Category: Blog

Brochure of an exhibition organized by The Textile Museum, Washington, DC, on view in 1992-1993. Drawn from The Textile Museum collections.

[From the perspective of collectability, there are] ‘… two [significant] periods in Turkmen history: the era in which most Turkmen practised nomadic pastoralism and were organised according to indigenous structures of affiliation and leadership; and the period following their subjugation by the Russian colonial regime, which is associated with the sedentarisation of nomadic Turkmen and an increasing dependence on the market. (-) Mark Collard

’ The date marking the transition had been established at 1882, the final surrender of the Tekke tribe and the abandonment of  Merv, a once thriving metropolis termed by chroniclers as “the mother of the world” .

All pre-1882 Turkoman weavings represent therefore the rarest and most collectible group of artifacts. Conversely, the later 19^th and early to mid-20^th century works are viewed as mostly decorative.

The period of Turkmen dominance of the Merv Oasis is often referred to as the Classical period, and weavings from that period; classical works.

The common characteristic is the classical Turkmen works can be only established in reference to later pieces which in comparison display busier fields, wider borders, and a finer structure.

‘A predominance of small ornaments in a Turkoman carpet may indicate a later period, as does (…) the ration of the width of the borders to the central field. In classical pieces this proportion is generally between 1:4 and 1:6.’

and ‘… old carpets are significantly more loosely knotted and coarser in structure. As the guls grew smalled and flatter, the knot count incresed and the carpets became ‘finer’.’ (-) Werner Loges Turkoman Tribal Rugs

Therefore,  analyses of  the technical struture, field ornaments and border motifs in relation to negative space are essential to establish the age and provenance of a given Turkmen textile.  

A study of the main carpet ornaments, and the gul in particular, provides evidence of the tribal origin of a given textile.

A gul consists of central ornament and the border; in the field, between the border and central ornament there are projectiles. These appear to ‘darts’ in the Tekke gul (see below),

and ‘clovers’ in in the Salor, Ersari, and Saryk guls (see below).

Furthemore, while the clovers in the Salor gul display a single stem, Ersari and Saryk guls show two.

Prior to the Russian expansion and colonization of Central Asia ‘For centuries the Turkoman people have been bonded together in strongly independent tribal groups. ‘

However, the numerous battles and the final defeat of the Turcoman tribes at Merv (1882) mark the begining of a steady erosion of culture.

The construction of the Trans-Caspian railway encroached on the Turkoman territories forcing many tribes to relocate to Iran and northern Afghanistan.

The Trans-Caspian military railway was inittialy built to facilitate the Russian troops to penetrate Central Asia; armoured trains were a most efficient military means to expand and control newly conquered terrirories. These trains transported troops and later supplies and amunition.

During this period that followed Turkoman women continued to produce various textiles, carpets, chuvals, etc. but not only were those  a far cry from  the classical period works, they no longer represented, at least not to the same extent, the specific tribal identity.

James Allen, an authority of the subject of Turkman textile arts suggests that ‘The real classical period was before the railroad and when firearms changed to ground rules of their life. The transition period from the bow and arrow horse mounted warrior phase and Turkmen on the run and looking for a place to live their life ‘as well as possible’ was before the Merv Oasis period. This is when the Turkoman weaving arts reached their peak.

The transition, from the production of textiles mainly for domestic use to a more commercial production on a larger scale, Allen argues, was from 1780-1820. This pushes back the prime period of collectable pieces so far that ‘too few pieces exist for the world market’.

A more convenient arbitrary date was established by antiquity merchants to those woven before 1882 (the battle at the Merv Oassis).

At the Merv Oasis, 1847-1882, Turkman rugs were produced in unprecedented quantities and sold to finance the war against Russia.

The Turkmen lost and their traditions started to deteriorate after their defeat. The weaving of the Tekke before 1882 was largely copied from antiques the tribe held; many Merv period pieces have the designs of true classical pieces. They can only by told apart by true schollars (Allen)

This is when the Turkoman weaving arts reached its peak; rugs were produced in unprecedented quantities and sold to finance the war against Russia.  

The transition, from the production of textiles solely for domestic use to more commercial production on a large scale, Allen argues, was from 1780-1820 pushing ‘back the prime line of collectable pieces back so far that too few pieces exist for the world market’.  A more convenient arbitrary date was established by antiquity merchants to 1882 (the battle at Merv Oassis.)

A.G.

This short documentary offers a glimpse into the life of pastoral peoples of the Iranian Zagros Mountains. It is available only in the original language.

Images however speak for themselves.

Enjoy watching click here

Thare are more … Please inquire

From “Lion Rugs; The Lion in Art and Culture of Iran” by Parviz Tanavoli

(Trans Book, New York, 1985).

My first lion rug

I found my first lion rug in early 1970. Its unusual pattern set it apart from all other Iranian rugs and so captivated me that I bought it without any hesitation whatsoever.

