Turkotek Discussion Forums

Turkotek Discussion Forums (http://www.turkotek.com/VB37/index.php)
-   Virtual Show and Tell (http://www.turkotek.com/VB37/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   Flat weave bags (http://www.turkotek.com/VB37/showthread.php?t=3904)

Gerry Gorman June 4th, 2017 09:58 AM

Flat weave bags
 
Hi all, an old antique dealer friend of mine had these pair of flat weave bags ( I think for clothes) stored (not very well) away for quite some time and I spotted them and thought the vibrancy of colour and tightness of weave made them attractive. He pretty much gave them to me and now I'd be interested in finding out a little more about them if possible and hopefully allow me to decide if it might be worth spending a little time and money to have them repaired and cleaned. My knowledge of Kilims and flat weaves is very limited, more limited than my knowledge of pile rugs, if that is possible. With a small bit of research, some pointers lead towards Anatolian but then I noticed they might be more Shahsavan in motif and with that dark olive green which is lovely. Approximate dimensions are 90 cms in length by 58 in height. Any idea of age would also be great to know.


http://www.turkotek.com/show_and_tell/FWfront1.jpg


http://www.turkotek.com/show_and_tell/FWBack1.jpg


http://www.turkotek.com/show_and_tell/FWFront3.jpg


http://www.turkotek.com/show_and_tell/FWFront4.jpg


http://www.turkotek.com/show_and_tell/FWFront5.jpg


http://www.turkotek.com/show_and_tell/FW2damage.jpg


http://www.turkotek.com/show_and_tell/FW2Back.jpg

I look forward to your comments and opinions.

Gerry

Chuck Wagner June 4th, 2017 12:32 PM

Gerry

I am a little confused by the images, and can't tell whether the striped pieces are a separate bag, or if one of them is the back of the piece shown in the first image.

Regardless, I think the first bag with the red and white diamond/cross motifs at center, is a Bakhtiari piece. The size is typical of grain sacks but I don't see any closure methods and it makes me wonder if this has been cut down from a larger piece. The weaving style is one more often used on larger pieces intended for use as rugs.

Regards
Chuck Wagner

Joel Greifinger June 4th, 2017 03:20 PM

Hi Gerry,

I think that the fronts were woven as the side panels of a Shahsavan mafrash and the plainweave backs were sewn on later. Here is a complete mafrash with a similar design:

https://s8.postimg.org/46b8m84gl/Mafrash.jpg

Joel Greifinger

Gerry Gorman June 4th, 2017 04:01 PM

Thanks Joel and Chuck, I had thought of Mafrash as a use but I felt the dimensions were not right and more for a sack or Yasik. Chuck the second image is a picture of the first image's reverse and the following three images are close ups of teh first image and the last two are front and back of the second bag. I hope this makes sense. Any idea on age? Gerry

Marla Mallett June 4th, 2017 05:14 PM

The interlocked tapestry technique seen here has only been used in South Persia. The pieces look like mafrash side panels to me.

Marla

Joel Greifinger June 4th, 2017 07:19 PM

Quote:

The interlocked tapestry technique seen here has only been used in South Persia.
Hi Marla,

I couldn't make out that the tapestry was interlocked. Thanks for getting me to use the magnifying glass on my monitor. :D

Could another possibility be Varamin? Both dovetailed and interlocked tapestry weaves show up from groups, including Shahsavan, from that area on occasion, no?

Joel

Rich Larkin June 4th, 2017 09:10 PM

Hi Gerry,

Here is a piece that seems to be a cousin to your bags. The palettes are very similar. Mine includes a dark green that isn't especially obvious in the image.

http://www.turkotek.com/show_and_tell/larkin1.jpg
http://www.turkotek.com/show_and_tell/larkin2.jpg

What is left of the back is original (i. e., not attached from another venue), and it makes the possibility of your backs being original more plausible (though that would seem to make the mafrash attribution problematical...see comment below). If your backs were stitched on, you should be able to detect that, either by eye or by feel. The joint would feel thickened relative to the rest of the piece.

I noted that the palettes on the fronts and backs of yours, respectively, didn't seem closely related; but one might say the same of my piece. You may agree that on mine, the red stripes on the back look more the shade of wine than the red on the front side. In fact, looking at mine closely, there is a very subtle change in the color of the yarn that begins just to the left of the black (brown?)/white beaded line. The color difference is consistent on either side of that line of demarcation. Whether it was intentional, or coincidental that a different skein of wool was utilized at that juncture, I can't say.

I imagine my item could be a remnant part of a mafrash. If so, what remains would be an end piece, and the striped kilim part would originally have been longer, serving as the bottom and having the same length as the sides. On that other hand, if your pair were formerly mafrash parts, the backs seem problematical. The orientation of the warps on the striped backs of your bags is ninety degrees different from the orientation of mine. I don't know whether warps along the bottom of a mafrash are supposed to run the length of the "box," or from side to side (as would be the case with yours), or either way. Maybe somebody knows.

As to age, I would think both pieces were from sometime in the mid-20th century. Can't be more definite than that.

Rich

P. S.: Marla, it is very useful to have the information that the interlocked weft technique is typically found in South Persian work. I had been calling my fragment "Kurdish," which I guess is my default position for something funkily tribal without an obvious (to me!) identity.

Jim Miller June 4th, 2017 09:35 PM

Rich, your bag looks like an Uzbek piece. They use double interlock weave, which I think is characteristic of that area.

In my simple minded view - and Marle, please correct me if I botched it up - the single interlock weave, that Marla pointed out in Gerry's mafrash panel, single wefts interlock at the junctions of two colors. So there is no slit opening.

In the double interlock weave each weft interlock with two wefts of opposing colors. This leaves a distinct ridge on the back where the colors meet, whereas single interlock weave is smooth on both the front and back.

