Home > Rug, Kelim, Soumak, Textile Post Archive >Desperately Seeking Tekke
Fri, Mar 5th, 2010 12:31:11 PM
Topic: Desperately Seeking Tekke

What appears just below was written in November 2009 after this Tekke torba was posted online.

Since then it has been carbon 14 dated and some new, but equally deficient, magpie chatter has ensued around it once again.

It is for this reason RK has now decided to add some intelligence and expertise to set the record straight.

Our comments appear in the first response below for all participants to see and to hopefully weigh against their own.


For the past few months a hapless newbie ruggie has tried to learn what he bought -- is it great or just a piece of airport-art?

From big gun tenn"ass"cee turk0kepto jimbo allen to professor clown many have fussed over it -- surprisingly mostly over its "color".

Funny but all these bozos have different computers and monitors, none of them looking at the same image yet the magpie chattering goes on.

Even if they were all able to view exactly the same image who cares about the color when the piece is obviously lightly chemically washed.

Regardless of its 10-40 percent loss of color -- hence the symptoms the owner has spoken of but the 'xpurts have yet to connect the dots -- its a real good early second period Tekke torba; nothing more or less.

And contrary to the pronouncements of mumbo-jimbo it is not early, if that means pre-1800.

And for everyone's information: Whether or not the C14 testing is done "carefully" the issue of contamination, and its removal, is the lynch-pin of why C14 dating is no good for oriental carpets, no matter how old they are or aren't.

Were hapless's Tekke torba not chemically washed it would glow in the dark, but it still would be second period and that's the only real issue worth discussing. And surely not for months on end as the facts make it an easily ended discussion, well except when magpie rug morons are at it.

You can quote us on that...

Author: John Lewis
email: john_lewis@mac.com
Fri, Mar 5th, 2010 11:41:10 AM

Hi john, and thanks for the comments.

Professor steven price has degrees that were granted by real universities but that in itself does not make him educated, smart or a scientist.

Far from it but regardless of his position in science, in rugDUMB he is nothing but the bottom of the barrel -- the lowest of the low, a slug among slugs who slither around in the murky mud that covers all but certain small patches of rugDUMB's landscape.

As for your 'waving' ideas, including the inebriation aspect, RK has no comments other than to say one does not need to be under the influence of any drug to sense some rare Turkmen weavings are able to transcend their three dimensionality and succeed in reaching what RK might call the fourth dimension.

Not to open a new can of worms we see and sense that fourth dimension metaphysically, not physically.

It exists in the mind's eye, not only in a mind that is open and unprejudiced but more so in ones that have been trained by many years of familiarity with Turkmen weaving.

This fourth dimension is, perhaps, what the Turkmen themselves saw and 'got' from their weavings, as it is clear and quite obvious we, westerners, might not be perceiving their artworks as they did way back when.

Reading "white", looking for reciprocal or figure/ground relationships, getting stoned or any other "methodology" one might utilize to try and fathom what these enigmatic artworks are all about is fine for parlour talk and games but to art historically examine them with any assurance and confidence such tricks and manipulations are unnecessary.

What is necessary is a deep understanding and knowledge of the oeuvre and, of course, the intellectual honesty and capacity to weigh the facts as they are and not as someone might wish or want them to be.

The "discussion" on turk0tek is amateurish and juvenile, not to mention self-serving and self-promoting -- and those "qualities" can never be part and parcel of any genuine "scientific" or intellectual inquiry.


Like you, I have been banned from turk0tek.com for daring to argue with Professor Price. I am sure that your analysis of Martin Andersen’s chuval(RK: torba would be more like it, John) is correct but since my comments about dimensionality have been raised on turk0tek perhaps through your site I should explain where they originated.

I had a very interesting discussion with some of the exhibitors at an exhibition of Uzbek culture held at the Linden Museum in Stuttgart in 2003(?). It concerned their (substantial) use of mind-altering substances – not just marijuana.

I had read Jim Allen’s thoughts about “dimensionality” and had noticed that when I was under the influence of mind-altering substances that some rugs “waved”.

I have a scientific education and I was taught that “experimentation is important”.

So, by positing that sitting in front of certain weaving having taken mind-altering substances, one would see them “wave” I expected others –especially the scientists – to repeat the experiment.

