Kurdish Rugs and Related Weavings - an 8000 Year Weaving Tradition? by Michael Wendorf

Kurdish rugs have long been misunderstood and/or ignored. This is exemplified by an old dealers joke that goes: "How do you know if a rug is Kurdish or Caucasian?" The answer? "Well, if you are selling it, the rug is Caucasian. If you are buying it, the rug is Kurdish." Though this is slowly changing, there is still little appreciation or understanding of traditional Kurdish rugs from historic Kurdistan - or what William Eagleton has called the Kurdish heartland.

Part of the problem has been political. With the possible exception of the brief Kurdish Republic of Mahabad (modern Sauj Bulaq) in 1946, it is centuries since Kurds have had either a Kurdish government or country. In modern Turkey use of the words Kurd, Kurdish and Kurdistan is illegal. Use of the Kurdish language and dialects have been discouraged.

Another significant problem has been the tendency to call Bijars, Sennahs and Kolyai Hamadans, each with their distinctive weave, a Kurdish rug. This tendency seems to have originated with Cecil Edwards in 1953 and remains in use by some today. While some or all of each of these rug types may have been woven by Kurds, they are each a response to different commercial influences and shed little or no light on any Kurdish weaving tradition. Moreover, none of these rugs are produced in the Kurdish heartland. Likewise, the weave structures are not what I would consider to be traditional Kurdish weaves. Rather, they are each place-specific structures arising in a specific commercial context

A third problem is what Jim Klingner has described as the "Kurdish Synthesis," a tendency among Kurdish weavers to adopt and adapt influential patterns into their own style. In adapting such designs, more traditional rugs can become lost. In addition, the adopted and adapted patterns may become so popular and well known that they themselves begin to be what we visualize when we think of a Kurdish rug.

WHO ARE THE KURDS, WHERE IS KURDISTAN, AND WHY DOES IT MATTER?

To understand traditional Kurdish rugs and related weavings, we need to understand something about Kurdistan and the Kurdish people who live there. Historic Kurdistan encompasses parts of western and northwestern Iran, eastern Anatolia, northern Iraq and the southern Caucasus as well as a bit of Syria. A convenient map of Kurdistan and the weaving heartland is found in Eagleton's Introduction to Kurdish Rugs at page 6. Elevations range from 3000 feet above sea level to peaks over 8000 feet.

Kurds inhabiting Kurdistan are first and foremost a people of the mountains.

These people are Iranian in origin and trace their roots as a people back at least as far as the Medes - who ruled parts of modern Iraq and Iran in the 9th - 6th centuries B.C. Eagleton concludes that the Kurds "...entered history as a mountain people occupying a part of northwest Iran from which they gradually moved south, north and west in Asia Minor and Iraq" (Introduction to Kurdish Rugs, p. 9). Eagleton does not state when this occurred. I tend to believe the Medes were but one group who mixed with the indigenous population of Kurdistan, a population that existed long before the Medes.

We may never know the precise history of the Kurdish people. However, I believe their weaving tradition supports the conclusion that Kurds and their ancestors have inhabited the mountains of Kurdistan since antiquity. I also believe that the tradition of goat and sheep herding in Kurdistan is consistent with this.

DO KURDISH RUGS AND RELATED WEAVINGS REFLECT AN 8000 YEAR WEAVING TRADITION?

Kurdish weavers have been called "imaginative and prolific" by Murray Eiland. Other commentators have noted the Kurdish love of deeply saturated color and soft glossy wool. None of these descriptions really say anything about Kurdish rugs or a weaving tradition. To get a sense of the Kurdish weaving tradition that I have come to appreciate, one has to take a journey back in time.

It comes as little surprise to learn that many of the world's earliest surviving textiles (textiles dating to 6000 B.C.) have been found in sites within the so-called Fertile Crescent - including sites within historic Kurdistan which may have been home to the ancestors of Kurds or known to these ancestors since antiquity. This area, home of man's initial plant and animal domestication, has also played a significant role in the history of weaving. Kurdish weavings document, in my opinion, this history - a history that spans 8000 years in Anatolia. One example of this tradition is a group of utilitarian weavings which Marla Mallett calls "weftless soumak" and which John Wertime has called "simple soumak." Marla Mallett's term is more descriptive and is the term I use to describe the structure of these weavings.

