Archive for the Uncategorized Category

“Kilims from Your Collection” with Walter Denny, Sumru Krody and Michael Seidman

Posted in Uncategorized on December 4, 2018 by rjohn

On October 27, 2018 a program entitled “Kilims from Your Collection” was held here at the Textile Museum.  It was not, strictly speaking, a Rug and Textile Appreciation Morning program, but it was a show and tell held in the usual RTAM day/time slot and so resembled them.

This program was held in conjunction with the current exhibition on Anatolian kilims.

*

A Nomad’s Art: Kilims of Anatolia

Detail of kilim

Kilim (detail), Turkey, central Anatolia, late 18th century. The Textile Museum 2013.2.1. The Megalli Collection.
September 1–December 30, 2018
*
Originally, the speaker/facilitator of this session was to be Peter Davies, the well-known NYC kilim dealer and author.
*
*
Davies died unexpectedly, on September 12, and the decision was made to go on with the program he would have led.
*
Michael Seidman
*
*
organized and facilitated the program, and Walter Denny
*
*
and Sumru Krody
*
*
were the primary describers of the pieces.
*
Bruce Baganz
*
*
 spoke to the pieces he had brought.
*
*
We gave Davies’ first edition of his book, “The Tribal Eye: Antique Kilims of Anatolia,” as a door prize,
*
Image result for Peter Davies kilims
*
and Walter said a few words about Davies.
*
*
He said that Davies had started life with a horrendous, disadvantaged, childhood, but had bootstrapped his way to an education, interesting work in Turkey, and became a prominent textile dealer in NYC.  He was one of those, who, in 80s and 90s, drew attention to the importance of flat-woven textiles, and in his case, Anatolian kilims.  Walter also pointed to a remarkable obit on Peter, that his partner, Mark Scherzer has written, and that I have included, at the end of this post.
*
We moved to treat the considerable material that had been brought in.  
*
The word “kilim” is used and heard ambiguously and some thought the topic, and the material to be brought to the session, included flatweaves other than slit tapestry.  And also pieces not woven in Anatolia.
*
We started with a few such off-topic pieces.
K1
*
*
(Please note that you can click on most of the images in this post to see a larger version.)
Comment on K1:  Denny said that this is trans-Caucasian kilim in slit tapestry.  The lack of borders is an indicator. Likely by a Turkic weaver.  A well-done piece, not particularly old, and with signs of the possible use of synthetic dyes.
Detail of K1:
*
*
K2
*
*
Comment on K2:  This piece was described as “Karabagh.”  It is brocaded. Brown wool warps.  Not seen as old. Likely Kurdish.
*
Details of K2:
*
*
*
*
*
K3
*
*
Description of K3:  Owner said it was bought over 40 years ago in Bagdad.  Sumac. Kurdish.  Likely made in the northern part of Iraq. This piece and K4, below, were said to be parts of an unmatched pair.
*
Details of K3:
*
*
*
K4
*
*
Comment on K4:  This is the second, although much larger, part of the “pair” described in K3 above.
*
Details of K4:
*
*
*
K5
*
*
Comment on K5:  With this piece we began to treat the slit tapestry, Anatolian kilims of our topic. 
*
A general geographic sequence was followed, beginning with things estimated to have been woven in eastern Anatolia, and then, in turn, to pieces seen to be sourced in central and then western Anatolian.  But sometimes this geographic progression was not followed.
*
K5 was said to have been woven in southeast Anatolia, near Syria.  Someone mentioned, after, that it is similar to some published pieces attributed to Ruswan/Rushwan Kurds in the east part of Central Anatolia  
*
Lots of cochineal.  The blue-green in the field was noted. White areas are cotton, despite a tan cast.  Could be sunlight or, even, deliberate tea staining.  Lots of slits: a delicate slit tapestry fabric.  Nicely matched halves.
*
Details of K5:
*
*
*
*
K6
*
*
(Click even on detail images that seem the same size.  Sometimes different large images appear.”
*
Comment on K6:  This is an Anatolian storage bag, complete, but opened up.  Its more decorated center panels are brocade and the striped red and blue panels are weft faced tapestry.  The warps are parallel with the horizontal in this image.  Seen as Kurdish and that likely means eastern Anatolia. 
*
Similar bags are in “Giving Back the Colors,” on the Josephine Powell Collection.
Details of K6:
*
*
*
*
K7
*
*
(Please, click on the image above.  It’s not that small underneath.)
*
Comment on K7:  This is a half kilim with a niche design.  A saf-like design, but not an actual saf.  Cochineal, and a good green. Kurd.
*
Details of K7:
*
*
*
*
*
K8
*
*
Comment on K8:  Bought in SE Turkey. Madder and cochineal reds.  Green cast to colors.  Halves nicely matched despite intricate design.  About 1900.  Kurd.
The attribution notes for K5, above, apply to this piece as well.
*
Details of K8:
*
*
*
*
*
K9
*
*
Comment on K9:  This is another complete Anatolian storage bag, similar to K6 above, but not opened.  S.E. Anatolia. The tablet-woven attached strap was noticed.  
 *
Details of K9:
*
*
*
The owner came forward to arrange it as it would be when in use, with the two brocade panels at front together.  A handsome piece.
*
*
K10
*
*

Comments on K10:  Now we’re back, again, with the slit tapestry kilims that were the primary focus of this session. K10 is a complete, two-panel kilim from southeastern Anatolia, Yörük or Kurdish, with weft faced slit tapestry weave and some supplementary weft-wrapping for outlines and prominent use of cotton for white highlights.

*

It has an unusual color palate, about 12 colors, including what is likely to be cochineal (cool red) in addition to madder for warm red and orange shades, typical of eastern Anatolia.  The owner pointed out a color of possible interest, asking whether the prominent light green in the center rams-horns “koç boyunuzu” motif might be indigo-sulfonic dye.

*

Walter noted that this first synthetic dye was used from the early 19th century (one source says 1740, but P. Davies says indigosulfonic acid came in use in 1780 – but not attributed to a source).  It has an advantage over the usual green, created with indigo over-dyed on yellow, by being a one-step process.  It was widely used in Turkey.  It can fade in light and with washing processes, but the light green color in this piece is strong on both sides. I have heard that some see it as an age marker on Turkish rugs, but have not seen the evidence of when folks in Turkey stopped using it. 

*

The owner added that this is at least late 19th century provenance, since it came from a German-Jewish friend, a second mother, who brought it from the family home at the center of Berlin where it had been since about 1900 before the family left Germany in the 1930s.

*

Details of K10:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
K11
*
*
Comment on K11:  Its owner said that at first, this seems to be nearly one half of a two-part kilim, but once you get it up on a wall, you find that it is a study piece, showing what happens if a weaver does not maintain uniform warp depression.
*
Despite this fatal flaw, it features good color, and drawing.  Chalky whites are cotton.  It is usually attributed to Malatya because of all the cochineal.
Details of K11:
*
*
*
*
*
*
The next two pieces are similar enough to justify discussing them together.
K12
*
*
K13
*
*
Comments on K12 and K13:  These were small, one piece, white ground slit tapestries with the same, hexagonal, field device and similar border treatments. K12 has bright colors and those of K13 are more subdued, including an unusual darker red in its borders.  These pieces were not seen to have great age.
*
They were treated after kilims attributed to eastern Anatolia and those thought to have been woven in central Anatolia, but no firm attribution seems to have been given. K12 is described in one set of notes as “central Anatolian” and in another as “Taurus mountains.”
*
In his opening remarks, Denny had talked about how the rise of modern art had made kilim designs, including minimalism, more aesthetically worthy and used the words “minimalist” and “gorgeous,”in his description of these two pieces.  It is true that minimalist designs are getting some increased attention.  We saw in the ICOC 14 ending show and tell that John Wertime and Fred Mushkat are exploring minimalist pieces.
*
Details of K12 and K13 in turn:
*
*
*
*
*
*
K13
*
*
Comment on K14: This is a small kilim with a niche-topped field and a chevron border.  It is described in the notes taken for me as “central Anatolia: and “north central or east Anatolia.” Good colors and a brown-green that attracts the eye.
*
Details of K14.
*
*
*
*
K15
*
*
Comments on K15:  This is a large, one piece kilim with a niche field design.  It was woven upside down as indicated by the the orientation of the “jewelry” motifs in it field.  This weaving sequence lets the weaver get the hard stuff done first. It was said that it is likely that the weaver had never seen an “arch.”  Good colors, including an unusual blue-brown.
*
The variation on the use of scale in this piece, especially in the large devices chosen for the main borders, is effective.
*
Details of K15.
*
*
*
*
K16
*
*
Comments on K16:  This is a corner fragment of a large kilim.  Its owner said that he owns this humble piece only because of all the green in it.  The colors in it are subdued, likely from age. One attribution comment placed it in central or central-east Anatolia.  The whites are not cotton.
*
Details of K16.
*
*
*
*
K17
*
*
(Click for a larger image.)
Comments on K17: Its owner said that this fragment of a large Anatolian weft-faced tapestry was given to him by Patrick Pouler, the Rugrabbit dealer.  It is admittedly decrepit, but has good color and that led him to have it couched onto a blue background.
*
He said that Marla Mallett, looking at images of it, said that this kind of weaving could have been woven anywhere in Anatolia. One comment in my notes was that this piece likely had a Turkman origin.
*
Denny said that you can never tell what will appear in a session like this and that he had not seen a piece like this previously.
*
Details of K17:
*
*
There have been some odd attempts at decoration of some stripes, maybe a crude kind of brocade.
*
*
*
*
K18
*
*
Click on the image above for a larger version.)
*
I want to give you a chance to see K18 completely.  Below is another photo of it, in an entirely different lighting and setting.
*
*
Comment on K18:  This is a half kilim,  A good type. well-drawn.  Some bad colors, but a possible good purple.   
*
Its owner attributed its source as “Powell-Böhmer, and, perhaps, c.1900.  Saçikara Yörük (Saçikara Izmirili Hayta, J Powell attribution).  She called the main rectangle as having ‘sandıklar’ (‘storage box’ or ‘trunk”) elements with ‘Memling guls.'”
*
Detail images of K18:
*
*
*
*
K19
*
*
Comments on K19:  This is a single piece Anatolian weaving with weft-faced tapestry and slit tapestry.  Good, fresh color.  No cotton. The feathering of the “borders” in the panels with lozenges is delicately done.
*
Details of K19.
*
*
*
*
K20
*
*
Comment on K20: This is a kilim fragment, of a long half, organized in “stripes,”each containing an array of design devices.  Wonderful colors.  Estimated to the 18th century.
*
Details of K20.
*
*
*
*
K21
*
*
Comment on  K21: Described as: 18th century. A version, as an entire half, is pictured in Bohmer’s book Nomads of Anatolia. His piece has 7 elements, this has three. Both on a camel wool ground.   Warp-fringed.  No white.
*
Details of K21.
*
*
Note the S-plied, brown and white warps.
*
*
*
K22
*
*

Comment on K22:  This is a single-piece fragment.  Beautiful.  18th century. Central Anatolia, Sumru saw a relationship to plate 38 in the Megalli catalogue.  The jagged “sun burst” elements were her connection.

*
Detail images of K22.

*

*

*

*

*

K23

*

*

(Please click on the image above in order to see this entire piece in a larger version.)

*

Comments on K23: This is difficult to get into a horizontal image, but it is also a piece with a story. 

*

In Islamic societies, inheritance eligibility is broad.  So possessions often have to be divided among those eligible.  This includes valuable textiles, of which K23 is one.  The owner indicated that this kilim was divided into several parts and that he has been able to acquire them all.

*

So what you are looking at are matched fragments of a complete kilim.

*

It is in slit tapestry, has wonderful, clear colors, and is estimated to have been woven 1800 or before (sold as 18th century).    Hotamis, Central Anatolia

*

Details of K23.

*

*

*

*

*

*

K24

*

*

Comment on K24:  This piece is another departure. It is a small, brocaded, Anatolian, textile, a size often used as yastiks.  It is not old. Its dyes seem mostly to be synthetic, and there is some fading.  the notes taken for me do not offer an attribution.

*

Details of K24.

*

*

*

K25

*

*

Comment on K25:  This piece was described as one half of a cover.  Western Anatolia. As you will see more clearly, below, it has very dark brown warps, which have be covered in the weaving by bright wool brocade in synthetic colors.  The drawing is quite good.

*

Details of K25.

*

*

*

K26

*

*

(Please click on this image to see a larger version.)

Comments on K26: With this half kilim, we return to our main topic.

*

Its owner said after: 

*

“The book by Bandsma andBrandt – Flatweaves of Turkey – describes a few kilims which are similar – plates 14, 20, 18 – and calls them Aydinli Kilims. (Western Anatolia near Ephesus).

*

“This kilim half is 33 inches wide and almost 12 feet long.

*

“It seems to be extremely, masterfully, woven, and the geometric figures are so regular in execution that, it appears to me, that this must have been woven on a very good upright loom. The two-headed animalistic figures are fully articulated and regular.

*

In the main field, slits are extremely short (less than 1/4 “) while larger slits are seen only in the borders. Thus, the piece as a whole is quite dimensionally stable and strong.

