Home > Archive >The source of the 'eagle' "device"
Author:jc
email: jc@rugkazbah.com
Tue, Mar 7th, 2006 11:06:06 AM
Topic: The source of the 'eagle' "device"

We just received an email from someone who asked us to look in clownland.com to offer our opinion on the “discussion” about something called ‘the eagle-device’.

We imagined it was the ‘eagle’ of eagle Kazak fame and we were right.

After reading through the amateurish, patently obvious and totally incorrect pseudo-provenance the cut-and-paste magpie crowd professor clown shepherds is struggling with we decided, rather than answer our reader by email, we would do it on RK.com.

The actual source for the medallion, known as the “eagle”, which is found on a group of rugs called eagle Kazaks, as well as some much earlier and far larger carpets generally known as ‘dragon’ rugs predates these groups and is found in another medium – long stitch embroidery.

Eagle Kazaks are mostly later 19th century work, although there is a rare group that can be assigned to the mid/late 18th century.

These earlier Eagle Kazaks have only one large eagle medallion and the one in the Victoria and Albert Museum and another RK used to own(location now unknown) are the only two that are published.

There was a third but it was much smaller, later and not technically similar to these two others.

The small number of dragon rugs with eagle medallions predates this group of rare single medallion eagle kazaks. Some of these dragon rugs probably date to the 17th century, although a case could be made for one or two being even earlier.

In all these instances, the ‘eagle’ medallion is very similarly depicted but naturally there are some minor differences, particularly the articulation of some of the small elements of the design that receive finer treatment in the earlier examples.

However, the real source for this design must be gleaned, as we have stated, elsewhere – from an example of what is known as ‘Caucasian’ embroidery.

Here is what RK believes to be the 'eagle' device archetype:

This remarkable survivor is, in our opinion, pre-16th century and the earliest representation of the eagle medallion.

RK’s ideas about its iconography will, for now, remain undisclosed as we are still in the process of documenting them.

Regardless of that fact, we thought it pertinent to demonstrate our expertise and knowledge via-a-vis what goes down elsewhere.

The embroidery we illustrate here has been on our Weaving Art Museum website for a number of years, in fact since 1998.

It is illustrated in the exhibition entitled “Soumak and Kelim Weaving of the Caucasus” and the embroidery is now on-loan to the Museum from our personal collection.

Here is the url for the exhibition:
http://weavingartmuseum.org/ex2_main.htm
and the embroidery is Plate 2.

We could go on and flesh this relationship out further but we do not have the time presently. Plus what we have provided here is enough of a start for anyone with some common rug sense to understand and to do further research from on their own.

The embroidery illustrated above is the key component necessary to understand the development of the eagle Kazak medallion.

RK discovered long ago many designs, patterns and icons found on pre-airport-art weavings can be likewise traced back to their prototypes and archetypes. The collection we have built reflects this search for archetypes and much of our undisclosed research, recent and not so recent, deals with this area of inquiry – locating these archetypal sources and identities.

We offer this evidence (re: the ‘eagle device’) on RK.com to demonstrate the world of difference between what happens here and what transpires on all the other rug discussion websites like price’s, oCONnell’s, allen’s, hali’s, cloubland’s, etc. that are organized and mostly populated by ruggies who couldn't pin the tail on an 'eagle' device if it landed on their computer keyboard face down.

Author: Ashok Patel
email:
Tue, Mar 7th, 2006 11:06:06 AM

RK Replies:

Do you really think this pitifully phony mea culpa is fooling us, or anyone else?

We have better things to do, like take out the garbage, than put any faith in your pathetic attempt to express honesty.

Go shove a pencil in your ear or anyplace else it will fit and quit this charade.

Or, if we are wrong, prove it by scanning your drivers license and emailing it to us.

Otherwise, we will soon consign your IP address into the world of the banned.

=========================

I apologize RK I admit that "RKs secret admirer" is I, Ashok Patel. I thought you would not respond well to me since previously I made terrible posts. Now I realize that you are the expert and I am the rank amateur. I was not sarcastic. I now see that you alone are the repository of the secret hidden rug knowledge that many desire but only one possesses. I sit now at the feet of the master seeking only to drink in your vast knowledge. Through you I seek the path of true enlightenment... Rug Gnosis!

Author: RKs secret admirer
email:
Tue, Mar 7th, 2006 08:12:15 AM

RK Replies:

First off, cut the sarcastic BS, as we do not appreciate being toyed with or patronized. Also, if you want to discuss anything with us, especially a complex topic like the one you raise, doing so from the position of anonymity does not encourage us to reveal anything to you.

If you chose to write in again with your name attached to your post, or if you email us privately with that information, we will reveal more of our thoughts on this subject.

Basically, and very basically we must add, your approach to this question is limited by your reliance on "history" where, if fact, little or no actual history exists.

Rug weaving and textile production, particularly pre-1700, happened in a myriad of circumstances, for a myriad of reasons and was done by a myriad of different groups.

To expect, as you say "the path of artistic ideas in that period.[to be]..coming from the cities to the rural country... [or]... that it is the reverse that the village women created the art and it spread to the workshops of Tabriz." is frankly myopic.

You must remember, there has been a continuous reliance on reproducing iconic design(s) since the Paleolithic period.

There can be little doubt some, yes very, very few, weavings -- be they pile, flat-weave, or embroidery -- are indelibly connected with this tradition.

Then there are the mysterious and still little understood 'cultures' that rose and fell in the eastern Mediterranean area.

Some of these peoples left little behind, barely enough to even sense they were there, let alone enough to outline the who and what about them.

So your question opens up a Pandora’s box -- one we, well some of us, can sense and discuss but not fully explain.

Another factor you miss is that sericulture is far older than the 16th century and until we have enough data to compare samples, it would be impossible to determine where the silk in this embroidery was generated.

Our plans for forensic testing that are hinted at here, and on the Weaving Art Museum website, are intended to unravel (no pun intended) this story and many others.

The choice is yours, reveal who you are (and from your IP address we know you have posted here before under other pseudonyms) and we will discuss and reveal more or, don't, and be happy with the big picture answer we have provided.

===========================

My dear RK,

You do provoke thought, don't you now.

I admire your wit and wisdom as the master of all things woven.

Still I am troubled by your missive The source of the 'eagle' "device".

Are you postulating a separate indigenous origin of the art that we see manifested in the pre-16th century ‘Caucasian’ embroidery.

When you say "pre-16th century" I assume you are pointing back to the Caucasus in the Akgoyunlu Turkmen dynasty period. If you mean Karagoyunlu please tell us.

I see this as potentially early dating since Caucasian sericulture prior to the reign of Thahmasp Safavid is a bit of a mystery.

Still if anyone would know about sericulture it would be you.

So what people then were the stitchers of this embroidery? We know later work was Azeri but in this very early period to whom do you attribute it.

The art of the Akgoyunlu Turkmen dynasty was very sophisticated. But most historians see the path of artistic ideas in that period as coming from the cities to the rural country.

Are you suggesting that it is the reverse that the village women created the art and it spread to the workshops of Tabriz.

Please take my question as sincere since I look to you as the preeminent expert on rugs in the world today. RKs secret admirer

Author: Anon.
email:
Mon, Mar 6th, 2006 12:26:12 PM

RK Replies:

WE don't censor, we remove those who abuse the privlidge RK.com allows.

With each post you make we are getting closer to identifying you and when, not if we do, little man, you will be even more sorrowiful than you are now.

Enjoy your moments of basking in RK.com's light but recognize we will soon squash you like a bug on our kitchen wall.

Incidently, we know this post comes from someone else, not the loser who posted the others, and we will soon expose this poster, too, for his participation.

How's the babysitting going?

=============================

"Ben" isn't an identity. It's a nom-de-plume, as it were, open to anyone.

What happened to the post from the other "Ben"? Censored?

Author: Ben
email:
Mon, Mar 6th, 2006 12:14:32 PM

RK Replies:

Greetings Ben and thanks for your post.

Expecting a weasel like him to do anything other than act like a fool is, clearly, impossible.

We will, as we have in the past with the others who thought they could post what they wish here with impunity, expose him -- it is only a matter of time.

RK appreciates your concern and know we never suspected you, or the others he tried to impersonate, were the source of those emails.

====================================

Hello. I'm writing in to say that someone posted a message earlier today posing as me. If you have a beef with Jack, then please have the brass to express your views without stealing my identity. Cheers, Ben.

Author: Jacques Strap
email: nevermatter@bike.com
Mon, Mar 6th, 2006 09:58:23 AM

RK Replies:

You keep changing your IP address(this time it is 202.137.116.53) but you are fooling no one.

Changing an IP address is as easily done as changing a baby's diapers. Speaking of diapers have you looked to see what's in your this morning?

Keep it up and eventually we will have enough info to identify you.

Don't believe me? watch and see, little man.

==============================

None of those people are me. (insert blank line) I offered to show you how many people can wind up using the same IP (all being the same person is one of them, of course, but not the only one). You decided to block the IP that the other Jacques and I were using, and to pretend that this isn't censorship. So you passed up the chance to learn something. Too bad.

Author: Mark
email: markhunter@doodle.com
Mon, Mar 6th, 2006 03:04:22 AM

RK Replies:

Well, jacques, your perfidy is only superceded by your stupidity.

All of the bogus messages you posted here on RK.com this morning, attempting to impersonate others, came from the same IP address -- 65.110.6.41.

Are you really so stupid to think you'd get away with that and fool anyone but yourself?

Plus several of those you tried to impersonate emailed us to say it wasn't them.

So you lost on both counts.

Clowns and morons like you are a dime a dozen.

So better put your dunce cap on, my little man -- no it's not a thinking cap, dummy -- and sit in the corner next to professor clown.

By the way, we fixed that address also so next time you want to post here go to the library and use their computer.

======================================

Tsk, tsk. The critics exposed here really did hurt you, uh? Now your pretension of keeping a free and uncensored site goes down the toilet! Congratulations. I thought you were better than that.

Author: Jacques Strap
email: nevermatter@bike.com
Sun, Mar 5th, 2006 09:52:47 AM

RK Replies: You asked for it and you got it.

You have not been censored, you are now banned.

Go get a new anonymiser program and use that to read this news. Toodles, little man.

===========================

You're not talking about censoring us, are you? That's what you never do, isn't it? (insert blank line) You are as full of shit about the internet as you are about most things, including the ones some people think you really know. (insert blank line) In just a few days, I'll show you how even a brain dead fraud like you can add messages from this IP address. That should prove to you that it can be done. (insert blank line) But I can't give you this free lesson if you censor the IP, can I?.

Author: Jacques Strap
email: nevermatter@bike.com
Sat, Mar 4th, 2006 04:08:23 PM

RK Replies: Speaking out of your hat or that dark place down below?

IP addresses are not shared, dummy, though they are changed each time you hook up to the net, depending upon the type of internet connection.

The chances the same address will turn up here on RK.com's board by two alleged individuals posting to the same topic are about as possible as those for winning the lottery.

Good try but again you fall short by a huge margin, both in fact and integrity.

We will not bother to dice the peanut with you anymore and, if you post here again with the same dribble, you will have to go get a new anonymizer account as we will ban your VELIANET-DE-ANONYMOUSE one

If you think we are joshing, keep it up and find out we talk not out of our hat, like you, little man, but from the hip.

