Contents
Dedicated to the memory of
Foreword by Walter B. Denny
6
Ingeborg Tschebull
Acknowledgements 8
W. Russell Pickering
Introduction 10
Joseph V. McMullan
Etymology, Transliteration & Definitions
14
Materials & Techniques
16
Color 17 Map 18 e a s t a z a r b a y j a n 20 ‘Qarajeh’-Style 42 Sarab 54 Export Rugs
76
Jajims 94 t r a n s c a u c a s u s 120 Kazak 128 Qarabagh 162 Shirvan 184 Quba 216 Zeikhur 228 Endnotes 250 Bibliography 253
Contents
Dedicated to the memory of
Foreword by Walter B. Denny
6
Ingeborg Tschebull
Acknowledgements 8
W. Russell Pickering
Introduction 10
Joseph V. McMullan
Etymology, Transliteration & Definitions
14
Materials & Techniques
16
Color 17 Map 18 e a s t a z a r b a y j a n 20 ‘Qarajeh’-Style 42 Sarab 54 Export Rugs
76
Jajims 94 t r a n s c a u c a s u s 120 Kazak 128 Qarabagh 162 Shirvan 184 Quba 216 Zeikhur 228 Endnotes 250 Bibliography 253
Etymology, Transliteration & Definitions
A very good place to start is a definition for the Transcaucasus, which is the area between the Caucasian mountain chain and the Iranian border. It is originally a Russian construct.2 In the context of this study, it includes a part of southern Dagestan. Azerbaijan, the name of the present-day republic in the Transcaucasus, where most ‘Caucasian’ rugs were woven, is a separate entity from (West or) East Azarbayjan, the adjoining provinces in northwest Iran. This spelling – Azarbayjan – has been current in Roman characters in Iran for decades. In this text, for simplicity’s sake, I often use ‘Caucasian’ instead of ‘Transcaucasian’ and ‘Azarbayjani’ instead of ‘East Azarbayjani’, but the definition remains the same. Many names that have been spelled in English beginning with a ‘K’ are now starting with a ‘Q’, and sometimes, a ‘G’. That is because Iranian village names are sometimes pronounced very little like the existing English or German transliteration. To add to the confusion, G’s, Q’s and K’s are not used on a consistent basis. And there is always room for freelance spelling. A good example is ‘Karaja’ or ‘Karadja’. A better approximation of how the name sounds locally works out to be ‘Qarajeh’ or ‘Garajeh’, with the emphasis on the last syllable. After patiently listening to the Azarbayjanis pronounce it, I think the best transliteration seems to be ‘Qarajeh’. There are various ways to spell the terms for large, long, pile-woven rugs in Iran: those approximately 3'6" × 10'–15' (110 × 300–450 cm) are ‘kennereh’; larger, wider pieces, say, 5' × 10'–12' (150 × 300–350 cm) or so are ‘kelleh’. They are not ‘runners’ but were woven in these formats to fit specific spaces in their local environments. It is probably better to think of rugs in these formats as ‘long rugs.’ Much folk art weaving is in long format. ‘Folk art’ is used here to differentiate between weavings reflecting primarily local rural traditions and those with export-driven patterns. The separation is of course, a bit fuzzy. There are myriad invented and local terms for motifs, some of which are probably accurate. I have generally avoided using them because they do not add much to the narrative. The word ‘mafrash’ is apparently an Arab loan word, meaning furniture, and is in common use in Iran to describe box-like bedding bags used for transport by nomads. A Turki word for the same object is ‘farmesh’ and seems more applicable for nomads in the area under discussion here. The term ‘flatwoven’ (or ‘flatweave), applied to a whole class of pile-less Transcaucasian and Azarbayjani textiles, is not generally used by museum
14
professionals, but is an apt description, commonly used in the rug and related textile community. I try, for simplicity’s sake, to limit the use of most arcane in-country terms, often conflicting with one another, for various flatwoven structures. Lastly, a common weft wrapping technique has been labelled ‘sumakh’, as if it were a name derived from local cultures, with an aspirated ‘h’. It appears in several different spellings and seems to be an entirely made up appellation. Some think the technique’s name is derived from the town of Shamakhi in the Transcaucasus, but it is used widely to describe products from distant weaving areas in Eurasia.3 An alternative is ‘qayeq’, cited as a local term by Jenny Housego, 4 and I remember Roya Tagiyeva, former Director of the Azerbaijan National Carpet Museum in Baku, using a version of it to describe weft wrapping. The term may be derived from the large local tribal group, the Geyiklu. Instead I use ‘sumak’.
