and weft predominant on the other side. Qashqa’i jajims are made on a ground loom in one long strip that is cut in half and joined at the sides. This example has harmonious colors and is an example of woven minimalism.

Fred16

*

*

This is a rare example of a complete double bag (khorjin) with a structure of warp-faced two-weft double cloth. The Qashqa’i, more than any other nomads in Iran, often made the backs of their khorjins as or more interesting than the fronts, as this khorjin demonstrates. 

Fred17

*

*

Fred displayed a Qashqa’i horse cover with some unusual features. It has two halves, joined in the center. The only design is the o’i guli, the flower of the band. The bottom half of the field has numerous silk tufts, some of which are nearly worn away. The main body of the horse cover is made with warp-faced plain weave with warp substitution. The flaps at the top, which are to go around the underside of the horse’s neck, are constructed of warp-faced one-weft double cloth. It is remarkable that the weaver was able to carry the field and border designs seamlessly through this change in structure. It is likely that double cloth was used for the flaps to improve the longevity of the horse cover, since that is an area of increased friction and stress.

Fred18

*

*

 This weaving is a cover made with one-weft double cloth. The two unjoined sides were each made on a separate loom. The two parts were meant to be joined together, but it appears from its nearly perfect condition that the cover was never put into use and were never joined. There are no other covers known to have been made with double cloth. Fred pointed out the design in the lower portion of one side that has the appearance of a two-headed eagle, similar to the coat of arms of Czar Nicholas II.

Fred19

*

*

Notice in the images above that Fred is wearing gloves.  In this session, he made a point of recommending that we do so regularly when we handle textiles.  This is good advice that we almost never follow in these RTAM sessions.  In the next two images below, he is encouraging the folks, helping in his session, to “glove up.”

*

*

*

Fred answered questions and brought his session to a close.

*

*

People were eager to see this material up close and to ask more questions.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

I thank Fred for coming and giving us this excellent program on some material that is both beautiful and unusual.

As I said in the announcing email, Fred’s program drew on a book he had been working on for several years and that has since this program was held, is soon to be published./strong>

*

*

Weavings of Nomads in Iran: Warp-faced Bands and Related Textiles

You can find it at:

https://www.amazon.com/Weavings-Nomads-Iran-Warp-faced-Textiles/dp/1898113807

My thanks, too to Fred for patiently working with me to fashion this virtual version of his program

Regards,

R. John Howe

RTAM on “Mike” Tschebull’s New Book

Dear folks –

On November 2, 2019, Raoul “Mike” Tschebull

*

*

gave a Rug and Textile Appreciation program here at the Textile Museum in Washington, DC on the occasion of the publication of his book “Qarajeh to Quba: Rugs and Flatweaves from East Azarbayjan and the Transcaucasus.”

*

illust. a

*

*

Mike is a long-time figure in the rug and textile world.  Most of us know him first through his catalog “Kazak” 

*

illust. b

*

*

 

for an exhibition he curated in 1971.  This catalog is seen as a pioneering effort. It seems to be the first serious treatment of Kazak rugs, as a discrete group for exhibition purposes. It is also noteworthy because it resists descriptions that draw on the market place but instead offers “taxonomic” ones that center on materials and structure.

Mike has also been visible elsewhere in the international textile literature. Robert Pinner and Michael Franses selected an article Mike wrote, on Lori pile weaving, for inclusion in the first issue of Hali ever published. 

He contributed to the catalogue “Yoruk: The Nomadic Weaving Tradition in the Middle East,” edited by Tony Landreau, 1978.

*

illust. c

*

*

Has been a frequent contributor to Hali and curated one of the first on-line textile exhibitions “To Have and to Hold,” January, 2004, for the New England Rug Society.  You can still see it on their web site.  http://www.ne-rugsociety.org/gallery/bags/index.htm,  

He has lectured and given textile presentations around the U.S. and overseas, including several RTAMs here at the Textile Museum, the most recent one of the latter was on Zeikhur Caucasian rugs.  

https://rjohnhowe.wordpress.com/2016/08/24/mike-tschebull-on-zeikhur-caucasian-rugs/

Last year, he worked with James Opie to give a talk at a collectors’ event in the Santa Barbara, CA, organized by Brian Morehouse.  Their talk was entitled “Structural Variation and Design Evolution in Lur/Bakhtiyar Bags.”  That indicates that Mike’s interests and the perspective in his Hali 1 article have persisted. He wrote about an unusual pile rug from the same area for Ghereh43, Turin, in 2007. And in the current issue 201 of Hali, there is an article, “Kazaks Revisited,” extracted from the book that is the focus of today’s program.

*

illust. d

*

*

 

For years, Mike has worked on the book he talked about in this session.  Some of us have hoped that Mike might write a book on Caucasian rugs to replace Schurmann, but if you devote years to writing a book, you are entitled to write the book you want.

And that is what Mike has done.  He has written a book about rugs and flatweaves from an area that has long attracted his interest and attention.  

Broadly speaking, he has a strong interest in, and has collected rugs and pile-less textile material woven by, nomads and villagers on an “unsupervised” basis in an area “in northwestern Iran” East Azarbayjan, plus the Transcaucasus and part of Dagestan.  

He says in his Introduction that he was very taken with the possibility of “understanding the various inputs into this weaving culture” and he managed in 1996 and 1997 to travel to and do field work in rural East Azarbayjan.  The edited results of this observation are included in this volume in marked passages describing the geography, its inhabitants and living conditions. Inclusion of his expurgated and edited field notes was a major motivator to move ahead on the effort. 

As his book title indicates, one of Mike’s agendas is to bring English spellings closer to the way that given words are pronounced by native speakers. Danny Shaffer, the book’s editor, has adopted the shorthand “Q2Q” for the title.  Even I can say that.

There are a lot of Transcaucasian and Azarbayjani pile rugs treated but a lot of attention is also paid to jajims and tapestry-woven kilims, whose warp and weft-faced structures are restrictive and so less likely to be made for sale. 

*

illust. e

*

*

Jajims, which can be beautiful, are a format often not treated as seriously as they are here.

Mike writes a good English sentence and his text is accessible. His descriptions emphasize “taxonomic” aspects, but he still also celebrates what he sees as design progression.

This book is a Hali Publications product.  Mike entrusted the photography of the pieces in the book to Don Tuttle and the result is of the superior sort we have come to expect from him.

We need, also, to say that this book is published under the auspices of the Near Eastern Art Research Center, established by Joe McMullan in 1962, to provide support for publications in the field of Islamic carpets.

*

illust. f

*

*

With this introduction, Mike began:

*

1

*

*

2

*

Mike:

Russ Pickering said that your collection will disappear anonymously if you don’t document it.

Walter Denny said you have 50 years of accumulated knowledge and contacts that will disappear if you don’t document them.

Valid points, and I enjoyed the R&D. 

*

2

*

*

Joe MicMullan’s book (above left) on his own collection is so good that some have said he couldn’t have written it (the ultimate compliment).

And Russ Pickering’s books, first on flatweaves (above right) before anyone treated them seriously, and subsequently, on Moroccan rugs and textiles, are good examples of self published books based on personal rug and textile collections. 

And they both wrote more than these titles above. 

Commercial publishers won’t provide an outlet, for the most part. Some call such efforts “Vanity Publishing,” But these guys had a thorough knowledge of the subject, good contacts for research, made lots of time available, and of course the cash for publication, which is less of a factor.

But the cash issue is not the impediment – it’s the time needed. 

Self publishing and writing up one’s own material is less common than getting a pro to do it. But using an outsider muffles the collector’s message.

*

3

*

*

Jim Burns spent 6.5 years working on his book on Kurdish weaving (above lefts). My friend, Hamid Sadighi, self-published his own kilim collection (above right) and donated it to a local Berlin museum.

*

4

*

*

A little about “nuts and bolts” of such an effort.

In general, art book costs, over time, have come down and quality has gone up. 

*

5

*

*

First chapter heading efforts:. The designers suggested  “tone-on-tone with a detail from a Kazak as background.” (above here) Then, random details on a plain beige background.  (lower above.) 

I wanted to see other versions.

I suggested taking selected motifs from some of the rugs and flat weaves and Photoshopping them into stylized versions. But the designers could not render a clean image – see upper version. But what ultimately worked was taking the PS motifs into Adobe Illustrator and using them as a guide underneath the designers’ drawing. Of course, due to the nature of the motifs, the designers had to use an element of artistic license to capture the motifs as accurately as possible.

*

6

*

*

We agreed on which ones worked best, lower in the pair above.  A stylized version, very close to the real version.

7

*

*

Dark blue background worked well. The motif in the blue ground panel above with the device, above right, taken from a rug

*

Below are large images of the two above.  First the one on the left and then under it, the one on the right.

7 left

*

7 right

*

*

8

*

*

Here are two larger versions of the two images above, arranged vertically.  First the chapter heading graphic, on the left and then the rug on the right.

8 left

*

*

8 right

*

*

About the Transcaucasus: There is little early fieldwork, data or much current expertise. Limited photos, all late, most from Russian sources. 

One of the best studies of material culture, illustrated, left, below.

9

*

About the Transcaucasus: There is

*

Larger images of 8.

9 left

*

*

9 right

*

*

10

*

11

*

Mike (and some other authorities) believe that the oldest Caucasian village rugs we have are not older than the early 19th century.  He says “The earliest dated Transcaucasian prayer rug has an inwoven date of 1809, and I have a Kazak dated 1808, so there are very early 19th century Transcaucasian village rugs. They just don’t seem to have survived in numbers, and there were probably not very many to begin with.”

How selected designs evolved.

Note: Mike’s estimates of design progression seem based, in the case of embroideries/tiles (which, like pile rugs, are digital), first on age estimates (using traditional methods).  The embroideries used are estimated to be considerably older than the pile rug examples. 

Mike writes this sentence early on in his book: “…While it is correct that many pile rug motifs come from a variety of non-textile sources – including glass, architectural, metalwork, miniatures, stucco and ceramics, among others – they seem largely filtered through some textile medium.”

As Bob Emry has pointed out, the German collectors who selected “older” Turkman textiles for Jurg Rageth to do carbon dating and dye and mordant analysis on, demonstrated that there is something to their traditional age estimates (the subsequent carbon dating and dye and mordant analysis showed that the textiles they selected as “older” were confirmed to be that).

 

 

 

. 

Groups of experienced collectors, using traditional methods of age estimate may be able to identify “older” pieces, successfully and sometimes to place pieces in an age sequence (e.g., given three textiles estimated to be “older,” successfully identify the oldest and the youngest), based on among other factors – dye quality, variety of use, and complexity of design. Traditional age estimates are not scale-able.  To some degree, that had to wait, as available, for the results of the carbon dating, and dye and mordant analysis.

For example, Mike’s embroidery vs pile rug age estimates also seem to draw on the frequent convention that older design versions tend to be more complex and articulated and that a degree of simplification and conventionalization is visible in younger textiles.

And it is widely seen that the range of colors used in given Transcaucasian and Azarbayjani pieces narrows, as we come forward in time, and that multiple shades of a given color, and the presence of yellows, green, and especially complex shades of purple, are thought to be indicators of age.

Mike: Embroideries were a major design source for Kazaks.   Sometimes  also tile designs.

Mike sees the design of the “Lori Pambak” Kazak pile rug, below left, as sourced in the Transcaucasian silk, on the right, below, estimated 17th/18th century. He says that such design progressions are not linear and discusses this one at length in his book.

11

*

*

Larger images of 11.

11 left

*

*

11 right

*

*

12

Star Kazak (below, left) – based on a tile design sourced thru embroidery (below, right).

Star Kazak (below, left) – based on a tile design sourced thru embroidery (below, right).

*

*

 

Larger images of 12.

12 left

*

*

12 right

*

*

Zeikhur rug detail (below, left), from a full rug is 60 on page 237 in Mike’s book.  Woven in the northeast Transcaucasus.  Mike says that this “Alpan” design (he thinks the name may be geographically accurate) likely came to pile rugs, initially via tiles and then through embroideries, (the latter, (below, right) estimated as early as the 17th century.

13

*

*

Larger images of the pieces in 13.

13 left

*

*

13 right

*

*

13 left, above, is a design device Mike discussed in a previous post.  Because it is one for which he also has a tile precursor, I have inserted it here, below.

illust. g.

*

*

The Zeikhur field design in illust. g left, is of interest, because it is based on a tile design, probably originally unglazed floor tiles, as in the right hand image in illust g above.

The orientation of the slide helps make clear the comparison of the long hexagonal tiles to the diagonal cartouches in the rug, left; the repeat medallions in the rug are represented by the diamond-shaped tiles (see larger images below).

*

illust. g left

*

*

illustr. g right

*

*

turned detail of illustr. of g right

*

*

How was the design so widely distributed? Armenian traders?

*

Pinwheel Kazak pile rug (below, left), (Schurmann, 4).  Mike estimates that the Schurmann rug was woven about 1850.  He sees the “pinwheel” design sourced thru a simple design used in embroideries and some Turkish textiles and rugs.  He once owned the one (below, right) and estimates it to the 18th century.

*

14

*

*

Larger images of pieces in 14.

14 left

*

*

14 right

*

*

Qasim Ushak pile rug (below, left)   Schurmann says the pile rugs were woven by “isolated Kurdish tribes” of Karabagh.  Eiland and Eiland say Kurdish weavers often suggested but Armenian weavers also possible.  Structure of some Qasim Ushak pile rugs is similar to that of the “Caucasian” dragon rugs. Mike: “Who says this? My question.”

There seems agreement that the Qasim Ushak pile rug designs (below, left) are, also, sourced in earlier Caucasian embroideries (below, right).  

There are no early pile examples, and the rug design may have been created by dealers some time after about 1875, based on dated examples. Transcaucasian embroideries that survived were probably quilt-top decoration for the well-to-do.

*

15

*

*

Larger images of the pieces in 15.

*

15 left

*

*

15 right

15 right is Schurmann, 139. estimated to the 17 century.

*

*

Warp-faced flat-woven jajims (below, right), a more restrictive structure than pile, is also a likely design source of pile “prayer” rugs such as the one below, left.

*

16

*

*

Larger images of 16.

16 left

*

*

16 right

*

*

Kashmiri and Indian textiles (below, right) as a design source – widespread.  Botehs, or flowers in a grid are a 19th century Indian import (below, left).

*

17

*

*

Larger versions of 17.

17 left

*

*

17 right

*

*

Marching peacocks fragment (below, left) + detail (below, right). Rug design likely derived from sumak bags, but an earlier origin is likely Iranian bronzes.

18

*

*

19

But specifically illustrated here by a sumak bedding bag side, viewed vertically. The only logical way the village weaver could have come up with the pile rug design idea was to have seen the similar design bedding bag. How else would the hooked medallions in the rug have been rendered in the squeezed way that they are? The marching peacocks in both objects march north.

*

*

Larger versions of details of borders of pieces in 19.

19 left

*

*

19 right

*

 

*

20

*

Burns frag, Armenian script, two frags assembled (below, left) and bird detail (below, right). The rug is photographed from the top end, so the peacocks appear upside down.

