Home > Rug, Kelim, Soumak, Textile Post Archive >500 year old Salor chuval? doubt it highly
Wed, Jul 10th, 2019 05:47:34 AM
Topic: 500 year old Salor chuval? doubt it highly

The other day a reader alerted us to a photograph and comment frau comrade elena tsavera made concerning a Salor chuval in the Russian collection.

Here's the photo:

It is, undoubtedly, a wonderful example of the type, beautiful drawn with apparently glowing color.

However, none of those attributes, or all of them, equate to a belief this chuval is circa 1600.

In our review of the peter hoffmeister collection publication RK amply proved Frau comrade tsavera is both a story-teller and story-spinner who thinks nothing of presenting her fantasy thoughts and notions about Turkmen rugs as fact.

Worse, many in rugDUMB believe she is an 'expert' and 'scholar', primarily from what we can reason is because she is Russian, and therefore far more connected than other westerners might be.

This, of course, is ridiculous as Turkmen rugs were not made by Russians, nor does Turkmen culture and tradition have anything to do with Russian culture or lore.

This Salor chuval is, in our opinion, no earlier than beginning 19th century.

And comparing it to the fragment we formerly owned, and published in the Tent Band Tent Bag book, shows a very similar, but still nowhere near 500 year old, example.

The profusion of silk in the Russian Collections example leads RK to place it somewhat later chronologically but regardless of this or any other criteria the Russian Collections chuval is not 16th century.

What is sure, however, is the fact Frau comrade tsavera should be writing children's fairy tale books and forget about trying to be a rug 'scholar' until she learns the difference between fact and fiction, no mater how much she believes it true.

Author: dhkqdpd
Wed, Jul 10th, 2019 05:47:34 AM

P3A93M prachrzssfsk, [url=http://hlrjqfkprtat.com/]hlrjqfkprtat[/url], [link=http://jqqobnqavqfj.com/]jqqobnqavqfj[/link], http://pbjlurrphlod.com/

Author: xzgcfns
Tue, Jul 9th, 2019 08:53:31 PM

UEgwUa fkxltyhifpla, [url=http://snirrgnvzzwg.com/]snirrgnvzzwg[/url], [link=joncjvirhozh.com/]toncjvirhozh[/link], http://duaxlbiuntpn.com/

Author: Say cheese
Sat, Nov 9th, 2013 03:44:46 PM

RK Replies:

Accusing someone who posts to our website anonymously, and does it from a location and internet provider known to us, of being a person we believe they are is far different than slinging mud at someone by making false accusations and falsely assaulting their character.

At the least, you got what you deserved, and any honest reader of this thread will come away with that conclusion.

Your bogus high faulting' attitude, which by the way both EH and MT abound in airing, stinks and RK is surely not out of line to say so.

And calling our exchange a "personal vendetta" on our part is the most laughable comment you have made, cheese-doodle.

RK was hoping you really were not EH or MT, as for some moments we thought you to be interesting.

But, alas, you showed your colors and dashed any hopes we had of making a new acquaintance worth our time.

This thread, like others, shows the false righteousness that is rampant in rugDUMB.

You, cheese-doodle, believe, or at least are trying to pretend you believe, you have been wronged by RK.

What BS is that when, in fact, it is you who are the transgressor.


I think the thread speaks for itself. Your demeanor and behavior have been much more uncivil than mine, which is remarkable since it was you that insisted on accusing me of being someone that I am not. You were the one who diverted the discussion from the rugs to your own personal vendetta. Have it your way. Ciao.

Author: Say cheese
Sat, Nov 9th, 2013 03:19:29 PM

RK Replies:

You're afraid we will "trash" you because we "trashed others"?

Yeah, who? and did they deserve it?

That's the 64,000 dollar question, cheese-doodle. Not what we did, but why we did it.

Remember the truth is never an insult, nor can leveling it at someone be considered trashing them.

So again it appears you need to get your comments in line with the facts and quit accusing RK unjustly. Or riding some imaginary white horse in our yard.

As for the bet?

Again, clearly neither of us trust the other -- but since you know who we are and we don't know who you are your expectations for making a wager with us are clearly unreal and no one would accept the terms you have laid out.

As far as accusing us of dishonesty, which you have repeatedly done, we think you are blowing hot air out of the seat of your pants.

Come here honestly and you will be treated well. Come here like a clown and we will treat you accordingly.

And if you want to discuss rugs, fine with us, do so.

But you have shown little ability to either do so on our level or be a good student.

So again, that considered, we see you as wasting our time, and we don't have much more energy to parse with you further.

If you believe you have been falsely accused- say so and prove it.

If not then shut the yapper and get lost.


Why am I concerned that you would insult me?

I've read several of the threads on RK and they are devoted to trashing others.

Why am I concerned that you won't pay? Because you first offered a wager that I was EH. I agreed. Then you backed off. Then you wanted to wager that I was "MT". I agreed, and you backed off again. Then you wanted to wager that I knew EH. Now that I have offered a wager, instead of taking the wager about my identity you insist on learning my identity first and then discussing a wager.

I am no fool. If you want to make a wager, I have offered one. You still haven't agreed to take it. I understand that. I think you've figured out that you are mistaken about my identity; the prospect of losing $5,000.00 sharpens the wit.

Author: Say cheese
Sat, Nov 9th, 2013 03:02:00 PM

RK Replies:

Well cheese-doodle, we see we have been too polite and you definitely do not deserve it. But first your analogy.

Your poker analogy is incorrect.

So let's straighten it out.

When poker is played the players get cards and then bet. The one with the highest hand after the betting stops wins.

But remember the players must ALWAYS have their cards in the sight of the other players. Of course, we are talking about the backside of the cards.

By your terms you want to play poker with us, but until the betting stops you want to keep your cards in your pocket...someplace where we can't see them.

This is nonsense: How do we know you don't have lots of cards in your pocket and will only show the ones that beat our hand after you see ours?

Your cards are, of course, your identity in this game -- you know ours we need to know yours but you insist on keeping that hidden until after the fact. And even then how do we know you are telling the truth?

Period end of the story.

So it appears we are a loggerheads over this bet -- we need to forget it, or you need to tell us who you are.

And anyway we are still convinced you are EH. Why else would your first post be from 20 km west of Luzern?

Were you tramping around in the mountains picking edelweiss? or perhaps practicing your yodeling?

Then there are your snide character assassination remarks like RK will "back out and harass you like we do (to) so many others".

Like who? Tell everyone who we have harassed or when we have ever backed out on our word?


Why would I reveal my identity before you accept the wager?

The wager is about my identity.

It's like asking me to show my hand in poker before you make your bet.

You have nothing to lose by accepting the wager, unless you are wrong.

However, if I reveal my identity before you accept the wager I am quite certain that you will back out of the wager and harass me like you do so many others.

Accept the $5,000.00 wager publicly first (either one, or both) and I will reveal my identity. I should be the one concerned about getting paid because I will win the wager.

Author: Say cheese
Sat, Nov 9th, 2013 02:23:18 PM

RK replies;

Yes, you are correct -- we did say we would bet you are EH.

We think Shakespeare said something about words "...said in the heat of battle..."

But just because you were right there doesn't mean the rest of your positions are equally as correct.

Do you really believe we will bet with someone whose identity is unknown to us?

What assurances can you provide to convince us you will pay if you lose, other than telling us who you are?

We believe there are none other than identifying yourself either publicly here or emailing us privately RK at rugkazbah.com.

So it's still your move, say cheese.


I tried to diffuse the mistake over my identity, and you proposed the bet first. Anyone who goes back through the thread will find that obvious (look at my post and your reply on Sat, Nov 9th, 2013 12:36:37 PM.

You publicly wanted to make a wager, and I publicly proposed one.

Since the wager is about my identity, it would be odd for me to disclose it before you have confirmed that you accept the wager. If you would like to proceed, I can give you all the evidence you require.

I am sure that you can understand that unless you pledge publicly to pay up, it is not worth it for me to provide you with my identity.

You will almost certainly simply use it to try to insult me on your website without ever paying a dime.

My offer of a wager stands - $5,000.00 US that I have not met Ebberhart Hermann. I further offer a wager of $5,000.00 that I have never met you. You can choose to accept either or both wagers publicly, and then I will be happy to let you and your readers know my identity. Then we need only to arrange for the means of payment.

Author: Say cheese
Sat, Nov 9th, 2013 02:07:24 PM

RK replies:

While waiting for your response to our request to know who we are waging with, so we can be sure to be able to collect our winnings or know who to write the check to, we'll answer your question about the reasons we believe the "S" group turret gol chuval with a kotchak in the center of the minor gol are later than those with just the star.

Here's what we wrote months ago; and again either you are unable to digest what you read, reading it too fast to understand what you are reading, or you're just the disingenuous type who can't admit someone knows more than you.

"First because that star and kotchak device has always appeared contrived, especially if one believes as we do it is nothing but a degenerate version of the far earlier, and very rarely encountered, “S” group minor gol shown below.

...And second, an exact replica of the type two minor gol appears on a type of early Bronze Age pottery, detail shown below, from the Namazga sequence circa 2,000BC. Bestowing a prehistoric connection few other Turkmen icons have been proven to maintain.

Isn't that clear? Why would you question it?

And of course the next question for you is why do you think "Clearly, that motif(the quad-kotchak) is old since it was used in the center of the main gul."

FYI: the turret gol, aka Salor gol, is in our opinion a late addition to the Turkmen gol vocabulary.

We have never seen a pre-18th century one.

And in what we wrote months ago we clearly stated the earliest example of a turret gol, aka Salor gol, we know is the one on the Tekke chuval we illustrated there.

Are you learning anything here, or is RK just wasting our time with a joker?


By the way, I read the article. Interesting reading.

I am not sure why you think that the more elaborate star/kochak devise in the minor gul is a later development.

Clearly, that motif is old since it was used in the center of the main gul.

I'm not sure how one could say for sure that its use in the minor gul is a later feature.

You could be correct, but I'm not sure how one could prove that. Some nice pieces in that article, by the way.

Author: Say cheese
Sat, Nov 9th, 2013 01:55:52 PM

RK Replies:

First off, doodle, it was you who first proposed a bet.

Second, RK never posited "how you found our website", we just commented we believe your statement you came here because of an interesting piece is bogus.

RK thinks you need to slow down and correctly read what's written before you open your mouth to speak.

Hope you're not insulted by our suggestion.

The fact your IP address for all subsequent posts after the first, which located within 20km of Luzern, has remained the same and that IP address located to Turkey is all the facts we have to go on.

So granted we might be wrong about some, or all, of our surmisals.

And if you are not EH or MT, so be it.

As for trying to collect a bet from a cheese-doodle? Do you really expect us to bet with you if you do not identify yourself?

You know who we are, so don't we deserve the right to know who you are?

So listen up: identify yourself on the board or email us privately and identify yourself so we can proceed with some wagering.

If you don't we will then assume several things, not he least of which is your bluffing or you are guilty as charged.

Your move, say cheese.


I am not sure how you think you could possibly know how I found your website, or why I visited.

You are still wrong. I am also amused that you keep on changing the terms of the bet.

I have a feeling that you know that you are wrong and won't have the confidence in your position to carry through.

Nonetheless, if you insist, we can proceed.

I don't know your financial wherewithal, but if you insist I would be willing to bet $5,000.00 (five thousand dollars, US) that I have never met Ebberhart Hermann, and he has never met me.

If you would like to add to the bet, I will bet you an extra $5,000.00 that you have never met me either.

Perhaps this offer of a wager will dissuade you from continuing to make untrue and unnecessary claims.

Author: jc
Sat, Nov 9th, 2013 01:48:45 PM

Dear Mr/Mrs/Ms cheese-doodle:

And since you are so interested in discussing "S" group chuval what do you have to say about the link we provided to what we wrote months ago on the subject?

Or is it too much for you to digest?

Author: Say cheese
Sat, Nov 9th, 2013 01:26:50 PM

RK Replies:

Listen up cheese-doodle, let's get things straight here.

We find your admission you "...came to your site(RugKazbah.com) to see comments on a very interesting piece (the Salor)" bogus as a three dollar bill.

How did you know to come here?

We don't exactly have world-wide coverage, nor is there any way anyone knows what's here unless they look for themselves or are told by someone who has.

So foregoing that discussion you claim never to have met EH?

OK let's bet on that one but instead of your wager asking us to put a piece from our collection on the line, let's just bet for cash.

RK is willing to do that. Are you?

And you name the amount...


" I came to your site to see comments on a very interesting piece (the Salor). Instead of engaging in a discussion you want to have some sort of argument with a man I have never met. You could name any price for a bet that I have never met Ebberhart Hermann, and I have never been at his house. You can include in the bet your claim that my initials are "MT" if you wish. I am still puzzled that you want to go down this road. As much as I would like to take a choice selection from your collection off your hands, I would advise you to back off and admit that you are mistaken.

Author: Say cheese
Sat, Nov 9th, 2013 01:10:28 PM

RK Replies:

Listen cheese-doodle RK is not wishing for anything.

So put your pompous aires and half-assed command of the English language in your back pocket and sit on them when you talk to us.

OK, after some further checking we recognize maybe you're not EH, but the first post you made here on RugKazbah.com was done from his house.

How about we bet on that, MT?

PS: We know you are not very intelligent and do not have an IQ equal to ours, but we do recognize you are ambitious and cunning.

So just to make things clear to someone whose IQ is not genius level, MT are your initials.

How you like them apples...


I have told you repeatedly, but you don't listen. Would you bet anything currently in your collection vs. any price you name that I am "Ebberhart Hermann"? Be careful what you wish for.

Author: jc
Sat, Nov 9th, 2013 12:38:54 PM

Hey there cheese-doodle, aka EH:

Here ya go, cut and paste the URL below and read what RK had to say about the Russian collection turret gol "S" group chuval, the one we formerly owned, and a number of others.


Still think the RC ones is "better"?

Author: Say cheese
Sat, Nov 9th, 2013 12:36:37 PM

RK Replies:

Traveling for the last few weeks and that's why RK is confused?

Ha, ha, cheese-doodle, you should try being a stand up comic, instead of a rug pundit.

Listen, now seriously: RK knows more about Turkmen rugs, Anatolian ones and kelim, too, than you could ever imagine.

We don't like wasting time, nor do we enjoy pissing contests with those who are disingenuous and not honest enough to identify themselves publicly.

Go read what we wrote sometime ago about "S" group turret gol chuval.

You'll learn something, and not for the first time at RK's knee.

And as far as your accusation about insulting this EH person?

If the truth be insult then, of course we are guilty.

But in our book, and anyone else who is honest and conscious -- the truth is never an insult.

We are positive you are Ebberhart Hermann and will be glad to bet you whatever you like we are correct.

So either put up or shut up, as they say.

PS: But don't get all huffy and hurt.

We are glad to debate with you, but will refrain until you are, and we say it a second time, man enough to do it in your own name and quit hiding behind false anonymity. And, of course, debate something worth our time.


So, you don't want to discuss rugs but would rather try to claim I am someone else. Have it your way. I don't live anywhere near Switzerland and I have actually been traveling for the past couple of weeks so that is why the location of my posts changes. Maybe that is what is confusing you.

Author: Say cheese
Sat, Nov 9th, 2013 11:19:52 AM

RK Replies:

Guilty as charged, cheese-doodle.

The fact you claim not to know who EH is laughable.

Anyone who is a conversant in rug talk as you appear to be knows who belongs to those initials, knows who now lives near Luzern, Switzerland and knows who made catalogs, etc.

Plus your avoidance of anything to do with our comments about him and the facts of the location (Luzern) of your first post and the provider it came from (Bluewin EH's provider) all combine to point the finger where we placed it.

You are EH, so either get lost or fess up to the fact you got caught in your own game.

And not for the first time, huh?

As for debating which is better, the Russian Collection piece or the one we formerly owned? This is a mokes game; one RK has no time to waste playing.

RK cares little about either academically, but we do of course recognize a complete "S" group chuval is "better" than half of one.

You like blondes, we like brunettes.

You think swiss cheese is better, we think chèvre is better.

Get it, better is a meaningless term, unless describing personal taste.

So go spin your compass, draw some more lines, and dream you're Galileo.

And come back when you become man enough to sign your name to what you write.

And BTW write about something worthy of RK's time for a reply.


I will say it again, since you insist on denying it. I don't know who EH is, and I am not EH. You are wrong and wasting your energy trying to insult someone who is probably not even aware that you think you are communicating with him/her.

Okay, back to the weavings. I like your suggestion that there are different S group weavings, and that these two might come from different pools.

However, when I look at the common design motifs it strikes me that in all aspects the Russian Collections version has better drawing. Consider the star motifs in the secondary guls, for instance.

On your example they are more stiff and pedestrian. Also, the drawing of the center of the main guls is much better realized in the Russian Collections version.

The figures in the elems are similar, but they appear much more elegant in the RC version. I don't mean to demean your example, since it is nice in its own way, and might have come from a different design pool.

But comparing the similar features shows one to be superior to the other. I am sure this is how you would approach the analysis if you had no horse in the race, having read some of your other analyses.

Author: Say cheese
Fri, Nov 8th, 2013 01:12:59 PM

RK Replies:

Listen up, cheese-doodle.

We and you both know you are EH, so quit the subtrafuge, something you are well-versed playing.

How do we know?

Your IP address from your first post locates very close to Luzern, Switzerland, where EH lives.

And the internet provider is the same, Bluewin, that we know for a fact EH uses.

