The main carpet class is subdivided into "Eagle" gul Groups I, II, and III based on structure, color, and design differences, which are briefly summarized below:
 | Left: |  |
Group II: 2-ply pile yarn. Asymmetrical knot open to the right. Wool weft with at least one cotton (not silk) weft shoot. Medium red-brown field color. Primary gul is similar to Moshkova's LIX,6. (Eleven carpets listed; ten illustrated.)
Group III: 3-ply pile yarn. Asymmetrical knot open to the left. Wool weft; may or may not have silk or cotton shoots. Dark aubergine field color. Primary gul is similar to Moshkova's LIX,6. (Three carpets listed and illustrated.)
In addition, there are seven possibly related main carpets listed that differ from Groups I through III by at least one key trait. None has silk weft shoots, and two are woven with symmetrical knots.
The Rautenstengels have also included small weavings such as torbas, juvals, and yolams that may be assigned to Groups I through III by structural criteria. Of the 19 small weavings listed, 11 are illustrated but none share design characteristics found in the main carpets. We have seen many of these weavings before, but were known by different names. Group I weavings, for example, were assigned to the Imreli in 1980 by Dr. Jon Thompson.3 Group II weavings are also known as "fine-brown Yomut" pieces, a term that may date back more than 50 years. Mr. Azadi has attempted to assign Group I and possibly Group III to the Goklan, as we shall see, but the Rautenstengels have wisely stayed with their conservative and descriptive terminology.
In all, the Rautenstengels have identified 45 weavings representing, or closely related to, Groups I through III. Of these, 34 are illustrated in good color, and detailed technical specifications are listed for 42. Some of the pieces listed are weavings that surfaced at auctions as late as 1989, so it is apparent that the authors have made a conscientious attempt to keep their survey current.
In light of this attempt at comprehensiveness, it is surprising that data for several previously published pieces are omitted. For example, three "Imreli" pieces (Group I) and one fine-brown Yomud bagface (Group III) published in 1980 by Mackie and Thompson4 are not included. The authors also list but have not obtained technical specifications for a fifth piece, the Group II juval owned by the George Walter Vincent Smith Art Museum.5 Omission of data for these five pieces is especially unfortunate as four pieces are typical of each of one of the field designs common to Group I and II bags, while the pattern of the fifth piece is at this time unique.
Mackie and Thompson's Plate 58 illustrates a torba with the all-over ak su pattern, which appears to be the most frequently used Group I torba design. Plate 59 shows a torba displaying a variant of the flattened octagon kalkan nuska gul layout, a popular pattern found in Group I and II torbas. Plate 56 shows a Group I torba with a rare and interesting bird-in-octagon design not illustrated by the Rautenstengels. Plate 61 (Mackie and Thompson) illustrates a Group II torba in the less often seen six juval gul layout composed of three uncut guls and six half guls.
The Group II bagface in the Smith Art Museum shows the only field and skirt pattern regularly associated with Group II juvals. This ornamentation also appears on a Group II juval listed by the Rautenstengels (Illustration 24). Figure 2, a previously unpublished Group II juval from a U.S.A. collection, shows the field layout and skirt characteristic of these weavings.
All of the listed juvals and torbas, as well as the unlisted weavings mentioned above, may be sorted into Groups I, II, or III based on the structural data previously given for the main carpet groups. However, the authors have included three yolams and assigned them to Groups I or II based largely on the presence of silk or cotton shoots in the weft, as well as certain design features common to the yolams and the kalkan nuska variant torbas. This linkage appears to be a reasonable hypothesis, but I believe it has not yet been adequately tested.
The Rautenstengels' essay is presented in both German and English. The English translation covers 28 pages, including lists and footnotes. Every technical and design feature characteristic of each of the three groups is discussed in a plethora of detail that only those who attended Mrs. Rautenstengel's Vienna lecture can fully appreciate.