*

*

 

Larger versions of 20.

20 left

*

*

20 right

*

*

21

*

Complete Rippon marching peacocks (below, left) vs. fragment (seen above).  There are so few rugs with this design. 

*

*

 

*

Larger versions of 21.

21 left

The Rippon example, 21 left.

*

21 right

*

*

22

*

Mike: “Weaving in East Azarbayjan: A society composed of urbanites, villagers and nomads, each turning out distinctive products, the latter two groups much less affected by commerce than weavers in the Transcaucasus. Most of the field pictures are mine.”

*

Next slide is a map of East Azarbayjan (below), from Mike’s book, showing topographical features.

*

23

(click on the map below to get a larger version)

*

*

Mike drew attention to how trade routes likely moved goods the 350 miles from Baku to Tabriz and beyond. Silk, rice, rugs, textiles, etc. headed south on camels before there were railroads. He traveled a lot of this trade route during his visits to Eastern Azarbayjan in 1996 and 1997.

He is careful to say that we don’t know for sure what these trade routes were but the topography strongly suggests that the must have at least in part been something like what I have outlined in red below.

*

23, marked in red

*

*

Mike: “I didn’t see villages on the escarpment (ed. that is the only really difficult part to traverse). Much of the area along this trade route I think existed is pretty barren.”

In his field notes, Mike talks about one instance in which it was important to be “on the ground.”  This is a long passage that I need to quote:

“The east-west valley between the Bozgush mountain range and the Sabalan rises about 35 km east of Sarab, and there is a series of ridges and canyons through which the eastbound road forms tortuous switchbacks before coming down to a much lower elevation at a town called Nir.

“There one sees the the headwaters of he Qarasu…This river, the major one in East Azarbayjan, runs 180 degrees in a semi-circle around the Sabalan massif (ed. see map) flowing east, then north, then west, before heading into the Moghan to empty into the Aras…The Qarasu valley forms a logical path for caravans to use to transport goods from the Caucasian settlements to Tabriz,” 

Below is a caravansary he encountered and photographed, on fairly high ground, at a high point along this likely caravan route. It might have been about a half way point for caravans.

*

24

*

*

“The Sabalan is about 50 km long, in its entirety.

“The traders couldn’t simply follow the river around Sabalan – too long a trip – so they went over the escarpment, up a switchback, down the other side, toward Tabriz and eastern Turkey. So it seems to me, having looked at the actual geography. The escarpment is at the west end of Sabalan, east of Ahar on the map. The topo features make it fairly clear, as to location.

“The caravanseri is there because caravans bearing goods went past it. Food and drink, places to sleep. Animal feed. You don’t build caravanseris in the middle of nowhere for no reason.

“Having gotten around in East Azabayjan, I know about the caravansary stopovers on trade route from Moghan to Tabriz.

“Maybe how Dragon Rugs got to eastern Turkey.”

Villagers live best in this area at about 1500 meters above sea level.

Interrelation between nomadism and villagers in Azarbayjan is  clear: I have always been fascinated by nomad technology.

Settled nomads probably wove the rug (below, left) in a village like this one (below, right). 

Said to have been woven by settled Geyiklu, north of Ardabil, based on local sources. 

Pile weaving done by settled people, limited nomad population in Azarbayjan, many more villagers.  Skill set, time needed to weave pile, capital outlay and marketing not available to nomads. 

Did nomads influence color sense or the other way around?

*

25

*

*

Color sense very good in Azarbayjan.

Larger versions of the images in 25.

*

25 left

*

*

25 right

*

*

Compare the colors betwen a Kazak  (right, below) and a Heriz (below, left) from about the same period, ca 1920.

26

Heriz has 9 natural colors;  the Kazak has mostly synthetic dyes. 

There are settled nomad weavers, yes, but most of these Azarbayjani rugs were woven by long-term villagers.

*

*

Larger versions of rugs in 26.

*

26 left

*

*

26 right

*

*

Nomads relied on flat-weaves; villagers, too.

27

First, let’s us consider jajims, vital to nomads, I’ve long had a soft spot for them:  

Tapper picture below, left, 1965, jajim loom.

(Below, right) is a Baku Museum felt-backed jajim.  Jajims are woven with warp-faced structures.  Warp-faced structures are more restrictive than pile.  So pile designs that resemble those on complex jajims likely came from them.

*

(click on the images below to get a larger version)

*

*

Even larger versions of images in 27.

27 left

*

*

27 right

*

*

With regard to nomads, at one time, on both sides of the border, jajims were quite important.

The origin of the word is unclear. 

Jajims served many purposes.  They are quite artsy. 

Most of mine are Iranian-sourced.

28

There are two types of Azarbayjani jajims.

On the left, below is a “plain” structure. One the right, below is one with a warp substitution structure. 

Both of these pieces have saturated colors.  The relatively high cost of such saturated color implies the value of these weavings to their owners.

*

*

Warp-substitution may denote hierarchy.  Mike explained later what he means here.  “Higher ranked people may have sat on warp-substitution jajims. Most of the ones I see are squarish, which implies they were used to sit on. Did lower ranked people just sit on felts?  I don’t know.”

Larger versions of the pieces in 28.

*

28 left

*

*

28 right

*

*

29

*

(Below left) Old jajim in the village of Mehreban, nomad jajim seen as a result of light through a reed screen. 

Reed screen (below, right) keeps bugs and chickens out, allows airflow. In Arasburan.

*

*

Larger versions of images in 29.

29 left

*

*

29 right

*

*

30

Gilim: ca. 11’X5’ nomad gilim (below, left).  Same format drying on a kume, (below, right) so gelims were used as shown in a kume. 

A kume is a common Azarbayjani nomad dwelling, ca. 10’X18’, covered with felt, held up by an alder (wood) frame, the alders cut seasonally and good for probably a season. Cheaper to construct than an ahlechik, the dome-shaped yurt that is better known.  We’ll see at least one image of an ahlechik in a moment.

*

*

Large images of those in 30.

30 left

*

*

30 right

*

*

31

*

Another common AZ gilim style (below, left).  Would have been used in a “kume” yurt like the one on the right, below, with w/smoked felts as covering.

*

*

Larger versions of the images in 31.

31 left

*

*

31 right

*

*

*

32

Sumak bedding bags being readied to load on camels (below, left), 1965, Richard Tapper.

Sumak was largely used for bedding bags. Such bedding bags were termed “farmesh” in Turki, not the more common Farsi, “mafrash.”  But the bedding bags are the same thing, no matter what they are called. 

On the right, in 32 below, are my travel companions leaning against farmesh, turned inside out.

*

*

Larger versions of the images in 32.

*

32 left

(click on the image below to get a larger version)

*

*

32 right

*

*

*

33

Sumak rugs, as being woven here, are not a period weaving for these nomads. Door covers are usually felt, see ahlechik, left

*

*

Larger versions of images in 33.

33 left

*

*

33 right

*

*

34

Pack and tentbands were complex to weave and vital. Tentbands are used to stabilize oak tent struts in the round ahlechiks.

*

*

Larger versions of items in 34.

34 left

*

Azarbayjani nomad double cloth bands look pretty much the same on both sides. Besides, I think they photograph better with the ivory background showing. I don’t say in the RTAM narrative that the band illustrated is a pack or tend band. I think it was likely a pack band and was slightly shortened at the buckle end due to wear and tear, and a “make do” repair preserved it . From my experience inside ahlechiks, tent bands are narrower and almost always smoked. Good bands like this one seem to have been preserved as capital. Otherwise, there would be almost none in almost perfect shape. I got this band in a trade with Hamid Sadighi, a Lur who lives in Berlin, for an extra copy I had of McMullan’s Islamic Carpets.

*

*

34 right

*

*

35

Village for-domestic-use pile weaving: typical old village rug format on the left, from around Sarab, On the right, how they were used. The right hand rugs in situ in a house in Sarab are comptemporary and not substantially different from the old one, illustrating design and format stability. 

*

*

Larger version of pieces in 35.

35 left: date, detail and a larger full shot after

*

*

This old Sarab has 13 colors and has the kind of field that makes its date,1256/1840, believable

*

*

35 right

*

*

37

*

*

Left above is a typical old rug from Qarajeh, west of Sarab and layout of newer local rugs in a Qarajeh house 37 right. Layout is typical. The old rug could also date to ca. 1840, but no way to pinpoint date. 

Major export style is said to be from here.

Larger versions of images in 37.

37 left

*

*

37 right

*

*

38

 

*

Export weaving: It’s still being done – woman at loom. Villagers were friendly. Women seemed to do most of the work.

Larger versions of images in 38.

*

38 left

*

*

38 right

*

*

39

*

*

39 left is an old 4’8”X6’2” export rug. Took over the Kazak market. Old border sampler on a weaver’s bench, with tools

*

39 left

*

*

39 right

*

*

Mike finished with hybrid export rugs, using unusual designs. 

He said that The left hand rug, below, is probably from near Sarab, uses Kurdish village weaving motifs and coloration in an export format, illustrating a blend of more or less local and export values. 

The rug on the right, probably from a workshop near Tabriz, appears to be a very large sampler, but is more likely a one-off weaving for an unknown purpose.

40

*

Larger versions of rugs in 40.

40 left

*

*

40 right

*

*

Mike took questions, 

*

*

and there was a vigorous ending discussion that even verged onto market tendencies and practices.

*

*

*

Paul Kreiss, the owner of the Rug Bookshop in Baltimore,

*

*

had brought a supply of Mike’s book and the session moved to a sales and signing and conversation.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

If you missed Mike’s session, you can still buy his book by contacting Paul Kreiss, directly:

The Rug Book Shop
2603 Talbot Road
Baltimore, Maryland 21216-1621
(410) 367-8194
E-Mail: enquiries@rugbookshop.com
Web Site: http://www.rugbookshop.com

*

I hope you have enjoyed this brief look at Mike’s magnum opus and his description of how he went about putting it together.

Regards,

R. John Howe

 

 

 

 

 

Wendel Swan, Michael Seidman and Austin Doyle Lead a “Grand Potpourri” RTAM on Caucasian and Anatolian Textiles

On July 20, 2019, Wendel Swan

*

*

Michael Seidman

*

*

and Austin Doyle

*

*

led a ” grand potpourri” RTAM at the Textile Museum, here in Washington, DC, focused on Caucasian and Anatolian textiles.

They began with a short, Powerpoint-illustrated lecture, Wendel first.

(Click, sometimes more than once, on most images below to get a larger version)

*

*

Although  Turkey and the greater Caucasus Mountains are in fairly close geographic proximity and branches of Turkic are spoken widely in both and both produce rugs and textiles with bold geometric designs with vivid colors, there are significant differences in the products of all of Turkey, the Northern Caucasus and Greater Azerbaijan, which includes the Transcaucasus. 

(Please do click on the image below more than once)

*

*

Azeri is spoken in greater Azerbaijan, indicating a cultural connection between the Transcaucasus and Persia that resulted in much greater variety in their textiles, and closer to Persian traditions, than is found in the Northern Caucasus and all of Turkey.

*

*

A commonly held belief in much of the rug community has been that textile designs spread from the East to the West along with the Turkic language.

In fact, many geometric designs and motifs from the West and the Mediterranean were used in the Near East long before the Turks arrived.  The octagon and eight pointed star eventually became identified with Turkic weaving, with the early 19th Century Cannakale rug from Western Turkey on the left below being one example.

Note, however, that the with the medallion with eight squares around its center is almost exactly what was used in this Roman mosaic (from Jerusalem) at the upper right and that octagons and eight pointed stars were coincident in Roman mosaics (lower right).

*

*

The 2-1-2 or 2-1-2-1-2 infinite repeat pattern was in Egypt and in Western Anatolia long before the Turks.  In the first slide below the Bergama from Northwest Turkey and the Kagizman from Eastern Turkey share this pattern.  In the second slide below, the Karachopf Kazak on the right is the same format, but the colors and the border system are distinctively Caucasian.

*

*

*

*

The ubiquitous Memling gul design is similar, whether in Western Anatolia (above) or in Zakatala (below) in the Caucasus.

*

*

*

The  so-called prayer rugs of Turkey are most commonly variants of architectural design, which can clearly be seen in the rug on the left. 

The minbar (stairs) and columns are representations of what would actually be seen in a mosque.  Because of all the religious symbols in it, we could quite rightly refer to it as a prayer rug, although the niche eventually became just another commercial rug design in both Turkey and the Caucasus.

The niche in the rug on the right below is a geometric version of a full niche, even though simplified.

*

*

Rather than using a full niche, those of the Caucasus frequently employ a simpler form of the mihrab or niche shape, as you see on the left above. This was actually easier for the weaver to fit into the allotted length of the rug and keep the proportions correct.

The field of the rug on the left, from the Eastern Caucasus, resembles a Persian textile pattern.  It also uses some cotton, which is almost never found in Anatolia or the Northern Caucasus.

The rug on the right has a variation of the full niche, but the re-entrant notch at the bottom distinguishes it from the appearance of a niche within a wall.

*

*

The classic dragon rugs (above) are often called Caucasian, but with their cotton warps and sturdy construction, they are almost certainly Azerbaijani, most likely from around Tabriz.

*

*

Turkish horse covers are rare.  The Ottoman example on the left is very formal with silk and metal thread, while horse covers such as the Bordjalou on the right are common in the Caucasus and Azerbaijan.

*

*

Turkish rugs and textiles almost never depict animals or humans, but they are common in Azeri weavings.

*

*

The Turkish heybe (left, above) is worn over the shoulders with the head going through the slit in the bridge and there is no closure system for the pouches.  The Karabagh khorjin on the right (like other khorjin from Azerbaijan) has a closed bridge and

*

*

Cords that are sewn on to close the pouches.

*

*

We do not often see salt bags from Turkey, as we do in the Caucasus, this one being brocaded.

*

*

Brocading is commonly used for Karabagh and Azerbaijani mafrash, but we don’t see mafrash bedding bags from Turkey.

(Click on the image below for a larger version.)

*

*

Nor is sumak wrapping found in Turkey, except for what are called weftless sumak (on the left here) made by the Kurds in Eastern Turkey.  The sumak rug on the right was produced in a workshop in the Caucasus.

*

*

I will conclude by showing a large pile rug from Central Anatolia that was woven almost certainly no later than the 18th Century.  It’s a masterpiece of color.

Michael Seidman continued, emphasizing Anatolian material.

*

*

He started by providing this detail map of Turkey.

(Click to get a larger version)

*

*

Here are Michael’s Powerpoint images:

First was this niche piece.  He called attention to its border, which we’ll see again in a later item.  The border items look like houses.

Slide 22

*

*

The piece above was described as a “Sivrihisar Niche kilim.”  Woven in west central Anatolia, Eskisehir province. 120 X 90 cm.  Mid-19th century.

(Click on image below for a larger versiion.)

Slide 23

*

*

Michael’s comment on Slide 23:  This image is from Harold Bohmer’s book on Anatolian nomads. Described as from Karaman. 

It is is NOT a saf and is from the 19th century. White ground.

*

Slide 24

*

*

Michael’s comment: Slides 24 and 25 are from Aksaray, a town in Central Anatolia. These were in the Aksaray museum which we visited this past May.

