Home > Turkmen Rugs >An Ancient Saryk MC
and its progenitor Part IV
Tue, Nov 30th, 2010 10:24:15 PM
Topic: An Ancient Saryk MC
and its progenitor Part IV

Viewing the main and minor gol of the Saryk MC and those on the Anatolian fragment provides ample evidence to support our contention these weaving are very closely related. But why do we believe this is an antecedent/descendant one (where the MC is the latter and the fragment is the former and not visa-versa)?

While we cannot presently prove it with 100% certainty, there is enough evidence to support the former idea beyond that legal term "a shadow of doubt" and to intimate the latter is also correct, ie Anatolian fragment is the antecedent.

Let’s now take a look and then you be the judge.

Again, for the record, we are positive the fragment is centuries older than the MC, and we are likewise sure the MC is the earliest ‘timurchin” gol, or for the matter any gol, Saryk weaving yet discovered, ie 1600AD or before.

As an aside we have tried to find out the etymology of the word ‘timurchin’ to explain why this gol has been so named. Unfortunately only a few vague clue seem to exist, the best of which refers to Ghengis Khan.

It seems Ghengis Khan was originally named "Temüjin" by his parents at birth.

Let’s remember Ghengis Khan conquered much of the areas inhabited by the Turkmen groups who are responsible for the historic and later carpets that now bear their tribal monikers.

So could this gol, its highly developed iconography or some significant part of it, been his or his family's insignia?

Here's another part of this puzzle: “The name "Temüjin" is believed to derive from the word temür, meaning iron (modern Mongolian: төмөр, tömör). The name would imply skill as a blacksmith.”

So is it possible the convoluted articulation the 'timurchin' gol exhibits actually mimic some type of now unknown artifact(s) made of iron?

Did that artifact have some important meaning and connections with or for the Anatolian fragment’s weaving group, and then later for the Saryk who apparently were the only Turkmen group to ever use the ‘timurchin’ gol?

We should mention here the existence of several Erasri/Beshir MC with 'timurchin' gol; however, these examples are demonstrably later than the Saryk examples, especially the one we have just published.

Questions like these are intriguing and mysterious, and by posing them does this bring us closer to understanding what a Turkmen weaving like the Saryk MC is all about?

Since RK can’t presently provide additional, more detailed documentation for this or the etymology issues, let’s return to the gol on the Anatolian fragment and examine their relationship to the Saryk MC’s.

First and foremost is their sharing octagonal major gol (outline) along with the not so obvious quadra-partite (quartered) inner-rectangular box within that octagon format.

These are strong, not by chance, design convention; they are far from accidental and must be deliberate reference to something highly significant to the maker(s) and original user(s); something that remains completely unknown many centuries later.

And when the highly articulated iconic elements, illustrations a & b, found within those octagonal gol are considered, we believe an indelible relationship becomes clear and present.

illustration a...................................illustration b.................................

Adding further evidence to our thesis are their very similar, almost exact, so-called memling minor gol formats.

so-called memling minor gol Saryk MC(above) and Anatolian fragment(below)

Again this is no accidental coincidence, as we know no other type of archaic Anatolian Village rug with what appears to be an exclusive major and minor gol format, especially one with such direct link to a well-known Turkmen carpet type like the 'timurchin' gol Saryk MC.

That’s it for this episode but be sure there’s more documentary evidence we will cite, so stay tuned…

Author: doesntmatter
Tue, Nov 30th, 2010 10:21:19 PM

Well now, "doesnt matter":

If it doesn't matter why ask?

But since you did let us put your mind to rest.

1. We have not revealed the "novel concept" yet; so keep your shirt on and don't get yer knickers in a twist, it'll be a'comin' when we get around to revealing it.

And maybe we'll just wait until closer to Xmas and make it RK's Christmas gift to our readers.

2. You are right there are Anatolian and Turkmen weavings that share similar designs. But this, doesn't matter, doesn't really matter because it is as obvious as the nose on your face. And RK doesn't bother revealing obvious things, now do we.

However, your next statement: "I suppose the surprise is that there are not more such Anatolian pieces known."

is not a surprise, it is a fact. And again an obvious one RK would not bother holding you or anyone else in suspense for.

Nota bene: RK has never seen in person, or photograph, or in a book, or even heard about, a Turkmen rug made in Anatolia during or soon after any Turkmen group came to Anatolia from Turkmenistan, ie dating from the 13th-15th century.

And this, dear doesnt matter, really does matter. It is why we have published our Anatolian fragment -- because we believe it to be one of those very weavings.

3. As for your next statement asking where is the proof the Anatolian fragment is the ancestor of our MC:

We can only say try re-reading what we have written so far and then hold yer horses, as more is coming.

4. And as for the "common design pool" you mention?

We would strongly suggest the Anatolian fragment is a representative of that design pool and the Saryk MC is the recipient.

Analyzing iconography is an interesting game, but there's always the sticky wicket as to whose anaylsis is right and whose is wrong.

So until we have dished out the complete story we suggest you and others wait it out until we have served up the whole enchilada.


Mr. Cassin:

You wrote: "We have carefully examined the fragment and it appears to be ancient, its weave, materials and colors are in all respects subtly remarkable and unique."

"These characteristics, plus its iconography, have led us to this conclusion, as well as to a novel concept about ancient Turkmen rugs we would like to now make public."

What is the "novel concept"? Would you please state it clearly?

I believe it is common knowledge that there are Turkman people in Anatolia.

That there exist Anatolian pieces that share design elements with pieces woven by Turkman further to the East should therefor be no big surprise.

I suppose the surprise is that there are not more such Anatolian pieces known.

You also wrote: "But why do we believe this is an antecedent/descendant one (snip)?"

Other than stating your opinion that the fragment is older than the Saryk, you offered no evidence that the fragment is a precursor to the Saryk. Is it not as possible that both pieces draw from a common (old) design pool?

Thanks for the interesting pics.

Author: john Lewis
email: john_lewis@mac.com
Mon, Nov 29th, 2010 11:28:38 AM

Whose arse are you referring to, John?

Not RK's we hope, for if so put your helmet on -- the weatherman says it might start hailing baseball size stones in your neighborhood.


I am waiting for the anonymous posters to explain why you are talking out of your arse.

Home   Buy/Sell at the Kazbah   Terms Of Service