Joel Greifinger June 4th, 2017 09:45 PM

Hi Rich,

I think that Jim is correct that your bag is Uzbek Tatari probably from northern Afghanistan woven in their characteristic double interlocked tapestry weave. Here's another of the type:

http://www.turkotek.com/mini_salon_0...les/Uzbek1.jpg

http://www.turkotek.com/mini_salon_0...les/Uzbek2.jpg

Here's a 'single' khorjin:

https://rjohnhowe.files.wordpress.co...ler2.jpg?w=450

I think Gerry's mafrash panels are from elsewhere.

Joel

Marla Mallett June 4th, 2017 10:17 PM

Hi Joel, Rich, and all,

Single-interlocked tapestry is such a disagreeable technique that very few weavers around the world have used it regularly. Double-interlocked tapestry, as in distinctive Bakhtiari kilims, has popped up in many, many places (including Central Asia), as have several kinds of dovetailing. But I can't imagine that any weaver who once gave single-interlocking a try would voluntarily use it when there are so many other options. The only examples I have encountered have been South Persian kilims--supposedly Afshar, but I wouldn’t guarantee that specific provenance. They have been VERY few.

Marla

Rich Larkin June 5th, 2017 01:35 AM

Hi Joel,

Quote:

I think that Jim is correct that your bag is Uzbek Tatari probably from northern Afghanistan woven in their characteristic double interlocked tapestry weave.
Quote:

I think Gerry's mafrash panels are from elsewhere.
I daresay I think you are right, and your comment and Jim Miller's prompts me to recall (dimly) past discussion in the same vein. Still, the apparently superficial resemblance between my fragment and Gerry's pair seems almost uncanny.

BTW, my piece does have the double-interlock technique.

Rich

Gerry Gorman June 5th, 2017 11:32 AM

Hi All,

I've a few more images on the way which should confirm Rich's assertion that the backing is part of the original weave which might exclude them from being Mafrash. Hopefully when I post them, it should help identify their original function. Gerry

Joel Greifinger June 5th, 2017 01:55 PM

Quote:

the backing is part of the original weave which might exclude them from being Mafrash.
Hi Gerry,

For reference in the discussion, here (from Marla's website) is what the side panels and bottom of a mafrash look like when they come off the loom. The striped plainweave bottom is integral with the decorated panels in a single piece.

http://www.marlamallett.com/W-2397-Kazak-small.jpg

Joel

Rich Larkin June 5th, 2017 02:15 PM

Quote:

The striped plainweave bottom is integral with the decorated panels in a single piece.
Yes, that is the key. Is that practice always observed in mafrash weaving (as contrasted with the bottom being integrally woven with the end pieces)? It would seem so. (I have somehow come this far without having become a mafrash owner, so have nothing to compare.)

Another question: is the precise range of mafrash weaving well understood? I. e., who wove them, and who didn't? Still another question is, was there a tradition of weaving them in pairs, like many other types of storage bags? If Gerry's pieces started life as parts of mafrashes, there were two of them.

Rich

Chuck Wagner June 5th, 2017 03:18 PM

Hi

Well, while we're on the topic, let's get this one settled. I have always considered this to be a Bakhtiari piece, but some other TTek non-believers have been skeptical.

Here's a good closeup, awaiting the All Seeing Eye of Marla.

Regards
Chuck Wagner

http://www.turkotek.com/show_and_tell/bk1.jpg

Joel Greifinger June 5th, 2017 03:39 PM

Hi Rich,

My understanding is that mafrash were often made in pairs in order to balance them over the backs of pack animals.

While most were woven in NW Iran and the Caucasus, some also came from eastern Turkey and southern Iran. Of the latter, while I have seen flat woven Qashqai mafrash, they are generally completely patterned in complementary-weft weaves. All of the Afshar mafrash panels that I have seen are pile.

Hi Chuck,

Is your kilim dovetail or double-interlock (ribbed on the back)?

Joel

Rich Larkin June 5th, 2017 05:05 PM

Hi Joel,

Quote:

All of the Afshar mafrash panels that I have seen are pile.
Really!?! Have you seen a complete, reasonably intact one in pile? I don't think I have.

I assume they are in approximately the usual dimensions, e. g., the Shahsavan version you posted lately. We used to call them "box bags," thinking we were ahead of the pack that wanted them to be cradles.

Rich

Joel Greifinger June 5th, 2017 06:23 PM

Quote:

Have you seen a complete, reasonably intact one in pile?
Hi Rich,

In his 2010 monograph on Afshar weaving, Tanavoli wrote that after forty years of looking, he had only come across two intact Afshar mafrashes, but hundreds of Afshar mafrash panels. All were woven in pile.

This one from the book is the only complete one I can remember seeing:

https://s21.postimg.org/l4789d6hz/Afshar_mafrash.jpg

Joel

Marla Mallett June 5th, 2017 08:18 PM

Chuck and Joel,

The “All-Seeing-Eye” suggests that the piece in the #15 post is SINGLE INTERLOCKED TAPESTRY, thus NOT Bakhtiari. Nor is it dovetailed. The Bakhtiari pieces use standard DOUBLE INTERLOCKED TAPESTRY. Though we can’t see the back side of this one, with the prominent ridges formed by double interlocking, I feel pretty confident from seeing just the front side that this is single interlocking. These details are nearly always pretty messy, as it is quite difficult to make all the weft interlocks sit squarely and consistently BETWEEN two warps. This difficulty is why single interlocking is used so infrequently. It's a pain in the neck to weave.

Rich,

Yes, on the hundreds of mafrash I have seen, the bottom of the bag is always integral with the two long side panels...The bottom is NEVER woven attached to the end panels. The two end panels are traditionally woven separately, side-by-side on the loom. it's a quite convenient and practical set-up. To do otherwise would demand separate warps of two different widths.

