Ms Muffins, aka marla mallett, has carved out a career for herself in the rug world. What are her accomplishments?: She has basically plagiarized the groundbreaking work Irene Emery did on structural analysis (The Primary Structures of Fabric published in 1966). Muffins basically just reorganized what Emery worked on for decades and republished it in a somewhat more readable form aimed at the majority of rug collecting dummies who weren't intellectually capable of absorbing Emery's more detailed and demanding text.
Muffin's also is a purveyor of mediocre, airport art, late 19th/20th century "decorator" pseudo-"tribal" kelims, other flat-weaves and rugs in her shoppe in Atlanta and on a website.
Some years ago Muffin's critiqued the mis-steps and errors James Mellaart made during his brief period of exposure in the rug world. Her analysis was correct and she deserves credit for her work there, however, Muffin's continued droning assaults on Mellaart, which basically can only be described as throwing out the baby with the bath water because regardless of his mistakes the important corpus of his previously published archaeological work stands untouched and remains unsullied by his misadventures in the rug world, i.e. The Goddess from Anatolia. Muffin's myopic slant on Mellaart was done only to further her reputation in the rug world, a factor she has capitalized on to this day. While I appreciate her diligence in the careful analysis she made of comparing Mellaart's earlier writing on Catal Huyuk (done each year after the season's digs and published in Anatolian Studies in the mid 1960's) the ad nauseum, self-aggrandizing repetition of those findings proved to me and others that marla mallett was using Mellaart's errors to further her desires to become a "somebody" in the rug world. As far as I am concerned she is a still a nobody with a fat mouth and an even fatter butt, whose claims to fame are as stated above copying Emery's work and critiquing James Mellaart for her own advantages. Not a pretty picture in my eyes.
Ms Muffins is also the resident mouth-piece for structural matters in clownland and often is asked to, or referred to, when technique issues confuse the midget-minds who congregate there. Her dopey takes have been frequently debunked here on RK.com and her latest is the reason for this posting.
On the subject of reverse soumak found occasionally in khorjins attributed to the shah-sevan and other groups in NW Persia, eastern Turkey and the southern Caucasus Ms Muffins provided the following idiotic rejoinders:
"Why did other groups not adopt this technique? Probably because they were more sensible! I can see NO advantage offered by knotting wool soumak wrapping yarns for bag faces. In fact, a quite unpleasant, board-like textile results, along with poor design definition. From my perspective, this was one of those technical experiments that never worked out very well and so never got off the ground. Such a structure makes sense if the warps are widely spaced and the artisan's desire is to make a net."
Let's take a quick look at this:
1.The board-like structure she calls insensible was done exactly for that reason - to create a more durable and strong structure than that created by normal soumak weaving. Her assessment, like most of those she expounds, is based on her extremely limited grasp of both the nomadic lifestyles of these areas and their inter-relationship to the woven articles that were part and parcel of these groupís existence as well as her abject ignorance of the weavings made prior to the end of the line later 19th century commercial period.
2. The poor design definition she refers to is a well taken point, however, it only applies to those miserable commercial examples of reverse soumak she is accustomed to handling and seeing. There are rare and wonderful pre-commercial reverse soumaks that equal the design definition found in the best normal weft-wrapping technique soumak khorjins and, as is often the case, Ms Muffin's ignorance of real antique weavings colors her supposed "knowledgeable" responses.
3. Her statement reverse soumak was an experiment that never got off the ground is laughable and so idiotic it deserves no further comment but trying to get over the idea reverse soumak is only suitable for making a net does. Where does a dolt like mallett get these ideas? Is she so full of herself that she believes these foolish menopausal notions? Reverse soumak only suitable for making nets? Come on now Ms Muffin's wake up - not everyone is as dazzled by your big mouth as those dummies in clownland who hang on your every word. Reverse soumak was utilized on a limited scale to create a highly impermeable surface structure while at the same time able to finely delineate a complex pattern. Period.
There are a number of dumb-bells like marla mallet in the rug world and their cacophonous clangings ring out like off-key church bells on a Sunday morning. This might seems like music to the tone-deaf but to those with perfect pitch their dissonance is both annoying and raucously irritating.
Sorry Ms Muffins but once again you prove how ignorant you really are of the true mechanics of pre-commercial period weaving and why you belong in the kitchen baking muffins and not providing "advice" , even for the most challenged "ruggies" like those in clownland or those who might be dopey enough to sit through a "lecture" of yours at acor or the icoc.