I called attention to the border design, and the colors of the border (yellow ground etc.)  24 is probably older than 25.

Slide 25

*

*

Slide 26

*

*

Michael’s comment on Slide 26: This is from Orient Stars.  Late 18th early 19th. 

Note an Ottoman floral motif, very stylized.

Slide 27

*

*

Michael’s comments on Slide 27:  This is 19th century from the Aksaray Museum. 

Note the lamp motif in center of field and the architectural design of the arch and flanking elements.  

Mid 19th century.

Slide 28

*

*

Michael’s comment on Slide 28:  This is 17th century West Anatolia from Orient Stars.

Note the stylized crescent at top and the re-entrant motif at bottom.

Slide 29

*

*

Michael’s comment on Slide 29:  This is an example of a very common central Anatolian medallion pattern.  

Wendel showed a Roman mosaic precedent for the same motif, repeated immediately below.

*

*

Slide 30

*

*

Michael’s comment on Slide 30:  This is a divan cover from Sivas. 

This is the complete weaving, it is not missing a border. Divan covers were woven with borders on three sides.

18th century

Slide 31

*

*

Comment on Slide 31:  This is a 17/18th cent Transylvanian carpet showing stylizes serrated leaf/palmette motif in border, same as in the field of the Sivas divan (Slide 30).  

NOT a rams horn, although commonly described as such. 

Slide 32

*

*

Comment on Slide 32:  This is from Orient Stars.  A long rug from Karapinar.  18th century.

Probably workshop, in light of the careful execution and strong similarity to others of this type- a known pattern. 

Michael and Wendel now moved between these Powerpoint images and pieces that had been brought in (some of which were theirs).

CA3

*

*

Wendel first showed his fragment of a coarsely woven rug with long pile from Central Anatolia (the Konya/Karapinar area).  It has a color palette and structure typical of that region, but quite different from anything from the Caucasus, even though, to some, the geometric style may, initially, seem comparable to some Caucasian rugs.

In particular, the aubergine and yellow have an intensity and pairing not often seen in the Caucasus, while they are common in Central Anatolia. There is also a pink color (perhaps from a second bath of madder) that is seen in older Turkish rugs and in some very old Caucasian rugs. The border system is rather simple, but the dyeing and color juxtaposition are quite sophisticated.

The fragment is probably from the very early part of the 19th or late 18th Century and the rug would have contained four of the octagonal medallions, making it approximately 15 or 16 feet long.

Details of CA3.

*

*

*

*

*

CA4

*

Below is another Sivrihisar niche kilim,” with features like those in Slide 22 (see below).  Woven in west central Anatolia, Eskisehir province.

*

*

Slide 22

*

Comment on CA4:  This piece had similarities with those shown in Slide 22 immediately above, here. Houses-like border motif was mentioned.

Michael said that all of the pieces he had brought were 18th century and that 18th century pieces have a much different color sense and palette, characteristically, softer than later pieces.

Details of CA4.

*

*

*

*

CA5

*

(Click image below for larger version)

*

*

CA5 is similar to the piece shown in Slide 23 repeated Immediately below, here.

Karaman.  Note the niche devices on the right side of both of these kilims.

CA6 (Slide 23)

*

*

Details of CA5.

*

*

*

CA7

*

*

Comments on CA7:  Michael had another kilim with a multiple-niche design that was also not a saf.

Details of CA7.

*

*

*

CA8

*

*

Comments on CA8:  This was Michael’s Central Anatolian, Aksaray, niched-field, pile carpet. Most likely early 19th century. He said that it has typical colors also seen in the rug in Slide 24, repeated immediately here below.

*

*

Details of CA8:

*

*

Wendel noted that the lack of outlining with brown of the floral figures in the upper corners (see immediately below) is something that is found in Central Anatolia pile rugs although it has been a universal practice for more than two thousand years to prevent the perception (not actual) color bleeding by the eye.

It is called “kilim” style since elements in a kilim are not usually outlined.

*
*

*

*

CA9

*

*

CA9 is ca 1800.  It has a much better arch than the piece in the Aksaray museum.

The motif in the center of the carpet is a stylized reduction of the lamp shown more clearly in the version in the Aksaray musuem.  The weaver had two different border elements: sides different from the top.

It is a much better example than the one in the Aksaray museum.

Details of CA9.

*

*

*

*

*

CA10

*

*

Michael’s comment on CA10: Late 17th early 18th, Central Anatolia, possibly Cappadocia. re entrant element at bottom, double arch.

Woven as shown from bottom to top.

Details of CA10.

*

*

*

*

*

*

CA11

*

*

Michael’s comment on CA11:  Aksaray, 18th cent, excellent wool and color. poor, indecisive weaving.  We look for color, wool and weaving quality. CA11 has excellent wool and color but poor weaving.

The medallion in this rug strongly relates to the Roman mosaic motif shown by Wendel and repeated here below.

*

*

Details of CA11

*

*

*

*

*

CA12

*

*

Michael said that CA12 is an Aksaray, 18th century, divan cover comparable to an Istanbul example in Slide 30, repeated immediately below.  He said that the designs are the same, and that the elements described as “rams’ horns” are actually depictions of palmettes with serrated leaves.  An example of this is shown in Slide 31.

*

*

Details of CA12.

*

*

*

*

*

CA13

*

*

Michael’s comment on CA13: 18th century, Karapinar, long rug, similar to the example in Orient Stars shown in Slide 32, repeated immediately below here.

Slide 32

*

*

Comment on Slide 32:  This is from Orient Stars.  A long rug from Karapinar. 

Probably workshop, in light of the careful execution and strong similarity to others of this type- a known pattern. 

18th century.

Details of CA13.

*

*

*

*

Next, Austin Doyle

*

*

treated some Caucasian rugs he had brought.

CA14

*

*

Austin said that CA14 is a Karachov/Kazak carpet with niches at both ends and three stars in its field.  It has a “long rug” size.  Austin noted that it has corrosion in brown areas.

Details of CA14.

*

*

*

*

*

CA15

*

*

Austin said the CA15 is a Zakatla rug (identified with S-spun and Z-plied wool, a mode not used in any other Caucasian varieties).  He said that it has a typical Moghan design, featuring large Memling guls.  It’s dyes are very saturated but its colors are rather cool.

Details of CA15.

*

*

*

*

*

CA16

*

*

Austin said that CA16 is likely a Fachralo rug with a niche at the top of a floating field element which also has a “re-entrant” treatment at its bottom.  It has a scarab main border design.  It is finely woven, with two cotton shoots of weft between each row of knots.  It may have been woven elsewhere than in the Kazak area.

*

Details of CA16.

*

*

*

*

*

CA17

*

*

CA17 is a Talish long rug with a “star and lattice” field and a typical Talish border with rosettes alternating with four star-like elements in brown.  It has a long, narrow shape and exhibits pale blue wefts extending from the selveges into the knotted area of the rug (this latter feature is said by some to be the “sine qua non” of a Talish attribution).  There are some beige knotted areas that may be camel hair.

Details of CA17.

*

*

*

*

*

*

A lot of material had brought in and Wendel, Michael and Austin moved next to treat it.

CA18

*

*

CA18 is a mafrash side panel, described as probably Karabagh.  Mid-19th century with good color.  Mostly slit tapestry.

Details of CA18.

*

*

*

CA19

*

*

CA18 is a complete cargo-type mafrash.  This slit tapestry weave from the Shirvan area has the same design around all the sides with a simple striped, plain weave bottom.

CA20

*

*

CA 20 is a Shirvan rug with a latticed white-ground field and niche feature.  It is dated.

It has an “old back,” low pile and white cotton selvege.

Its inner border has a swastika design and the outer border is a Kufic variety.

Details of CA20

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

CA21

*

*

CA21 was described as an Ordutch Khonaghend rug (north of the Baku-Shirvan area in the eastern Caucasus).

It features eight white-ground octagons separated by red-ground, yellow-bordered, “tongues” that move in from the sides but do not quite form compartments.  This was described as a “geometric ‘keyhole’ meander.”  There are four birds in each octagon, sometimes upright in this view and sometimes opposed.

The main white-ground border is sometimes called a “wine glass and calyx leaf” type, despite it being part of an entirely geometric design.

Details of CA21.

*

*

*

*

CA22

Wendel brought in a rare pile khorjin face below that he acquired long before the breakup of the Soviet Union (when many smaller utilitarian textiles came into the market).  Both the field and the border are often seen in Shahsavan flat weaves, but the weave, including the cotton selvedges, is classically Shirvan.

*

This bag face raises the questions as to how we can tell whether any particular textile has an urban or a nomadic.  This little bag face suggests that perhaps we cannot always do so.

Details of CA22.

*

*

*

Early on, in the examination of pieces brought in, were the following two rugs.

*

CA1

(note numbers are not always sequential)

*

*

Comment on CA1: 

Kris Atchley brought in a Turkish Mudjur prayer rug from the second half of the 19th Century, with a typical wide range of wonderful colors and a plain red mihrab. He said that, unfortunately, he did not realize when he bought it that the outer border had been completely removed, reducing its value considerably. With so much missing it could be considered a fragment, but the colors are still glorious.

Wendel pointed out that this rug, as with most Turkish prayer rugs, was woven “upside down”, that is, it was begun at what we see as the top in this image.  The reason for doing so it that it is most important to have the top of the niche appropriately placed and at the right angle within the field.  If the weaver would begin at the base of the niche, it might be that she would run out of space as the rug was nearing completion and have to flatten the arch in an artistically unsatisfactory manner. 

Details of CA1.

*

*

*

*

The next two rugs were brought by Kris Atchley.

CA38

*

*

CA38 is a Melas from Southwestern Turkey, from the second half of the 19th Century. 

This one, as is true of virtually all Melas rugs, has all natural dyes. 

While many are made in prayer rug format, this one is comprised almost entirely of meander border patterns.  The two large borders are the same pattern, just done in different colors. 

The small, narrow field contains carnations that are usually seen in borders, but the field itself is not a border pattern.

Details of CA38.

*

*

*

*

*

CA39

*

*

CA39 is a prayer rug from Northwest Turkey, probably from near Bergama.

At the top of the mihrab is what is known at a lam alif motif, which uses the word Allah symmetrically.  This, then, is a form of calligraphy, not architecture. 

What seems to be a meander or leaf border is actually half of a medallion that circumscribes the field.

Although the colors of Bergama and Melas rug are similar, the designs in each are distinctive and not very similar to anything woven in the Caucasus.

Details of CA39.

*

*

*

*

*

CA2

*

*

Comment on CA2:  Wendel Swan brought in this Kirshehir (Central Anatolia, near Mudjur) prayer rug which he acquired “decades ago” but would not do so today. Like the Mudjurs, they have a distinctive appearance that is quite unlike anything from the Caucasus. 

This one was probably made around 1875 and has both cochineal and madder reds in combination with other colors typical of Central Anatolia. Multiple borders had come into fashion at that time, resulting in a comparatively small mihrab.

Details of CA2.

*

(my camera)

*

*

*

*

(Numbers are sometimes not sequential)

CA23

*

*

CA23 is an eastern Caucasus Kuba with a Khirdagyd field pattern and a Kufic border.  It shows the date of A.H. 1312, approximately 1875 or 1895,

Details of CA23.

*

*

*

*

*

CA24

*

*

CA24 was described as a very individual Kuba with blue selveges and a design in rows, including European roses, insects and scaly birds.

An uncommon use of yellow was noted.

There is only a single border, a common “barber pole” variation.  The wool is very soft.

Details of CA24.

*

*

*

*

CA25

*

*

CA25 is a late 19th century “dragon” carpet, including the X motif.  Strong graphics.  The colors include a lovely dark green.  The wefts were unusually darker.

Details of CA25.

*

*

Lack of border makes one wonder about its being a fragment but side selveges seem original.

*

*

*

CA26

*

*

Bruce Baganz brought in a pair of Shahsevan sumak pieces from mafrashes (but not likely from the same mafrash). 

They are different in color and structure from other Shahseavan sumak weavings and were  identified as “Baghdadi” Shahsevan. 

They have both been purchased previously, at the same auction in Paris, and had been owned, one by Robert Pinner, and the other by Siawosch Azadi.

Wendel observed that they were quite thick and heavy, very Bijar-like.

Details of the two CA26 pieces.

*

*

The detail below is the left side of the longer of the two panels.

*

*

Below is the right side of the longer panel.

*

*

Below is an image of the entire shorter panel

*

*

CA27

*

*

CA27 was a Transcaucasian/Eastern Caucasus carpet, likely late 19th century.

It has an ivory ground and unusual major border.

It was estimated to the late 19th century, despite having some seeming synthetic dyes.

*

*

Notice seeming fading and possible transfer of red in the detail above.

Details of CA27.

*

*

*

*

*

*

We had a lot of material to show and Wendel tried to to accerate by putting up four Anatolian yastiks at once.

*CA28-31

*

*

But we do not have this stricture here and so can go more leisurely.  Here’ they are, one at a time.

*

CA28

*

*

CA28 is mine and I bought it blind at an estate sale in N.J.  I knew it was a yastik and it seemed familiar but when I researched it and found that it is very like the cover piece on Brian Morehouse’s catalog on yastiks.  But closer examination shows that there are instances of conventionalization (the lappets on the Morehouse cover piece have four blossoms but those on mine have only two) that suggest that my piece is younger.  This is a frequent design from Karapinar.  The “insect” border is noticeable.

*

*

CA29

*

*

CA29 is also mine. It has good color and precise drawing. Low pile. The field design is kilim derived.  It seems Central Anatolian but there are no precise Morehouse comparators (Number 85 seems closest, including its border, although the Morehouse piece lacks lappets).

*

CA31

*

*

CA30 is Wendel’s.  It is pile faced, almost certainly in the first half of the 19th Century, but possibly earlier.  Oushak in in the eastern area of what cold be called Western Anatolia. It is all wool and measures 36″ x 22″.  It has deeply saturated colors, including a madder orange.  Only about three Oushak yastiks are known to exist.

The use of large medallions is typical of the room-size carpets of Oushak.  The white dots are characteristic.  It has end borders at both ends beyond its lappets.  The yastik is actually rather coarsely woven, but it does not appear to be so, thanks to the skills of the weaver.

CA31

*

*

CA31 was brought by Aija Blitte.  Its designs are close to Number 93 in Morehouse.  He attributes it to Kirsehir in his central Anatolian grouping.  The palette of this piece is different from Number 93.  Aija said that she bought it because she likes this pattern in yastiks.

*

CA32

*

*

CA32 is a yastik-sized pile piece with with a nice yellow ground, also owned by Aija Blitte.  She says that she has never seen it as a yastik and there is reason to think that it may just be a small Anatolian mat. 

It has small, deeply lobed, medallions arrayed on the field diagonally by color.  Morehouse says that such a field design is unusual in yastiks and difficult to attribute.  The pieces in his catalog with field designs closest to CA32 are Number 20, in his western grouping, and Number 57 in his central group.  In neither of these pieces are the medallions arrayed diagonally. 

