Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Transition from slide presentation to real pieces
Collection Documentaton
Why ?
Russ Pickering's suggestion ~ 1983
"you don't know your pieces until you write about them“
- to LEARN and retain knowledge about yours and related pieces,
- for CORRESPONDENCE about specific pieces
- for INSURANCE - for THEFT IDENTIFICATION - for ESTATE plans, passing on information and estimated value
As you have seen, the Henderson’s provided examples of their documentation several pieces in their collection. They had brought some of these example pieces. We’ll only treat some of these because they’ve been shown in detail in earlier illustrations in slides.
• Note:
• The “BI” prefix in the numbers on the items being treated, beginning with the next one, stands for “brought in.”
• For example: The next rug is labeled “BI2.”
• The numbers are not always sequential.
BI2: This Persian Shahsavan cargo bag is described in detail above, an example of the Henderson’s methods of documentation.
The image on the right is of the inside of BI2.
A detail of the Inside of BI2
Description of BI3
Detail of BI3.
Description of BI4:This all-wool complete Shahsavan mafrash was published by John Wertime in Sumak Bags and described as having been woven in the Moghan-Savalan area during the 2nd quarter of the 19th Century.
The sumak wrapping is quite fine. It has a wide range of intensely saturated colors, including a deep aubergine.
As is the case with many of the better mafrash that were collected prior to the breakup of the Soviet Union, it is relatively small.
Details of BI4
The bottom of this cargo mafrash is striped.
Shows the sumak weave from the inside
Description of B15:
The unusually large amount of ivory in this complete Shahsavan kilim mafrash is wool, not cotton. It also probably comes from the northern section of the Moghan Steppe.
Estimated to have been woven in the last quarter of the 19th Century. However, Tanavoli describes some similar mafrash as being a little earlier. Some of the closure loops remain.
Detail of BI5.
Description of BI6:
The pattern and structure of this brocaded mafrash indicate that it was woven by Caucasian Kurds, most likely in the 1920's - 30's.
The colors all seem to be natural.
In addition to the hooked diamonds, Caucasian Kurds used a distinctive brocading technique that resulted in small squares on the surface of the panels. This same technique often appears on the bridges of their khorjin.
Details of BI6.
Description of B117:
This Shahsavan mafrash was also woven in kilim technique and likely comes from the latter part of the first quarter of the 20th Century.
Although it is a bit more somber than B15, it demonstrates the range of patterns among kilim mafrash.
Details of BI17:
The TM’s Members’ Magazine had, in its announcement of Jim and Connie’s session, invited attendees to bring “yastiks, prayer rugs, Turkish kilims, Senneh rug, or complete ‘mafrash’ (cargo bags)”
for comparison with the documented pieces the Henderson’s had brought in themselves.
Some of us were unruly enough to violate this spec (more about this toward the end of the session)
Description of BI0 by owner:
We purchased this heybe at the end of a textile viewing session with the Kaplan brothers at Karavan Hali in Konya in Fall 2013. We first saw the heybe only from the back and I remarked the back looked a bit like others I had seen attributed to the Bergama area. However, those pieces don't have the narrow stripes that are evident in the photos. The colors of the front of the heybe were very unusual to my eye with their shades of greenish-blue. The weaving technique is some type of soumak or weft float brocade/weft wrapping with which we were unfamilar. We originally thought the piece came from Western Anatolian (what the dealer said). But subsequent research and expert opinion assess this piece to be a Eastern Anatolian /Kurdish production from Hatay province in the far southeast of Turkey.
Details of BI0.
Detail of the top of the back of BI0.
Detail of the bottom of the back of BI0
Description of BI1:
Yastik. 20” X 30”. Western Turkey.
Coarse knots, similar to those on Ushak pieces.
Mamluk-style lappets.
First half of the 19th century
Yastiks from Oushak are relatively scarce. This one, probably from the first half of the 19th Century, has the large knots that are characteristic of older Oushak carpets, but the face does not indicate how coarse it is. The yastik has it original sides, so there were no side borders. However, it is unusual in that there are borders on the ends outside the lappets. In most yastiks, the lappets form the outermost border. In Mamluk textiles, the lappets were separate flaps on the ends. There are several shades of both red and blue.
Detail images of BI1
Description of BI7:
Yastik, probably east Anatolia.
Similar to Number 137 in Morehouse, but with only narrow linear side borders.
Morehouse says that three hooked medallion designs are common in southeast Anatolia. This version has strong graphic impact.
Colors of burnt-orange, blue and white is also indicative of southeast Anatolia, particularly of Gaziantep.
Detail of BI7.
Description of BI8:
Yastik. Similar to Numbers 141-144 in Morehouse.
Morehouse says that this design construct is frequent in eastern Anatolian Yastiks.
He says that the white hooks on a dark field are also typically eastern Anatolian usages, although the ground in two of his examples is blue and the red ground of this piece is stronger than those used in Morehouse’s pieces. This piece lacks the green seen in some of Morehouse’s examples, but exhibits minor use of a strong yellow and a bright blue.
Details of BI8.
Description of BI9:
Yastik. This piece is of the same group as BI8 and closer to the Morehouse examples 141-144.
The soft green and the mild red of 142 and 142, and the basic design construct, are very similar.
Details of BI9.
Aside: I own a piece and a fragment (right), both in this group.
The more complete piece has a drawing close to BI9 and a palette closer to BI8.
I include it here because its weave is very fine and it has a very distinctive scratchy handle, reminiscent of, but not really like, that of the back of some Persian Senneh pile pieces.
I didn’t handle BI8 or BI9 and so can’t say how they compare on the handle dimension.
The fragment has a design more like BI9, but not this distinctive handle.
Description of BI10:
Yastik. This attractive piece has a field design much like that or Morehouse’s Number 15.
Morehouse places his in western Anatolia (Dazkin area) on the basis of it palette. He mentions the green and the strong red visible in BI10.
This piece has been shown in another RTAM program where another experienced person also placed it in western Anatolia, perhaps in the Mudjur or Sivas areas.
Details of BI10.
Description of BI11:
A flatwoven piece described in the room as Senneh. Its field design is identical to a famous piece, owned by Harold Keshishian, that is 42 in Wertime’s plate 42 in his “Sumak Bags.” The Wertime piece is a bag and is described as “Garrus,” and perhaps the oldest sumak item known.
The larger piece, shown on the right, with this boteh field, seems another also owned by Harold.
Harold also called it Senneh, and said that he had acquired out of a lady’s trunk about 1960. It has harder than average handle for a Senneh weaving. Harold thought that this firmness is, in part, due to the fact that it seems never to have been used.
Details of BI11.
Description of BI12:
This 4’ X 6’ rug is also a Senneh.
It has the classic Senneh “herati” design and a rough touch.
It was estimated to be very old.
Details of BI12.
Description of BI13:
This rug was described as a “Senneh Kurd.”
It is also about 4’ X 6’.
Estimated to have been woven about 1930.
Details of BI13.
Description of BI14:
This niche design kilim was placed in the Obruk area of western Anatolia.
It is similar to Plate 319 in the Hull and Luczuc-Wyhowska, “Kilim” volume.
Some thought it might be Erzurum in eastern Analolia.
Details of BI13.
Description of BI15:
This kilim was about 6’ X 9’ in slit tapestry.
It was seen to exhibit colors that are likely from synthetic dyes.
Probably woven in Georgia.
Hull and Luczyc-Wyhowska say that Georgian kilims were not made for sale.
Details of BI15.
Descripton of BI16: A member of the audience suggested after that this large kilim is a younger Caucasian one, perhaps woven in the Shirvan area.
Details of BI16.
