The Classifications of
Anatolian Brocades

by Marla Mallett

Figure 1. Anatolian brocade weaver

From Oriental Rug Review, Vol. 12/1

Anatolian tribal brocade weaves are surrounded by confusion in rug literature. Terminology is inconsistent. Errors and misconceptions are common. Diagrams with problems appear repeatedly.1 I hear one brocade routinely referred to as "some strange kind of sumak."2

In this article I will look at some of the ways brocading has been described and classified in the past. I will suggest nomenclature that I believe is more practical. Then I will distinguish the three principal kinds of Anatolian brocading, point out identifying features, and explain how the distinctive structure and techniques affect a weaver's designing. I will demonstrate that Middle Eastern brocades are not so complex as we've been told.

Problems and Misconceptions

Brocading always uses extra, or supplementary, weft yarns to ornament a ground fabric, with floats on at least one face.3 Redundant labels like "weft-float brocading" or "supplementary weft brocading" are unnecessary. For a general term, the simple word "brocading" is better. We don't redefine terms like "tapestry" with every usage (as a "discontinuous weft-faced weave"); why continually redefine "brocade"? The common term "sumak brocading" is another problem. "Brocade," "brocading," and "brocaded" should be reserved for interlaced structures, and should not be used for wrapped constructions.

Middle Eastern brocading is often mistakenly called "embroidery." But only occasional Anatolian tribal pieces resembling brocades have actually been produced with a needle: these have usually been önluk (aprons) from northwest Turkey. In these embroidered pieces, the pattern yarns lie in both vertical and horizontal directions. Sometimes they are even diagonal. On the back sides of these textiles we can trace impossible weaving sequences. Yarns are secured by knotting or by threading under previously decorated areas. Such embroidered fabrics, however, are uncommon. Normally even these aprons are patterned entirely on the loom -- brocaded row by row, as the weaving progresses.

Several writers, who cite Irene Emery's work meticulously separate discontinuous supplementary weft-float patterning from that which is continuous, selvage to selvage. They call only discontinuous forms "brocading." Normally, this is pointless. Occasionally, it's absurd. In some textile analyses by John Wertime, for example, we see end borders categorized as one structure, but side borders and field another -- although construction, patterning, and production techniques are the same throughout. Emery's distinction is actually tentative and is based primarily on technique (the process used), not on structure. It's therefore senseless to disregard technique, but maintain her distinction.4 Instead, all Middle Eastern tribal weavings that are decorated with extra-weft float patterning can reasonably be called "brocaded."

A few years ago, Wertime tackled the problem of incorrect Middle Eastern flatweave identifications by publishing a discussion of individual structures and a "checklist" of them. Although Wertime repeatedly advocated strict adherence to Irene Emery's structural outline, he ignored her brocade classifications. Rather than seek alternatives, he produced convoluted explanations and piecemeal fabric descriptions. His lengthy "checklist" was incomplete, and it failed to adequately distinguish basic kinds of brocading.5 General misconceptions and misidentifications continued to appear throughout rug literature. The fundamental problem remained: the need for useful brocade classifications.

Just as the tapestry categories "interlocked," "slit," and "dovetailed" are essential, brocade categories are essential. Taxonomy does serve a purpose. Once we separate brocades into groups, we can compare designs and trace their evolution more easily. We can recognize idiosyncratic pieces or unusual weave combinations. Only if we understand basic kinds of brocading, can we realize which pattern features result from technical or structural limitations and which do not. Analyses that merely isolate and describe each minute structural detail in a weaving are counterproductive. It's easy to misunderstand basic systems of interlacement if important features are neglected or submerged in codified trivia.6

I do not advocate using Emery 's brocade classifications. Although her work on primary structures is important, it is not flawless. Her classification of brocades is confused and inadequate. We must use alternatives. Emery merely divides all supplementary weft-float patterning into two groups: "inlaid" and "overshot." While an "inlaid" category is necessary, the familiar term "overshot" presents insurmountable difficulties: the American four-shaft coverlet weaves -- Emery's source for the term "overshot" -- also are inlaid.7 How can this term identify a logical second category? Most of the world's brocades, in fact, are not inlaid. No single structural label has yet appeared that can encompass their diversity. Several categories are necessary. These can be found, with one exception, in handweaving literature.