The long border is typical – the crenelations are themselves crenelated.

*

“Interestingly this piece has two different short border design arrangements. One with large octagonal motifs.

*

*

The other has four borders with smaller stepped designs. The white filed is dotted with tiny brocaded elements.  

*

*

“Many of the dragons and other design elements have very narrow outlines in contrasting colors, often using extra weft wrapping. The white field is also dotted with tiny brocaded elements. 

“Sumru said this is definitely 19th century. Walter said ‘Wow’ and noted the two-headed ‘dachshunds’ in the field.”  This was Josephine’s pet word for this device.

*

Much of the owner’s description of K30, below, applies also to this piece. 

*

Details of K26.

*

*

*

Some of the design devices above the blue and red meandering band were referred to as possible “dragons.” I’ve cropped one out and turned it so that you can see it clearly.

*

*

Walter had talked about naming design devices, in an earlier lecture, this week, and said that there is nothing wrong with adopting names for given devices, so that we can refer to them accurately in conversation.  We cannot claim, however, that the weavers saw them as we do, or as we name them.

*

K27

*

*

Comment on K27:  This band is part of a camel trapping.  Tapestry woven.  Bought in Turkey in the 1980s.  The band (6’10” long–plus 5” fringe at each end— by 3” wide) probably would have been used to wrap packs on a camel during migration.  The ends were woven at the same time as the rest of the band.

*

*

*

K28

*

*

Comments on K28:  Eastern Turkey, Vann kilim.   Predominant red, but several shades.  Dense drawing with lots of smaller design devices. Kurdish?

*

Details of K28.

*

*

*

*

*

K29

*

*

Comment om K29:  This is a grain bag from western Anatolia.  Lots of tapestry but the most heavily decorated areas on this, the front, are brocade.

*

The backs (below) are frequently as interesting as the fronts and are said, often, to be better indicators of attribution.  This back is seen by Pinkwart and Steiner to be like those of very old Bergama-Kilaz backs.  The backs are mostly in weft-faced tapestry with touches of brocade.

*

*

Details of K29.

*

*

*

*

K30

*

*

Comment on K30: The owner has given me a fulsome description.  As we said, above, much of it applies to K26 above as well.

*

“This kilim is attributed by Josephine Powell to Saçikara Yörük, a group of about twenty allied nomadic tribes (Türkmen and possibly other origins) for whom there is evidence of seasonal migrations in the broad region of southern Anatolia, roughly between Hatai, Maraş and Kayserei in modern Turkey.

“The piece was collected by Harald Böhmer with Josephine Powell, purchased from HB and delivered by JP during a visit to our home in 2002.  It is probably a 19th century piece that is related what was seen in mosques and camp sites during ethnographic fieldwork by JP in the 1970’s and 1980’s. The attribution and design elements are discussed with photos and drawings in her paper, “A Survey of a Group of Recent Anatolian Nomad Weavings”, in OCTS V, Part 1, pages 171-178, from a presentation at the 1999 ICOC in California. She said that these groups generally migrated and diffused eastward over the recent few centuries, and by the late 19th centuries were generally near Adana to Antakya and Aleppo with summer pastures north of this region in the plateau south of Kayseri.  Peter Davies (private communication) attributed this piece to Aydinlı Yörük, Western Anatolia. Josephine suggested that ‘…Aydinlı … is the term used by kilim dealers to describe all kilims they believe to be woven by Anatolian nomads’, her Footnote 5 of the cited paper. 

*

“The piece is almost 10’ long with warps of hand-spun light ivory which are also used for the ivory field.  It is made from two well matched half panels sewn side-to-side. The main designs and colors are as in the cited paper, Plates 3 & 4, including the side borders.  There are different end borders and other minor variations. The dominant central motifs are a stack of layered hexagonal motifs that are bounded by serrations and “rams horn” decorations. These are surrounded by a continuous vertical blue zig-zag line which Josephine says are “usually called gökkol” which means ‘arm of heaven’, but more commonly thought of now as ‘blue arm’…”  The other prominent features, between the “blue arm” and the border, are many horizontal rows of “Dragon” or “Simurg” elements. A playful label for this design (ed. as we said above) is ”Dachshund”, attributed to Josephine in Böhmer’s “Nomads of Anatolia” (2008), p. 278 and photo details p. 232.

*

“There are about 9 colors, evidently all natural dyes. There are also small decorations in extra-weft embroidery (horizontal S shapes, little blossoms, etc.) sprinkled in the ivory field.”  

*

Details of K30.

*

*

*

*

K31

*

*

Comments on K31:  Walter says “amazing.” Saf design, but not a real saf.  Very complex tapestry weaving.  There is a seeming “prayer gable” at the right end.  Wonderful colors.

*

Owner said: “18th century, from Karapinar or Karaman area. Maybe on natural sheep wool ground.  There is a 19th century example in Bohmer’s book on Anatolian nomads. Both his and ours are photographed on their side, the warps run the length.”

*

Details of K31.

*

*

*

*

*

*

K32

*

*

Comments on K32: It’s owner said after: “This fragment represents a little more than a third of a half. The delicate figures in the stripes that separate the major “fields” are unusual. I have not seen them on other kelims. Excellent aubergine, lots of green.”

*  

“K32 is pictured in the 100 kelims book, 18th century.  Note the relationship between border elements and the similar motifs in K31.” 

*

Details of K32.

*

*

*

K33

*

*

Comments on K33:  Its owner said after, 

*

“K33 is a half of a half. There is a similar fragment in a major North American collection, pictured in Jurg Rageth’s book on Anatolian kelims and carbon dated to the 17th century. This has a red described by the Istanbul dealers as consistent with the 17th century.”

*

Details of K33.

*

*

*

*

K34

*

*

Comments on K34:  After, the owner said, 

*

“K34 is a half of a half. Often described in the trade as “saf” kelim, but certainly not. 18th century.” 

*

Details of K34.

*

*

*

*

*

K35

Owner’s Photo

*

*

Owner’s description: Malayta, niche kilim with amulet. Size: 47 x 58 inches. Mid-19th century.  Audience: Kurdish?

*

Details of K36 (my camera).

*

*

*

*

K37

(owner’s photo)

*

*

Owner’s comment: Hotamis small format kilim, Central Anatolia, possibly could have been used for prayer. Positive – negative effect: are these polygons superimposed on stripes, or are they bisected polygons between solid polygons? Intensely saturated color in both field and borders. Size: 35 x 50 inches. First half of the 19th century.

*

Audience: Konya area?

*

Details of K37 (my camera).

*

*

*

*

*

K38 

(Owner’s photo)

*

*

Owners Comments on K38:  Obruk, Central Anatolia niche kilim. Size: 33 x 49 inches. 3rd quarter of the 19th century.

*

Details of K38 (my camera).

*

*

*

*

*

*

K39

(Owner’s photo)

*

*

Owner’s comment on K39:  Adana, Southeast Anatolia niche floral form kilim. Size: 40 x 56 inches. Second half 19th century.

*

Details of K39 (my camera).

*

*

*

*

K40

(Owner’s photo)

*

*

Owner’s comment on K40:  Erzurum niche kilim. Wool and metal thread. Size: 45 x 72 inches. Second half 19th century.

*

Details of K40 (my camera).

*

*

*

*

*

*

K41

(Owner’s photo)

*

*

Owner’s comment on K41:  Konya niche kilim, Central Anatolia. Possibly a dowry or special commissioned piece with wool, cotton, metal thread and silk. Size: 53 x 72 inches. Second half 19th century.

*

Details of K41 (my camera).

*

*

*

K42

(Owner’s photo)

*

*

Owner’s comment on K42:  Erzurum niche kilim with cochineal border and stylized carnations flanking the mihrab. Exhibited & published: The Sultan’s Garden, Denny and Krody, 2012. Size: 45 x 44 inches. Dated 1304 (1886).

*

Details of K42 (my camera).

*

*

*

*

*

*

K43

(Owner’s photo)

*

*

Owner’s comment on K43: Bayburt niche kilim with elongated blue mihrab and aubergine & carnation border. Exhibited & published: The Sultan’s Garden, Denny and Krody, 2012. Size: 38 x 55 inches. 18th century.

*

Details of K43 (my camera).

*

*

*

*

*

*

K44

(Owner’s photo)

*

*

Owner’s comment on K44:  Sivas niche kilim with red mihrab on blue-green field and apricot border. Size: 144 x 184 cms. 18th century.

*

Details on K44 (my camera).

*

*

*

*

*

*

The last piece of the day was the one below.

*

K45

(Owner’s photo)

*

*

Owner comment on K45:  Hotamis, Central Anatolia niche kilim with complex side reciprocal border on oriented red field. Size: 48” x 76 inches. Circa 1800.

*

Details of K45 (my camera).

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Sometimes in these posts, I provide a look at the audience after.  The way things went in this session required that I do a “before” audience sequence. 

Here it is:

*

*

*

*

*

*

It was raining outside.

*

*

*

Helpers are important in these sessions.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Almost ready.

*

You can go back to the beginning and see it all again.

*

Thanks to Amy Rispin, Jim Henderson, Michael Seidman and Bruce Baganz, all of whom gave special assistance in fashioning this virtual version.

*

Hope you enjoyed it.

*

R. John Howe

*

Here’s the wonderful obit on Peter Davies:

*

Image result for mark scherzer peter davies

A Life Well Lived

by Mark Scherzer (posted by Mark Scherzer)

Peter Davies, 1937-2018

Peter Davies, of New York City and Germantown, NY, died September 12, 2018. He is survived by two sisters in Wales, daughters Jessica Davies and Heather Cox, in Florida, son Perry Davies in California, and me, his partner of 40 years, Mark Scherzer.

The cause of Peter’s death was acute respiratory distress syndrome, brought on by bleeding he suffered when he lacerated his kidney in a fall a week earlier. It was a painful and ugly end to a remarkable and beauty-infused life.

Born December 5, 1937, in Cardiff, Wales, Peter was the first of three children of the extramarital relationship of Joan Breckon and Richard Davies. Though she had three children, Joan was a woman who fully enjoyed her freedoms, and Peter was raised to a significant degree by his grandmother. Living in Cardiff through World War II, Peter’s most vivid early memories included navigating the bombings of the Nazi Blitz.

After the war, his mother married an American GI, Hank Seesemann. Peter’s sisters were put out for adoption in Wales, but Peter, already apparently quite a handful and not so easy to give away, was moved with his mother to Hinsdale, Illinois, where the tone of his relationship with his new family was set by his step-father’s regular alcohol-fueled beatings. Intent on escaping his second class status in a dysfunctional family, Peter largely raised himself and saw to his own education. Through morning and evening paper routes he created a college fund. When his mother stole his college savings and suggested he could be content working locally and paying rent to the family for his room, or perhaps following family tradition and joining the merchant marine, he doubled down and funded his own way through Northern Illinois University (B.A.), University of Illinois Champagne/Urbana (M.A.) and Yale University (Ph.D).

His university degrees in English Literature and Theatre History led to teaching jobs at the American College of Izmir, Turkey, Loyola of Montreal, Tulane University in New Orleans, and Simons Rock in Great Barrington. He was a great motivator of students and several devoted former students who have remained close to him will be among those most devastated by the news of his death. But the degrees and the teaching jobs do not come close to reflecting the powerhouse of intellectual curiosity and creativity Peter became. He sometimes wrote and frequently directed chamber theatre productions, establishing the Tangled Fringe theatre company in the 1970s in the Berkshires. He oversaw three historic home restorations, designed landscapes and installed gardens of great beauty, led tours focused on the history and culture of Turkey, and engaged in community and environmental activism. He was widely read, and could discuss with authority such diverse subjects as ancient Greek city plans, the plays of Samuel Beckett, early Christian theology, the birth of jazz in New Orleans, and the history of the Ottoman Sultanate.

Peter traveled intrepidly, particularly in the middle and near east. He never stopped kidding me about my fearful response when he insisted we follow a motorbike out to the edge of a small town in southern Morocco to negotiate with some Tuareg tribesmen in an abandoned caravansaray over some potential purchases. (I guarded the car.) He loved recounting how, hobbled by an ankle injury, he sought out kilims in Quetta, Pakistan, by traveling everywhere by horsedrawn cart. His peripatetic life is reflected in the birthplaces of his children: Istanbul, New Haven, and Montreal.

While living and teaching in Turkey in the early 1960s, Peter learned to speak Turkish by sitting in the bazaar talking to rug merchants. He developed a lifelong love for that country (saying he felt “half Turkish”), returning year after year for the next fifty plus years, in later years sometimes with small travel groups he assembled and with me in tow, as driver and aide. His time in the rug bazaars led him, as well, to an appreciation of Turkish flat-weavings (kilims), which he loved for the way in which they infused practical needs with an inspired, collectively developed artistic vision. After several years of financing his summer travel through bringing back and selling kilims and ethnographic artifacts, Peter in 1976 left academia and established Turkana Gallery of Old and Antique Kilims, one of the pioneer businesses introducing this form of folk art to the American market. He wrote an authoritative book about kilims, The Tribal Eye: Antique Kilims of Anatolia (Rizzoli Press 1993), which he expanded and elaborated in Antique Kilims of Anatolia (W.W. Norton 2000).

In 1984, with help from my family we bought the Ephraim Niles Byram House in Sag Harbor, New York. Peter’s vision directed a restoration so complete and true that when we ultimately put the house on the market the East Hampton Star ran an editorial suggesting we donate the house to the Sag Harbor Historical Society. Peter wrote a monograph demonstrating how the house melded Byram’s idiosyncratic scientific needs and local tastes with the architectural teachings of Andrew Jackson Downing that were so influential in mid 19th century America.

Peter was a founder of the Coalition of Neighborhoods for the Preservation of Sag Harbor. He served on the Village planning board, and ran the project to expand the Sag Harbor historic district to include the African American and Native American neighborhoods and landmarks that had been excluded when the first historic district was established. He fought for wetland preservation and against over-development. One of our most entertaining projects was helping defeat the proposal by the international luxury conglomerate LVMH to take over Sag Harbor’s main street for a concours d’elegance. Peter orchestrated a subversive campaign which included street theatre in front of the Louis Vuitton 57th Street store and anonymously distributing satirical flyers describing the plans of Louis Vuitton’s cousin, bag lady Latrina Vachon, for a concours de flatulence.

Diverse as all Peter’s interests and endeavors were, they shared certain themes. Evident in everything he did was a belief that history matters and that we live best when we understand our place in the stream of history. In the arc of history and in the present he favored the underdog. His childhood experience of abuse and neglect and the ravages of war did not make him believe that dog should eat dog, but rather that the most unfortunate among us should be respected and given dignity and help. He was not religious, but described himself as a pantheist who felt a pervasive life spirit around him.

Similarly apparent in all Peter’s projects were his consistent recognition that art and artistic vision must be intertwined with practical life – a marriage of utility and creativity that was reflected in every inch of our home and even in how he cooked – most excellently – our meals. He never stinted on pleasures, joy for him is an important human value to be found everywhere. But he never in indulging in the pleasures of food or drink or travel or personal contemplation time lost sight of what he considered fair or moral or promoting of human dignity.

In 2000, when Peter was already 63 years old, he and I bought the property that is now Turkana Farms. A year later, September 11, 2001, our City world was exploded when our home next to the World Trade Center was rendered uninhabitable and his weaving inventory, to the extent it survived, was buried in ash. In the vacuum created, Peter turned his energy to developing the farm, but in a manner that again reflected his values. Practical buildings and fences also had to be aesthetically pleasing. Heritage animal breeds were chosen in part to preserve and perpetuate historic traits of value. (Peter added to the subjects on which he could authoritatively speak the history of the Ossabaw pig, American Karakul sheep, and various breeds of heritage turkey.) The values of flavor and beauty trumped commercial motives. And the hard work was always, at Peter’s insistence, leavened by time to contemplate and enjoy the environment he had created.

The creation of the farm was another unlikely realization of a vision of the sort Peter had achieved, despite resistance, in such endeavors as staging controversial theatre productions or expanding the historic district in Sag Harbor. It required relentless focus and energy. He could be “difficult” and single minded in pursuing goals, but they were always carefully thought out goals reflecting his values. He had what his son, Perry, describes as a tunnel vision which nevertheless saw everything we generally overlook.

The day after Peter’s death, Perry suggested we take a Circle Line cruise as a means of processing our loss at a remove from everyday life. Perry clearly inherited Peter’s sense that there is nothing more invigorating than reveling in a stiff breeze on the open water. I anticipated it would be a calm, healing voyage, but had not anticipated how the excursion would call forth so many of the landmark events of Peter’s life, as so often recounted by him. We passed the place in New York Harbor where a gentleman passenger on the Queen Mary in 1946 hoisted 8 year-old Peter up to see the Statue of Liberty as he arrived in America, and the place where this young boy, already conscious of his personal dignity, insisted on covering his naked body with a raincoat for the immigration doctor’s inspection. We saw the Erie Lackawanna station where he departed for the Midwest in 1946, across the river from the then dark and disreputable blocks of the West Village where Peter and I first met in a bar in 1978. We passed the site of the World Trade Center, where the cataclysmic attack of September 11, 2001, set us off on a mad morning’s search for one another, each fearing the other was lost, and then from the East River we saw St. Margaret’s House, where later that day Peter and I eventually found each other. Ultimately, as we proceeded up the east side of Manhattan, we found ourselves opposite the window of the ICU room in New York – Presbyterian Hospital where Peter spent his last week, facing out of that window as he died. As Perry put it, these were sites of the major events from Peter’s arrival in America to his departure from the world.

The sight that was most poignant for me, however, was the view just south of the Trade Center of the penthouse Peter designed and lived in on Cedar Street. In his usual manner, Peter had taken a raw space and created a remarkable environment, in the fashion of an Ottoman harem room, filled with the weavings he sold. It was his gallery, where he staged fashion shows, special exhibitions, and parties, including our gala Regatta party for the 1986 Statue of Liberty Centennial. But it was also his home, where on our third meeting he told me he could love me, and which quickly became my home as well. From the water, towered over by massive new buildings on every side, the loft looked small and inconsequential. But into that modest space he brought an entire wider world I never would have encountered on my own, and joys I never would have known how to experience without him. At that moment I was able to see in physical manifestation what I had already been feeling inside: the immensity of the loss of my teacher, mentor, lover and friend.

 

 

 

 

Sumru Krody on Turkish Kilims from the Megalli Collection

Posted in Uncategorized on March 20, 2018 by rjohn

On January 6, 2018, Sumru Krody,

Senior Eastern Hemisphere Curator, at The Textile Museum, here in Washington, DC, gave a Rug and Textile Appreciation Morning Program on “Turkish Kilims in the Megalli Collection.”  This program anticipated an upcoming TM exhibition on this material.

A Nomad’s Art: Kilims of Anatolia

Detail of kilim

Kilim (detail), Turkey, central Anatolia, late 18th century. The Textile Museum 2013.2.1. The Megalli Collection.
 
September 1–December 30, 2018

Woven by women to adorn tents and camel caravans, kilims are enduring records of life in Turkey’s nomadic communities, as well as stunning examples of abstract art. This exhibition marks the public debut of treasures from the museum’s Murad Megalli Collection of Anatolian Kilims, dating to the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

Howe: Sumru, most readers will know, is a long-time curator at The Textile Museum and has been involved in and/or produced a large number of exhibitions and publications, which I will not enumerate here.

The Myers Room was full.

*

Sumru began:

“Kilim” is a general name, given in Anatolia and its surrounding areas in West Asia, to a group of sturdy, utilitarian textiles, woven in slit tapestry-weave technique.

These works of art are multifaceted objects and obviously played an important role in the artistic history of Anatolia.

The highly-developed designs and the fine execution, seen on the surviving eighteenth- and nineteenth-century kilims I will share with you during the next 45-minutes or so, suggest that the Anatolian kilim tradition had been well-established by the time the seventeenth century came to a close.

Note: About the images in this post.  Initially, in each case, you will see an image of a given piece, like the one below.  Please click on the initial images and you will get a larger one.  There is also a third image, one turned 90 degrees to the right that lets you see this piece most closely

2

*

*

Kilim, Central Anatolia, second half 18th century, wool, slit tapestry weave, supplementary-weft wrapping for outlines, eccentric weft. The Textile Museum 2013.2.59, The Megalli Collection. 

Dimensions (warp x weft): 417 X 95 cm (164 X 37 inches)

Turned image of 2:

*

Sumru:

Formed with wool fibers and tapestry weave technique, Anatolian kilims represent a distinct weaving tradition, while conforming to the mechanics of tapestry weaving practiced in many parts of the world.

3a

*

*

Kilim, Western Anatolia, first half 19th century, wool, slit tapestry weave, supplementary-weft patterning, weft-faced plain weave. The Textile Museum 2013.2.6, The Megalli Collection.

Dimensions (warp x weft): 308 X 75 cm (121 X 29.5 inches)

*

Sumru:

Many consider the kilims of Anatolia to be great contemplative and minimalist works of art.

3b

*

*

Kilim, Central Anatolia, c. 1800, wool, slit tapestry weave, supplementary-weft patterning, supplementary weft wrapping for outlines, eccentric weft. The Textile Museum 2013.2.44, The Megalli Collection. 

Dimensions (warp x weft): 313 X 67 cm (123 X 26 inches)

*

*

4

*

*

Kilim, Central Anatolia, 19th century, wool, slit tapestry weave, supplementary-weft wrapping for outlines, very small amount of vertical color change. The Textile Museum 2013.2.73, The Megalli Collection.

Dimensions (warp x weft): 394 X 84 cm (155 X 33 inches)

*

*

 

Sumru: 

They were created by women who had a great eye for design, and an awesome sense of color.

They are prized for the harmony and purity of their color, the integrity of their powerful overall design, their masterfully controlled tapestry weave structure, and their fine texture.

5

*

*

Kilim, Central Anatolia, 19th century, wool, slit tapestry weave, supplementary-weft patterning,\supplementary-weft wrapping for outlines. The Textile Museum 2013.2.90, The Megalli Collection.

 Dimensions (warp x weft): 367 X 88.5 cm (144.5 X 34.5 inches)

*

*

Sumru:

The visually stunning and colorful Anatolian kilims communicate the aesthetic choices of the nomadic and village women who created them.

Yet, while invested with such artistry, Anatolian kilims first and foremost were utilitarian objects

initially employed by nomadic families for a host of uses, primarily but not exclusively for covering household items and furnishing the interior sides of tents.

6

*

*

Kilim, Central Anatolia, early 19th century, wool, slit tapestry weave, weft-faced plain weave, supplementary weft wrapping for outlines. The Textile Museum 2013.2.72, The Megalli Collection.

Dimensions (warp x weft): 343 X 158 cm (135 X 62 inches)

*

*

Sumru:

Since 2015, I have been documenting a private collection of 96 Anatolian flatweaves donated to The Textile Museum .

I have been engaged in analytical study of these textiles in order to contribute to our understanding of the Anatolian kilim weaving tradition.

91 of these 96 flatweaves are kilims,

43 are attributed to Central and South Anatolia,

7a

*

*

Kilim, Northwestern Anatolia, 18th century to early 19th century, wool, slit tapestry weave, weft-faced plain weave, supplementary-weft patterning. The Textile Museum 2013.2.81, The Megalli Collection.

Dimensions (warp x weft): 147 X 79 cm (57.5 X 31 inches)

*

*

7b

Remember to click, sometimes more than once, on smaller images like the one below to get a larger version.

*

*

Kilim, Western Anatolia, c. 1800, wool, slit tapestry weave. The Textile Museum 2013.2.68, The Megalli Collection.

Dimensions (warp x weft): 401 X 86 cm (157.5 X 33.5 inches)

*

*

Sumru:

38 to western and northwestern Anatolia,

*

8

*

*

Kilim, Central Anatolia, possibly east-central, mid-19th century, wool, slit tapestry weave, weft-faced plain weave, eccentric weft, lazy lines. The Textile Museum 2013.2.19, The Megalli Collection.

Dimensions (warp x weft): 444.5 X 69 cm (175 X 27 inches)

*

*

Sumru:

and 15 to eastern Anatolia.

9

*

*

Kilim, Central Anatolia, early 19th century, wool, slit tapestry weave, supplementary-weft patterning, supplementary-weft wrapping for outlines, eccentric weft, weft-faced plain weave. The Textile Museum 2013.2.31,The Megalli Collection.

Dimensions (warp x weft): 137 X 387 cm (54 X 152.5 inches)

*

*

Sumru:

What I am about to present to you today is where I am in my investigation.

This being still an on-going research, there is room for improvement, and I appreciate hearing your questions and comments.

10

*

*

Kilim, Central Anatolia, c. 1800, wool, slit tapestry weave, weft-faced plain weave, supplementary-weft wrapping for outlines, eccentric weft. The Textile Museum 2013.2.14, The Megalli Collection.

Dimensions (warp x weft): 292 X 160 cm (115 X 63 inches)

*

*

Sumru:

I started, like any research project should, with questions that, I hope, will help me to better understand these textiles and their creators,

and  answer the fundamental question of:

11

*

*

Kilim, Central Anatolia, 18th century, wool, cotton, slit tapestry weave. The Textile Museum 2013.2.7, The Megalli Collection.

Dimensions (warp x weft): 181.5 X 138 cm (71.5 X 54 inches)

*

*

Sumru:

What is there to see when you look at a work of art, such as an Anatolian kilim?

I also wanted to know:

  • What is an Anatolian kilim?
  • Who were the artists who created these weavings?
  • How did their lifestyle affect their artistic creation?
  • How do artistic form and function come together in Anatolian kilim?
  • How do materials influence what an artist makes in the context of Anatolian kilims?
  • How does this artistic tradition change over time?
  • How does a kilim’s design affect the way it is seen?

12

*

*

Kilim, Central Anatolia, possibly west-central, early 19th century, wool, slit tapestry weave, supplementary weft wrapping for outlines, eccentric weft. The Textile Museum 2013.2.30, The Megalli Collections.