Aija asks why I don’t talk about its lack of lappets, but the truth is that lappets are not a defining characteristic of yastiks.  There are a great number of yastiks that don’t have them (neither of the two closest yastiks in Morehouse do).  If a yastik-sized piece has lappets, it is likely a yastik (but lappets also appear on larger rugs).

*

CA33

*

*

CA33 was another of mine. I bought this fragment of a large rug from Patrick Pouler who attributed it to eastern Anatolia.

Details of CA33.

*

*

*

CA34

*

*

CA34 is another fragment of mine.  I bought it locally here in DC and had it mounted on a blue backing.  It is, of course, from a “star” Ushak long rug.  It has good color and drawing and its age has been estimated consistently, with it in hand by experienced folks, to be 1600.

Details of CA34

*

*

*

CA35

*

*

CA35 is a large fragment of a rug.  No borders but a field of eight momunmental-size “Memling” guls.  Full pile in a number of places.  It was sold to me as a Zakatalan rug, an attribution that has crept into those used for Caucasian pile pieces.  I’ve not been able to identify any Zakatala indicators in it and have wondered “Why not Kazak…or even Konya?”

Zakatalan attributions are now widely accepted, but still seem shaky to me.  One indicator cited is that wools are S-spun and Z-plied, something that is pretty rare, for example, seen in Egyptian linens.

*

*

Wendel looked closely and reported that the wools in this piece are not S-spun and Z-plied. So we might call it “Kazak,” or even “Konya,” and wait for contradiction.

Detail of CA35.

*

*

CA36

*

*

CA36 is another of mine.  This design is a famous type.  Schurmann shows a brilliantly colored one he attributes to Bordjalou-Kazak on pages 74-75 in his well-known “Caucasian Rugs,” 1974.  My rug is dated “1319” about “1901.”  It’s condition is suspiciously good, and drew Wendel’s attention.

He is correct.  Although I have not altered the date, I sent this piece to Turkey and had it extensively repiled. (I’m not interested in selling it as an older piece; I just wanted to look at it in a condition closer to the way it looked when it came off the loom).

*

CA37

*

*

CA37 is a type Genje rug that I found in the Virginia countryside and had some repairs made to it, although not nearly those made to CA36.

Bennett shows a similar piece as 155 in his Caucasian book.  He says this latticed field design with stars is one of the most ancient Central Asian carpet designs but had also been depicted in Europiean paintings of the 15th century.

I like the yellow ground (and its colors, generally), the lattice and the stars, as well as the unmatched minor borders and the white ground major border.

Details of CA37.

*

*

*

Wendel, Michael and Austin took questions and brought what was a “grand” Caucasian-Anatolian potpourri session to a close.

Thanks to Nancy Landson who took and typed a good set of notes on this fulsome program.

‘Til next time.

Regards,

R. John Howe

Celebration of the Documenting and Archiving of Many of The Rug and Textile Appreciation Morning Programs, Part 1

Dear folks –

On July 13,2019, the Textile Museum held a Rug and Textile Appreciation Morning program that was a real “potpourri” type RTAM but one that also celebrated the documenting of many of these programs on my Textiles and Text and Eccentric weft sites, and the, just completed archiving of them, as TM Library resources. 

This latter included putting up an edited, electronic version of these posts and the creating of a set of paper-based pdf volumes of them. 

*

Photo: Harrison Jones / The George Washington University

*

This archiving has entailed a considerable expenditure of Textile Museum resources.

So this post has two parts.  Part 1, which is this one, is given over to the celebration.  It is awkward for me to fashion this virtual version of it since it includes a lot of nice words said about my documenting work.

John Wetenhall, The Textile Museum Director,

*

Photo: Harrison Jones / The George Washington University

*

gave these welcoming remarks:

• Good morning, I’m John Wetenhall, … I want to welcome you to this special Rug and Textile Appreciation Morning honoring the diligent work of museum member and Rug Morning fixture John Howe.
• John Howe has been carefully photographing and chronicling these sessions since 2007 on his blog Textiles and Text.
• For over a decade, John has covered the majority of these unique lectures and worked with the guest speakers to produce a lasting record of these programs.
• Today, we honor his passion for this program and for capturing so many rare collections and scholars who have enriched our understanding of textiles.
• And now I would like to turn the podium over to Melissa Keshishian, whose late Husband Harold was one of the founders of the program back in the early 1970s. Melissa…

Melissa continued:

*

Photo: Harrison Jones / The George Washington University

*

• As many of you know, since his passing in 2010, these Rug and Textile Appreciation mornings have been held in memory of my late husband Harold Keshishian, who helped begin these Saturday rug events at the old location on S Street.
• Harold was President of Mark Keshishian & Sons Oriental Rugs, founded by his father and uncle in 1907. He served Presidents George Bush and Bill Clinton on the United States Cultural Properties Advisory Committee.
• In 1988, he received the Joseph V. McMullan Award for Stewardship and Scholarship in Islamic Rugs and Textiles, and in 2008 he was an inaugural recipient of The Textile Museum Award of Distinction, which recognizes outstanding service in fulfillment of the Museum’s mission.
• Harold had a lifelong love of The Textile Museum and contributed to this institution in so many ways: as Trustee Emeritus, donor, program presenter, and friend.
• A collector of antiquities, such as Oriental rugs and Pre-Columbian art, Harold helped found this very series in the 1970s. This program continues to provide visitors an informal forum for the exchange of ideas, and has been a beloved foundation of our educational programs for the past four decades.
• Of course there were others that helped form the nucleus of what we now know as Rug and Textile Appreciation mornings as well.

*

Photo: Harrison Jones / The George Washington University

*

• Today we have singled out John Howe, who has worked tirelessly to keep us engaged in and fascinated with textiles, with his help in enlisting speakers and collectors for the program, but most importantly, through his chronicling the series for more than ten years through his blog, Textiles and Text.
• As these pieces of our museum’s history become part of our permanent library holdings, they will remain a valuable resource for those next generations who appreciate and understand the value of the world’s textiles as art and as expressions of culture.

Thank you John!

Tracy Meserve, the Textile Museum Librarian, who shepherded the archiving work spoke next.

*

Photo: Harrison Jones / The George Washington University

*

Tracy said after: “

I talked about how some of the blog entries from 2007-2009 were no longer readable on the blog. In order to save these entries from being lost to future generations, a work study student, Grace Krikie, was hired to archive all of the existing blog entries. All of this work resulted in both a digital pdf version of the blog that will have a permanent location on the museum website, and a physical copy that will be on display in the museum library that is over 1000 pages long!”

She was followed by Grace Krikie, who did the “heavy lifting” required to produce the pdf paper volumes.

*

Photo: Harrison Jones / The George Washington University

*

Grace talked about her process of retrieving the “lost” blog entries from a website called the Way Back Machine and then re-formatting these entries so they were in a readable form. She mentioned that the blog before re-formatting was thousands of pages long, so its current form of around 1000 pages is the condensed version.  She also talked about how working on this project increased her appreciation for rugs and textiles.

John: Both Textiles and Text and Eccentric Wefts have some search capabilities, but they are modest.  You can search for any word in the title of a given RTAM.  For example, you can search “Jerry Thompson” usefully.  If the type of textile treated is in the title you can find such posts.  Search for “Anatolian,” or “Central Asian” or “Turkman,” and the like.  You can also look through the posts under a given month and date, but that will be more arduous, since, often, more than one RTAM will be under a given month and date.

I had asked to say a few things and this was my turn.  I apologize, if I go on a bit, but there are some things I felt I had to say.

*

Photo: Harrison Jones / The George Washington University

*

First, I want to thank all the speakers at Textile Museum Rug and Textile Appreciation Mornings, both for giving these programs, and for working with me, sometimes at considerable length, to fashion the virtual versions that have been published on Textiles and Text and that are now being archived by the Museum.

Next, I want to thank John Wetenhall, and Tom Goehner, and many other members of the Textile Museum staff, who have contributed to this archiving effort and have pressed it to completion.  Special thanks to the current TM Librarian, Tracy Meserve, and to Grace Kirkie, whom Tom reports, did the “heavy lifting” in the preparation of the pdf. booklets.  Lynora Williams, the former TM Librarian, worked hard in our early efforts to investigate archiving possibilities. 

I want, particularly, to thank Jim and Connie Henderson, who, speaking for many in the rug and textile community, pressed strongly for this archiving, and created the closest thing we have, so far, to a table of contents. 

I need also to thank by name, Peggy Jones, who has taken innumerable sets of RTAM notes for me and who wrote me, this week, saying that serious health problems prevent her from being here today.  Amy Rispin also took a lot of notes and worked with me, after, on some posts, most recently, on the two on the Opie session.

Third, I want to thank all the readers of Textiles and Text who constantly write me thanking me for these posts.  I am always a little surprised that they find them as useful as they say they do: I’m mostly just reporting and, although I try to get things right, I make no claims to authority.  The odd thing is that I like doing them so much that I would do them even if no one ever said “thank you.”

But what I mostly want to talk about is how great a role chance played in my coming to do this documenting at all.

Wendel and I knew Tom Stacy, whose wife, I think, created Turkotek.com,

*

 TURKOTEK  

*

an internet rug and textile discussion site.  And we were both members of a kind of founding Turkotek board, headed by Steve Price, when Tom passed the torch.

Wendel and I were early and frequent contributors to Turkotek.com, which goes on vigorously.

My first internet posts of TM Rug and Textile Appreciation Morning programs were made on Turkotek.com, where you can still find them.   

The first accidental aspect of my documenting RTAMs is that I began to do them without really thinking of what they might be.  

As an instructional designer, I was far more interested in designing Turkotek salons that focused on interesting textile questions and issues, and that structured and fostered useful conversation about them.  My first salon on Turkotek explored what sorts of irregularity in rugs and textiles were seen to enhance their aesthetic quality, and what sorts were simply weaving mistakes. 

*

The “Oops” Thesis

*

And I once built and conducted a Turkotek salon that attempted to determine whether the aesthetic theory portrayed in Christopher Alexander’s difficult book on his early Turkish carpets, “A Foreshadowing of 21^st Century Art,” could be given empirical test.

“Beauty” Determined: A Look at
Christopher Alexander’s Rug Aesthetics
by
Dr. Nikos A. Salingaros and R. John Howe

There was homework and a worksheet:

	Rule Statement	0	1	2	3
1.	Does the carpet use a one-knot detail? If not, then it might work on some larger scale, but the smallest scale is being wasted.
2.	Are the individual colors interesting in themselves, and are they juxtaposed so as to enhance each other?
3.	Are the smallest elements defined sharply by using contrast in both color hue and gray scale value?
4.	Are the smallest elements simple and symmetric in shape? (triangles, squares, and diamonds – no blobs)
5.	Is every element coupled to a contrasting element of the same size that has complimentary qualities?
6.	Do intermediate and larger elements show the maximum number of internal sub symmetries?
7.	Is every internally complex element balanced by a plainer surrounding shape that has a coherent shape?
8.	Is a random spacing of similar elements balanced by a regular, highly structured region of about the same size?
9.	Do elements and interposed spaces of all sizes link to each other through similarity, symmetry and scaling?
10.	Do different elements have sizes that define a discrete hierarchy with ratios approximately 2.7 between consecutive levels?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*

Courtesy Turkotek.com

One of the earliest RTAMs I can find on Turkotek is a “potpourri” program that Wendel gave August 19, 2000 (as you can see, below, he was young and handsome, then, and not just dignified and distinguished). 

*

*

Courtesy Turkotek.com

*

But there are other reports of RTAMs in Turkotek.com’s archives.  There is one on Turkmen Rugs by Dennis Dodds on November 3, 2001.

*

Courtesy Turkotek.com

*

http://www.turkotek.com/salon_00083/salon.html

I don’t have a date but Fred Zimmerman and Michael Seidman gave an RTAM on “Other Ottomans,” a reference to another exhibition being held locally.  This RTAM drew on Textile Museum collection material (something we used to be able to do in some RTAMs).  It echoed an exhibition being given, then, at the Corcoran, across town.

*

*

There was a subsequent RTAM given by Fred Zimmerman and Michael Seidman on December 7, 2001 on material from their own collections (as you have just seen, they had previously given annual RTAMs on material from the Textile Museum Collection).  

*

Courtesy Turkotek.com

*

There is a “New Collectors” RTAM by Saul Barodofsky on June 15, 2002. 

*

Courtesy Turkotek.com

*

Also in 2005, Joe Fell came from Chicago to share things from his “trunk.”  Here he’s talking with Harold Keshishian.

*

Courtesy Turkotek.com

*

In 2005, I put up on Turkotek an RTAM that Harold gave on safs.

*

Courtesy Turkotek.com

*

I don’t have a date, but once put up an RTAM on color given by Tom Xenakis, a serious painter, who also collects textiles.

*

Courtesy Turkotek.com

*

 I put up on Turkotek an RTAM that Harold Keshishian gave on Islamic Textiles, on April 15, 2006.  

*

Courtesy Turkotek.com

*

In June, 2006 I put up an RTAM that David Zahirpour gave on Southwest Persian weavings.

*

Courtesy Turkotek.com

*

I gave an RTAM myself on Red in Rugs and Other Textiles, in March, 2007, that I also put up as a virtual version on Turkotek.

*

Courtesy Turkotek.com

*

And there is an RTAM given by Jerry Thompson, on September 8, 2007, a potpourri session on “Carpets from the Middle East.”

*

Courtesy Turkotek.com

*

The last RTAM I put up on Turkotek was also in September, 2007 a program given by John Wertime on sumak bags.

*

Courtesy Turkotek.com

*

There is even a TM-related but non-RTAM post on a Turkotek program.  Sara Wolf, who then held the Margaret Wing Dodge Chair in Conservation, here at the Textile Museum, gave on the perennial question of “Why Don’t Museums Provide Better Lighting?” 

*

A 2016 photo from the internet.

*

I don’t have a precise date, but it’s early 2000, and Sara was brave to come and take what was certain to be a lot of abuse.

And there is another TM-related, non-RTAM post from the Textile Museum Rug Convention (October 12-14, 2001).  Jim Blackmon gave a program on “Those Other Central Asian Tribal Rugs: Uzbek, Karakalpak, Kyrgyz and Arab.”

*

Courtesy Turkotek.com

*

An early internet treatment, I think, of these non-Turkman Central Asian rugs and textiles.

So, I had a lot practice building RTAM posts, and things like them, during the years I was active on Turkotek.com.

*

Photo: Harrison Jones / The George Washington University

*

But then chance intervened.   I was an instructional designer for 40 years, and one of my instructional design colleagues, David Ferguson,

*

*

who is computer-smart, said to me that I could have my own textile web site without much effort and, in 15 minutes, showed me how to use WordPress.com to do it.  This was perhaps the greatest accidental step.

WordPress.com is easy, and intuitive, and its technical, support staff describe themselves as “happiness engineers” for a reason.  And so, I began to make my own posts on Textiles and Text. 

Although discussion, with instant around-the-world comparisons, using images, can be wonderful, I saw, in Turkotek, that the monitoring task, if one allowed responses, was formidable.  A single person with a computer could destroy useful conversation, and the effort to prevent that, in some way, was not how I wanted to spend my time. 