Marla

Joel Greifinger June 5th, 2017 09:16 PM

Hi Marla,

Are you saying that the weaving on both Chuck's kilim and Gerry's (putative) mafrash side panels are both single interlocked tapestry? Some years back you mentioned having to search rather exhaustively in order to find a single example to photograph for Woven Structures. In Persian Flatweaves, Tanavoli says it is "sometimes used in Lori weaves" but is quite uncommon. Have we struck the single interlock tapestry mother lode? :money:

Joel

Marla Mallett June 5th, 2017 10:47 PM

Hi Joel,

Yes. Since we can't see the reverse side of Gerry's panels, we can only guess that they are single interlocked. But Chuck's kilim for sure. If Gerry could give us a close-up of the reverse side of the weaving, we might learn that it is something else.

Marla

Chuck Wagner June 5th, 2017 11:06 PM

Hi Marla,

Well, any thoughts as to a tribal origin? In south Persia it's the usual suspects: Qashqa'i, Afshar, Khamseh, some Lors, Arabs... I had discounted Qashqa'i and Khamseh because I would expect to see the classic end frieze, which is absent here, and, there's no slitweave component. It doesn't look like any Afshar I've seen; they have had more complex border renderings.

Regards
Chuck

Marla Mallett June 6th, 2017 01:46 AM

Chuck,

Sorry! I don't have the necessary expertise to sort out the work from those S. Persian tribal groups. I've never been in the area. When I've bought pieces from that part of Iran, they've been from a long-time friend who works as a picker in the region. I've just attached his attributions. How's that for lazy?!

Marla

Gerry Gorman June 6th, 2017 09:12 AM

Apologies to all for being somewhat tardy in posting these extra images. I hope they help to clarify some of your hypotheses. Last image is the interior/reverse of the front panel.

http://www.turkotek.com/show_and_tell/FWedge1.jpg

http://www.turkotek.com/show_and_tell/FWedge2.jpg

http://www.turkotek.com/show_and_tell/FWedge3.jpg

http://www.turkotek.com/show_and_tell/FWedge4.jpg

http://www.turkotek.com/show_and_tell/FWedge5.jpg

http://www.turkotek.com/show_and_tell/FWinterior.jpg

Thank you all for your continued interest.

Gerry

Egbert Vennema June 6th, 2017 12:35 PM

Flat weave bags
 
Hi,to all. Me think,as not being an expert.. they are originating from Iranian Azerbaijan, some Afshar,( small floral motives in the black belt..) and something else pointing to the Caucasus ( The bluish green, Kurdish ? ) :laughing_2:.Regards ,Egbert Vennema.

Marla Mallett June 6th, 2017 04:41 PM

Thanks Gerry for these pics. NOW we have some answers. The back side of the tapestry weave shows DOUBLE-INTERLOCKING. So for me, all bets are off as to a provenance. Since the back panels seem clearly in these pics to be integral, these bags must have simply formed a large saddlebag originally. The TWO back sections are too large to have together formed the bottom of one mafrash. I've had saddlebags with these kinds of dimensions, however, from several places. Such are the hazards of forming opinions from inadequate photos.

Thus to attribute Gerry's piece(s) we need to look for a place where Double-Interlocked Tapestry was traditionally used. Groups such as the Shahsevan or Azeris who used slit-tapestry exclusively are very unlikely sources. Color and pattern are not enough.

On this thread, only Chuck's kilim features SINGLE INTERLOCKED TAPESTRY, and so we can assume it is from one of the more mysterious S. Persian groups. (Unless his kilim backside shows interlocked ridges also.)

My apologies for inaccurate too-quick pronouncements.

Marla

Filiberto Boncompagni2 June 6th, 2017 06:53 PM

We could call them UFOs. Unidentified Flat-woven Objects...:jester:

Joel Greifinger June 6th, 2017 07:06 PM

Hi Marla, Gerry and all,

As Marla suggests, one possibility is that this was originally a large double khorjin, perhaps a cousin to this smaller double-interlocked Bakhtiari bag:

http://www.turkotek.com/mini_salon_00027/fdble1.jpg

Another still might be that these are mafrash side panels. Since mafrash were often woven in pairs, both could have been repurposed by cutting off one side panel (presumably for sale) and folding over and sewing the plainweave bottoms of the remains. This would account for the lack of any remnant closure systems.

Of course, there are other plausible explanations before we need succumb to Filiberto's UFO designation. :eek:

Joel

Rich Larkin June 6th, 2017 08:14 PM

Quote:

Of course, there are other plausible explanations before we need succumb to Filiberto's UFO designation. :eek:
All us Uzbek Tartaris would be glad to take 'em in. :applause:

Joel Greifinger June 6th, 2017 08:58 PM

Quote:

Still, the apparently superficial resemblance between my fragment and Gerry's pair seems almost uncanny.
Perhaps because variants on these hooked diamond or kirkbudak or 'animal-head' motifs are ubiquitous across weaving groups in that part of the world.

Quote:

All us Uzbek Tartaris would be glad to take 'em in.
BTW Rich - is the feel and texture of the wool on the face of your Uzbek Tatari bag very soft?

Joel

Rich Larkin June 6th, 2017 09:34 PM

Hi Joel,

The uncanny part of the resemblance, I thought, was the way both items (i. e., Gerry's pair and my one frag) had a relatively warm palette on the face around a field of vaguely similar devices, and the backs shifted to stripes in a cool palette we didn't think even belonged with Gerry's bags.

My piece features a wool that is on the harder side, I would say. Part of that, as I noted upon dragging it out into the light, is it desperately needs a wash. (There is one stain, clearly acquired on the trek, that may have critters moving on it at the nano level. That, or some sort of unsettling fuzzy growth.) It wouldn't be described as "blanket-like."