=========================

IP addresses never lie. That's if you know enough to know that some IP addresses have thousands of users. It looks like the internet is just another subject that you write about with certainty despite your ignorance.(insert blank line) Jacques isn't me. Never was, probably never will be.

Author: Jacques
email: nevermind@hotmail.com
Sat, Mar 4th, 2006 03:21:04 AM

RK Replies:

This connection is obvious and we never claimed we were the first to recognize it.

However, we are the first to provide the archetype embroidery that underlies the generation of the 'eagle'device.

But subtlities like this are lost on mini-brains, like yours -- pearls before swine comes to mind.

What is also obvious is you, little man, are a lying sack of BS, monsieur 'jacques'.

For unlike a miscreant, mealy-mouthed creep like yourself, IP addresses do not lie and yours shows up each time you post here.

Go converse with professor clown, play solitaire, or play with yourself, we tire of your nonsense.

Is that clear, now, little man?

=================================

Oh, I’m sorry. Wasn’t Schurmann the first to mention the connection? See plate 139. The other Jacques is not me.

Author: Jacques Strap
email: nevermatter@bike.com
Fri, Mar 3rd, 2006 05:39:09 PM

RK Replies:

Since this post and the one below it have the same IP address, it is a given you are posting both of them, jacques, my little man.

As for you being price=clown? Who cares both of you, or just one of you, are proven agenda driven mini-minds, not worth the salt in RK's sweatshirt.

Go join steev in a game of solitaire -- that way you can cheat, win and be assured of not being caught in the act.

FYI: you have been officially busted -- go to the corner and forget not to wear your dunce-cap, jacques. And be sure you help professor clown put his on while you're at it, he has trouble with complex moves, remember?

And lastly, we have never posted anything on RK.com without signing our name to it and your accussation, like the others you try to float, is bogus and totally without merit.

=============================

I don't see anything in Jacques post about Price. Show me. All I see is that he shows an example where your "scholarship" is really scholarshit. So do I. It also looks to me like Price uses his own name here. Not many people who post here do that. Not even you.

Author: Jacques
email: nevermind@hotmail.com
Fri, Mar 3rd, 2006 10:59:24 AM

RK Replies:

The old saying ‘a little bit of knowledge is dangerous’, my little-man jacques, might accurately describe you.

Ian Bennett, who is someone RK knew quite well in the old days, was correct but, my little-man jacques, he was not privy to the archaic source example for those embroideries.

That source is illustrated above and that, my little-man jacques, is what we related by our posting.

By the way, go back and look in Bennett's book and you will see the embroideries he cites are far far down the ladder from the top rung where the example we illustrate sits.

Plus, it does seem rather damning your only two appearances here on RK.com have been to support professor clown.

Both of those posts carry an anonymous IP address to 'hide' your actual one.

What are you afraid of? Or, are you professor clown in disguise?

Your citation shows you at least own one rug book but it also suggests you need to learn enough about rugs to understand the gist of our message and appreciate how it applies to this issue.

However, if you are, in fact steev price=clown in disguise, such an effort would be, of course, for naught, as professor price=clown's reasoning abilities have invariably proven to be incapable of making the required associations this issue and many others require .

Enjoy the rest of Bennett's writing on this topic and just maybe by re-reading what we wrote, without the agenda-bending twist you seem to be set upon, you might actually learn something and be grateful for our illustration and words.

================================

Blimey! Jack, yours is an amazing discovery indeed! It’s a real pity that somebody else discovered it long before you. Look at Bennett’s “Caucasian”, on page 104. Speaking about the origin of Kasim-Usag and Chelaberd motifs he wrote this: “The earliest weavings closest in composition to the present group of carpets are not, in fact, pile knotted-carpets, however, but a group of exceptionally beautiful small silk embroideries… dated to the 17th century etc.” Bennett’s book was first published in 1981. Congratulations for demonstrating the world the evidence of your scholarship. BRAVO!!!

Home   Buy/Sell at the Kazbah   Terms Of Service