Turkman Juwal...need help.

I am quite inexperienced in this field. Oh..I own a juwal or two, a couple of Ersari carpets that I like, but the arcane fine-ness of Turkmen weavings, the detail differences, the small things that loom large, the different guls...I have never gotten the hang of the whole genre.

But, oh my foolish, impetuous heart...I just bought a juwal on the internet because...uh...I don't know. Now, I do not even know where to start to understand it. Even the dealer, who I respect from my baluch dealings, described its thusly; "...Turkman....ehh...aah... Ersari(?)" (I've never seen an internet offer with a title like that).

I would like to start reading and research. If it is possible to make judgements from the design, guidance and opinions would be appreciated. Regards,
Jack Williams

Advertised information:

"Size: 3.2 x 5.8 Feet / 98 x 177Cm;
Age: 19th. C;
Color : Silk parts : purple and red , both not natural / yellow is good. The other colors are natural / red field color very good ." (Keep in mind he is located in the Netherlands and his offers are routinely understated in English, a characteristic that I find both honest and refreshing.)

Hi Jack,

Just to clarify, the red ground color is all silk, as well as the purple inside the primary guls?

Tim

another picture

Tim, I haven't received it as yet...but my impression is that the silk is limited to highlights including the purplish outline of some of the secondary guls. Where the "red" silk is, i'm not sure. But the field appears to be wool from the pictures. Can't tell what the fill inside the guls is, though this may be the "red silk" referred to above..in which case it may be cochinal, not chemical, given the hue. I'll ask Steve to post two more closeups on this post. The first is of the back, upper right corner. Thanks

Here are the closeups. Steve Price

Juwal Magnificent

G'day Mr Williams.

If the article in the photos proves to be as it looks on my monitor, then it would have to be absolutely THE best I have ever seen!

The colours look fabulous, the guls, both major and minor are terrific and the whole piece comes across to this total Turkman inexpert as, Ive read beautifully described, 'jewel like'.

It looks a perfectly balanced, magnificent glowing piece of the weavers art. I love it and I wish it was mine!

Regards,
Marty.

__________________
Martin R. Grove

Sayrk adaptation of Salor design?

Examining only internet resources, and keeping in mind my lack of knowledge of this area of carpet academia, this is the best association I can find so far.

My chuval may have some characteristics of Sayrk design adopted or co-opted from an older Salor form. The gol in my chuval and the one pictured below look similar to my eyes including the silk touches. And, the color of the internal design, the magenta, looks somewhat similar to other sayrk things I've seen. Comments refutations, would be more than welcome.

From Tom Coles site, a link to an article, "The Tribal Gol in Turkmen Carpets," by V.G.Moshkova,http://www.tcoletribalrugs.com/article35Moshkova.html displayed this picture and discussion:



"Plate 12. The chuval gol as it is seen in the weavings of the Saryk. This gol is apparnetly derivative of the Salor chuval gol (Plate 9 a) according to Moshkova, appropriated subsequent to the defeat of the Salor in the 1840s. Though Saryk chuvals are rare, I believe one may encounter early chuvals using this or a form of this gol type. On the other hand, the appearance and use of the gol seen in Plate 9 b corresponds closely with this time frame and may be the supporting evidence for Moshkovaa's theory regarding ornaments of rugs being 'taken over by the victors, to be used as models for reproduction of patterns.'"

The plate 9a referred to above is in the same article (ibid). The picture and caption for plate are below.



"Plate 9a. (Above) The classic 'chuval' gol of the Salor used on these large bags with majenta silk. Possibly early 19th century. Silk used in such profusion is seldom seen in 18th century Turkmen weaving."

One other thing I found...'The Atlas of Rugs & Carpets,' edited by David Black, Tiger Books International, London, 1994, the "Turkoman" chapter by Rachael Feild. On P. 166 is a Saryk chuval, unfortunately rather small to scan (I'll try later though). It looks quite similar in design to mine. The description of the chuwal includes this, "...This tent bag, or chuval, has some of the most typical designs found in Saryk weaving; The minor border composed of small triangles and the small flowers found in the panels at each end. Chuvals can be found with either this gul [my note, one that looks quite similar to mine, to my eyes] or the octagonal Salor chuval gul. Early nineteenth century..."

juwal

Jack,

As we discussed before you bought it, I think the juwal is Saryk...maybe "second phase" (when silk and odd colors started to be added). There is likely to be silk in the centers of the major guls as well as outlining the minor guls.

Gene

earthshattering border design symbol?

In keeping with the spirit of the "dimensionality" discussion going on another board, last night I noticed a particular design element in this rug that may shake up the world of Turkmen carpet academia. The main border may have a truely unique emblem.

It is easiest to see in the photograph of the back of the chuval. I am almost sure that encased in the little triangle designs that form the main border is the exact design of a baseball park, complete with infield, bases, home plate, stadium seats, outfield wall, even the support beams for the scoreboard or lights. There may even be some parking and perhaps even some cars outside the stadium. Take a look and see if you agree. If this doesn't break the bank of Turkmen research, nothing will. Well, I guess I will go smoke a cigar or something and ponder this Turkmen field of dresms.



On a serious note, also from the back of the rug I see that the minute quadrant flags in the corners of the guls are all colored differently. Thought I would point this out in case it allows anyone to have an idea.



Right now, I am quite confused. It looks far too fine a weave to be a Ersari, and the interior guls, designs on the skirt, etc., all seem to fit the Saryk definition from the article by Moshkova and others. However, the border does have a faint Ersari-Kazil Ajak look to the design as per JBOC (see one example and discussion, http://www.spongobongo.com/daxv645.htm).

Compiling a large amount of writings and references on Saryk and Ersari chuvals has just confused the issue even more for me. OK, if it is symetrically knotted it is Saryk and asymetrical it is Ersari (from references on Tom Cole's site, etc., et. al.)...oops, except when these weavers don't use that knot (later notes, Murrey Eiland, Tom Cole, et. al). Humm...the major gul is a chuval salor gul varient taken over by the Saryk in the early 1800s, which was apparently thought to be a slam dunk give away for Sayrk, except later articles note that these emblems are also used by the Ersari, etc. . I have just run into contradiction after contradiction, including some people who I highly respect in the field.

Any further effort to identify this chuval may have to await its arrival. What I would like to know is what I should look for as far as structure to attempt to resolve the contradictions, when it arrives . Actually, it is all academic compared to the apparent beauty of the piece..this weaver was a true artist in my eyes. Still, it would be nice to have a clue on age and provenance. Regards to all.

Jack Williams

Re: earthshattering border design symbol?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jack Williams
It is easiest to see in the photograph of the back of the chuval. I am almost sure that encased in the little triangle designs that form the main border is the exact design of a baseball park, complete with infield, bases, home plate, stadium seats, outfield wall, even the support beams for the scoreboard. There may even be some parking and perhaps even some cars outside the stadium.

---

Magnificent Juwal

Mr Williams,

I wish it would arrive in your hands (or mine preferably) as I can hardly wait for a complete and accurate description of this lovely piece.

I know nothing about Turkman weaving (nor much about anything else really) but from the appearance of THIS one over the Net, perhaps temptation can tickle me as it did you and I may be lucky enough to find something which grabs me the same way.

Whether yours is young or old doesnt particularly worry me because it sure looks a beauty.

Regards,
Marty.

__________________
Martin R. Grove

Hi Jack,

In my opinion this chuval is not Saryk. Both the drawing and the colors are inconsistent with late 19th centurey Saryk work, which is generally much darker than your piece. Certain design elements are also quite untypical for Saryk. For example, the two minor borders are common on Ersari/Beshir pieces, but not on Saryk. The square hooks at the upper and lower ends of the secondary guls are also very strange.

The pictures you have posted so far give me the impression that most colors are synthetic. When you get the chuval, I would carefully inspect the light blue. Looks like it faded to something more greyish on the front. I wouldn't be surprised if this chuval is a reatively young piece.

Regards,

Tim

Pehaps so, perhaps not...

Thanks Tim, you may be right. But, I am unsure of what light blue-faded-to-gray you are seeing as on my monitor I see neither of those colors. The only thing I can think of is the purplish silk outline of some of the minor guls..the color of which appears on my computer as about the same front and back. I'll check it though.

However, I have found some interesting information. From my readings, I assume that this is not a 3rd phase Saryk weaving for the reasons you have pointed out. It appears to have most of the characteristics of 2nd phase weavings as Gene Williams previously posted (purely for review and reference, here is one of many sites that lists the phase characteristics):

http://www.spongobongo.com/Saryk.htm

But, you have also noted one obvious argument for Ersari...the two minor borders . They seem to have elements common to Kizil Ajak, supposedly a member of the old Ersari confederation as I previously mentioned. However, to my eyes this entire rug composition forms an unusually artistic structure...and the border seems to me to be custom designed to artistically mirror and compliment the field guls...which have a possibly unusual serreated interior reflecting the border. Perhaps this "artist imperative," may need to be honored or at least taken into consideration.

I read an pretty deep academic article this evening, "Phyllogensis versus Ethnogenesis in Turkmen Cultural Evolution," and it contained some surprising and interesting data. Here is the link:

http://www.ceacb.ucl.ac.uk/ceacb_files/misc/Tehrani_Collard_2002.pdf

It connects the Saryk and Ersari culturally and ethnographically, closer than other confederations...especially the Tekke whom the Sayrk were supposedly allied with and absorbed by. But also as part of the research it contains an extensive list of design elements common to the weavings of each Turkmen confederation, including Tekke (before Gok Tepe and after), Saryk, Salor, Ersai, and Yomut.

Among several things, this study notes the lack of use of the chemche secondary gul by the Ersari. It isn't clear if the Ersari never used the chemche gul in the time period studied, but this characteristic was aparaently factored into the decoding of the various tribal relationships.

As far as this chuval is concerned, as best I can determine thus far from the pictures, the weave appears to be about 160 KPI, with a warp-weft ratio of 1:1.6 or so...pretty high in the Ersari range. On the other hand, the warps look depressed which is supposedly not a common attribute of Saryk weaving. Perhaps a key question may be the knot....

Finally, when the rug arrives, I'll take a look at the minor gul outlining to insure color fastness. Are there other characteristics you see that in your opinion tend to identify this rug as "recent" and the dyes as chemical? It would be an excellent learning experience for me.

I guess I have a good deal of faith in the dealer of this rug...so for now respect his word that most of the rug colors are "good," the rug is "19th C.", and it is "monumental." (His usual descriptive English is something like "pretty good old Baluch rug" for an piece that would go on most people's wall.)

To sum up, the knot density seems high for Ersari, the minor borders may be unusual for Saryk (but I havn't seen them on an Ersari chuval either), the chemche gul is apparently unusual, or unknown for Ersari, assuming this is an old piece. The flowered skirt is typical of Sayrk but is apparently occasionally encountered in Ersari weavings. The warps appear to be depressed..which is supposed to be an Ersari characteristic more than Saryk. The composition is well spaced with only three borders, which I understand is usually a characteristic of older Turkmen chuval weavings. The knot? Unknown for now.

From the pictures, regardless of age or provenance, it is still a monumentally beautiful weaving to me...with colors that compliment, designs that float, a harmonious border that magnifies and enhances, and a weave that is hard to fault, all of which is why I bought it.

Thanks for your thoughts,

Regards, Jack Williams

dyes

Hi all,

I've looked at a lot of turkomen juwals (years ago admittedly) including some Saryks (in several of which the reds sometimes had dulled to a muddish brown), some with silk in the Guls.

