| sprice@hsc.vcu.edu
In the essay with which I introduced the topic of Turkmen pentagonal
weavings, I raised six questions: 1. What relationship, if any, is
there between the lattice of Tekke bird and Yomud ashik asmalyks?
There was no groundswell of support for the notion that these are related,
and the consensus seems to be that the evidence for such a relationship is
too superficial to be persuasive. 2. Is there any evidence for the
existence of pentagonal bags larger than comb bags? None of our
readers seems to know of any, at least not of Turkmen origin. This makes
it pretty unlikely that such things existed. Even the so-called comb bag
is probably more accurately described as a comb cover, since it goes over
a comb and protects the comb's teeth or, perhaps, protects the tent
occupants from them. Some nice images of comb covers as well as of a comb
were put up by Soren Neergaard. Some of us were unaware of (or misinformed
about) the type of comb on which these covers, were used, and were
particularly enlightened by this aspect of the discussion. 3. The
asmalyks were clearly used in wedding processions. Were they used on other
occasions as well? A discussion of this matter was carried over from
the previous Salon to this one. There is so little documentation of the
occasions on which Turkmen had processions that the question is
essentially unanswerable. However, it seems unlikely that weddings were
the only such events and in the absence of evidence to the contrary it
seems reasonable to suppose that decorating the animals with asmalyks
would have been part of these. 4. Is there any significance to the
pentagonal form? Speculation on this ranged fairly widely, and
included suggestions that it represented the silhouette of a yurt,
mirrored the form of the camel hump, was related to a mihrab, or was
derived from a sort of armor that protected camels. None of these
progressed beyond the stage of being speculations thrown out for
consideration. 5. Why are there so few examples of pentagonal trappings
made by groups other than the Tekke and Yomud? No answer to this
question was even suggested, although it did precipitate mention of
pentagonal trappings that were made by Uzbeks and by Indians of the
Pacific northwest in North America. There was some speculation that the
form was brought from central Asia to these Indians, as well as that the
adoption of the form by the Tekke was a result of the fact that the Salor
trappings were rectangular. Neither seemed supported by much information.
The migration of the pentagon from central Asia to North America's Pacific
coast, it was argued, is plausible. This doesn't seem to me to be much of
a foundation for accepting it as true. The thought that Tekke used
pentagons because the Salor used rectangles was without any supporting
information at all. 6. Why did the Tekke stop making bird asmalyks by
the mid-19th century? Or, did they? This question generated no
responses. The bulk of the discussion revolved around the issue of truth
testing, or how we know what we think we know (about Turkmen textiles or
anything else). It generated, in my opinion, much more heat than light.
There appeared to be two schools of thought among the readers. One, that
it is possible to project oneself into the mind of, say, a Turkmen
tribesperson by sufficient study and effort, provided a person is endowed
with the right mental equipment. Those who have accomplished this, the
thinking goes, are the best and most reliable sources of information and
understanding of virtually any aspect of Turkmen culture. The process,
said to be based on the teachings of 18th century Italian philosopher
Giambattista Vico, is a form of inductive reasoning. The opposing school
of thought held to the position that this is a form of fantasizing and
warrrants no more credibility than most fantasy. While acknowledging the
experiences and emotional percepts that art can elicit, especially in
other artists, they insist that only from reliable sources of information
external to the individual can any process of reasoning, inductive or
deductive, lead to new understandings. I subscribe to this school,
although I would emphasize that this is not proof that it is correct. I
mention this simply to alert the reader to the point of view held by the
person who wrote what he/she is reading. To all who participated and
contributed to the discussion: my sincere thanks for helping me to learn
some new things and to clarify my thinking about some that I already knew.
To those who followed the discussion without actively participating, I
hope it was pleasant and, especially, that it has helped you to appreciate
the arts of the weaver a little more. Steve Price
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |