Home > Rug, Kelim, Soumak, Textile Post Archive >When is Ancient Not Enough?
Wed, Apr 10th, 2013 05:49:16 AM
Topic: When is Ancient Not Enough?

When is ancient not enough? When a turko-clown like ronnie newman is hawking his wares.

Here is the latest offering described as "extremely ancient" by newman.

Here's newman's description:

Fragment of an extremely ancient Saryk Saddle Cover, glistening wool and the finest symmetric knotting i have ever seen in a Turkmen weaving, deeply corrosive brown wool outlining the blue kotchanak border design. One has to separate the blue knots to discover the brown outlining deeply couched in the piece. Areas of wear from abrasions where the rider's legs touched the saddle cover. Probably early 18th. century, 41" x 18"[105 x 46cm].

And on top of its extreme ancient-ness newman, a certified Turko-know-little, declares it is Saryk.

How in Heaven's Name did mr newmann figure that one out, considering there is not one even slightly related example -- forget about one made by any "Saryk" weaver.

This is laughable nonsense and even more so is newmann's knowing the "abrasions" are from "where the rider's legs touched the saddle cover."

Gee whiz, race fans, you couldn't make up turko-babble like this if you tried...

Author: Youngster
Tue, Apr 9th, 2013 05:21:39 AM

RK Replies:

Well, mr Youngster or is it ms?

First off symmetric knotting and very fine are not criteria anyone could possibly use to attribute this weaving.

Remember, the most significant aspect is its "unique"ness, which does not bode well for it or any other type of weaving.

Also remember rarely is something that is genuine unique, though that said it does happen.

So from the info provided we, or anyone else who is honest, have no clue as to what it is. Again we know what it isn't and our suggestion it might be Khirgiz was but a stab in the dark.

What other information would help to more positively provenance it?

First RK would want to examine it in the flesh, to see the color in daylight, to feel the wool, and to see the weft and warp under magnification. These facts would help us to relate it to other weavings we know far more about.

Then to do a dye test to determine the source of the red dye and mordants.

And as for it being a saddle cover? This, too, is nothing but wanton speculation on newman's part, as nothing we have ever seen suggests it might be.

As for the "leg wear" that NAMBLA pervert newman mentions as evidence?

Phuleeze now, get a grip. How could anyone possibly believe that turko-babble?


I wasn't trying to suggest that anyone is a "fool".

I thought that Newman said that it was symmetrically knotted and very fine. But I agree with you that Saryk seems a stretch, and I find it a very dubious attribution unless there is stronger justification.

My point was that it would be interesting to hear what specific possibilities you would suggest for attribution other than Saryk. What more would you need to know about the weaving to come to an educated guess?

Author: Youngster
Sun, Apr 7th, 2013 06:27:02 AM

RK Replies:

We said our writing it is Khirgiz or some other Central Asian weaving group was "chancy" (i.e. speculation), so what else do you want us to state to make that more clear to you?

We'll, however, be glad to wager it is not Turkmen at good odds, and wager at 1000 to 1 it is not Saryk.

Plus the gist of our post was to lambast newman, a proven turko-clown, for calling it Saryk, surely not to re-attribute it with any assurance.

Your post, clearly, is aimed at trying to make us the fool rather than newman.

Sorry, charlie, you failed. Try again?

PS: and since sweaty-palms newman did not list a technical description how does anyone really know what the structure is?

Especially since his idea on anything Turkmen needs to be taken with that proverbial salt-shaker, and best make it a large one.



Do the Kirghiz use symmetric knotting, and if so, can you cite any example of fine symmetric knotting in their weaving? Which other "Central Asian" group do you think should be considered, (that uses fine symmetrical knotting)?

I agree that this is an enigmatic weaving, but saying it is Kirghiz or other Central Asian based simply on how it looks seems subjective.

Author: jc
Thu, Apr 4th, 2013 01:56:57 AM

Several readers have asked us "If it is not 'Saryk' what do you think it is".

Well, since it has no relation to any known weaving, and we have not seen it in the flesh, making a assessment is rather chancy.

All that said, we are sure it is not Turkmen but rather Khirgiz or some other Central Asian group's work.

But you might say we are sure about two things:

1. It is not Saryk and highly doubtful it is Turkmen.

2. Mr newman is a turko-moron.

Home   Buy/Sell at the Kazbah   Terms Of Service