Thanks to Patrick Weilers and
Marlas help, as well as some addtional literature most of my questions
regarding the structural aspects of the pieces have been solved.
What remains are certain questions about the Konya/Obruk Cicim
(similar pieces are called zili elswhere and in fact it seems to employ
cicim, zili and sumak technices in combination), regarding a possible time
frame and place of origin.
Now diffrent publishings (Brüggemann,
Belkis Balpinar Acar) claim, that nomadic/village anatolian pieces and
especially flatweaves, having been produced for personal usage rather then
market, show a very strong continutiy in design over a very long time.
Some authors even claim, that specific styles in patterning of
flatweaves were used to express a tribal identity and that rarely a
foreign element would have been included in the weaving unless an
important event in tribal history took place.
So far I have only
found a hand full of similar pieces online and in books. All of them are
attributed to more or less the same area around konya / obruk.
discoverd very similar patterns in parts of anatolian pile rugs as well,
attributed to central and western anatolia (but not only the konya area).
All this pieces were attributed to the 19th century, some late, some
(probably due to the fact that anything published in books is
Yet bearing in mind that Brügemann
claims that most nomads/seminomands gave up pile weaving, while quiet a
few of them still produce flatweaves, and taking into account the stabilty
of their patterning traditions the fact that all other similar pieces are
dated before 1900 doesnt say much about the age of this piece.
That would leave it to the colors / condition to determine age.
As the piece has probably only been used on the wall by everybody who
ever may have "posessed" it including the peoople who wove it, there
obviously wont be much wear.
Yet there is quite some fading of the
colors. In fact the diffrences between front and backside are pretty
Despite this the way they faded doesnt look similar to what
Ive seen on pieces with early chemical dyes.
The piece I posted from
marla seems to have very similar colors, thats why I asked about pictures
of its backside, wich she kindly provided.
Now I was quite shocked to
find that with her piece the colors on the back where as "mellow" as on
the front. My first conclusion was that this means her piece was made this
way, while mine had just faded to it due to the use of less light fast
At second thought that doesnt make much
Looking at anatolian pile rugs - and taking into account
what Brüggemann writes about their colors - the expected colors of
anatolian nomadic pieces would be much more what "my" piece looks like -
from the back.
Why should the weaver express a diffrent taste in color
on a flat weave than a pile rug? (unless targeting a marked, what doesnt
make sense in this example for many reasons)
So I´d rather assume that
marlas piece, being pretty old, has mellowed/faded on both sides during
time. (usage? storage?)
In general I would assume that the colors
on such flat weaves might fade quicker than on pile rugs, as far more
(nearly the entire) surface of the colored yarn is constantly exposed to
the sun, while with a pile rug its only the tips, especially with very
Yet I have to admit that Im not sure if this can stand
up with observing older kilims, but also the use of these pieces as wall
hangings might lead to them getting more exposure to the sun?
know we have gone over the dye issue quite some times, and it may be
bothersome for the more experienced readers, but I am still curious about
all the diffent contradictions.
Like: early chemicals faded very
quickly, while later chemical dyes didnt "mellow" at all and so on.
Leaving aside the aspect of diffrent exposure to sunlight (or other
hazourdus effects and oxidation?) I still wonder if there is no typologie
of chemical dyes, regarding the point in time when they dominated the
market (bringing up the problem of nomadic usage in diffent time frames)
and their expected lightfastness, compared to natural dyes (and the
diffrences inbetween these natural dyes?)
One interesting aspect
in this piece for example are the diffrent shades of blue:
In two of
the Octagon/star shapes we can see blocks (diffrent size) of blue that has
not faded so much, while the rest of what was supposed to be a blue star,
has nearly lost all its color.
