For this work, publications on folk art, ethnography, and the history of the Karakalpaks have been consulted, and information from those sources is complemented by our own field research materials gathered during visits to Karakalpakia. We must emphasis the importance of materials provided by I.V. Savitsky, former Director of the Nukus State Museum of Karakalpak Arts, and the published works of T. A. Zhdanko. We are also grateful to Mrs. Babanazarova, the present director of that museum, for her friendly assistance.
The Karakalpak rug collection of the Museum of Oriental Art in Moscow contains 52 pieces, of which 51 pieces had been collected by I.V. Savitsky in the 1950s and were presented to the museum in 1958. Almost all of them have analogues in the collection of two Nukus museums: State Museum of Karakalpak Arts and Museum of Local Lore. In addition to these, analagous pieces were seen during our visits to cities and villages of Kegeily, Chimbai, and Karauzyak areas of Karakalpakia.
At the present Karakalpaks comprise the majority of the population of Karakalpakia, which is a part of Uzbekistan. The other ethnic groups of the Karakalpakia population are Kazakhs, Turkmens, and others. Karakalpaks are most numerous in the lower Syr Darya and Amu Darya. Karakalpaks live alternatively with Kazakhs, Turkmens, and Uzbeks. Each of these ethnic groups preserves its cultural traditions including weaving. For some time, Karakalpaks used not only their own rugs for domestic purposes but those made by Turkmens and Kazakhs as well. That is why there are difficulties in the attribution of rugs from Karakalpakia.
In the 19th and early 20th centuries, the yurt played an important role in the everyday life of Karakalpaks and was used for main or supplementary lodging. In the yurt interior, diverse rug items of pile, flatweave, and mixed technique were used: bags and sacks, decorative rugs and carpets, tent bands, and others.
Karshins and eshik kases comprise the major part of our collection. These articles are also the most numerous of all Karakalpak rugs.
The karshin is a bag for garments and other cloth articles. Its average dimensions are 108-110 x 30-32 cm. It is placed in the lower part of the bedding (juk), which is placed on the trunk (sanduk). It consists of two parts: a face side woven in pile or mixed technique and a flatwoven back. The karshin is placed so that its face is visible. In our collection all karshins consist only of the face side.
The eshik kas is a decorative rug for the inside, upper part of the yurt entrance. On its right and left sides are two white bands, ishki jambu, made in combined technique.
Most karshins in our collection have variants of the so-called karshin gol or karshin nagish as a main pattern. The most frequent variant is an octagon, divided into four parts, with a diagonal color use. In the center of the octagon there is a smaller one (sometimes a diamond), which contains a cross or stepped diamond pattern. In each of the four quarters of the octagon, there are three, four or five long diamonds and pairs of hornlike elements. We assume that these elements are remnants of animal or bird images, which in the past were used as totemic symbols. One of the variants of this main pattern is called tai tuyak (foal's feet).
Variants of the karshin gol have analogues in Turkmen rugs and carpets, for instance, the Saryk and Salor juval gol, Arabachi-Choudor tauk nuska gol, and others. We can see the resemblance of the features in the general contours of patterns, in the division of the pattern into four parts, and in the small details of the patterns, in particular, the zoomorphic details. But most of all this main pattern resembles the medallion kalkan nuska, which is used in the carpets of the Turkmen Uzbek tribe, who live in the Nurata Mountain area of Uzbekistan. The kalkan nuska is also an octagon with clear zoomorphic elements, which are called at (horse) and gush (bird). It is possible that this resemblance can be explained by the common origin of Karakalpaks and some other people of Central Asia. Karakalpaks and Turkmen Uzbeks were originally connected with the Oguz tribes, which migrated from the Syr Darya area to the West in the 9th-10th centuries. If this is so, then the karshin nagish and tai tuyak patterns are some of the most ancient in Central Asia.
One more variant of the karshin nuska is a stepped octagon with zoomorphic elements or pairs of triangles. There is a diamond in the center, which sometimes contains two pairs of horn scrolls. This medallion is also divided into four parts and has diagonal coloration. Nine pieces in the collection have this pattern.