Dimensions (warp x weft): 428.5 X 67 cm (168.5 X 26 inches)

*

*

Sumru:

But the most elusive questions and the most important, at least for me, are:

  • What did Anatolian nomads value in the kilims?
  • What criteria did they use to judge these items?
  • Were they the same as ours? Or different? And, if different, how different?

*

13

*

*

Sumru:

Kilim, a type of textile, is often referred to as flatweave in the western literature because it does not have any pile or tufts, as carpets do.

The tapestry-weave technique is very old—archaeological examples go back well over two millennia—and very geographically widespread.

Textiles with tapestry weave are created in traditional Islamic carpet-weaving societies from Morocco to Central Asia, and more broadly, from the pre-Columbian Americas to ancient China, as well as to the European Medieval and Baroque tapestries.

*

14

*

*

Sumru:

In slit-tapestry weave technique, as used in the Anatolian kilims, the design is created by colored horizontal weft yarns, interlaced in an over and under sequence, through the vertical warp yarns and completely obscure them.

 Like any tapestry-woven textile, Anatolian kilims have weft-faced plain weave structure, but the real essence of Anatolian kilim is its slit-tapestry structure.  The design is built up of small areas of solid color, each of which is woven with its individual weft yarn, and that between two such adjacent areas the respective weft yarns never interlock or intermingle.

The different colored weft yarns turn back, using adjacent warp yarns. The result is a vertical slit. In this manner, the artistic expression of the kilim and its technique are inextricably bound together.

*

15

*

*

Sumru:

Anatolia was a crucial transitional point between the weaving regions of Europe, Asia, and Egypt. Its history is one of ancient, continuous interactions between the culturally diverse people.

16

*

*

Sumru:

Weavers of kilims were descendants of Turkmen nomads and their settled kin.

Turkmen—ethnic Turkish nomads—began to arrive into Anatolia in about the 10th century, adding further diversity to already ethnically diverse area.

The lands they passed through on their way from further east, via Central Asia to Anatolia, were occupied by two different religions, Islam and Eastern Orthodox Christianity, and two distinct cultures, Persian and Byzantine/Greek.

17

*

*

Sumru:

Nomadism, is a style of life, in which groups of people, mostly close family members, move from one region to another to exploit the resources, like grass.

Anatolian nomads’ living and economic units were predominantly groups of families (kabile) or of extended families (aile).

They were generally herders and depend on their large flocks for their livelihood. Some nomadic groups, such as those in Anatolia, are pastoral nomads, or semi-nomadic, meaning they move between two pastures, one for winter and one for summer.

Nomadism is a lifestyle and separate from tribalism

Remember to click, sometimes more than once, on smaller images like the one below to get a larger version.

18

*

*

Sumru:

Two major, but distinct, activities dominated the life of the Turkmen nomads:

1.Migration to winter pasture, called kisla, and to summer pasture, called yayla.

      Kisla = low elevation, in the valleys, that are warmer in the winter

      Yayla= higher elevation, on the mountains, that are cooler in the summer

19

*

*

2. Pastoral life or life in pasture

There are very few if any nomads left in the Anatolia today. If there is any migration today, so-called nomads live in brick and mortal houses by the coast during winter and move up to mountains in the summer, pitching tents in yayla.

*

20

*

*

Sumru:

The last remaining nomads were, in the mid-20th century, congregating in the Taurus Mountains, which parallel the north Mediterranean coast of Anatolia.

*

21

*

*

Sumru:

During the twice-yearly movements, camels carried family’s belongings including the tent, while the family, except the youngest ones, walked alongside the camels.

During the migration, women could display their weaving skills, through the display of kilims thrown over the camel loads, to everyone they encountered on the road.

22

*

*

Sumru:

When they arrived at the destination, the most pressing issue was to establish a shelter/home for the family.

23

*

*

Sumru:

Once settled in yayla or kisla, nomadic women could have time to devote themselves to weaving.

Remember to click, sometimes more than once, on smaller images like the one below to get a larger version.

24

*

*

Sumru:

Although utilitarian, the textiles were carefully woven and intricately decorated.

We can speculate that the reason for this care was that textiles had artistic, social, and religious importance, for the nomads, in addition to their pure functionality.

25

*

Photography by Josephine Powell, KOC Foundation Archives

Sumru:

Unfortunately for us, we are so removed from these societies, today, that it is hard for us to perceive the specifics of these aspects, and especially not through examining these objects.

26

*

*

Sumru:

We do not know how a nomad family organized their tent, in the 17th or 18th or even early 19th century. We are inferring the way they lived then, by analogy, with how their decedents were living  in the mid 20th century.

We are grateful the research done by Harald Bohmer, Josephine Powell and many others in 1970s, 80s and even some in 90s to preserve the 20th century way of nomad life.

But, we should always remember that we do not have direct access to the earlier kilim weavers. We are gathering our information among the great great grandchildren of nomads who wove the kilims in our collections, and we are relying on the notion that they have been living in very conservative, little changing environment, which is not true.

27

*

*

Sumru:

Textiles were prominently displayed when the family reached the pastureland and set up tent.

Each tent formed a single open space with a wooden post in the middle.

The large transportation bags, that carried family’s belongings during the migration, were turned into storage bags and placed in various parts of the tent.

And were covered with long kilims, that were previously used as covers during migration. Occasionally, these long kilims served as wall hangings.

In short, by rearranging kilims and other textiles, women defined the single tent space for different functions.

28

*

*

Sumru:

The practice of using textiles, to delineate living spaces, continued when nomads permanently settled in villages.

Once nomadic, now-settled women continued weaving their kilims and bags for couple of generations, though storage bags and other textiles gradually disappeared from their weaving repertoires. Only the kilim weaving appeared to be continued.

On reason for that might have been that kilims were flat rectangular textiles that could serve multiple functions as wall hangings, bedding covers, and even floor covers. And in 20th century, they brought income to the family through their sales.

29

*

*

Sumru:

Kilims also were used to honor the deceased. When a member of the family died, the body would be wrapped in a kilim and carried to the gravesite.

The kilim was not buried; however. It would be washed and presented to the mosque, at mevlut ceremonies, gatherings to honor the deceased and held forty days after their burial.

30

*

*

Kilim, Central or Western Anatolia, c.1800, wool, slit tapestry weave, weft-faced plain weave, supplementary weft wrapping for outlines. The Textile Museum 2013.2.94, The Megalli Collection.

Dimensions (warp x weft): 381.5 X 70 cm (150 X 27.5 inches)

*

*

Sumru:

The creation of Anatolian kilim was, from start to finish, the work of a single weaver or family group.

The same group of people completed the full production cycle of creation.

Remember to click, sometimes more than once, on smaller images like the one below to get a larger version.

31

*

*

Sumru:

They sheared the sheep,

32

*

*

Sumru:

chose the wool,

33

*

*

Sumru:

turned loose fibers to yarn

34

*

*

Sumru:

dyed the yarns, set up the loom, and, as the weavers say “dressed the loom.”

35

*

*

Sumru:

Then, they decided on design and wove the textiles.

36

*

*

Sumru:

The weavers had total control over the selection of their raw material.

The weavers’ involvement from the beginning in choosing, cleaning, and combing the wool to make it ready for spinning was an important factor in achieving the high weaving quality seen in the kilims.

Kilim designs that are clear and precise, and colors that are luminous and bright, are almost always made with high quality wool.

37

*

*

Kilim, Western Anatolia, c. 1800, wool, slit tapestry weave, supplementary-weft wrapping for outlines, eccentric weft. The Textile Museum 2013.2.8, The Megalli Collection.

Dimensions (warp x weft): 388 X 77.5 cm (152.5 X 30.5 inches)

*

*

Sumru:

The total involvement and control of raw material and preparation of the yarn did not translate to total freedom of design, however. Anatolian women designed their kilims, but they chose from a rigid traditional design repertoire.

The young weaver was expected to use the motifs and design layouts that were accepted by her community as theirs—their artistic tradition.

38 upper

*

*

Kilim, Central Anatolia, early 19th century, wool, slit tapestry weave, weft-faced plain weave, supplementary weft wrapping for outlines, supplementary-weft patterning. The Textile Museum 2013.2.74, The Megalli Collection.

Dimensions (warp x weft): 445 X 94 cm (175 X 37 inches)

*

*

38 lower

*

*

Kilim, Western Anatolia, second half 18th century, wool, slit tapestry weave, weft-faced plain weave supplementary-weft patterning, supplementary-weft wrapping for outlines. The Textile Museum 2013.2.71,The Megalli Collection.

Dimensions (warp x weft): 364 X 90 cm (143 X 35.5 inches)

*

*

 

Sumru on 38 upper and lower:

Only after a weaver had assimilated and internalized these motifs, and the mechanics of weaving them to such a degree that she became a skilled master, did she become comfortable with introducing variations and minor innovations to the traditional design.

Even the skilled and experienced weaver could do so only if she maintained, and did not displace, the accepted form.

39

*

*

Kilim (detail) western Anatolia, Aydin, first half of the 19th century, wool, slit-tapestry weave, The Textile Museum, 2013.2.9 The Megalli Collection.

*

*

Sumru:

So an Anatolian kilim could not be considered the overt self-expression of one individual, but rather an expression of the collective, the tradition.

Conversely, each kilim was different from the others. Even in this restricted environment, the individualism was manifested in minor details, as long as the weaver followed the expected traditional forms.

40 upper

*

*

Kilim, Central Anatolia, second half 18th century, wool, slit tapestry weave, weft-faced plain weave, supplementary-weft wrapping for outlines, eccentric weft. The Textile Museum 2013.2.32, The Megalli Collection.

Dimensions (warp x weft): 357 X 115.5 cm (140.5 X 45.5 inches)

*

*

40 middle

*

*

Kilim, Central Anatolia, possibly west-central, first half 19th century, wool, slit tapestry weave, supplementary weft patterning, supplementary-weft wrapping for outlines, eccentric weft. The Textile Museum 2013.2.48, The Megalli Collection.

Dimensions (warp x weft): 312.4 X 110.5 (123 X 43.5 inches)

*

*

40 lower

*

*

Kilim, Central Anatolia, possibly west-central, first half 19th century, wool, slit tapestry weave, weft-faced plain weave, supplementary-weft wrapping for outlines, supplementary-weft patterning. The Textile Museum 2013.2.64, The Megalli Collection.

Dimensions (warp x weft): 371 X 76 cm (146 X 30 inches)

*

*

Sumru on 40 upper, middle and lower:

Many factors influence the uniqueness of each kilim. The individual personality of weaver, her nature, her understanding of colors, ability to design, weaving skills, and different levels of expertise/experience in weaving, all play a role, as did external factors.

Changes in the conditions of the family group—the influx of new families into the group and marriage among individuals from different nomadic groups—brought in new ideas. Chance exposure of weavers to new motifs, during migration, or occasional visits to a mosque, allowed new motifs to be appreciated and memorized.

41

*

*

Sumru:

The mode of learning in kilim weaving was memory, rather than the invention or creation.

This involved memorizing a small set of motifs/design elements, and the mechanics of weaving this same set of motifs.

In other words, it appears that young weavers mastered the weaving technique, and the motifs that go with it, simultaneously. The learning process was both visual and tactile memorization.

Remember to click, sometimes more than once, on smaller images like the one below to get a larger version.

42

*

*

Sumru:

Nowadays they use cartoons.

43 upper*

*

Kilim, central Anatolia, 18th century, wool, slit tapestry weave, The Textile

Museum 2013.2.27, The Megalli Collection. 

Dimensions (warp x weft): 310 X 93 cm (122 X 36.5 inches)

*

*

43 lower

*

*

Kilim, central Anatolia, 18th century, wool, slit tapestry weave, The Textile

Museum 2013.2.35, The Megalli Collection.

Dimensions (warp x weft): 293 X 137.5 cm (115 X 54 inches)

*

*

Sumru on 43 upper and lower:

Through close examination of the kilims, we can determine some characteristics of kilims design tradition.

In creating their designs, weavers depended on repetition and variation of a relatively small number of motifs, although the motifs themselves might not be small in terms of their physical size. Just to give you a sense of the size of these kilims, the longest ones can reach up to 14-15 feet long. The ones on the screen are  about 10- 11 feet long.

Weavers expanded the design repertoire through a process of elaboration or simplification.

44 left

*

*

Kilim, Western Anatolia, 18th century, wool, slit tapestry weave, supplementary-weft patterning, supplementary-weft wrapping for outlines, eccentric weft. The Textile Museum 2013.2.53, The Megalli Collection.

Dimensions (warp x weft): 93 X 89 cm (36.5 X 35 inches)

*

*

43 right

*

*

Kilim, western Anatolia, early 19th century, wool, slit tapestry weave, The

Textile Museum 2013.2.10, The Megalli Collection.

Dimensions (warp x weft): 268 X 88 cm (105.5 X 34 inches)

*

*

Sumru on 44 left and right:

This was done by presenting the same motifs in different sizes.

45 lower (note red circled device in the border)

*

*

Kilim, Central Anatolia, late 18th century, wool, slit tapestry weave, weft-faced

plain weave, supplementary-weft wrapping for outlines, eccentric weft.

The Textile Museum 2013.2.1, The Megalli Collection.