On the back the shades of blue also
differ, but I wonder if this was already so obvious during the process of
weaving? I assume this effect just became obvious later as a result of
fading, originating either in diffrent dyes or dying process.
a very similar effect in the gul of an supposedly antique ersari carpet
(rather small size, goathair warps, liver colored field, very simple gülli
göls with only two instead of the usual three "branches" in each gul
All of the supposedly blue gul fields have faded to
nearly grey, but one of them is partly deep blue, yet not
Now I wonder if this has to do with irregularitys
during the dye bath, or another indigo (Indigosulfric acid?) or another
blue chemical dye (less lightfast???) having been used alongside natural
According to brüggemann indigo sulfirc acid in an
anatolian piece would also higher the chance of cochinal being used in the
Now alongside the (many diffrent) shades of supposedly
madder red that have been used for the cicims plain weave foundation,
there is a blueish red used in part of the design that has nearly
completly mellowed on the frontside but is still vibrant on the back.
Now if this means cochinal was used in this piece it would,
according to brügemann, hint on a timeframe of 1850 to 1890, with a later
date being possible but inprobable, whilst an earlier date could be
excluded. Yet I have no evidence for the red being cochinelle but wild
guessing and the fact that its blueish in hue and very diffrent from the
shades of red used in the foundation.
Now a last thing hints on the
use of chemical dyes: red bleeding.
Its obvious that all the parts of
the design that are white in marlas piece are pale rosé in mine. As the
beleeding is very even I suppose it came from the foundation rather then
the blue-red design threads, but I am not sure.
What makes me
wonder is this: The "rosé" is exactly
the same shade on the front
of the piece, as on the back.
Now this could mean two things:
a)the red that was bleeding was more lightfast than any of the other
colors (including the red of the foundation that has not faded much, but a
bit at some places)
b) The bleeding has occured during a wash that has
taken palce rather recently
Now I have read diffrent opinions
claiming that a bleed like this can happen with natural dyes just as well
as with chemical once, presuming an overexecess of not rinsed dye.
Chemial or not I believe an excess of unrinesd dye can be held
responsible for the bleed (during a wash) in that case, and that it came
from the foundation that showas a lot of very diffrent hues of brownish
red, some of wich seem extremly saturated.
Now I know that I have
the tendency to see what I want to see
During the discussion of
the first piece I had here in the show and tell (the belouch), I tried to
find any possible way to get around having to admit to myself that at
least some chemical dyes have been used in that one (pretty well used as I
So after all Im not sure about the colors here.From what
Ive looked at so far, they seem natural to me, despite the
Its strange to say that about a piece you "own", but I
have to admit I really love it. I use it as a wall hanging to cover an
unused door in my living room, and whenver people come in, (nearly all of
wich otherwise believed collecting rugs to be a rather odd thing
) they get nearly as hypnotized by it as I do. Especially when sunlight
fills the room it starts to "glow" and one friend had the impression that
the piece was "in motion" while standing still.
So assuming that this
peice is of rather young age, but produced under specific conditions, I
feel it has a lot of what I saw in older pieces so far (most of wich I
could never afford), and that basically, how ever wrong communism may have
marx was right with his theory of
"entfremdung" due to modern industrial production ("arbeitsteilung" ) and
what it does to the worker, and in our case, to the product as well...
well, anyhow I would be more than
thankfull for any hint on the issues mentioned...
One last thing: The
faded tips of the end finish, where the red is gone, show a
yellowish/golden wool, a bit like blond hair, is that what you call tan
wool or maybe camel hair?
Regarinding Joels Piece, I find it to be
an extremly nice piece of its kind.
An eye opener. Let me
My taste in rugs may lack "focus".
There are kaukasian
peices that I find really, really great (but far beyond my budget). Yet,
with a lot of others I feel like people are buying them because its what u
should buy. No matter if the piece is dead or alive.
On the other hand
most (later) turkmen pieces I saw seemed to have a stiffness about them
that I found pretty boring - untill I saw some that, within their "rules"
where just amazing. Especially in their "reduced" palette. And once u
discover that, its like learning a langugae. Thats also how I am growing
more and more fond of belouch and so on.
Now Joels Piece to me is such
an eye opener.
I cant say anything smart about, just: