For the past month or so RK has been on the move and consequently we have not had the chance to use our library or our database.
We have not even been using our laptop, as the places we have been precluded that possibility.
Consequently, and although, we thought we had seen this piece in Tsareva's book we did not want to make that association without the facts.
We did, at the time of posting this thread, email someone asking them to look it up and received a reply yesterday informing us it was, indeed, in her survey.
And as we only just came online and saw that email, as well as what is scribbled in clownland, this is why our mentioning it is somehat after the fact.
However, whether or not it was previously illustrated or not, the fact remains it is a very interesting chuval and is not a 20th century work.
Far from it.
Also, the reasons for our publishing it in this thread, and for our beliefs about it, are surely not limited to the fact we did not remember whether or not it was in Tsareva, nor were they do to the fact the gols are large.
What is clear is the reality there are no other known similar examples, nor are there any other pre-commercial period Turkmen chuvals with the secondary gol it displays.
These facts alone are significant enough to garner anyone's attention...well anyone who knows anything about historic Turkmen weaving.
It is also a distinct possibility it is not even Turkmen but rather the product of some other weaving group -- maybe Chu-Bash?
Until we can examine it in the flesh any provenance ideas are, just that, only ideas.
Obviously, the punkass comments professor clown has issued forth about our posting this thread are typical and pathetic.
What is also typical is the fact he has no ideas about this chuval.
Nor has he ever demonstrated an original idea about anything related to genuinely old rugs in his long career posing as someone who claims to possess rug knowledge.
His "collection" is airport-art ridden at best and his rug expertise couldn't fill a midget's thimball.
That's all we care to say about him but let it also be known:
The Weaving Art Museum and RugKazbah.com were not founded to "educate" anyone about Oriental Rugs, as the rug challenged professor price recently and quite erroneously claimed.
Both sites were founded to "raise appreciation for masterpiece examples of Near Eastern weavings".
While RK realizes this distinction requires intellect clearly unavailable to professor price=clown and others of his ilk to differentiate, it is an important difference worth noting.
RK is not against "educating" others, and we surely know we have done that, but neither site is, or should be considered, rug 101 or rug PhD.
We are interested in stimulating others to learn on their own, rather than to spoon-fed rug knowledge.
We feel presenting masterpiece examples, and clearly referencing them as such, is the best technique to accomplish that goal and our mission.
Airport-art rugs are not bad per se, they are just inferior but to miss, or ignore, that fact is, in our estimation, bad.
It is patently obvious rugdom has trouble in this regard and the myriad of reasons for this -- from lack of enough knowledge and expertise to out and out commerical bias and desires -- do not need to be discussed here. But they do need to be recognized.
A boorish pedantic clown like price, who suffers a monstrous inability to really learn anything about historic rugs, is definitely lost in the sauce and he is not alone, as he has much company.
RugKazbah and WAMRI have presented a voluminous amount of proof to demonstrate what is wrong with rugdom and also to show why steve price is the poster boy for much of this.
There is an old saying " A picture is worth a thousand words" and we offer the following one to show the absurdity of price=clown's posting this photo to support his agreement with the idea large pre-commercial period "S" group torba were ever made to be displayed on camels carrying bridal litters. This claim is far from a proven fact, nor is it even close to being so.
RK has frequently commented on the foolish idea of believing what certain Turkmen groups were doing in the late 19th century is analagous with what they, or other groups, were doing decades or centuries earlier.
This highly specious practise is rampant in certain corners of rugdom and, as far as RK is concerned, it's time it was recognized as such and stopped.
There is little doubt the indigenous cultural and economic bases of the Turkmen
societies, as well as their weavings, were changed and then destroyed by foreign contacts, which by the way were well under way in the 18th century.
Also, there is, and should be, little doubt 18th, 17th and probably 16th century and even earlier Turkmen rugs have been and are preserved in the body of remaining examples now held in public and private collections.
We realize this statement can not be proven positively but we are equally sure it will one day be far more widely recognized and appreciated.
This is one of many goals RK is working towards and, as soon as we have further funding besides opening our wallet, we are sure we will be able to take some giant steps in that direction.
Rug idiots like price, who pride themselves on their pseudo-studious and bogus academic approach, will eventually either have to agree with what avatars like RK believe or disappear off the scene.
This is something you can bet the farm on, just don't be in any hurry to receive your profits.