1. 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
2. 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.
3. BI2: This Persian Shahsavan cargo bag is described in detail above, an example of the
Henderson’s methods of documentation.
9. 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.
13. 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.
15. 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.
18. 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.
23. 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)
24. 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.
26. Detail of the top of the back of BI0.
Detail of the bottom of the back of BI0
27. 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.
31. 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.
33. 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.
37. 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.
40. 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.
41. 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.
44. 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.
47. 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.
54. 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.
57. 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.
64. 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.
66. 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.
67. Notice that it has wide, seemingly similar, selvedges on all sides, but has red warps.
68.
69. 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.
70. 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
71. 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.
72. 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.
73. 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.
78. 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”
82. Connie and Jim answered questions and brought their session to a close.
The migration to the front of the Myers Room began.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87. 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
88. This is the end of Part 3, of this three-part post.
You can exit this document now.
