Textiles and Text
This is the second part of a two part virtual version of a Textile Museum morning program that Harold Keshishian conducted with the assistance of his son, Kirk, onJune 20, 2009
If you have not seen Part 1, it is probably best to start with it. You can go to it using the following link:Harold substituting in this rug morning was apparently successfully announced on the TMs web site, because the congregantsbrought pieces and they were, mostly on topic.
The first in piece was the small bag face below.
A nice field of rectilinear devices well framed by a yellow ground border.
The next piece was a complete single Shahsevan bag.
This pile design is one of the simplest and yet most sought after among Shahsevan varieties. As with most examples of this design, the colors are glorious.
and said that he had not seen a Lori sumak this coarse and that he thought it might be Char Mahal.
A fourth piece I had brought was the small bag below.
This was used as a tobacco bag. It is 6.25 prada handbags inches wide and 7.5 inches tall. It smells of tobacco and had a cigarette paper in prada handbags it when I bought it. It is a hard, tight piece of weaving. It has strong colors and some might see them as from synthetic dyes, but they are stable: there seem no signs of transfer.
But, again, because it is made from a continuous piece of fabric the possibility exists that it is from something larger.
I have seen one other piece like this and they are both put together in the same way: sewn very firmlyup the sides, with what seems like a hard, thin piece of felt as an intervening layer.
Here are two views of its side, one outside
and one that shows the connection on the inside.
Harold examined this piece again, as we were finalizing this section, and says, looking inside it, he can see that the wefts that is they are not cut off. This means that the current width of the piece was that at which it was woven. So on that score, at least, it seems not to have been constructed.
But the other suspiciousthing about this piece is itsdistinctive end finish. I have seen something similar before onother Anatolian pieces. Take another look at the top of this bag,and I show you my comparator.
First, notice that there is a narrow change in design at the top outside edge of this piece that seems to function as a kind of top border. This narrow design does not occur elsewhere on it.
More, when one looks at the back of the top edge, where it has been turned over, one finds plain weave in a dull reddish shade, the sort of thing that one would expect if this was the actual as woven top.
What is most suspicious about this bag is theend finish that rises above the turned over top edge.
As you can see, seem to have been gathered and then wrapped tightly, but then two wrapped sets are tied together toward their upper ends. (The heavier cord looped through th prada handbags ese joined sets to close the bag at the top seems something added later.)
Now here is the seemingly similar Anatolian usage prada handbags I seen.
This usage shows that warps that are gathered together in braids are sometimes joined in pairs as in the end finish of my bag. The description says that the gathering is done by braiding not by wrapping. But you can see that the general appearance is similar.
Now, earlier,as I waswriting the above, I sent these images and my text to an experienced friend. The comments I received indicate that:
1. this fabric was likely woven in the Kagizman/Erzerum area of northeastern Anatolia.
2. this specifictop end finish is not among those known to be used by any particular group of weavers (although the warps tied together at the ends usage does occur, as in my Van kilim example above, the warps are gathered by braiding rather than wrapping). This wrapping, especially,makes the end finish on my bag suspect as a possible contrived flourish.
3. it is not clear whether what is wrapped are the warps of this piece or whether it is a set of fibers floating horizontally inside the turned over top and brought up periodically and wrapped and cut.