Michael Bischof's "Grading System"
Dear Michael,
It’s quite a while that you are repeating on Turkotek
your "Grading" system on rugs and kilims: you presented it first in your Salon
85 and repeated it in your Salon 91 (see Archive of Salons and Selected
Discussions). Every now and then the subject resurfaces in your postings.
In
the Summary of Salon 91: you wrote: That A-pieces exist and that such
intelligence may be collected in fact seemed to have been a surprise to many of
you.
As a matter of fact I had the impression that you were not much
successful in convincing people that such intelligence exists. You even were
rather reticent on clear examples. Am I wrong?
In any case you did not
convince me at all and I am still unconvinced.
I do not question the
existence of really antique A-pieces, but I think that the probability of their
appearance on the contemporary market is VERY low.
The only case I can think
about an A-piece is something like this:
- A rug was acquired for a
Museum or a collector, say, 150 or 200 years ago by.
- The buyer was either
the collector himself or a trusted employee of the collector/museum or a
trustworthy traveler (an ethnographer would be nice - diplomats are fine
too).
- The rug was bought "out of the loom" from the weaver in its place
of origin.
- The purchase was duly recorded in the museum or collector’s
files with a good description of it (better, with a picture), a matriculation
number and the rug was tagged with that number.
- All those records, are
still in existence and are accessible.
- The rug either was always in the
same collection or its movements are traceable (and of course, one has to be
sure that the tag is original).
Only those conditions (or something
pretty similar) fulfill the requirements for an A-piece.
Thinking about
it, not even the famous Dudin collection should meet those requirements: if I
well remember Dudin bought the textiles in the Bazaars of Merv and Samarkan, and
they were already old or oldish.
Now, If he bought something new directly
from the weaver, THAT should be an A-piece! The rest, alas, it’s only formed by
B-pieces…
By the way, I imagine that at parity of conditions and quality,
an A-piece should be much more worthy in monetary terms than a B or
C-piece!
Furthermore, my guess is that if one looks for A-pieces, one has
to look for them OUTSIDE the country of production i.e. in the West where it is
more likely to find accurate records of purchases like the one I described
before. Sadly the Orient has a poor reputation for such things.
Michael,
you keep on saying that those pieces exist and you suggest (so I understand)
they are available on the market. Besides, it seems that they were found in
Anatolia on the spots of origin - or at least the movements of the pieces can be
reconstructed from the origin to the actual location.
How that it is
possible, I wonder, considering that we are speaking about very old pieces woven
by nomads or semi-nomads that obviously weren’t very keen on keeping written
records?
What I really would like to hear CLEARLY from you is the answer to
the following question:
What are the indicators that make you
believe in the authenticity of those claims?
You could very well give us
an example without going too much on the specific - or about something that is
not on the market anymore.
Thanks and regards,
Filiberto
thank you for this question ...
Hi Filiberto,
of course I will ! The only limitation : I must ask for
your patience to wait till Thursday - some more urgent things to finish
now.
If I can do it before I will do it.
Okay
?
Regards,
Michael Bischof
Sure! Take your time.
Request for a scan ...
Hallo everybody,
anybody here who owns an example of
Ignazio
Vok: Vok Collection - Anatolia. München, 1997. Edizione Vok. Plate
35.
This is the plate I need a scan from .
For the contribution
that I want to start on Thursday (hopefully) I would welcome a nice scan of this
particular kilim.
Yours sincerely,
Michael Bischof
PS. My
own book is in Turkey. And there is Seker Bayram ...
sorry for the delay ...
Hallo everybody, hallo Filiberto,
sorry for the delay: it took some
time to get the necessary pictures for the
upcoming discussion, the
permission of the owners of the particular pieces to be
shown and discussed -
hopefully this evening I can start...
Regards,
Michael
Dear Turkotekbashies,
Mr. Bischof, last week I wrote a reply called
"ethnomusicology and carpet research" [or some similar name] Mr. Price has, at
my suggestion, put it in the "modern carpet" thread.
It might have some
bearing on your grading system. Perhaps you might consider a reply
?
Sincerely
Richard Farber
Why do we need any grading system ?
Grading means to establish a
hierarchy according to a set of criteria. We propose here to use the criterion -
how "sure" (proven, checked, documented ...) the provenance of a particular
piece is - information about the integrity status of the
piece.
Importance of provenance
Early kilims and village rugs
are not in the high esteem they should be. They are mainly part of some "home
decoration textiles" stock and only a few are distinguished from that simply by
their high prices and as they appear in the posh galleries of this market. There
are no clear criteria available according to which this separation between the
"pedestrian" and the "high ranked" material has been done.
If questioned,
a typical collector/rug lover gets served some art dealers argot (archetype, but
without documentation; archaic, without a qualifiying discussion of that "tool"
...), but no statement that might be proven or falsified (in science a "thesis"
that cannot be falsified by empirical data is not even a shaky dream: it is
nothing,depending on the politeness of a certain author). End of the eighties we
had high-flying "dreams" of that type. Based on them two early, good kilims (1)
were sold to leading collections at quite high prices based on the"impression"
that the only motiv that the showed on a plain yellow ground were designed to be
(represent) abstract "vultures". In other words: they were a quite perfect
expression of the "hype of the day". If sold today they would hardly achieve 20%
of their selling price as the hype is gone and in the meantime all those
"assumptions" could not be substantiated in any serious respect. The "other
respects" I will not comment here, but on a different
site.
A part of the insufficient esteem goes to the account of the
anonymous character that this type of textile art has for Western consumption.
But this art has never been anonymous - this is an artefact made on
purpose. The second chapter of this claimed anonymity is the fact that is
art is only insufficiently researched and therefore valid criteria for its
estimation (and criticism) could not develop.
Any serious research must
start somewhere - this is the only available point that connects us with a
particular piece: the location where it had been found.
(to be continued
with the first example tomorrow ... Regards,
Michael Bischof
(1)
Details that I do not want to publish here in the net I will give to the editor
of Turkotek, Steve Price, as he is a unquestioned moderator, has no own personal
interests in this matter (does not buy or sell early kilims and village rugs)
and thus an independent status. You may ask him whether I delivered such
intelligence or not but you may not ask him what I communicated. We talk
quite delicate things here ... kind of "independant third party approach". This
style KOEK developed for practical reasons in the early nineties. Let us see how
far it will take us ...
Hi People
I'll just add a few remarks to Michael's post.
1. A
thesis that can't be falsified by evidence, even in principle, is false in
scientific terms. This is a convention which, if not adopted, would allow
every phenomenon to be explained as a miracle. I can elaborate on that if
anyone cares.
2. While Michael has sent me confidential information that
persuades me of some of the things he has to say, the fact that I am persuaded
is not compelling evidence for anyone else. I understand why the information
can't be shared. This is simply a dilemma that Michael must endure.
3. One of
the links in his post is in error. I have asked him to send me the correct URL
and will fix the link when I receive it.
Regards,
Steve Price
Hi People
Marla Mallett has sent me an image of plate 35 of Vok
Collection: Anatolia Kilims and Other Flatweaves from Anatolia.Udo Hirsch
and Ignazio Vok. Munich, 1997, which Michael requested.
The description is:
Kilim, one piece, Cumurlugiret, south west of Konya, central Anatolia. Mid 19th
century. 407 cm long, 150 cm. wide.
Many thanks, Marla.
Steve
Price
Hi Michael,
You first wrote:
…two early, good kilims (1)
were sold to leading collections at quite high prices based on the"impression"
that the only motiv that the showed on a plain yellow ground were designed to be
(represent) abstract "vultures". In other words: they were a quite perfect
expression of the "hype of the day".
then:
1) Details that
I do not want to publish here in the net I will give to the editor of Turkotek,
Steve Price, as he is a unquestioned moderator, has no own personal interests in
this matter (does not buy or sell early kilims and village rugs) and thus an
independent status. You may ask him whether I delivered such intelligence or not
but you may not ask him what I communicated. We talk quite delicate things here
... kind of "independant third party approach". This style KOEK developed for
practical reasons in the early nineties. Let us see how far it will take us...
Thanks for trusting a moderator of Turkotek. I am the other
moderator, by the way, but probably I’m not so unquestioned or independent, in
your view. 
Yes,
I’d like to ask Steve something about that "intelligence".
It has to
do:
- with the sale of "two early good kilims" at inflated prices thanks
to a more sophisticated version of the bazaar fairy tales?
- or with the
main subject of my inquiry, i.e. the possibility to find a-pieces and the
indicators that make them a-pieces?
Please Michael, do not link to other
web pages outside Turkotek. I did not open them and I’m not going to do so
anyway…
Because the discussion is here and let’s keep it here, if you don’t
mind. Thanks.
Regards,
Filiberto
Hi Filiberto
The information Michael sent to me bears on both of the
questions you asked.
Vis-a-vis your request that links to other web pages
not be included: We have always permitted links to other web pages on Turkotek
and we still do. I believe that you are objecting to what appears to be a
secondary agenda external to the discussion being pursued through them. Please
correct me if I misunderstand you.
Regards,
Steve Price
Hi Steve,
quote:
I believe that you are objecting to what appears to be a secondary agenda external to the discussion being pursued through them.
politeness ....
Dear Filiberto,
yes and ... yes ! This weekend ! We are at a
stressy
period in school, forgive me. And to prepare the upcoming discussions
here is not that easy. First I had to learn how to scan ... see, this is a tool
for me, not my aim.
I agree that I let you wait a bit longer than usual.
Sorry, for that.
Trust: according to what I have written ( "third party
approach") the number of people who will get to know the "undiluted" background
intelligence should be limited. Plus: as far as I know Steve does not buy the
kind of things that we talk about here ... an important consideration, don't you
think ? As he cannot benefit personally from it he is really independant
then.
Regards,
Michael Bischof
Hi Michael,
Well, the waiting is longer than I expected 
but I’m not in a
hurry.
Remember, though, that my main question is rather simple:
What are the indicators that make you believe in the authenticity
of those claims?
You don’t need to write again the whole body of your
system or give away secrets of the trade. Besides, it will take more of your
time - and ours.
Just explain how you can be absolutely sure that an a-piece
is an a-piece. That’s all!
Regards,
Filiberto
P.S. What do you
teach, chemistry?
Dear folks -
Three things:
First, I think that the piece that
Michael has referred to and that Marla has provided an image of, appears also in
an early salon by Robert Torchia.
http://www.turkotek.com/salon_00038/salon.html
Torchia
owns a possibly related piece that he compared to this one and to several
others.
Two, I would also advise that Michael Bischof refrain from
linking to the site and to the comments of a person banned from posting on
Turkotek. We have linked to other sites liberally, but have also made the point
from time to time that regardless of the behavior of a banned person, we should
not be putting up on Turkotek something to which they cannot respond here.
Perhaps Michael can find different illustrative links.
Third, I'm
personally a little concerned about the repeated claim that Michael has made for
his ability to discern the very best pieces, when the justification of this
seems so closely related to his business that he cannot speak openly about it
here. This unsubstantiated claim, apparently so closely linked to business
purposes, could be read as a kind of advertising on our pages here, something we
have tried mightily, although not always sucessfully, to avoid. I am sure that
Michael does not intend that.
My own view is that if Michael is free to
present his entire case, let him do so. But if business confidentiality prevents
this, then, I would recommend that the claims for the system for detecting "A"
pieces not continue to be made here.
Regards,
R. John Howe
the Vok kilim ...
Hallo everybody,
a short foreword: we have so many question here that
you might forgive
me if I try to answer them step by step.
The
following lines refer, as a first example of this grading system,
to the
kilim that is shown above:
When Ignazio Vok presented his collection of
Anatolian kilims at his
vineyard establishment near Padova some years ago the
catalogue was
published as well.
Ignazio Vok: Vok Collection - Anatolia.
München, 1997. Edizione Vok. Plate 35.
It was a splendid,
overwhelming exhibition with a lot
of necessary free space in a huge hall ...
some hundred people from all
over the world attended it.
But people
realized that 2 pieces from the catalogue were not on show
there and started
to build up suspension. When everybody was ready for
the climax the group was
guided into the huge, dark cellar - no electrical
light there. One felt like
walking through endless tunnels of underground
protection installations in
the middle of a war - till , at the last moment,
spotlights were put on to
show the 2 personal favourites of Ignazio Vok.
One piece I will not further
comment as I find it weak and insignificant.
The other one, one of the the
hightlight of this leading collection, was this kilim. It provoked the loudest
"aaah's" and "oooh's" that I met within some decades of being engaged with
kilims.
It is not its age that is impressing. First try to imagine
its dimensions: 4 m x 1,50 m !
Then just believe me that it ranks very high
among all known early kilims for
the mint and splendid condition of its
dye
lakes.
It has a magnificent rich madder red-rosy with the desired blueish
cast,
an opulent dark violet from madder and a brillant contrast in form of a
deeply saturated
yellow.
Though your scan, Marla Mallett ( thanks a lot
for contributing it ! )is much more pretty
than mine as a matter of fact even
the high-quality print in the catalogue
is a pale ghost in relation to its
original. In the McCoy-Jones Collection there is not a single piece that
comes
close to this piece in this respect.
When it appeared in the
West it was clear for all experts that it must come from
Cappadocia proper as
all other similar "baklava" of this design.
Regards,
Michael
Bischof
( to be continued tomorrow ... )
how to be sure ...
Hi Filiberto,
"Remember, though, that my main question is rather
simple:
What are the indicators that make you believe in the authenticity of
those claims?"
In general that depends on the particular case - in this
case it is very easy: I hve seen the piece at its "original spot" long before it
"went", I knew all the relevant people including the villagers concerned for
many
years from reasons that have nothing to do
with antique pieces ( raw
wools, collecting plants, spinning wool, some weaves )
...
Regards,
Michael
( the rest per mail ... )
Good morning,
Mr. B wrote in the discussion of his salon when I asked
then about standards and suggested some changes which he did not reply
to:
I would like to express it even stronger: the use of "measures" or
"standards" can only be tolerated if they are made public and if and as long
there is an open debate over them. That is part of the success of science. What
I find untolerable are "hidden measures" - how many of them do we have around,
unspoken imaginations that rule our estimation but that make us angry if
somebody insists that we "speak them out" ?
And yet Mr. Bischof
writes at the end of the last thread to Filiberto "the rest per mail"
"
STANDARDS CAN ONLY BE TOLERATED IF THEY ARE MADE PUBLIC "
Then in the
salon he continues :
"If you compare the carpet world with the science
world - isn't one of the many difference the dominance of not outspoken measures
and aesthetique judgements based on nothing that one can check ? Where all I can
do is to resist a suggestion or not resist ?
The lack of independant science
in our field to balance what the trade does ( the trade must make money and
there is nothing wrong about this !) is a serious unwelcome weight that keeps
down the attention that
the most exciting cultural objects of this textile
tradition deserve - and these are early kilims ! "
Richard
Farber
I suggested in the salon 91 that the categories be called
Provenance category "A" etc. . . . . no reply
I wrote on the
techniques of research in Ethnomusicology re carpet research in the modern
carpet thread and ask Mr. B to related to that specific request . . . . no
reply
Sincere attempts at dialogue have been made by a number of us . . .
and dialogue does need some counterpoint.
Thank you Michael, that is the answer I was waiting for.
quote:
I hve seen the piece at its "original spot" long before it "went"
how to be sure ...
Hallo everybody, hallo Filiberto,
"And how do you know that this was
the original spot? Were is the indisputable proof, the record, that made you so
sure of it?
...
Filiberto"
To enable the readers to understand
properly what is discussed here I should mention that yesterday I had given to
You, Filiberto,
and to Steve Price much more information than what is written
here. This remark does not intend to increase suspension in anybody.
Simply
certain things cannot be published in the net - but I insist on the fact that
this in no way endangers the primary goal of our
"grading system" : that is
to ensure know how about the provenance of a piece, thus removing the
artificially attached "anonymous art"
tag.
What makes me sure ? Well,
if people in this particular village know this piece since long neveretheless it
might have been brought
there before I asked them. But when ? In the
seventies there was in Turkey no market for such pieces. All established local
carpet dealers ( that furnish private houses - antiquities were for tourists ! )
had no interest in them.
So this is not the story of any carpet dealer.
We knew these villagers from buying raw wool, spun wool, collected plants and
weaving orders
before this had happened. Yes, may be, there is always some
uncertaincy in life ... but in relation to what normally happens in the carpet
business when people in New York or Munich identify pieces from picture books (
without being able, even if they would like, to question the reliability of such
"sources") I guess it is quite okay. At least it served the above given purpose:
anybody who would collect people able to do such a research, some funding and
some motivation could start to further research the history of this weave - as
its "identity card" is not lost.
Regards,
Michael
PS. Now I
must concentrate on Richard Farber before it gets too unpolite ....
great discussion
MB: It does seem intersting to know where a piece believed to be 150 years old was "found"/located 30 years ago. But for the the kilim to have survived for the "missing" 120 years, people had to value it, or else it would have been left outside and now be gone. It seems that if people valued it, they might have moved it... ?
vok kilim , continued ...
Hallo everybody, hallo Filiberto,
as I wrote yesterday all experts
were sure that such a kilim must have been made in Cappadocia proper.
( like
pl. 35 and 36 in the Rageth book ). So the provenance was questioned. Keep in
mind that "provenance"
means only a more or less safe starting point for
further research.
And here there is anothing thing to be mentioned. The
picture in the Vok catalogue is shown above ( scan
from Marla ). It looked
like this at the exhibition as well. Seeing it I was upset. Because an extreme
important
detail was missing:
This one
!
When this kilim was exhibited later again in one of the most important
kilim exhibitions that we ever had ,
in
( Guido de Werd / Dietmar Pelz:
Gewirkt - Geschweisst, Linie und Farbe im Raum.
Zollverein-Ausstellungen,
Essen 2001. Pl. 5)
the piece contained this
original detail "again": the owner, Ignazio Vok, had not removed it but for
aesthetical reasons
did not want it to show up in his
catalogue/exhibition.
Why is it so important ?
Keep in mind that
the earliest idea that Oriental weaves as we know them might perhaps have
evolved in Anatolia
was brought up by Herwig Bartels at the ICOC congress in
London beginning of the eighties. This, as far as I know,
was his idea,
independant from a kind of feministic Mother Goddess "revival" that arouse in
the seventies. Later
we saw the contribution of Mellaart in Frauenknecht:
Early Turkish Tapestries. Then (!) the Mother Goddess "theory" was introduced
with the Balpinar/Hirsch/Mellaart book at a fabulous congress on kilims in Basel
that Jürg Rageth had organized. A bit later
Jack Cassin published 10 kilims
and put them into the same "frame". As it appeared kind of childish to compare
7000 old pictures on Neolithic pottery to 19th century kilims the idea that in
very remote places in Anatolia certain peoples survived the waves of Turkic
infidels until today and were thus able to keep
this artistic and religious
tradition from the Neolithic period till today. These people were called "yerli"
( ~ bound to a certain place, as opposite to nomadic
people). - They "Mother
Goddess" hype was about the end of the eighties - just to remember as of today
only one person apparently has kept his
memory fresh.
Putting together
our own field work in Anatolia and lengthy literature work Jasmin Hofmacher,
Michaela Glanz ( former Kühnert) and I
presented a kind of anti-thesis at
that time
( at the Freundeskreis Orientalischer Textilien in
Nordrhein-Westfalen, a workshop in the house of the Rautenstengels
)
according to which all this material that we have was made by Turcoman
people in Anatolia and that these people are the vital center of this particular
textile art.
Developing this anti-thesis we had learned that in whole
Anatolia all weavers never looked at the allover design when asked where a
certain weave was made
- they looked always for certain small details, and of
course to the yarns and to the dyes. So we discovered that the "key factor" are
these little "habits"
that do not influence the overall picture very much.
So, as an analogy to the evolution process in biology, they are not that much
under "evolutionary pressure" and are much more conservative than the total
design.
A second minor detail is not clearly visible on the detail scan.
So I recommend for a deeper look
( Michael Bischof: Frühe Kelims aus
den Bergen westlich von Konya.-
In: Kelim - Textile Kunst aus Anatolien.
Aachen, 2002. p. 34 - 40. -
[ This contribution I have written together with
Memduh Kürtül and
Susan Yalcin. ] This is the exhibition catalogue of the
kelim exhibition that was organized by Sabine Steinboeck/Harry Koll
at the
Textile Museum in Krefeld last year and in the Pfalzgalerie in Kaiserslautern
this year - look at the review in the latest
issue of HALI . Here we describe
entirely this aspect in details ... )
The above mentioned "Cappadocian"
kilims and this one differed in these two details ( letting the wool and the
dyes aside ). So they shared the overall
design - but this is all. Their
provenance ( in case the attribution for Cappadocia is correct ! ) separates
them for a distance of about 300 km.
They represent clearly two different
weaving traditions.
To establish this was only possible because the
provenance of the Vok piece was clear. The people who live in the village where
it was found descend
from Caucasian refugees that came to that place about
110 years before - and they state clearly that this particular kilim is not
their work ! The second
thing that I must mention here is the fact that
kilims with total different overall designs ( but sharing the above mentioned
"minor details" have been found
in several mountain villages in this area - a
further confirmation, or, vice versa: we had developed our "thesis" knowing that
... ).
Regards,
Michael Bischof
( to be continued ... )
moving a piece ( Bob Kent )
Hallo everybody, hallo Bob,
without being able to give further reasons
here this piece could not have been removed
and the local people knew this
well. At the beginning of our contact with them they did not value the piece
that high. That came later ... please do not forget that in the seventies and
early eighties mediocre antiqe Konya Ladik type carpets were believed to have
been made from gold, not from wool, but kilims were not appreciated locally.
Some furniture tool, like that ...
Regards,
Michael
Hi Michael,
I received the e-mail concerning your "secrets" and my
reply is ready. I don’t want to distract you from answering to other people,
though, so I’ll wait before posting it.
Regards,
Filiberto
A-pieces continued ...
( Attention: from Steve I had learned this morning that it might be an
idea to press the "reload" button in the browser
and keep the shift-button
pressed as well in order to have the pictures loaded up !
For your
convenience I will give the URL where they sit in this moment as well
)
Hallo everybody,
yesterday I had mentioned that the
provenance of Rageth 35 and 36 as from "Cappadocia" was not clear.
When they
had been sold such considerations were not important as the usual "selling
atmosphere" of dealers
at that time was to pretend that they virtually had
discovered them through the dust on their feet, wandering
through Anatolia.
And, admittedly, the leading collectors at that time followed the
"aesthetic-only" approach.
So it is very important that this provenance
could be established via another A-piece
from Cappadocia, see this detail
as well:
( To get a better picture quality you may download them
from
http://koek.dv-kombinat.de/amm.tif
http://koek.dv-kombinat.de/amm2.tiff )
They are from the
exhibition catalogue Essen that was mentioned yesterday. The measures are 395 x
142 cm.
The pieces Rageth 35 and 36 are a bit smaller. This one is in nearly
mint condition, especially what concerning
the conditions of its dye
lakes k-and this is another aspect
of our proposed grading system: the
integrity of the piece ( what has happened to it after it was found ? And
how
does one know about that ? ).
I must admit that for kilim
discussions both, the best printed books available and especially the current
quality of
digital photos on the net, are not appropriate. Both lack the
ability to imagine the space that these kilims have - and
they cannot show
the colours. So all I can do is to assure you that the visual impact of this
piece is like described here
- in case of doubt I may help to contact people
who had viewed it in Essen ( but look: in what kind of competition
!).
Its provenance as an A - piece is granted threefold: two people have
seen it at its spot long before it started to move
and we have the record of
the picker. All three news match perfectly ( details I will give to Steve Price
).
R. John Howe: the Robert Torquia piece that you mentioned is
not something belonging to this group. Its attribution
to Karapinar is
may be not wrong but not helpful. "Karapinar" in this context means an area
amounting to some states in the US
- so it is far removed from describing any
location. The best piece of this particular type has been found recently ( again
an
A-piece ... details to Steve ).
But to stress one thing again and
again: with this "grading system" we do not aim for ranking pieces ! To be
strict with the provenance is a conditio sine qua non for the starting
point of any research that should be done on early kilims : not more, but
not less !
Plus: part b - the integrity - today is an essential task for any
serious collector ( since about 1992 : see "Repairs and fakes ... " here on
Turkotek, Archived Discussions ).
Regards,
Michael Bischof
Dear Michael,
In your last post in page 1 of this thread, you wrote:
I should mention that yesterday I had given to You, Filiberto, and to
Steve Price much more information than what is written here.
I will go
through that, but before let me notice that you wrote on the same
post:
What makes me sure ? Well, if people in this particular village
know this piece since long neveretheless it might have been broughtthere before
I asked them. But when ? In the seventies there was in Turkey no market for such
pieces. All established local carpet dealers ( that furnish private houses -
antiquities were for tourists ! ) had no interest in them.
So this is not the
story of any carpet dealer. We knew these villagers from buying raw wool, spun
wool, collected plants and weaving orders
before this had happened. Yes, may
be, there is always some uncertaincy in life
A VERY scientific
method indeed!
In your last post above, there is another example of this
method:
Its provenance as an A - piece is granted threefold: two
people have seen it at its spot long before it started to move
and we have
the record of the picker. All three news match perfectly ( details I will give
to Steve Price ).
Uh, your secret evidence…
In your private
missive the ONLY answer I could find to my question "where is the proof?" is
this one:
"This particular piece…
…It was not found by any picker -
it was direct personal relation to that particular village. We took it in a cold
and very snowy winter as I remember well as it was a happening to move to this
village by car. Nobody had seen it except these 2 people - no other dealers!"
If I‘m wrong Steve can easily correct me.
This WAS the "much
more information than what is written here."
Again, were is the
indisputable, scientific proof? Were is the RECORD, the PAINTING, the TESTIMONY
- whatever could be considered as an independent and credible OLD document
shoving that the piece in question was there from its birth or at least was
there for over a century?
Without that, your assumption that the piece
originated from that spot can be considered only as an educated guess proved
perhaps by some reasonable evidence. That is far from being a SCIENTIFIC
PROOF!
We have only your word for it and you are not exactly an independent
party in this matter.
On the contrary, you are a VERY interested party in
this business, because, as it happens, you were the seller of that
piece.
So far, Michael, you failed to produce a clear evidence of the
possibility that you can find a-pieces.
When pressed with insistence,
either you hide behind a barrage of words or behind some "secrets" you cannot
share in public.
I can understand the reasons you do not like to speak about
certain things, even if I do not like them.
Those reasons,
however, have nothing to do with the proofs I requested from you.
In lack
of that corroboration I feel difficult to distinguish your "grading system" from
a bazaar fairy tale.
Steve wrote yesterday in the "Modern Rugs"
thread:
"As an aside, the present discussion ought to put to rest the myth
held in some circles that Turkotek forbids expression of opinions counter to
those of its managers, or even that the managers are monolithic in their
views".
I have some serious doubt that what is under discussion here is
only a matter of opinions.
Michel’s "grading system" itself is perfectly
acceptable.
The stress he puts on the superior virtues of a-pieces as
collectable is disputable but still acceptable.
But the constant
MARKETING of a-pieces and the "nudging" that Michael performs on Turkotek with
veiled hints that he can find (and obviously deliver) a-pieces is not
acceptable.
The constant refusal to give clear PUBLIC evidence is not
acceptable.
For example:
in Salon 91, Rudolf Hilbert questioned the
"grading system" (in the "Provenance" thread) saying "I think will never, never,
never be possible to establish the exact provenance (history????) of a tribal
weaving that is e.g. more than 150 years old".
On which, I fully agree, by
the way.
After the usual barrage of words Michel replied: "A straight answer
with full details would offend the rules of Turkotek. So I have to split it into
one general remark and further details which I am ready to supply via
e-mail."
Michael, Turkotek is a public forum, not a secret society where
only a few initiates can share arcane secrets.
If you don't want to speak
freely of your a-pieces, I invite you to refrain from mentioning them again in
the future (once this thread is finished, of course). John made more or less the
same suggestion.
Last but not least: I seriously question the existence
of your a-pieces!!!
I am still open to evidence, though.
PUBLIC
evidence.
Best regards,
Filiberto
P.S. Michael, I will not
accept from you any private e-mail on the subject. If I receive them I’ll feel
free to publish them here.
Correction:
When I wrote:
"In lack of that corroboration I feel
difficult to distinguish your "grading system" from a bazaar fairy tale."
I
was referring to Michael’s claims on the availability on the market of the
"a-pieces", not to the system itself
more specific, please ...
Hi, Filiberto,
" What makes me sure ? Well, if people in this
particular village know this piece since long neveretheless it might have been
broughtthere before I asked them. But when ? In the seventies there was in
Turkey no market for such pieces. All established local carpet dealers ( that
furnish private houses - antiquities were for tourists ! ) had no interest in
them.
So this is not the story of any carpet dealer. We knew these villagers
from buying raw wool, spun wool, collected plants and weaving orders
before
this had happened. Yes, may be, there is always some uncertaincy in life
A VERY scientific method indeed! "
Okay, now you tell me please
what a "scientific method" that would be sufficient for you would be
!
"In your last post above, there is another example of this
method:
Its provenance as an A - piece is granted threefold: two people
have seen it at its spot long before it started to move
and we have the
record of the picker. All three news match perfectly ( details I will give to
Steve Price ).
Uh, your secret evidence? "
Yes, as long as the
names of these people are available this is enough. No need to publish them
here, what for ?
It does not contradict the public character of Turkotek
as a forum to mention that such evidence is there, specify it in a way that the
person who has made such a claim cannot run away - without publishing this
evidence.
We discuss whether it is possible to locate the origin of such
old pieces or not. To remember: locate the origin does not automatically mean to
have identified the weavers ( or their group).
The example I had given
here is not discussed until now - a piece that till this information came was
put totally wrong.
Regards,
hi
i am REALLY enjoying this salon !!!!!
seems that qualitative
research will always take a backseat....aaaahhhhhh !
still - this thread
is like viewing the 1st 20 minutes of "pulp fiction" - have no idea really what
is going on but am looking forward to it all falling into place at the end
:-)
keep going guys !Q!
richard
quote:
Okay, now you tell me please what a "scientific method" that would be sufficient for you would be !
quote:
Yes, as long as the names of these people are available this is enough. No need to publish them here, what for ? It does not contradict the public character of Turkotek as a forum to mention that such evidence is there, specify it in a way that the person who has made such a claim cannot run away - without publishing this evidence
filiberto
why do you consider verbal 'proof' as laughable?
if
it's all that is available why is so scorned?
must you ALWAYS have rock
solid proof of things?
does 1 + 1 always = 2?
funny how einstein
disproved this.
richard
Just in case, I do not want to be misunderstood: I wrote TESTIMONY, not
EXPERTISE - which is a very different thing.
I do not want in any way to
offend those reputable dealers who, with their expertise, help collectors to
find the right stuff.
Regards,
Filiberto
Hi Richard,
No, verbal proof is not always laughable. It depends on
the context and on the credibility of the witness.
I cannot even count the
times when they tried to sell me "antique" stuff that was not even old - or
wasn’t at all what they said it was.
Regards,
Filiberto
Hi Richard,
To elaborate more on the subject of the verbal proof:
Let’s say you are on trial accused of killing somebody.
If the
prosecution can find a witness which claims that he saw you killing the victim …
- that could send you to the gallows.
But if your lawyer can demonstrate that
the witness is not credible - that could save your neck.
Verbal proof is not
scientific evidence. People LIE - or make mistakes.
A video tape showing you
killing the victim: that is a scientific evidence.
quote:
must you ALWAYS have rock solid proof of things?
show your criteria now ...
Hi Filiberto,
even for Turkotek standards we are now in the middle of
a really vivid discussion, yes ?
"We have only your word for it
and you are not exactly an independent party in this matter."
Indeed,
that is true - so I took quite some efforts to deliver more than just my word.
But that does not mean, again, to publish these effort on a
website.
On the contrary, you are a VERY interested party in this
business, because, as it happens, you were the seller of that
piece.
Such a stupid and unprofessional thing I would
never publish on any website ... and it has nothing to do with what we discuss
here !
If the person who has made such a claim is the weaver of
the kilim and she is over 150 years old I could consider her testimony.
But
Id' like also to see her birthday certificate.
Ok, Filiberto: the
echoes of our laughters are over now - up to you to answer my question
seriously: what is a "scientific method" in this very context
?
Otherwise, testimony of people involved in the business - including
YOU - it's just a laughable matter.
It isn't new either. It's called "bazaar
fairy tale".
Might be - but I cannot see how this remarks moves
anything ahead ... no, involved or not involved: this must not corrupt any
judgement automatically.
There is one thing you cannot know: I started
collecting in the seventies - and I am a very curious person. You just have to
tell me what I should not get to know. The next moment I start to work hard to
get what I perhaps may not need ... when trying to research early material in
all Anatolia, which I travelled for about 3 months per year I met a kind of
"rubber wall", intransigent. Until I realized that I had to start to buy and
sell such pieces, to become part (party) of the game to get hold of what I
wanted to know. But then you stand on two legs, literally speaking, and that
creates new balance problems.
Nevertheless it was possible to bring forward a
lot of things, including things that you saw here on Turkotek ( for example in
"Repairs and Fakes ... " and in the kilim salon ) that did not find their way
into any carpet literature. Why didn't you question that - we gave no names
there, you see ?
( and all the communications done before that essay we
did not mention at all here - basically the same situation that you criticize
now as being opposite
to a public forum )
So, Filiberto: I am curious
now.
Why did the lines I contributed hitherto not support this A-piece
claim ? And: what would you insist instead of that ? Any positive examples ?
Here on Turkotek or elsewhere ?
Last but not least: I seriously
question the existence of your a-pieces!!!
To question is your duty ,
I guess, as long as you want to move the discussion. Then let us know what are
the specifications of your questioning - the laughter is over now
...
Regards,
Michael
Hi Michael,
First, I corrected almost an hour ago my
phrase:
"Otherwise, testimony of people involved in the business - including
YOU - it's just a laughable matter."
That "including YOU" was an editing
mistake. The phrase was different at the origin.
Something like" Everybody
knows - including YOU". I changed it on the preview page because I did not like
it and I forgot to delete the - including YOU - part.
As soon as I realized
it I deleted it, sorry for the mistake.
About the rest, my son is bothering
me because has to "chat" on MSN with his friends and I have to quit.
After I’ll have no time, so the answer is for
tomorrow.
Regards,
Filiberto
OK, my son let me the computer, but after I have to run!
Look,
Michael, I don’t have to prove anything.
It’s yours the "grading system",
it’s yours the claim that you can find some "a-pieces". Which have some tight
specification.
Let’s say I want to buy from you one of these kilim. There
is one that I like.
You say to me:
-This particular piece…
…It was not
found by any picker - it was direct personal relation to that particular
village. We took it in a cold and very snowy winter as I remember well as it was
a happening to move to this village by car. Nobody had seen it except these 2
people - no other dealers!
My answer: - Excuse me? And how do you know it
wasn’t planted there for you?
Your answer: - What makes me sure ? Well,
if people in this particular village know this piece since long neveretheless it
might have been broughtthere before I asked them. But when ? In the seventies
there was in Turkey no market for such pieces. All established local carpet
dealers ( that furnish private houses - antiquities were for tourists ! ) had no
interest in them.
So this is not the story of any carpet dealer. We knew
these villagers from buying raw wool, spun wool, collected plants and weaving
orders
before this had happened. Yes, may be, there is always some
uncertaincy in life
Me: - Perhaps you mean uncertainty. So, if you are
not sure, it’s a b-piece isn’t it?
You: - No it is an A - piece. This
granted threefold: two people have seen it at its spot long before it started to
move
and we have the record of the picker. All three news match perfectly
.
Me: - But how do you know they tell you the truth? You don’t have a
more solid evidence?
You can answer to that yourself,
please.
Regards,
Filiberto
Hi Michael -
You have said several times:
"...two people have
seen it at its spot long before it started to move..."
I am unclear about
how this is established. If this is a 19th century piece, then it was made over
100 years ago. There are at least four generations separating us from this
kilim's maker. Even in traditional societies, I would wonder how much is lost
from generation from generation and how many times such a piece even if it is a
prized family piece was of necessity "moved."
The phrase "started to move"
has no evidential basis for me.
One doesn't have to question whether such
folks are telling the truth, to ask how we know that they know it.
Such
evidence may be the best we have, and the best you can do at the moment, but it
does not provide, for me, a sufficient basis for the claims being made to be
able to identify an "A" piece.
Regards,
R. John Howe
one example more ...
Hallo R. John Howe, hallo Filiberto,
now I must take care not to
confuse things - in the meantime I got an explanation about the difference
between "testimony" and "expertise".
Okay: testimony is available for these
two A-pieces - but not to be published here. And about how to get it I
will definitely not talk on a website and I insist that this is not necessary at
all. More details tomorrow .... bed time now for me.
"...two people
have seen it at its spot long before it started to move..."
What this
means please ask Steve: again this info will not be published here. If this is
your condition , Filiberto, then I must say at this point: I am not willing to
move this topic any millimeter further. You are living in the Orient and for
sure are informed about regulations in these countries. As it has nothing to do
with assessing my claim I must not continue with this aspect.
"I
am unclear about how this is established. If this is a 19th century piece, then
it was made over 100 years ago. There are at least four generations separating
us from this kilim's maker. Even in traditional societies, I would wonder how
much is lost from generation from generation and how many times such a piece
even if it is a prized family piece was of necessity "moved."
It did
not move at all after being dropped there.
Unfortunately the mentioned
source, the exhibition catalogue of Krefeld, contains a detailed study of this
problem - but in German. To summarize it in short:
the people in this village
that live there today are Caucasian refugees. They know that this piece was at
its former spot as long as they can remember but they are sure that "they" (
that means: the people from whome they descend, these refugees ) did not
weave this kilim.
The same happened in Cappadocia. Todays inhabitants of this
township ( not village ! ) did not feel this piece related to them ( and people
who wove kilims
in their place ).
This is what I meant when I said to
assure the provenance of a piece, the spot where it has been found, must not
automatically mean to know who has made it.
It may be different ( as it is
with the Vok piece and the Cappadocian kilim ) but it may be the same like with
this A-piece where I show only a detail .
It is from a
Central Anatolian village and the family whose forerunners have woven it still
owns it. Up to the best of my knowledge only 4 pieces of this particular type
showed up. One of them in a neighbouring country. To weave such a kilim has been
a part of the ceyiz ( the set of weaves people should have there for marriage )
and as far as we know this particular type is restricted to one village ( this
is a kind of exemption !). One of the "third parties" that I mentioned has seen
it over there but for sure will not publish the location here or elsewhere -
until, later, may be we would together agree on doing such a thing.
So in
this case "starting point of research" means: find out you was around that
township in Cappadocia 200 years before. This is something, as we had mentioned
in the kilim salon, to be done by ethnohistorical researchers, linguists ,
historical geographers and ethno-textile specialists - but for sure not for art
historians as we have them, not to mention Western dealers , even if they did
many shopping trips to Turkey. - In the case of the Vok piece we have some early
kilims that have a very different overall design but share with this kilims
these two details ( one in the border and the other mentioned one ).
These
are no A-pieces. These pieces have been exhibited in Krefeld and in
Kaiserslautern recently. Only "expertise" is available plus some hearsay that
they have been brought in by pickers that serve the same mountainous area. The
people there define themselves as settled Turcomans but do not remember any
tribal name. They know this origin, claim that their settlement there beyond
their memory achieved by grandfathers and -mothers but insist that they do not
live there for extreme long, whatever this means.
Without this starting
point, without being quite sure of this provenance: what can you do ? Even in
case you would like to come in from the structure of the weave, technical
features that it has: how do you want to calibrate your "system" if you do not
have at least one "firm" point ? The Near East is a multi-ethnic area where more
often than not anything related to ethnic groups today is a taboo
topic.
Regards,
Michael
Hello everybody,
I am very happy that Filiberto again brought up the
issue of Michael Bischof's grading system.
Now in the course of the
discussion we have got a concrete example and a rough idea of what might be
included in a Type-A certificate.
Last year Michael said it is not cheap
to obtain the information to prove a piece as Type-A.
Now my question: Can
you give us a rough guess what would be the premium of a Type-A piece over a
comparable Type-B piece (10, 50, 100 or more %) ?
For me personally it
would be sufficient to get some reasonable record of the provenance of a weaving
for the last 20 years. That should be a fair insurance against fakes. That would
be Type-B, or ???
To be of any practical relevance in the trade with
antique weavings, we would need quite a lot more trustworthy grading experts.
What about the grading approach with respect to rugs (any real world
cases) ?
To try to establish the grading system in areas like Caucasian
weavings is in my opinion an absolutely hopeless affair because in Caucasus the
traditional weaving culture came to an end by WW I. Where are the people to ask
?
But especially here we would need some greater safeguard against
fakes.
Suppose I buy from someone a perfect anatolian or caucasian type-A
rug. Probably the Type-A story will not give me a strong clue as to the age of
the rug. Here I am still alone with my "educated guess" or that of the dealer
experts.
With kind regards,
Rudolf
Michael -
I'm getting clearer about some things. In the last exchange
it became clear to me that the basis for a "A" piece is "provenance," not
necessarily "attribution."
You may have said that before, but I have
often felt you were also claiming "attribution." (Although, you seem in some
instances still to claim to discern that too.)
"Provenance" is likely
easier to establish than is "attribution" but would often not, it seems to me,
go very far to indicate much about the piece itself. One might better to be able
to track its age within the knowledge of those living, but I wonder how much
more. Testimony of "refugees" in the town where it is "found" that it is not
something their people wove, says nothing, excepting that, about who did weave
it.
At the end you wrote"
"...how do you want to calibrate your
"system" if you do not have at least one "firm" point ?"
My
thought:
No one in these conversations has denied that it would be useful
to have a system of "calibration" such as the one you propose. And no one has
said that "calibration" does not require "at least one firm point" as an anchor.
The question has been entirely about whether you have found such a point and how
you justify its being treated as firmly as you argue that we should.
I
would not recommend that you tell any secrets at all, but rather (this will
echo) that you simply stop making the claims for your system here on Turkotek.
Regards,
R. John Howe
Dear Michael,
quote:
Okay: testimony is available for these two A-pieces - but not to be published here. And about how to get it I will definitely not talk on a website and I insist that this is not necessary at all.
Dear folks -
In my last post to Michael Bischof above I said in
part:
"...I would not recommend that you tell any secrets at all, but
rather (this will echo) that you simply stop making the claims for your system
here on Turkotek."
Someone has noted that that could read as if I am
speaking for Turkotek. I do not and it does not.
I was merely expressing
my personal view (I think this is now the fourth time I have said it) that if
Michael is not free to explain his system fully here then perhaps (and
especially since he could be seen to be touting his business in the process) it
would be best simply not to talk further about this "A" system here at
all.
I do not speak for Turktek. The internal workings of our
owner/manager group are far more mysterious than that. 
Regards,
R. John
Howe
calibration detailed ...
Hallo everybody, hallo R. John Howe,
it became clear to me that the
basis for a "A" piece is "provenance," not necessarily
"attribution."
Yes, these latest lines helped to clarify things quite
I bit , I guess. What I mean is
calibration of
attribution
- that is the main goal of this "system" , except from
taking out the piece out of the artificially made fog of being anonymous.
I
would rather prefer to call it a proposal - system sounds too bombastic for
me.
As I tried to outline just before the "attribution" to a certain group,
to a certain geographic area ( a set of villages, e.g.) you must do by doing
your own research. How this is done in principle I have written. As well that
"we" , private people interested in early kilims and village rugs, can
contribute only tiny bits to it. In case of the Vok kilim you need to find which
Turcoman groups moved there about 200 - 150 years ago ... and this group/one of
those groups most likely has/have made this kilim and the other ones as well.
Let us assume ( an invented example ) this group would be the Gercek Bahsis
group. In this case one has
to find places where members of this group have
settled later. Such places might be very far away but always, of course ,
somewhere close to their previous courses ( a topic for historical geography
then).
Go there and try to find pieces which in a way belong to this one -
most likely one would find very different designs ( the overall design is the
one thing that can change quick and easy, but not this particular "detail habit"
).
One example of minor importance: above Lake Egirdir in Central
Anatolia, up in the hills, there is a village where people do not weave since
long. In this village you find only flatwoven yastiks in the salon of the houses
( some piled ones as well, but then the people tell you: these are not our
yastiks, these we bought from Isparta or it had been made according to our
order there and there ... ). You interview them about their history. They say
they are settled Yörük people that until 60-70 years before changed places
between the Cukurova and this yayla area at Lake Egirdir. The distance is huge
and you hardly believe it.
Then you take the map and will find a second
village with the same name in the foothills above the Cukurova. The people have
recorded their history correctly, then. You move down there - and what will you
find: flatwoven yastiks that undisputably belong together with the Egirdir one
into one group. For such a task
you apparently need a safe starting point, an
"A-piece" whose provenance you definitely know. Otherwise you are lost in this
huge country.
"Minor importance" in this context means most of those
pieces had not any significant value in the antique business ... and a second
thing you might have realized quick: for such a task you not only must talk and
understand Turkish including some dialects. You must do it together with Turkish
people otherwise it would take too long for you to come that close to the people
in question - in case you are interested in "structures" you need to have a well
qualified Turkish weaver with you to be able to communicate your questions and
your approach to the ladies ( which you cannot quick enough contact as a male.
To be a foreigner would enlarge the distance , to have handsome kids with you
would shorten it ).
Then you would try to establish their old repertoire. For
each "unit" ( kilim , cuval, cul , yastik, rugs ) you would need a
well-calibrated "A-piece" - otherwise your whole enterprise is rubbish. If that
is establish you may, slow by slow, ask for the possible meaning of some
motives, "symbols" ... but as of today this is quite far behind the mountains in
front of you. To listen to people that claim to have landed there already ( by
helicopter ?) is a waste of time . These people have never been there. They
found a picture book about that place in New York ...
Testimony of
"refugees" in the town where it is "found" that it is not something their people
wove, says nothing, excepting that, about who did weave it.
Well,
what it says and what it does not say is clear now, hopefully : much more than
nothing. Keep in mind: without that you would have nothing , you would
still believe this is a splendid Cappadocian kilim !
I would
not recommend that you tell any secrets at all, but rather (this will echo) that
you simply stop making the claims for your system here on
Turkotek.
The term "secret" I reject strongly. Secret means that a
certain information is not delivered , not given out. This is not the
case. It is not published - but this is not the
same.
Regards,
Michael Bischof
From an American who
commands a very crippled language I recently have learned that my English is
"fractured". Therefore, Filiberto, this time I need to polish it a bit better
before I answer your question from yesterday.
second thoughts ...
Hi R. John Howe,
Dear folks -
" In my last post to Michael
Bischof above I said in part:
"...I would not recommend that you tell any
secrets at all, but rather (this will echo) that you simply stop making the
claims for your system here on Turkotek."
" ... that if Michael is not
free to explain his system fully here then perhaps (and especially since he
could be seen to be touting his business in the process) ... "
Could you
please be a bit more frank about which particular information you need, you are
missing,
to be able to fully understand what we are discussing here ? What is
missing ? And if something "delicate" is missing: why must it be you who should
know that ?
For me it is mysterious.
Regards,
Michael
Bischof
Mr B.
you wrote
"Hallo everybody, hallo R. John Howe,
it
became clear to me that the basis for a "A" piece is "provenance," not
necessarily "attribution."
Yes, these latest lines helped to clarify
things quite I bit , I guess. "
If you, sir, had taken the trouble to
read the responces that I wrote to you on your salon nr. 91 you might have saved
yourself and the readers of this site considerable time in reaching this
conclustion of yours.
In the two letters I posted to your salon on
10-26-2002 :
I wrote to you at length about the differences [as I
understood them] between attribution and provenance.
I suggested calling you
system Provenance catagorie A
Provenance catagorie B and Provenance catagorie
C.
I am amazed that you did not attempt to respond then to an honest and
considered opinion whose only purpose was to help you clarify your
thoughts.
Richard Farber
Hi Michael -
I wrote my posts this morning before seeing your longer
one above.
Perhaps my understanding of what you propose is more defective
than I thought.
Let me try again (to summarize in terms of my current
understanding).
The system you propose is one aimed at establishing
provenance rather than attribution, although attribution might be encountered
too in some instances.
The method is to select a location and to assemble
the resources needed to do sound field research in a Moslem community and then
to go to that location and to attempt to be shown the textiles the locals have
and to ask what they know about them.
Since folks have often moved about
over the 100-150 years of interest, often folks being interviewed will have
textiles in their possession which they deny that either they or their ancestors
made. Sometimes you can find additional instances if you back track along the
routes on which such folks migrated to their current location.
The usual
result of such field work will be negative. That is, its real function will be
to demonstrate that most attrubution indications in books about Turkish textiles
will be found to be inaccurate and perhaps without much basis at all.
I
think my mistake was to read your claims (and they seemed vigorous ones to me)
for your ability to identify an "A" as one with a positive rather than a
debunking object. The ability to identify an "A" piece will function
primarily,as I now understand it, to show that pieces are not what they are
claimed to be. It will not usually (ever?) have a positive result.
If the
ability to identify an "A" piece has a postive result then you could be seen to
be touting a busness purpose here. But if this ability is in fact mosty a
debunking program attempting to demonstrate that most of the literature on
Turkish textiles rests on an inaccurate basis then my objections to discussion
of it (although I am not at all sure I understand it, but don't try to help me)
here, vanish.
More, I would have been willing to give you the debunking
point without much demonstration. It is clear that we have few "anchor" points
in rug analysis and that, given our position, a word like "calibration" is
nearly laughable. What we have mostly are what Robert Pinner has characterized
as "conventions." That is, "rules" socially established among those who study
rugs about such things as attribution. Such rules may in fact sometimes be
rooted in an occasional "anchor" point of objective data, but usually they are
mostly judgments and learned distinctions being applied. As such they are
greatly prone to error.
Jon Thompson is reputed to have said somewhere
that he believes perhaps 25% of what he reads in rug books. If that was your
thesis about Turkish textiles and the primary function of the ability to detect
an "A" piece, this conversation could have been much shorter.
I thought
you were claiming to have constructed an system for identifying "A" pieces and
that there was a potential, but unstated, related thesis that folks could
contact you to acquire one.
Regards,
R. John Howe
Hi John
This is a digression; I hope it will not be a big one. You
wrote, Jon Thompson is reputed to have said somewhere that he believes
perhaps 25% of what he reads in rug books. In order to know which 25% to
believe requires a considerable level of expertise. I think about 75% of what I
read in rug books is wrong, but I don't know which 75% it is.
I visited
the USSR as a guest scientist in 1979, and was struck by the extent to which the
Soviet government kept information from the people. The educated ones knew that
what the government told them was untrue, but were painfully aware that knowing
that they were being lied to was not the same thing as knowing the
truth.
Somehow, I thought this was relevant when I started composing it.
Regards,
Steve Price
Dear Steve,
I thought that it was a good joke . . . and little humor
here was just on time
whoops, I meant your second paragraph. I dont think
withholding information is a laughing matter.
regards
r
Hi Everyone, Peace,
I can't help but thinking that these
billboard-sized kilims with gigantic motifs were modeled on, or were at one time
themselves, meant to be seen at a distance.
I don't think I am digressing
to question their use here because, if I am right, they might well have been
displayed publicly, either on land or at sea, in the past. This may well be why
that which could make them "A pieces" might be more reliable than, say, weavings
woven on a more personal sized scale. Sue
one yellow more ...
Hallo everybody,
another A-piece:
It was found in
another small township in Central Cappadocia and obtained from a picker
that we know well.
He claims it comes from the "city" , from a family that
lives in this town as long as they can remember as artisans ( not something
connected to weaves, wool etc.). They say that one of their ancestors had woven
it at home. - I have no information at hand
to substantiate any doubt against
that.
When it came in it several holes were covered with hand-woven,
natural dyed fabrics that had quite some age ( yarns, dyes and weaves are not
connected in any respect to this kilim !) and that was sown loosely to cover
these holes.
By the way:
if such an authentic weave ( kilim or village
rug does not matter ) was damaged it was never (!) repaired in old times.
In
case one has "old repairs" these are always contemporary and show that the piece
has been moving around - but
in shops, not with the people.
An
electronic picture will not display such details: unusual in this kilims are the
dyes. For us these are typical local dye workshop dyes - and the yellow we once
had commented like this:
"It contains a lot of dye stuff - 30% of the wool
weight with a good sample quality is the upmost amount which is useful. As a
straight decoction it results in a brilliant open yellow of very poor light
fastness. The dyes in this kilim have either been made with black Cehri or the
dyers have used special pre-treatments of the green berries or applied
fermentation techniques. Some old people in Cehri areas that we had interviewed
and who had worked as professional dyers when they were young had forgotten how
it was done (we believed them, in this case, as their memory was not very
"healthy" on related details as well)."
(http://www.turkotek.com/salon_00091/dyes.html ) - the url
works ...
Hopefully some time later we may get enough cooperation ( and funds
) to run a proper HPLC with DiodeArrayDetection - Analysis
of the dye
lacquers of such a piece and by comparing it with the dyes of certain pile
weaves of that area ( some "A-pieces" , ~ "calibrated" then ) it can well be
that a similar picture arises like the one we have found for Karaman
( http://www.turkotek.com/salon_00091/original.html )
.
Now imagine this weave would not have come in as an A-piece:
in a
striped kilim what could one gain from "structures" - there are the yarns and
the dyes. How many people would dare to try any attribution of such a piece
based on that ?
The tiny yarns that link it to its original environment (
yes, many questions remain unanswered ! ) it would have lost any trace of
identity, a second-hand car without proper documents.
In the normal
processing the sewn-on fabrics would have been removed, the dye lacquers would
have been damaged by improper washing, may be even some silicone applied ( for
the shine , you know ) .... even then if would make a fascinating sunny spot at
any wall in a Western house in the sense of distinguished interior decoration.
As a kind of cultural event , highlighting the abilities of "simple minded
remote" ( but known !) people to create great things even with upmost basic
means it would no longer exist.
Regards,
Michael Bischof
Hi Michael -
So there may be such a thing as an "A" piece after all
and this may be one. And dyes seem to be your primary indicators, so it sounds
like the "technical" features were important after all. What the villagers say
about it seems irrelevant. You say you have no reason to doubt what they report
but I would argue that needs to be the default position with regard to verbal
reports.
The real function of declaring a piece an "A" now seems to be
that it becomes identified as a piece worth doing further tests on. If it had
not met the "A" piece criteria it might have be "lost."
It looks quite
nice on my monitor and the ground color is unusual, but I have the back (only)
of a "Bergama" grain bag that has similar stripes, and about which I make no
particular claims, that I think I like better.
Zero provenance, but it
still looks good on my wall.
Regards,
R. John Howe
quote:
another A-piece:
was found in another small township in Central Cappadocia and obtained from a picker that we know well.
He claims it comes from the "city" , from a family that lives in this town as long as they can remember as artisans ( not something connected to weaves, wool etc.). They say that one of their ancestors had woven it at home. - I have no information at hand to substantiate any doubt against that.
Could you cross-check it ? It may well be true , it may well be a kind of marketing story. So how do you know ? - And in case you know: wouldn't it be right then to interview this family?
to be honest this seems to be going in circles.
no verbal report (in
its purest form) can ever be regarded as the 'truth'.
even a thousand
people sould conjure up a lie and corroborate evidence.
but surely when
we KNOW we cannot obtain any 'written' or 'video' evidence, we must then take
some sort of 'leap of faith' and trust in those who 'verbally' report. obvioulsy
every context is different, discretion is needed.
we may be proved wrong
but will that be anything new?
richard tomlinson
Hi Richard
I disagree. While one verbal report is a poor basis for
certainty, two, if they are consistent and independent, is convincing when the
issue isn't a matter of life and death importance. Three or more, independent
and consistent, is more than enough to convict or acquit in the American courts.
It's true, there are mass lies. But they are rare enough to make the
probability of truth high when a group of independent witnessses all say the
same thing. Bear in mind, too, that when fraud is the objective, video tape and
photos can easily be made to lie and that it's about as easy to lie in writing
as it is to lie orally.
The pursuit of truth necessarily involves
accepting false ideas sometimes. This is because we have to adopt criteria for
testing truth, and any set of criteria will automatically exclude certain things
that could, in fact, be true. The alternative is to accept everything, which
gets us nowhere. It helps to be aware of the limitations of the process while
using it, though. This reduces the shock when we discover that we were wrong
about something and keeps us open to the possibility of being wrong.
Regards,
Steve Price
so then steve, you would not argue against michael's methods of gathering
'proof' ??
best
richard
Granted, verbal proof is better than nothing.
But, then, one cannot
use hearsay as an absolute evidence, as an "Identity Card".
THIS is
only, in the best of hypothesis, reasonable evidence NOT absolute
evidence
In short, that piece - according to Michael's system - should be
a B-pieces, NOT an A-piece.
Regards,
Filiberto
Dear All,
Notice that in this case Michael said that it was an A-piece
based on the claim of a (ONE!) picker.
Filiberto
granted 3 reports are better than one but again we are treading on shifting
sands.
one person's evidence can (in a given context) be more reliable
than 3 others.
michael said a picker that we know well.
there is/was obvioulsy a certain amount of trust based in the picker's
claim.
that claim may well be worth 3 villagers' claims in another given
context.
richard
Sorry Richard,
That wasn’t a 3 villagers’ claim!!!
That was A
claim from ONE picker who said that… and so on.
Filiberto
Hi People
There's more than one kilim in this thread. The one posted
most recently is classified by Michael as "A" group on the basis on one picker
who he says is well known. Of one presented earlier in the thread, he wrote:
Its provenance as an A - piece is granted threefold: two people have seen it
at its spot long before it started to move and we have the record of the picker.
All three news match perfectly. So the mini-debate over whether there was
one or three witnesses seems to be confusion over which kilim is being
discussed.
It seems obvious to me that Michael isn't going to convince
some of the readers without giving them details that he can't reveal in public.
There's no compelling reason I can think of why they must accept evidence that
they can't see and evaluate (I wouldn't), and I think the positions of the
parties to the debate are, and will most likely remain, stalemated for that
reason.
Sometimes, to quote A.A. Milne, that's HOW THINGS
ARE.
Regards,
Steve Price
It seems interesting to know where something was located and what the people
there had to say about it. I like the idea that this kind of information might
be used along with design and structure in the difficult task of trying to
understand origins. But as the pieces are believed to be older, this kind of
information seems less useful, and the interests of people involved in giving
and gathering the information (owners, pickers, and sellers) is also an issue.
Maybe it's a"here's what I've been told" versus a "here's what it is" sort of
information? If a picker were told emphatically by people in Eastern Turkey that
some Persian classical carpet had been in the village for 40 years and was
probably even made here way back when, they'd buy it and be amused. So the
claims are used with the other stuff.
They may be better attached to a
provenance, but I don't agree with the idea that pieces with this sort of
attached information are more likely to be textile art, etc. This reminds me of
the common ideas that such a thing as "best of type" exists, or that particular
pieces are "world class." I love articles that compare similar pieces, but these
specific judgements presume a higher level of agreement about aesthetic
reactions than I think you can really expect in something so subjective, whatver
sense they make given the nature of the collecting system.
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Tomlinson
so then steve, you would not argue against michael's methods of gathering 'proof' ??
best
richard
Hi All,
I propose that someone cobble together a new smilie
in
honor of this thread, entitled Cream Pie Fight:
code:
__ ____ --------- / | ) | | ------- | | } -- | ------ | | } /_ _| ---- \_|_) |~|
__________________
Chuck
Wagner
Hi Chuck
Michael's classification system is not aesthetics-based, so a
very ugly rug with a perfectly documented provenance would be an A-piece in his
system. Since most of us think in terms of aesthetic desirability, confusion
happens. This is why Richard Farber suggested that he use the term provenance in
his descriptors of categories. Richard's suggestion makes sense to
me.
Regards,
Steve Price
Dear all,
I don’t know if you noticed it, but in the previous page I
posted a message without signing it.
(It’s the one starting with: "Could you
cross-check it?")
Do you know why? Because those words weren’t mine. Those
were Michael’s words.
In Salon91 Mr. Ali R. Tuna wrote in the thread
"What is so special about Kilims" (page 1):
I happened to know that at
least two of the Yuncu long "yolluk" kilims came into the trade directly from
the possession of important members of the Yuncu tribal community. One was
purchased in the village from a family that kept it -who knows for how many
generations .
Michael answered him:
Then everything depends
on how you happened to know this story. Could you cross-check it ? It may well
be true , it may well be a kind of marketing story. So how do you know ? - And
in case you know: wouldn't it be right then to interview this family?
So, if Michael was so ready to question Ali with those (rightful)
doubts, I don’t see why Michael should not be questioned in the same
way.
Regards,
Filiberto
Hi Steve,
Yes, I think Richard makes sense. For me, provenance is one
attribute of a piece, amongst several. Because my interests
lie more in
Central Asia and Iran, I'm more accustomed to thinking in terms of structure,
dyes, and design. Oddly enough,
Turkey has been pretty stable, in terms of
population displacements, compared to those regions that interest me (Central
Asia, Iran) and because of that, claims of (example) family possesion of a piece
for an extended period of time (/example) are more
plausible.
Nevertheless, I think the word "proof" should be set aside in
favor of the phrase "judged highly likely by one knowledgable in the
field".
Regards,
Chuck
__________________
Chuck
Wagner
pickers ...
Hallo everybody,
about pickers :
"If a picker were told
emphatically by people in Eastern Turkey that some Persian classical carpet had
been in the village for 40 years and was probably even made here way back when,
they'd buy it and be amused. So the claims are used with the other
stuff.
They may be better attached to a provenance, but I don't agree
with the idea that pieces with this sort of attached information are more likely
to be textile art, etc. This reminds me of the common ideas that such a thing as
"best of type" exists, or that particular pieces are "world class." ( Bob Kent
)
"Then everything depends on how you happened to know this story. Could
you cross-check it ? It may well be true , it may well be a kind of marketing
story. So how do you know ? - And in case you know: wouldn't it be right then to
interview this family?
So, if Michael was so ready to question Ali with
those (rightful) doubts, I don't see why Michael should not be questioned in the
same way."
Of course, Filiberto. Double standards are not acceptable.
What I do not remember is : did Ali R. Tuna say that he interviewed the family
or does he report
that the dealer who gave the piece to him reported that ?
And in case it was like this: did Ali R. Tuna say that he knows the name and the
adress of the family ?
- The case itself, that at certain spots there
villages exist where people can trace back own weaves for several generations is
plaubible for me and in the eighties we were ourselves "engaged" with some of
them. One such "output" was exhibited in public some years before. It is an
extreme rare type of textile, only 2 pieces are known ( the other one mistaken
in a Turkish museum catalogue as something from Eastern Anatolia ): a part of a
yüncü mafrash, including tiny spots of naturally dyed silks and metal brocading.
Weaves that I would estimate to be 200 years or older from that place I have not
seen and do not assume they are there, at least not in village
houses.
"But do you have any information at hand to substantiate that
what the picker claims correspond to the truth?"
Yes, but as a kind of
"expertise", no testimony : I have seen similar weaves in that township
independant from this person and at much earlier times.
Second: with this
striped kilim came an early village rug fragment from a more distant village in
Central Cappadocia ( his claim of the location, he gave the village name but not
the name of the family from which he bought ) fitted to what I have seen in that
village. 2 other pieces from the same buy were also there ( fitted as well ).
One of it came first into the "Istanbul circulation", then to auction last year,
repaired with old wool to about 30% of the piece ( "minor repairs") was stated
in the catalogue, and I had the opportunity to discuss this with a collector who
is well known in the USA.
"Could you cross-check it ? It may well be true
, it may well be a kind of marketing story. So how do you know ? - And in case
you know: wouldn't it be right then to interview this family?"
Of course
this would be an idea. But as long as this family still has something that might
be sold one day this picker will not give to me their adress.
"If a
picker were told emphatically by people in Eastern Turkey that some Persian
classical carpet had been in the village for 40 years and was probably even made
here way back when, they'd buy it and be amused. So the claims are used with the
other stuff." ( Bob Kent )
No, Bob, impossible. A picker is not some guy
from Istanbul who runs around with his car in Eastern Anatolia and to whome one
could serve some local stories, some true, some fabrications. He is a regional
guy in rural Turkey - he would research such claims within some weeks and in
case it is a fabrication he would know that . In Turkey you may leave your car
open overnight in a "slum" ( gecekondu ) and even leave the keys outside at the
driver's door - nothing will happen ! This society is not anonymous, not even
there - and in Eastern Anatolian villages such a thing is impossible to
do.
Yes, you can do this: but not with a picker. With a city based dealer
without local contacts, or with foreigners that come in for some shopping. That
has been done, in fact.
"They may be better attached to a provenance, but
I don't agree with the idea that pieces with this sort of attached information
are more likely to be textile art, etc. This reminds me of the common ideas that
such a thing as "best of type" exists, or that particular pieces are "world
class." ( Bob Kent )
Such a thing we did not write nor propose - a piece
with this attached information is "calibrated", may it be even junk, ugly,
unimportant ... whatever, but
it can be researched further. The opposite
might be true : as long as sound research is not done on them early kilims and
village rugs will not be appreciated as an own type of textile art, not inferior
to, just different from classical rugs . "Calibration" does not make a piece
better ...
"Oddly enough,
Turkey has been pretty stable, in terms of
population displacements, compared to those regions that interest me (Central
Asia, Iran) and because of that, claims of (example) family possesion of a piece
for an extended period of time (/example) are more plausible." ( Chuck Wagner
)
Hmmh, that may be true in relative terms, not in absolute ones.
Especially groups that apparently produced the textile that we discuss here
moved in the last 800 years to a big extent. But this always includes that parts
of such a group settle arount the yayla and around the kisla over the time - and
then normally the textile output increases, especially with piled pieces. - The
Kurdish immigration to Eastern and Central Anatolia is something quite recent:
starting at
about 250 years ago and going on till about 80 years ago. I have
visited with a collector a Kurdish village close to Ankara where people claim in
this village ( its outlook is perfectly "Turcoman") that they moved in at that
time and that the pieces we saw ( "semi-antique" , that means with acid dyes
)
were not their pieces !
The population of some weaving centers might
have been more stable, for 200 - 300 years, not for more. In this respect Turkey
is and has been a very dynamic country.
"Yes, I think Richard makes
sense. For me, provenance is one attribute of a piece, amongst several. Because
my interests
lie more in Central Asia and Iran, I'm more accustomed to
thinking in terms of structure, dyes, and design. " ( Chuck Wagner
)
Okay, how do you calibrate your results then ? Who do think has made
these weaves then - and how do you know that
?
Regards,
Michael
withholding informations ...
Hallo everybody,
"This is a digression; I hope it will not be a big
one. You wrote, Jon Thompson is reputed to have said somewhere that he believes
perhaps 25% of what he reads in rug books. In order to know which 25% to believe
requires a considerable level of expertise. I think about 75% of what I read in
rug books is wrong, but I don't know which 75% it is." ( Steve Price)
A
splendid joke ! May be I am less sceptical than you: there is literature where I
believe about 100% in the sense that the authors report correctly what they met.
These are ethnographical works with contemporary weavers or other local people
or plain empirical records of what somebody has found somewhere - unless I
recognize a heavy methodological mistake in what the authors have
done.
And then there are "rug books". Steve, are you mad ? 25% - that
much ? To be frank: more often than not I have no chance to check what is
written. So I concentrate on those parts where I know from my own works the
backyards, backgrounds ( not the "truth" but what I could grasp from it ). If I
then find a part of a book misleading , uninformed or simple wrong by purpose I
stop to "believe" it. - In this moment I have no motivation and no time to
review some of it more thoroughly. A sentence like "It looks old. It feels old.
It must be very old" from a very prominent American book never left my ears. It
even outperformed the second champ of this "literature" who lives in the USA and
whose construct we have mistaken for a long time with a great, georgious parody
of such "literature".
"I dont think withholding information is a laughing
matter. "( Richard Farber )
Yes, I agree with you, Richard. But no
information here is "withhold". Certain things I simply reject to publish and
discuss on a pubic website - but I am ready to communicate infos on the matter
of how to check such informations by e-mail. telephone, personal visits , at
lectures etc. , on a peer-to-peer basis .
In case some readers think like
"well, the topic is interesting but I do not want to enter such a task ... "
-well , I can live with that. You did not do that, Richard, but if someone says
"If this information is not published and discussed here I do not believe such
claims" I would answer: yes, go on like that. But I would say: your attitude is
like openly questioning the integrity of a textile that is published stating it
is a fake on the basis of a digital photo ... if you do not want to study the
matter further, if you have no time or more important things to do - okay, but
must you speak up then ?
But when, for example, the Ethnographic
Institute of the Museum of Anthropology from Kansas City (invented) comes who
wants to acquire ( and study at the source ) such textiles these informations
must be communicated and checked, of course.
I must admit that most
likely some lines of mine were misleading and people might have suspected this
issue is mixed with "trade secrets". No, this would conflict with Turkotek's
rules. Filiberto wanted to see some A-pieces so I selected those that were
"closed" quite some time ago. Nothing of it is on offer ...
no remarks about
pieces on offer have been made. I did not make any remarks about prices and I
will not. May be a ratio between the cheapest and the most expensive of those
pieces - but this as a confidential remark to the editor, not to be published. I
like the basic decision of the Turkotek makers to keep these things
out.
That our proposal does not intend to rank pieces according to their
"art market" - value I hopefully have made clear enough now - and the second
part of what we propose, the "integrity" aspect, we did not discuss yet. This is
in fact commercially much more important.
Regards,
Michael
Bischof
( Sorry, Richard Farber: from 23.10. - 1.11. I was not
regularly in the net and I have lost your contribution. Is it still here
somewhere on Turkotek - in this case I would like to get the URL ! A pity but
sometimes this new medium is too quick for me ... )
from MB's salon 91: "Detailed information about the real place of origin is,
in our opinion, one of the most valuable parts of a piece. Only when this is
clear one has a chance for any further research of any aspect of the particular
weave.
That the "normal" process of surfacing early pieces covers this
information, which is potentially available, of course, with a huge heap of
fairy tales is in our opinion the biggest problem that prevents meaningful
textile art research - and development.
It is sometimes even more costly
to obtain this information than to get hold of the piece itself. Therefore such
intelligence is either given to the collector who purchases the piece or to a
trustworthy middle man - but it is not a kind of thing that should be published
here. That our opinion is not just another story we can confirm at any time with
ease as we have contacted some well respected personalities (no dealers, of
course) of the collecting scenery for whom we have established to have the
necessary backyard insights. What we write here can be checked - but not be
published."
This is a bit frustrating: The loss or lack of detailed
place-of-origin information is the greatest barrier to "meaningful textile art
research." This crucial information can be obtained, but it is often so
expensive that it can't be shared beyond a few people in the trade and /or the
eventual owner .... and it can't be published.
So how might "textile art
research" proceed? 
a museum job ...
Hallo everybody,
Imagine in the cellar of the Museum of Natural
History in Philadelphia
(invented) you have some thousands of little bottles.
In each of it is one
specimen of a fish.
These are the results of 3
expeditions, done in 1923 - 1928. Fishes were caught in 200 - 500 m depth, one
near Iceland, one near Sri Lanka and the other one in Northern Peru.
( I
assume the same temperature, salinity etc. at these locations so cheap
shots
in order to identify them are not possible ... )
On each bottle
there is tag
with a code number. And we have a little book listing all these
bottles. For
several reasons (workload, no funding ) nobody until today has
ever worked on
this collection.For sure there are quite a lot of hitherto
undiscovered new
species of fish inthese 3 collections.
Now imagine
two possibilities:
a. the book gets lost
b. all the tags on the bottles
get lost
What do you do then in researching this material ? In case b
even if you could
identify certain species that are endemic, occur only at
Iceland coasts, Sri
Lanka resp. Northern Peru - you are not done. You would
know that you have
fishes - but this you see at first glance anyway.
(
Clarification: our proposal of "grading" was and is meant for those Oriental
textiles that have been picked up at their spots in the last 20 - 30 years.
Itdoes not aim at material that came to the West before that time. -
About
this material we state that "identity tags" would have been possible and
are
possible and that they are urgently necessary in case future research
should
be done on them . Just for the "home textile distinct decoration" use
all this is not necessary )
Keep in mind that textiles without these tags
are like corpses that stayed for
some weeks under water, were then
decapitated and then some have cut off all
their finger tips ( that is only
for the "provenance" problem ; details on their
integrity/possible damage are
not touched yet).
So I am still curious: how to make research and draw
conclusion from it if the
subject is not "calibrated" ? Somebody available
with a better idea ?
Regards,
Michael
"Keep in mind that textiles without these tags are like corpses that stayed
for some weeks under water, were then decapitated and then some have cut off all
their finger tips ( that is only for the "provenance" problem ; details on their
integrity/possible damage are not touched yet)."
this is a vivid image,
thanks for the Phily reference also!
"So I am still curious: how to make
research and draw conclusion from it if the subject is not "calibrated" ?
"
This was my real point: you claim (and I don't really doubt it) that
very important place-of-origin can be gathered but it can't be published or
shared. How can research be done with or based on information that can't be
shared beyond a few people?
not publishing - but sharing ...
Hi everybody,
I must admit that I like this discussion: but it is too
quick now, we have hightide in school, and I do not want to write nonsense, make
mistakes ( unclear expressions ... about "secrets", for example)...
How
can it be shared ? First: by peer-to-peer -comunication , why not ?
For
example: the names of the two persons who saw the kilim 2 at its spot I cannot
just publish here. What benefit does it make to any reader ? - But that does not
mean that I am keeping it back !
I can even show to you the place - in
case we could meet down there. Again I would not write that here - what not
means that it does not exist. Why the most unprobable assumption is that this
piece did not move from there within the last 200 years if absolutely
self-evident once you are there - but this, again, I will not publish on a
website. So I would take you there under the conditon never to publish it until
you and I both agree on it.
As always in life: if you once know the
solution things look extreme simple. And, Bob, if you talk to experienced
American collectors who know the conditions down there, read again our salon -
it should not be that difficult to understand that.
It is not the
climate that lets us find early kilim in Turkey so much older than material
found elsewhere.
"Sharing" must not mean to publish on a website - and
sometimes on simply has to wait. I am accustomed to it: until a certain kilim ,
sold some years ago, is shown in the public no owner wil give a permission to
publish it for some discussion where he does not contribute. I can force nobody
to do that - European collectors in general are no PC-fans, for us it is quite
new ...
Now good night,
Read you again tomorrow
Michael
Bischof
Hi Michael,
Not to disparage what you are trying to do but I think I
have a better idea.
How about this. Offer rewards for the privilege of
thoroughly documenting heirloom kilims. Advertise. Get rid of the middlemen.
That way those weavings not for sale, too, could be documented, analyzed, and
photographed, while at the same time remaining in the possession of those who
should have them. Those who want to sell can, maybe at a post-documentation
auction.
Perhaps rug lovers could form a nonprofit organization or
piggyback the project onto an existing one. The costs could be funded by
donations and preselling copies of a kilim picture book with resultant findings.
Call the project something like "Adopt-a-kilim-weaver's-descendants", or
something. Sue
Dear Turkoterrians
this is reply to ‘witholding information’ from
further up the page. I will answer in bold. whoops bold doesnt seem to work . .