Dimensions (warp x weft): 374 X 84 cm (127 X 33 inches)

(again, note the same red circled device, now, in this turned view, on the left)

*

*

45 upper (notice red circled device now in the field)

*

*

Kilim, Central or western Anatolia, 18th century, wool, slit tapestry weave. The Textile Museum 2013.2.67, The Megalli Collection.

Dimensions (warp x weft): 173 X 71 cm (68 X 28 inches)

(red circled device is now prominent in the field)

*

*

Sumru:

This process of elaboration or simplification was also utilized when introducing new design ideas.

The introduction of new design elements had to start by using them as minor design elements, such as border designs, and had to move slowly to be used as main design elements, which were considered the most important signifiers of tradition.

Later on, the weaver could take the same design element from a minor element status, enlarged it and, artfully, make it into a main design element that dominated the whole kilim.

46

*

*

Sumru on 46:

They created layouts with design elements of equal or fluctuating emphasis, in which what was dominant and what was recessive, remains unresolved.

46 left

*

*

Kilim, Central Anatolia, 18th century, wool, slit tapestry weave, weft-faced plain weave, eccentric weft. The Textile Museum 2013.2.56, The Megalli Collection.

Dimensions (warp x weft): 267 X 183 cm (105 X 72 inches)

46 right

*

*

Kilim, Central Anatolia, first half 19th century, wool, slit tapestry weave, weft-faced plain weave. The Textile Museum 2013.2.78, The Megalli Collection.

Dimensions (warp x weft): 157 X 107 cm (61.5 X 42 inches)

47

*

*

Kilim, Central Anatolia, early 19th century, wool, slit tapestry weave, weft-faced plain weave, supplementary weft wrapping for outlines. The Textile Museum 2013.2.72, The Megalli Collection.

Dimensions (warp x weft): 343 X 158 cm (135 X 62 inches)

*

*

Sumru:

The varying sizes of many reciprocal motifs, which form both negative and positive space, tease the eye. Either aspect of the composition can be the primary view, the other spaces receding into the background. This effect is known as “figure ground reversal

Remember to click, sometimes more than once, on smaller images like the one below to get a larger version.

48

*

*

Sumru:

The optical effects of figure ground reversal are compounded when the these kilims were draped over textiles or hung, or draped on top of one other, creating undulated surfaces. The eye shifts from angle to angle, textile to textile. Elements of the patterns appear similar, then different.

They move in and out of view with the kilims’ folds. The kilims dynamic drapery and large size obscures individual motifs. Dynamic properties and optical effects work in tandem and enhance each other.

That is why kilim weavers pay more attention to overall look than the individual designs.

49

*

*

Kilim (and lower detail), western Anatolia, 18th century, wool, slit-tapestry weave, The Textile Museum, 2013.2.40, The Megalli Collection.

Sumru:

Another characteristic of designs seen on these kilims are the way they are visible and powerful from a distance, but also are very engaging when viewed at close proximity.

50

*

*

Kilim, Central Anatolia, second half 18th century, wool, slit tapestry weave. The Textile Museum 2013.2.37, The Megalli Collection.

Dimensions (warp x weft): 291.5 X 108 cm (117.5 X 42.5 inches)

*

*

Sumru:

The optical effects of figure ground reversal are compounded when the these kilims were draped over other textiles or hung, or draped on top of one other, creating undulated surfaces. The eye shifts from angle to angle, textile to textile. Elements of the patterns appear similar, then different.

They move in and out of view with the kilims’ folds. The kilims dynamic drapery and large size obscures individual motifs. Dynamic properties and optical effects work in tandem and enhance each other.

That is why kilim weavers pay more attention to overall look than the individual designs.

51

*

*

Kilim, Central Anatolia, Konya, 18th century, wool, slit tapestry weave, weft-faced plain weave,

supplementary-weft wrapping for outlines, eccentric weft. The Textile Museum 2013.2.63, The Megalli Collection.

Dimensions (warp x weft): 404 X 96.5 cm (159 X 38 inches)

*

*

Sumru:

In good textile design, the relationship between positive and negative spaces, created through color, is always important.

Color transforms the overall sense of a textile, besides the mechanics of how a design is created.

Based on our observations of their products, we can confidently say Anatolian kilim weavers were deeply aware of this and took advantage of it.

Until the late 19th century, they had to work within the confines of a very limited palette based on available natural dyes.

But they still were able to produce unsurpassed effects of color by exploiting to the fullest this natural palette.

52

*

*

Kilim, Central Anatolia, second half 18th century, wool, slit tapestry weave, weft-faced plain weave, supplementary-weft wrapping for outlines, eccentric weft. The Textile Museum 2013.2.32, The Megalli Collection.

Dimensions (warp x weft): 357 X 115.5 cm (140.5 X 45.5 inches)

*

*

52 middle

*

*

Kilim, Central Anatolia, possibly west-central, first half 19th century, wool, slit tapestry weave, supplementary weft patterning, supplementary-weft wrapping for outlines, eccentric weft. The Textile Museum 2013.2.48, The Megalli Collection.

Dimensions (warp x weft): 312.4 X 110.5 (123 X 43.5 inches)

*

*

52 lower

*

*

Kilim, Central Anatolia, possibly west-central, first half 19th century, wool, slit tapestry weave, weft-faced plain weave, supplementary-weft wrapping for outlines, supplementary-weft patterning. The Textile Museum 2013.2.64, The Megalli Collection.

Dimensions (warp x weft): 371 X 76 cm (146 X 30 inches)

*

*

Sumru:

Look back at 52 upper, middle and lower.

They wove the very same design with different colorways, creating kilims with entirely different feelings and looks.

53

*

*

Kilim, Western Anatolia, Mid-19th century, wool, slit tapestry weave, weft substitution, weft-faced plain weave, supplementary-weft patterning. The Textile Museum 2013.2.22, The Megalli Collection.

Dimensions (warp x weft): 265 X 125 cm (104 X 49 inches)

*

*

Sumru:

The uncompromising and uncluttered design seen on many early Anatolian kilims leaves large areas of plain color exposed. 

Weaver needs to rely on well-dyed yarns to achieve a good product and they usually did, at least the experienced ones.

This example stands out among the others, and is one of my favorites.

This carpet has a very sophisticated color palette.

It uses red, green, and blue, just like the Mamluk carpets  produced in Egypt in the 15th century.

54 upper

*

*

Kilim, Central Anatolia, first half 19th century, wool, slit tapestry weave, supplementary-weft wrapping for some of the outlines, eccentric weft. The Textile Museum 2013.2.47, The Megalli Collection.

Dimensions (warp x weft): 395 X 75 cm (155.5 X 29.5 inches)

*

*

54 lower

*

*

Kilim, Western Anatolia, first half 19th century, wool, slit tapestry weave, weft-faced plain weave, supplementary-weft wrapping for outlines, eccentric weft. The Textile Museum 2013.2.34, The Megalli Collection.

Dimensions (warp x weft): 389 X 66 cm (153 X 26 inches)

*

*

Sumru on 54 upper and lower:

Colors, of course, are the key to enhanced visual impact, with exploration of spatial possibilities. The relationship between positive and negative spaces, between foreground and background, have been always important in kilim weaving.

They juxtaposed colors, especially contrasting or complementing colors, to create dramatic effects.

Often we may feel that weavers pursued these effects at the expense of the legibility of motifs that so interest modern viewers, like us.  We pay more attention to pattern/design.

55

*

*

55 left

*

*

55 right

*

*

Sumru on 55 left and right:

The weavers was very skillful in manipulating how colors appeared through the use of thin outline of another color that is distinct from both neighboring colors, which emphasized the demarcation between two color areas; this in turn enhanced the contrast between the adjacent colors.

56

*

*

56 upper

*

*

Kilim, Western Anatolia, first half 19th century, wool, slit tapestry weave, weft-faced plain weave. The Textile Museum 2013.2.51, The Megalli Collection.

Dimensions (warp x weft): 319.5 X 59.5 cm (125.5 X 23.5 inches)

*

*

56 lower

*

*

Bag (unconstructed), Western Anatolia, possibly northwestern, mid-19th century, wool, weft-faced plain weave, supplementary-weft wrapping and patterning, knotted pile. The Textile Museum 2013.2.61, The Megalli Collection.

Dimensions (warp x weft): 271 X 71.5 (107 X 28 inches)

*

*

Sumru on 56 upper and lower:

Anatolian women were masters of two distinct weave structures for two different functionalities.

Slit tapestry weave was used exclusively for kilims.

Supplementary-weft patterning, in its various forms, was used 90 percent of the time for weaving transportation/storage bags, such as 56 lower. in the slide. 

57

*

*

Kilim (detail), central Anatolia, 18th century, wool, slit tapestry weave, The Textile Museum 2013.2.54, The Megalli Collection.

*

*

Sumru:

Anatolian weavers seemed to accept the natural limitations and created the designs that fit with the structural constraints of slit tapestry weave.

They developed a design repertoire that was essentially rectilinear, geometric and nonrepresentational or abstract, while the original inspiration for the designs most likely came from the natural world around them.

Anatolian weavers took elements of the natural world and stylized and geometricized them, absorbing them into their own rectilinear grammar.

58

*

*

*

Sumru:

Textile researcher Marla Mallett has mentioned that it is important to consider the critical relationships between what she calls “weave balance” and patterns seen on the textiles.

Of course we need to keep in mind that every weave structure have its own “weave balance.”

This relationship is a vital part of the aesthetic development in tapestry woven textiles in general and in Anatolian kilims specifically.

The size relationship between the warp and weft yarns is one of the weave balance issue; in most old kilims, the weft is less than half as thick as the warp, usually loosely spun and not plied; while the warp yarns are 2 Z spun yarns S plied.

This way, weft yarns totally  cover the warp yarns, creating solid color areas in pattern.

59

*

*

59 left

*

*

59 left: Kilim, eastern Anatolia, first half of the 19th century, wool, tapestry weave, The Textile Museum. 2013, 2.78, The Megalli Collection.

59 right

*

*

59 right: Prayer kilim, central Anatolia, late 19th century, The Textile Museum, 1964, 39.4, gift of Arthur D. Jenkins.

Sumru on 59 left and right:

Another weave balance issue is the necessity for achieving a balance between using enough slits to create motifs and limiting the length and frequency of slitting in order to maintain structural integrity.

This of course has had a profound influence on the pattern or character of kilim designs.

60

*

*

Sumru:

It is harder to achieve minimalist work, than a highly decorated one. A good and experienced weaver knows that.

You need to pay attention to your wool, color, tension and technique.

Color change and not creating long slits forced her to do minor adjustments which can be only detected if stop looking at the design and try to figure out the technique.

The reason I study textile structures is that I can that way see weaver’s hand. For me it is in the structure, more than the pattern that one comes close to the weaver and her thinking.

61

*

*

Kilim (detail), central Anatolia,  second half 18th century, wool, slit tapestry weave , The Textile Museum 2013.2.3, The Megalli Collection.

*

*

Sumru:

Slit tapestry weave creates crisp vertical definitions between color areas, and often weavers incorporate the slits into their overall design.

Need to respect slits!

62

*

*

Kilim, western Anatolia, first half 19th century, wool, slit tapestry weave , The Textile Museum 2013.2.38, The Megalli Collection.

*

*

63

*

*

Kilim, Western Anatolia, Afyon, late 19th century, wool, cotton, slit tapestry weave, weft substitution, weft float weave. The Textile Museum 2013.2.5, The Megalli Collection.

Dimensions (warp x weft): 228 X 115.2 cm (89.5 X 45 inches)

*

*

Sumru:

Any kilim that is wider than 90 cm was woven most likely by two weavers in a wide loom or she was willing to lift herself up occasionally to move to the other side of the kilim.

The wide looms were generally built in place and not easily portable; a village home is a better set up for larger looms.

Remember to click, sometimes more than once, on smaller images like the one below to get a larger version.

64

*

*

64 lower right

*

*

Kilim, Western Anatolia, second half 18th century, wool, slit tapestry weave, weft-faced plain weave supplementary-weft patterning, supplementary-weft wrapping for outlines. The Textile Museum 2013.2.71,The Megalli Collection.

Dimensions (warp x weft): 364 X 90 cm (143 X 35.5 inches)

64 left

*

*

Sumru on 64:

Weaving orientation vs use orientation

Howe comment: Kilims are woven with the long side vertical, as in the image above.  But kilims are usually used with the long side on the horizontal.  Most kilim books choose to present kilims with the long side vertical.  As you have seen in this virtual version of Sumru’s talk, we have honored both of these usages.  We have initially presented each piece with the long side horizontal and then have a second image turned to let you see it with the long side vertical.  This has the further advantage of letting you see a larger image of each piece.

64

Photo shows kilim being woven with long side vertical, while kilim in use ,on the left, has its long side horizontal.

*

*

65

*

*

Kilim, Central Anatolia, early 18th century, wool, slit tapestry weave. The Textile Museum 2013.2.82, The Megalli Collection.

Dimensions (warp x weft): 271 X 77 cm (106.5 X 30 inches)

*

Sumru:

The two big questions that occupy Anatolian kilim studies are when and where kilim weaving began in Anatolia? and when and where Turkmen started weaving kilims?

At the beginning of the 13th century, when Anatolia was under the control of Selcuk Sultanate of Rum, Geographer, historian, and poet Ibn Sa’id al_Maghribi (d. 1274 or 1286?) gave an account of Yörüks. He mentions that Yörüks wove for their own purposes as well as to sell. There were about 200,000 Türkmen tents near Denizli in western Anatolia and they traded kilims, slaves and lumber. Between Ankara and Kastamonu, there were about 100,000 Türkmen tents. Caution is necessary to interpret what Ibn Sa’id might have meant when he used the term ‘kilims’. He might be referring to knotted-pile carpets.

If we accept Ibn_Said  that kilims were being woven in Anatolia in the 13th century, when and where did they first appear in the region?

66

*

*

Kilim, Central Anatolia, 18th century, wool, slit tapestry weave, weft-faced plain weave, eccentric weft. The Textile Museum 2013.2.13, The Megalli Collection.

Dimensions (warp x weft): 314 X 102 cm (123.5 X 40 inches)

*

*

Sumru:

There are two theories about the origin of the kilim weaving in Anatolia. One is the Turkmen theory.

This theory argues that kilim weaving and its designs were brought with Turkish migration from further east.

Anatolian kilim tradition was an outgrowth of a cultural continuum centered around the culture of Turkic people, while it might have also included other influences,  

*

67

*

*

Sumru:

The second theory is the goddess theory, which argues that kilim weaving and its designs were native, and predate Turkish migration.

Adherents to this theory believe that despite all of the cultural transformations through which Anatolia passed over the millennia, the kilim weaving tradition indicates the survival of indigenous populations who preserved the old beliefs and ways.

Howe:

Immediately below, are separate images of 67.  The first is the lower image from the slide above and is the complete piece with its caption.

*

*

Kilim, Western Anatolia, second half 18th century, wool, slit tapestry weave, weft-faced plain weave, supplementary-weft patterning, supplementary-weft wrapping for outlines, dovetailing. The Textile Museum 2013.2.70, The Megalli Collection.

Dimensions (warp x weft): 388 X 147 cm (152.5 X 57.5 inches)

*

 

The upper image in Slide 67 is a fragment of one end of the complete piece.

 

67 end fragment

*

*

67 end fragment turned

*

*

68

*

*

Kilim, Central Anatolia, 18th century, wool, slit tapestry weave, supplementary-weft patterning (removed). The Textile Museum 2013.2.45, The Megalli Collection

Dimensions (warp x weft): 323 X 140 cm (127.5 X 55 inches)

*

*

Sumru:

There are still myriad questions that need to be answered before one of these theories can be proven correct.

Many of these questions surround the Turkmen migration to Anatolia and the origin of kilim weaving:

Exactly what kind of weaving technology, technique, and design tradition did Anatolia have by the time of the great Turkmen migrations?

What kind of weaving tradition did the Turkmen carry with them when they migrated?

69

*

*

Sumru on 69:

Although concrete evidence is still scarce, several scholars has begun slowly investigating the history of the region pre- and post-Turkish arrival with revived interest in the pre-Mongol history of art of Seljuk  Anatolia. We know very little about the Turkic nomads that migrated into Anatolia. Their histories, if written at all, were primarily written by others—mostly Persian and Arab bureaucrats and scholars—and the elite urban literati did not have any interest in the social or artistic output of the nomad groups moving through Iran and settling in Anatolia.

Was there in either or both populations a kilim tradition that could be regarded as the ancestor of what has become known as the Anatolian kilim?

How did these two traditions interact in Anatolia once the various nomadic groups began their long process of assimilation and coexistence?

70

*

*

Right: Hanging, Egypt, 4th to 5th century, wool and linen, slit tapestry weave, The Textile Museum 71.118, acquired by George Hewitt Myers in 1950

Upper left: Textile fragment (tiraz), Egypt, Fatimid period, 10th century, linen or cotton, slit tapestry weave, The Textile Museum 73.549, acquired by George Hewitt Myers in 1947

Lower left: Textile fragment (tiraz), Egypt, Tulunid period, late 9th century, wool and linen, slit tapestry weave, The Textile Museum 73.572, acquired by George Hewitt Myers in 1948

Sumru on 70:

In terms of tapestry weaving, there is clear evidence that it was carried out in West Asia, long before the Turkish nomads arrived. This evidence includes early Islamic textiles as well as much earlier late Roman and Byzantine textiles.

Although the technique was not foreign to the region, when the Turkish nomads arrived, there is no surviving example with designs that could be considered clearly precursors of Anatolian kilim designs.

There also is no surviving evidence informative enough about the types of designs and weaving techniques used by the Turkic nomad weavers, and what they brought into Anatolia in the 10th century.

Howe: Below are larger versions of the parts of 70 sequenced from the oldest to the youngest.  To repeat the indications in the captions, all three were done in slit tapestry weaves.  But the designs are all different from those we see in Anatolian kilims.

Right side of 70

*

*

Right: Hanging, Egypt, 4th to 5th century, wool and linen, slit tapestry weave, The Textile Museum 71.118, acquired by George Hewitt Myers in 1950

Howe: This piece is from the informally-called “Coptic” period: 3rd to the 7th century. Copts were Christians.  Coptic Eygpt was ruled by a Mandarin-like group of Central Asians, kidnapped as children, and then raised and trained for that purpose.  Islam invaded Eygpt in the 8th century.

*

Lower left of 70

*

*

Lower left: Textile fragment (tiraz), Egypt, Tulunid period, late 9th century, wool and linen, slit tapestry weave, The Textile Museum 73.572, acquired by George Hewitt Myers in 1948

The Tulunid dynasty: Turkic in origin, was the first independent dynasty to rule Egypt and Syria, 868-905.

*

Upper left of 70

*

*

Upper left: Textile fragment (tiraz), Egypt, Fatimid period, 10th century, linen or cotton, slit tapestry weave, The Textile Museum 73.549, acquired by George Hewitt Myers in 1947

*

71

*

*

Sumru on 71:

One issue always comes up in kilim studies is the symbolism.

We can posit that the designs on long kilims were expressions of weavers’ personal histories.

A textile can function as a document of weaver’s memory, a host of symbolic reminders of her family and friends, an abstract portrayal of social affinities she developed during the creative process of weaving, and only know to her and close kin.

Since the associational meanings died with the weaver and her family, it is impossible to rebuild the personal meanings invested in a given kilim.

Howe: Large versions, with captions, of the pieces in 71.

Upper 71

*

*

Kilim, Central Anatolia, late 19th century, wool, slit tapestry weave. The Textile Museum 2013.2.2, The MegallI Collection.

Dimensions (warp x weft): 328 X 79 cm (129 X 31 inches)

*

*

Lower 71

*

*

Kilim, central Anatolia, 18th century, wool, slit tapestry weave, The Textile Museum 2013.2.28, The Megalli Collection

*

*

72

*

*

Sumru on 72:

Frequent use of certain design layouts and motifs might point to the fact that those layouts and motifs were special to the society in which the weaver lived

Then the question is how to identify motifs remotely indicative of self-expression in kilim’s design. The only likely elements in the kilim design, which were not prescribed by the culture or tradition,

73

*

*

Sumru continues on 73:

were randomly appearing motifs that were woven with supplementary-weft yarns or small tufts of colorful wool or human hair that were knotted. These motifs might be the only candidates to be considered as weaver’s self-expression.

They were never woven to be a logical part of the overall design, or had any clear and continuing relationship with design layout, or even with other motifs. Their presence did not support the large coherent statement kilim weavers expected to make.

This leaves only one option open and that is that weavers incorporated these motifs as reminders or memory aids for the events occurring around them and they wanted to remember. What those events were, however, may never be known.

Larger versions of the images in 73.

73 upper

*

*

73 lower

*

*

Kilim, Western Anatolia, first half 19th century, wool, slit tapestry weave, weft-faced plain weave, supplementary-weft patterning. The Textile Museum 2013.2.38, The Megalli Collection.

Dimensions (warp x weft): 338 X 82 cm (133 X 32 inches)

*

*

74

*

*

Kilim, Eastern Anatolia, first half 19th century, wool, slit tapestry weave, supplementary-weft wrapping for outlines. The Textile Museum 2013.2.77, The Megalli Collection.

Dimensions (warp x weft): 383 X 84 cm (150.5 X 33 inches)

*

Sumru on 74:

It is extremely hard to date and provenance Anatolian kilims, especially ones predating the 1870s.

They were:

#1 created by very conservative nomadic societies, and

#2 used in very harsh environments, preventing large survival rates.

Anatolian kilim weaving is a traditional weaving, which meant that it was highly conservative in its use of the same designs over multiple generations.

The relative isolation of nomadic groups from mainstream cultural and aesthetic events of the Ottoman Empire was another important reason for this conservatism.

Change in glacier terms. What does this refer to?

74 turned

*

*

75

*

*

Kilim, Southern Anatolia, early 18th century – early 19th century, wool, cotton, slit tapestry weave, weft-faced plain weave, eccentric weft. The Textile Museum 2013.2.57, The Megalli Collection.

Dimensions (warp x weft): 385.5 X 155 (151.5 X 61 inches)

*

*

Sumru on 75:

Many surviving kilims, in known collections, date to the period from the late 17th century, to the early 20th century.

The relatively late date of surviving kilims makes them not very eligible for conducting accurate radiocarbon dating, although there are attempts to do that in Europe especially by Jurg Rageth.

Carbon 14 dating for 75, above, indicates that it was 54.1% likely that it was produced between 1712 and 1821., And 1661-1708 (18.6%) and AD 1835-1880 (8.2%) likely. Overall calibrated age has 95% confidence limit.

76

*

*

Kilim, Central Anatolia, c. 1900, wool, slit tapestry weave, weft-faced plain weave, supplementary-weft wrapping for outlines, supplementary-weft patterning, eccentric weft. The Textile Museum 2013.2.92, The Megalli Collection.

Dimensions (warp x weft): 400 X 177 cm (157.5 X 70 inches)

*

*

Sumru on 76:

The reasons for the small survival rate of this material are threefold.

Kilims, compared to carpets, were used more heavily and in an environment that is harsh to the textiles.

Thirdly, slit tapestry weave creates a lighter fabric that can be carried around easily, but it does not create a sturdy textile that can stand continuous heavy use.

Remember to click, sometimes more than once, on smaller images like the ones below to get a larger version.

77

*

*

Sumru on 77:

In terms of giving provenance to these textiles, the difficulty arises from the way nomads live. They move continuously, sometimes splitting into smaller groups and sometimes reconnecting. There are few nomadic groups in Anatolia whose centuries-long movements were accurately documented. The Aydinli nomadic group is a good case study to illustrate this fact.

Let’s look, first at these two kilims in 77.

*

77 upper

*

*

Kilim, Western Anatolia, probably Aydin, first half 19th century, wool, slit tapestry weave,

supplementary-weft patterning, supplementary-weft wrapping for outlines, eccentric weft. The Textile Museum 2013.2.9, The Megalli Collection.

Dimensions (warp x weft): 362 X 78.5 cm (142.5 X 31 inches)

*

*

77 lower

*

*

Kilim, Western Anatolia, second half 18th century, wool, slit tapestry weave, weft-faced plain weave supplementary-weft patterning, supplementary-weft wrapping for outlines. The Textile Museum 2013.2.71, The Megalli Collection.

Dimensions (warp x weft): 364 X 90 cm (143 X 35.5 inches)

*

*

Sumru:

Now about the Aydinli nomadic group who wove these two kilims.

Look at the map below and locate the small red dot in its lower left.

78

*

*

Sumru on 78:

This where a group of nomads, who considered themselves part of Aydinli nomads, lived in southeastern Anatolia in the late 20th century. Ottoman officials first recorded them in the western Anatolia, in the environs of Aydin in 17th century.

Over the next two to three centuries, they moved eastward for various reasons. They first moved to central Anatolia and

*

79

*

*

then to their current location in southeastern Anatolia (see larger red mark in the map above).

Along this two-century long move, some members of the group broke off and settled. Others continued their migrations into different parts of Anatolia. Of these, some settled, some did not, until the 20th century.

Because of this movement, we can identify various communities across Anatolia weaving very similar designs, that are considered part of the Aydinli design repertoire. But it very hard to say, accurately, what the provenance of this group’s kilims are, when they are collected out of context.

80

*

*

Kilim, Central Anatolia, late 18th century, wool, slit tapestry weave, supplementary weft wrapping for outlines, eccentric weft. The Textile Museum 2013.2.11, The Megalli Collection.

Dimensions (warp x weft): 347.5 X 76.5 cm (136.5 X 30 inches)

*

*

Sumru on 80:

The way of life in nomadic communities in Anatolia has changed dramatically, especially during the 19th and 20th centuries.

Only the kilims are left as enduring records of that life.

Their history spans at least five centuries, and they present wide stylistic variety. In addition to that, they were created by societies where oral tradition is the norm compared to the literary tradition of urban societies. All these facts make analyses of kilims, and the weaving tradition associated with them, far more complex.