The wide variety of Anatolian brocading in storage sacks, cushion covers, saddle bags, hangings, covers, and rugs can be confusing. Once the weaves are divided into a few simple, broad structural groups, however, they become understandable. Three basic groups account for most Anatolian brocading: (1) overlay-underlay brocading, (2) overlay brocading, and (3) reciprocal brocading. Sometimes the structures are combined in a single textile. A few Anatolian examples fall into a fourth category, underlay brocading; I'll touch only briefly on this group. The remaining major brocade category, inlaid brocading, is common in Central Asia (used, for example, in Turkoman tent bands), but is rare in Anatolia.8 Since I discussed inlaid brocading in an earlier Oriental Rug Review article, I won't do so here.9

It's essential for anyone studying tribal designs to realize that brocade weaving is much more rigid and pre-planned than tapestry, sumak or knotting. Brocading is methodical and sequential. Brocade techniques do not encourage spontaneity or improvisation. It is not surprising that brocade designs have been copied with few changes over long periods. We repeatedly read that brocading is the simplest and least restricted way of adding supplementary pattern to a ground weave. This statement is not true. Each brocade structure presents stringent pattern limitations. We will understand this fact if we select a random carpet or sumak design and attempt its translation into each basic kind of brocading. It's an impossible task. Any brocade design, however, can be easily copied in sumak or knotting. In common brocading, from one-fourth to one-half of the warps in each pattern row serve as negative design components. These warps hold the floats in place. The designer's options, therefore, are severely limited. Minimal order, regularity, and fabric consistency are requirement that impose additional restraints.

Overlay-Underlay Brocading

The most versatile and common kind of interlaced extra-weft patterning found in Anatolia is "overlay-underlay brocading." This is the woven structure frequently mistaken for embroidery. Usually, Anatolian brocade weavers work from the fabric's back side. They often face into the light to easily distinguish their warp yarns. With their fingers, they interlace short lengths or tiny skeins of the loosely-spun, sometimes doubled or tripled pattern yarns. The weaving sheds are closed during this process. The thick, fluffy brocading yarns lie or "float" on the fabric's front surface to form the design, then lie or "float" on the back where not needed -- thus the term "overlay-underlay." At least one thin, plain-weave ground weft follows each row of patterning, going selvage to selvage.

When colors are localized, brocading yarns jump on the back to the next pattern row. There, they usually reverse direction. Because one weaver may use a variety of methods, depending upon her pattern, her material, or even her mood at the time, yarn movements on the back need not particularly concern us.

Figure 2. Storage sack (detail). Anatolia, Yahyali. Overlay-underlay brocading (3/3 basic sequence) on a balanced ground. Borders of chaining (3-span) and weft-twining (3-span).

The Yahyali bag in Figure 2 has a ground fabric that is "balanced" with similar warp and weft yarns. Its loose weave has allowed the weaver to squeeze in soft brocading yarns without distorting the fabric. To assure consistency, the Anatolian weaver usually avoids leaving large, plain areas of balanced-weave cloth; open areas can be sleazy. I believe that concern for textural consistency in this kind of brocading has been important in the historical development of Middle Eastern overall repeat patterns. Large plain areas present no difficulties in knotted pile, sumak or tapestry. Many intricate repeat patterns now common in those forms probably evolved first in brocading. It is more likely that such patterning had a structural origin than a conceptual basis.

Overlay-underlay brocading has also been used in many parts of Turkey for decorating firm, weft-faced textiles, like the Hakkari rug of Figure 3. These pieces have heavy, widely spaced warps; the typical three-span brocade floats are long. Generally, two or three thin, sinuous ground wefts alternate with each single row of brocading to completely cover the warp. I have one finely woven Malatya storage sack with five successive ground wefts. Brocade analyses always should tell us if more than a single ground weft occurs between pattern rows.

Conversely, overlay-underlay brocading on warp-faced grounds appear only rarely in Turkey. The heavy Erzincan yastik in Figure 4 is unusual. Warp-predominant grounds do appear frequently in curtains and covers from south-central Anatolia, especially in the Karapinar region. These fabrics are sturdy, with short, stubby pattern floats.

It's important to realize that the relative density of warp and weft directly affects brocade designing. Figures 5 and 6 show two bag faces with nearly identical brocading sequences, but two slightly different warp setts. Where the warp is more crowded, in Figure 6, the design is elongated vertically. Weft floats are shorter. If we were to compare similar designs on weft-faced and warp-faced grounds, we would see even more striking differences.

Figure 3. Cover (detail). Southeast Anatolia, Hakkari. Overlay-underlay brocading (3/3 basic sequence) on a weft-faced ground (erratic use of 1,2 and 3 ground wefts). Wrapping in horizontal pattern lines and borders (2/1 and 4/2 bi-directional).

(Left) Figure 4. Yastik (detail) Anatolian, Erzincan. Overlay-underlay brocading (3-span floats predominate) on a warp-faced ground. Horizontal pattern lines formed by weft twining around single warps. Borders use 4-span weft twining.

(Middle) Figure 5. Bag face (detail). South Central Anatolia. Overlay-underlay brocading (3/3 basic sequence) on a balanced ground.