Which means, hands down, you're busted; so quit the play-acting, mein Herr.

Also, the quasi-admission you erred in accusing RK of not being 'dispassionate' likewise reeks of dishonesty.

Why not just speak the truth and say you made a mistake rather than hide behind cloaking it as 'misinterpretation'?

But we guess RK is foolish to expect someone like you to ever admit wrong....as we often say "Big people make mistakes, little people are always right".

As for teaching you why one of the "S" group chuval might be better than the other, when we never said it was?

Why should we bother, you're the big expert, huh, and you should know, right?

We will say this: they are very different weavings.

Each belong to a separate group of "S" group weaving, and differentiating those groups is something no writer has discussed.

We have long recognized, and publicly noted, the fact there are different groups of "S" group weaving -- and we are talking about real "S" group, those open to the left, and not the wannabe open right ones.

Perhaps one day will take up the mantle and write about them.

But for now we have other fish to fry, and frankly "S" group weavings do not interest us.


Basically because mostly all of them are cookie-cutter Turkmen weavings, which lack historic connection.

Yes, they are pretty and glow, the best of them having superb dyes and wool quality.

However, pretty and touchy-feely isn't RK's bag -- we go for archetypal iconography.

That's why we have never kept an "S" group piece and we have owned a number of the best and earliest.

To bring this waste of our time to a close we will say it is meaningless to debate which of the two chuval is earlier, though as we wrote the profusion of silk in the Russian example leads us to believe it is somewhat later than the former one we owned.

Which by the way is the other half of the one sold in the thompson sale -- we both got them from John Turner.

And BTW the one we owned was the one Turner kept, and preferred, selling the other one to thompson sometime before we got ours.

NB: none of the history of our piece means anything, we recount it only to add some perspective.

So EH, go back to your compass and ruler and don't knock on our door again unless you can come here honestly, that means in your own name, and with something worth our time to discuss.


Who is EH? Not me. I beg your pardon, but maybe I misinterpreted you when you wrote:

"And comparing it to the fragment we formerly owned, and published in the Tent Band Tent Bag book, shows a very similar, but still nowhere near 500 year old, example. The profusion of silk in the Russian Collections example leads RK to place it somewhat later chronologically but regardless of this or any other criteria the Russian Collections chuval is not 16th century."

So, do you agree with me that the one you published in TBTB is a later example than the Russian Collections one? Then yours much be no earlier than mid-19th century, I suppose. If you think yours is older please give reasons why.

Author: Say cheese
Wed, Nov 6th, 2013 02:40:28 PM

RK Replies:

Hello EH:

Yes, we know it is you, but no matter.

Listen up: There is nothing worse than a critic who can't read.

RK never said our former fragment was better, or not as good, as the Russian Collection example.

Surely the later is in better condition, as any neophyte Turkocritic can readily see.

And since your eyes and rug knowledge are, as far as we are concerned, not nearly as sharp as you, and others, might think we suggest you sit back and rather than accusing RK's opinions and ideas of not being 'dispassionate' you learn from us instead.

Your catalogues are full of mostly boring, nice expensive furnishing rugs and occasionally a pre-1800 "classical rug" or two; hardly ever was there what RK calls historic non-classical weavings.

Granted your business was selling that type of rug to rich people to furnish their homes or think they were collecting 'important rugs'.

Nonsense, let's all remember, for example, what happened to most of the rugs you sold HK and he published in his big book.

They got sold because he graduated to pieces that were 'important' and sold just about every thing else for a loss.

So when you want to lay some criticisms/comments on our doorstep at least do it honestly and quit the superior attitude you have always maintained when conversing with us.

And BTW we remember well your comments when we showed you our Anatolian Kelim book in 1989.

"Pretentious" is what you said.


Well, guess time told who is pretentious and who was right on, huh.

Best of luck with your cockamamie theories you ridiculously believe will reshape art history.

Not to mention your even more ridiculous statements concerning their publication by "an important scientific organization."

And, yes, RK is weary of pompous clowns like you taking pot shots at us behind our back, and that's the reason for our get real with you today.


The Russian Collection piece is in a different league than the RK example. By different league, I mean better. I'm sure you know this and if you were dispassionate about it could produce one of your art historical analyses to show all of the ways in which it is better.

Author: alaskan fog
email: aa
Tue, Nov 5th, 2013 06:22:50 AM

Yeah, ok, this 16th century crap is just that. Even a broken watch is correct twice a day.

Home   Buy/Sell at the Kazbah   Terms Of Service