15
Etymology, Transliteration & Definitions
A very good place to start is a definition for the Transcaucasus, which is the area between the Caucasian mountain chain and the Iranian border. It is originally a Russian construct.2 In the context of this study, it includes a part of southern Dagestan. Azerbaijan, the name of the present-day republic in the Transcaucasus, where most ‘Caucasian’ rugs were woven, is a separate entity from (West or) East Azarbayjan, the adjoining provinces in northwest Iran. This spelling – Azarbayjan – has been current in Roman characters in Iran for decades. In this text, for simplicity’s sake, I often use ‘Caucasian’ instead of ‘Transcaucasian’ and ‘Azarbayjani’ instead of ‘East Azarbayjani’, but the definition remains the same. Many names that have been spelled in English beginning with a ‘K’ are now starting with a ‘Q’, and sometimes, a ‘G’. That is because Iranian village names are sometimes pronounced very little like the existing English or German transliteration. To add to the confusion, G’s, Q’s and K’s are not used on a consistent basis. And there is always room for freelance spelling. A good example is ‘Karaja’ or ‘Karadja’. A better approximation of how the name sounds locally works out to be ‘Qarajeh’ or ‘Garajeh’, with the emphasis on the last syllable. After patiently listening to the Azarbayjanis pronounce it, I think the best transliteration seems to be ‘Qarajeh’. There are various ways to spell the terms for large, long, pile-woven rugs in Iran: those approximately 3'6" × 10'–15' (110 × 300–450 cm) are ‘kennereh’; larger, wider pieces, say, 5' × 10'–12' (150 × 300–350 cm) or so are ‘kelleh’. They are not ‘runners’ but were woven in these formats to fit specific spaces in their local environments. It is probably better to think of rugs in these formats as ‘long rugs.’ Much folk art weaving is in long format. ‘Folk art’ is used here to differentiate between weavings reflecting primarily local rural traditions and those with export-driven patterns. The separation is of course, a bit fuzzy. There are myriad invented and local terms for motifs, some of which are probably accurate. I have generally avoided using them because they do not add much to the narrative. The word ‘mafrash’ is apparently an Arab loan word, meaning furniture, and is in common use in Iran to describe box-like bedding bags used for transport by nomads. A Turki word for the same object is ‘farmesh’ and seems more applicable for nomads in the area under discussion here. The term ‘flatwoven’ (or ‘flatweave), applied to a whole class of pile-less Transcaucasian and Azarbayjani textiles, is not generally used by museum
14
professionals, but is an apt description, commonly used in the rug and related textile community. I try, for simplicity’s sake, to limit the use of most arcane in-country terms, often conflicting with one another, for various flatwoven structures. Lastly, a common weft wrapping technique has been labelled ‘sumakh’, as if it were a name derived from local cultures, with an aspirated ‘h’. It appears in several different spellings and seems to be an entirely made up appellation. Some think the technique’s name is derived from the town of Shamakhi in the Transcaucasus, but it is used widely to describe products from distant weaving areas in Eurasia.3 An alternative is ‘qayeq’, cited as a local term by Jenny Housego, 4 and I remember Roya Tagiyeva, former Director of the Azerbaijan National Carpet Museum in Baku, using a version of it to describe weft wrapping. The term may be derived from the large local tribal group, the Geyiklu. Instead I use ‘sumak’.
15
R U S S I A
G
r e a t e r
C a u c a s u s
D A G E S TA N
B l a c k
G E O L e s s e r ra
S e a
Ku
B atu m i
D e r b e nt
R G I A
C a Tib ilisi u c a s u s B O R C H A L I
S e a
Z aq at al Z e ik hur A lp an
Kura
K azak
C a s p i a n
Q ub a
S he k i A k st afa
Pamb ak
S hamak hi
ra Ku
Kars
A R M E N I A
B ijov
Talish L ake S ev an
A ras N
Baku
A Z E R B A I J A N
Ye r e van
T U R K E Y
M a ra z a
Ku r a
i ehr as Ar
Araks
S hir van
S husha A ra
D iv r i Ä&#x;i
ks
S al’ya n
B ahmanli Q ar ab ag h
ks A ra
M O G H A N
Kura
ra S u Qa
Jab r ay il
Va n Go lu
A har
M o u nt S abal an M e shk in S hahr He r iz Q ar aje h B ak shaish Tab r iz M e hr ab an D uzd uzan M o u nt S ar ab B ost anab ad S ah and ns Bozg ush Mountai D ar y ach eh -Ye Or u m i y eh
A r d ab il
Q ar e hchaman M iyane h
E A S T A Z A R B AY J A N
Z anjan
I R A N 0
0
20
20
40
40
60
60
80
100
80
120
140
100
Miles
160
180
km
I R A Q Te h ra n
R U S S I A
G
r e a t e r
C a u c a s u s
D A G E S TA N
B l a c k
G E O L e s s e r ra
S e a
Ku
B atu m i
D e r b e nt
R G I A
C a Tib ilisi u c a s u s B O R C H A L I
S e a
Z aq at al Z e ik hur A lp an
Kura
K azak
C a s p i a n
Q ub a
S he k i A k st afa
Pamb ak
S hamak hi
ra Ku
Kars
A R M E N I A
B ijov
Talish L ake S ev an
A ras N
Baku
A Z E R B A I J A N
Ye r e van
T U R K E Y
M a ra z a
Ku r a
i ehr as Ar
Araks
S hir van
S husha A ra
D iv r i Ä&#x;i
ks
S al’ya n
B ahmanli Q ar ab ag h
ks A ra
M O G H A N
Kura
ra S u Qa
Jab r ay il
Va n Go lu
A har
M o u nt S abal an M e shk in S hahr He r iz Q ar aje h B ak shaish Tab r iz M e hr ab an D uzd uzan M o u nt S ar ab B ost anab ad S ah and ns Bozg ush Mountai D ar y ach eh -Ye Or u m i y eh
A r d ab il
Q ar e hchaman M iyane h
E A S T A Z A R B AY J A N
Z anjan
I R A N 0
0
20
20
40
40
60
60
80
100
80
120
140
100
Miles
160
180
km
I R A Q Te h ra n
31 Size 5'6" × 6'10" (173 × 208 cm) Warp Z3S ivory wool, warps on one level Weft Two singles, red, blue, rose and beige wool, two to eight shots, mostly two; several red cables to correct curvature Knotting V 7, H 7, 49/square inch, 760/square dm; pile height about 19mm Selvedges Three pairs of reinforced warps interlaced with red wool Ends End finishes missing, but 1"/2 cm of red plainweave remains at the bottom end Colors 6: red, green, medium blue, yellow, ivory, dark brown, partly corroded
Borjalu (?) Kazak rug Judging from dealers’ lore, and not much else, because there is not much else to go on, this Kazak may have been woven in the Borjalu/Borchalu/Borchali region (or valley) in southeastern Georgia, which is said still to have a substantial Azeri population. On certain maps of Armenia,76 there is a Borchalu river and presumably, a valley. It is characteristic of this group of rugs to have a main border comprised of offset hooked half medallions, possibly derived from a pattern used in warp-faced packbands or jajims, and long ago transferred to pile weaving. There are in this piece characteristics typical of a relatively old Kazak: The high quality of the dyes and the evenness of application; the color intensity and balance; the fact that the structure and the pattern are irregular;77 and especially quirky elements, like the inner and outer top and bottom guard borders varying in color and design from one end to the other, and different from the side
142
guards. All this seems to reflect unhurried weaving. The pile seems unusually long for this type of rug. Given the pile length, such Kazaks may at one time have been used for bedding. This rug is loosely knotted but in very good condition. Later Kazaks like this are often more densely woven, with shorter pile. Some older ones may have been sheared, so it is sometimes hard to tell what the pile length was originally. In contrast to the well-drawn borders, the field is less disciplined. It appears that the weavers had seen a ‘Star’ Kazak and tried to reproduce it from memory. The ivory field, the two attempts at red eight-pointed ‘stars’, the box-like forms in the red stars and the green palmettes emanating from the boxes all point to that design origin. Green stars replace blue ones in the original and there are no diagonal hooked forms. For an easy comparison, see the Star Kazak on the cover of Kazak.
31 Size 5'6" × 6'10" (173 × 208 cm) Warp Z3S ivory wool, warps on one level Weft Two singles, red, blue, rose and beige wool, two to eight shots, mostly two; several red cables to correct curvature Knotting V 7, H 7, 49/square inch, 760/square dm; pile height about 19mm Selvedges Three pairs of reinforced warps interlaced with red wool Ends End finishes missing, but 1"/2 cm of red plainweave remains at the bottom end Colors 6: red, green, medium blue, yellow, ivory, dark brown, partly corroded
Borjalu (?) Kazak rug Judging from dealers’ lore, and not much else, because there is not much else to go on, this Kazak may have been woven in the Borjalu/Borchalu/Borchali region (or valley) in southeastern Georgia, which is said still to have a substantial Azeri population. On certain maps of Armenia,76 there is a Borchalu river and presumably, a valley. It is characteristic of this group of rugs to have a main border comprised of offset hooked half medallions, possibly derived from a pattern used in warp-faced packbands or jajims, and long ago transferred to pile weaving. There are in this piece characteristics typical of a relatively old Kazak: The high quality of the dyes and the evenness of application; the color intensity and balance; the fact that the structure and the pattern are irregular;77 and especially quirky elements, like the inner and outer top and bottom guard borders varying in color and design from one end to the other, and different from the side
142
guards. All this seems to reflect unhurried weaving. The pile seems unusually long for this type of rug. Given the pile length, such Kazaks may at one time have been used for bedding. This rug is loosely knotted but in very good condition. Later Kazaks like this are often more densely woven, with shorter pile. Some older ones may have been sheared, so it is sometimes hard to tell what the pile length was originally. In contrast to the well-drawn borders, the field is less disciplined. It appears that the weavers had seen a ‘Star’ Kazak and tried to reproduce it from memory. The ivory field, the two attempts at red eight-pointed ‘stars’, the box-like forms in the red stars and the green palmettes emanating from the boxes all point to that design origin. Green stars replace blue ones in the original and there are no diagonal hooked forms. For an easy comparison, see the Star Kazak on the cover of Kazak.
