TURKMEN RUG STUDIES: Chodor Ertman Gol Examined

9/4/2015 Chodor Ertman Gol Examined

http://rugkazbah.com/boards/records.php?id=2440&refnum=2440 1/11

Post a Response :: Discussion Board ::Buy/Sell at theKazbah

Home > Turkmen Rugs >Chodor Ertman Gol Examined

Author:jc email: Thu, Apr 11th, 2013 08:29:04 AM

Topic: Chodor Ertman Gol Examined

Chodor Chuval partially fragmented; early Classic Period, pre1800; exRK collection; published TentBand Tent Bag, Plate 10, 1990

The Ertman gol found on Chodor carpets, and the Kepse gol found on Yomud ones, are rather quizzicalpieces of Turkmen woven iconography.

RK has often wondered where they came from and how they developed.

This is a very pertinent question in Turkmen studies, one no other researcher has tackled.

In our opinion there is little doubt both of these iconographic assemblies and assemblies of variousicon, amulets and talisman they are are not very old compared to other far more ancient gol like theTimurchin, Tauk Naska, Gulligol, torba gol, chuval gol (or ‘banner’gol as some call it), and others wecould cite.

However, this discussion is not aimed at proving they are or aren’t as early but rather at trying determinehow the Ertman gol, the more interesting of the two, came into being.

As background we must also mention our absolute belief in Moshkova’s theory the gol represented aproprietary Turkmen group identification.

Also, we credence her idea of live and dead gol.

http://rugkazbah.com/boards/subjects.php

http://rugkazbah.com/boards/subjects.php

http://rugkazbah.com/kazbah.htm

http://rugkazbah.com/boards/posts.php?topicno=5

http://rugkazbah.com/boards/add_response.php?id=2440



That said, we are not so sure the way she went about applying these ideas is correct, or an issue moregermane here: How long these criteria remained viable as the historic roots of Turkmen society weredestroyed by the encroaching forces of foreign military excursion and economic commercialism.

Regardless, we are not going to open the already welldiscussed pros and cons of Moshkova’s theories.Enough has been already written, and neither position Moshkova being right or wrong has beenproved despite the convictions some authors have expressed.

We are, however, interested in how those two aspects of her theory, the gol as means of proprietarygroup identification and the live gol/dead gol paradigm, might have influenced the Ertman, and the Kepsegol’s generation.

Were they instrumental in the mechanics of design origination and transference that produced theErtman?

Is the Ertman an accreted amalgam of several of the unknown earlier live turned dead gol? Or were theygenerated from a combination of the Tauk Nauska and Timurchin plus iconography drawn from anyunknown equally archaic gol?

Presently these are unanswerable questions and ones we must leave on the sidelines until furtherevidence surfaces.

On far firmer ground, and pertinent to our discussion, would be to dissect the Ertman gol iconography toillustrate its constituent parts.

Before doing so we need to mention there are a number of versions with subtle, and not so subtle,differences.

For argument’s sake we are only interested in what we consider to be the earliest known, one we believeclosest to how it might have originally appeared.

Because none appear to be earlier, we will deem the one illustrated above, and again below, theprototype of the group by default.



Perhaps the most unusual aspect of the Ertman is its rather strange stepped gol outline that forms aparallelogram and not the lobed octagon, stepped octagon, or perfectly shaped octagon all otherTurkmen gol display. Well, all other except the Kepse, this being another important aspect they share.

This difference, the Ertman’s stepped parallelogram outline, is further accentuated by the uniquesurrounding vertical trellis of ‘lightning bolts’ and, less unique but highly unusual, a setup where themajor and minor gol are virtually the same size.

These design components are only seen in the earliest Ertman versions and rarely if ever in laterexamples.

Taken together, these are major differences from other gol (except the rarely seen double chuval golchuvals and, again, the Kepse).

In our viewpoint this definitely implies the Ertman has had either a completely different genesis or it is alater addition to the Turkmen iconographic vocabulary.

RK tends to believe the latter is the case, an idea supported by the fact Chodor weavers used the TaukNauska and chuval, or banner gol, far, far more often.

But since the Ertman is so distinctive it, and not they, is most often associated with Chodor weaving.

Another piece of the puzzle is the reality only the Chodor used the Ertman, and while much later,degenerate, versions do appear in certain nonTurkmen group weavings, like the Chub Bash, this haslittle bearing.

Why?

Because none of these nonTurkmen Ertman gol weavings are nearly as old as those of the Chodor, andtherefore are surely derivative copy.

OK, let’s now examine what is going on inside the Ertman to try and explain how it came into being.



The first and probably easiest to recognize, at least in the early examples like the chuval above, are thefour animals, actually two pair of birds.

In the example above they are one of only two icon within the gol, another aspect we see substantiatingthis weaving is earlier than others.

The lack of ancillary iconography is surely not the case with almost all other examples, as the detailbelow from what is considered by many collectors and Turkmen rug experts as the best example ofChodor Ertman weaving shows.