A week or two later another lion rug, different from the first, came into my hands,and then a third. The discovery of these rugs was so exciting to me that I thoughtabout them constantly. I myself knew nothing about rugs like these, nor did those from whom I had purchased them, except for the fact that they were called gabbeh-ye shiri (“lion rug”) in Persian. This lack of knowledge and the utter fascination these rugs held for me led me to pursue them far and wide.

The first of many trips I made in quest of lion rugs was to Shiraz, which is about atwelve-hour bus ride from my home in Tehran. In Shiraz, I found more examples.

For several years thereafter, my life was spent traveling back and forth between Tehran and Shiraz, visiting bazaars on the way, and scouring the mountains and plains of Fars Province for the makers of these rugs.

Two things drove me on. The first was the knowledge that many of these rugs werestill in constant use among their creators and, if not preserved in time, would be completely worn out and discarded. The second was the variety of these rugs.

Almost every day I would find a new lion and the prospect of yet another caused one to imagine a thousand possible patterns and color combinations. In many instances, these reveries were not far from the truth. Those were exciting days. Rug connoisseurs and merchants advised me not to buy such coarse weavings, or at least to buy less frequently so as to not to drive the prices up. The tribesmen were somewhat embarrassed and apologetic that the lions of the rugs were not naturalistic representations of real lions. Yet they were happy that someone would be so interested in their art.

Symbol of majesty and power

Many secrets lie behind the enchanting patterns of the lion rugs of Iran.
The unusual subject matter and composition that distinguish these form other traditional rugs require some explanation, especially since they do not seem to have been chosen solely to please the eye.

Lion rugs, symbols of the tribal bravery, were objects of every day use in the dwellings of their creators. For this reason, many of them wore out and in time were discarded. Those that have survived date only from the last two centuries. There is evidence, however, that the lion motif was utilized by rug weavers prior to this.

The close relationship that these rugs have with stone lions and other objects which bear the image of this animal leave no doubt that the lion motif played an important role in the culture, religion, and nationalistic sentiments of the Iranian people.

Indeed, in the course of the Iranian history, no other symbol has been so long-lived or meaningful. Bravery, patience, generosity, manliness, nobility, and purity are all qualities Iranian have associated with the lion.

The importance of the lion in ancient Iran was such that Iran was called “the land of lions.” In Zoroastrianism, the ancient religion of Iran in which elements — water, fire, and earth — were accorded great respect, the lion was identified with fire. During the achamenid and Sasanid periods, the lion was the symbol of majesty and power, and, with the coming of Islam to Iran, the lion motif continued to play a role in the decorative arts.

The lion motif took on a renewed significance in Iran with the establishment of the Safavid dynasty in 1501.

In the framework of Twelver Shi’ism, the official religion of the Safavids, Ali Ibn Abi Talib, the Fourth Caliph, and First Imam, and leading figure of the sect was known as the “Lion of God.”

This revived use of the lion motif brought only a chance in the form and not in the content of the lion symbolism, for Iranians, from their long experience with invaders and foreign rulers, have always been able to adapt themselves to changed circumstances without losing sight of the original import of their symbols.

In time the lion also came to be the official emblem of the Iranian state and the symbol of the nation.

Subject matter

Most questions people ask about the lion rugs concern the subject matter: Why did the weavers of these rugs choose the lion and not other animals like the horse, camel, or goat?

Without the cultural context described in this introduction an answer to this question would be difficult; all one could say would be “it is due to their appreciation of bravery and prowess” or “it is for the protection of their tents.”

However, if the question is “why were lion rugs woven mostly by tribesmen, especially those of Fars?”, very specific answers can be found.

It would not be an exaggeration to say that in the opinion of the tribesmen of Iran the most important characteristics of a man are courage and virility. The opposite of these traits, fear cowardice, are considered so vile that their attribution to a person can discredit an entire family or tribe.

Life in the mountains and plains and its attendant struggle with heat, cold and wild animals have taught these people the art of survival.

For them the lion symbolizes bravery and prowess. Thus many tribesmen have names which include the Persian word shir (lion) such as Shir Ali or Alishir, Shirzad, Shirdel, and Shir Mohammad.

Others have names like Arsalan or Aslan, which mean “lion” in Turkish. Still othersare known as Asad, “lion” in Arabic. They often tell wonderful stories of how their fathers and grandfathers hunted lions.

As to why most lions rugs were woven in Fars, we must first say a few words about the geographical setting of this region and the existence of lions there, something that without doubt had an influence on the prevalence of this type of rug.

Because of its special natural setting which includes numerous thickets and large game such as wild boar, mountain goats and rams, Fars Province provided an ideal environment for the lion.

For centuries this province was known for its lions, and various beliefs and customs concerning the lion flourished there.

In the 12th century Fars names of areas in Fars such as districts as Kamfiruz and the Arzhan Plain are called “lion mines.”

Many references to the lion hunting expeditions of the Iranian shahs and local rulers of Fars are made in literary texts and poetry of the Islamic period down to and including the Qajar period (1779-1924).

Exactly how long the lion existed in Fars is a matter of considerable interest. According to the Iranian Department of Environment, the last lions were seen in Fars at the beginning of this century while the last lion in Khuzestan was seen near Dezful in 1942. The extinction of the lion in southwestern Iran was simultaneous with the end of traditions of carving lions in stone and weaving their images in rugs. The oldest surviving lion rugs date only from the last two centuries.