So, I opted for a one-way conversation.  I gave an email address to which readers could write, if they thought they had something important to consider, but I retained, for myself, whether and how, I would use such responses.

My first post on Textiles and Text was of an RTAM that Dennis Dodds gave on December 13, 2007 on Anatolian yastiks.  

*

*

I always have more than 20 posts in various stages of development, (I took a look and there are, currently 46) and some will, likely, never be published. 

But I don’t give up easily.  I have published a post, usefully, I think, six years after the session itself. 

I have published 135 posts to date (more, if you count the posts on my Eccentric Wefts site). 

I have over 500 subscribers and send post announcements to an international email list of over 400 addresses.  Some these addresses are for clubs who can pass on my posts to their members.  So there is, sometimes, a cascade effect.

And it has been, and is, a joy. 

*

*

I decided, early, that there would be no deadlines.  I’m retired, and most speakers have jobs and lives.  I try to make everything as easy as I can for speakers, and thank them, lavishly, and appropriately, for helping me fashion Textile and Text posts.  And they have been generous.

And so, now, there is this unexpected recognition.  It has happened before.  The late Russell Pickering was a great admirer of my two textile-related sites and engineered for me, shortly before his death, a McMullan Award.

As I said to him, as he presented it to me, “I’m really appreciative, but I think you’ve made a mistake.”  I feel that same way, here, today.

Thank you.

Two last things. 

First, the Rug and Textile Appreciation Morning programs have been going on for many years.  And this series is frequently described as a “core” TM program.  When Virginia Delfico

*

Virginia Delfico and Harold Keshishian

Photo Courtesy of Barry O’Connell

*

was, what was then called the Education Director, she said that she was told, coming into that job, that the “rug mornings” were sacred, and the presumption was that there would be one on most Saturdays. 

Some of us, who know what the work of producing RTAMs is like, are in awe of Virginia’s performance.  For 11 years, she would often have five RTAMs in a month with five Saturdays, and it was rare for her to have only three in a given month. 

But the local cadre of RTAMs speakers has thinned out and it’s now difficult to put on two a month, steadily. 

Part of that problem is that we have no predictable budget to draw on to pay for speaker travel expenses.  We are usually able to put up visiting speakers in interesting, even sumptuous textile collector homes, but it is a predictable travel expense fund that we lack. 

So, without wanting to seem ungrateful for the investment that has been made to archive my Textile and Text posts, I want to plead that we conspire anew to arrange a modest travel budget ($6K-$8K) annually to make it more likely that quality RTAMs will continue to be produced.

A second last thing is whether and how the TM wants this documenting of RTAMs to go on.  I plan to do what I’ve done for as long as I can.

*

Photo: Harrison Jones / The George Washington University

*

*

I turned 83 this week, published two posts on July 4, and Wendel and I are near completion on another on Swedish textiles, but the question of institutionalizing the documentation of RTAMs is an increasingly real one. 

Years ago, Dan Walker and I talked about whether this documentation could be taken into the TM staff.  Dan said that there were advantages associated with doing that, but that he thought it was best done by an interested volunteer.  But if, this documenting is to go on, some arrangement needs to be made. 

There are some modest skills required, but they are within the reach of most of us. And I am willing to train someone. 

Perhaps the most difficult thing to find is someone who has the time and interest to do it.  I don’t have a solution, but something needs to be done, and the time available for doing it is getting shorter.

Thank you, again, for this very nice gesture,

John

Now, as I said, at the beginning, this was a real “potpourri-type” RTAM and a lot of material was brought in.  To see that you need to use this link:

Celebration of the Documenting and Archiving of Many of The Rug and Textile Appreciation Morning Programs, Part 2

There are some addenda to Part 1 below.

Addendum 1

Readers and, especially researchers need to be aware of some distinctions that are created by this Textile Museum archiving my Textile and Text posts. 

First, these posts were first documented on my wordpress.com site Textiles and Text and Eccentric Wefts.  They are still there and you can reach them directly.

Textiles and Text

About this blog

Eccentric Wefts

About this blog

The TM archived version of those posts are an edited version. 

The TM began this archiving by creating an edited electronic and also paper-based pdf of what was on my two sites. 

The archived version so far includes all of the posts made on both Textiles and Text and Eccentric Wefts from their inception in 2007 to a post on a session given by David Zahirpour in January, 2019. This archived pdf version is available in paper-based copy in the TM Library.

*

*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*

Important: This archiving was the first of several that the TM has undertaken.  They will now move to these other archiving tasks and will not be archiving any further Textiles and Text post for perhaps two years.  This is important because there have already been noteworthy posts since January, 2019 on both Textiles and Text and Eccentric Wefts and these posts can ONLY but accessed with the two links above.

It is also useful to note that it is the edited, archived version that is linked to the TM’s web site.

https://museum.gwu.edu/rug-mornings

Tracy said the following about editing:

“Very little editing was done other than formatting changes and images being resized. I think a few pictures were omitted if there were multiple images of the same item. The text was completely unchanged.”

John: It appears that the archived version does not include the black ground white type format of the sites but if you click on a given image you will be taken to it and seem also to have access to larger images (again by clicking on them).  When editing puts images side-by-side the width of the initial image is reduced to 250 pixels.  Larger versions may be available on the original wordpress.com posts.

 

Addendum 2

The Origins of the Rug and Textile Appreciation Mornings (RTAMs) Are Uncertain

Harold Keshishian,

*

* 

is widely seen to have been an originator of the RTAMs and a central force in their continuation and success.  The Textile Museum has recognized Harold’s predominance over the years by naming this series for him.

But I spent a lot of time, during his last years, with Harold’s friend, Russ Pickering

*

*

who said that things were not that simple: that others were involved.

And at a fairly recent RTAM, looking back on this series, a different remembrance and account surfaced.

Wendel Swan was facilitating, and noted that the exact beginnings of the RTAM programs are a bit obscure, even sometimes debated, but that we had one resource in the room, who actually attended the first RTAM (then called the “rug morning” program).  He asked Phyllis Kane, who had attended the first “rug morning” session,

*

*

to talk a bit about her experience

Phyllis agreed that the origins of the RTAM programs are uncertain, but said that her remembrance was that, while Harold Keshishian

*

(Harold and his wife Melissa)

*

was, from the first, a big supporter, she thought that Louise Mackie,  now for years at the Cleveland Art Museum, but then a TM curator, was likely the real mind behind it. 

*

*

She said that Mackie got the docent group started, and it was as a docent, in those days, that Phyllis attended the first RTAM in the Spring of 1973.

Phyllis remembered that the advertising of this first session was informal, and that they wondered who would learn about it and come.  They were gratified that 11 people came to the first session, and that there were 13 (sessions were initially programmed monthly) in the next one. 

Phyllis subsequently lived abroad for a time.  She said she was gone for a couple of years and when she returned she found that RTAM sessions were drawing a crowd. 

Then, she was away again, and returned to find chairs being brought in to accommodate standees.  It was clear that the RTAM programs were a success.

So, as you can see, history is very shallow and memories vary.  However they started, the RTAM programs have gone on for a long time and have, I think, have been in important TM outreach effort, initially, mostly to the DC area, but now with the use of the internet, internationally.

 

Addendum 3

(The links below may or may not be “live.”  If they are not, you need to copy them and paste them into your browser.)

Links to RTAMs Put Up on Turkotek.com

John Wertime on Sumak Bags

http://www.turkotek.com/mini_salon_00018/salon.html

Jerry Thompson “Potpourri on Carpets from the Middle East”

http://www.turkotek.com/mini_salon_00017/salon.html

Ed Zimmerman and Michael Seidman on “Other Ottomans,: using TM Collection material.

http://www.turkotek.com/salon_00044/salon.html

Wendel Swan gave a “Potpourri” RTAM

http://www.turkotek.com/salon_00050/salon.html

Dennis Dodds on “Turkmen Rugs”

http://www.turkotek.com/salon_00083/salon.html

Saul Barodofsky on “Younger Textiles Can Be Good”

http://www.turkotek.com/misc_00003/discussion.htm/

Ed Zimmerman and Michael Seidman on Pieces from Their Own Collections

http://www.turkotek.com/misc_00008/discussion.html

Joe Fell on “Some of My Favorite Things from My Trunk

http://www.turkotek.com/salon_00094/salon.html

Harold Keshishian on “Safs”

http://www.turkotek.com/misc_00027/content.html

Tom Xenakis, a painter and textile collector on “A Painter Looks at Color in Oriental Rugs and Textiles.”

http://www.turkotek.com/salon_00112/salon.html

Harold Keshishian on “Islamic Textiles”

http://www.turkotek.com/mini_salon_00012/salon.html

David Zahirpour on Southwest Persian Textiles

http://www.turkotek.com/misc_00048/zahirpour.htm

John Howe on “Red in Rugs and Other Textiles”

http://www.turkotek.com/salon_00118/salon.html

Jerry Thompson: “Potpourri on Carpets from the Middle East”

http://www.turkotek.com/mini_salon_00017/salon.html

John Wertime on Sumak Bags

http://www.turkotek.com/mini_salon_00018/salon.html

Links to Non-RTAM But TM-Related Posts Put Up on Turkotek.com

Sara Wolf on “Why Don’t Museums Provide Better Lighting?”

http://www.turkotek.com/salon_00058/salon.html

Jim Blackmon on “Those Other Central Asian Rugs: Uzbek, Karakalpak, Khirghiz and Arab”

http://turkotek.com/salon_00078/salon.html

TM Exhibition: Navajo Blankets from the 19th Century

http://www.turkotek.com/misc_00014/navajo_blankets.htm

TM Exhibition of 16th-17th Century Persian Fragments

http://turkotek.com/misc_00058/fragments.htm

*

 

Celebration of the Documenting and Archiving of Many of The Rug and Textile Appreciation Morning Programs, Part 2

This is Part 2 of an RTAM held on July 13, 2019 celebrating the documenting and archiving of this Textile Museum continuing series.

If you read Part 1 you know what the speechifying part was like.  If not, you can see it using this link:

Celebration of the Documenting and Archiving of Many of The Rug and Textile Appreciation Morning Programs, Part 1

But this was also a real RTAM and people were invited to bring pieces that had been shown on Textiles and Text but that was not a requirement.

Michael Siedman facilitated, 

*

*

starting with the more fragile material.

(You can click on most of the following images in this post to get a somewhat larger one.)

Roger Pratt has an extensive collection,

*

*

but no one I know has done as much as he has with hats.  He said that his preferences in textiles start with color, but that he is also interested in unusual structures and he confesses that sometimes the stories one encounters, when one begins to investigate a purchase provide real enjoyments.

He started with this hat.  It has a “basketry” weave overlaid with silk patterning.

*

*

There is a seeming inscription, that is thought to be “Allah is Great.”

*

*

Roger said that he collected it in Sumatra. His questions were “Where was it made?” and “Why was it made? (what was its purpose?).  It came with a turban wrapped around it.

He said that the British Museum said that this is an “Indonesian ‘pilgrim’ hat.”  And it was meant to be worn with the turban over and covering it.  Indonesians were allied with the Ottoman Empire, where turbans were worn.  Perhaps a souvenir of a “hajji” trip.

Roger’s second hat was the one below.  Roger said that he bought it in Istanbul and the dealer said that it was Kurdish.  Intense cochineal but a different treatment of the top that that used in the first hat above. No calligraphy.

*

*

Below is the top, a little out of focus.

*

*

Roger’s third hat is the one below.  He bought it in a “Silk Road” shop.  It is a Tekke baby hat, bedecked with charms and jewels of the sort passed from one generation to the next, perhaps with things added.  Rooster feathers symbolize a “new day” or “new dawn.”

*

*

A second view.

*

*

Roger’s fourth hat was very like the one one that appears in the current (200th) issue of Hali.  It is described there as one worn by Yomut girls before marriage.

*

*

Below is Roger’s hat.

*

*

He said that he has added his own feathers.

*

*

This must be so because he advanced on me, pulled out a feather and gave it to me, saying that there was also an American tradition of the “Yankee Doodle Dandy” who “had a feather in his cap.”

*

*

Colin England insisted on putting it into my hat.

*

*

But I worried that it might not last long, exposed like that, and so have had it framed.

*

*

Louise Shelly had brought two pieces.

*

*

She said that she had brought this contemporary garment because it appeared on one of my blogs.

Below, is it being held by Karthika Audinet, who had it made from cottons, hand-woven in India.  Karthika, many will know, is a weaver, textile designer and a serious student of textiles.  One of her interests is the wonderful old cottons that were produced in India.  She has also, sometimes, been an entrepreneur and this garment was from one such effort.

*

*

The second textile Louise brought was the one below.  I think she said it came from the Val Arbab collection.

*

*

The back it also very elaborately decorated with a separate cloth (I was only able to take the small glimpse you see in the image below).

Afterwards, Louise sent me this additional information about it:

The piece that I brought is probably 19th century Qajar piece from Iran.  It is done with painting on cotton.

A photograph from the Newark Museum of a similar piece is here: https://newarkmuseum.wordpress.com/2016/02/09/curators-choice-prayer-cloths/

Here is a similar piece from the Widener Library at Harvard.  s://iiif.lib.harvard.edu/manifests/view/ids:42570491

It is referred to as Qalamkari.  There is an inscription at the top of the piece that I need to get deciphered.  

The Qajar pieces fill the whole textiile with animals and plants.  There is a similar tradition in India as the Newark Museum points out but there are less filled textiles.

*

*

Marsha Swiss brought one of the nice small bags that she and her husband, Ron Costell, collect.

*

*

Ron Costell, John Wertime and Marsha Swiss in another RTAM

*

*

Here is a closer look and description of it from another Textiles and Text post in which it appeared.

*

20

8 x 9 inches (20 x 22 cm)

*

*

21 (back of 20)

*

*

Comments on 20 and 21: 

TINY MULTIPURPOSE SINGLE BAG; QASHQA’I; PLAIN WEAVE GROUND WITH PATTERNING IN SUMAK (EXTRA WEFT WRAPPING) ON FRONT & BACK; A CHARMING RENDITION OF A COMMONLY SEEN ANIMAL MOTIF ON A COTTON GROUND WITH A SKILLFULLY DESIGNED BACK MAKES THIS A RARE PIECE.

*

Wendel Swan had brought four pieces.  He started with his latest purchase.

*

*

*

Wendel said: “This may be one of the last things that I ever collect because I have begun to dispose of my lifelong collection. It is one half of the front of a tunic from the Chimu culture in Peru, probably 15th Century or earlier.

Although it is only part of the tunic, it is a complete and intact weaving in itself and would have been sewn to the others.

Each of the figures (the gods and the cats) have distinct color palettes, with no combination of the colors being repeated. This effort can be found in distinguished weavings from around the world, including some from the Caucasus, where great care was taken to achieve this effect.

Shortly we’ll see a  Caucasian rug, which also does not repeat the color palette of any element.

Wendel also brought two Swedish agedyna (carriage cushion) covers.  

(Remember to click on images to get larger versions of them.)