. I will put
******farber********* before my replies and leave the
Bischof paragraphs unmarked.
Bischoff "I dont think
withholding information is a laughing matter. "( Richard Farber )
Yes, I
agree with you, Richard. But no information here is "withhold".
Of course it
is being withheld. What you are doing is not an open discussion of an hypothesis
in order to prove it or improve it.
“Certain things I simply reject to
publish and discuss on a pubic website -”
******farber********* why?
If you are not doing research than dont produce theories and if you are doing
research than share it.
but I am ready to communicate infos on the
matter of how to check such informations by e-mail. telephone, personal visits ,
at lectures etc. , on a peer-to-peer basis .
******farber********* If
scientists had always behaved in this manner I dont think we would have
computers or electric sockets to plug them into.
In case some readers
think like "well, the topic is interesting but I do not want to enter such a
task ... " -well , I can live with that. You did not do that, Richard, but if
someone says "If this information is not published and discussed here I do not
believe such claims"
******farber********* I dont believe people are
talking about your claims to a particular textile. I for one am not. Many are
trying - and I might say with remarkable patience - to understand your system
and help you clarify improve and prove it. And this questioning and later
refinement is part of a system which scientists use to increase knowledge.
I would answer: yes, go on like that. But I would say: your attitude
is like openly questioning the integrity of a textile that is published stating
it is a fake on the basis of a digital photo ... if you do not want to study the
matter further, if you have no time or more important things to do - okay, but
must you speak up then ?
******farber********* You continue here with
an attack on an unnamed person in context of a reply to me. People on first
reading - as I did - might combine these last statements as part of the initial
answer to me. That is confusing. And possibly insulting. Who are you answering
in your last lines ? Who must ‘speak up’
Richard
Farber
******farber********* at another location you asked for the
location of my commets where i suggested calling your system Provenance system
'A' etc etc.
I did this as the first responces to your salon number 91. You
can find it in archived salons . . . after the salon are the discussions.
Dear Michael,
quote:
Of course, Filiberto. Double standards are not acceptable. What I do not remember is : did Ali R. Tuna say that he interviewed the family or does he report that the dealer who gave the piece to him reported that ?
Hallo everybody, hallo Filiberto,
Filiberto:
on 8.12.2003 you wrote
:
"Me: - Perhaps you mean uncertainty. So, if you are not sure, it's a
b-piece isn't it?
You: - No it is an A - piece. This granted threefold:
two people have seen it at its spot long before it started to move
and we
have the record of the picker. All three news match perfectly .
Me: - But
how do you know they tell you the truth? You don't have a more solid
evidence?
You can answer to that yourself, please. "
My
answer:
Yes, I can: "These are the facts. Two testimonies ( available at a
European notary, if necessary) , 1 report of a picker". - If that is not enough
for you it is not enough. You decide what you do -but please tell me an early
piece that has this amount of information about its provenance . - Kilim 1:
the idea that a certain person has dropped such a kilim at a publicly accessible
point in such a mountain village without having the villagers knowing it -
sorry, absurd. To cover that you must make out of the entire village a sworn
community able to consequently hide this fact over many years. This I very far
removed from anything I can imagine in any Turkish village.
"Here, for
once, it seems there aren't any secrets involved so you wrote freely about it.
Right?
A picker found it. He is a trustworthy man. He told you a story
that you found credible. You have a long experience and it all makes sense to
you. Therefore you are sure to have found a kilim with an identity card, an
a-piece. Right? " ( Filiberto , 11.12.2003 )
"But an identity card or the
papers of a car are documents issued by a governmental authority, which is
supposed to be neutral and above the parts.
Then, let me push your example to
the limit. " ( Filiberto , 11.12.2003 )
Thank you, Filiberto, I found the
remark of Ali R. Tuna ( salon 91, what is so special about kilims, 11.02.2002 ):
:
"I happened to know that at least two of the Yuncu long "yolluk" kilims
came into the trade directly from the possession of important members of the
Yuncu tribal community. One was purchased in the village from a family that kept
it -who knows for how many generations . The other was brought to the bazaar by
a committe of members who wanted to negotiate it for the sake of the village
community. We still ignore their function but that tells us about the importance
of this type within the tribal context.
The provenace is more important for
the trade , but unfortunately the acquirers rarely have the true and reliable
information."
These are, for me, key lines ! First of all Ali R.
Tuna here reports what he has heard. He does not cite from whome he has heard
that. Of course we should respect that. Unless there would be a special reason,
unless the person mentioned admits that: why should he do it ? Both cases seem
plausible to me. According to what I have experienced in Turkey it might have
happened that way and often enough I have established prominent
collectors/authors to witness such cases at the spot - on a peer-to-peer basis,
of course, no publishing unless an agreement for this is done...
Now I
assume I am a branch director at a Western museum / Ethnographic
Institute acquiring such woven documents of the (former) Yüncü community - the
material should be exhibited, some doctoral thesis would, may be , done by
working on this material. In this case I am responsible for the "A-status" of
the acquired material ( again, I mean the amount to which the provenance is sure
in a documented and checkable way ). I would insist to talk to this family -
otherwise I would not buy the pieces offered from this family.
Most likely I
could manage it to talk to them. To be sure that the dealer did not produce a
"fabrication" I would need to find reliable Turkish counterparts totally
independant from this very dealer and let them check the case. This is possible
as well.
I may take photographs of the people, acquire some "human interest"
background material about this village - but if I am fair and let them know that
I intend to publish it I have to substantially lift the price . They will ask
for a compensation for future trouble they might have... but nothing
serious will happen to them.
Then I would acquire the material, let is be
brought to my home country, the exibition is done with a catalogue in which this
yolluk kilim is estimated to be about 130 years old. Then I would find fun in
digesting the applause - and would never ever go back to Turkey in the future (
until unexpected things happen there ).
In the second case I would insist on
meeting these people together with the mentioned reliable Turkish counterparts
totally independant from this very dealer , inspect the places where the pieces
are from - and might buy them. Under no circumstances they will admit to publish
(!) later their names, the name of the village , photographs of the places
inspected - but to communicate it on a peer-to-peer basis they would admit. So,
if I still want it, I make a very detailed report and write files for the
archives of my institution
and make sure that these archives are not publicly
available, in each case I want to be contacted to have a look onto who wants to
see what and why. My students who want to prepare a doctoral thesis on this
material will find to handle the "sources" much more difficult than , example
given, details about contemporary weaves from that area - but there is no
alternative. My own ability to travel to that country is not touched in any
respect.
All this, Filiberto, might not be sufficient for you. But more
you would not get. On the other hand I will ask then:
tell us anything
exhibited or published that could compete with that
!
Regards,
Michael Bischof
OK, have it your way.
While the Turkotek posse of scientific
methodology inquisitioners shadow box and hair split about who to believe and
who to debunk, and why, scientifically, what remains of old kilims quietly slips
away into the private collections of those who, we are told, have no interest in
even buying a piece if other collectors have so much as seen it
first.
Nice. What a Norman Rockwell moment we have here. A "lost in the
mists of time" machine being assembled before our very eyes. Sue
MB. thanks, I like this thread and I admire your patience.
"tell us
anything exhibited or published that could compete with that!"
Why
compare the quality of information that can't be published to the quality of
information that has been published?
If the best information can't be
published, what would make things (research, etc) better? Funding for research
that is not attached to the collector market? Do museums in Turkey do such
research?
Hi Michael,
About Mr. Tuna: NOW you say "Both cases seem plausible to
me."
Reading the original thread:
http://www.turkotek.com/salon_00091/s91t8.htm
you
sounded quite dubious at the time.
In my opinion an a-piece, a kilim
with an Identity Card, MUST be something of the kind I specified in my first
post:
A textile bought on the spot of origin long time ago, acquired at once
by a public institution, duly recorded and tagged. The record (and of course the
tag) and the kilim can be matched unequivocally.
No record, no tag? Then
no identity card, no a-piece, sorry!
What do we do?
We can guess on the
basis of structure and design, we can compare, we can inquiry and research as
you do where it is still possible, but the best we can hope to obtain is a
REASONABLY ACCURATE GUESS: a B-PIECE like most of the other rugs on the
trade.
Nevertheless, I declare myself satisfied with the questioning - if
not with all the answers.
I don’t know about the
others…
Thanks,
Filiberto
Ms. Zimmerman,
inquisiitioner ? Who are you refering to
?
shadow box and hair split ? who is doing that please ?
who are
the posse ?
And on poetic note, sorry but I dont understand the
images in your last paragraph. . . " Nice. What a Norman Rockwell moment we have
here. A "lost in the mists of time" machine being assembled before our very
eyes. "
I would like to understand what you are
saying.
Sincerely
Richard Farber
overdue answer ....
Dear Richard Farber,
thank you for your reply.
"I do however
suggest that you might want to add the word "provenance" to your paradigm of
grading. Perhaps
Provenance Catagory A,
Provenance Catagory
B
Provenance Catagory C
This would make your intentions more clear and
eventually allow catagories in other areas as well." ( Posted by Richard Farber
on 10-26-2002 12:34 PM )
Sorry, I looked for something from 26.10.2003 ....
of course you are right: this is anyway the result in the meantime that our
discussion has achieved here, I guess. It could have been done quicker...
:-(
" ******farber********* You continue here with an attack on an
unnamed person in context of a reply to me. People on first reading - as I did -
might combine these last statements as part of the initial answer to me. That is
confusing. And possibly insulting. " ( Farber , 10.12.2003 )
You are
right. Sorry for that. It was an example that I had constructed (invented) but
it was not clearly enough separated from the initial direct answer to
you.
"******farber********* why? If you are not doing research than
dont produce theories and if you are doing research than share it.
but I am
ready to communicate infos on the matter of how to check such informations by
e-mail. telephone, personal visits , at lectures etc. , on a peer-to-peer basis
.
******farber********* If scientists had always behaved in this manner I
dont think we would have computers or electric sockets to plug them into.
"
No, this analogy does not work here. Biographers sometimes wait for
some time before they may publish certain material. The reasons here are
potential legal issues to finish it up. Again I repeat that no information is
withhold. Infos may be given on a peer-to-peer basis or may be at lectures of
carpet collectors clubs but not on a public website. People who came to know the
methodological problems of finding early material in such countries will
understand. The other ones will learn it.
I do not like that the word
"system" comes along with what we propose. Too bombastic. What I mean is quite
simple:
when early pieces are found there they have quasi automatically
"tags" ( calibration marks, a checkable provenance ). In the recent processing
of this material these tags are removed ( decapitation, cutting the finger tips)
the weave becomes anonymous by an artificial process. . One should find a way to
secure these tags. Sometimes this tag alone shows which group created the
textile ; sometimes the tag is the only chance to start any research for this
group. Research based on structure may be valuable in case it can be connected
to "calibrated" items. Otherwise it is meaningless at all in order to understand
a certain early weaving culture.
There are some areas of research where
calibration is not necessary at all: for example the thread of Ali R. Tuna in
this moment deals with weaving mistakes i