From this and the pictures, I'd bet that the major ground colors of the wool in this juwal are good.

The silk parts...the outline of the minor guls and/or the dyed silk parts in the interior of the major guls...may have chemical dyes. maybe the purple. Then again they may not. and I particularly like the deep magenta in the center of the guls. I'm just not familiar with what it takes to dye silk.

Does silk take vegetable dyes as easily as wool? (I'd assume so from Chinese silk pieces). Comments on silk and silk dyes in older carpets as used in Central Asia would be a most welcome academic exercise.

Gene

Hi Jack,

I am referring to the blue in the minor guls.



From the front the color looks different, more grayish. If this is the case, then it is a synthetic dye almost surely, which would rule out a 2nd phase Saryk attribution. However, even if that is not the case, the whole composition of your chuval is, in my opinion, inconsistent with a mid 19th century Saryk attribution.

Regards,

Tim

purple or grey

Hi Tim,

Yes we're looking at the same questionable bit of the carpet...the purple or grey or whathever...and I agree its suspect but its never been advertised as else... the orginal advertisement from a reputable dealer said the silk dyes were probably not vegetable.

Personally, I think from the pics that the colors you point out..are in the silk...ergo bets are off on its dyes. and I'd be very interested (owning three such myself which have been stuffed into trunks for 30 years) in the relationship between the silk dyes in turkoman carpets and the general design, wool, layout, dyes of a classical turkoman carpet.

What do you all think? worth a research effort..i.e. jugtoposition of silk and wool, dyes and age?

ton ami, Gene

silk acquired already dyed?

Gene, what I think forms the base of your thoughts is that since the sillk in Turkmen carpets was not locally produced, it was likely already dyed a certain color, no telling where (geographically) or with what, before it was acquired by the Turkmen for use in a rug.

Therefore, limited to the date of the appearence of artificial dyes in the major market-trading centers, artificially dyed silk does not make a good marker for age.

This seems reasonable and I believe it has been commented on. It is worth looking into...but perhaps I will await the arrival of the article first. Regards.

Ersari For Sure...

Hi Jack

Find below an Ersari rug, plate 87 from Thompson's "Turkmen".



The size of your bagface and the "judor" border, as well as this stepped main border and the barber pole guards, and the use of silk all say to me Ersari.

Dave

Powerful published article...

Thanks David.

You may well be right, but I think the jury is still sequestered...the actual chuval has not arrived for inspection yet. The age and provenance is primarily of academic interest to me, I like research. I've dug pretty deep into this in the last week, viewed pictures of hundreds (thousands?) of rugs and chuvals (though I missed the one you posted).

I've also accumulated and catalogued all the historical information I can find. While doing this, I found an article published last year (link below). In my opinion, it might be one of the most important academic studies on Turkmen tribal relations and history ever published. It certainly seems to be a great resource for understanding Turkmen weaving.

http://www.ceacb.ucl.ac.uk/ceacb_files/misc/Tehrani_Collard_2002.pdf

The authors’ approach, using carpet weaving to retroactively recreate the history of relations between the various Turkmen confederations, could play a role in understanding not just this chuval but a lot of Turkmen carpet articles. Basically the authors are applying biological science methodology to sociology. This article is heavily influencing my thoughts on the chuval.

I located some data on the guard border design [JBOC refers to what looks like a similar guard border, as a “badam Gulli-gul” border...badam apparently being a Baluch(?) term for almond], and it does appear to be generally associated with attributed ersari weavings. I’ve found considerably less information or examples of the main border design. And so far, I’ve found few or no similar designs associating either border with a chuval weaving. So far, from my limited range of investigation, this border design seems to stand alone.

I hope you will share other information you find that may be relevant. I’ll post a footnoted, referenced article on my findings, when the chuval arrives and I am able to confirm structure. Thanks for your interest and assistance. You might want to read the above article. I would be interested in what you think of it. I’ve read it three times and am just beginning to comprehend the implications.

Regards,
Jack Williams.

Rug Phylogenesis and the chuval

These pictures are of a rug that has a very interesting weaving flaw. It’s relationship to the subject chuval will be explained below...









To my eyes this is a normal, very well woven, even beautiful, prayer rug with natural dyes, featuring a common Turkmen-theme...very nice, I like it a lot...but nothing particularly noteworthy...except... the incredible weaving flaw noted on the pictures.

Two thirds the way through the rug, the weave changes dramatically from asymmetric open left depressed warps, to asymmetric open right un-depressed warps, continues for 5 inches, and then changes back. After close study, I cannot see that the rug was patched, just the weaving method was changed. Weirdly, because the warps are not depressed in this section, it should have been almost impossible to make a rug this way...but the problem was apparently solved in an interesting way. [The flaw itself, and the precision and beauty of the weave before, during and after the flaw is a big reason I was attracted to this carpet.]







The effect of the change from open left knot to open-right knot is dramatic on the design when viewed from the front. All the straight lines become offset ½ knot [for clarification, the apparent wavyness of the lines higher up the pillars are just fold lines in the carpet, not other weaving flaws]. From the back, however, the lines are completely straight. How did this happen? A rational explanation is that a different weaver took over this carpet for a while. It is reasonable to suppose that no one including the substitute weaver realized the error until later, probably after the carpet was shaved down to final height, perhaps because the working length of the pile masked the flaw.

What this may be is a type of “smoking gun” for what Tehrani and Collard in their study... [http://www.ceacb.ucl.ac.uk/ceacb_files/misc/Tehrani_Collard_2002.pdf]
...refer to as a phylogenesis factor in carpet weaving; cultural features passed down internally within a group. Obviously the two weavers of this carpet learned to weave in a markedly different ways. It is reasonable to suppose that they were kin in some respects, perhaps belonging to the same language group, or they would be even more unlikely to have partnered on a project. It also seems reasonable to postulate that they were thrown into close contact in a situation that required a woman from a different weaving culture to step in and continue the manufacture of this carpet when something prevented the original weaver from continuing.

But, in normal circumstances, such a flaw is virtually inconceivable. An oba (family-tribal) group would likely have one of their own people finish the carpet, or would have awaited the original weaver’s return. Of course, an easy explanation is that this carpet was woven in a refugee camp, where Turkmen tribal members of various weaving traditions were forceably thrown into close contact, working under contract producing a rug to a dictated design (ethnogenesis marker, i.e. outside influence).

The inability to coordinate weaving methods left this indelible proof that in this case, phylogenesis learning of weaving technique trumped an ethnogenesis design criteria.

What does this have to do with the chuval? Well, pending its arrival, close study of the pictures available indicate that a phylogenesis contradiction may be in the offing. The weave appears to be 145-160 kpi, and I now believe that the warps are at best only mildly depressed. Suppose when it arrives, it is found to be symmetrically knotted with the other characteristics listed. Given these structure traits, imagine if the carpet looked like this (note: I overlaid a known Saryk-Salor border, covering the actual border of the chuval):



In this case, it might seem resonable to suspect attribution to a Saryk group. Therefore, can we agree that currently, it is mainly, or even only, the DESIGN of the border that indicates a possible attribution to other than a Saryk group? Right now, to my eyes, the double minor borders (what JBOC called “Badam”) form the primary (only?) design that points to an Ersari attribution, as these borders are used occasionally in Ersari group weavings (see prayer rug above). However, let me note that I have not yet found an example of that "badam" minor border on any Ersari chuvals that I’ve looked at...torba-yes, chuval-no.

Tehrani and Collard believe that design is as good a phylogenesis marker as a weave. As in weaving methodology, designs are also passed down matriarchal, with new designs rarely infiltrating an obo. This phylo-inherited trait is a core point of Tehrani and Collard’s paper. They postulate that knowledge of 10-12 standard designs would be carried in the memory bank of women raised in a certain confederation, learned at an early age. The ability to recall and reproduce those designs, which might seem so difficult to us, would be akin to asking an American 10 year old ball player to draw an exact replica of ...say...a baseball field, i.e., no problem. T & C made note of the Turkmen cultural barriers to marriage outside of the oba...which means the design continuity has great stability within a tribal unit through time, similar to weaving methodology.

So, allow me to speculate. What if the subject chuval structure proves to be as described above PLUS...say...it proves to be knotted symmetrically. All the phylo structural indicators would seem to me to point toward a Saryk provenance, while the minor border design would give a phylogenesis marker of Ersari group.

Put in absolute terms, this would be either (1) a recent piece woven in a Saryk methodology from a dictated design (ethnogensis). [note: other design features, dyes, spacing, etc. do not look particularly recent to my eyes, and I have been unable to find a phase catagorization of Saryk weaving that mentions any restriction on phase based on the existence of small amounts of artificially dyed silk]. Or (2) it is an old Ersari piece woven using Saryk methods, or (3) it is an old Saryk piece with a border design that is either occasionally used by Saryk weavers (phylo-transmitted), or borrowed in some way (ethno-transmitted) from elsewhere, likely an Ersari group...OR (4) it is neither, perhaps Salor or something. Hence, for any explanation other than (1) and (4), there exists the potential for a huge contradiction; i.e. the chuval would contain phylogenesis characteristics of both Saryk and Ersari.

Final piece of the puzzle, I can find not a single example of a similar main border in any Turkmen weaving, and I have looked at thousands. Occasionally, I thought I detected a whiff of similarity in a few bashire carpet articles but they proved to be only superficially similar. Believe it or not, what I am now looking for is any Turkmen weaving with a major, or even minor, border that contains both the step pattern and the miniature “ball park,” but so far, zilch, nada, nil, strikeout. Surely, this “miniature ball park” cannot be the only known example of this specific design emblem?

Resolving this contradiction will be interesting. Perhaps when I get the chuval, the structure will carry some recognizable Ersari signature, in that case ball-game. Perhaps I will find a Saryk, et al., example of the major border, and the use of the double “badam” minor border. In that case walk-off home run. But what if the contradiction is confirmed? How would you all rationalize this?

Hi Jack

Interesting, but I suspect that in reality the phenomena you discuss here is of rather humble origin. As they moved foreward in time, the old techniques, designs, and traditions of the weavers were lost. I think the variation in the knotting of the prayer rug has more to do with a change in shifts at the rug factory than anything else. Eiland noted somewhere that rugs are to be found upon looms in manufactories with designs and knots specific to their respective tribes. Say Salor, Tekke, and Saryk style weaves all under the same roof.

Trust me on this one Jack, the step/ballpark pattern is fairly common, and found on Ersari weaves. I used to own a kapunuk with this pattern myself; with the accompanying "badam" border it is signature Ersari in as far as I know. If this rug arrives and proves to have symmetrical knots, I suspect this will be proof positive that it is later than I already think it is .

Dave

Shift change?

Thanks Dave.

I recognize that you have much experience in this field. It's just that I have spent the week looking at thousands of carpet pictures attributed to Ersari (and every other Turkmen gourp for that matter), read everything I can find on the internet, and have yet to find a main border or design that resembles the one on this chuval more than superficially.

I keep thinking that the color combination has an aura of ersari or sub-group like Kizil Ajak...but just can't find a precedent. Then through bleary eyes I'll see that yellow-gold-brown impression radiating off of some Salor or something, and have to stop looking and take two advils. If you have an example, I would dearly like to see it to set my mind at ease...at least on that issue.