*

*

These Swedish carriage cushion covers (agedyna) are dated 1798 for the trensaflossa (below) and 1822 for the red ground embroidery (above).

Wendel said: “I began collecting Swedish folk weavings in 2006, about the time when I became less involved in Turkotek and when John began his blog.

“I have since sold nearly all of my Shahsavan collection and have added Swedish textiles. These two will be shown in a forthcoming posting by John. There are very few in the US who collect Swedish textiles, but the RTAMs and John’s blog have been responsible for letting the collecting world know about their existence.”

*

*

Melissa Keshishian brought some fragments.

*

*

The first one was a portion of a Greek bed hanging. Strong graphics.

*

*

I’m copying treatment of the other two fragments Melissa brought since that let’s Harold describe them from an earlier post.

*

Harold said this piece is a fragment of a bed curtain or cover.

*

*

*The original was likely about 8 feet long. He indicated that it is most likely from Cyprus or perhaps Crete and has a Venetian double-headed design.

Harold said that piece below is a lovely, graphic item of embroidery from Eperus. It is a lady’s undergarment trouser. He said that it is one of the pieces he has collected that he likes most.

*

*

Someone ask from the audience whether it was an item that would be seen. Harold smiled and said “Not usually, but perhaps on an appropriate occasion.”

Jim Henderson brought three pieces. 

*

Photo: Harrison Jones / The George Washington University

*

He said that he wanted in part to ask for something RTAMs can sometimes do for collectors: help them understand a bit better what they have.

He started with two smaller south Persian pile bag faces with bird arranged around a central diamonds with arms.  He said they were confident that these were Khamseh.

*

*

*

But he invited comparison between features of these two bag faces and the large asymmetrically knotted rug below.  Could it be Afshar?

*

*

*

Here are some closer details of the rug above.

*

*

*

*

Michael Siedman said that colors and patterns in this rug are related to Khamseh usages but that the diagonal border feature is Afshar. 

Austen Doyle added that it may have been woven in the Kerman area but looks Afshar. 

I don’t think the rug’s square shape played in this attribution effort.

 

Ann Marie Moeller brought a Japanese futon cover from a town that is famous for double ikat.

*

*

This piece is later than 1905 and the calligraphy says “Fuji, Victory of the World.”  It commemorates the Japanese victory over Russia at that time.  It has a battleship motif.  Japan took out two of Russia’s three fleets.  Significant in modern warfare technology.  

Woven in four parts.  Woven in one long piece of fabric and requires consistent warp tension

*

*

Mount Fuji represents Japan – says “Japan the best in the world.”

*

*

*

Richard Isaacson

*

*

brought a long Uzbek sleeping rug, woven in northern Afghanistan.

*

*

It is very coarse but not woven, as some such rugs are, on alternate raised warps.  With weaving on alternate raised warps the front designs do not show on the back and, as you can see in the two following images, this is not the case for Richard’s rug.

*

*

*

More details of the front of this rug.

*

*

*

Amy Rispin brought a complete bag, opened up.

*

*

Amy described her piece as a finely woven qashqai bag with a decorative flatwoven back with typical south Persian pattern.

*

*

The back on Amy’s khorgin set is very similar to the designs on Wendel Swan’s following piece that is attributed to Luri weavers.

*

*

*

Wendel Swan also brought a large Luri flatweave.

*

My camera

*

Wendel’s Camera

*

Wendel Swan brought this Luri kilim, primarily because it was shown at Jim Opie’s April 28 presentation of South Persian rugs at the TM, for which there is a post.   Wendel had just received the kilim just two days before Opie’s presentation.

Part of the brief discussion was about the mysterious red square that seems unknown on other weavings.  On this occasion, however, Wendel said that the prior owner believed the red square to represent the Kaaba black stone and hung the kilim with Velcro so that the red square was at the top, i.e., in a position of prominence.  Jim Opie questioned this attribution and Wendel subsequently engaged in some chats on the internet, but no one could say that they had ever seen such an element and could not say one way or another what it was or might represent.

After studying the composition of the kilim, Wendel realized that it is a geometricized tree of life, with the red square being the vase from which the tree and branches emanate. 

*

Wendel’s Camera

*

The tree of life pattern is found throughout South Persia and he provided an image of a Kerman tree of life rug to illustrate how the simple forms in the kilim correspond to the major design elements in the Kerman.

Wendel went on to say that he knows, perhaps better than anyone else, how much effort goes into these posts – far more that most people could ever realize.  He said it was gratifying to be able to follow up on the earlier discussion and to provide an answer to an interesting question.

Colin England

*

*

brought two silk rugs with similar designs.  Both Hereke.

*

Hung over the top of the board

*

 

After Colin gave me this description:

“Two rugs, both containing the signature of of Sharinian, one of the most famous of the weavers of silk Hereke rugs. 

Both are primarily silk pile with silk foundations.

The first rug was woven before 1970 (it was purchased in 1970), and is in the style of the Kum Kapi master weavers, as the Shirinians bought the designs of Zareh Penyamin from his widow around 1960. 

The knot count is about 625 and the rug includes extensive brocade, including silver wrapped brocade, as was common among the Kum Kapi weavings.  It is also woven upside down, with the niche being at the bottom of the rug, rather than the top, which was also characteristic of Kum Kapi weavings. 

The second rug was woven by 2000, and has been identified by the weaver as one of his.  The rug includes no brocade, includes about 2,000 knots per square inch, and is woven right-side up (i.e., the niche is at the top of the rug.) 

Both include Persian poetry, even though woven by Turkish weavers, as the designs are derived from 16th and 17th century Persian weavings from the Top Kapi colletion.”

*

*

In the session, Colin said that these two rugs show how Hereke weaving has changed.

Austin Doyle

*

*

brought a Shirvan rug with an unusual design.

*

*

The field devices are probably flowers.  Each field device is a little different, something we saw in Wendel’s Chimu tunic, repeated here below.

Austin said that his Shirvan rug is probably from the Marasali area.

He also said that, “as you go up the rug, each row of flowers is a bit smaller than the row below.  This gives a sense of the flowers receding into the background and may have been done intentionally.  While this could have been the weaver reacting to a limitation of warp thread, the fact that it happens between the first and second row of flowers makes me think that it was done deliberately for a design purpose. ”   

*

*

Details on Austin’s Shirvan rug.*

*

*

*

*

William and Martha Bateson brought a piece and I asked them for a photo to make their participation concrete.

They wanted to be creative and sent me the shot below.(Thang Tibet, 1990s).

*

*

We failed with a Photoshop repair and have had to retreat to the photo below, which is not bad.

*

*

William and Martha brought in the Tibetan pile weaving below. 

He said “I have always believed this to be a piece of Tibetan horse/mule tack; likely part of a crupper.”

A “crupper” is a piece of tack used on horses and other equids to keep a saddle, harness or other equipment from sliding forward.  The piece below was, likely, placed behind the saddle as part of a crupper assembly, but the assembly is not complete. 

*

*

I sent the image above to Nick Wright, the Tibetan expert, and he said: “It is a Tibetan crupper, part of a rider’s tack to protect the horse’s skin from the strap

*

*

that connects to the rear of the saddle and goes, along the back and around the base of the animal’s tail.” 

So this textile would attach to the back of the saddle but go under this harness.  It is not just decorative; it’s functional, preventing the harness from irritating the horse’s back.

William said he brought it in because he knows that I like it, and he is right.  It is not only very attractive, it is unusual.  I’ve only seen a couple of other examples, that Nick Wright brought once.

I brought three pieces to this session.

*

*

The first, is the one in the center above.  I bought it blind in Bergama in 2007

*

*

and traveled all around western and central Turkey and showed it to a lot of knowledgeable people, without finding anyone who could tell me what it was.

It took me a year to find out: William and Sondra Bechhoefer told me that it was a communal napkin.  They also helped me put it in the hands of Nurhan Atasoy, the noted Turkish art historian, who confirmed their attribution

Here it is opened up and pinned to a wall.

*

*

It is 17 inches wide and 190 inches long.  

It has simple, linear designs brocaded down the length of its field,

but both of its ends are more densely decorated with slit tapestry.  

The ground fabric is a mixture of linen and cotton.  Although the handle is a little stiff, the balanced plain weave is loose and gauzy in close-up.

An Anatolian dealer subsequently told me that this fabric is very like what the Egyptians used to bind their mummies.

The Bechhoefers also provided me with an image of an engraving of a communal napkin in use.

*

Image courtesy of Phyllis Kane

*

I’ve looked around the internet a little and there are indications that the communal napkin format arose about the 14th century, perhaps in Europe.  Place indications include England, Turkey and, even, Finland.  I found a 15th century Flemish painting by Dieric Bouts, of The Last Supper, that also shows a communal napkin in use.

*

*

I’m very taken with this humble textile, so much so that I use it on my personal card.  Here’s the front:

*

*

And here’s the back:

*

*

We hear the “color, color, color” mantra a lot and, although, I collect on a budget, I found an instance in which I could indulge. 

I found the piece below in the bottom of a jewelry case in an antique store in southern Pennsylvania.

*

*

Closer details.

Click on the next two images to get larger versions

*

*

You can see that this is just barely a weaving, with occasional rows of weft to hold things together and in place.

*

*

I asked whether it was for sale and they said they’d have to call the dealer and did.  The dealer said that it was for sale and I asked the price.  They said six dollars and I allowed as how I could indulge my admiration of color at that level.

After this session, Amy Rispin pointed out that there was St. Joseph’s Coat quilt pattern that featured vertical stripes like this and that I had one.

I looked around the web and quickly encountered this example.

*

*

This quilt above was made in Pennsylvania in about 1950.

My own Joseph’s quilt was more subdued.  Not antique, but likely vintage.

*

*

Amy Rispin said that she thinks it was made by the Amish.   I bought it in southwest Ohio, near some Amish communities.

The quilting pattern used is not elaborate but is typical of Joseph’s coat quilts.

*

*

We ended speculating that my humble piece above may have been made by someone familiar with the Joseph’s Coat pattern.

My third piece was an African, Dida tie-dyed raffia skirt from the Ivory Coast.  I bought it, years ago, from Marla Mallett.  It is one of my responses to the color, color, color mantra, showing that texture can also be very important.

*

Photo: Harrison Jones / The George Washington University

*

Here is Marla’s description of it.

*

Click on the description below to get a larger version.

*

After the session, Julie Geschwind, who knows such textiles, said that she has an example of this African “skirt” (with an accompanying hat).  She knows a great deal about it.  I was only able to get a few snippets.

First, she said that the the plaiter’s big toe is crucial to the plaiting process. 

She also said that while this was made as a tube garment open at the bottom, it was not worn in that way.  Instead, the cords at the bottom (front and back) were gathered, maybe twisted together, and then passed front to back, between the legs, and tucked into the waist in back.  This converts the “skirt” into a pantaloon.  This garment was worn by both sexes. 

I wish that I had talked to her more and will try to do so.  This is another of these instances that Jim Henderson talked about in which the RTAMs function to let us learn more about textiles we have owned, sometimes for years.

*

Photo: Harrison Jones / The George Washington University

*

Bob Emry,

brought five Turkman bag faces from his extensive collection.

*

E1

*

*

Bob: The first is this one—a Yomut torba that has always been one of my favorites. It was actually exhibited in 2001 in  “From the Amu Darya to the Potomac” show curated by Richard Isaacson.  In the exhibit label Richard called it a mafrash—it 32 inches by 16 inches—smaller than most torbas but bigger than many mafrashes. 

Detail of E1.

*

*

E2

*

*

Bob: Yomut Turkmen.  This one might be more appropriately called a mafrash—it is 26 inches by 14 inches.  Excellent condition.

Details of E2.

*

*

Its minor guls incorporate two “C” gul, back to back ( in as “C” motifs seen in “C” gul carpets).

*

*

E3

*

*

Bob: I have called it a torba, but some might call it a mafrash (of maybe a mafrash is just a small torba). —it is 31 inches by 15 inches.  

It features a good, white-ground, framing border and, in its field, the “kepse” gul about which Bob has offered a close analysis of design progression at the end of an earlier RTAM, he and I gave on Turkman weaving.  https://rjohnhowe.wordpress.com/2017/11/22/turkman-now-part-1-the-lecture/  

*

*

Notable for its very nice green, and the fact that the weaver was apparently unable to make up her mind about borders—or maybe she was just practicing different border elements.  

*

*

E4

*

*

This may be an important piece to notice. One reason for this is that it is entirely flat-woven and Elena Tsareva says, flatly, that Turkman flat-weaves have not be analysed.

Bob makes an argument: “I’ve called this a Tekke flatweave for two reasons—first, the weave is finer than what you typically see in Yomut weavings.  Second, it has rather substantial flatweave elems, at either end, and each is decorated with three sets of blue stripes, each set having three narrow blue stripes—this is typical of Tekke carpets.  A similar elem design is seen in some Ersari rugs, but I wouldn’t expect Ersari to be this finely woven.”

*

*

Bob: “Some might say that the aesthetics of this piece don’t dazzle — if viewed from across the room, but, up close, I think it is quite marvelous.”  John: “This piece, except for the tapestry elem areas, is done entirely in brocade.”

*

*

E5

*

*

Bob: Nothing special about this torba, but the 12-gul ones are less common than are the 9-gul or the 6-gul versions.

This one is typical in being very fine, very short pile, very soft handle, masterfully woven.

*

(click on the image below)

*

*

 

Aija Blitte

*

*

brought two Turkmen pieces.  Both “Middle Amu Darya.”

The first one was the piece below.  It is a long, torba-shaped pile bag face, but without a back.  It is so long that it calls into question the “torba” description.

*

(Click on this image to get a larger version.)

*

It has good color and strong graphics.  Here is a detail of it

*

*

Aija’s second piece was the one below.

*

*

Again, good color, good graphics. Also a nice, complete, balanced drawing of this design.

Here is a detail of it.

*

*

I apologize to the owner of the next two pieces brought in, but I do not have his/her coments.  But they were two, attractive, sumak textiles.

The first was the very nice panel of a Shahsavan sumak piece below.  I don’t know who brought these two pieces in, but an experienced person described them for me after.

The first is the decorated side panel of a mafrash (rectangular bedding bag) from the Khamseh Province of Persia, probably late 19th or very early 20th Century. 

(Image below a little washed out, see details further down)

*

*

Typically, in the Khamseh Province, the backs of the khorjin (saddlebags) were done not decorated, but usually just had plain red wefts on paired warps so that the backs looked much coarser than the front. 

The same was true for many of the mafrash. 

The other three sides of the mafrash, from which this side panel comes, likely would not have been decorated, further evidenced by the fact that this side panel has a circumferential border.  

Other Northwest Persian and Southern Caucasian mafrash have patterns that wrap around without side borders that are present here. Collectors see mafrash panels with borders all round as preferable.

This is work of the Shahsavan.

Here are some details of the above piece.

*

*

*

The second sumak piece (below) this time a complete cargo-type mafrash.

*

*

This complete mafrash is from Qarabagh in the Caucasus and is not necessarily Shahsavan.

The pattern wrapped around the mafrash continuously without side borders.

Mafrash were always woven in pairs, one for each side of the pack animal. Like the side panel, this was probably also woven in the late 19th or early 20th Century.