Rich

Joel Greifinger June 6th, 2017 11:03 PM

Quote:

The uncanny part of the resemblance, I thought, was the way both items (i. e., Gerry's pair and my one frag) had a relatively warm palette on the face around a field of vaguely similar devices, and the backs shifted to stripes in a cool palette we didn't think even belonged with Gerry's bags.
Hi Rich,

Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you were referring to the design. :confused:

In addition to being double-interlocked, another thing that Gerry's piece has in common with your Uzbek Tartari piece:

http://www.turkotek.com/show_and_tell/larkin2.jpg

and mine:

https://s21.postimg.org/btt1jys5j/Tartari.jpg

are those rows of little rosettes at the edge of the field:

http://www.turkotek.com/show_and_tell/FWinterior.jpg

Joel

Rich Larkin June 6th, 2017 11:29 PM

Yup. :sherlock:

Quote:

"...those rows of little rosettes at the edge of the field.":

Joel Greifinger June 7th, 2017 01:32 AM

Quote:

Yup.
Rich,

Had you already pointed that out and I missed it? :banghead:

I asked about the feel of your Uzbek Tartari bag because all of the ones that I've felt have had a distinctive handle with extremely soft wool. From your description, it sounds like perhaps I've experienced a skewed sample.

Joel

Chuck Wagner June 7th, 2017 01:42 AM

Hi,

Here's an Uzbek bagface that we have. Like Rich's piece, this is definitely not Merino wool. This is a hard and rather itchy variety - not kemp - but going that way. That bolsters the Anomalous Joel hypothesis.



http://www.turkotek.com/show_and_tell/Uzkil1.jpg


http://www.turkotek.com/show_and_tell/Uzkil2.jpg


http://www.turkotek.com/show_and_tell/Uzkil3.jpg

Regards
Chuck Wagner

Rich Larkin June 7th, 2017 01:43 AM

Hi Joel,

Nah, I didn't mention the rosette stripe. I put in the Sherlock on the issue of, does Gerry possibly own a pair of Uzbek Tartaris?

I do not expect my fragment to come out of a bath with a much softer feel. I will let you know, though.

Rich

Patrick Weiler June 7th, 2017 04:13 AM

This is most likely a Bakhtiari bag. The wide format is a bit unusual, but the double interlocking construction is only used in Bakhtiari, Uzbek Tartari and Aimaq Hazara weavings. The colors alone eliminate the Uzbek and Aimaq areas. And the one conclusive picture showing the back - with the much more saturated colors than the front - may indicate a later piece from the early 20th century.
Patrick Weiler

Gerry Gorman June 7th, 2017 12:33 PM

Thank you to everyone for your contribution and I have to apologise for not providing sufficient photographic evidence in the first instant to allow you all to venture more accurate opinions. I should have know better as it frustrates me when individuals post images of Chinese porcelain on certain specialist forums without showing the base which more often than not is the bit which shows the most evidence of an object's origin, I will learn for the future.

Regards,

Gerry

Joel Greifinger June 7th, 2017 05:52 PM

Quote:

This is most likely a Bakhtiari bag...The colors alone eliminate the Uzbek and Aimaq areas.
Hi Pat,

Agreed. :cheers:

In addition to the different palette, the drawing of the 'hooked-diamond' in Uzbek Tartari pieces seems always to be approximately the way it appears in the four examples in the thread:

http://www.turkotek.com/mini_salon_0...les/Uzbek1.jpg

https://rjohnhowe.files.wordpress.co...ler2.jpg?w=450

https://s23.postimg.org/dx19wkue3/Tartari-_Rich.jpg

http://www.turkotek.com/show_and_tell/Uzkil1.jpg

as well as all of the others I've seen, including:

https://s8.postimg.org/da2cofhl1/Tartari_Yohann.jpg

https://s3.postimg.org/n6i9784gj/Tartari-_Cole.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...b231422b29.jpg

As for the lines of little rosettes, they're quite popular on Bakhtiari weavings, like this bag

https://s30.postimg.org/p2p0fjkj5/Ba...i-rosettes.jpg

and this kilim that also has a drawing of the hooked-diamond motif and a border design that is quite close to the one in Gerry's bags:

https://s11.postimg.org/rv75f25fn/Ba..._kilim_det.jpg

Joel

Egbert Vennema June 8th, 2017 06:24 AM

Hi to all ,quoting; ;" wake up and smell the flowers " ( or coffee if you please.) And goodmorning from the other side of the Atlantic, as you all know, i m not an expert . But ... if your are going to (Deleted) ( Yes ....a dealer..) website, and you ll search for the term " Sofreh " you ll get an example of a great Afshar Sofreh example ( in my humble profane opinion ) in this flowered flatweave matter.:yin_yang:

Steve Price June 8th, 2017 12:07 PM

Hi Egbert

We don't discuss items that are on the market except to use them to illustrate a point for which we can find no other examples, and we never make remarks bearing on the market value of any item on the market.

I've deleted the name of the dealer you cited, for those reasons.

Thanks

Steve Price

Egbert Vennema June 8th, 2017 12:17 PM

Flat weave bags
 
Hi, Steve, ok, forgot that rule... sorry. Going to post the pics i think could give some extra flavour to this woven discussion. Regards,Egbert Vennema.

Egbert Vennema June 8th, 2017 02:04 PM

Flat woven bags
 
Hello Steve, four JPegs as an attachment to your e-mail address ,regards,Egbert. :fez:

Chuck Wagner June 8th, 2017 02:34 PM

Hi,

Egbert raises a valid question, re: Afshar. I spent some time looking through Hull & Luczyc-Wyhowska and did find one, and only one, reference to dovetail (single interlock) structure from south Persia, and that was for the Afshar in the Sirjan area.