However, I wonder a little about accepting the border design alone for attribution ignoring other markers. Doesn't this approach contradict the direction of the bulk of Turkmen research the last couple of decades? Perhaps I misunderstand, but it appears if more attributes are found that tend to point this chuval in a Saryk, "older," direction, the greater the assurance would be that it is not.

It would be very helpful if I understood specifically what it is about the pictures of this chuval that cause one to think it new or recent factory made "ersari design" rather than being of some other age or Turkmen group provenance. I do not mind saryk, ersari, antique, old, or new, I've gotten my money's worth from the learning experience and the apparent beauty of this weaving. So any specific help you could provide by quantifying your thoughts would be greatly appreciated simply in that vein. And if you could find a picture of that "baseball park" decoration, I would be very greatful.

Regards,
Jack Williams
PS: "Shift change at the factory?"

Hi Jack

You had stated

I recognize that you have much experience in this field. It's just that I have spent the week looking at thousands of carpet pictures attributed to Ersari (and every other Turkmen gourp for that matter), read everything I can find on the internet, and have yet to find a main border or design that resembles the one on this chuval more than superficially.

A whole week and your not an expert?

Dave

Ford plant

Nope, but excuse me, I have to report to my shift down at the Ford plant. Today we are going to install some Chevrolet fenders on some cars just for the heck of it. Regards, Jack Williams

Similar Juwal

Hi all,

Here is a juwal I bought in Karachi. (missing outer borders on its sides). How old is it? Well...I bought it in 1976 so I know its 30 years old. The border is different from Jack's but the whole format is very similar to Jack's juwal including the silk bits colored in magenta, blue, yellow, pink, etc. in the middle of the guls.





I was told by Jerry Anderson that he thought it was Saryk. Any thoughts on this from the Turkoman experts? Does this help in trying to determine the age of Jack's?

Gene

and added postscript: its one of the reasons I said "saryk" above...and why I pestered Jack so much to buy it.

100% saryk design features

Gene, incredible rug. How come you never showed me the things in all those trunks? From the several hundred chuvals of all ages I've viewed in the last week, from a design standpoint this looks to be almost 100% saryk if it is not salor. It is hard to tell color and of course there is no info on structure but...it is definitly looks either Saryk or Salor. That connection I posted

http://members.fortunecity.com/mustafamercan/

to the on-line, scaned, copy of Uwe Jourdan's book is one place to confirm this as he has quite a few old cuvals with structure comments. If mine had your main border, I do not think it would be so hard to attribute. But, I have some developing information. The game is on.

One other thing. As you know, I have been involved in War Between the States reenacting for many years. (Gentlemen, if you wish to see virulant arguments over textiles and dyes and authenticity, check out that hobby's quest for the perfect reproduction uniform). But...our local group in New Orleans is involved with the Confederate Museum in preserving artifacts, especially old flags.

Over time, silk deteriorates, especially when exposed to sunlight, but also even in controlled enviornments. Many of the existant silk flags from War of Southern Independence are now in bad shape and are having to be repaired. I am trying to find a marker in the deteriation of silk that can help determine age.

In the course of this search, I've found some good stuff on dyeing silk, even an indication that some types of chemical dyes were available AND USED as early as the 12th century, including Flavone (on silk), see...

http://www.cs.vassar.edu/~capriest/vikdyes.html

Perhaps crossing information from other hobbies can impact this one. Your chuval puts mine to shame. I love it. Regards

Jack

Hi Jack, I've got too much to do today for talk but I have time to say I agree with you about info available outside rugdom being most valuable. SCA group members are dead serious and inspired in their pursuits to get to the bottom of things and are not afraid to get their hands dirty. They are a great resource particularly, in my opinion, for dyeing info. Sue

Second look = EUREKA

Sue, in my investigations (day job) I am always surprised at who contributes what clue. Sometimes one can be too close to the forest.

Gene, I took a second look. Your chuval not only appears to have the double "badam" border, but EUREKA, it appears to have the "baseball park" emblem as part of the major border, even though the major border has a different and well known primary motif.





Some have opined on this board that the double "badam" minor border design feature is an absolute marker for Ersari (and other things?), regardless of other elements such as wool, materials, structure, weave, color, field elements, skirt-elem, etc. But absent backup on the intellectual source of this opinion, I definitely take Jerry Anderson's attribution as a strong endorsement. It would be hard to not heed Jerry's opinion in any case.

This breakthrough on both the minor border and the baseball park emblem in the major border really encourages me. This is the first picture of a chuval from any group-attribution, from any source, that I've seen that has that double "badam" border. It is also the first picture I've seen of any weaving other than mine that contains the baseball park. To see that border along with other such prominent Saryk-Salor elements is like opening a door.

I have some promising information being developed. More later, will probably edit this and add. Regards, Jack.

Hi Jack

Tehrani and Collard implicitly suggest that the format exhibited by your chuval is common to BOTH the Ersari and Saryk. If you open your copy of Thompson's "Turkmen" to plate 87



you will find an enlightening discussion of the relationships which exist bewtween Ersari and Saryk carpets. Seems the above Ersari, plate 87, was originally classified as Saryk.

Dave

Dave, thanks for the tip. Please excuse my phrasing if I come across having an arrogant tone when I note things that are commonly known. I have no intention of "talking down" to people who have spent years in the Turkmen trenches. If I mention a well known fact, it is not intended to lecture, but just act as a footnote for whatever point I am rambling on about.

That relationship was very much on my mind when I wrote the "phylogenesis contradiction" post with the weave-flawed Ersari prayer carpet. Influenced by the T & C article and other sources (for example, see... http://www.tcoletribalrugs.com/article33ODonovanTurkmenl.html )...including your reference, I was already wondering if the close relationship between salor-sayrk-ersari would allow characterizing this chuval as some kind of crossover weave. This might thereby rationalize the budding phlyogenesis contradiction. That was going to be the theme of a follow-up post after the chuval arrived.

In the article referenced above located on Tom Cole's site, O'Donovan noted in 1882 that the Tekke, who had forced the Saryk out of Merv 30 years or so earlier, apparently referred to the Salor, Ersari, and two branches of Saryk, by a single name, grouping them as Yelkamish, or "south [turkmen?]." Admittedly though, the name could have been used just a geographic reference, like "Yugoslav" - i.e. south-slav.

But so much turkmen structural dogma seems to differentiate the weaves of the three groups, if not the designs. From the literature, it seems to me that most sources attribute deeply depressed warps, asymetric open left as a Salor marker; deprssed warps open right, as an ersari marker (though apparently there are plenty of open-left ersaris), and raised warps, symetric knotting as generally forming a saryk attribution, abit other knots have also been shown to be used in Sayrk weavings.

T & C's paper usefully addressed questions as to how much cross-over designs existed between these groups pre-russian period, and how much has developed post russian takeover in the late 19th centruy. Apparently, they found significant crossover in design, depite the dissimilar structures.

Interestingly, their paper notes only a 10% increase in the infiltration of outside design features into Tekke weavings in the post-russian takeover period, though ?1980? This speaks for remarkably stable weaving design traditions. Hence the posting of that prayer rug featuring strongly ersari-salor (?) open left main weave with a sayrk? ersari? open right belt as a really weird aberation (and that beautifully woven flaw, before, during, and after, is one main reason I bought that carpet).

From the look of Gene's chuval, if someone were required to make a single, definitive, attribution, I suspect it would not be Ersari, but would be saryk, if not Salor (!?). With his chuval forming a precident for incorporation of the "badam" minor border and baseball emblem in the major border, I certainly will have increased confidence in calling mine, "saryk," pending the arrival of the rug and structural information.

Could you share what you see in the chuval picture you have posted that impacts thoughts of the provenance of my chuval? Obvious design characteristic similarities don't immediately present themselves to my eyes, unless the minor borders on the edges are "badam" borders. Unfortunatly I cannot make that out. And...please accept my apologies for my previous snippiness. I know my writtings can sometimes inadvertently convey a patronizing arrogance I do not intend or feel.

Thanks and regards,

Jack Williams

hummm

Hi all,

Well, the similarity of the two rugs is eerie. Jack, if I was a betting man, I'd go 50:50 that your's is older than mine....why..oh again gut feel from handling maybe 500 juwals....maybe precise deliniation of the minor guls and less ostentatious coloring of the center of the major guls.

I particularly like that border of yours; It appears as if you are looking into an acquarium at exotic fishes (mine on the other hand...which has not seen light of day for years...looks like something out of a star wars attack game).

But surely there is someone who can discuss this at greater length (probably for sure twin brother will have at it...but rembember, as the chinese say he is "swanshung di di" i.e. "younger twin brother."... with all that has to say about Confucian filial piety duties.

Gene

Elevation perspective-sun from NW.

hummm...I don't know about that "filial piety-obligation" stuff, but i do know about cartography. At the risk of re-opening a greatfully dead (heh heh) line of discussion, note the difference in depth perspective between your chuval and mine.

That is strictly due to the dark shading of the guls in mine being placed "as if the sun were in the N.W.," while the shading of yours is placed as if the sun were in the N.E.

In the old cartography books, a big deal was made about the way the human eyes sees perspective. If shadowing is placed in any spot that does not coorespond with sun from N.W., the human eye sees the feature as "flat" or as a depression, not as a raised elevation.

Because the guls in mine look raised, the eye automatically causes the red field to subside, and as a result, the border rises like a mountain range, which does give it a swimming pool effect. If the shading of your guls were rotated 90 degrees, I'll bet you would see the same thing on your chuval. I will note that your guls do have some "elevation." But that is caused by the eye trying desperately to see NW sun shadow to the point of adding imaginary apparent ridging running NE-SW away from the center motif, thereby justifying the shadowing that is there.

I thought this is a particularlly good side-by-side illustration of this shadow effect....oh...I don't think any of the guls are waving around though.

Later bro,

Jack

Hi Jack, Gene

You dont say...

Dave

well actually

You keep talking cartography; I discuss air-photo interpretation. two different things. One is simple mind-tricks by shading; any elementary school kid knows how to make is letter look 3D. But to make your eyes create 3D is another thing and has nothing to do with Japanese type perspective..i.e. simple shading.

Based on the stereoscopic air-photo effect...I had noticed that the various guls in my juwal seemed to have different shading; The further towards the bottom of the juwal, the deeper the shading of the guls...meaning (to my fevered mind) that the weaver was obviously trying to aim the guls at some focus point in infinity somewheres towards the upper end of the juwal.

I rotated it photographically on my Mac to see if I could make the guls blend into one sort of daze induced stereographic image. I couldn't do it...maybe lack of practice? I did go the the Atlanta Pop in 1970 and heard Jimi Hendrix play "Star Spangled Banner" at midnight on July 4th. Nothing much since.

Gene

ps. and its not like there aren't fields of opium poppies planted at the bottom of both juwals.

pps. and besides, on second look, my major guls look like menacing alian space ships landing with lasar anti-gravity beams.. Yours just look like encaged toothless whalesharks being attacked by giant squid-like starfish. which would you prefer?

firebases and helocopters

uhhh...brother, what are you all "doing" in the evenings in those mountains so far away? My juwal looks like GONDOR, yours looks like MORDOR. What's going on down in the sinister, evil, glowing rock-like guls on yours? I'll bet orcs are multiplying.

Personally, my field design reminds me of dangerous and powerful artillery and machine gun equiped mountain top firebases, cleverly located with interlocking fire grids, surrounded by fortrified mountain ridges, launching a new and deadly type of heliocopter gun ship to search out the enemy, or returning from a sucessful missle attack mission, leaving behind....

