|Subject||:||The Sikri Hypothesis|
|Author||:||Henry Sadovsky mailto:%email@example.com|
|Date||:||11-21-2000 on 01:08 a.m.|
|I have found Shiv's observations and ideas on the "internal elem" to
be quite interesting, and now find that I routinely look for evidence of
such a demarcation when examining rugs. I do, however, think that his
naming of this pattern can be improved upon.
I propose that his notion of there being a deliberate demarcation on the lower one fifth,or so, ofmany oriental rugs be referred to as The Sikri Hypothesis.
|Subject||:||Re:The Sikri Hypothesis|
|Author||:||Steve Price mailto:%firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Date||:||11-21-2000 on 07:08 a.m.|
I agree. We have been using language that carries within it the seeds of confusion. For instance, the phrase "intentional mistake" appears in several postings. That's an oxymoron; it's either a mistake or it's intentional.
I also think it's important to recognize that we are almost surely lumping some unrelated things into the category. If this is the case, we must expect to modify and refine the hypothesis with time.
I still believe, for example, that the abrupt changes in width of border and field that are so common are not the same phenomenon as Sikri's Hypothesis; those, in my (almost never humble) opinion, reflect errors in judgment. The weaver starts out thinking a certain width ratio of border and field is going to be just smashing, then realizes a little way into the field that it isn't, so she changes it. I suspect the same to be true when the border design changes abruptly an inch or so after the first appearance of the field.
I think it would be very useful for the definitions to become crisper and for some statistical approach to the appearance of various manifestations be undertaken to replace what is now essentially anecdotal evidence.