The Shahsavan also - occasionally - use dovetail as well. My piece just doesn't look like a Shahsavan product. So, as Marla suggests, because structure rules out Bakhtiari on my piece, it is likely an Afshar of Sirjan work.

Regards
Chuck Wagner

Joel Greifinger June 8th, 2017 02:55 PM

Hi Chuck,

Dovetail and single-interlock are different structures. The former is used by a variety of Persian groups, the latter is rare. In his Persian Flatweaves (p. 49), Tanavoli suggests that single-interlock is "sometimes used in Lor weaves."

https://s22.postimg.org/5u24irdsx/image.jpg

https://s24.postimg.org/4eil08lo5/INT.jpg

Is Egbert's Afshar suggestion concerning your kilim or Gerry's bags?

Joel

Egbert Vennema June 8th, 2017 10:17 PM

flat woven bags
 
Hi, guys can t post the pics ,they are on the market at this moment.... so need some searching in the books for pieces that are not on the current market. Regards,Egbert. :cheers:

Joel Greifinger June 8th, 2017 10:24 PM

Hi Egbert,

In the meantime, what flowers were you referring to when you wrote "this flowered flatweave matter"? Was it the line of rosettes?

Joel

Chuck Wagner June 9th, 2017 01:13 AM

Joel,

Yeah, I understand the difference, but it's not something that is always at the forefront of my mind. I was typing instead of thinking. And yes, I was referring to my piece, which I now have to find, bend, and photograph again.

In H & L-W they do not do not separate the two and it's difficult to work out the details of attribution.

Chuck

Joel Greifinger June 9th, 2017 02:23 AM

Chuck,

It'll be interesting to see the back of your kilim and whether it confirms that it is the rare single-interlocked weaving.

Joel

Gerry Gorman June 9th, 2017 02:33 PM

Rosettes
 
Hi All,

I wanted to throw this out there and whilst it doesn't really have a bearing on where my flat weave bags originated, I am more curious about which tribes use what motifs and how much they intermingle and share each others ideas. Obviously the rosettes on my bags are hook end floral types which it seems can be attributed to the Bakhtiari located in the South West of Iran whereas I have a lovely Balouch pile rug with very similar rosettes coming from the South east region of Iran. The question being do many tribes use similar motifs or variants of the same and can you see this change visibly travel through different tribes putting their influence on a particular design over time.

http://www.turkotek.com/show_and_tell/rosettes.jpg

Thanks Gerry

Joel Greifinger June 9th, 2017 03:28 PM

Quote:

Obviously the rosettes on my bags are hook end floral types
Hi Gerry,

In order to make sure we're all referring to the same motifs, let's check-in about the terminology we're using. When I've referred to the rosettes in your bags and on both the Bakhtiari and Uzbek Tartari pieces, I was talking about the rows of tiny flowers viewed from "overhead" best illustrated in the middle photo in post #32. If I understand your post, you are referring to the hooked motifs in the diamonds in the lattice on this 'Baluch' rug and to the ones in your bags. In the 'Baluch' case, this is often called aina kochak and is, as you observe, similar to many other motifs across the region that are variations on what are known as Memling guls, kaikalak, latch hooks or animal-heads. I don't know that there is much consensus that these are floral in origin.

Joel

Gerry Gorman June 9th, 2017 03:37 PM

Hi Joel, you are right, in my enthusiasm for knowledge I got totally confused. I meant the guls though I did also notice many balouch weavings employ similar small white rosettes along the edging. I suppose the guls are more star like than floral.

Egbert Vennema June 9th, 2017 05:12 PM

flatweave woven bags
 
Hi to all, yes Joel, the line of rosettes. You can also find them in the afshar sofreh s ,sometimes allover the flatweave, and sometimes just at the top and bottom ends . Regards,Egbert. :nerd:

Joel Greifinger June 9th, 2017 05:34 PM

Quote:

many balouch weavings employ similar small white rosettes along the edging.
Quote:

the line of rosettes. You can also find them in the afshar sofrehs
Hi Gerry and Egbert,

The most commonly used type of rosettes that I can think of on both Afshar and 'Baluch' pieces are the ones that are woven using weft-substitution. Here is an example from an Afshar bag:

https://s22.postimg.org/rpshuz3lt/Afshar-rosettes.jpg

this is what the technique looks like from the back:

https://s22.postimg.org/ogjtev101/Af...ettes-back.jpg

These sort of weft-substitution rosettes are abundant in this old Afshar sofreh:

https://s10.postimg.org/pi8zxxlq1/Af...h_Tanavoli.jpg

The rows of tiny rosettes in Gerry's bag and the Bakhtiari and Uzbek Tartari examples aren't woven using this sort of weft-substitution weave.

Joel

Egbert Vennema June 10th, 2017 07:00 AM

flat woven bags,
 
Hi Joel, in that case ,of not using the weft-substitution weave , ill settle on a Afghanistan Maimana Kilim Bag ( there is one on a commercial ( sorry ,but coud not find anonther good example.. ) site,.... hope Steve won t delete this...:duel::clap: also with a similar pattern and tiney rosettes.) Regards,Egbert Vennema.

Joel Greifinger June 10th, 2017 09:12 PM

Hi Gerry,

I'm guessing that your bags began life looking more like this early 20th century Bakhtiari khorjin and later was cut apart for some reason. The size and proportions on the faces are quite like yours as these are 97cm wide.

https://s1.postimg.org/qc0de1rcf/Gerry2.jpg

Joel

Rich Larkin June 11th, 2017 02:20 AM

Hi Joel,

I googled "Uzbek Tartari," a combination I hadn't encountered before. Lo and behold, up came a few dozen bags and frags like the one I had posted here. What's up with that? Have these kinds of pieces been around long? Have they recently appeared in the rug literature?

I surmise the "Tartari" element refers to an alternate label for the group of people who weave these things. Am I right about that?