(Right) Figure 6. Bag face (detail). Central Anatolia. Overlay-underlay brocading (3/3 basic sequence) on a balanced ground.

Many sequences are possible, but in Anatolian overlay-underlay brocading, designs are composed predominantly of "over 3, under 3" interlacing. A majority of pattern floats are the same length on front and back. (Where yarns jump from one pattern section to another on the back, they are much longer.) When pattern floats are vertically aligned, vertical lines or checks are formed (Figure 7). When floats are consistently offset, intricate all-over diagonal patterns are easily produced (Figures 5 and 6). At critical points in the design, the weaver changes the length of floats slightly -- to join the sides of a diamond, for example. On the face, however, floats are never long enough to snag. In written brocade analyses the general figure/ground relationship should be described by noting the basic float sequence if a fairly consistent one is present. If 3/1 or 2/2 interlacing predominates, another classification most likely is preferable. I'll discuss these structures later.

In overlay-underlay brocading, narrow vertical or diagonal lines are usually formed by pattern yarns which "wrap" upwards as the weaving progresses. To form the thin diamonds in Figures 5 and 6, each pattern yarn floats horizontally on the front, then jumps diagonally on the back to the next pattern row. In analyses, it's unreasonable to call this routine upward yarn movement a separate structure. We must consider how the narrowest possible pattern units look when they are consistent with the interlacement system.10 If, in Figures 5 and 6, oblique yarn segments were to appear instead on the fabric's front side, the feature would be classified properly as diagonal wrapping.

Figure 7. Cover (detail). Western Anatolia, Yüncü. Overlay-underlay brocading (3/3 basic sequence) on a weft-faced ground (2 ground wefts). Wrapping (3/1) in horizontal pattern lines. Borders of 3-span chaining. Courtesy, Nahit Kanig

.
Horizontal pattern lines are a problem for brocade weavers. Often, as in Figures 5 and 6, there are none. A solid, unbroken line on the surface cannot be produced by straightforwardly interlacing a single weft yarn. Consequently, when the brocade weaver wants solid horizontal lines in the design, she normally switches to another technique. Sumak is the most common choice: we see this in the Hakkari rug of Figure 3 and the Yüncü cover of Figure 7. The weft wrapping of alternate three-warp units appears in some Konya brocading. Twining is used for horizontal lines in the Erzincan yastik of Figure 4. Fabric analyses should, when possible, note the presence, the character, and the specific use of these auxiliary structures.

Anatolian designs in overlay-underlay brocading are nearly always linear in their effect, with diagonals and verticals predominating. Ground fabric areas are always important visual parts of the pattern. There is constant interplay between positive and negative elements -- between floats and ground weave. Broad sections are filled with intricate geometric motifs, parallel lines, or checks. For example, in the Yüncü weaving of Figure 7, brocaded checks alternate (3/3) with open ground weave areas.

These structures have sometimes been called cicim, although that word more properly describes an article or style than a construction. While overlay-underlay brocaded covers and curtains are called cicim in Turkey, in Iran a similar word, jajim, is used for covers with warp-patterned or twill weaves." Our meaning is clear, though , if we speak of a "brocaded cicim" or a "brocaded yastik."

Overlay Brocading

In order to more easily understand our next major category, overlay brocading, it is helpful to take a look first at an example of its opposite form: underlay brocading. This structure is uncommon in Turkey but does appear in the önluk from northwestern Anatolia in Figures 8 and 9. In the lattice-work parts of this supple goat-hair textile, soft cotton brocading yarns form floats of various lengths on the fabric's back side, consistently crossing double warp units on the front. These warp units remain together in successive five pattern rows. I've been told these aprons come from around Bergama; I have only seen examples worn by women in nomad villages near Behramkale (Assos). I would be pleased to learn of other underlay brocades woven in Anatolia. The structure is, at first glance, easily confused with Baluch, Bakhtiari, or North African weft-substitution weaves. But those weaves are, of course, not brocading; they have no ground wefts.

(Left) Figure 8. Önluk (detail) Western Anatolia. Lattice design formed by underlay brocading on paired warps; rosettes formed by overlay-underlay brocading (3/3 basic sequence); balanced ground. Collection, Carolyn Jackson.

(Middle) Figure 9. Reverse side of fabric in Figure 8.

(Right) Figure 11. Bag face (detail). Central Anatolia. Zili overlay brocading (3/1); single ground weft between pattern rows.

Our second large category, "overlay brocading," is so designated because pattern yarns float over the fabric's front surface." The brocading yarns are held in place by single warps or warp units. A 3/1 interlacing sequence is the most common in Anatolian examples, with most floats consistent in length. The binding warps assume various decorative arrangements. In Figure 10, subtle diagonal lines are formed within single color areas of floats. Whereas the designs in our first category were linear, here the floats are massed to create broader pattern shapes. The example in Figure 10 is a delicate textile; but heavy, durable rugs have been produced the same way in several parts of Anatolia. Elsewhere in the world, overlay brocades sometimes have variable float sequences and their front sides look much like the back of our underlay example in Figure 9.