Chodor large format torba(LFT); late Classic Period, circa 1800/early 19th century and not in our opinion18th century as it has been dated elsewhere; formerly Hecksher Collection then donated to the deYoungMuseum, San Francisco

Comparing these Ertman gol, the major difference is the torba version is clearly an “bird (animal) tree”type, while the chuval omits the tree and in its place stands a tall doubleended anthropomorphic “stickfigure”.



Side by side comparison of the two Chodor Ertman gol weavings

We are not going the debate, which is “correct”, but unilaterally deem the chuval version the prototype,as the torba appears extremely contrived vs its natural simplicity. We will mention other reasons.

One being this complex icon, two animal flanking a human figure, is far earlier than the subsequent“animal tree” version, as proven in the prehistoric archaeological record of the Near East.

Leaving that fact aside, both weavings show wellarticulated birds – head, (head crest on the torba) andtail feathers features lost in almost all later versions. RK needs to mention our disbelief the presence ofthe head crest implies antiquity, as a number of later examples of other Turkmen group weavings sportthis feature.

But it’s the clarity of the bird’s representation, the presence of tailfeathers and, much more important tothis discussion, the type of base on which the birds sit as having greater significance in establishing anErtman gol’s age.

In the two early examples above those bases are actually a series of small square boxes, each with a dotin the center.

Another easily overlooked element, and one only present in the chuval version, is the negative spacedouble arrowhead formed horizontally between the two pairs of birds, the space between their tailsforming the arrowheads.

Details of the negative space doublearrowhead icon; Chodor Chuval illustrated above

There is a similar but less articulated one secreted in the minor gol of the torba we will illustrate later.



However, when the doublearrowhead icon appears between the birds it seems to us to have far greaterimplied meaning, and therefore we imagine prototype status that is lost when, as in the torba, the doublearrowhead icon is transposed into the minor gol.

This hidden amulet, and others like the base boxes with the central dot, will play an important part in ourunfolding argument.

Both in fact are keys that led to our theory explaining how the Ertman gol possibly developed.

Here is another Ertman gol from a main carpet (MC), somewhat later than the other two illustrated abovebut still pre1850.

Detail, Ertman gol, from a Chodor MC RK dates second quarter of the 19th century

Here, too, are wellarticulated birds, with crests, sitting on the box with center dot base. There is also thedouble arrowhead icon as well.

Again, like the chuval, there is an anthropomorphic stickfigure, but now it has become embellished withsome elements the deYoung LFT Ertman gol displays.

This accreted version is easily recognized as an iconic combination lifted from the two earlier Ertman golwe have illustrated.

However the simple, stark, and devoid of any embellishment, picture the chuval displays proves to be thebest of the bunch, and the prototype.

Another key feature, and one we have mentioned before as a signpost signifying an example is amongthe earliest Ertman gol, is the way the vertical “lightning bolt” zigzag, surrounding the chuval’s Ertmanand minor gol, does not remain equidistant from the gol.

Rather the space between it and the gol is smallest at the center and farther from it at the top and bottomof the gol.

This lends an important, but very subtle, irregularity to the design imbuing it with movement andundulation.

When absent, like in the deYoung torba and a lesser extent in the MC detail above, the design takes ona far less animated character.

This difference can’t help but convince us the chuval’s version proves once again to be the prototype.

Along this line notice how the outline shape of the torba’s big blue secondary gol mimics the one createdby the “lightningbolt” surround.

Far more than coincidence, it’s another bit of evidence the chuval is the earlier.

Comparing the minor gol they display provides icing on the cake.



Another aspect of the torba’s contrived iconography is the morphing of the minor gol box and central dotinto ‘flowers’. The detail from the MC shows this as well.

Hold onto that thought, we will come back to it again.

The final nail in the coffin for the idea the torba is an early, pre1800 weaving, is the rather common andnot particularly brilliant main border, and more so the minor border’s large “S” icon now sandwiched intoa dotted line rectangle.

All the early version we know do not have this and, therefore, we can only believe it is a later format.

Compare the torba borders with the chuval’s rarely seen doublehelix style main border and sofarunique, pointillist jewellike, minor borders.

These differences must be interpreted as further signpost the torba is most likely post1800 and thechuval pre1800.

Remember, our intent is not to prove which is the earlier solely for that reason, but to establish thechuval’s Ertman gol was developed from a continuum of archaic Turkmen woven iconography.

We believe we have discovered how this happened and can now trace the Ertman back to one of thosearchaic period Turkmen weavings.

RK has mentioned several times before what we call a “set” of icon, and how such a set can be used todemonstrate relationship.

A “set” is a group of at least three icon that unfailing appeared ensemble and tie certain weavings, evenones appearing to be unrelated, into a cluster or group.

This provides viable documentary evidence of strong underlying relationship.

Here the icons in the Ertman set are:

1. the depiction of birds(ie an animal)

2. the box and inner central dot base

3. the presence of a double arrowhead

There are two additional:

4. a kotchak finial

5. a splayed “V” figure below that kotchak finial.

Of course a set with five shared element is stronger than one with three or four, further convincing uswhat follows is not coincidence or accident.

