The only method one can use to figure out how a icon like the Timurchin gol developed is by doing what is called reverse engineering.
Of course doing this necessitates knowing what is the original and what is the later edition.
So anyone who wishes to argue our Anatolian fragment is not the original and the Timurchin not the later edition let RK suggests you stop reading here, as we are positive the two gol on that fragment are the ancient archetypes, ie originals, for the Saryk MC, and our Saryk’s Timurchin (and Memling) gol are the archetypes for the few other now known historic Saryk Timurchin MC's.
We must state there are a number of what we’d call later Timurchin gol carpets, but for early ones we would have trouble listing more than a few.
Not counting the large iconic ornaments found on early tentband, the Tinurchin gol is the most complex and highly articulated design in the Turkmen iconographic panorama.
This is undoubtedly why it is the rarest gol of all.
Examining the intricacies of this gol as it is expressed on our MC should easily convince anyone who doubts our statements.
We have said it many times before and we will say it again: The fact the oldest examples of Turkmen weaving are the most intricate and sophisticated is a very unusual characteristic, for most weaving types are the complete opposite – the earliest examples are simple and as they develop more complexity was added.
This fact implies there must have far earlier Turkmen weavings, and we mean even much earlier than our Anatolian fragment. Unfortunately these are not only unknown but completely unimaginable and RK would not venture to guess what they were.
There is, however, another conclusion that can be drawn from the facts at hand: These earliest, or seed, Turkmen weavings were initiated by people who had already developed the iconography they would express on their weaving in (an)other medium.
This is our official position on the subject and while it is an obvious conclusion we are the first researcher to suggest it—remember this well.
For now the how, why and the what of this idea we have unleashed are way outside the topic at hand, but we will below offer more suggestions as to where such evidence can be found.
To continue our ideas how the Timurchin gol developed we offer the following photos, which we believe are worth the proverbial 1000 words, as the saying goes.
Timurchin gol edited to simplify seeing its relationship to the center of the Anatolian fragment shown just below
center panel of the Anatolian fragment displaying the archetypal version of the intricate and complex Timurchin gol iconography
For this discussion, the most important amulet in the fragment’s center is this one and we will tell you why in a moment:
detail of the Anatolian fragment showing a later version of an ancient icon we call the “back-to-back”
While this might seem improbable to our readers we are sure, after perusing what we present below, at least some of you will get what this is all about.
In the long RK Examines Anatolian Kelim dissertation we published last December, we illustrated a fragment we believe to be the oldest slit-tapestry presently known and told the story of how we discovered it.
Fragment of a slit-tapestry, supposedly from El Azam, Egypt; dated to the Islamic period but likely much older in our estimation;
Victoria and Albert Museum, London
That story and this picture appeared here in Part XIX:
We suggest those of you unfamiliar with what we wrote check it out just for drill.
Sorry, but that’s all the time we have to devote to this discussion now, stay tuned for more soon.