As Marla Mallett has noted, in both structure and technique, weftless soumak is unique.

Why unique? Unlike other forms of soumak wrapping, no ground wefts are interlaced between rows of wrapping. As a result of this absence of ground wefts, weftless soumaks have slits much like slit tapestry. Patterns are typically created by wrapping small, distinct sections with yarns that are discontinuous.

In my mind, weftless soumak represents the earliest form of weft wrapping. Marla Mallett in her book, Woven Structures and John Wertime in his article "Origins of Pile Weaving" in Hali 100 have expressed the same opinion.

The existence of weftless soumak is significant to placing the Kurdish weaving tradition in its proper perspective. This significance is twofold. First, it seems to be a Kurdish technique. I am unaware of other weaving groups using it. Second, it can be linked to 8000 year old carbonized fragments. In 1961, carbonized burial fragments were excavated in Level VI of Catal Huyuk and published by Harold B. Burnham. These burial fragments, now in the Anatolian Archaelogy Museum (in Ankara), include fragments woven in weftless soumak. Although probably woven with bast fiber rather than wool, these fragments establish weftless soumak as a technique that predates the invention of loom shedding devices. As such, it is not dependent on the shed or the heddle, but is a simple technique related to basketry.

It cannot be said that the weavers who wove these 8000 year old carbonized burial fragments were Kurdish. We cannot even be sure what kind of loom was used, although it is possible that it was a warp weighted loom. What can be said is that Kurdish weavers seem to be the only weavers who wove in the 19th century using this ancient technique. It is possible that this is a coincidence. However, I think the better inference is that the weftless soumak pieces displayed represent the final product of a long and deeply ingrained tradition. This is a weaving tradition Kurdish weavers maintained long after other weavers had abandoned it, if they ever used it, and long after the need to weave in this technique had vanished. Why did Kurdish weavers continue to weave these pieces into the 19th century? Because that is how they had always been woven.
Though generally undocumented in rug literature, weftless soumaks, as represented by the examples shown here, come in a variety of bag and chuval formats. These weavings seems to have been woven throughout much of historic Kurdistan and for a variety of utilitarian purposes. These bags are almost without exception carefully crafted using excellent, glossy wool. Many of these weavings in chuval and sack format, as opposed to saddlebag faces, are only partially woven in weftless soumak. As seen above, the alternating blue and red stripes are woven in a weft faced plain weave. I do not know what significance, if any, this observation has.
The tradition of weftless soumak may have had significant influence on the design development of Kurdish bags generally. The restrictive nature of this structure with the wrapping of small sections with directional yarns and the absence of ground wefts resulted in diagonals and strong reciprocal elements. However, as Marla Mallett has pointed out to me, it is the reversal of wrapping threads that has influenced design development in Kurdish bags. That is the carrying back of each wrapping thread so that wrapping can always proceed in the same direction. One result is the tendency for pattern parts to be narrow. We see this tendency continued in a variety of knotted pile weavings where the structure, knotted pile, does not dictate such a result or tendency.

If we admit the possiblity that Kurdish weaving may represent an ancient tradition that is intertwined with the very history and development of weaving as we know it today, then we must also conclude that this tradition arose most likely out of simple flatwoven weavings and that these flatwoven weavings had a profound influence on all aspects of Kurdish weaving. Other typical flatweaves include reciprocal brocading,

overlay - underlay brocades and warp substitution weavings.

Kurdish weavers also weave a variety of so-called primitive rugs.

Here we see an east Anatolian example, possibly woven as a sleeping rug, using unspun wool, symmetrically knotted wool pile on a wool, weft-faced plain weave ground. The reverse shows some weft float brocading, typically 3/3.

Another distinctive weaving is the so-called Siirt rugs. Woven with a weft faced plain weave with goat hair wefts and cotton warps. This rug has no knotted pile. The effect of pile is created by teasing the face of the weaving. Examples such as this one suggest that this is a tradition of long standing not just because of the simplicity and primitive nature of the weaving, but also by the subtlety of it. Note that the weaver created a lattice pattern in the rug using only a teasel.

