TURKMEN RUG STUDIES: Some \"S\" group 'salor' gol chuval Examined

$: TURKMEN RUG STUDIES: Some \"S\" group 'salor' gol chuval Examined$
9/4/2015 "S" group 'salor' gol chuval

http://rugkazbah.com/boards/records.php?id=2456&refnum=2456 1/14

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

Home > Turkmen Rugs >"S" group 'salor' gol chuval

Author:jc email: Thu, May 30th, 2013 01:28:32 AM

Topic: "S" group 'salor' gol chuval

Turkmen rugs present to researchers a situation unlike that which exists in other areas of rug studies.

This is because prior to the earliest incursions and faint beginnings of the commercial period, circa18001825, the Turkmen were the most isolated weaving culture, set in a region of the Near Eastwhere prior to then very few foreign contacts of any kind had been established.

Their geographic positioning far enough off the eastwest trade routes, and its difficult to master terraincontributed to this circumstance.

But there is another reason.

Their warlike societies were not hospitable to foreign merchants and other types of social contacts.

These factors, and others like the distance from the Mediterranean and other large navigable bodies ofwater, protected the Turkmen and their weaving culture, creating a veritably impenetrable barrier tooutside influence.

And while we may have generalized a bit here, it is impossible to deny this was the situation prior tothe beginning of the 19th century, when finally outside forces became powerful enough to successfullyintrude into Turkmenistan to initiate conquest and decimate the historic Turkmen clans, their individualweaving cultures and proprietary iconographies.

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

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

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

http://rugkazbah.com/kazbah.htm

http://rugkazbah.com/boards/add_response.php?id=2456



Detail “S” group chuval, socalled ‘salor’ or turreted gol

This process did not happen all at once, it lasted for over a century.

But once a threshold was reached the traditional Turkmen societies, and their ancient traditions,collapsed leaving a vacuum impossible to refill.

However, prior to the middle of the 19th century this process though established and ongoing still hadnot reached that threshold, and the Turkmen weaving culture was able to retain much of its ancienttradition.

RK has previously described the proscribed observance the Turkmen paid to their woven vocabulary,and how this controlled its transmission and maintained the proprietary nature of that iconographyeach group saw as their own.

This prevented, until it was overwhelmed by the virtual destruction of the traditional Turkmen way oflife, their weaving culture’s assimilation of foreign motifs, patterns and designs.

It also resulted in the Turkmen weaver’s rich, but in fact, somewhat limited iconographic vocabularycompared to other oriental rugs.

As time went on the former strict and exact reproduction of this iconography suffered severe internalchange, which found expression as either degeneration, ie the loss of certain essential elements, oraccretion, ie the addition of new, alien ones.

As a rule of thumb, Turkmen weavings made prior to 1800 exhibit little to none of this, those madeafter 1800 but before 1850 should be seen as possible victims, and those made after 1850 probablevictims.

The farther advanced from that date, 1850, the reality one or both of these factors has encroached,and a weaving’s iconography has been affected, can be assured.

RK is long on the record in our belief there are pre1800, pre1700, and yes pre1600, extant Turkmenwoven objects.

We own several, and know of some others elsewhere.



These are incredibly rare, and because the differences they exhibit are extremely subtle identifyingthem is not an easy task.

And it is surely something we are not going to discuss at length here, nor do we plan to in the nearfuture. Remember we are still collecting and feel no need to further edify competition.

However we are going to, as we have previously, provide original information that can help train theeye and mind for such a task.

One of the great questions in Turkmen studies surrounds which exactly are the weavings of the“Salor”, especially those woven prior to the commercial period?

Thanks to the pioneering work of dr jon thompson, in his annotations to the republication of A.A.Bogolyubov’s “Carpets in Central Asia” in 1973, a very specific group of Turkmen weaving wasidentified.

Two admirers holding the “S” group ‘salor’ gol fragment sold in the Tent Band sale, Dec.1990.

He called them “S” group and implied that these were, in fact, woven by the “Salor”.

Though his research, based on structure, was excellent in identifying this group, there is not one shredof evidence to conclusively link them to the “Salor”. And RK has absolutely no faith they are.

And there is another almost identical group of weavings to “S” group that differ in a very minor buteasily ascertainable technical respect. These have an asymmetric knot open to the right, rather thanthe asymmetric knot open to the left.

Are these “Salor” too?

If so why is there this technical difference?

So what thompson’s discovery boils down to is the discovery of a very specific, rare and physicallybeautiful, group of Turkmen weavings, “S” group”, about which nothing additional is known.

And, therefore, the question: Which are the weavings of the venerable “Salor” tribe remainsunanswered.

This fact has not stopped many pundits and turkotalkers from declaring a weaving as having beenwoven by the “Salor”. The literature abounds in such declarations.

We even have a Turkmen gol, called the ‘salor’ gol, found on numerous chuval, including “S” group,but not on any main carpets made before 1850.



It is also known as the ‘turreted’ gol.