Figure 10. Bag face (detail). Anatolia, Afyon.
Overlay brocading (3/1 basic sequence)
on a balanced ground; single ground weft.

The most common Anatolian overlay brocade is the one Turks call zili (Figure 11). This structure is distinctive, but it's still confused in the literature. Throughout the world this weave's essential features are the same: it has continuous, binding warp threads.13 The term used by a few Turkish weavers, fitilli is appropriate, since it means "corded" or "piped." Zili brocading yarns are normally interlaced in an "over 3, under 1" sequence. Occasionally 5/1 sequences appear. Pattern yarns, however, always pass under the same binding warps so that floats are vertically aligned.

From one to three ground wefts follow each Zili pattern row, selvage to selvage. When two ground wefts are used and these tiny, plain-weave threads are packed down, one slides under the heavy brocading yarn until hidden; the second is visible where it crosses the binding warps. If only one ground weft is used (as in Figure 11), the pattern floats tend to group together in pairs. We must look carefully to discern the difference. Zili pieces with more widely set warps and three successive ground wefts typically come from northeastern Turkey (Figure 12). This structure is easy to identify. In the example shown, the binding warps are nearly covered and the fabric is sturdy. In analyses, single, double, and triple-wefted zili structures need to be differentiated.

(Left) Figure 12. Bag face (detail). Eastern Anatolia, Kars area. Zili overlay brocading (3/1); three ground wefts between pattern rows. Courtesy, Edip Basmaci

(Right) Figure 13. Reverse side of bag face. Central Anatolia. Zili overlay brocading (3/1); single ground weft. Two types of weft turns occur randomly in the red vertical stripes.

Except for the zili weaves, all of the constructions discussed in this article are freely interlaced by the weaver: all of their pattern sheds are picked by hand. Zili overlay brocades, however, are usually loom-controlled. This is an important technical difference. The loom's shedding mechanism determines the zili's vertically aligned 3/1 float sequence. Anatolian weavers use methods varying in sophistication. Some women simply interlace their pattern yarns on a slightly open, plain-weave shed. Others place a thin secondary shed stick in the warp close to their large shed stick. This speeds the weaving by separating every fourth warp. I've been astonished to find a few Tarus Mountain weavers arranging loops of alternate lengths on their heddle bars. This is a unique and ingenious way of adapting the loom for a specialized structure. I'm not aware of this particular heddle arrangement elsewhere in the world. Whatever method is used, though, zili is a quick and easy kind of fabric ornamentation that requires less concentration than other brocading techniques. Zili sequences that aren't loom-controlled (2/1 sequences, for example), are rarely used.

I'd like to compare briefly, the zili overlay brocades in Figures 11 and 12 with the overlay-underlay brocades in our first category. The differences are dramatic. The distinctive zili designs are formed on a large grid, with diagonal motifs composed of stepped color blocks. The overlay-underlay brocading uses gradually offset floats for thesame purpose. The zili brocade has solid color areas rather than thin linear elements. There is no interplay of brocading and ground in the zili pieces." Imagine how any one of the overlay-underlay fabrics (Figures 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7) would look if a single color were used for its patterning. The surface would present an elaborate relief pattern. In contrast, if the zili overlay weave in either Figure 11 or 12 were produced in a single color, the surface would be blank except for the long, straight binding warps. Color, instead of structure, defines the zili pattern.

It's important to realize that brocades composed of "blocky" elements are not always zili weaves. The checked Yüncü piece in figure 7 is a 3/3 overlay-underlay brocade -- not zili. It is completely different in structure from the 3/1 brocading which produces the strong vertical ribs of the zili weaves. And as I've explained above, the techniques for producing them are different.

Although zili weaving is fast, two factors explain its less frequent use than other techniques. First, the design limitations are severe. All patterning must be based on four-warp units. Second, in single or double-wefted examples, the structure is weak. Even a coarse, heavy appearance is deceptive. The tiny ground wefts can be broken easily where they cross the binding warps, and the fabric seriously damaged.

Some questions have arisen concerning the relationship between Turkish zili textiles (Figure 11), and Persian Shahsevan bags with similar stepped polygon patterns.15 The Shahsevan pieces use reversed, knotted wrapping. Since this distinctive pattern is based totally on the block units necessary for loom-controlled zili, it's reasonable to assume that this design originated in zili brocading. The design is definitely more vigorous in its zili form. Knotted wrapping, however, produces a more durable bag than the vulnerable zili structure.