The design elements in this rug are precisely drawn, there are border corner solutions, the colors are clear and even, and there are minor motifs in the field that do not appear in most rugs of this type – two kinds of palmettes, ascending plant forms, and little heart-shaped elements pointing inward from the edge of the field. All this points to unhurried weavers. The rug is wider at the bottom than the top, as the wefts were pulled less tautly at the beginning of the weaving.148 The edges and warp finishes are intact, but the dark brown field was, on acquisition, completely corroded away. The decision to replace it was motivated by the fact that the design was lost on an ivory warp and weft foundation. Replacing corroded dark brown fields in old Caucasian village rugs is done on a case by case basis – there is no rule. There is no hard evidence that the ‘Lesghi Star’ pattern used in Transcaucasian rug weaving predates the nineteenth century in its present form. Is that because the design had not been introduced into the Transcaucasus earlier? Questions, questions.
220
221
The design elements in this rug are precisely drawn, there are border corner solutions, the colors are clear and even, and there are minor motifs in the field that do not appear in most rugs of this type – two kinds of palmettes, ascending plant forms, and little heart-shaped elements pointing inward from the edge of the field. All this points to unhurried weavers. The rug is wider at the bottom than the top, as the wefts were pulled less tautly at the beginning of the weaving.148 The edges and warp finishes are intact, but the dark brown field was, on acquisition, completely corroded away. The decision to replace it was motivated by the fact that the design was lost on an ivory warp and weft foundation. Replacing corroded dark brown fields in old Caucasian village rugs is done on a case by case basis – there is no rule. There is no hard evidence that the ‘Lesghi Star’ pattern used in Transcaucasian rug weaving predates the nineteenth century in its present form. Is that because the design had not been introduced into the Transcaucasus earlier? Questions, questions.
220
221
qa r aj e h t o qu b a Rugs and Flatweaves from East Azarbayjan and the Transcaucasus © 2019 Raoul E. Tschebull & the Near Eastern Art Research Center All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means – photographic, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping or information storage and retrieval systems – without permission of the publishers. The right of Raoul E. Tschebull to be identified as author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. isbn 978-1-898113-61-4 Produced in the United Kingdom by HALI Publications Ltd., 8 Ability Plaza, Arbutus Street, London e84dt
The Author Born ten miles west of Manhattan, Raoul (‘Mike’) Tschebull grew up with his family’s unusual old oriental rugs, puzzled over them, had trouble figuring out where and when they were woven. It produced a lifelong interest. As a result, he has been a long-term collector of rugs and related textiles along with his late wife, Ingeborg. After graduating from Colby College in Waterville, Maine, in 1963, for most of his working career he was employed in international banking, substantially in Germany and Spain. He has an extensive record of writing in the field of Eurasian ethnographic textiles, including pile-woven rugs, but is best known for the iconic Finch College Museum of Art exhibition catalogue Kazak (1971). Rug study has brought him into extensive contact with cultural anthropology, as well as a myriad of other disciplines, and has afforded him opportunities to speak on the subject of Eurasian weaving in diverse conferences and symposia from San Francisco to Tehran.
Edited by Daniel Shaffer, Ben Evans Designed by Misha Anikst and Ben Strachan, Anikst Design Ltd., London Photography by Don Tuttle, Emeryville, California Additional photography (pp. 140–1, 246–7) by Robert Puglisi, New York East Azarbayjan field photographs (1997, 1998) © Raoul E. Tschebull Printed and bound by Graphicom, Vicenza, Italy The Cover Detail of Plate 20, Azarbayjani nomad (?) warp-faced jajim
An early recipient of the Near Eastern Art Research Center’s Joseph V. McMullan Award for scholarship and stewardship in the field of Islamic carpets, he is on the board of directors of the NEARC, which fosters research and publication in the field. His other interests include terrestrial tropical orchids and flora native to the northeastern USA.