...Yours...which, as a result of my attack, looks like flat, barren mesas squating over a bomb cratored, desolate and depopulated wasteland, with maybe a few forlorn camels or something huddled around, trying to find water in the little holes blown into the dark and forboding desert floor between the low-rise volcanic rocks.

I prefer the attack helocopters. Goodness knows what cool stuff they are equiped with.

Regards Jack...oh yes, oh glory!!!... two beautiful pieces of u.s.post paper in my mailbox...I think it may be here!!!!...along with the cool baluch rugs and the Turkish prayer carpet. Tomorrow may be like christmas in June. I'll be like a cow looking at a new gate...time to whistle up the dogs, put out the campfire and move!

ps: nope, never thought I would be disappointed in getting a beautiful baluch delivered...but waiting for this is spoiling things. While we wait though, I'll share a picture of the baluch that just came in.

The Baluchi

G'day Mr (delayed) Williams

Nifty Baluchi, always liked 'em. What do you reckon about that outside minor border? Havent seen another like that, with the green coloured dice portions.

Sartinly interrrresting, it looks.


Regards,
Marty.

__________________
Martin R. Grove

More Saryk pics and characteristics

Hello all:

Pending arrival of this chuval, I thought I would share a picture comparison, and some notes. This was put together for my own edification as part of this learning excercise, but perhaps others may find it interesing.

From Uwe Jourdan, Oriental Rugs, Vol 5, Turkomen, Introduction to the English edition by Ian Bennett. ( see scanned copy on line:
http://members.fortunecity.com/mustafamercan/), here are some descriptions of the Saryk characteristics as noted by the author, and others including Elena Tazevera. Below the list of characteristics is a picture with a corner of my chuval on top, and part of Saryk attributed items, one chuval and two torbas, taken and enlarged from Jourdan to (hopefully) show the relevent characteristics.

Characteristics listed in Jourdan: (Saryk carpet characteristics, p. 29) "...Ends: Main carpets same as Salor; upper end of ensis, bags and panels often with a blue border; lower end often with a long blue fringe added as with Salor..."

Saryk characteristics from description of individual items pictured in Jourdan, p. 88-91, op cite, and Elana Tazevera, Hali, 1/3, p. 277. "...Characteristic features of Saryk chuvals include the quite wide extra panel above the upper border with a seam decorated with diagonal stripes along the opening edge..." "The upper edge is finished with a dark blue strip in soumak technique..."

Attribution of pictures in study: 1st-subject chuval; 2nd-see op cite p. 84; 3rd-see op cite p. 88; 4th-see op cite p. 90.



Marty, I haven't really even examined the baluch worrying about this chuval, or obsessed about it. But the baluch is unique and beautiful...and I have some work to do to evaluate and enjoy it and later maybe attempt to place it geographyically and in time [my brother, Gene "Jon Beggi" Williams usually helps by just telling me what is what...saves lots of work]...it looks like a keeper though. I'll add a couple of pictures so that the color of the baluch shows up.





More later, Regards,
Jack Williams

overload

Marty.

Patience on the Baluch (my personal interest for 30 years..and I want to know more about it too). From long experience don't overload Jack. His current obsession obviously is Turkoman... even though he has 3 fantastic (imho) Baluch in the mail. Just don't short-circuit the guy... after all, if N.O. can cease to exist after 300 years...what might asking too many questions do to survivor?

Gene

N. O. Forever

G'day Gene and Jack,

Dont ever say New O. no longer exists. Im a jazz lover (amoungst other genre) and this city above all represents the mystique of the music together with its fabulous history. It will always live within me as the part of America Im most familiar with. The spirit of the people who remain to keep it alive deserves bottling.

Yeh, me too; a beluchi will always give me a lift. And generally speaking, I think they are still THE (maybe I should have said A) remaining expression of nomadism (even if they sometimes no longer are) in rugs.

Regards,
Marty.

__________________
Martin R. Grove

Hear-yee..Hear-Yee It is here, and here it be

It is in my fumbling fingers at this moment. And it is perfect, incredible....and perfectly confusing. And it is outstandingly beautiful...that from someone who has never really thought of Turkmen products as "beautiful" in an artistic sense...but this one...this is the most beautifully striking woven thing I have ever seen. I am looking at a old, old good Yomat chuval right now and it looks like a rag compared to this one. My best silky-shiny baluch rugs are cowering in the corner liked whiped puppies. It is hard to believe, it glows and radiates.

Being a Baluch-o-phile, I have never really paid much attention to structure. As I said at the outset, the arcane world of Turkmen carpets really never attracted me, maybe too much repitition, kinda boring or something...until this jewel of a creation. But, I can see that this will not be easy at all. Way too much to look at, understand, comprehend, research, etc., so I will need some help. Detailed pictures will probably have wait until this weekend.

But so far...

Materials: Wool, silk, cotton. Wool is some of the best I've seen outside of the best-of-baluch..silky shiny, smooth with a little bristle, deep saturated dyes.

Handle: flexible...don't have a baluch comparison. Tighter, heavier than baluch but can easily be draped, but not floppy. Feels somewhat like like a good lined wool army overcoat.

Condition..by and large good to very good in pile...but areas of moth damage, and three or four holes, some in moth damage areas, one or two...just holes..but all with advancing erosion, losing knots, etc. Pretty much old repair and stablization of ends, maybe two different times. Ends are at best, ragged, eroded, etc. Considerable (?) selvedge repair but selvedge is in pretty good shape. Pile is not "worn" but the whole carpet shows age, and has the arua of having been around for quite a while, but not walked on, not really "used." just old, like something out of your grandmothers trunk.

Ends: Top - (actually bottom) stabilized. Repair-stabilzaton of upper end is strange and includes a stabilizaton double blanket stitch holding several wefts of lighter blue - something - layered on top of a dark blue-indigo border or stripe. The added blue wefts look platted and I would guess they are added as part of stabilization. The warp ends that are apparent on the top of the chuval are strange. They protrude beyond the added blue wefts (held in place by the blanket stitching), and there are the remains of a few partial wefts of flat weave red outside of the blue border and platted blue wefts, in this warp fringe...as if there were once some red based flat weave or something that extended on up. Experts will be needed.

Ends: Bottom elem- fair amount of wear, loss, pretty ragged. Two strange panels, one 3" x 18" in middle, and one in corner, 4" x 6" have been crudely tack-sewn to the back of the elem. They were apparently added as reenforcement for the edges that are receding the most. Interesting in that they are flatwoven, red weft on ivory warp, with what looks like the start of a pattern on one end that has been cut off..also a bit of pile on edges. Oddly, they are fringed opposite the fringed end of the elem. The color looks vaguely similar to the front, red maybe slightly more orange. It is remotely conceivable they were once actually a part of the "back" of this chuval, but that is probably a stretch.

Selvedge: Pretty good, three bundles of three warps each, overwraped in brown or black, some odd tan colored wool, seem to alternate every few inches or so, but not in regular pattern, probably repaired several times. I cannot tell for sure, but I think the darker brown is the original.

Warp: Ivory colored...wool, will test and try to find help on internal warp composition.

Weft: Mostly walnut brown, maybe some gray-brown...wool, may have something else in it, will try to find help on composition, quite thin.

Knot: Appears to be AS open left. There may be some Sy2 near selvedge, but I'll have to check that in detail. The warp depression and my inexperience makes it a little problematical. There isn't much weft directional "grain" in the pile. The warp depression appears about 30-35 degrees or so, less near edges.

Density: 160-170 KPSI, (10-10.5 x 15.5-16.5), probably 160 is good conservative average (ratio 1:1.6).

Colors: Here it is confusing because there has been some bleeding, red, apparently from only the purple-ish-red silk, which has masked or slightly changed some colors. Also there is considerable dirt that has made some colors, some of the gold silk for instance, a dingy color in places right on surface, but with good color just below surface, and these dingy knots often abut good similar.

1. Deep brick red, slight orange cast - wool, field, absolutely beautiful.

2. Dull pale green - good (?) - silk (?)

3. Clear pale yellow - good - wool, not sure if this is different from gold below.

4. Gold - silk - good

5. White - cotton (?) some has received some bleeding from red silk.

6. Crimson-red - silk - some highlights, outside fill of main guls, other highlights, lighter, redder-orange than field and inside center gul...looks pretty good but may have run some, which has changed some knot colors in places.

7. Very dark indigo - wool - this looks black at first glance, but does not appear to be black under a magnifying glass, but looks like a very dark indigo, perhaps dyed on naturally dark wool.

8. Brown - a lot of outlining in this...this is a little strange, maybe the strangest color, because from the back it is a deep chestnut brown, dark, hard to pick out from the "black" which it outlines quite a lot. But it is a lot lighter, muddy shade in the front, but evenly lighter, not tip lighter. It remindes me of color darkening I noticed shaving that bag...when the yarn is tight, it is darker than when it is loose and longer. Some of what appears to be tan or brown on the front is actually good yellow or gold with dirt, and a little is gold silk with some red bleed.

9. Deep purplishRed - silk - major use inside major guls and in some chemshe guls (where it is outlined with the purple-gray, see below) and inside of some bodoms*. This color has a different cast front and back, but also from different areas of the rug. It has run some into the bordering colors. [*note: I have been refering to the minor borders as "badoms" which I got from JBOCs site. I understood it to be a baluch word for almond. Reading Elena Tzareva's book tonight, in her glossary of central Asian terminology, she lists the word "bodom" as a "Turkoman, Uzbek" term for almond motif. I guess I will switch over to her spelling.]

10. Purple (steel-gray?) - silk - this appears at first glance to have a variable steel gray shade on the front, as Tim pointed out early in this line. But in the wool it is not so clear cut. If the pile is exposed either weft or warp, the purple looks fairly uniform top to bottom of pile. If the gray-purple pile is viewed against the grain, it looks purpleish. It looks steel gray-quite shiney when viewed with the grain, fluff the pile and the gray disappears and a purple, abit lighter than the deep purple on the back, appears...

...A magnifying glass reveals little that I can see that looks like tip fading when the tufts are looked at from either weft side or warp side. If there is tip fading, it is quite hard for me to detect reliably. But viewed directly from the front, the lighter grayish- shiney caste is definitly there...almost a light reflection or something, most evident when veiwed down grain. It might-could be the way silk behaves in light. Or it could be the tight-bundle- of- fibers- create- a- darker- color- effect, seen especially on the back knots, in silk or something. Or it could be tip fading that I do not have the experience to reliably identify. But I'll try to find someone to look at it..maybe see if I can catch it all on camera.

There is just so much to look at I have hardly looked at the carpet itself. And now that I am finished with this message and am looking at it as a whole, it is breathtaking. Gentlemen, this is not a new carpet...but I would not care if it were. I just wish all could see it and bask in its overwhelming aura of inate good-as opposed to evil. It is a woven representation of "Gondor."

Late this summer I will possibly visit my brother in Washinton area. I would love to show this carpet off to the Turkotek breathern who might be interested. If none are, the elves of Rivendale will probably like it.

Regards,

Jack Williams

Magnifique! (Theres a french movie on)

G'day Jack,

You poor, poor soul; smitten in possession of this outstanding piece of weavers art.

The description you offer has me in raptures - Im stoked. The juwal (your usage) must be, from your beautiful, clear and lucid expression of it, as good as initially I saw on my monitor.

Your gleeful handling of something so magnificent and completely beyond my experience, comes across so vividly: would that I could share the pleasure. Lucky you.

