We are not going to bother rebutting this except to say only a spit-ball throwing lout like this poster could possibly believe he is doing anything other than showing what a rug clown he is by pursuing this a tack.
We will gladly admit our statement about the camels was too generally put and we we should have defined it further to prevent misinterpretation.
However, and that said, we didn't figure on professor clown, or other clowns like robert, continuing to press the point after we have explained it before -- not only here today.
'Nuff said on this one, we trust?
Our statement questioning the possibility kejebe torba, even a one medallion small one like the one in that sotheby sale, could have been used as asmalyk is one that the jury is still out on. However, we do not believe any early Turkmen group used these torba as bridal asmalyk? Why do we harbor such an idea?
For starters, no kejebe torba has a white background, which is the chosen color for most "bridal" pieces.
Second, the kejebe is originally, in our opinion, an engsi design/amulet that was, at some later but still quite early date, amalgamated and combined into the kejebe torba format.
Proof for this is the fact we know ancient engsi with the kejebe design but have never seen a kejebe torba that was nearly as archaic and early.
Believe what you wish but the idea a kejebe torba, like the sotheby piece, were part of the bridal litter in early, historic Turkmen culture is nothing but tooth-fairy trooth. Perhaps in later, post-conquest Turkmen society they served that function but this is aberration of history, not history.
"We find it amusing and ignorant on the rug department’s part to call it a “camel trapping” in the catalog, as the Turkmen had no camels and even if they did how would a large “bag” or panel with a horizontal design like this been used or displayed on one?"
Copied and pasted from review of Sotheby Spring Sale 2005.