Next we find a Goyan or Hartushi rug with 5 1/2 vertically aligned concentric hooked diamonds. The weaver here used symmetric knots tied on four 2 ply tan wool warps with about 18 knots per square inch. Unlike the large sleeping rug with unspun yarns depicted above, the yarns comprising the knotted pile here are Z spun.

This Goyan or Hartushi rug seems to be imitative of a slit tapestry design underscoring the influence of flatweaves on Kurdish knotted pile weaving. But it also seems to link weavings like the sleeping rug into a larger continuum that may one day help us better understand how and where knotted pile developed.

Moreover, the rugs and related weavings depicted above are illustrative of a weaving tradition that seems to include techniques and structures that, when considered together, seem to suggest that Kurdish weavers and their ancestors were not only weaving in antiquity but were squarely involved with the innovations and developments that brought weaving forward into today. In this sense,the "Kurdish synthesis" that Klingner mentioned in the Chicago ACOR exhibition catalog needs to be reevaluated. Rather than being known simply as weavers who boldly adopted and adapted influential patterns into their own style, Kurdish weavers need to be recognized as having possibly contributed and most certainly preserved the most basic and traditional techniques we know. In short, the place of Kurdish women in the history of weavers needs a major reassessment.

Although I began collecting Kurdish rugs by collecting rugs with so-called Persianate designs, I believe this tradition emerges only out of the 16 - 17 th centuries. Although this is a significant span of time in the mindset of most rug collectors who think of a rug being really old if it could reach the 18th century, it is largely insignificant if considered in the context of an 8000 year weaving tradition. Some of these Persianate weavings have been labelled "Proto-Kurdish" after Levi's article in Hali 70. I believe that the label "Proto-Kurdish" used in connection with these Persianate weavings mischaracterizes Kurdish weaving and the tradition of Kurdish weaving.

The long rug depicted above appears at first glance to be what some might call Proto-Kurdish based on its use of a Persianate shrub design in a lattice. However, even here (or perhaps especially here) what speaks to me is a tradition much older than the Safavid Dynasty in Persia. The lattice itself outlines a series of stepped polygons arising out of a flatweave tradition. And that border, that I see as coming out of a warp substitution pattern. Both of these traditions were probably thousands of years old by the 19th century.

The rug above is an example of a rug where the stepped polygons are expressed more positively. Knotted pile rugs with stepped polygons are among the most common traditional Kurdish rugs with innumerable variations in color and color combinations. Another example is this rug.

Other examples of knotted pile rugs with origins in Kurdish flatweave traditions include this unusual ivory ground example:

The field design of this rug is one I have seen in the borders of a small handful of other rugs. It also probably has its origins in warp substitution.

There are also specific motifs that I consider to be traditionally Kurdish, these almost invariably come from flatweaves. One example is the so-called shikak motif seen below.

This same motif is seen in a distinctive group of Kurdish rugs as part of an all over lattice design. Jon Terry advertised one of these in the Hali ACOR preview issue. Here are two others, one belongs to me and the other to Roger Hilpp.

In later rugs this motif becomes mixed with other miscellaneous motifs and sometimes becomes halved causing it to look and often be identified as a cloudband or cloud collar. I believe its origins are in flatweaves, perhaps slit tapestry.

We do not know where these Shikak pieces originated. What we do know is that they wove in western Iran, west of Lake Urmia and north of Sauj Bulaq in the past. My own observation is that these pieces were probably woven by several groups in several places.

Another motif that we can think of as Kurdish is this medallion that is most commonly found in knotted pile rugs.

For all that I have said about Kurds and flatweaves, we know very little about the weaving of more conventional soumaks by Kurdish weavers. It is almost as if Kurds never moved beyond weftless soumaks. That said, there are a few soumaks that have been tentatively identified as Kurdish. This piece, also illustrated in Wertime's book "Sumak" as plate 138, is one of them. Spaced wrapping warps may be an indicator of Kurdish origin.

Another design that I have seen worked in soumak that was probably Kurdish in origin is the motif found in this long rug.

Although popular among Kurdish weavers, this motif must be considered pan-Persian, as it is found among many of the major tribal weaving groups.