This medallion resembles the Saryk and Tekke juval gol, Choudor-Igdyr sakar gol and Kizyl Ayak juval gol as a secondary pattern. In the Karakalpak State Museum this pattern is called karshin shuyit (N-3827 and others). Zhdanko considers it a variant of karshin nagish and points out that this pattern is used by the weavers of kindred ethnic groups, for example, weavers of Kungrat-Karakalpaks (a kin of the Mangit tribe). Zhdanko called this pattern shuyit nagish and supposes that in the past Karakalpaks, as well as Turkmens, had it as their tribal design (see Bibliography, Zhdanko 11, p. 390).
In the collection there are several pieces which have highly artistic features, for example, karshin N-428l III. In its field there are two rows of karshin gols, 6x2. Between them there are motifs that consist of hornlike scrolls. One border has a meander pattern. The dyes are all natural.
On the back of the karshin, one can see the balance, clarity, and precise execution of patterns which are related to the proportions of the warp and weft threads. The wool is of good quality with a sheen and silkiness, showing proper selection of the wool before dyeing, deep and strong natural dye tints, smooth and evenly clipped pile, and crispness of patterns. All contribute to the creation of a masterpiece.
The same high quality is seen in karshin N-1621, which also is woven with blue and olive-green silk.
According to Zhdanko, (11, p. 390) there is a pattern which is found only in karshins. In the collection there are three karshins with this pattern. It is a big diamond, which contains horn scrolls, small diamonds, triangles, and crosses. Pairs of horns serve as secondary patterns. In our opinion, based on the materials in our collection, the above mentioned pattern can also be found in eshik kases.
One of the typical, main patterns of eshik kases is a large diamond which contains a smaller one with two horns. The larger diamond is surrounded with horn scrolls. We can called this pattern on eki muyiz (12 horns) N-1623. Analogues of this pattern can be seen in the Yomud sekiz gochak or in the Fergana Valley Kirgyz rug pattern kaikalak (idol). The latter word has a common origin with the khaikal or kheikel, the name of Turkmen and Karakalpak silver amulets. In former times these amulets probably contained an idol, and later, pages from the Koran.
The main part of the above mentioned pattern is a large diamond with scrolls. This element is widely used in patterns of Central Asian rugs, embroideries, wood carvings, and other forms of folk art. For example, we find it in the Tekke secondary pattern dyrnak gol, sekiz kelle, sekiz gochak, in the Yomud sekiz kelle, and in the Choudor and Igdyr kyrk shokh.
In Moshkova's opinion, the diamond originally was a stylized image of the human face and is of a cult origin. (Moshkova, 17, p. 90).
A few words about the technical and artistic features of the rugs in the collection. Most of them are made in pile technique. Thirty-six articles have symmetric knots and one shoot of weft. Six articles have symmetric knots and two shoots of weft. Two articles have asymmetric knots and one shoot of weft. One piece has asymmetric knots and two shoots of weft.
According to S.M. Dudin, the warp of Karakalpak rugs is a natural dark gray or gray color (Dudin, 4, p. 141). But most of our rugs (38 articles) have warps made of natural, dark brown wool. The warp is made of two tightly plied threads; one of them is made of pure wool, and the second is thinner and consist of two threads. The first one of these is dark brown wool and the second is white cotton, barely spun. We suppose that white cotton yarn was used for strengthening the warp but time has destroyed it, and we can now see only small white specks, almost invisible among the dark brown threads, which remained in good condition.
In some rugs the warp consists of two different wool threads, dark brown and light brown or dark brown and white. The weft of most rugs is made of two beige wool threads, which are more depressed than those of the warp and probably made of camelhair.
The knot density of the articles is not high: 1200-2400 knots per dm2. The pile height is 4-4.5 cm.
The patterns are more pictorial than graphic. They are not so strictly correct nor definite. Their outlines are smooth and roundish. Such features result from the technical features. Compared to Turkmen rugs, Karakalpak rugs have more voluminous warps and wefts, lower knot density, and higher pile.