Have to take you to task a bit though. Your being American can be excused, but I am offended hugely by the mangling our fine australian spelling of words such as color, when everyone knows properly it is colour, and again I can console myself that an American may choose to spell amongst instead of amoungst, but I can never, never reconcile myself to your spelling of 'platted' for plaited

Gee, our clothes, movies, music, Australian integrity even, and maybe some of our food, is American, but really, please leave us the last remnant of our old language, (or rather, spelling)

Contentedly,
Marty.

__________________
Martin R. Grove

Re: Magnifique! (Theres a french movie on)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marty Grove
clear and lucid expression of it, as good as initially I saw on my monitor.

---

Quite Write!

G'day Mr Price,

With so much of that lovely french language (which really, is all french to me -) within ours and yours, perhaps I was a bit of a cad for using the American version

Regards,
Marty.

__________________
Martin R. Grove

as in

the battle between the Merrimac (aka Virginia) and the Monitour?? (or was the Minataur??)

Minataur?

G'day Gene,

Nah, the Minataur was the freaky looking Cretan dude with horns and lived in the caves (or tunnels), which caves is where I feel I recently came from compared to you blokes ... we really are taking a mini tour.

__________________
Martin R. Grove

New James Bond girl - "pictures galore"

Good morning all.

All lines must dye (sic), and it will be some time before I have the full story on this carpet. Perhaps it is time to let this go for now. Suffice to say I think it is 1860-1890, Saryk, minor chance of being possibly Salor, some possibility of Ersari. I need to finish my node analysis, but the weight of finess of weave, structure, most of the designs, and the colors, magenta, soft orange, etc., is settling toward Saryk phase II.

Attached below are some pictures compositions. Most have explanations, arrows, etc. embedded in the picture so should be self explanitory. Also embedded are a few things specially included for Marty because he likes this carpet.

First picture is the carpet itself to remind what we are looking at. Then some detail shots, various guls, minor guls, and some close ups with an engineer-architech ruler to judge finess of weave (note..the pics were taken in bright sun and the ruler is white, not yellow). Then some problem shots, bleeding, end damage, etc. A few front-back shots with the images reversed so you can see front vs. back like opening a book.

There are a couple of shots of the purple back, steel gray front, silk. One shot shows the front gray silk bordering a minor gul, taken with grain, and a second of the same gul showing purple when shot against grain illustrating the effect I mentioned previously...unfortunatly it is more evident in person than in these pictures. Finally, a longer shot of the back, closing with the full carpet in all its glory.

Any dye problems are all with silk, magenta and red bleeding and color change in the purple. Everything else is beautifully solid to my eyes, absent chemical analysis. I do not quite know what to make of the silk problem. It could be the dyes, though the red and magenta look good to me, purple is suspect. But, it could be a dye process problem.

I have read that silk can be a different process in regards to mordants.. On the rug, I think both the red and magenta are good dyes, just not fast. And silk is also pretty fragile and fades quickly under sunlight. I am looking at a Viet Cong silk flag on my wall that I captured 38 years ago, The red is now almost pink and the blue is sky blue, yellow star is soft but still at least yellowish, decent. Well, hope you enjoy these. Regards, Jack Williams

GLORIOUS!!!

G'day Jack,

Overwhelmingly glorious! I like many things, some I love; but never have I fallen in love with a Turkman small piece before. Not that I really have had much access to very good old ones before, and certainly none which have taken my breathe away as this does.

In your latest pictures, the top left yellow cross in the gull appears to have in the outlining, 2 knots, whereas on the right cross pic, there appears to be only say 1 knot in comparison; might this be from another outlining more evident on the left and not on the right? The thickness difference is very apparent. Or is it thicker knots?

The green in the left top star is interesting, deliberate or a colour change in dye?

Really impressive is the rich magenta in the lower right pic, still deeply saturated colour coming through.

I find very nice the red/purple in the backside gul, and the crisp red (madder?) alongside the star is very distinctive still.

The whole carpet impresses me very much as a truely wonderful example of old weaving, and now I am beginning to see just what there is which so captivates those who collect so assiduously these Turkomen artifacts.

And my especial thanks for the small ordinance; is it (or they) grey or blue? Perhaps I noticed another with muzzle bands, atop a gul?

Replicating local manufacture, or something from elsewhere? I have books on Civil War small arms, but have not come across a comprehensive book inclusive with the larger boomers.

Although repeating myself is a common occurence, my overt enthusiasm for this carpet is I hope not misguided, or decried by those of greater knowledge

Enviously,
Marty.

PS. I see now where the greens have been interspersed on various parts of some of the star elements throughout, so obviously it was with deliberate intent. There are different coloured parts to elements in places which dont seem to conform with what one would expect, and when colours radiantly new, perhaps they may have appeared sort of kaleidoscopic in effect.

__________________
Martin R. Grove

Hi James

Interesting, but my guess would be Ersari/Ali Eli, turn of the century at best.

Dave

Hi Dave

Would you be good enough to send me your name by e-mail, so I can insert it into your post?

Thanks

Steve Price

Hi Dave,

I think I am the only "James" posting regularly on Turkotek, but I haven't posted anything on this discussion about Jack's chuval. Were you referring to his piece, or something in another thread?

Cheers,

James.

Why?

Why?

I've listed a dozen characteristics that are characteristically Saryk: finess of weave; high top border and border design; blue top border band; elem design; guls-main and minor; weft and warp material; selvedge material; plain side borders; colors of guls and field and borders; number of colors; use of cotton-silk-wool combination; I could go on, but I beleive that the cumulation of just these makes an argument. And if the attribution is correct, the "phase II" designation become likely...and that phase is deliniated in time by Tzaravera...post 2nd Q-19th C, pre 20th C. Do I have my logic cap on straight or am I missing something?

In response, one person suggested Ersari based on bag size (?); a single picture was offered to support Ersari attribution, yet despite requests, no explanation why it was germaine to the issue was offered, which adds frustration rather than revelation.

Tim legitimably noted dye problem with purple. This is an example of a positive comment in that it has led me deep into a study of mordants, dyes and how they react on silk. Also, a discusson ensued about the border design, main and minor...which is the most important point for Ersari to me.

Ill willingly concede that many of the Saryk characteristics above are also found in Ersari chuvals...but not all of them in any one bag that I've seen. One of my theses about the Ersari border design is this: design among the Salor-Ersari-Saryk is 30 percent ethnogensis (that is the point of including the Therani and Collard paper discussion in this line) between these groups so is the most likely characteristic to cross confederation boundries...again, my opinion from deduction.

Truth is, this chuwal has considerably more Salor characteristics than Ersari...and that could be an interesting thought...the source of the bodom and main borders could be Salor.

Furthermore, I have other intreguing support data that is just not solid enough to post yet, including a postulation of why such a chuwal has made its appearance at this time. A reconstruction of Turkmen tribal migrations, history, and ultimate settlement patterns is necessary for that, which I have undertaken with some very interesting results (strickly for the sake of establishing credentials, though I am an engineer by profession, I am somewhat of a historian by earlier education and avocation, with published articles on civil war research, for instance).

I am open to everything including that this is a new chuwal made in a rug factory. But it would help me a great deal if people would include "why" they think such-and-such. I do...how else are we all to learn if we do not share our knowledge, research and the basis for our thoughts, even if our opinions are are flawed? And I do not mean this negatively at all...just wish I could get factual input to open new lines of thought.

Thanks, and regards
Jack Williams

Hi Jack

The need for criteria and their bases, not just someone's conclusions, is something I ask for all the time here. It's good to have another person doing the same - maybe we can make some headway on that front.

Oh, one point: in Virginia (I'm a native of New York, but have been in Richmond for 40 years), we don't talk about the Civil War. It's the "War of Northern Aggression" down here.

Regards

Steve Price

Bag closure system

Gentlemen,

One thing that hit me about the bag before Jack bought it was the warp extenstions on the top (bottom) of the juwal. I've never seen them. I assumed that they were there because of (1) missing border; or (2) they were added during some previous rug repair to make it appear more "rug like."

Now based on the descriptions and photos, I have to wonder if we're looking at the remnents of a flatweave closure system for the bag (such as is found in saddle bags, etc.) I've never seen any closure system on any juwal and always wondered how they shut tight these bags. I finally had decided they were just left open on the sides of the tent and things were sort of stuffed into them. But then that makes them pretty usless as transport baggage.

I have an old (maybe saryk) juwal at home with what I always thought was an intact back...I'll have to look again though, not having really investigated this in the 30+years I've owned it, and it may prove to be only added.

But perhaps the warps in Jack's juwal are a real find...a left-over bag closure system that I've never seen on a juwal.

Has anyone ever seen a closure system for a juwal? thoughts?

Gene

Attribution.

G'day all,

Relative to this thread, maybe we can call it the "War of Differing Attribution"?

It has never really crossed my mind so strongly, how difficult it is, to accurately put all the pieces together and reach a sum total that can conclusively and accurately indicate just by whom, or where or when, an article was made.

This is a really fascinating adjunct to the 'mere' appreciation of carpets

Regards,
Marty.

PS. And Jack, regardless the provenance, it remains the beauty in your hands.

__________________
Martin R. Grove

Hi Gene

The backs and closures seem to have been removed from nearly all Turkmen juvals, probably because this makes it easier to ship and to display them. Here is a Tekke ak-juval with closures nearly intact. It has appeared on Turkotek before, and I really should photograph it again or at least do a decent scan, but the only image I have handy right this minute is this one:



There are braided ropes along the upper "lips" on the front and the back, which are sewn down with interruptions in the sewing every few inches. Another braided rope is threaded through those to close the bag - the one that's on it seems to be broken from abrasion.

The braided ropes on each side of the bag are also sewn down, but each has two unsewn regions about the right size for hands to get under them (they are at the ends of the white stripes, where you can see them "bulge"). There are discolorations and wear on the juval right under those unsewn regions, and I suspect that the filled bag was carried by two people using those ropes as hand holds.

It's a very elegant piece, with silk highlights, and was clearly used as a container (probably for grain). It's one reason that I think people are mistaken when they claim that Turkmen pilewoven bags made with silk in them were purely decorative items.

Regards

Steve Price

Regards

Steve Price

closure systems

Many thanks Steve and a beautiful piece.

From working with Baluch bags for many years, I've seen that loop (usually goat hair) system for closing bags,..usually grain bags as a matter of fact. I've also seen the loop enclosure system used on pillows.

But there are other closure systems widely used uncluding the "baluch bag method" (also qashqai, etc)... i.e a flatweave front with slits and back with goat hair loops. the loops pass through slits in the front flatweave and the bag is closed by pushing a stick through the loops.

Could it be that juwals had two different closure systems used for different items?

Gene

PS. I forgot to add that just about all the "horizontal" stuff...pillows, etc, that I've seen that still had a smell like camel on them when I bought them in 1970's had long cords down the selveges to secure them to beasts of burden. I have one juwal with the side cords intact..again haven't looked at it for years and it may be added; will check when I get home. But, to have cords on these things makes sense when you're trying to secure them to an animal.

Hi Gene

There are so few juvals around with closures that it's hard to know how many different closure systems the Turkmen used with them.

They used a unique system for khorjin, though. It consisted of braided ropes, one sewn to the back and one to the face, as loops an inch or two apart. The loops were then interlocked, kind of like a zipper. If I can find a photo of one, I'll post it.