The technical specifications for 42 weavings are contained in chart form on eight 12x23-inch, double-folded sheet bound in the back of the volume. This format is cumbersome but does have the virtue of locating all data for each piece in a single table. Color reproduction of the illustrated pieces is very good, and color photos of salient pattern details are provided.
Mr. Azadi's essay6 differs from the Rautenstengel paper in style and content, as has been stated. Mr. Azadi eschews the Rautenstengels' caution and boldly labels the weavings of their Group I as the early product of the Goklan tribe. He formulates his hypothesis from his observations of the activities of the Goklan people during a 1968-69 trip to Khorassan, from a limited number of weavings that appear to be similar to pieces observed during his trip, and from his rereading of old chronicles and of the accounts of 19th century travelers. No test of the hypothesis is attempted; instead, Mr. Azadi pursues a strange dialectic that mixes opinions and observations to prove his point.
He begins with a justification for connecting tribal names with groups of weavings. He reasons that "the name gives access to the people, and thereby to the historical, geographical, social, religious, cultural and other sources of their material culture. Neither material culture nor aesthetics develop in a vacuum." This statement is certainly acceptable and is an adequate rationale for attempting to relate a group of weavings to its source. However, the relation should only be made on the basis of tested evidence.
Mr. Azadi next proposes and builds upon a series of "facts," which appear to be in part untested or uncritically accepted. First, he identifies "a group of carpets [that] is found in northeast Persia which so far has been attributed to the Yomut, but which was woven by the Golkan Turkmen." He makes the connection with the Goklan tribe based on contemporary production observed by him in 1968-69 and by older fragments observed on the same trip. Unfortunately, only a single photograph of a representative from the group is shown (Illustration 61); references for four other contemporary examples are cited,7 but technical details are given in the references for only one weaving, a narrow packstrap. A lengthy discussion of the ornamentation of these late 19th and 20th century weavings (referred to as "Goklan" hereafter) follows in the text.
The "Goklan" weavings are reported to be woven with a 2-ply pile yarn using a symmetrical knot. Wefting may be a combination of wool, cotton, and silk shoots; the silk is sometimes dyed red. A symmetrical knot tied over three warps is sometimes used in areas of detailed design. Mr. Azadi believes this last factor to be unique, but I find asymmetrical knots tied over three warps to be common in the intricate designs found in late Tekke weaving.
Mr. Azadi's second fact is that the Rautenstengel "Eagle" gul Groups I and III exist. The third "fact" is that no valid tribal name has yet been assigned to Groups I and III, and in its elaboration he tentatively proposes the Goklan, citing his 1968-69 field evidence.
Facts 4 and 8 deal with the relative importance of the Goklan people, their long association with the Gurgan and Atrek valleys; the historic records of sericulture in the area, and the probable decline of the Goklan people following the conquests of Nader Shah. Mr. Azadi knows Central Asian history and the associated literature. The historical references selectively and uncritically cited by Mr. Azadi tend to support his conclusions, but one should remember that other, equally valid conclusions may be drawn from the same data. For example, the campaign of Nader Shah is cited as a major reason for the decline of the Goklan, yet about 80 years later an extensive tribal population of about 200,000 is reported by two sources.8 Twenty-five years later, four sources estimate the population of the Goklan at 15,000 to 20,000.9 Mr. Azadi never questions this apparent discrepancy in the source material, but instead takes it as proof of a continuing catastrophic tribal decline.
Mr. Azadi then uses seven "assumptions" to build his case. The first is a restatement of Moshkova's living gul/dead gul theory.10 The second assumes that the sedentary Goklan raised sheep and wove carpets. [Azadi's evidence: "Fraser (1825) met a large number of Goklan herds... on the occasion when he saw three women weaving a carpet."] The third reminds us that the poet Makhdum Kuli was a Goklan, and concludes "the high cultural level attained by the Goklan had its parallel in the Eagle-gol carpets which, as is recognised by those who have concerned themselves in detail with the carpets of the Turkmen, represent the highest level of their carpet weaving."
Assumptions 4 through 7 deal with the range of colors found in "Eagle" gul Groups I through III carpets. Mr. Azadi relies on his long experience to conclude that Turkoman carpets from northern Khorassan typically have a dark brown-red field color. North of the Balkhan Mountains the prevailing field color is a purple-brown, while in the Khiva area light red-brown to light purple-red-brown field colors are found. Turkoman carpets from the east and southeast have other red shades. He correctly assigns these color variations largely to the use of different mordants and assumes that the most available local mordant establishes the dominant field color. He also notes that dark brown-red is the field color of Group I carpets.
Mr. Azadi concludes his presentation of his technical evidence with a section in which he uses Moshkova's living gul/deal gul theory to explain away the absence of Eagle guls on "Goklan" rugs. This done, he proclaims "Eagle" gul I and III carpets to be the product of the Goklan, with Group I carpets dating from a time before Nader Shah's conquests. He summarizes additional arguments: (a) the precision of the weaving suggests production in a settled society; (b) the dark red-brown field of the Group I carpet is characteristic of the north Khorassan region; (c) the only other Turkoman tribe living in the area, the Okhlu, was destroyed in the 16th century; (d) the Goklan engaged in sericulture.
The final paragraphs of the essay attempt to refute "the weak points of this reconstruction." In Mr. Azadi's estimation, these include: (a) "Goklan" rugs are woven with a 2-ply pile yarn using a symmetrical knot, whereas Group I pieces display a 3- and 4-ply pile yarn with an asymmetrical knot; (b) "Goklan"rugs are more red than Group I pieces; (c) "Goklan" rugs never display the Eagle gul (or, for that matter, either of the two dyrnak gul variants seen on all eagle gul main carpets).
I find the preceding list of "weak point" compelling, and the refutations unpersuasive. To the above list, I would add three more items:
(1) Mr. Azadi's line of argument positively excludes Group II pieces from consideration as possible Goklan products, yet the similarities in design to Groups I and III suggest a close tribal connection. How does Mr. Azadi's scheme account for these pieces?
(2) Contemporary travelers have assigned rugs similar to Mr. Azadi's Illustration 61 to the Jafarbai Yomud. Why should we ascribe to the "Goklan" attribution when so little evidence is presented?
(3) A key point in the argument is that the use of silk in the weft of main carpets is an extravagance possible only in a silk-producing region. One can instead argue that (a) the use of a strong, dimensionally-stable silk shoot is an efficient means of stabilizing a wool foundation carpet, and (b) the use of silk as a pile material (Murghab valley) is far more wasteful as more than half is clipped away.
Inclusion of the Rautenstengel and Azadi essays in a single volume tends to convey to the Azadi paper an aura of taxonomical precision which is unwarranted. The Rautenstengels have patiently generated a database on Eagle gul main carpets and small related weavings. The Azadi paper presents little in the way of substantive analysis, and is enhanced by its proximity to the systematics of the former.
One would like the Azadi hypothesis to be more robust -- the concept is neat and satisfying -- but far too many unanswered questions remain. The question of tribal attribution is always a problem... one remembers discarded trade nomenclature including Bokhara, Khiva-Bokhara, and Pinde, along with the assignment of all pieces decorated with the turret gul to the Salor. These terms were followed by a rash of attributions such as Igdyr, Abdal, Ata... and finally Arabatchi and Kyzyl Ayak, which remain in use. Dr. Thompson proposed the Imreli label for Group I weavings, but recanted during a V I.C.O.C. session.
In truth, our knowledge of the specifics of tribal attribution is limited and terms such as "Eagle" gul Groups I-III provide convenient labels without introducing unwarranted assumptions. As Mr. Azadi says, "Here it may be pointed out that evidence supporting the attribution of Turkmen carpets to any specific tribe, not to speak of proof, is almost entirely lacking in the carpet literature."
In design this fragment would appear to belong to Group I because the Eagle guls are four per row and have three kotshaks each on the horizontal and vertical axes. The warp color is also that described for Group I. However, the center of the gul appears to be entirely different from any Group I or III carpets published by Rautenstengel.
The weft structure on the other hand is more akin to those cited for her Group III with the occasional use of red and white silk in one shoot of weft rather than a consistent use of silk and weft sequence.
The knot count is at the low end of Group I and the high end of Group III.
This fragment is full pile, virtually as when new. It would appear that it was cut out of a main carpet to reduce its length. The wool is exceptionally lustrous.
Colors: MEDIUM BROWN-RED, red, light blue, navy blue, ivory, peach, dark brown
Warp: Wool, light brown, minimal depression
Weft: Wool and cotton (white), two shoots, consistent alternation of one weft shoot of wool and cotton threads plied Z2S with second weft of two wool threads, Z2S
Knot: Asymmetric, open right, two ply; 9 horizontal, 18 vertical, 162 per square inch (approx. 2400 per sq. dm)
Edges and Ends: None original
The major and minor guls and skirt pattern of this juval are almost identical to Rautenstengel's Illustration 24. A third piece cited by her is published in The George Walter Vincent and Belle Townsley Smith Collection of Islamic Rugs by McMullan and Reichert, plate 64. The only major difference in the three pieces is the main border pattern. This and the other two examples all contain patterns associated with the Yomud design pool. The reviewer reports he has seen the Vincent/Smith piece and confirms color and knot characteristics in conformance with the Group II weavings. An area woven with symmetric knots occurs in the upper right corner of this piece.
|  |
A similar piece not cited by Rautenstengel is published as Plate 14 in Bogolubov/Thompson and labeled Yomud. (She does cite Plate 13 which is called antique by Bogolubov and closely resembles her carpet study group.) It shares the same barmak and tomeshan gyra patterns for secondary borders as in this carpet. The edges of some guls are also similarly edged with alternating white and brown knots. A second similar rug is published in Eiland's Oriental Rugs from Western Collections, 1973, plate 31, Yomud rug. Eiland remarks that "despite the classic dyrnak, here used as a minor gul, the borders, color, and weave have much in common with the Tekke-Salor group." The few references show that the carpet illustrated here is not a "one-of-a-kind" weaving.
It could also belong to a group of rugs from the workshop of Gul Jamil, wife of the Khan of Merv. Bogolubov cites his Plate 11 as being purchased from her around 1900. Plate 14 cited as belonging to Colonel Brunelli appears to be a similarly finished new rug. O'Donovan in The Merv Oasis cites Gul Jamil as a weaver. Dating these pieces as early as 1880s is based on two dated rugs of similar color and weave but with Salor-Turret guls. One is described by Alberto Boralevi in Hali 35, dated 1889 and signed in Russian "Fabrika Gul Dzhamal". The second piece dated 1888 but bearing an Armenian's name and inscription but no reference to Gul Jamil is Plate 104 in Armenian Rugs from the Gregorian Collection, Gregorian and Hampshire, 1987. Another piece bearing all of the earmarks of this workshop but no date or inscription is Plate 1, Azadi, Turkoman Carpets, Crosby Press, 1975.
These late pieces raise interesting questions vis-a-vis the Eagle groups proposed by Rautenstengel. Are they merely late copies from fragments? Is there a closer relationship between this rug and the earlier group? Could they have resulted from a Turkoman group which merged with the Tekkes prior to the end of the 19th century? The fineness of weave, consistency of certain pattern details, and use of silk imply to some a workshop origin. Is Gul Jamil's workshop the last of such workshops in areas of Turkoman major settlements which may have existed earlier? The fine weave of these pieces have more in common with Tekke weaving than most Yomud weavings certainly. The Group II pieces with asymmetric knots, open right are tied in the prevailing Tekke manner. There are also a few very old Tekke carpets with the boat border, proving that the design in earlier times was more widely used and by other Turkoman tribes than the Yomud. To attribute the Eagle gul carpets to the Tekke or any other specific tribe on the basis of such data would be foolish. Rautenstengel correctly avoids a specific label for these pieces. Her data, other rugs, and information available suggest caution in applying tribal labels too soon.