Now we have laid out the playing field let’s bring out the star player.



Two details from an archaic period Turkmen engsi; RK Collection, unpublished

One caveat: We regret not publishing the entire engsi but we are not yet ready to release it, perhapssomeday we will be.

The two detail above come from the horizontal panel separating the typical four panel engsi field.

However, there is nothing else typical about this remarkable and ancient weaving.

It is definitely one of the gems in our Turkmen collection, so let’s just leave praising it aside and get to thegrist of this paper.

The upper one shows the most archaic imagery we have ever seen on any Turkmen weaving.

We interpret it as representation of a distinctive type of prehistoric ceramic vessel/jar with an indentedshape and a rounded bottom.

At the top are two quadruped animals facing each other.

Those familiar with BronzeIron age (2,5001500BC) ceramics know this style of round, not flat, bottomedjar existed, some with the less rarely seen indented shape.



Large ovoid, round bottom, storage jar Middle Bronze Age. The earliest form lacks handles. This type ofvessel appears in many Bronze Age and later tombs in Egypt and the Aegean. Later Iron Age exampleslose the sleek look this one exhibits.

Notice the boxes with central dot below the animals, these are icons number one and two in our set.

Icon three, the double arrowhead, is there as well.

It is far more than suggested, see the illustration below where we have blacked it out.

Icons four and five are also present

Left: Chodor chuval kotchak finial; Middle Left: Chodor chuval splayedV; Middle Right: Archaic periodengsi kotchak finial; Right: engsi complex finial and splayed “V” icon

The details from the archaic period engsi are pregnant with connections to other wellknown icons,amulet and symbols in the Turkmen woven iconographic library, and we will list some of them but firstlet’s finish up with the Chodor Ertman connections.

The large–eightpointed star in the secondary gol of the Chodor Ertman chuval is also present in theArchaic period engsi detail, where it is elongated and part of far more complex piece of iconography.



Left: Detail eightpointed star, Chodor chuval; Left Middle: eightpointed star with compass pointadditions that mimic the complex eightpointed star from the engsi; Middle Right: Detail complex eightpointed star, archaic period engsi; Right: blackedout eightpointed star; archaic engsi

RK chose to compare the engsi detail to the Chodor chuval but we could well have listed similarconnection to the deYoung Chodor torba.

However, because the chuval is the earlier its connections are far more easily demonstrated.

Notice the torba has icon one, the bird/animal, and icon two the box and central dot base.

Icon three, the double arrowhead, is there as well.

It is well hidden, but there as the illustration below shows.

Detail deYoung torba showing doublearrowhead icon

Icons four, the kotchak finial, and five the splayed “V” are there as well.

Detail deYoung torba showing kotchak finial and splayed V

Another connection the engsi detail and the Chodor torba share is the complex icon we call a doublekotchak pole with ashik. It appears in the torba’s large blue secondary gol.

We illustrate it below along with the earlier version from the engsi detail.

Left: detail double kotchak pole and ashik, turned from horizontal to vertical, from the deYoung Chodortorba; Right: double kotchak pole and prototype of the ashik from the engsi detail

We do honestly wish we could as easily trace how the set we have defined was transferred from thearchaic period engsi, which we date circa 1600 perhaps even earlier, to the Classic period Chodorchuval, which is quite a bit later.

Unfortunately, we have yet to find any weaving we could confidently place between them, so this



exercise has no opportunity to be more completely documented. However, there should now be littledoubt concerning the relationship the engsi bears with the Ertman gol.

As for connections the engsi detail has with other precommercial period Turkmen weaving we’ll mentionthe most obvious – the pair of animals facing each other with those in the Tauk Nauska gol.

Another is the engsi’s large elongated eightpointed star medallion and the very similar shaped centralmedallions on one type of “S” group kejebe torba.

“S” group LFT with distinctive elongated eightpointed medallion

Turkmen weaving culture, like that which produced the Anatolian kelim, was an extremely isolated,closed and proprietary tradition.

Of course we are speaking prior to circa 1775.

After that date foreign influence, both military and commercial, gradually combined to erode andeventually destroy the societies that produced the Archaic and Classic period weaving models countless19th century Turkmen weavers tried to emulate.

However before these alien forces were present, there is no doubt the traditional weaving culture readapted its own ancient iconography and formats to occasionally produce new ‘ neotraditional’additions.

We believe this is how the Ertman gol originated and considering the points raised above this contentionappears to be well validated.

This process was surely not linear or exact, and we in no way are implying it was.

But proof is there for all to see when an archaic period Turkmen weaving, like our engsi, is discoveredand then used to draw relationship to a much later genre, like the Chodor chuval or the deYoung torba.

Home Buy/Sell at the Kazbah Terms OfService

http://www.rugkazbah.com/terms_of_service.php

http://www.rugkazbah.com/index2.htm

http://www.rugkazbah.com/kazbah.htm

TURKMEN RUG STUDIES: Chodor Ertman Gol Examined

Documents

Transcript of TURKMEN RUG STUDIES: Chodor Ertman Gol Examined