Rich

Egbert Vennema June 11th, 2017 05:00 AM

Flat woven bags
 
Hi to all, found this article on the internet,"Understand ing Markets in Afghanistan ." a Case Study of Carpets and the Andkhoy Carpet Market ,http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstrea...1/cs04pa02.pdf It s about the market in the 1960. Regards,Egbert. :fez:

Richard Tomlinson June 11th, 2017 12:18 PM

Hi Rich

When I started collecting in 2000, those Uzbek Tatari pieces were abundant and very cheap on eBay. Some were better than others. At one stage a well known dealer was listing one almost every week!

At that time they were referred to as Tatari.

Regards
Richard

Joel Greifinger June 11th, 2017 04:17 PM

Quote:

Have these kinds of pieces been around long? Have they recently appeared in the rug literature?
Hi Rich,

In their 1993 Kilim:The Complete Guide, Hull and Luczyc-Wyhowska wrote, "The Uzbek inhabitants of Sari Pul are collectively called 'Tartari'. taking their name from the Tartars (sic), the original Mongolo-Turkic tribes from the valleys of the In-Shan range who spread across Central Asia to the Middle East and include the Mongol-looking, Turkic-speaking people of Central Asia-the Uzbeks, Kazan, Tartars (sic), Turkomen, Kipchaks and Kirghiz. The Uzbek Tartari kilims fall into two categories...The ranghi (ranghi means red) are large kilims, usually about a double square in shape, and are always woven in double-interlock technique, one of the few types of Central Asian kilims to be woven thus. The wool is fine and soft, coloured deep red and blue, with occasional use of green, yellow and white. The compositions feature an overall grid of diamond shapes outlined in ivory white and containing a Tukic-style eight-pointed star, or spider, motif. The borders are narrow and often feature tight zig-zag patterns of two or three colours. These kilims are beautifully constructed with a tight weave, and well finished with a simple selvedge and long, dark brown wool fringes. Khorjin and various small bags are woven in a similar style by the Uzbeks."

The "fine and soft" wool on the ones I have handled is what lead to what Chuck called "the Anomalous Joel hypothesis."(post #35).

Tom Cole gave a somewhat different account of their provenance, attributing them to ethnic Tatar weavers from further east in northern Afghanistan: "Weavings of this type are known as 'Tatar' in the Afghan marketplace, a term that basically refers to the ethnicity of the weaver rather than anything else. They are woven by Uzbeks in the Kunduz region of northern Afghanistan."

As Richard wrote, they've been abundant in the Western market since at least the late 1990's. Others (e.g., Chuck and Pat) can probably speak to whether they were around before then.

Joel

Rich Larkin June 11th, 2017 06:06 PM

Hi Richard and Joel,

Thanks for the information. It makes me wonder where I’ve been. I wasn’t familiar with the weavings, many of which tend to fall into a narrow design format, and I have no experience with the Hull and Luczyc-Wyhowska publication. If these weavings had been well-represented in the U. S. marketplace before, say, 1990, I am pretty sure I would have noticed them. BTW, I washed my fragment, and though it softened up a bit, no one would be thinking about merino wool.

Rich

Rich Larkin June 11th, 2017 06:28 PM

Hi Egbert,

That is a very interesting paper. Though it is a draft (from 2004), a little side research on one of the authors, Adam Pain, makes clear he is a professional with a number of published works on the topic of rural development, in Afghanistan and elsewhere. He later held the chair as visiting professor of rural development at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences in Uppsala, Sweden. I didn’t find anything else on the co-author, (Mohammed) Moharram Ali, though he is listed as a “consultant” in the paper along with several other persons (including Pain).

A noteworthy aspect of the paper is that it provides detailed information about certain very significant shifts in the rug weaving industry of Northern Afghanistan for the thirty or thirty-five year period of its focus prior to the writing of the paper. It also mentions that relatively little is known about the internal structure of the industry in Afghanistan prior to 1950 or 1960. This stimulates one of my major latent gripes about the literature in general on the ‘recent’ (i. e., the past 150 or so years) history of rug weaving throughout the Middle East. Very often, generalities are recited about what was going on over time with little detail, though common sense tells us that literally hundreds of benchmark events (births, deaths, battles, the place of individual persons in positions that provided some measure of control over rug production policy, etc.) had to have occurred that led to what we see now as the surviving remnants of the production. I have always though that much of the generalization represented either guesswork or genteel plagiarism. This Adam Pain/Moharram Ali paper makes it clear that in the very recent past, the Afghan industry has experienced a number of abrupt shifts for one reason or another. For one thing, it piques my curiosity even more than before about what was really happening in Afghanistan for the hundred or so years before the period focused on in the paper you have brought to our attention.

Rich

Steve Wallace June 12th, 2017 04:09 AM

Uzbek bags - timing on the market
 
I can add that I bought 2 bags of this design in Peshawar in late 1983 (I only own one of them now), from a shop with a number of similar bags, and nothing much else if I recall correctly. (
Possibly (this is just a guess) the Russian presence in Afghanistan caused them to come on the market around then. Certainly many rugs (including a few Luri/Bakhtiari saddle bags) were coming to Pakistan then, many of them already labelled with a price (in Arabic text).
I'll take a photo and try to post it soon - it's the same sort of design but has a four sided, sewn on band of 'fringes'. Interesting discussion, thanks
Steve

Rich Larkin June 12th, 2017 03:06 PM

Hi Steve,

Did you think they were new at the time? Did the rest of the bags in the shop look like each other? Or was it more of a motley collection of Uzbek Tatari? (Keeping in mind I can't remember what I had for breakfast yesterday.)

Rich

Steve Wallace June 13th, 2017 06:43 AM

Rich, from memory, there were a number of bags with this design - certainly more than 2 I bought. I reckon there were not masses of stock in the shop anyway, and possibly there were some kilims also - I may have been focussed on bags at the time for financial reasons.

My bag doesn't seem to be brand new - it has always had a hole in the back; although the wool is not soft, the bag has some 'suppleness' if that means anything. The other bag was not identical - a bit more rectangular and seemed a bit more 'used' if my memory serves me well (which it may not).

The fringe part seems to be goat hair, or partly so at least. The bag is 53 cm by 51 cm. (21" by 20")

http://www.turkotek.com/show_and_tell/uzbekfront.jpg


http://www.turkotek.com/show_and_tell/uzbekback.jpg


Steve

Joel Greifinger June 13th, 2017 02:49 PM

Quote:

Did you think they were new at the time?
Hi Rich and Steve,

At least some pieces that have come on the market made by this group have been plausibly estimated to be older. Brian MacDonald attributed this namakdan to the late 19th century:

https://s3.postimg.org/ij2m6ifeb/Uzb...makdan-_BM.jpg

Joel

Rich Larkin June 13th, 2017 10:16 PM

Hi Joel,

It is astonishing how easily a strain of weavings will leap the gap between, say, 1960, and the 19th century. :rolleyes:

Joel Greifinger June 13th, 2017 10:48 PM

For those with a social media bent :nerd: there is currently a thread in "The Weftkickers" Facebook group about Tatari weavings from northern Afghanistan.

According to one participant who is Afghan and whose family has long handled weavings and other cultural artefacts from the area, there are rare older examples but most are very large kilims.

This is an example of a large Tatari kilim (of indeterminate date):

https://s1.postimg.org/yqorcsjmn/Tat...m-_Istalfi.jpg

Joel

Rich Larkin June 14th, 2017 03:42 PM

Hi Steve Wallace,

Quote:

My bag doesn't seem to be brand new - it has always had a hole in the back;
I am more inclined to impute decent age to your bag than most. You got a good looker IMHO.

Quote:

The fringe part seems to be goat hair, or partly so at least.
I would think undyed (brown) sheep's wool more than goat hair. The latter tends to be stiff and resistant to the curl in your fringes.

Rich

Joel Greifinger June 14th, 2017 04:17 PM

Quote:

I am more inclined to impute decent age to your bag than most.
Hi Rich,

I'm not disputing your inclination, since mine is pretty much agnostic. I'd just like to know what factors incline you to seeing Steve's bag as relatively older than the other examples. :felix:

Joel

Rich Larkin June 14th, 2017 04:39 PM

Hi Joel
Quote:

I'd just like to know what factors incline you to seeing Steve's bag as relatively older than the other examples.
Well, it had already been around the block a few times when he bought it in 1983. And I like the execution, especially, those nifty zig-zag outer side borders. The striped back is not a huge artistic challenge, but she did a nice, tasteful job on that, too. Finally, I have a quirky rule of thumb on yellow that almost certainly lacks even a shred of validity: if the yellow is over-strong, like a batch of French's mustard they had to reject at the quality control desk, I suspect late. My Tatari has it. Steve's looks like it has a much more mellow shade.

Just my impression. And keep in mind, I am not vaulting it back to the 19th century. :fez:

Rich

Patrick Weiler June 14th, 2017 04:40 PM

Steve,
Your bag is a very nice one, with what appear to be natural vegetal dyes - one indication of greater age. I believe that the rosettes in these weavings are done in complementary weft technique - which would be obvious from a photo of the back. The design would be "opposite" of the front, meaning the white motif on the front will be in the dark ground color on the back. The dark ground color on the front will be white on the back, most likely showing an X-like white pattern. The first salt bag I ever bought, in a rug store in Seattle in the late 1980's, was an Uzbek Tartari piece. It was a piece from the "personal collection" of the worker at the store and he had bought it several years prior to my acquisition. This would indicate that these pieces had been on the market in the west since the beginning of rug collecting. :laughing_1:

Patrick Weiler

Joel Greifinger June 14th, 2017 05:07 PM

Quote:

I believe that the rosettes in these weavings are done in complementary weft technique - which would be obvious from a photo of the back. The design would be "opposite" of the front, meaning the white motif on the front will be in the dark ground color on the back.
Hi Pat,

I also thought that the tiny rosettes on that are on so many of these Tatari bags were done with complementary weft weave. Here's the view on mine:

Front:

https://s30.postimg.org/t3dlpkthd/Front2.jpg

back:

https://s29.postimg.org/dvc7t6clj/Back2.jpg

As the entry and exit of the T-pin shows, the rosette on the front corresponds to the brown area on the back.

:clap:

Quote:

if the yellow is over-strong, like a batch of French's mustard they had to reject at the quality control desk
Rich,

I'll admit that I often prefer a Dijon shade, except perhaps for some of the brilliantly bright yellows sometime found on even very old Anatolian rugs that Bohmer has suggested were dyed with some form of luteolin.

Quote:

And keep in mind, I am not vaulting it back to the 19th century.
I was merely reporting. You'd have to take that age attribution up with the author of Tribal Rugs: Treasures of the Black Tent himself. :dancer:

Joel

Rich Larkin June 14th, 2017 10:29 PM

Hi Patrick,

Quote:

This would indicate that these pieces had been on the market in the west since the beginning of rug collecting. :laughing_1:
Or at least since they finished the Ardebil Carpet. :cool:

Joel,

Quote:

I'll admit that I often prefer a Dijon shade, except perhaps for some of the brilliantly bright yellows sometime found on even very old Anatolian rugs that Bohmer has suggested were dyed with some form of luteolin.
Well, I was thinking more of a lemon chiffon. Maybe even a banana creme:banana:. But the old Anatolian yellows are a whole 'nuther subject. I'll trade you my Tatari for one!