Regards

Steve Price

I hate to let the air out of your balloon, Jack, but the list of characteristics you assert argue strongly in favor of a saryk attribution for your piece in fact do not. The fineness of weave exhibited by your chuval wouldn’t rule out any of the Turkmen tribes. The upper elem border and blue plainweave top finish can also be found on the bags of other Turkmen tribes. I own an interesting tekke torba with those same characteristics. The major and minor guls are found on both ersari and saryk pieces, for the most part later examples. The wide variety of colors actually argues against a saryk attribution and the cotton, wool, silk combination can also be found in ersari and tekke weavings. I own examples of both. And the primary and secondary borders along with their many variations are found only in ersari pieces in my experience.

As for the “phases” you mention, I believe it was Jon Thompson who first developed that theory of the three phases of saryk production and he articulated it in the 1980 Turkmen book he co-authored with Louise Mackie. If you haven’t read that text, I’d strongly suggest you put that at the top of your reading list. His second phase ends with the migration of the tribe to the Merv Oasis, which can be historically pinpointed to the 1860-1870 time period, before the development and widespread use of synthetic dyes which are present in your bag. I am not aware of any parallel phase theory of saryk weaving advanced by Tsareva.

Lastly, I want to address the fact that you purchased this rug on ebay. There are a number of knowledgeable Turkmen collectors who regularly scan ebay listings for collectible Turkmen items. If you were to do a seller search and look at the recent concluded auctions of (dealer's name deleted), you will find some above average, reasonably old Turkmen items in very distressed condition that were bid up to prices that were several times the final price of your piece. And yet your piece, in superior condition, failed to attract so much as a single bid from (dealers' name deleted) buyers. While this will occasionally happen on ebay when an item is mislabeled or incorrectly identified, such is not the case with your piece. It was clearly identified as an ersari or Turkmen chuval in the listing. I know because I looked at the auction before it ended. I’m not saying your bag isn’t worth what you paid for it. I’m saying if it was a real second phase, mid nineteenth century saryk chuval in good condition, it would have sold for at least ten times the price you paid for it, even on ebay.

Lew Kline

hi

Dear Mr. Kline,

Who are you? I tried to follow your intellectual contribution to this discussion. I didn't get much beyond the "I lost the bid on e-bay" bit. We all know Jon Thompson's book. Would you pls expand on your thesis on your attribution of the juwal? (it seemed awfully muddled...i.e. it could be this or that or those...)

(From the tone of your note, i.e. "I validate myself by invalidating others," I'd swear you were a kin to JC. Forgive me if I'm wrong.)

Gene

Hi Gene and Lewis,

Before this gets much more unfriendly than it is, here are some things I'd like to ask of you both:
1. Gene, although we want our participants to post under their names, we don't ask them to provide more information about themselves unless they choose to do so. I hope Lewis isn't using a pseudonym, but I don't like to see anyone accused of that unless we are pretty sure. What he has to say is much moe important than who he is, as long as he stays within our rules.
2. Lewis, your post has an edge to it that elicits the reaction that people have to trolling. I'd be grateful if you'd choose your words in such a way as to sound less condescending. It's offensive to open a message with, "I hate to let the air out of your balloon, Jack,..." because it gives the impression that you don't hate it at all.

I've offered no comments about the juval because I just don't know what to make of it. It doesn't look like any of the things I've seen attributed to pre-1875 Saryk weavers, mainly on the basis of the palette. Nor does it look like any Ersari juval I can recall seeing (live or in a photo). It's a very handsome piece, in my opinion, but its attribution (tribe or date) isn't obvious to me.

Thanks,

Steve Price

juwal

steve,

I apologize for the comment. Its almost 0200 here. I'm a little tired. But I also have several silk filled juwals stuffed into trunks. I happened to have photos of one with me which I put it out on this site for others to judge.

It seems to me that if one wants to contribute to the discussion, and has photos of rugs to support the arguement, then put them on the net. we all learn. But the comment about buying the rug from e-bay seems to have nothing to do with anything... anymore than "I bought a rug at Saifuddin's in Karachi in 1976."

Again, sorry for the sharp edge...I didn't mean it and hopefully await posts from our new contributor on the above mentioned silk filled juwals in his possessioin and his analysis (oh heck, what's the Latin plural..I forgot) of their provenence.

Gene

Hi Gene

No harm done - my post was intended to prevent a mini-war before it got too heated. Suggesting that Lewis is Cassin is awfully insulting, but since Cassin's appeared here lately under enough pseudonyms to qualify for group rates with his psychiatrist, I understand, and I hope Lewis does, too.

I agree that the source of the juval is irrelevant, but I think Lewis's point was that it elicited no other bids while "collectible" Turkmen pieces almost always bring out a number of bidders. This suggests that it was not recognized as "collectible" enough to be bid on by The Usual Suspects.

Regards

Steve Price

Little did I suspect that my first post in this thread could provoke such a hostile response. I only attempted to share insights gained from my collecting experience and cite the reference to Thompson's, not Tsareva's, three phases of Saryk weaving as a means to correct the hypothesis stated by Jack that his chuval could be a second phase saryk chuval. If you guys don't want to hear that message, go ahead and continue to marginalize the messenger because then you don't have to address the information he presents. But if you would rather investigate my assertions, then dust off your copies of the Thompson book and re-read the chapters on saryk and ersari weavings, because I'm not making this stuff up. The third phase of saryk production did begin when the tribe migrated to the Merv oasis in the 1860's before the introduction of synthetic dyes. It was at that point that the second phase of saryk weaving ended. The subject chuval contains at least one synthetic dye, based on the seller's own description of it. Therefore, it cannot be from the second period.
But is it a saryk from later period? In the ersari chapter of the same book, Thompson discusses the nine gul ersari chuval that David posted to this thread. He mentions that while its iconography could easily be mistaken for that of the saryk, its colorfulness leads away from that attribution and toward the ersari, who employ a much wider color palette. This is the opposite of the assertion that Jack made when he argued that the wide range of colors in his piece argued for a saryk attribution.

You can disregard my other comments as hearsay if you like. The Thompson references should be enough "proof" to help establish a mid course correction in your discussion.

Good luck.

Lew Kline

purple

Hi Jack, I've a few years experience with dyeing silk with natural dyes. Purple with cochineal mostly comes from raising the PH. This can be done at several stages--even in subsequent washing, unfortunately. I have no idea whether this propensity lessens over time or not. The purple at the higher pH is less fast, runs, and damages the silk a bit more than I find acceptable. I haven't tested many of the other natural dyes, mordants, and techniques I've been accumulating which can give purple yet. I've backburnered dyeing for now but my ever ongoing research looks promising. My summer and Fall is spoken for with fleece processing as I can't do that indoors. There are others, outside of rugdom, who can help you. Sue

Mr. Kline: Not the only thing you may have missed.

Good morning Mr. Kline:

Thanks for your post. Trouble is, just about everything you have said in both posts is erroneous.

RE: HISTORY: Sir, you are completely wrong. Saryk-Salor took Merv oasis territory in the 1780s, after the population was slaughtered (700,000 killed) by Khan of Bokhara, Begge Jan, leaving an uninhabited wasteland. The Saryk then displaced their kin, the Salor, whom they had shared the area with for 50 years, in the early 1830s, lost it to the Tekke 1854. They then made common cause with the Persians in the attack on Merv in 1857 that the Tekkes repulsed with great loss to the attackers.

The Saryk did not "occupy the Merv oasis in the 1860s and or 1870s"...they were driven out of it in the early 1850s. Sir, you have your history wrong by an order of magnitude. That should just about invalidate your expertise and put your two posts in their proper catagory..."fabricaton."

RE: DATES OF SAYRK DESIGN PHASES - RELATIONSHIP TO HISTORY: Again you are monumentally wrong. Generally, turkmen history in central Asia, has five significant dates, though actually each is a range, not a specific moment in time.

1730s, beginning of migration-invasion of Persian territory south of Khiva-Bokahara following decline of persian power after Nadar Shah died.

1780s, invasion of Persia proper, occupation of Merv, after Khan Begge Jan of Bokahara, depopulating the area.

1830s, the defeat and displacement of the Salor from Merv area by Saryk, their migration toward Persia and the begining of their demise. And

Early 1850s, pesian counterattack scattering the Salor (destroyed 70,000 homes), defeating the Tekke at Sarakh. In the rebound domino effect...the Tekke retreated, attacked, defeated and displaced the Saryk from Merv. Then in 1857, the Persians with Salor-Saryk allies, attacked the Tekke in Merv, but the attack failed and the Persian army was routed with huge losses.

1873-1882, the defeat of the Tekke by the Russians, the methodical enforced settlement of all of the nomads and their enforced acceptance of govermental control...pacification if you will, ensued. This was a process that was not completed until the end of the 19th c.

The phases of Sayrk rugs are generally attributed as follows:...phase one begining (questionable becaue few if any Sayrk items that old have been identified) with the close association of Saryk-Salor after occupation of Merv oasis after 1780 (not 1870?). Phase two supposedly began becoming apparent in first Q 18th c, and was complete about when Saryk-Salor split in 1830s. Phase three started appearing about the time of the Russian pacification in 1880s.

The change to phase three after settlement and pacification is addressed everywhere in the literature...see Tharani and Collard for instance. Also, Sayrk phases, see...heck...anyone, Thompson (1980), Tzareva (1990s-current), O'Connell (current), Eiland, etc.; these sources do not mention phase two or three attribution as being dependent or caused by type of dyes. You are either mistaken, mis-reading what has been printed, or are relating having read something that is not there.

RE: SARYK PHASES, definitions of: - The "third phase" is a design and palette issues that cooresponds to wide(er)-spread use of non-natural dyes...but these dyes are there mostly because of history...IE: PACIFICATION AND SETTLEMENT. Phase three has little or nothing to do with dyes themselves. Pardon me, but I already have read what the experts have said and none have mentioned dyes themselves being the cause of the slow change in design from phase 2 to 3, rather it is pacification.

Indeed the Tekke design changed hardly at all after they began using chemical dyes, staying on course with normal internal development [pjylogenesis]. Therefore, it is reasonable to suppose Saryk design would have pretty much also stayed in their normal evolutionary course. IE: given pacification, they would have moved toward phase III design whether chemical dyes were available or not. And, where did you get the idea that a single chemical dye in a sayrk rug condemned it from being 2nd phase? Did you "just make it up and toss it out there as fact?"

Chemical dyes were available in the major centers of Bokahara, Khiva, probably Merv ceratinly by the end of the 1860s...from sales receipts. The dye problems with this rug, (if there are problems...that has not yet been determined), are strictly with a very small amount of the silk. Do you think the Saryk grew their own silk, or bought raw silk and dyed it themselves?

Re: CHARACTERISTICS OF ERSARI - Where did you get the ideas you posted about what is and is not a marker for saryk vs ersari characteristics? Just about any book gives those markers and what you have posted is busted....heck you can read in Jourdan's book scanned on the internet and save some late fees at the library. The traits listed for this chuval thus far are all characteristic of Saryk, except those listed by you which are so much made-up balogna. Though one or another of these traits "can" (your word Mr. Kline) be found in the individual weaves of other Turkmen groups, the total are not. It would be highly unlikely, at best, that an Ersari weave would have all the features listed (and others I've not gotten around to discussing). Salor? - yes it is possible, even plausable. Ersari? - unlikely.

