Posted by R. John Howe on December 13, 1998 at 19:58:07:
In Reply to: yomud figures 5&6 posted by James Allen on December 13, 1998 at 17:59:41:
Jim et al -
Do I understand you to say that you suspect that the weaver of this chuval likely intended the irregularities that occur in it? A quick look at my Turkoman books yielded three other examples that have this minor gul as well as the Memling gul as the major ornament (Jourdan, Plates 162 and 162a and in O'Bannon's Moshkova translation, Figure 105). And it seems true that the outside diagonal lines that comprise the minor ornament are irregularly drawn in two of them (the minor gul isn't fully visible in Plate 162a). But the centers of the minor guls in these other pieces do not seems to vary in their position as those in the Pics 5 and 6 do nor do the other pieces appear to vary much in size. That the placement of the minor ornament centers and the overall minor ornament size may also be intentional is supported by the fact (which you pointed out) that They vary together for each of the guls in a given row. You used the term "iterated" to describe the minor gul. Did this usage point at something beyond "repeating?" If not, it would appear that this quality is not particular to the minor guls since the major guls "repeat" as well.
The drawing of this minor gul in O'Bannon, Figure 105 has line arms extending from the right and left hand points of the diamond. These arms terminate in a small "ram's horn" device on each side. The drawing of these arms in the piece in PIC5 & 6, is abortive, perhaps for reasons of horizontal space. The arms are there but are much shorter and lack the ram's horns. A seeming necessary conventionalisation of this design.
Post a Followup