“S” group chuval fragment with 'salor' gol; formerly RK collection; published Tent Band Tend Bag,1989; sold in the TentBand sale 1990. The other half of this chuval was sold several years later also atsotheby NY in the jon thompson sale.

Due to these and other unmentioned reasons RK is a disbeliever in any ideas “S” group weavings arethose of the “Salor”. Likewise neither are their almost identical, but asymmetrically open to the right,relatives or the ubiquitous commercial period 'salor' gol chuvals obviously made by the Tekke.

This problematic situation raises a number of issues; however, the one that has motivated this paperconcerns examining some of “S” group 'salor' gol chuvals to place them in an analytic continuum.

Before we do this we need mention overall the majority of "S" group weavings display only superficialdifferences, with hardly any significant iconographic or physical ones.

There are, however, some rare "S" group chuval with other gol formations, not the 'salor' gol, whosecoloration is not a brilliant red, but rather either a deep burgundy or pinkish lighter red.

These two groups tend to be among the earliest examples but since RK has not seen any with the‘salor’ gol they are not included in this brief analytic survey.

It is for this and other reasons we believe, and are long on the record stating, most if not all types of"S" group weavings are probably citified urban ones made outside the historic environmentresponsible for most other types of Turkmen clan based products.

This is an important point that has been completely overlooked by almost all other other researchers intheir headlong admiration for the shiny wool and technically impressive weaving typifying “S” group.And we know of none who have mentioned this prior to our research’s publication.



Let’s take this one step farther and take a guess at where urban environment responsible for thebrilliant red type of “S” group weavings, including those with the 'salor' gol we illustrate, was located: Inthe southwest corner of Turkmenistan near the Caspian Sea in the ancient region and city of Gorgân,formerly known as Astarâbâd.

Their glowing carmenic red and bilevel, aka depressed, warp are totally unlike other Turkmenweavings, so much so they almost have to be an alien product.

Another point is their ‘standardization’ and rote repetition of an iconographic formula; this, too, is verynonTurkmen.

And although other types of Turkmen weavings ostensibly look alike, actually there are always subtle,as well as minute, discernable differences.

This is not so with these "S" group 'salor' gol chuvals.

This dependence on reproducing a formula exists not only with them, and there are several types aswe will soon discuss, but in general with virtually all their known weaving genres – "S" group maincarpet, torba and engsi.

Further leading us to conclude their production was a workshop controlled urban one rather than thehistorically design proscribed clan/yurt production model.

Let’s compare a few representative “S” group 'salor gol' chuvals to see what we are talking about.

“S” group chuval with 'salor' gol alleged by Elena tsavera to be 500 years old



RK published this “S” group chuval some time ago noting our disbelief it is as old as storytellertsavera claims.

Nonetheless, it is one of the best, if not the best, example of what we call type one.

The repetition of a similar element an eightpointed star in the center and four,north/south/east/west, kotchak surround in the center of the minor gol and in the center of the majorgol is the main feature of this group.

Another type one chuval in the hoffmeister collection is clearly somewhat later and not nearly as highlyrefined.

Type two substitutes an eight pointed star in the center of the minor gol, replacing the more complextype one star and kotchak assembly.



Type two "S" group 'salor' gol chuval

While this might signify to be a later style to many observers, RK believes just the opposite.

Type two "S" group ‘salor’ gol chuval minor gol; Left: type one; Right: type two

First because that star and kotchak device has always appeared contrived, especially if one believesas we do it is nothing but a degenerate version of the far earlier, and very rarely encountered, “S”group minor gol shown below.



It is highly interesting to note this gol displays two type of kotchak, ones on triangle bases and otherswithout the triangle.

Notice the star and kotchak assembly in the center of the type one chuval's major gol above arewithout the triangle, and those in the center of its minor gol have the triangle.

And second, an exact replica of the type two minor gol appears on a type of early Bronze Age pottery,detail shown below, from the Namazga sequence circa 2,000BC. Bestowing a prehistoric connectionfew other Turkmen icons have been proven to maintain.

For comparison here is a somewhat later, not as refined or artistic, type two "S" group ‘salor’gol chuvalrecently advertised for sale by a European dealer.



Notice the rather unsightly way the weaver butted the two outer major gol in the center row against theborder by adding a heavy blue line to the gol edge.

This, the quite unimaginative and boring depiction of the typical rows of elem flowers, and equally stiffmain border telltale signs it is an end of the series weaving.

Compare these features with the type two fragment above, as well as noticing the failure of the weaverto sprinkle some light red flowers among the blues ones in the elem.



Details showing purposely truncated major gol to create the infinity perspective

While these and other subtleties are iconographically and artistically significant they do not, in ouropinion, imply substantial age differences between these two type two "S" group 'salor' gol chuval.

However, this is not the case with the Tekke chuval. It is in our opinion the oldest chuval with a 'salor'gol we have ever seen. It is what we call a prototype.