Most of the rugs were made in the late 19th-early 20th centuries. Most of the dyes are synthetic; that is why their coloration is partially destroyed due to fading. The condition of the articles is not good. Nevertheless some rugs produce a very nice impression. The best Karakalpak rugs possess a special charm and understatement, and mysterious and polysemous pattern. (Zhdanko, 15, pp. 60-61).
The rugs in the collection, besides having general "Asiatic features", also have special "Central Asiatic" artistic features:
1. Monumental patterns. Usually Central Asian patterns of carpets and felts are large, with clear details and repetition;
2. Medallions form the basis of design. Pattern elements are placed symmetrically on one axis;
3. The medallions have diagonal coloration, which produces an effect of slight movement;
4. The rug palette is strict, modest, and has a limited quantity of colors and patterns.
Nevertheless, colors and patterns produce an impression of richness and variety, which is possible due to the alternation of main colors and pattern elements and due to their skillful combination, including the use of the background color in pattern motifs. All of this creates a unity, and harmony of colors and patterns.
In conclusion, one can say that Karakalpak rugs have a special place in the entire collection of rugs in the Museum of Oriental Art. They have some common features with other Central Asian rugs but, at the same time, they are quite specific, have their ow n artistic language, and their own artistic means.
Finally, some words about the relationship of Karakalpak, Uzbek, and Turkmen rugs. In particular, we can point to the resemblance of Turkmen Uzbek karchins and Karakalpak karchins in dimensions, patterns, and technique, while Turkmen karchins are quite different articles concerning their main features.
In the museums of Nukus, Moscow, and St. Petersburg, we have numerous examples of small rugs (karshins, eshik kases, khurjins and others) made by Karakalpaks. But there are very few articles which were called by various authors Karakalpak khali or carpets. One such article with the kalkan nuska as its main pattern was attributed by Bogolyubov as a Karakalpak carpet, but several authors disproved it, pointing out that such carpets had been made by Nurata Turkmen Uzbeks. We also join in this latter view.
There are at least a pair of other rugs which pretend to be authentic Karakalpak carpets (khali). One of them was published by G. O'Bannon (19, p. 6) The second one we saw in the collection of the State Art Museum of Karakalpakia in Nukus. It is museum No. N-6242 and is 329 x 50cm. Unfortunately, we could not investigate it in detail. We hope that, with the joint efforts of carpet connoisseurs, it will be possible to attribute these two carpets.
1. Allamurateva, A., Karakalpakskaya narodnaya vishivka (Karakalpak Embroidery), Nukus, 1977
2. Bekmurateva, A. T., Byt i semya karakalpakov v proshlem i nastoyashem (Everyday Life and Family of Karakalpaks in Past and Present), Nukus, 1970
2a. Beresneva, A. L., Karakalpak Carpet Wares, Moscow, 1994 (Text in Russian)
3. Bogolyubov, A., A., Kovroviye izdeliya sredney azii (Rugs of Central Asia), St. Petersburg, 1908-1909
4. Dudin, S. M., "Kovroviye izdeliya sredney azii" (Rugs of Central Asia), Sbornik muzeya antropologii i etnografii, tom 3, Leningrad, 1928
5. Felkerzam, A., "Starinniye kovri sredney azii" (Old Carpets of Central Asia), Starie godi, Okt.-Dek., 1914
6. Gosudarstvenniy muzei iskusstv karakalpakskoi SSR (Album: State Art Museum of Karakalpak SSR), Moscow, 1976
7. Ivanov, P. P., Ocherk istorii karakalpakov/Materiali po istorii karakalpakov i karakalpakii (An Essay of Karakalpak History/Historical Materials on Karakalpaks and Karakalpakia), Moscow-Leningrad, 1935
8. Zhdanko, T. A., "Ocherki istoricheskoi etnografii karakalpakov" (Essays on Historical Ethnography of Karakalpaks), Trudi instituta etnografii A.N. SSSR, tom IX, M-L, 1950