One regularly confronts cochineal in Kurdish rugs from eastern Anatolia. It is not clear when this insect derived dye became available to Kurdish weavers in this area. Conventional wisdom is that this is not an old color, but Harald Bohmer has shown that it was available, at least in some areas, locally.

The rug above seems to me to be truly tribal. The design is one of simple concentric diamonds that seems to have its origins in (what else?) flatweaves. On the back tufts of dyed, but unspun, wool very similar to the wool of the sleeping rug depicted earlier are added, perhaps as good luck or to ward off the evil eye.

Another type of east Anatolian Kurdish rug is the so-called Baklava types, which come as either all over patterns or in compartments. Here we see a compartment rug.

Note the borders and the playful reciprocity expressed there. I think these rugs originate around Gaziantep, although Eagleton seems to think Malatya.

The second rug illustrated in this Salon is from around Kagizman; it has blue wefts characteristic of this area. Here is the only bag face that I know of with this medallion as a central design element. However this piece has red wefts. Also, note the four shrub forms that are used in lieu of geometric forms to create the 2 -1 - 2 design.

The medallion in this bag face and the second illustrated rug from around Kagizman are part of an interesting group of Kurdish weavings. The side borders on the Kagizman rug are distinctive. Note also how in the Kagizman the top diagonals of the medallion are jagged, almost as if a mountain peak is being drawn while the bottom one is a straight diagonal.

I have observed this jagged treatment of the upper diagonal in several other rugs within this group. Other assymmetries abound throughout the rug. A connection to Caucasian Karachovs seems obvious yet they are quite different in coloration and feeling. Perhaps a connection to rugs in the Holbein tradition accounts for both groups.

It seems to me that thinking about this rug we observe Kurdish colors and wools but in other ways it is quite different, especially in patterning. I think we see angular and vertical elements in these medallion pieces that we
tend not to see in Kurdish flatweaves because such patterning is natural in knotted pile. It is not natural to flatweaves. This may explain the Kurdish synthesis that Klingner has observed in knotted pile. In knotted pile, Kurdish weavers may have felt more free to adapt and adopt a variety of to them foreign elements than they did in more, to them, traditional flatweaves. What else explains this dichotomy between traditional flatweaves and tendency toward synthesis when weaving knotted pile rugs?

SO, WHERE ARE THE JAFS?

A similar issue arises when we consider Jaf Kurd bags. Every collector knows these knotted pile weavings with fields comprised of diamond forms containing diagonally drawn hooks.

As much as I enjoy Jaf Kurd weavings, I think their abundance has created a bit of a red herring. Jaf Kurd bags probably are a relatively late innovation among Kurdish weavers. I tend to think they arise out of a brocade tradition. The reason is that while the most natural hooked designs in knotted pile are angular, horizontal and vertical. By contrast, the most natural hooks in brocade are diagonal, formed by progressively offset knots. In Jaf bags, Kurdish weavers use offset knots to imitate the triangular looking hooks naturally occuring in brocades.

Finally, I leave you with a favorite among many favorites. This ivory ground long rug with radiating leaves came out of Alexandria, Virginia along with another rug with this same border. A border that I refer to as rosette and shrub. Initially, I did not know what to make of the border. Then I happened to run across the McMullan Kurdistan Garden carpet now at the Fogg. It had a very similar border. I then examined the borders on every formal Kurdistan garden carpet I could find photos of. I saw this border, usually on a blue ground with red rosettes and shrubs, frequently. I started asking other collectors about this border and identified three other examples. All have ivory fields with either this pattern or an all over three part floral motif.

Probably a village workshop produced these rugs throughout the 19th century. This group was, until a group of 5 was exhibited in an exhibition sponsored by the Near Eastern Art Research Center in 1999, undocumented.

Discoveries of rugs and groups of rugs such as this are still possible when collecting Kurdish rugs. I hope you will be inspired to collect a few of your own and to consider whether the place of Kurdish weavers needs to be reexamined against the possibility that they are right in the middle of not just the history of weaving, but the innovations and traditions that have kept weaving vibrant and alive over the past 8000 years.

My thanks to John Howe for photographing these rugs during an ACOR presentation. All the mistakes, errors and omissions are mine, not his.

http://www.turkotek.com/salon_00088/salon.html

#KurdishRugs #Rugs #OrientalRugs #Carpet #Kilim