TurkoTek Discussion Boards

Subject  :  Ditzy dots or judicious jogs?
Author  :  Henry Sadovsky mailto:%20hfsadovsky@qwest.net
Date  :  11-23-2000 on 12:13 a.m.
It is apparent that that there are those (including myself) who are sympathetic to the notion that it is not difficult to find the type of anomalies, described by Sikri, which outline, as he calls it, an “internal elem”, in the lower third or so of many oriental rugs. Sikri’s Hypothesis appeared to be the subject of this Salon. Yon Bard has indicated, however, that despite using Sikri’s terminology, he was actually interested in discussing a more loosely defined situation. That is, the possibility that any anomaly whatsoever in the inferior portion of a rug may be of some cultural or interpretive import.

This (at first glance trivial) expansion of Sikri’s Hypothesis, is testable. To determine whether seemingly minor, random appearing, lower field anomalies are of import, one could examine the distribution of such anomalies in defined sections (e.g. dividing the rugs into quarters or thirds from bottom to top) in a group of rugs. Of course, criteria as to what constitutes an anomaly would have to be first established. Naturally, the group of rugs examined would need to be different than the set used to establish the defining criteria for an "anomalie". Secondly, Ms. Mallett has pointed out that it is expected that a disproportionate number of errors would be expected in the lower portion of a rug (lower here defined as the portion woven first). Therefore, careful definition of “anomalie”, and statistical analysis, would be required if one is to differentiate between non-meaningful errors/whimsy from something with deeper implication.

Subject  :  Re:Ditzy dots or judicious jogs?
Author  :  Michael Wendorf mailto:%20wendorfm@home.com
Date  :  11-23-2000 on 08:33 a.m.
Dear Henry:

I share your initial conclusions and sympathies. Regarding the expansion of the hypothesis and test, I am unpersuaded. In any event, I believe you cannot merely look at these anomalies or irregularities. Among other things you have to dissect the weaving and its structure. I am not a weaver and this limits my ability to do this. However, as I examine weavings in my collection I notice that there are a lot of anomalies or irregularities near the bottom of many pieces. Sikri refers to these as "improvisations." Most of these anomalies, irregularities or improvisations are explained the moment that I turn the piece over and look at the warps, wefts and knots. Consistent with what Marla Mallett has already explained in a few examples, it becomes reasonably clear that in the majority of examples an adjustment was made.

By contrast, when I examine pieces that seem to have an internal elem consistent with the Sikri Hypothesis, I am generally unable to discern any such adjustment. I am not attempting to argue that there is no adjustment, only that to my eye, I see none. This suggests purpose. It is this observation that fuels the intrigue of the internal elem hypothesis as articulated by Sikri.

In any event, I believe you cannot meaningfully discuss or test these adjustments, anomalies, irregularities or improvisations that Yon is intent on discussing without examing the back and the structure of a great many pieces. I conclude that if you do the mystery will vaporize. As stated above, the same is not necessarily true for pieces fitting into the Sikri hypothesis.

Good luck, Michael

Subject  :  Re:Ditzy dots or judicious jogs?
Author  :  Henry Sadovsky mailto:%20hfsadovsky@qwest.net
Date  :  11-23-2000 on 01:00 p.m.
Dear Michael,

I think you may have misconstrued my degree of interest in, and curiosity about, what I will call the "Seemingly Trivial Expansion of the Sikri Hypothesis". If your "good luck" was with the thought that I was about to undertake the tedious analysis I had outlined, you needn't have been concerned.

Thanks, and Happy Thanksgiving to you and all the Turkotekers,


Powered by UltraBoard 2000 <http://www.ub2k.com/>