9. Zhdanko, T. A., Karakalpaki horezmskogo oazisa (Karakalpaks of the Khwarazm Oasis), Trudi horezmskoy archeologo-etnograficheskoy ekspeditsii, tom I, 1952
10. Zhdanko, T. A., "Izucheniye narodnogo ornamentalnogo iskusstva karakalpakov" (Researchs on Karakalpak Ornamental Folk Art), Sovetskaya etnografiya, No. 4, 1955
11. Zhdanko, T. A., "Narodnoe ornamentalnoe iskusstvo karakalpakov" (Karakalpak Ornamental Folk Art), Trudi horezmskoi archeologo-etnograficheskoi ekspeditsii, tom 3, Moscow, 1958
12. Zhdanko, T. A., "Karakalpakskaya epicheskaya poema 'Kyrk kyz' kak istoriko-etnograficheskiy istochnik" (Karakalpak Epic Poem 'Kyrk kyz' as a Historical-Ethnographical Source), Kratkiye soobsheniya instituta istorii i etnografii A.N. SSSR, vipusk XXX, Moscow, 1958
13. Zhdanko, T. A., "Osnovniye problem i etnicheskoi istorii i etnografii karakalpakov" (Main Problems of Karakalpak Ethnic History and Ethnography), Doklad po opublikovannim rabotam, predstavlennim na soiskaniye uchenoi stepeni doktora istoricheskih nauk, Moscow, 1964
14. Zhdanko, T. A., Hozyaystvo karakalpakov v XIX-nachale XX v. (Economy of Karakalpaks in 19th-early 20th century), Tashkent, 1972
15. Zhdanko, T. A., Hozyaystvennie i kulturniye traditsii narodov srednei azii i kazakhstana (Economic and Cultural Traditions of People of Central Asia and Kazakhstan), Moscow, 1975
16. Morozova, A. S., Kultura domashnego bita karakalpakov nachala XX veka. K voprosu etnogeneza (Cultural Aspects of Karakalpaks Everyday Life. In Connection with the Problem of Ethnogenesis), Tashkent, 1955
17. Moshkova, V. G., Kovri narodov sredney azii kontsa XIX-nachala XX v. (Carpets of the People of Central Asia in Late 19th-Early 20th Centuries), Tashkent, 1970
18. Nurmuhamedov, M. K., Zhdanko T. A., and Kamalov, S. K., Karakalpaki. Kratkiy ocherk istorii s drevneyshih vremen do nashih dney (Karakalpaks. A Short Essay of History from Ancient Times Until Today), Tashkent, 1971
19. O'Bannon, G. W., "Bogolyubov and the Karakalpak Attribution", Oriental Rug Review, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1990
20. Teselkin, A. S., "Hunting for Karakalpak Carpets", Oriental Rug Review, vol. 10, No. 3, 1990
21. Tsareva, E. G., "Thirty Rug Masterpieces from the Collection of S. M. Dudin", Oriental Rug Review, vol. 11, no. 1, 1990
One type of rug with kalkan nuska gols was attributed by Bogolyubov to the Karakalpaks. These have become somewhat sought after in recent years, and the name Karakalpak has gained recognition in dealer and collector circles. However, Moshkova in The Carpets of the People of Central Asia published materials from her field research showing that Bogolyubov's information was incorrect and that these rugs were, in fact, woven by a tribe called Turkmen Uzbek. However, Moshkova did not include Karakalpaks as one of the weaving groups in her book. Beresneva's catalog adds to the definition of Karakalpak weaving by showing the range of materials and techniques used in pieces collected in the field and documented as Karakalpak. There are no rugs in it of the type described by Bogolyubov.
With so much material from Central Asia now appearing in the Istanbul market, there are as a result several types of rugs being attributed to Karakalpaks. The catalog is a timely step to stem the misattribution of much of this material. We hope the publication of this short article based on the catalog and presenting several pieces published in it will bring this knowlege to a wider audience.
The documentation of pieces in this catalog is substantial, and the fact that the weavings were collected among the weavers gives substantial credence to the technical and design data presented here. It is interesting that rugs with both types of knots and with single and double wefts in various combinations are described. The point is clearly made that, while a certain set of technical features may predominate in a group of rugs, these characteristics are not the only ones that may be found.