For example, fine-ness of weave...I hate to let the air out of your bag, but the fine-ness of this chuval will rule out a great many turkmen groups. There are quite a number comments about rugs along the lines of "too fine for ersari, Salor must be considered." The statistical chance of finding an artifact that is the absolute uppermost of the range ever woven by that group, is virtually nil. This chuval falls in the higher-normal range of Saryk but it is apparently virtually outside of Ersari range. There is a famous picture of a Confederate cavalryman soldier dressed in leapord-zebra skin chaps. But, I would not presume Jeb Stuart's corp was uniformed in leapord skin trousers. The extreme end of a scale is actually not on the scale.

Colors: I do not understand how you can make such a statement as "The wide variety of colors actually argues against a saryk attribution and the cotton, wool, silk combination can also be found in ersari and tekke weavings," and "...its colorfulness leads away from that attribution and toward the ersari, who employ a much wider color palette."

Furthermore you are disembling when you say "Jack argued that the wide range of colors marked it as Saryk." I said and implied no such thing, you know it, you are a l***er. I simply listed 9 maybe 10 colors after leaving out pink, which i thought might be red-run cotton. I said nothing remotely about "wide range of colors equals sayrk. Every good technical collecction book lists examples of the number of colors encountered in 2nd phase Saryk chuval, or bags, as being from 8 to 11...and those colors usually include the silk colors that are in this rug. But almost more important, those colors are used as the colors in this rug are used, sparingly as accents, not "colorful" per se., such as that chuval Dave posted. Where did you get that idea Mr. Klein? Let me suggest reading Jourdan, or maybe Elena Tzarova. Your statement remindes me... my grandpa told me that most people who say "I'm not making this up..." are making it up. Trust me on that, Mr. Kline, I'm not making it up.

Furthermore, on the "colorfulness of Davids Chuval he posted." I doubt many could look at that chuval and see any resemblence with mine at all. The number of colors is one thing...but the use of them is another. I do not mean to be too critical, but David also suggested he thought this was an Ersari chuval "based on its size" followed by strange comments about rug factories mentioned by someone "somewhere," followed by a few undocument rocks thrown for the heck of it. I think he might have been just started making a few off-hand comments, and probably regrets posting both the picture of that irrelevant bag, and those strange comments, unless "size" of chuval can be used to attribute. Or perhaps he just doesn't know. But maybe you can help me...is the physical size of a chuval used to attribute it?

About buying it on ebay...Now you are straight out telling falshoods. The Dutch dealer, who I have bought 10-15 items from, specifically adertised it as follows: "Monumental...ah...er...Ersari (?)" exactly those words. That is NOT an endorsement for being Ersari. Sir, I can prove it..and when I asked him about it, he told me that he was perplexed and had to call it something. What does that make your statement?

I'll share this with you. I actually bid over two and 1/2 times what I paid for it. I recognized its potential, but more importantly, my brother, with 30 years experience, a lot on the ground on location, recognized it. He is the one that put me on to it. Just because others could not believe what they saw is no argument for attribution. That is all intellectually utterly and completely meaningless.

Furthermore, I queried the dealer about the dyes. He said only that he thought, but was not sure, the purple was "not good", and maybe the crimson red. He did not say why. But, as always, he was simply being quite conservative. He does not hype his products and is low key providing full pictures of all flaws. For the edification of this board, the baluch I posted while awaiting delivery of this chuval, was bought from the same dealer. In his offering of that baluch, his listing headlines described it thusly: "pretty good old baluch rug." I suggest taking a look at that rug in light of that description and make a judgement about his salesmanship. If it is a "pretty good old baluch," what do you make of it when he called this chuval "monumental?"...especially as i have rarely even seen him use an adjactive such as "outstanding."

Mr. Kline, your characterizations of dates, phases, dyes, colors, dealer opinion, are erroneous, therefore to my mind your credibility is pretty low. But, also your characteriztion of "widespread use of synthetic dyes in this chuval" seems a little rediculous don't you think? Would you like to tell me just what dyes in this chuval you know are "chemical", and why? And what constitues "widespread?" Actually, I am not really that interested in your opinions because they just seem designed to stir the pot and have no truth to them at all. Anyone who presents the gross...er...errors...that you have presented as absolute fact, is suspect in the trust department in my eyes. Tell me the truth, ...actually you just made all that up didn't you?

Finally, Mr. Kline, regarding price...let me assure you that the next person that buys this chuval WILL pay 5 to 10 times what I paid for it, once they have seen it in the wool. And once it is seen in the wool, it will still be a bargain...Sorry you missed it...my brother and I didn't...but in my opinion, that is not the only thing you may have missed.


Jack Williams

In my opinion there is no deep study of mordants, dyes, and how they react on silk without an awfully lot of dyeing silk oneself or subjecting the dyed silk to good scientific testing. It is a vastly complicated subject and there are far more factors of influence than are reported on in anything I have read, at least.
The purple in Jack's rug, as it appears on my monitor, I have obtained with relatively fugitive natural dyestuffs. If I had only had experience with insect dye ranges I would have thought the one's shown here were man made. I have no experience with man made dyes but I can easily see how they could be thought that. If all the dyes in it are natural, as they may well be, it surely must have some real importance. If it were mine I would cut to the chase and have it properly tested. I don't think there are any shortcuts on this one. Sue

By golly Mr. Price if you are right then both the Shahsavan and the Anatolian Afshar must be Turkmen. Are you sure "Unique" is the word that you want to use? Jack Sprague

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Price
Hi Gene

There are so few juvals around with closures that it's hard to know how many different closure systems the Turkmen used with them.

They used a unique system for khorjin, though. It consisted of braided ropes, one sewn to the back and one to the face, as loops an inch or two apart. The loops were then interlocked, kind of like a zipper. If I can find a photo of one, I'll post it.

Regards

Steve Price

---

Hi "Jack_Sprague"

Here are two images of Turkmen khorjin, both from Reinisch's Sattel Taschen ("Saddle Bags"). The first is atributed to Yomud, the second to Ersari. Both show the closure system I'm referring to, as do several others in his book and every Turkmen khorjin I've ever seen with a closure system still on it.





Reinisch has seen lots more khorjins than I have, and considers this closure to be diagnostic of Turkmen. I don't think I've ever seen or read about a Shahsevan khorjin that didn't have fairly widely spaced slits in the top of each face through which less than ten loops more or less like these, sewn to the backs, projected. Some Anatolian and Persian bags have much thinner cords sewn to the fronts and backs, but nothing like the "Turkmen zipper", which typically has 18 to 30 loops or heavy braided rope.

By golly, Jack Sprague, I think I'm right. Why would you think Anatolian Afshar or Shahsevan are Turkmen?

Regards

Steve Price

Silk

Sue,

I'm sorry your posts on dyeing silk got kind of subsumed by an assulaut by two apparent trolls... Personally, being a Chinese speaker, I am fascinated by your hands-on observations on dyeing silk. This imho is the essence of intellectual investigation (sort of like Jack shaving his bag)...it gets to the heart of the issue, people doing not observing (Marty also deserves a hand for his dogs and camel hair observations).

If you and Jack are right, "synthetic" dyes were used on silk 800 years ago. And I've yet to research Chinese sources on silk to which I have access. I have a few of these silk filled tribal carpets..I've put one on the net (I can think of a couple of guys recently with strong opinions but who won't put up and won't s..up).

If you have more observations on dyeing silk....and or on the history of silk importations into Central Asia or sites which discuss this would love to hear more.

(Look, lets face it..silk was a major Roman Empire import as early as the 1st century and all of it passed through the Central Asian Oases on the "Silk route"; I don't know whether it was raw silk or whether it dyed...I suspect a lot of it was dyed...and the Romans loved purple! but recall that some of this purple came out of Lebanese shellfish...don't know whether this was used on the silk but it was expensive; I suspect the Chinese figured out how to beat this market).

Gene

PS. By the way I thoroughly enjoy your "artist" interpretation of our disputations; (admittedly artists and engineers will always have a problem understanding each other..that's why there are architechs). Carpets first introduced me to color and design and space...and this to art....and from art to buying my first paintings...and from there to 150 paintings in the house .. and ..and . the consciouness has continued to expand.

Sue, dyes and silk

Sue, thanks...I think you are right. There are a lot of holes in the information available about the technical side of rugs. Heck, there doesn't even seem to be standard teminology that is understood across the hobby, including dyes and color, design elements, weaves, etc.

Most books and most articles about rugs are concerned with design and structure. The dyes? well...there are some standard references etc., but little science other than in Edward's, "The Persian Carpet." Only lately has spectoscopy started to be used to identify the source of dyes. Before that, destructive testing was the alternative. And if information was gathered in that manner, the details were mostly just not published that I can find. What is out there is simple "camel hair," what people have heard.

For instance, I was told that you should not walk on silk. Walking on it will change its color, eventually removing the color. This supposedly from a reputable dealer. Also, that you should not clean rugs with silk in them, as silk fades rapidly. Is it true? Who knows? Searching the internet, libraries, etc., for information on how silk reacts to dyes vs how wool, etc., reacts, draws a big blank akin to the "shaving" of a rug.

From the camel hair line and the discovery that basically camel wool must be tested to confirm camel, I think you are right about the silk and dyes. I will probably have the silk colors tested to see if dye origin can be determined.

Sue, you have a scientific gear or two. Thanks for your suggestion.

Regards, Jack Williams

Hi Jack

The story you heard about silk losing its color is new to me. I do believe that silk is poorly suited for foot traffic, but not because of color problems. It has rather poor abrasion resistance, and will wear rapidly for that reason. Well to do Japanese use it for floor coverings, but they leave their dirty shoes at the entryway when they come into their homes, so there's little grit indoors.

Its positive qualities, rug-wise, are that it takes dyes beautifully, feels wonderful, has great luster, and very high tensile strength. It is the tensile strength that allows it to be used as extremely fine fibers, which is why it can be used for extremely fine weaving.

Regards

Steve Price

folk takes and assumptions

Steve, I had never heard that either, until today. Is there any truth to it? heck, I don't know. But it is the type of information, or mis-information that we have to wade through, chase down, to find truth.

As far as science goes, I am a little surprised at the level of myth, unproven assuptions, lack of agreed upon terminology, etc. that I constantly find in this hobby. It may be because of the strong link to commercial activity or something and the inherent conflict of interest. But I find an surprising number of things need to be questioned back to the orignal source data. Though we think we have some knowledge of dyes, there seems to be a lot of misunderstand out there to me, and a lot of folk tales about how to identfy them. Actually it is all pretty interesting because there is so little source documentation compared to other hobbies.

Let's see what comes out of looking into silk. I still wonder if there is a marker in the natural deteriation of silk that can be used to date the silk. that could certainly be interesting.

Regards. Jack Williams

Mr. Jack Williams,

Just for the sake of being correct, the exact words of the advertisement were: "Monumental Antique Turkoman ..ehh..Ersari....Chuval" . and not, as you claimed :"Monumental...ah...er...Ersari (?)."

After handling for years many Ersaris, Turkoman torbas, chuvals and other smaller items, I think I have to agree with Lewis Kleine's opinion this being an Ersari.
I never saw this typical strong golden-yellow ( as shown in the smaller detail pictures ) in Turkman pieces and it is a typical Ersari indicator.

Best regards,

Rob.

Turkoman Juwals

Rob,

I'm sure all much appreciated your clarification of the ad. It added a lot.

By the way, last I heard Esari was a Turkoman tribe...am I wrong...or did you miswrite?