Detail of the piece above.

*

*

Michael Seidman had brought two pieces.  The first was the Afshar sumak and brocade piece below. A wide palette (12 colors), excellent drawing and in very good condition.

*

*

Michael said that on Turkotek, years ago, someone suggested that it is new piece (a real kiss of death).  In fact, he said, it came from the Ralph Yohe collection, who sold it to Ed Zimmerman. 

*

*

It appeared in Dan Walker’s “Rugs of the Hajji Baba’s” in 1982, when he was in Cincinnati.  Although no age estimate is given, the Walker volume does say that this piece was purchased in “the New York trade around 1970.” So much for brand new.

Details of this nice piece.

*

*

*

*

Michael said that there IS contemporary material worthy of collection and that he and his wife have collected some. 

His second piece was a contemporary table cloth, block printed in India. 

The detail in the block printing (I’m not sure that my details, below, convey it adequately) is incredible. 

Michael sometimes says that some contemporary textile work is better than that done in the 18th century.  I think he is right.

*

*

Details.

*

*

*

*

The “show and tell” part of this event ended and we adjourned to lunch in the Myers Room.

The GWU photographer, Harrison Jones, took a number of documenting and atmospheric photos of this event.  

Here are a few.

*

Photo: Harrison Jones / The George Washington University

*

Photo: Harrison Jones / The George Washington University

*

Photo: Harrison Jones / The George Washington University

*

Photo: Harrison Jones / The George Washington University

*

Photo: Harrison Jones / The George Washington University

*

Photo: Harrison Jones / The George Washington University

*

Photo: Harrison Jones / The George Washington University

*

Photo: Harrison Jones / The George Washington University

*

Photo: Harrison Jones / The George Washington University

*

Photo: Harrison Jones / The George Washington University

*

Photo: Harrison Jones / The George Washington University

*

Photo: Harrison Jones / The George Washington University

*

One important person has been left out here.  Tom Goehner, 

*

*

the Textile Museum Education Curator, has long noticed that I am a champion of the Saturday, Rug and Textile Appreciation Morning programs.  He is likely the person who mostly planned and engineered this nice celebration.

He doesn’t appear in the documenting pictures because he was making sure that things went off as planned.  And they did.  It was very nicely done all round.

Tom, I still think it was unnecessary, but thank you for a very nice gesture and event.

I hope readers will have seen some good material and had some useful explanations.  I am sorry not to be able to share, also, a little of the nice white wine.

‘Til next time,

R. John Howe

James Opie on South Persian Rugs, Part 1

 James Opie

*

*

gave a presentation on South Persian Rugs, here at the Textile Museum in Washington, D.C.

Wendel Swan introduced Opie,

*

*

saying, in part, that he is likely the leading authority on South Persian textiles and that his two books, “Rugs of Southern Persia,” in 1981, and his broader treatment of “Tribal Rugs,” first in 1992, and then in a paperback edition, in 1998. are likely on the shelves of a great many of us. 

Opie mentioned, himself, that he still deals a little and has natural dye projects in Afghanistan http://www.jamesopie-rugs.com/rugs.html

I should say, here, at the beginning, that we were not able to arrange for Opie to review what follows, but we have drawn heavily on his two books. And while we often say that he said something, some other of these comments came from experienced south Persian collectors who were in the room. So your are forewarned about my reporting here.

Opie began with an illustrated lecture.

*

*

He made some introductory points.

• He said that there were indigenous languages in the area we call ‘Southern Iran” before the arrival of the Persians.  There was a very strong pre-Iranian culture in the Loristan area.
• Turkic speakers are said to have originated rug designs, but the Qashqa’i, who identify as Turks (they are Turkic speakers), use designs that are not like Turkish ones.
• He rehearsed the debate about whether rug designs tend to move from urban areas into the countryside or whether designs originated in rural areas.  He seemed to favor an urban to rural flow, but said that there are some designs in south Persian rugs that seem not to come from external sources.
• One fact that makes a predominant urban —> rural flow more likely is that 99% of rugs made were made for sale; not for maker use only.  Customers would often have design preferences and weavers would move quickly to meet them.
• So in south Persian rugs, urban carpet art competes with local designs.
• Some formats, likely gabbeh rugs and bedding bags, seem more likely made for the weavers’ own use.  Some of these seem to exhibit no external designs.  And gabbehs have low knot counts to make them lighter and easier to carry and, so, more likely to be for weaver use.

Opie cited, early, a particular white-dominant Bakhtiari saddle bag set that seems to exhibit no external design inputs.

*

O25

*

*

Description of O25 : In his book “Tribal Rugs,” Opie says the “column-like forms in the center of each field panel are noteworthy and appear to be archaic patterns. 

These columns

*

*

are decorated with explicit animal heads that have both eyes and horns…”

*

*

Details of O25.

Click on each of the details of O25 below to get a larger image.

*

*

*

*

*

O25 back

*

*

O25 back closer

*

*

He showed a series of rugs that exhibit various degrees of urban vs non-urban influences.  As he went along, he also talked about ancient design motifs that occur in south Persian rugs.

Slide 1

 

*

Comments on Slide 1: Opie started with this Khamseh, three-medallion rug.  It seems urban-influenced with its prominent herati field design (the “herati” example below from a different rug).

*

*

The devices in this rug’s spandrels

*

*

seem vaguely similar to Afshar usages in the field of the rug, below, that are very much urban-based.

*

Tribal Rugs, Afshar rug, 12.11

*

* 

So the devices in Slide 1 seem to lean toward urban sources.

Slide 2

*

*

Comments on Slide 2:  This rug, Opie said, “is so urban that the name Afshar can be applied only with qualifications.” 

Heavy Kerman influence.  Probably made in a workshop, as the spandrels, that are precise quarters of the central medallion, strongly suggest.

Slide 3

*

*

Comments on Slide 3: A Bakhtiari-Chahar Mahal rug with a “willow” design.  Similar to, but not as good as, 8.21 on page 149 in “Tribal Rugs.”

Slide 4

*\]

*

Comments on Slide 4:  In “Tribal Rugs” Opie notes that “Qashqa’i weavers have adapted traditional south Persian gabbeh and kilim designs to achieve a new distinctive effects” in the 20th century Qashqa’i gabbeh above.  He considers it to be “one of those made outside workshops for members of the tribe’s elite.”  

It is one of those woven with only three or four rows of wefts between rows of knots.  Most Qashqa’i and Lori gabbehs have between four and twelve weft threads between rows of knots.  This substantially reduced weaving time and, as noted early, reduced the weight of the fabric, making it more portable, hence also more likely woven for use.

Slide 5

*

*

Comments on Slide 5:  Opie sees this Luri rug as a study in the varied use of the very old animal head devices.  You can see the “hooks and the “two-headed” devices in the medallions.

But you need to look for the dots that are eyes in the close-up detail of this piece, below, to see that they are intended to be more that hook forms.

Detail of Slide 5.

*

*

Slide 6

Click to see a larger image.

*

*

Comments on Slide 6:  Opie talked about how pastoral nomadism is so deliberate and purposeful. 

Slide 7

*

*

Comments on Slide 7: How ever moment of most days was devoted to some important task.  Above, a lady spins with a drop spindle.

 

Slide 8

*

*

Comment on Slide 8: How seemingly crude looms were used to weave many things, including the dark coverings of their tents.

 

Slide 9

Click to see a larger image.

*

*

Comments on Slide 9: He cited the famous film “Grass.”  It documented a long Bakhtiari migration in the 1920s of 50,000 people and their animals.  Above, they are crossing a treacherous river.

*

*

He said it shows what incredible things humans can accomplish together.

Slide 10

*

*

Comments on Slide 10:  Another white-predominant Bakhtiari bag set, shown laid out flat with the front side up.  No external design devices on the flat-woven fields or the pile bottoms on the bottoms of both bags.  This kind of south Persian weaving was less likely to show urban influence.

 

Slide 11

*

*

Comments on Slide 11:  This is a complete, rectangular Bakhtiari, cargo bag and would have been woven for the weavers’ own use.  It has the white-dominant side panel field designs and an unusual and colorful “top” panel in this image (which is actually the bottom when in use). 

Something not visible in this image is the fact that the end panels in such Bakhtiari bags are pointed at the top end. This is not true of similar Shahsavan cargo bags.  (We will see such a pointed Bakhtiairi cargo bag end panel later.)

 

Slide 12

*

*

Comments on Slide 12: Slide 12 is similar to and may be the same piece shown at 025 above but is shown here for a different purpose.  Look at the side border in the image above and then at the detail of it below.

 

Slide 13

*

*

Comments on Slide 13:  The stacked serpent heads on the band above represent hundreds of years of design progression.  Opie seems to say that the version of this border on the 1930s Bakhtiari bag, above is “older” that than the “S” border in the 14th century”Dragon and Phoenix rug” in Slide 14 below.

 

Slide 14

*

*

Comments on Slide 14: The “Dragon and Phoenix” rug, Anatolian and 15th century, has a repeating “S” border, probably based on proto-typical metal hooks in Slide 15 below.

 

Slide 15

*

*

Comments on Slide 15: Opie said such symbols were used by people to relate and indicate what peoples’ myths are.  Of course, often, that meaning is no longer available.

In his “Tribal Rugs” volume, Opie gives a series of “S” motifs that begin with the “Iranian bronze” above, of an “uncertain period,” and end with the border in the detail image of O25 below.

*

*

Slide 16

*

*

Comment on Slide 16: Khamseh.  Opie said, joking, that he buys Khamseh”chicken” rugs and sells “bird” rugs.

He said that he thinks bird devices represent something else from the past (he noted that some “bird” rugs show “serpent” devices over the birds).

Slide 17 is a detail image that shows this “serpent over bird” motif.

Slide 17

*

*

Slide 18

*

*

Comment on Slide 18:  The detail above is a unique instance of birds and lions in the field of a Khamseh rug (page 203 in Tribal Rugs).  Opie said this usage makes this rug one of the rarest of Khamseh weavings.

Slide 19

*

*

Opie said that Slide 19 is of a Qashqua’i lion rug dated to the late 19th century.

He said that “lion” motifs seem to have been picked up from other cultures.  Although there were once lions in Persia, Opie said, the use of lion figures in royal Persian art concluded with Alexander the Great’s invasion and that there has been no external market for “lion rugs” until quite recently.  (Note: Parviz Tanavoli makes a different argument.)

Lion forms also occur in south Persian burial sites.

Slide 20

Click on image below to see two lions in the background and one in the foreground.

*

*

Opie said that lions: are visible in graves of Bakhtiari warriors and aristocrats.  These are similar to some he shows in “Tribal Rugs.”

Slide 21

*

*

Comments on Slide 21: This is a lion-decorated cup similar to one Opie shows in “Tribal Rugs.”  That one he dates as from the fourth to the sixth century B.C.

Slide 22

*

*

Comments on Slide 22: This bull figure, holding an urn is 5,000 years old and Persian.  Another instance of design elements that occur on ancient metal work.

Slide 23

*

*

Comments on Slide 23:  The two-headed bronze from Luristan in the first milenium, B.C. also occurs in other cultures e.g Lithuania. We don’t knot where the ancestral tribes learned this motif, but a strikingly similar device occurs in Slide 24 from a 19th century Khamseh rug.

Slide 24

*

*

Opie is hopeful that, sometime, evidence may be found to let us determine whether this ancient motif “may have originated locally or could have been imported into the Zagros.” Many Middle Eastern museums contain ancient statues with two heads. 

It might be useful to indicate here that Opie’s frequent references to the Zagos, are not by chance. This reference is to a Zagros mountain region in Iran.  Opie maintains, thoughout his book, that tribes in the Zagros mountains were isolated.  And so, he sees their design usages as likely sources of ancient design motifs.

Sometimes textiles that have animal heads also exhibit another ancient design motif that is used widely all over the world.  Opie used another white dominant Bakhtiari bag set to illustrate this.

Slide 25

*

*

In Slde 27 you can see a species of the endless knot which is part of the motifs in the central part of this vertical array.

Slide 27

*

*

While the endless knot is ancient, Opie said, and occurs in south Persian textiles, it also appears in a number of other cultures.  He said it is not clear how the endless knot motif came into the Zagros.  China, the Copts, in Eygpt, the Vikings, Celtic peoples are all mentioned as possible.

Here is an example of a Persian, endless knot motif, from Peter Stone’s “Oriental Rug Lexicon,” 1997.

*

*

One of Opie’s six examples of the endless knot motif in “Tribal Rugs” is this one.

Slide 28

*

*

Slide 29

Click on the image below to get a larger version.

*

*

Comments on Slide 29:  This Bakhtiari animal trapping from Tribal Rugs has as its dominant design motif in the field of the horizontal panel, a swastika-linked pattern. 

Opie says that swastikas and swastika-linked motifs are, like the endless knot, motifs that are “common property of a variety of nations” scattered throughout Eurasia, China and even the Americas.

Slide 30

*

*

Comments on Slide 30: This large, well-known, Luri bag front, possibly from the early nineteenth century…features a stylized two-headed figure on the back of a horse. 

Slide 31

*

*

Few nomadic woven motifs offer such an intriguing comparison with ancestral art.  Opie said that “This piece and an identical mate are among the rarest nomadic weavings to surface in recent decades.”

Opie had the piece in Slide 30 in the room.  Here, below, are some more images taken of it.

*

*

*

*

*

Slide 32

*

*

Comments on Slide 32: Opie said that Luristan bronzes, made by tribes people living in the Zagros mountains, provide some of the best evidence on ancient south Persian designs and motif.  The image in Slide 32, above, is one end of a complete, decorated harness bit and is one of these Luristan bronzes.

Slide 33

*

*

Comments on Slide 33:  I don’t have in my notes anything specific about this piece, but it is obviously another ancient item of Persian origin that exhibits particular designs.

One of these is, clearly a row of bird’s head near the top.  There are also some deer images. It not clear from this perspective whether a single deer was intended or more likely two deer side-by-side.  At least eight legs on a single deer is unusual.

Slide 34

*

*

Comment on Slide 34:  This image is of a “Fantastic tattooed animal on the body of a tribal chief or shaman.  [From Barrow 2 in the Pazyryk Valley, southern Siberia, fourth century B.C. (After Rudenko)]

In “Tribal Rugs,” Opie quotes Veronique Schlitz who says: “The art of the steppes is a coherent system of signs and operates like a language.  For these peoples…it must have occupied the place of a written language…”  He said that this approach to symbolism enhanced my appreciation of animal-style objects that I encountered in my travels in Iran and Afganistan…

Opie had brought a number of pieces with him.  He dealt with them next. 

There is some redundance with pieces treated in his lecture. In most cases there will be an overall image, then comments on it, followed by a number of detail images of the same piece.

O1

*

*

Comments on O1: This piece is a large Bakhtiairi flatweave (10 ft. X 4 ft) that appeared in Opie’s ‘Tribal Rugs of Southern Iran, 1981 and is described extensively there.

Opie pointed to both its rarity and to its great variation in border and field designs. 