In September and October 1995, I had occasion to examine and photograph some Karakalpak rugs in the collections of several museums in Tashkent and Samarkand, Uzbekistan. Three of those from the Decorative Arts Museum, Tashkent have been added to those provided by the authors of this article to provide some better color reproductions of these rugs and to illustrate one type which is generally included in publications of Karakalpak weavings, e.g. in Beresneva, 2a above, N-4291 III, khorjin and N-4285 III, torba; and Tzareva, E., Rugs and Carpets from Central Asia, The Russian Collections, 1984, pl. 129, khorjin. This latter type has totally different characteristics from the main body of Karakalpak weavings.
These Karakalpak weavings were acquired by the Decorative Arts Museum from individuals familiar with Karakalpak weavings and holdings. Because they have been acquired from Karakalpaks, they have been labeled Karakalpak. One, bag, 5869,, is structurally different, has different wool, and different colors from the large body of pieces which are undoubtedly Karakalpak.
As the authors make clear in their article, there are other ethnic groups who share lands in Karakalpakia, including Turkmens, and that they buy rugs from one another. In my view, the pieces referred to above in Beresneva and Tzareva and 5869 are Turkmen work. They are weavings which would be considered Yomud Turkmen if one were unaware of the source of their provenance. The color is slightly different from the body of Yomud weaving, but it is of that type. (N-4285 referred to above on the other hand is Ersari in my view.)
Further, the published pieces of this type, and those seen in museum collections, are almost always khorjins, ok bash, or chemche torbas. None of the pieces with Karakalpak characteristics are ever in these shapes or serve these utilitarian functions. It seems to me that these pieces were probably made by Turkmens who lived in close proximity to Karakalpaks and sold or traded weavings for these functions to Karakalpaks. Obviously, this has not been verified by field research, but it is one way to explain the great difference in the characteristics of most Karakalpak weavings and these pieces.
The eshik kas is another uniquely Karakalpak weaving which serves the same purpose as a kapunyk or ensi for Turkmen. Seen out of context, they seem to be the same as weavings called karchin, napramach, or mafrash. Many eshik kases have loops attached to one edge showing that they were hung horizontally like a kapunyk.
One piece seen had a six-inch deep kilim with brocade patterns on one end and a fringe. Although it had loops on one long side to hang it horizontally, it was described as having been intended to hang vertically with the long kilim at the bottom, over the doorway as an ensi would be used. Clearly it would be too narrow to cover the doorway effectively. It puzzled me how such a narrow piece could serve the function of an ensi until I saw Illustration (), N-4989. It may show the answer to the earlier use of the eshik kas as an ensi.
This piece, N-4989, is an eshik kas with added tent band strips to create a larger and more effective ensi-shaped piece. One also notes that the patterns used on this weaving are entirely of the horn-scroll or the sainak pattern which is used exclusively by Turkmens as an outer border on ensis. Thus the eshik kas may have had this same function for the Karakalpaks in earlier times but has been forgotten within the last century, as permanent dwellings have become the norm instead of yurts.
Karakalpak weaving is virtually nonexistent in museum collections of Europe and the United States. This is probably due to the fact that they were not bought by dealers at the turn of the century because they were not as tightly woven and varied in patterns as Turkmen weaving. Further, the majority of pieces are small, and small pieces were not as saleable as larger rugs. But this lack of intrusion by the marketplace on the weaving process means that Karakalpak weaving, even at the beginning of the 20th century, retained an authenticity which was drained from the weavings of other Central Asian people in the same period. Beresneva's catalog of the Museum of Oriental Art collection of Karakalpak rugs is a welcome addition to the others on the rugs of Central Asia.
Another work not cited by the authors is Gosudarstvennyi Muzei Iskusstvo Karakalpakskoi ASSR (State Museum of Art Karakalpak ASSR), Moscow, 1975. It is listed under Petrovna, S.V., et al. in my bibliography. Savitsky, referred to by the authors, was then director of the museum. It contains 13 detail color illustrations of 10 tent bands and three rugs.