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…