Instead, the idea was dismissed – Prof Price declined to repeat the experiment, indicating that he is not a proper scientist – but I think you have already asserted that several times.

Is his university one of those in the USA that you can buy a degree from?

Until Prof Price repeats the experiment he should keep quiet on the subject and any others that involve science.

Author: jc
Wed, Mar 3rd, 2010 09:03:39 AM

Ninety-nine percent of the online “discussion” about this Tekke torba is moot and meaningless, as c14 dating of old Turkmen weaving is unreliable and, regardless of what certain individuals might try float, a dead duck according to RK.

Other dead duck are jimbo’s beliefs and assertions about Turkmen rugs, particularly in this case about the provenance and dating of the chuval he used to own that is now in the possession of one kurt monkrazy.

so-called “Tekke” chuval, ex-jimbo allen inventory

RK has written about this chuval and our history of having seen it more than 20 years ago at allen’s former apartment on Vanderbilt Ave. in Brooklyn, NY; we need not revisit it again, other to say it is probably not Tekke.

It is an early, rare example for sure, however, it has no relationship to the Tekke torba in question and allen’s comment they are related because they both share “rich but sun blasted red” is nothing but bluster and bullshit, two qualities allen’s assertions invariably contain.

As far as RK is concerned the Tekke torba is a relatively early specimen but the ungainly, somewhat ghastly version of the typical Tekke torba features renders it more a curiosity than an important new addition to the oeuvre.

We also hold the same ideas about the chuval allen formerly had in his inventory.

Also the torba has been, according what we can see from the photos, chemically washed, as this picture below clearly demonstrates.

The absence of the brilliant coloration all early, well-preserved, Turkmen weavings show is quite a detriment but one that is not as significant as its ungainly articulation.

Here is the main gol next to one from another Tekke torba that is, in all regards, superior, not only because of coloration but because it correctly articulates the proper form and format all Tekke torba emulate.

Another point the magpies who are participating in this “discussion” have tried to convince themselves about is the import and alleged significance some missing, minor features, of the secondary gol hold.

Their erroneous argument this supports the idea the torba is 17th century is, again according to RK, nothing but more turko-idiocy.

Compare the detail of the secondary gol with the one on the other torba we illustrated above.

To sum things up the old adage a little knowledge is dangerous is surely worth noting here as the neophytes, and even less experienced, who are pontificating over the Tekke torba in question have not only insufficient experience but, worse, little ability to honestly and properly weigh the available information necessary to arrive at a believable, proper conclusion.

One last point that needs mention, though it is overkill since RK has repeatedly taken jimbo allen to task for his stupid assertions and proclamations about Turkmen weavings, is this latest one from him.

Here’s what allen said about the Tekke torba under discussion:

I feel it should be dated to circa 1650-1700. If it were any later it would have much better color.

RK finds it incredible even someone with allen’s amateurish understanding could possibly believe such a statement is anything but ridiculous.

The coloration of the torba in question has been marred by the chemical wash it has undoubtedly experienced.

However, even if it had not and the unpleasant color was original, allen’s conclusion is laughable and completely incorrect, as it is a well known fact the various differences in coloration present in the weavings made by each Turkmen group are not due, in reality, to their age but rather to the numerous different locations these groups inhabited.

Lastly, RK has better things to occupy our time than critiquing every turko-magpie’s internet palaver but when a “discussion” like the one centered on this Tekke torba goes so far adrift we believe it is in our, and everyone else’s best interests, to set it straight.

When we last looked in and saw the turn the continuing "discussion" has taken concerning jimbo's stupid theories, and now ms muffins mallet's critique, about "dimensionality" it only convinces us further why the rampant turko-idiocy these magpie are capable of spewing needs to be set straight.

Here's some additional pudding proof:

Author: jc
Tue, Nov 17th, 2009 08:37:00 PM

Anyone who might suggest there are chemical dyes, or any chemical over-dyeing, knows nothing about the historic chronology of Turkmen weaving groups.

A torba like this could never have been made in the middle nineteenth century; and you can quote RK on that, as well.

Home   Buy/Sell at the Kazbah   Terms Of Service