Perhaps there is a fifty year at best spread separating the two type two 'salor' gol chuval we illustrate.

How old is the Tekke 'salor' gol chuval?

We'd venture to say at least 50 years older than the type three fragment below.

There is one additional “S” group chuval of the type, we call type three, which does appear to beappreciably earlier – we’d venture to say around 100 years.



Type three “S” group 'salor' gol chuval fragment; private collection; unpublished

Notice the bluish tone to the highly corroded silk. This is most likely dyed with kermes, and notcochineal or lac as found in almost all other type one and type two chuval.

Also the rare seen minor gol adds considerably weight to our contention.

However, the rather sloppy outline of the implied medallion that minor gol has, and scatteredsomewhat unsightly (vertically) compressed stars, discount our belief even this version can be datedearlier than circa 1700 at most on our continuum.

There is one more ‘salor’ gol chuval germane to this exercise. A Tekke chuval, mentioned above, RKdiscovered and acquired some years ago.



Detail prototype chuval with ‘salor’gol, Tekke; RK collection

We have already published a smaller detail of this chuval on RugKazbah.com, and once again we arenot ready to publish the entire chuval at this time.

In common with the type two fragment above the major gol are not as spherical as many of the laterexamples.

We do not see this as any strong indication those are earlier; quite the contrary, as the slight lack ofroundness is made up by numerous other prototypical aspects.

Not all of them pertinent to ‘salor’ gol chuval but to other types of Tekke chuval as well.

For instance the rare main border, as well as the minor borders, demonstrates a weaver’s skill butmore significantly close connection to the historic roots of the components they display. And thewonderfully animated, iconic, elem panel shows another feature typifying prototype status.

Same goes for the minor gol and its jewellike articulation, which sets the standard for the later not sodetailed or artful copies in the type one or type two chuval we illustrate, and others publishedelsewhere.



Be sure to carefully examine the minor gol detail above to see the clever color play and colorjuxtaposition. Also notice the tiny X’s motifs placed in the boxes, both around the ‘starcrosses’ and inthe others without the starcross.

Other mentionable aspects are the extralarge kotchak volutes within the center of the major gol andthe four bicolored(blue and red) small boxes surrounding the central star and kotchak motif, whichprovide a glimpse of how the aina gol, seen on a multitude of late Tekke weavings, must haveoriginally appeared.

And while the weaver of this chuval also butted the left and right major gols in the central row againstthe border, as the weaver of the type two chuval above did, here it is done understanding how toproperly create the illusion of infinity without destroying it in the process.

The simulation of an infinite design was an important concept shown in certain early Turkmenweavings. It was best accomplished by placing incomplete major gols at the sides, or top and bottom,of a weaving. When done with the minor gol, it was never as successful.

This allows the ‘design’ to continue beyond the borders, emulating the Turkmen cultural idea of livingin a world without artificial boundary.

Spiritually, psychologically and intellectually this, perhaps more than any other idea, encapsulates forRK how precommercial period Turkmen people must have viewed their life and the universe.

Naturally, once ‘conquered’ it was to be no more, and their later weavings, always with carefuldemarcation of field and border, definitely show this was the case.

There are a number of other visible aspects demonstrating which of these “S” group ‘salor’ gol chuvalare earlier and better than others and we hope our readers will spend the time necessary to see thisfor themselves.

Examining the use of color, the proportions of specific elements both in relation to the whole as well aseach other, and the small details of articulation are just a few.

To close this exercise we wish to repeat what we have written before: RK seriously doubts any “S”



group weaving can be placed among the tiny group of the earliest known Turkmen woven products.

The earliest extant “S” group weaving, according to us, is a chuval we formerly owned and offered forsale in the 1990 TentBand sale, lot 2.

To show how naïve and uneducated the market for Turkmen weavings was 23 years ago this chuvalwent unsold!

Here is a detail.

But even this one cannot compare to the weavings we place in that elite grouping of archaic,archetype, Turkmen weavings.

Author: john lewis email: [email protected]

Thu, May 30th, 2013 01:28:32 AM

RK Replies:

Greetings John and many thanks for the kudos

There is much more to the "S" group story and perhaps sometime in the future RKwill get around to releasing more of what we have discovered.

Turkmen and Anatolian rugs are far more important than any Ottoman or Safavidclassical rug. Their history dwarfs the sinuous drawing, pretty surfaces and easilyunderstood and appreciated context those weavings are able to bring to ourcontemporary world.

RK's 100 percent sure a century from now the earliest and the best of these "lowly"Turkmen and Anatolian Village rugs will assume their rightful place in art history,forget about rug collecting.

brilliant article many thanks

Home Buy/Sell at the Kazbah Terms OfService

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

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

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

mailto:[email protected]

TURKMEN RUG STUDIES: Some \"S\" group 'salor' gol chuval Examined

Documents

Transcript of TURKMEN RUG STUDIES: Some \"S\" group 'salor' gol chuval Examined