81

*

*

Sumru on the pieces in 81:

Still, there is hope! We know that kilims are a potent expression of the nomadic and peasant culture in Anatolia as well as a highly personal expression of rural women.

But, they also were molded by a profusion of powerful aesthetic influences, originating from the many ethnic groups that make up the Anatolian culture.

In addition to that, the influence of the high Ottoman culture is evident on many kilim designs, although this influence might have not been very direct.

Larger versions and captions of the images in 81.

81 left is a detail image

*

*

Here is an image of the complete 81 left, with caption.

*

*

Kilim, western Anatolia, late 18th century, wool, slit tapestry weave, The Textile Museum, 2013.2.87, The Megalli Collection

*

81 right

*

*

Kilim, Western Anatolia, late 18th century, wool, slit tapestry weave, weft-faced plain weave, supplementary weft wrapping for outlines, supplementary-weft patterning. The Textile Museum 2013.2.87, The Megalli Collection.

Dimensions (warp x weft): 131 X 106 cm (51.5 X 41.5 inches)

82

*

*

Kilim, Central Anatolia, second half 18th century, wool, cotton, slit tapestry weave, weft-faced plain weave, eccentric weft. The Textile Museum 2013.2.3, The Megalli Collection.

Dimensions (warp x weft): 342 X 137 cm (134.5 X 54 inches)

*

*

Sumru on 82:

During my long examination sessions of these kilims, I became aware that while 20th-century collectors and scholars shaped the knowledge about Anatolian kilim around decorative motifs, nomads who produced and used these appear to highly valued the material and technical characteristics of kilims.

Decorative motifs were significant to nomads, but not necessarily more significant than other factors.

Many of the decorative motifs are also brought about directly from material and technical characteristics of kilims. In short, we can posit that because nomads were so intimately connected with the weaving process, their value system contain elements that are more central to the process, and as a result different than contemporary view that values primacy of pattern and motif.

83

*

*

Kilim, Central Anatolia, possibly west-central, 19th century, wool, slit tapestry weave, supplementary-weft wrapping for outlines, eccentric weft.The Textile Museum 2013.2.17, The Megalli Collection.

Dimensions (warp x weft): 336 X 171 cm (132 X 67 inches)

*

*

Sumru on 83:

Since no contemporary aesthetic treatise on Anatolian kilim is known, proof of this assertion can only come from thorough analysis of the textiles themselves.

By tracking the most commonly emphasized features of kilims, it is possible to ascertain which material and technical characteristics were most valued by their weavers and users.

Field research conducted by scholars in the twentieth century among the few nomads left, help us today piece to gather some of the ways these old kilims might have been used, but again I am cautions about using them as the final word.

84

*

*

Kilim, Central Anatolia, 19th century, wool, slit tapestry weave, supplementary-weft patterning, supplementary-weft wrapping for outlines. The Textile Museum 2013.2.90, The Megalli Collection.

Dimensions (warp x weft): 367 X 88.5 cm (144.5 X 34.5 inches)

*

*

Although work on deciphering of Anatolian kilims is ongoing, there is no denying that Anatolian kilims, with their bold but simple coloration, large scale, and skillfully balanced designs have a very strong visual power for contemporary eyes who value pattern.

The beauty and mystery that surround their origin, history, and design, serve to amplify this aesthetic power.

We need to always remember that there is more to kilims than the eye sees.

Sumru took questions

and brought her session to a close.

My thanks to Sumru for this fine session and for her considerable work, after, helping me fashion this post.

We sometimes feel, a bit selfishly, that curators do not give RTAM presentations as frequently as we would like.  But Sumru has not only done so, she has, without embarrassment, let us look over her shoulder as she works with material that will be presented in final form in an October exhibition.

As you have seen in her remarks above, she invited thoughts that folks in the audience might have, that might be useful to her.  Although we’re close to opening of this exhibition, if you have some, as the result of reading this post, write me with them and I’ll send them to Sumru.

I hope you have enjoyed this advance look at Sumru’s work with beautiful, Anatolian kilims from The Megalli Collection.

Regards,

R. John Howe

John Wertime on Small and Miniature Weavings from Central and Southern Iran

Posted in Uncategorized on February 14, 2018 by rjohn

On June 24, 2017, John Wertime,

*

who, most readers will know is a long-time, close student of textiles, gave a Rug and Textile Appreciation Morning program here at the Textile Museum in Washington, D.C.  John is, also, an author and one-time dealer. 

John was, in this session, speaking to an array of “Small and Miniature Weavings from Central and Southern Iran.”

John prefaced his examination of these weavings by saying they interest him, in part, because they show the skill of their weavers as they composed designs and used color (even sometimes texture) in sharply restricted space.

He cautioned that accurate attribution of these small pieces is unlikely, and that many of them could have been woven by different weavers in various locations in central and southern Iran.  He said that he would treat these pieces in groups with similar structures

He moved to treat the pieces themselves.

Note: John has couched his comments in capitals.

(We have provided measurements when we have them.)

1

27 x 20½ inches (68 x 51 cm)

*

*

Comment on 1: 

BEDDING BAG SIDE PANEL(?); POSSIBLY BAKHTIYARI; SLIT TAPESTRY WEAVE: AN OLD &  RARE WEAVING WITH LOVELY COLORS AND DESIGN THAT REMIND ME OF BAKHTIYARI WORK.

(face only)

40 x 38  inches (102 x 95 cm)

*

*

Comment on 2: 

SMALL KILIM OR SOFREH; QASHQA’I; SLIT TAPESTRY WEAVE: A COLORFUL AND SOPHISTICATED TAPESTRY IN UNUSUAL DIMENSIONS.

(face only)

21 x 17 inches (54 x 45 cm)

*

*

Comment on 3: 

VERY SMALL KILIM USED AS A SOFREH OR SOME KIND OF PRAYER CLOTH; QASHQA’I; SLIT TAPESTRY WEAVE, RECIPROCAL WEFT WEAVE STRIPES; A MINIATURE MASTERPIECE!

(face only)

22½ x 19 inches (57 x 49 cm)

*

*

Comment on 4: 

VERY SMALL KILIM USED AS A SOFREH OR SOME KIND OF PRAYER CLOTH; QASHQA’I; SLIT TAPESTRY & DOVETAILED TAPESTRY WEAVE, RECIPROCAL WEFT WEAVE STRIPES; A MINIATURE MASTERPIECE!

(face only)

37 x 28 inches (94 x 70 cm)

*

*

6

Detail of the back of 5 showing the kind of tapestry used that permits long vertical color changes without slits.

*

*

Comment on 5 and 6: 

SMALL, MULTIPURPOSE KILIM KNOWN AS SHUSHTARI; WEAVER PROBABLY BAKHTIYARI IN ORIGIN; DOUBLE INTER-LOCKED TAPESTRY WEAVE; A LOVELY EXAMPLE OF A DISTINCTIVE TYPE OF KILIM WEAVING, DONE IN THE SHUSHTAR AREA OF KHUZESTAN IN SW IRAN. 

7

8 x 9 inches (20 x 23 cm)

*

*

8 (back of 7)

*

*

Comment on 7 and 8: 

MULTIPURPOSE CHANTEH (SMALL SINGLE BAG); VARAMIN AREA; FRONT: WEFT-FACED PLAIN WEAVE WITH WEFT SUBSTITUTION; BACK: STRIPES IN PLAIN WEAVE & WEFT-FACED PLAIN WEAVE WITH WEFT SUBSTITUTION: STRIKING DESIGN OF POSITIVE & NEGATIVE SPACES.

9

 

*

*

10 (back of 9)

*

*

Comment on 9 and 10: 

MULTIPURPOSE CHANTEH WITH LONG BRAIDS AND TASSELS; QASHQA’I; WEFT-FACED PLAIN WEAVE WITH WEFT SUBSTITUTION; BACK: SLIT TAPESTRY WEAVE WITH STRIPE IN WEFT-FACED PLAIN WEAVE WITH STRIPE IN WEFT-FACE PLAIN WEAVE WITH  WEFT SUBSTITUTION; ONE OF MANY QASHQA’I BACKS WITH STRIKING MINIMALIST DECORATION.

 

11 (face only)

10½ x 10 inches (28 x 26 cm)

*

*

Comment on 11: 

MULTIPURPOSE CHANTEH WITH LONG BRAIDS AND TASSELS; QASHQA’I; WEFT-FACED PLAIN WEAVE WITH WEFT SUBSTITUTION.

 

12 (face only)

6 x 6½ inches (14 x 17 cm)

*

*

 

Comment on 12: 

MULTIPURPOSE CHANTEH; QASHQA’I; PLAIN WEAVE GROUND PATTERNED BY WEFT FLOAT BROCADING; STYLIZED BOTEHS.

13

42 x 23 inches (106 x 58 cm)

*

*

14 (back of 13)

*

*

Comment on 13 and 14: 

FRONT: SADDLEBAG (KHORJIN); QASHQA’I;  PLAIN WEAVE GROUND PATTERNED BY WEFT FLOAT BROCADING; STYLIZED BOTEHS IN DIAGONAL ALIGNMENT CREATE A DYNAMIC EFFECT ON A BAG MADE OF SUPERB WOOL; BACK; PLAIN WEAVE GROUND PATTERNED BY WEFT FLOAT BROCADING

15

  1. 16½ x 13 inches (42 x 33 cm)

*

*

Comment on 15: 

MULTIPURPOSE CHANTEH; PROBABLY QASHQA’I; SYMMETRICALLY KNOTTED PILE & PLAIN WEAVE GROUND PATTERNED BY WEFT FLOAT BROCADING.

16

4½ x 4½ inches (12 x 12 cm)

*

*

17 (Back of 16)

*

*

Comments 16 and 17: 

TINY MULTIPURPOSE SINGLE BAG; QASHQA’I; WARP-FACED ALTERNATING FLOAT WEAVE ON FRONT AND BACK; ONE OF THE SMALLEST EXAMPLES OF A COMMON TYPE OF CONTAINER IN TWO COLORS MADE BY THE QASHQA’IS.

18

6 x 6 inches (15 x 15 cm)

*

*

19 (back of 18)

*

*

Comments on 18 and 19: 

TINY MULTIPURPOSE SINGLE BAG; QASHQA’I; PLAIN WEAVE GROUND WITH PATTERNING IN SUMAK (EXTRA WEFT WRAPPING) ON FRONT & BACK; A CHARMING RENDITION OF THE PEACOCK MOTIF MAKES THIS A MINIATURE MASTERPIECE!

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.

 

22

22 x 10 inches (52 x 25 cm)

*

*

Comment on 22:  Howe: A particular thing to notice about the next two pieces that they are south Persian bags made by folding over a weaving along a vertical or horizontal axis.  Such pieces are sometimes be suspected of being “constructed” (that is cut down from a larger textile).  But in these two cases they were originally made in this folded way.

Here is John Wertime’s comment on 22: 

MULTIPURPOSE SINGLE BAG FOLDED OVER  ALONG THE VERTICAL AXIS AND BOUND ON ALL SIDES WITH GOAT HAIR; BAKHTIYARI; PLAIN WEAVE GROUND WITH PATTERNING IN SUMAK ON FRONT & BACK; GOAT HAIR BINDING ON THREE SIDES. 

 

23 (face only)

*

*

Comment on 23: 

MULTIPURPOSE SINGLE BAG FOLDED OVER  ALONG THE HORIZONTAL AXIS AND BOUND ON THE SIDES WITH GOAT HAIR; LORI/BAKHTIYARI; PLAIN WEAVE GROUND WITH PATTERNING IN SUMAK ON FRONT & BACK WITH A STRIP OF SYMMETRICALLY KNOTTED PILE A THE BOTTOM; THE PILE STRIP AT THE BOTTOM IS A VERY COMMON FEATURE OF CONTAINERS MADE BY THE LORS AND BAKHTIYARIS; OVERCASTING IN GOAT HAIR.

24

15½/22½ x 7 ½ /19 inches (40/57 x 19/49 cm)

*

*

Comment on 24:

MULTIPURPOSE CONTAINER FOR SALT & OTHER MATERIALS; LORI/BAKHTIYARI; PLAIN WEAVE GROUND WITH PATTERNING IN SUMAK WITH A STRIP OF SYMMETRICALLY KNOTTED PILE A THE BOTTOM; PROMINENT USE OF COTTON; OVERCASTING IN GOAT HAIR. 

25

*

*

26 (back of 25)

*

*

Comment on 25 and 26: 

MULTIPURPOSE BAG WITH LONG  BRAIDS AND TASSELS; QASHQA’I; PLAIN WEAVE GROUND WITH PATTERNING IN SUMAK ON FRONT & BACK; PEACOCKS AND OTHER ANIMALS DECORATE THE FRONT & ANIMALS THE BACK IN A MOST CHARMING WORK OF NOMAD ART.

27

19 x 8½ inches (49 x 21 cm)

*

*

28 (back of 27)

*

*

Comments on 27 and 28: 

SMALL KHORJIN; SHAHSEVAN OF THE BIJAR AREA; WARP-FACED PLAIN WEAVE PATTERNED BY REVERSE SUMAK; BAGS LIKE THIS ARE FAIRLY RARE.

29

176 x 3 inches (448 x 8 cm)

Across the top of the front board and coming down its sides was a luxurious tent band in seeming perfect condition.

*

*

Here is a closer, comprehensive view of 29. (color differences are due to different cameras and lighting)

*

*

And here are some further details of 29.

*

*

*

*

*

*

Comments on 29: 

DECORATIVE BAND; QASHQA’I; WARP-FACED PLAIN WEAVE. PATTERNED BY SYMMETRICAL PILE; A MASTERPIECE OF NOMAD ART IN COLOR, MATERIAL, AND DESIGN, THIS BAND DEPICTS THE WOMEN OF THE TRIBE, THE WEAVERS AND PRINCIPAL SUSTAINERS OF NOMADIC LIFE, AND VARIOUS MOTIFS THAT DECORATE THEIR WOVEN ART IN RELIEF AGAINST A GORGEOUS DARK BLUE GROUND KNOWN AS “SORME’I” IN PERSIAN.

30

5½ x 5 inches (14 x 13 cm)

*

*

Comments on 30: 

TINY MULTIPURPOSE SINGLE BAG; QASHQA’I; SUMAK WITH STRIPES OF RECIPROCAL WEFT WEAVE AT TOP & BOTTOM.

 

31

8½ x 9 inches (22 x 23 cm)

*

*

32 (back of 31)

*

*

Comment on 31 and 32: 

TINY MULTIPURPOSE SINGLE BAG; QASHQA’I; SUMAK WITH STRIPES OF RECIPROCAL WEFT WEAVE AT TOP; BACK: SLIT TAPESTRY WEAVE; THESE SMALL BAGS FEATURING THE STAR MOTIF ARE SELDOM FOUND AND ARE TREASURED BY COLLECTORS.

33

11½ x 11 inches (30 x 28 cm)

*

*

Comment on W33: 

SMALL MULTIPURPOSE CHANTEH; QASHQA’I; SUMAK WITH A STRIPE OF RECIPROCAL WEFT WEAVE AT TOP; UNDYED COTTON MAKES A DRAMATIC GROUND FOR THE UNDULATING BORDER WITH ANIMAL HEAD MOTIFS. 

34

5 x 6 inches (12 x 15 cm)

*

*

(back of 34)

 

Comment on 34: 

TINY MULTIPURPOSE SINGLE BAG; QASHQA’I; FRONT: SUMAK; BACK: SLIT TAPESTRY WEAVE.

 

35

17/24 x 6½/20 inches (43/60 x 17/50 cm)

*

*

 

36 (back of 35)

*

*

Comments on 35 and 36: 

SALT BAG; AFSHAR, KERMAN; SUMAK ON FRONT & BACK; A COMMONLY SEEN DESIGN IN AFSHAR BAGS THAT FEATURES A DYNAMIC INTERPLAY OF POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE!

 

37

19/27 x 9½/26½ inches (50/69 x 24/68 cm)

*

*

38 (back of 37)

*

*

39 (detail of 37)

*

 

 

Comment on 37, 38 and 39 detail: 

LARGE SALT BAG; AFSHAR, KERMAN; SUMAK ON THE FRONT AND WEFT-FACED PLAIN WEAVE ON THE BACK; CAREFULLY WORKED SUMAK TO RECREATE A COMMON COMPOSITION IN PILE BAGS IN SOUTHERN IRAN; THE OVERCASTING OF THE SIDES AND THE CLOSURE PANEL AT THE MOUTH ARE DONE IN THE BEST AFSHAR FASHION; A RARE PIECE, INDEED!

40

18/26 x 9½/20½ inches (46/66 x 25/53 cm)

*

*

Comment on 40: 

SALT BAG; BAKHTIYARI; SUMAK; THIS BEAUTIFUL COMPOSITION OF TULIPS IN A GARDEN-LIKE SETTING IS AMONG THE MOST APPEALING OF ALL BAKHTIYARI CREATIONS AMONG SUMAK BAGS!

41

*

*

Comment on W41:

SALT BAG; BAKHTIYARI; SUMAK  WITH PILE AT THE BOTTOM.

 

42 (face only)

25 x 17½ inches (64 x 45 cm)

*

*

Comment on W42: 

SMALL MAT; AFSHAR, KERMAN; SUMAK; A DYNAMIC DESIGN IN A SELDOM SEEN VERTICAL COMPOSITION MAKES THIS A RARE AND EXCEPTIONAL WORK OF NOMAD ART.

43 (face only)

45 x 35 inches (113 x 88 cm)

*

*

Comment on 43: 

MAT; AFSHAR, KERMAN; SUMAK WITH PANELS OF WEFT-FACED PLAIN WEAVE AT THE TOP AND BOTTOM; ANOTHER EXCEPTIONAL AFSHAR SUMAK WEAVING!

44

19½ x 13 inches (50 x 33 cm)

*

*

45 (back of 44)

*

*

Comment on 44 and 45: 

MULTIPURPOSE BAG; QASHQA’I; SUMAK ON THE FRONT AND RECIPROCAL WEFT WEAVE ON THE BACK; A VERY TIGHT WEAVE AND HIGHLY GLOSSY WOOL WITH A DYNAMIC REPEATING “TWO-HEADED BIRD” DESIGN, IN THIS RARE QASHQA’I WEAVING, CREATE A HIGHLY COLLECTIBLE TEXTILE.

46

(face only)

1’3” x 1’5”

*

*

Comment on 46: 

SMALL BAG FACE; QASHQA’I; REVERSE SUMAK;  THIS MASTERPIECE OF QASHQA’I WEAVING SHOWS THE CONNECTION OF THE TURKIC TRIBES OF SOUTH PERSIA WITH THOSE OF THE NORTHWEST WHO WERE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE TRANSCAUCASIAN WAVING CULTURE.

 

47

4′ x 2’2″

*

*

48 (back of 47)

*

*

Comment on 47 and 48:

SADDLEBAG; QASHQA’I; REVERSE SUMAK ON THE FRONT AND WEFT-FACED PLAIN WEAVE ON THE BACK; THIS MASTERPIECE WAS INCLUDED IN THE SEMINAL CATALOGUE “FROM THE BOSPORUS TO SAMARKAND” PUBLISHED BY THE TEXTILE MUSEUM IN 1969. IT IS PERHAPS THE MOST OUTSTANDING EXAMPLE OF THE TYPE TO SURFACE TO DATE. THE BEAUTIFUL CLOSURE PANEL IN RECIPROCAL WEFT WEAVE IS A SIGN OF THE CARE AND IMPORTANCE SUCH WEAVINGS HAD FOR THEIR CREATORS & USERS; THE PLAIN ABASHED BACK IS BEAUTIFUL IN ITS OWN RIGHT.

The next piece was a band-trapping.

49

24½ x 5 inches (60 x 13 cm)

*

*

Comment on 49:

ANIMAL TRAPPING; VARAMIN AREA (?); SYMMETRICALLY KNOTTED PILE WITH LONG BRAIDS AND TASSELS; THIS AND NO. 50, BELOW, MAY HAVE BEEN USED AS A DECORATION AROUND THE NECK OF A PACK ANIMAL

50

(another band)

*

*

Comment on 50:

ANIMAL TRAPPING; VARAMIN AREA (?); SYMMETRICALLY KNOTTED PILE.

 

51 (face only)

19 x 16 inches (47 x 40 cm)

*

*

Comment on 51:

SAMPLER; QASHQA’I; SYMMETRICALLY KNOTTED PILE; SAMPLERS WERE WOVEN TO HELP GUIDE WEAVERS, EITHER LEARNING THE CRAFT, OR AS A WAY TO HELP PROSPECTIVE BUYERS. 

52

8 x 8½ inches (21 x 22 cm)

*

*

Comment on W52:

CHANTEH; SOUTHERN IRAN, POSSIBLY QASHQA’I; SYMMETRICALLY KNOTTED PILE.

53

11 x 10 inches (28 x 25 cm)

*

*

(back of 53)

 

Comment on 53:

CHANTEH; SOUTHERN IRAN, POSSIBLY QASHQA’I; SYMMETRICALLY KNOTTED PILE ON FRONT & WEFT-FACED PLAIN WEAVE ON THE BACK. 

54 (face only)

23 ½ x 23 inches (60 x 58 cm)

*

*

Comment on 54:

BAG FACE; QASHQA’I; SYMMETRICALLY KNOTTED PILE; A TYPICAL EXAMPLE OF THE MOST COMMON COMPOSITION AMONG THOSE WHO WOVE IN THE QASHQA’I TRADITION.

 

55

12 x 13 inches (31 x 33 cm)

*

*

Comment on 55:

CHANTEH; QASHQA’I; SYMMETRICALLY KNOTTED PILE; A FINELY WOVEN OLD EXAMPLE OF QASHQA’I WEAVING.

56

19 x 10 inches (48 x 25 cm)

*

*

Comments on 56:

SMALL KHORJIN; SOUTH PERSIA; SYMMETRICAL PILE.

 

57 (face only)

9 x 10 inches (22 x 26 cm)

*

*

Comment on 57:

SMALL CHANTEH FACE; SOUTH PERSIA; SYMMETRICALLY KNOTTED PILE; FINELY WOVEN WITH SOFT LUSTROUS WOOL AND SATURATED COLOR.

58

13 x 8 inches (33 x 20 cm)

*

*

Comment on 58:

SMALL CHANTEH OPENED UP; SOUTH PERSIA; SYMMETRICALLY KNOTTED PILE AND WEFT-FACED PLAIN WEAVE BACK; FINELY WOVEN WITH SOFT LUSTROUS WOOL AND SATURATED COLOR.

 

59

10½ x 10 inches (26 x 25 cm)

*

*

60 (back of 59)

*

*

Comment on 59 and 60:

CHANTEH; QASHQA’I, SYMMETRICALLY KNOTTED PILE ON THE FRONT, AND WEFT-FACED PLAIN WEAVE & A STRIPE OF RECIPROCAL WEFT WEAVE ON THE BEAUTIFULLY STRIPED & FINELY WOVEN BACK; THE VERTICAL DESIGN CALLED “MOHARRAMATI” IS SEEN IN A NUMBER OF PILE WEAVINGS OF VARIOUS SIZES AMONG THE QASHQA’I.

61

11½ x 11 inches (29 x 28 cm)

*

*

Comment on 61:

CHANTEH; QASHQA’I; SYMMETRICALLY KNOTTED PILE.

62

22 x 11 inches (56 x 28 cm)

*

*

Comment on 62:

CHANTEH OPENED UP; QASHQA’I; SYMMETRICALLY KNOTTED PILE IN THE FRONT & SLIT TAPESTRY WEAVE WITH STRIPES OF RECIPROCAL WEFT WEAVE ON THE MINIMALIST BACK, A TYPICAL & BEAUTIFUL WAY THE QASHQA’I WEAVERS FINISHED THE BACKS OF MANY OF THEIR BAGS.

63

12½ x 13½ inches (31 x 34 cm)

*

*

Comment on 63:

CHANTEH; QASHQA’I; SYMMETRICALLY KNOTTED PILE; A NICE RENDITION OF A POPULAR MOTIF AMONG QASHQA’I WEAVERS.

64

17 x 7½ inches (43 x 18 cm)

*

*

65 (back of 64)

*

*

Comments on 64 and 65:

SMALL KHORJIN, QASHQA’I; SYMMETRICALLY KNOTTED PILE ON THE FRONT AND SLIT TAPESTRY WEAVE ON THE BACK; IT IS RARE TO FIND ENTIRELY DIFFERENT DESIGNS ON THE TWO HALVES OF A KHORJIN, AS SEEN HERE.

 

66

8 x 9½ inches (20 x 24 cm)

*

*

Comments on 66:

TINY BAG; AFSHAR, KERMAN; SYMMETRICALLY KNOTTED PILE WITH BRAIDS AND TASSELS ATTACHED; THE BOTEH SEEN HERE IS IDENTICAL TO THOSE IN THE KHORJIN OF NO. 67 BELOW.

 

67

*

*

Comment on 67:

KHORJIN; AFSHAR, KERMAN; SYMMETRICALLY KNOTTED PILE.

68

11½ x 10 inches (29 x 26 cm)

*

*

Comment on 68:

CHANTEH; SOUTH PERSIA; SYMMETRICALLY KNOTTED PILE; LONG PILE THAT CONTRASTS WITH THE USUAL SHORT PILE FOUND IN MOST CHANTEHS.

 

69 (face only)

*

*

Comment on 69:

SALT BAG FACE; ARABS OF FARS; SYMMETRICALLY KNOTTED PILE; THE CHICKEN MOTIF SEEN HERE WAS WIDELY USED IN SOUTH PERSIAN NOMAD AND VILLAGE WEAVINGS; ITS OCCURRENCE IN A SALT BAG IS RARE

70

32 x 12 inches (82 x 32 cm)

*

*

Comment on 70:

SMALL KHORJIN; AFSHAR, KERMAN; SYMMETRICALLY KNOTTED DPILE WITH SLIT TAPESTRY BRIDGE; THE DYNAMIC FLAT-WOVEN BRIDGE MAKES THIS PIECE!

71 (face only)

*