Quote:

I was merely reporting.
But of course! :angelic:

Rich Larkin June 15th, 2017 02:36 AM

Hi Joel,

It dawns on me there used to be (in the late 1970s) a rug shop just outside Harvard Square in Cambridge, Massachusetts, operated by a young Afghani man. I have mentioned this place in the past on these pages. His family collected his sales inventory in the old country and shipped to him. I passed the place frequently on business and would often stop in.

I remember clearly that his stock was mostly Baluchi material that looked "right," but crisply new. It was his stuff that convinced me Baluch rug weavers, some of them, anyway, maintained traditional standards well into the 20th century. Most of it was dark, but the colors looked natural and pleasing, and the end and side finishes were of the old type. For example, he had ToL prayer rugs on wool foundations with the appropriate ends and corded goat hair wrapping on the selvages. All they needed was patina. At the time, I was quite familiar with other Baluch goods in the market that were sad reflections of their predecessors, including cotton foundations and leaky, harsh colors. Another item he had in well represented in his stock was the large pile rug in two sections, stitched together down the center.

My point here is that I am sure he had nothing from the Uzbek Tatari in the store. I would certainly have taken note of it. The lack of such goods doesn't mean they weren't being produced, but it may say something about how the market was operating in Afghanistan around that period. I would imagine my Harvard Square friend was getting goods from the region down towards Herat and elsewhere, whereas the Tatari weavings were emanating from much farther north. A view of the map at Figure 1 in the interesting article Egbert posted suggests the geography of the situation.

As you can perhaps discern, I am non-plussed over not having been aware of this line of weavings.

Rich

Joel Greifinger June 15th, 2017 04:09 AM

Hi Rich,

I hope that on one of your excursions to the Harvard Square rug emporium you stopped in to hear the current Nobel Prize winner in Literature performing between Joan Baez's sets at Club 47. :yin_yang:

Quote:

Well, I was thinking more of a lemon chiffon. Maybe even a banana creme. But the old Anatolian yellows are a whole 'nuther subject. I'll trade you my Tatari for one!
Your Tatari for this:

https://s21.postimg.org/5meybdt6v/TIEM_lotto.jpg

one of these:

https://s1.postimg.org/8ctfbmedb/French_s.jpg

and what else? :money:

Joel

Steve Wallace June 15th, 2017 05:35 AM

In relation Rich's post 75, and his not being aware of Uzbek Tataris until recently, maybe the appearance of this group of textiles is related to the Russian presence in Afghanistan late 1979 to 1989 (I think).

Given that the Uzbek Tatari live or used to live in and around Northern Afghanistan, it certainly seems possible that their circumstances may have been disrupted during that period. (This may be an understatement.)

I started collecting textiles in about 1980 to 1981. I have a hazy recollection of one show put on in my city (Adelaide, Australia, in 1981 or 1982) by Alexandra and Leigh Copeland (who were still able to go to Kabul and buy up textiles) that had a few of these Uzbek Tatari pieces.

As stated earlier, I got mine in 1983; that particular shop seemed to be an Uzbek shop, with limited stock (by the time I was there). This was unlike most of the others which had stacks of Afghan rugs, Maimana kilims and Baluch flat weaves, balishts, and rugs.

I also recall going to another shop which had hardly any stock, but bought a kilim made from a tent band that had very recently been assembled by sewing the strips together with commercial wool. The one I bought had 3 strips joined. I could have bought another from the same tent band with 2 strips joined. I believe this is also some sort of Uzbek weaving.

So, in summary, I reckon that the Russian presence had effects on the market, as a consequence of disrupted groups of people, and what follows. From memory (risky, I know), at some stages there were about 5 million refugees in Pakistan and Iran.

So maybe that's the reason, Rich. Or maybe not.

Steve

Chuck Wagner June 15th, 2017 11:57 AM

Hi Steve, et al.,

I bought my Uzbek piece in Saudi Arabia in 1984. In 20 years I had only seen two or three on the markets there, including the one I bought. It was my sense that those few on the market were not of any great age, 1940's to 1960's perhaps. But that was just a guess; in my case, the dealer had no specific knowledge other than it was sourced to him, from northeast Afghanistan.

regards,
Chuck Wagner

Rich Larkin June 15th, 2017 01:37 PM

Hi Steve,

Your rationale about the possible effect of the Russian presence in Afghanistan on various phenomena in the rug market sounds very plausible. It makes one wonder what other interesting weavings might be hiding in remote areas more or less undisturbed.

Chuck, where in Saudi Arabia did you acquire your Tatari bag (which I assume is the one you posted in frame #35)? I was in Riyadh in the mid-sixties, where I caught the rug bug on account of constant exposure. (The suq was the only place to go for entertainment.) At that time, the rug market there had little connection to the international rug market. Mostly South Persian material from across the gulf. If a room-sized rug was needed, there was a large supply of mediocre but hard-working red Tabrizes.

Rich

Chuck Wagner June 16th, 2017 01:18 AM

Rich,

We were in the Eastern Province, so the shops in Khobar and Dammam, the old souk in Hofuf, as well as those in Bahrain, were frequented. We got down to the Emirates from time to time as well, but there was a heavy bias toward low end Pakistani and Indian stuff there, used for day to day floor covering, as well as a lot of brand new (read: leaky dyes) south Persian and Afghan refugee material.

In the EP many of the shops were managed by Afghans, with family connections that did their sourcing. So international access was well established. Lots of inter-marriage, especially with NE Persian families. So the mix was actually quite broad, although biased toward recently manufactured goods.

A few of the shops also had good quality non-textile arts and crafts, in particular - hand engraved metal ware, and enameled metal ware.

There were three or four dealers we traded with who could bring in some more "ethnographic" material with some regularity. I have some images of a few of the shops buried somewhere on the computer. I imagine that some of the goods are still hanging there...

Regards
Chuck Wagner


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:16 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.