(Left) Figure 14. Reverse side of cicim. Central Anatolia, Karapinar. Overlay-underlay brocading (3/3 basic sequence) on a warp-dominant ground. Three types of pattern weft turns appear in the vertical stripes.

(Right) Figure 15. Yastik (detail). Central Anatolia. 3/1 overlay brocading; single ground weft. Wrapping (4/2) in horizontal pattern lines.

Some authors have tried to distinguish zili brocading from overlay-underlay or so-called cicim weaves by pattern yarn turns on the fabric's back. Belkis Balpinar Acar says, "The zili can be distinguished from the cicim by looking at the reverse side... There are short vertical threads where the pattern thread jumps to the next shed at the edge of a line."16 This criterion is irrelevant, however, because with each basic structure, the weaver can choose either method, can combine them, or can even interlock the wefts instead. On the back side of the zili in Figure 13, we see both short "vertical turns" and "wrapping turns" used erratically in the red vertical bands. The weaver has used one method for a few rows, then the other. This inconsistency occurs throughout the textile, although the front is uniform. In the overlay-underlay brocade of Figure 14 the weaver has tried three different methods of making pattern yarn "turns" in her vertical borders. Again, the front is uniform. It's obviously unwise to base categorical distinctions on these details.

Many traditional Anatolian textiles mix brocade structures, effectively contrasting linear and solid design elements. A bag, for example, may have a zili field, but end borders of overlay-underlay brocading. A field pattern may even combine structures. The yastik in Figure 15 can simply be labeled "overlay brocade;" but since the 3/1 floats are aligned vertically in some parts of the design, and the corded structure is prominent, Anatolian weavers often call this kind of mixed design zili The term consistently has a structural connotation.

Figure 16. Storage sack (detail). Western Anatolia, Yagcabedir. Offset reciprocal brocading (2/2); single, covered ground weft.

Our third distinctive major category of Anatolian brocading is specialized. The weaves are simple but unfamiliar to weavers in most of the world. Because there is no appropriate existing terminology in Western textile literature, I will call this group "reciprocal brocading." It's time for a name, indeed, since these weaves have routinely been misidentified as "sumak" "reverse sumak" or "alternate sumak" -- both in the marketplace and by writers.17 Anatolian weavers frequently have combined bits of sumak wrapping with this brocade structure, thereby compounding the confusion. Reciprocal brocading has been used mainly for tough, durable storage sacks and saddle bags. Figure 16 shows a Yagcabedir sack from the Bergama/Balikiser area.

Figure 17. Offset reciprocal brocading (2/2); single, covered ground weft.

This brocading is "reciprocal" because two pattern yarn rows are always completed, to fill the surface with pattern yarns, before a ground weft is inserted. Usually each pattern yarn weaves "over 2, under 2", then reverses direction to weave over and under the alternate pairs of warps in a complementary manner. Occasional Yüncü textiles have 3/3 interlacing; some Tarus Yörük pieces combine 2/2 and 4/4 interlacing. Whatever the numerical sequence, after two rows of patterning are completed, a thin stabilizing ground weft follows, selvage to selvage. Sometimes two ground wefts are used, more rarely, three.18 In most examples, floats are offset in successive pattern rows, in brick wall fashion. This strengthens the textile and permits finer pattern articulation. The Malatya sack in Figure 18 shows floats offset in most areas; in the small squares they are not. No floats, however, are offset in the unusual heybe (saddle bag) in Figure 19. For analyses, both parts of each pair of floats must be counted to accurately record the number of pattern wefts per inch.

Figure 18. Storage sack (detail). Anatolia, Malatya. Reciprocal brocading (2/2) with both offset and vertically aligned floats; two ground wefts, partially visible. Wrapping (2/1) in horizontal pattern lines.

The narrowest diagonal and vertical lines in Figures 18 and 19 are produced by single unit pattern wefts that simply "wrap" upwards. This encirclement is perfectly consistent with the interlacing. It isn't a separate structure, and shouldn't be described separately in analyses. We occasionally find variations, however. I have one saddle bag from eastern Turkey in which delicate, dark, diagonal pattern outlines are achieved by floats that cross single rather than double warps. Since the oblique segments of the "wrapping" remain on the reverse, this detail is consistent with the brocaded structure. An analyst should merely note a change from the predominant 2/2 float sequence.

Because most reciprocal brocade surfaces consist entirely of floats, patterns are delineated solely by color changes. The structure doesn't define the pattern. Reciprocal brocades can vary considerably in character: some are smooth, flat, and mechanical-looking, while others are wavy or granular. Ground wefts may be covered completely, or they may be visible. Some Yüncü examples even combine pattern yarns of different sizes to create subtle contrast. Yagcabedir bags are very finely woven, while some Antep/Maras examples are coarse. It is difficult for most observers to realize that these weavings are constructed in the same basic way.

Figure 19. Heybe (detail). Eastern Anatolia. Reciprocal brocading (2/2) with all floats vertically aligned; two ground-wefts, slightly visible

This group of fabrics demonstrates, in striking fashion, how designs may be shaped by a working process rather than structural limitations. Many of these brocade designs consist of narrow pattern units only a pair of floats in width. The structure itself doesn't require this. The weaver can quickly interlace two warp pairs, however, without picking or mechanically opening a shed. She tends to avoid broader areas that are less convenient.

Actually, when not mechanically forming a shed, it's easier for the weaver to wrap a long horizontal line once than to interlace it twice. For this reason, careless weavers sometimes produce jumbled combinations of brocading and sumak. The textile in Figure 20, on the other hand, shows the structures contrasted carefully and effectively. Wide red areas of countered sumak, with their distinctive oblique elements, project above the surface. The narrower, more intricately-patterned brocade sections are flat, their horizontal floats offset like small bricks.

Left:
Figure 20. Storage sack. (detail). Anatolia, Gaziantep/Malatya area. Irregularly countered wrapping (2/1) in broad pattern areas. Reciprocal brocading (2/2) with both offset and vertically aligned floats in intricately patterned areas. Single, covered ground weft throughout. Borders of chaining (3-span).

Figure 21. Storage sack (detail). Anatolia, Malatya/Sinan. Offset, paired-weft tapestry. Pattern areas outlined with wrapping (4/2). Twined borders (2-span).

Reciprocal brocade patterns, for good reason, often resemble tapestry designs. We could, if we wished, just as properly consider the hidden ground weft to be the supplementary element; the entire group would then be classified as reinforced tapestry on paired warps. There are, for example, common reciprocal brocades that look much like the offset, paired-warp tapestry sack from Malatya/Sian in Figure 21. This Sian piece has no ground weft. The two weaves are easily confused.

The Gaziantep sack in Figure 22 demonstrates the important advantages of a reinforced structure. Here, tiny, hidden ground wefts provide the stability that permits long, clear vertical lines, with no slits. The heavy pattern yarns hide the fine reinforcing ground weft. This specialized brocading technique may have been originally devised so that popular carpet designs, like the Memling Gul, could be used for storage sacks. It's reasonable to believe that the technique was used later to strengthen diagonal patterns also. But these relationships are the subject for another study.

Figure 22. Storage sack (detail). Anatolia, Gaziantep. Reciprocal brocading (2/2) with both offset and vertically aligned floats. Irregularly countered wrapping (3/1) in the broadest pattern areas. Single, covered ground weft throughout.

Other Terminology

The terms verneh, sileh, cul, palas and shadda have appeared in the literature in connection with various Middle Eastern tribal brocade weaves. Like the term cicim, they raise numerous problems: usage varies both geographically and from one writer to another. Unless clarified, they're better avoided. The Azeri Turkish terms verneh and sileh have been applied both to brocading and sumak wrapping. They have sometimes identified weavings with specific patterns. Cul is used by some weavers in Anatolia's Içel Province when referring to heavy brocading. In Turkey, however, this word often simply means "rag" or "coarse goat hair cloth." It can refer to rough woven or felted clothing, horse covers, bags, or coarse, plain-woven floor coverings. A kilim dealer may jokingly refer to himself as a culci, or rag-seller. But among Turkomans in Khorasan the form cul denotes a finely woven horse cover; the meaning of cul is the same in Azerbaijan. Palas is used indiscriminately in Farsi to describe a variety of heavy, flat-woven floor coverings; in Azerbaijan the meaning is similar. When used by Turkomans palas does refer to brocading. But in Turkish, palas , like cul is a pejorative term, implying a "coarse textile" or "rag." Shadda is used in Azerbaijan for flat-woven floor coverings, but it is unclear whether the term most properly denotes a weave or a style of ornamentation.19 Unlike the Anatolian zili or fitilli, the assorted terms above are too vague at this time to convey useful technical or structural information.

Summary

In summary, most of the Anatolian brocading fits into three distinct groups: first, the widespread and versatile overlay-underlay brocading; second, the less common overlay brocade weaves, including loom-controlled zili; and third, the more specialized reciprocal brocading. Each of these structures has been used singly and in combination with other weaves, to form a wide variety of handsome textiles.

Addendum
Information Appropriate for
the Analysis or Cataloguing of Brocades

Any or all of the following information can be included in analysis, to relate structural features in the desired detail. Most informative of all are clear, close-up photos.

1. Type of article; dimensions; provenance; date.
2. Character of the warp, weft and brocading yarns: the spin, ply and general character; colors and dyes, if known
3. Warp set (number of warps per inch or cm.) and the average number of pattern wefts per inch or cm. (In reciprocal brocading both parts of each pair of floats must be counted.)
A general description of the weave character and handle may be useful (fine, coarse, smooth, granular, stiff, supple, etc.)
Optional: the average number of ground wefts per inch or cm. in plain, non-decorated parts of the textile.
4. Brocade classification - one of the following:
A. Overlay-underlay brocading
B. Underlay brocading (rare in Anatolia)
C. Overlay brocading (sometimes zili)
D. Reciprocal brocading
E. Inlaid brocading (rare in Anatolia)
F. Combination of types
5. Description of the basic float sequence if a fairly consistent one is present (3/3 interlacing, 3/1 interlacing, 2/2 interlacing, etc.)
6. Character of the ground weave (when appropriate; never for reciprocal brocading) -- one of the following:
A. Balanced weave
B. Warp-faced or warp-predominant weave
C. Weft-faced or weft-predominant weave
7. Number of ground wefts between pattern rows, if more than one is used. (For reciprocal brocading, the number of ground wefts after every two pattern rows)
8. Auxiliary structures used, if any; their character; their context
9. Unusual structural details, if any; features indicative of unusual weaving processes, if any.
Unless otherwise identified, all photos are of textiles in the author's collection. This paper was delivered by the author at the V I.CO.C. in Vienna, Austria in September 1986. It has not been published previously.

NOTES

1. B. B. Acar, Kilim - Cicim - Zili - Sumak, Istanbul, l983, pp. 56 and 57; also P. Bausback, Kelim Antike orientalische Flachgewebe, Munich, 1983, p. 19. Diagrams of so-called "cicim" brocading in these publications display structures which could only be embroidered, not woven. Each shows a single pattern yarn which reverses -- impossibly -- to wrap through an already woven area. Zili diagrams which show erratic or erroneous ground sequences appear in Acar, p. 63, Bausback, p. 19, and Ziemba, W., A. Akatay, and S. Schwartz, Turkish Flat Weaves, London, 1978, p. 25.

2. This is the common marketplace misnomer. The literature is just as confused. The textile on page 75 of Acar, (op cit), features common reciprocal brocading instead of the "alternate reverse sumak" shown in the accompanying diagram. The textile on page 74 displays reciprocal brocading and both plain and countered sumak structures. No "reverse sumak" is used, as shown in the diagram.

3. Supplementary warp-float patterning should never be called brocading. When no floats are used and supplementary wefts are simply laid in the plain-weave sheds along with the ground wefts, patterning should be called "inlay", not "brocading." "Inlaid brocading" uses both weft floats and inlay.

4. Irene Emery, The Primary Structures of Fabrics, Washington, D.C., 1966, pp. 169-173. The impracticality of the distinction is shown by textile descriptions in J. Wertime, "Flat-Woven Structures Found in Nomadic and Village Weavings from the Near East and Central Asia," Textile Museum Journal, Vol. 18, p. 41.
Emery suggests that a "brocading" yarn is not carried from one pattern area to another, but she does not define "pattern area." How large might that be? Single small motifs? Large designs? Or border to border? Is incorporation in the selvage critical? Emery's distinction is largely dependent upon whether a pattern shed was made (picked or opened mechanically) and a shuttle thrown.

5. J. Wertime, op. cit., pp. 39-45 and J. Wertime, "A Checklist of Flat-Woven Structures Found in Village and Nomadic Weavings from the Near East and Central Asia": The Arthur D. Jenkins Collection: Flat Woven Textiles, ed. Cootner, C., Washington, 1981, pp. 200-201. Some descriptions on the "check-list" are superficial. For example, both inlaid and overlaid brocading can feature designs with "weft floats of variable length tied down one at a time by single warps." The crucial relationship between pattern and ground weft is ignored.
The Wertime "checklist" fails to include several varieties of Anatolian brocading: (1) underlay brocading; (2) overlay-underlay brocading on warp-faced or warp-predominant grounds; (3) overlay brocading with pairs of pattern wefts offset symmetrically; (4) reciprocal brocading which does not cover the ground weave; (5) reciprocal brocading with 3/3 sequences or combinations of 4/4 and 2/2 sequences. Such a "checklist" requires revision whenever a new fabric variation appears.

6. The disadvantages of an overly rigid, codified structural methodology are detailed in M. Mallet, "The Terminology Tangle: Another View," Oriental Rug Review, V/10, January 1986, pp. 7-9.

7 Emery, op. cit., pp. 140-143. All North American "Colonial Overshot" weaves, except for a few block patterns said to be "woven on opposites," combine "inlay" and "overshot" features. None of these traditional weaves uses the structure shown in Emery's Figures 224 and 225 and identified as "overshot." Except in the "opposites" weaves, pattern yarns are carried within the shed when not floating on either the front or back. The fabrics are reversible, and patterning yarns are continuous, edge to edge. It makes little sense for Emery to suggest labeling distinctions between discontinuous and continuous weft-float patterning, then to select the term "overshot brocading" for freely-interlaced, discontinuous ornamentation. "Overshot" is a logical subdivision of the "inlaid" classification, but definitely cannot encompass all forms of brocading that are not "inlaid." For photos and comprehensive technical information on traditional overshot weaves, see M. Davison, A Hand Weaver's Pattern Book, Strathmore, Penn., 1951.

8. Inlaid brocading can be defined as ornamentation by extra wefts which float on the surface(s), and are placed within the plain-weave sheds along with the ground wefts between pattern areas. I know of only one occurrence of inlaid brocading in Anatolian tribal weaving: extremely simple banding on heavy, warp-faced covers. These are woven in narrow strips, then are sewn together. They have isolated, knotted pile figures. Different opinions place the origin of these unusual textiles in the Siirt, Mardin, or east Konya areas.

9. M. Mallet, "A Turkmen Weaving: Technical and Structural Aspects," Oriental Rug Review VI/11, February 1987, pp. 1-3.

10. This kind of "wrapping" is inconsistent with brocade structure only if we insist that brocading yarns reverse at the edge of every color area. In practice, brocading yarns often jump on the back (diagonally or vertically) to the next pattern row, to resume weaving in the same direction.
That confusion does result from an excessive concern for the direction of brocading wefts on a fabric's back side is demonstrated by J. Wertime's comments on B. B. Acar's "cicim" photos and diagrams on pp. 56-57, op. cit. Wertime sees a variety of basic structures in the illustrated textiles, while Acar more appropriately sees one. J. Wertime. review of Kilim - Cicim - Zili - Sumak by B. B. Acar in Oriental Carpet and Textile Studies I, ed. R. Pinner and W. Denny, London, 1985, pp. 302-3. One problem with Acar's diagrams is discussed in note 1. The confusion created because these diagrams depict only single-float pattern units is more serious. It is important, in any structural cataloging, to consider the ways in which both wide and narrow design units are handled.

11. Warp-patterned fabrics similar to Persian jajim are also produced by Kurds in eastern Turkey; but, these are not the articles referred to in Turkey as cicim.

12. In some instances, a pattern yarn may be floated between isolated color areas on the back, rather than cut. The brocading yarn can also float on the back, behind the pattern, if the weaver interrupts a sequence to encircle the last warp unit at the pattern edges (Figure 13). Although pattern yarn turns can be made on either face, this occurs, to my knowledge, only on the back in Anatolian brocading.

13. This distinctive overlay weave structure is used by Scandinavian and American handweavers, who call it dukagang. This Swedish word means "cloth path," in reference to the prominent binding warps. The structure is frequently used, as well, by Nigerian, Filipino, and Guatemalan weavers. Although the Turkish version may be called simply an "overlay brocade" weave, the term zili specifies more precisely the kind of Anatolian "overlay" weave when a lengthy description is impractical.
The weaves diagramed and illustrated by Acar, pp. 66 and 67, display a variety of structures -- none of which I would call zili. Although the drawing on p. 65 shows a 3/1 zili overlay structure, the accompanying photo instead shows sequences which are predominantly 3/3. The pairing of diagram and photo on p. 64 is confusing also. The textile shows a 3/1 zili overlay structure in the sections with vertically aligned floats. In most areas where floats are diagonally offset, 3/3 interlacing is used. The accompanying diagram shows neither of these structures, but instead 3/1 diagonally offset floats. The textile is single-wefted, while the diagram illustrates a double ground weft. The weavings shown by Acar in Figures 25, 26, 27, and 28 do not feature overlay structures; I would not classify them as zili.

14. Medieval examples of zili overlay brocading from the Middle East often feature patterned bands or isolated designs. A few 19th and 20th century examples have patterning on a partially open ground

15. Cootner, C., "The Geographical Distribution of Nomad and Village Flat-Woven Structures in the Near East and Central Asia," Oriental Carpet and Textile Studies I, eds. Pinner, R. and W. Denny, London, 1985 pp. 258-259

16. Acar, op. cit., p. 62.

17. See note 2.

18. We see textiles occasionally in which the weaver has shifted randomly from a single to a double ground weft. There may be no inconsistency apparent on the fabric's face. Zili bags from the Kars area sometimes have wide borders of reciprocal brocading. Three ground wefts are continuous, through both field and border, giving the borders a granular appearance.

19. My thanks to Peter Andrews for help in sorting out these terms.

The author, left, with Julia Bailey at ACOR 3

Return to Oriental Rug Review, Vol. 12/1

Return to Oriental Rug Review Home Page