Look Rob...I've handled a lot of turkoman pieces as well.. this was years ago since my interest went quietecent for awhile.

So a question for you. My Juwal posted above has a somber field but bright silk in the guls including a brilliant silk yellow. How do you attribute that? Its been a great curiosity to me over the years and I have received some opinions from some people I trust.

And, the format is so similar to Jack's juwal that its hard to ignore them. Look forward to your further intellectual explanation of your attribution.

I believe for the moment that your thesis that this juwal is Esari (Turkoman...right?) is based solely on the fact that you don't recognize "brilliant yellow as being Saryq. Is that it? Anything more? My juwal has brilliant yellow...does that mean it isn't Saryq? Does that mean that any carpet with brillian yellow is not Saryq? (i.e. if one can produced, does that invalidate your thesis?)

I'd like to amplify on this. I'm not sure after a couple of posts above, that I would put my faith in someone who says simply...."trust me, I know" without a complete explanation of his thought processes. I can't think of another scientific or investigative profession which would accept that as the basis of anything.


Regards , Gene

Hi Guys

Before the grenades start flying, bear in mind some ugly facts about attributions.

1. One is that most Turkmen attributions are slam dunks. Unambiguous, fairly easy.
2. Another is that the ones that are ambiguous can virtually never be attributed with anything approaching 100% certainty.
3. A third is that this one is ambiguous.

Regards

Steve Price

precision

Dear Steve,

I understand your concern...and this database is conducted with amazing civility and quite often attention to intellectual rigor.

But occasionally someone comes up and makes a blank statement without going through the scientific process. It then becomes all about type-A ego and very little information is imparted. This is the "I am great" syndrom which seems to be a major trap for the human race.

Rob's post unfortunately seems to fall into this category. Jack has posted extensively on his thoughts on the carpet and on his research. Rob has given diddly except an imperious opinion. How can we learn unless us poor unwashed slobs can be educated...and i mean in detail.

I posted on another thread my experience in London in 1978 with Clyde Lovleless and David Black and a famous London Auctioneer (Who shall go nameless). If I couldn't trust what they told me then, how can I trust what Rob says or "Klienssin" or whomever, unless they go into further detail.

Sorry but Steve, you're an academic; when you're not sure of something you say so. Some of these guys... experts... remind me of the early archeologists in Greece and Crete, imperiouosly sitting on their excavations and declaring this pot and "import" and that "indig."

Opinions are everywhere. But then why not demand from Rob and Kleinssin the same exposition of their thought processes and intellectual investigations which Jack was forced into (his imho very interesting post on Turkoman history)?

Regards to all..and I am never chastised, only educated.

Gene

PS (Edited): by the way, it sure looks like there are some nice yellows in the bags you posted above. If Rob is to be believed, that means they couldn't be turkman.

ok

Good morning Rob.

I am on vacation, using a brand new laptop, thus do not have the data I have stored at home available. You are probably right about the exact wording of that ad, I was relying on memory and this is unpardonable.

Still...Mr. Kline's claim was this..."It was clearly identified as an ersari...in the listing. I know because I looked at the auction before it ended." I think when a respected dealer headlines his offering as this one did (Monumental Antique Turkoman ..ehh..Ersari....Chuval) it can only be interpreted as being open to question...don't you?..which makes Mr. Cassines interpretations and comments what? I feel certain that a responsible intellectually curious collector would not say that the dealer's headline for this offering was an endorsement of attribution as claimed by Mr. Cassine. Nor would he then use that flawed claim of dealer endorsement as part of a mostly bogus set of "facts," not to support of attribution, but to support "non-attribution."

Regarding your tonality comments, I willingly concede they have weight. In fact, I modestly note that I was the first to mentioned the tonality issue, as I also was the first to raise the border design question, etc. I have tried not to hide anything or to hype, and I've provided pictures, backup, footnoted my thoughts etc. because this is an intellectual issue to me, not an ego issue - if you could see this chuval in the wool, you too would not be worried about derogatory claims.

Re: the border design issue, see the comment and link I provided in post #7, "earthshattering..." For the tonality question you mention, like you I initially thought it to be a marker of sorts for a Ersari sub gourp...see post #20, "shift change?." Both of these questions must be dealt with when discussing age and attribution, and they probably form a core of why this chuval may be an intersting subject...as I previously noted, if the border was traditional sayrk, it would all be slam dunk thank-you-maam...and how boring would that be?...heck I probably wouldn't have bought the carpet.

However, as I keep saying, the cumulative data nodes make this a difficult chuval to place into a typical Ersari weave. And, as I have gotten deeper into the research some interesting things are coming out, though I am not completely ready to submit them for critical discussion here yet because the back-up data, statistical analyses, and example displays are not organized...it will await my return home.

The gist of one of these theses will be this...some experts have published that the design, pallette, etc., of smaller weavings,especially bags etc., is a truer representation of the artisitc impluses and [phylogenesis] artistic culture tendencies of a group than the main formal weavings. One thing I suspect is that the original Salor (parent of most Saryk, Ersari, and a goodly portion of Tekke weavings) tonality and composition themes used in bags and smaller weavings is far closer to the more recent Ersari composition patterns and tonality than to the repetitious renderings commonly used ias examples to illustrate the Turkmen gendre in many standard references....ie: the boring red-gul-minor gul pesudo Tekke type weavings. The brown-gold etc., tonality you mentioned could therefore be far older than conventional wisdom implies, though this may be common knowledge among the most expert researchers, which you may be of course.

I am working on that point, and when I get back home, if it seem intellectually promising, I will post a little study that illustrates this thesis. I emphasize, the thesis is far from being academically solid and is more anadoctal than statistical sample, at least at this point. As we have seen from some posts in this line, antadocts are not reliable except that they provide food for thought and research.

What burns is the not just the totally fabricated case posted by Mr. Kline and Cassine, but the unsupported statements knocking this carpet such as those by Mr. Hunt. I suspect some of the invalidation process comes from people who looked at this sale item and decided not to take a chance because of exactly the uncertainity we are here discussing, ... therefore they have a stake in invalidating those who took a chance when they were unwilling too...and that is human nature.

But others seem to be throwing rocks for no apparent academic reason other than that may be the only thing they can do. For example, among other things, in addition by a claim of attribution by bag "size,"Mr. Hunt initially stated that the existence of symetrical weavings would confirm his opinion that this chuval was a recent factory made copy...then when the bag proved to be primarily open left asymetrical, he has implied that fact groups the bag with recent factory made copies. But he has never given an actual supported opinion...just inuendo and implication...the mark of a suspect scholor.

It is easy, actually boring, to refute assumptions underlying shallow and trivial comments... especially those unsupported by any discussion, examples, etc. But dodging rocks, however ill-thrown, takes time and distracts from dealing with real questions.

I absolutely welcome the type of comments you have made...with the reasons for your opinion displayed, however briefly. Such comments require consideration and thought and a comprehensive reply...which should be the reason a board like this has value. I will reply to the tonality queston in more detail on Monday. I would be pleased if you would consider the overall picture of structure, weave etc. supplied thus far. Thanks and regards,

Jack Williams

Dear Jack

I won't pretend to know much about Turkmen weavings though I have seen a fair few over the years.

I am writing regarding Mr Kline's comments regarding bidders on ebay. I have been buying on ebay for close to 6 years now. I watch rug listings EVERY day.

Regardless of who Mr Kline is, I would have to say that I agree 100% with his comments about knowledgeable bidders and dealers on ebay.

Jack, I can promise you that there is a small group of people (I can't mention names) that VERY rarely, if EVER, miss the really really good pieces. OK - you can argue that they missed this one, but I don't for one moment believe that is the case. I would say that they passed over this piece because it simply wasn't considered 'highly-collectible'. In fact, not one of their names was on the bidding list.

In the last year or so it has become almost impossible to outbid several high-paying dealers/collectors who will pay top dollar (relative to ebay) for anything considered highly collectible.

I have compiled a list of bidders who I consider to have a really good eye. Most of them I know. And they take risks on ebay images - don't for one moment think they do not. Most seek extra images and information from the seller as well. I am fairly convinced therefore that this is not a mid 19C Saryk.

If you wish to ignore these comments, do so, but I think there will be many readers here who will be nodding their heads in agreement.

Regards
Richard Tomlinson

oh gosh

Richard,

Jack is on the road...I'm up in my mountains in Pakistan. Lets start over again. Jack asked for help in attributing this Juwal. Your sole arguement is (and Richard you sound very similar to Klinessin and Rob in this regard), "it can't be any good because it was on e-bay and noone bid."

Now forgive me but what does that have to do with the subject of attribution?

Tell you what. You comment on this juwal...give details about what you think and why. Then we'll all learn. And I love data and love to learn. I'll listen to what you have to say. But why don't you and Klinessin and Rob drop the e-bay stuff. It seems to be quite a specious arguement.

Regards and look forward to your analysis and point by point refutation of Jack's post above.

Gene

PS (edit): Richard i apologize if my post seems obstreperous. But, I've followed this thread closely because i have some juwals I'm also curious about at home that I bought 30 years ago. Now here are the folks who had something negative to say about this juwal:

-- Kline: arguement: dust off Jon Thompson and besides it was on ebay. He hasn't been back to take on Jack's refutation or to correct his gross ...errors... in his post.

-- Rob : arguement: it couldn't be Turkoman because it had yellow so it must be Ersari...and besides it was e-bay. Huh? He hasn't been back to correct or add to his post except for a brief message cursing me.

-- Richard: argument: It can't be worth anything because it was on e-bay.

Richard, this is a pretty barren collection of arguements... with a common thread of complaint about the rug being e-bay..all three seem so obsessed about that you've looked up the ad and the dealer on the internet, who bid on it, etc. Gosh, the obsession seems vaguely..how to say it...unhealthy??

Now, Jack Cassin has been known to post on one thread numerous times using numerous aliases to bolster his arguement...in this respect seems he could teach a thing or two to a certain South Korean genetics scientist about integrity. Anyway, I hope you can do better....

or maybe one of the legion of collectors you know, who are now shaking their head (because they missed it??), could post. I'm here to learn.

Buy you a beer when I get home.

Gene

ebay

Hello Richard, thanks for your thoughts. But as I said, dodging extraneous rocks takes time. Suffice to say that I also know these people, and their ebay handles. I have beaten most of them time and again in bids on ebay for the items I really want. And if I lost a bid, it was for an exhorbitant price, that my bid was topped only in the last moments. And I have found some bargains that were overlooked by the herd...example, a dated Kuba-afshan long carpet, circa 1895 that was the subject of an archived discussion, "dates in rugs, what a difference a language makes."

I could give...oh...10 examples, who bid, what I bid and who won. But these dealers and collectors all share a weak point on ebay. They generally do not take chances on an item they have questions about. I generally DO take chances when I am resonably sure of something. You can check ebay bids recently on good items. When I began accumulating rugs after Hurricane Katrina wrecked the city with some personal fallout, you will often find bids in my name on top of all the people you think so highly of. That should alliviate your concern about my willingness to risk money, acumeme, eye, etc...and you might find, as I suspect, that my bidding on an item now often attracts the attention of the very people you esteem so highly. After I discovered this, I ceased placing early bids for fear of attracting sharks, or should I say...other sharks.

The fact that this was not bid up higher than it was I attribute to the fear these collectors (dealers are easy to beat...they are looking for bargains to make money on, not to collect) of risking considerable for something that has questions attached whereas I, i