Description of BI18:
This is my own (John Howe’s) piece and so I’ll describe it. It is a scarf made in the weave and known pattern of an American coverlet.
It is very fine.
Since anyone who could make a coverlet should have been able to make such a scarf, there are likely lots of them, but I have never seen another.
I departed from Connie’s and Jim’s suggestion about what to bring in, due to careless reading, among other things.
But as you’ll see in the other pieces I brought in, my take on “documenting” is to explore unusual textiles and write “stories” about them.
This doesn’t fulfill any of the systematic approaches and objectives, but I think does often turn out to be a kind of documenting.
Detail of BI18.
Description of BI19:
Again this is a piece of mine.
I bought it not knowing what it is and still don’t (It is not old).
It is cotton, about 3.5’ x 5’.
It looks as if it was woven in sections, but that is not the case: it is a whole weaving. Its weave is weft-faced with interlocking tapestry where edges look raised as if woven in strips.
Suggestions have been that it is American or European.
The red in it tempts one to say “cochineal,” but bluish reds can be obtained with synthetic dyes.
I would be interested in what anyone might say about it. Here are a couple more images of it.
Notice that it has wide, seemingly similar, selvedges on all sides, but has red warps.
The next piece, also mine, may be the best example I have to date of how I go about “documenting,” (that is, to the extent that this counts as real documenting). Jim is helping me hold it up, but you can’t really see it. I’ll tell what it is and give you a few more comprehensible images of it below.
Description of BI20:
This piece is a “communal napkin,” something that several people would have in their laps and share as a continuous piece. About 190 inches long and 17 wide.
The ground fabric is a mixture of linen and cotton. The linear and diamond shapes are brocade and the ends are slit tapestry with designs very like some Manistir kilims.
I bought it absolutely “blind,” in Bergama in 2007, and carried it over most of central and western Turkey and did not find a single experienced person who knew what it was.
A Washington couple, William and Sondra Bechhoefer, told me, finally, and I’ve since run into a single Hali article, by Ulla Ther, that treats this format
Details of BI20.
If you want to know more about this kind of textile, consult the bibliography at the end of this post. You’ll also see the kind of documenting I do, full-faced.
If I had read more closely, I could have contributed more appropriately to Connie’s and Jim’s indication of what sorts of textiles to bring into their session.
As you’ve seen above, I own a few yastiks and could have, at least, brought this one.
It is a younger version, but close in color, to the central Anatolian dust jacket piece on the Morehouse “Yastiks” catalog.
It has two-leaf rather than four-leaf lappets, some conventionalization of opportunities to use cruciform devices within its “insect” border cartouches, and a number of filler devices in its field, all of which suggest that it is likely younger than the Morehouse cover piece.
I bought it at a NJ estate sale, primarily of artifacts of a famous collie breeder.
I pursued it on the basis of it colors without recognizing its similarity to the Morehouse cover piece.
Description of BI21:
Someone had brought two Turkmen Saryk torba-like pile pieces in very good condition. They are larger than most torbas, but not large enough to tempt one to say “trapping.” The knot is symmetric and there is no cotton pile.
An experienced member of the audience said, after, that these are both fronts of 20th century Saryk torbas. They are sewn to a cloth backing for stuffing and use as pillows.
The one below features the traditional Kejebe design.
Details of BI21.
Description of BI22:
This is the second of these two Saryk pieces. It has a spare abstracted field design that I don’t recall.
An experienced member of the audience described this field as having as its “main theme”…“a more modern geometric motif”
Details of BI22.
Connie and Jim answered questions and brought their session to a close.
The migration to the front of the Myers Room began.
I want to thank Connie and Jim for being willing to create and present this useful program and for permitting the fashioning of this virtual version of it. Great thanks are also due them for the considerable editorial assistance they have provided after.
I hope you have enjoyed this informative, enabling and cautionary presentation. More of us should document what we have.
R. John Howe
This is the end of Part 3, of this three-part post.
You can exit this document now.
