RK is pretty sure we have some more jpeg of chuval which sport the complex ragged-gol flowers but this is the only one we could find so far.
Detail, ragged-gol from the elem of a Tekke chuval, mid-19th century, formerly offered for sale on the internet
We are also sure there are those who believe a design like this is significant and not the derivative, late pattern we claim.
And it is not an icon in our definition but rather a later re-interpretation, an invention, based on earlier Turkmen flowers.
There are a number of clue as to why we believe these ragged-edge gol, whether standing alone as proper gol in the WH engsi or as part of the complex flower this chuval elem and the torba display, are what we claim.
Perhaps, the most significant, as it is technical/structural and not iconographic is the serrated, or ragged, edge.
The use of serrates, rather than steps or terraces as they are called, to define the outline of the ragged-edge gol is considered in many other non-Turkmen weaving context to denote later work.
And quite honestly, we do not see why this definition does not apply to Turkmen weaving where there are amazingly few examples of serrate outlines available for comparison, and none in any weaving we would call archaic period.
Of course the step outline can be traced back to slit-tapestry weaving and the serrate to shared-warp tapestry.
It is fairly obvious, but still yet unproven, which was the earlier technique but logically, and also because the first loom are believed to be warp-weighted and completely unsuited for shared-warp weaving, it follows slit-tapestry weaving
was the earlier.
This conclusion, of course, is tangential evidence at best but in conjunction with the numerous other points we raise, both about the ragged-edge gol and the other iconography of the WH engsi, it adds weight to our position.
RK knows what we have presented here and in the other parts of this exercise is opinion but unlike what we call naked or usupported opinion ours is based on factual documentation.
And while we do not request anyone believe what we write, we do request everyone look carefully at the evidence that backs our position.
Presenting opinions is easy, presenting documented ones far harder.
Likewise, disagreeing with opinions is easy but documenting why one disagrees with them is, once again, far harder and something that rarely occurs in rugDUMB.