He said that it exhibits a design vocabulary that may hark back to Persian city weaving of the 15th through the 17th centuries.  He said that “old flatweaves like this provide a glimpse into ancestral design traditions.”

Details of O1.

*

*

*

*

*

Jim said that although these weavers were fluent in weaving a varieties of structure, they often did not know how to repair them (it may not be obvious, but the skills are quite distinctive).  The red vertical strip in the photos above and below demonstrates the kind of crude repairs they could manage.

*

*

O2

*

*

Comments on O2:  In Tribal Rugs, Opie describes this piece as having been woven by Lori-speaking Qashqa’i weavers in the last quarter of the 19th century. 

It is important because it exhibits a variety of animal motifs: lions, peacocks, animal-headed medallions and animal-headed trees.  There are also human figures. These are all traditional tribal motifs. Opie retains a sub-tribal attribution, saying that this piece was made by the “Shekarlu” weaving group.

Details of O2.

*

*

*

*

*

*

O3

*

*

Comments on O3:  Opie described this as a “bird” rug which incorporates images from other cultures. Estimated to have been woven 1860s-1870s.

Details of O3.

*

*

There are serpent shapes over the backs of birds.  Also animals with floral growths out of their backs.

*

*

And botehs out of animal forms.

*

*

*

*

*

Opie took us next to a very old gabbeh.

O4

*

*

Here is a complete, unencumbered view.

*

 

*

Opie said this piece if very old and “maybe with no exterior input.”  It has multiple wefts that reduce its weight and for that reason is also the sort likely made for use rather than for market. Estimated to have been woven 1820-1880.

The Qashqua’i seem to have gotten their motifs from the people already there in the areas they came to dominate.

Details of O4.

*

*

*

*

*

Back of O4

*

*

Back of O4 closer.

*

*

O5

*

*

Opie said that this is another “bird” rug that incorporates images from other cultures.  He thinks is very old.  Has serpents over birds and secondary botehs.

*

Details of O5.

*

*

*

*

*

O6

*

*

Opies said that O5 is a younger Khamseh, “bird” rug.  One sign of this is that the birds have a fuller shape.

Details of O5.

*

*

*

*

*

*

O7

*

*

Opie said that this is an interesting rug with indications of how it was made. 

It was, of course, started at the bottom, but pretty quickly the weaver changed the ground color of the field.  Then, half-way up the first center diamond she goes back to the original field color but, on the right side of the diamond, shifts to a red field.

This shifting of ground color continues half halfway up the second diamond, where she moves to a red ground on the left of the diamond, but introduces to a yellow ground on the right. 

She finishes the top half diamond with these two ground colors.

*

Details of O7.

*

*

There are again a variety of human and animal devices in the piece, in addition to some “Memling” guls, but an interesting one, Opie pointed out, is a pair of scissors in the detail below.

*

*

*

*

*

O8

*

*

O8 is another rug that invites comments about how it was likely made.  The field changes wildly and there was a consensus that it was made by at least two weavers. 

The way the field changes and the awkward drawing suggests that this is a mother-child effort. 

One sign supporting that is that while, the field has areas of poor drawing (although even there some small devices are well-drawn) the borders are uniformly well-drawn, suggesting the mother in control there.

Wendel said that this was what might be called an “oops” rug, and you could find on Turkotek.com from years ago a salon I designed with that title exploring what the line is between irregularities that actually can enhance the aesthetic quality of a weaving (think of what Kurdish ladies in the 19th century did, with their conventionalizations and use of color, in their renditions of old classic Persian designs) and those that have to be acknowledged simply as poor weaving.

One argument for considering this a successful rug is that Opie bought it…and still has it.

Details of O8.

*

*

Below beginning changes are held up.

*

*

*

*

*

*

The next rug was one that you could tell Jim Opie liked especially.

O9

*

*

This is a large “tiger” rug.  Wendel Swan said that it is the best of this type he’s ever seen.  Opie said that the border is clearly urban.  Well drawn.  Wonderful color.

Details of O9.

*

The detail below and the overall shot above were taken by Wendel Swan.

Notice in the detail below that there seem to be cypress trees in between the boteh devices in the borders.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

O10

*

*

Opie said that O10, above, and O11, below, are both heroic flatwoven rugs.

They are both coarser than is typical of Qashqa’i kilims.  O10 is more finely woven.

Before we look at O11, here are some details of O10.

*

*

*

*

*

And now let’s continue with O11.

O11

*

*

This overall shot of O11 was another taken by Wendel Swan.

It is austere and has a lovely, spare, but organized graphic character.

Opie said that O11 was more coarsely woven that O10.  He said we should note that they were both woven in one piece.

Here are some details of O11.

*

*

*

There was conversation in the room about the odd square device in the lower center of the field

*

*

Below is a closer look at it.  It is not a patch or repair.  It was woven continuously as part of the original fabric.

*

*

O12

*

*

Opie said this bag set with its attractive, graphically strong field design was woven in the early 20th century by a Qashqa’i (Kashkuli) weaver in the early 20th century. 

It appears in Tribal Rugs of Southern Persia on page 26, opposite a 19th century rug with a similar design.  The latter shows what seems an earlier less conventionalized version of this design.

*

013

*

*

O13 and O14 are chantehs.  Made as dowry items or as gifts.

O14

*

*

O15

*

*

This is another white dominant Bakhtiari piece.  It is from a cargo bag like the one shown in Slide 11, above. and demonstrates the observation there that the upper end of such Bakhtiari bags are pointed.

Details of O15.

*

*

*

*

*

O16

*

*

Comment on O16: Qashqa’i.

*

O17

*

*

This is a Kashga’i khojin set.  The field has a nice range of color and the back resembles kilims like O11 above.

O17

*

*

This is one half of a Khamseh khorjin set.  Its face is very similar to that of 11.11 on Tribal Rugs, but this piece has a dramatic, colorful back. 

The center of its field motifs include the same small diamond motif with arms in four directions and birds arranged in its four quarters in the same way.  This arrangement also occurs in the detail of a rug in Slide 18 above. 

This rare piece is, itself, 11.12 in Tribal Rugs.

Details of O17.

*

*

*

*

O18

*

*

We were pressed for time and Jim, initially, said he wouldn’t discuss O18, (it’s not south Persian) but then was persuaded to do so.

*

*

This was likely done by an amateur weaver.  It is of a dervish with his begging bowl.  It might have been made by the dervish himself.

It’s dated and Jim indicated what it was, but we didn’t capture it.  Maybe you can make it out.

*

*

O19

*

*

 Opie said that O19 was woven by a Lori-speaking group (Shekarlu). The white-ground border frames the field strongly.  Little, vegetal tree forms?

Details of O19

*

*

 

*

*

*

*

O20

*

*

Khanseh.  Very symmetrical.  Notes say “special value label.” Meaning not clear.

*

Details of O20

*

*

*

*

*

O21

*

*

Comments on O21:  This piece both pile and flatweave. The pile area is along the top in the image above. 

This is a frequent Bakhtiari usage and it is likely what this bag is: Bakhtiari.

In use, the pile area would be at the bottom.  Someone said that this panel was meant to be folded vertically to form a bag. There are south Persian bags that were folded in unexpected ways, but this seems not one of them.  We think this image is of one side (likely the front) of a Bakhtiari bag.

*

O22

*

 

*

*

Comments on O22:  Bakhtiari salt bag.  Pile at bottom edge.

 

O23

*

*

Comments on O23:  Qashqua’i? Animal heads with eyes.

 

O24

*

*

Comments on O24: Pile.  Multiple animal heads with eyes. Qashqa’i?

 

O25

*

*

Comments on O25;  This piece is, obviously not south Persian.  It is a pile Baluch rug. 

Opie was interested in the fact that while it could not be finished square at the top, the weaver did finished it. 

Comment in the room included the notion that perhaps the irregularity at the top is the result of uneven warp tension and only visible once the finished piece was cut off the loom.

 

O26

*

*

Comments on O26:  This is a pictorial piece with “kabbah” (spellings vary) images.  The Arabic inscription divides a man’s estate.  It is a “will.’  Dated “1335” (1915).

Opie thinks it’s older than 1915.

 

O27

*

*

Comments on O27: The tiny bag above was the last piece Opie showed in Part 1.  Pile with flat-woven top.  Attribution not given in my notes.

Members of the audience had brought a great deal more material.

You can enjoy these latter things using this link: https://rjohnhowe.wordpress.com/2019/07/04/james-opie-on-southwest-persian-rugs-part-2-the-pieces-brought-in/

We will say, again, at the end of Part 2, how grateful we are to Jim to come and share with us his experience and deep knowledge of southwestern Persian rugs and textiles, including a considerable number of pieces from his own collection.

R. John Howe

James Opie on Southwest Persian Rugs, Part 2, the Pieces Brought In

This is Part 2 of a two-part Rug and Textile Appreciation Morning program, James Opie gave On April 28, 2019, here in Washington, DC at the Textlle Museum.

*

*

The first part of this program began with an illustrated lecture by Opie, but also included a number of pieces he had brought in.

If you have not read Part 1, you can using this link: https://rjohnhowe.wordpress.com/2019/07/04/james-opie-on-south-persian-rugs-part-1/

Although Opie had brought a number of pieces treated in Part 1, members of the audience, some of whom are important, experienced southwest Persian textile collectors, had brought in a great deal of material (more than could be treated). 

In this Part 2, we will show and examine this audience-brought material.  It is possible that one or two of the pieces treated below are also Opie’s, but I can’t tell that as I write.

I want to say, as I did at the beginning of Part 1 of this virtual version of Opie’s program, that I have not been able to arrange for Opie to review what follows.  I have drawn heavily on Opie’s two books, on notes taken for me and I have consulted with some experienced folks who were present.  None of the above are responsible for any errors.  These are mine alone.

We started with the piece below.

Numbers are not always consecutive

O28

*

*

Comments on O28:  This kilim is probably Lori, but could also be Qashqa’i.  Good, spacious graphics.

O29

*

*

Comments on: O29:  This square pile rug could be Lori.  It’s not Afshar.  Excellent wool and real camel hair.

Details of O29.

*

*

*

*

O30

*

*

Comments on O30: Similar to O29.  Wefts are dyed.  Motifs could be leaves, plants or flowers.  Hung upside down.  Below, Wendel Swan held O30 up to show this.

*

*

O32

*

*

Comments on O32:  Shekalu, Lori speakers wove this rug.  Earlier versions have wider borders and many animal heads.

Details of O32.

*

*

*

*

O33

*

*

Comments on O33: Similar to O32.  More finely woven.  Supple.

O34

*

*

Comments on O34:  Khamseh. Three-medallion “bird” rug.  Stylized pomegranates.  Turkic origin patterns.  Multiple, narrow borders. Probably older.

Details of O34.

*

*

*

*

*

O35

*

*

Comments on O35:  Qashqa’i.  Kilim.  There was a question about whether there are animal or bird heads in some “hook-shaped” design devices.

Details of O35.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

O36

*

*

Comments on O36: Afshar. An impressive rug.  Stylized birds or animals and plant forms in the field.  Interesting striped spandrel treatment: effective use of scale.  Border is of floral elements.

Details of O36.

*

*

*

*

*

O37

*

*

Comments on O37:  Afshar.  Ivory ground.  Stylized vase design.  Similar to the image in Slide 2 in Opie’s lecture.  As Opie said about Slide 2, this rug is full of external usages.

Details of O37.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

O38

*

Comments on O38:  Afshar.  The floral bouquet elements in the field were borrowed from Europe.  Similar usages occur in Caucasian rugs.

Detials of O38.

*

*

*

*

*

O39

*

*

Comments on O39:  Two faces of a chanteh-size bag set.  Made for their owners.  Could be NW Persian.

O40

*

 

Comments on O40:  A one-part bag.  Qashqua’i.  Effective use of a white ground.

O41

*

*

Comments on O41:  This curved piece is contemporary.

Opie said that the use of natural dyes persisted in south Persia until the 1970s, primarily due to the work of one man, Abbas Sayahi.  Natural dyes were then picked up for use in gabbehs.

Opie has his own production and said that the piece below is one from it.  These piece features mostly natural dyes and traditional south Persian designs.   

O42

*

*

Comments on O42:  The owner of O42 says that he has a number of rugs from Opie’s contemporary production.  This rug was woven in Afghanistan with enough birds to seem to be based on Kamseh designs.

Details of O42.

*

 

*

*

*

*

O43

*

*

Comments on O43:  This piece was described as a “workshop” rug: Kashkuli. Only the minor borders are tribal.  Opie said that it is very well done.

Details of O43.

*

*

*

*

*

*

O44

*

*

Comment on O44:  This was said to be a Luri bag with an unusual back.  I don’t have a back image.

O45

*

*

Comments on O45:  Described as an Afshar bag face.

O51

The next piece was a large Luri flatweave.

Owner’s Camera

*

*

There was discussion about the red square at the lower part of this piece.  It is not a patch or repair but is an integral part of the original weaving.  One suggestion was that it might represent the Kaaba in Mecca.  If so, it was said the piece should be oriented with the square at the upper part of it.

*

*

O46

*

*

Comments on O46:  This is an attractive flat-woven bag face.  I don’t have an attribution. Some said not Fars.  Maybe Shahsavan or even Afshar,

Details of O46.

*

*

*

*

*

O47

*

*

Comments on O47:  Large, rare Lori rug.  Dark wefts.  Endless improvisation. Multiple-headed animals. Birds. Tree-forms.  Most S-shapes in the border include quadrupeds, some with horns. Excellent artistry. Related to some Caucasian and Shahsavan usages,  Edged with camel hair.

Details of O47.

*

*

*

*

*

O48

*

*

Comments on O48: Large Khamseh rug (longer than the front TM panel on which rugs are pinned).  Well articulated pomegranates.  Lions and other quadrapeds.  Urban hints in the borders.

Details of O48.

*

*

*

*

*

*

O49

*

*

Comments on O49:  Khamseh salt bag.

Details of O49.

*

*

*

O52

The next piece was a complete Luri khorgin, opened up.  It has a wonderful back that closely resembles the design of O51 above.

*

*

 

The last piece of the day was this one.

O50

*

*

Comments on O50:  A Qashqa’i wagireh: sampler.  Unusual.  Highly stylized medallion.  Eiland and Eiland note four types of wagireh.  This one has all the needed components of a complete rug.

Details on O50.

*

*

*

*

*

*

Opie answered questions and brought his session to a close.

*

*

The audience moved forward to get their hands on some of this material.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

We want to thank James for coming to give us this program and for bringing a great deal of material to it.

Multiple thanks are due to Wendel Swan, who nearly, single-handedly, produced this program, worked with ICOC to finance it, and hosted Opie during his stay here.

Thanks, too, to the local collectors, who brought in a great deal of quality material.

Amy Rispin took an excellent set of notes for me and worked with me after to align our comments with Opie’s two books.

Some experienced collectors, who want to be anonymous, talked to me about comments on particular pieces.

Michael Kaplan and Wendel Swan provided some of the photos used here.

The full house was justified.

*

*

We hope you have enjoyed this virtual version of a Rug and Textile Appreciation Morning program of a sort we cannot manage frequently.

R. John Howe