Recomended redaing “Lion Rugs; The Lion in Art and Culture of Iran” by Parviz Tanavoli (Trans Book, New York, 1985)

Jean-Pierre Digard and Carol Bier

2000, Encyclopaedia Iranica

GABBA (gava in Kurdish and Lori, Īzadpanāh, s.v.; ḵersak in Baḵtīārī, Digard, pp. 128-31), a hand-woven pile rug of coarse quality and medium size (90 x 150 cm or larger) characterized by an abstract design that relies upon open fields of color and a playfulness with geometry. This kind of rug is common among the tribes of the Zagros (Kurdish, Lori-speaking ethnic groups, Qašqāʾīs). The first known reference to gabba is found in a farmān by Shah Ṭahmāsp (r. 930-84/1524-76) dating to the middle of the 16th century (Opie, 1992, p. 124). 

Gabbas were said to have originated in Lorestān (mainly from the Ḵorramābād, Borūjerd, and Alīgūdarz regions), whence its use and production spread northward among the Kurds as far as Sanandaj, Nehāvand, Bījār, Kabūdarāhang, and southward in Fārs among the Qašqāʾīs (Tanāvolī, 1977; Tanavoli and Amanolahi; Opie) and as far as Šūl, a village on the edge of the Bušehr province which was reputed to produce the best gabbas. Typically, there is minimal pattern with an occasional stick figure or simply stylized animals on a gabba.

With the exception of the old gabba-ye šīrī, representing a lion, of the Darrašūrī tribe (q.v.; Tanāvolī, 1983), the traditional tribal gabbas are loose and coarsely woven. They have long pile, low knot density, and many rows of weft between each row of knots.

The knotting can be either symmetrical or asymmetrical. Colors derive from undyed wool, šīrī (cream), šotorī (light brown), and sīāh (black, in small quantity, in the form of small flower motifs), from natural dyestuffs derived from plant materials gathered by women and children. Dyed colors show subtle variations that result from the dye-bath and methods used to impart color to the wool yarns prior to weaving. The essential features of the gabba are its small size and soft texture, its comfort (thickness of the pile), and its natural colors.

A gabba is basically the rug of a single person, usually a woman (Digard, p. 174), who carries in it from place to place her hearth, mašk (goatskin sack for carrying water), loom, cradle, etc.; sometimes a fur rug (taḵt-e pūst) or a felt rug (namad, see FELT) performs the same function. A gabba may also be taken to the ḥammām as a mat or used to cover the back of a mount instead of a saddle.

Traditionally, gabbas were woven for local domestic use, not for sale. In particular, the long pile and floppy handle made them useful as sleeping blankets.

The increased interest in gabbas among Western collectors since the 1980s and a shared aesthetic with minimalism and the color field movement in modern art, as well as a contemporary appreciation of the charm of gabba rugs, have led to higher demand which has spawned commercial manufacture in India and elsewhere, often using synthetic dyes, for the home-furnishing markets in Europe and the United States.

In Persia, the weavers of some tribes (especially among the Qašqāʾīs) have been working exclusively for foreign markets. Demands of merchants who look for new motifs, and the fact that gabba designs were little developed and elaborated, caused the weavers to take liberties with their models and make bold improvisations (Opie, passim).

In the same manner as, or at least to the same extent as, the rugs made at the end of the 19th century did (Helfgott), gabbas offer a significant example of traditional production in which foreign demand has rekindled interest resulting in radical design and functional transformations, while rejuvenating a pre-capitalist sector of the Persian economy.

A further impetus was given to the fashion for gabbas with the appearance of Moḥsen Maḵmalbāf’s film Gabbeh (1996). The rug appears as a recurrent symbolic motif, celebrating life and color against the morbid forces of darkness and explores both the transience and effervescence of life by focusing on a tribal girl named Gabbeh. The film is imbued with a lyrical romanticism far removed from the everyday realities of tribal life.

It is mainly recent collectors and dealers in Germany and Italy who have taken the lead in providing information about gabba. Very few works, either on carpets (e.g., Eagleton) or the tribes (e.g., Beck; Mortensen), mention gabba, and the subject has not received critical scrutiny in academic circles. This is because gabbas, like all tribal rugs (Helfgott, pp. 161-72), were long considered, in the tribes as well as in international trade, to be too coarse to be offered for sale.

Moreover, works that make passing reference to gabba too often erroneously attribute to it uses that it does not have or misleadingly label as gabbas what are in fact large carpets with elaborated motifs (a Lor carpet of 137 by 206 cm, a Baḵtīārī of 104 by 413 cm, and two Qašqāʾī of 152 by 224 cm and 124 by 264 cm in Opie; a Baḵtīārī of more than four meters in Sadighi and Hawkes).

Most extant gabbas date from well into the 20th century, but early dates of acquisition of gabba in The Textile Museum’s collections in Washington suggest 19th century dating for some examples. Some authors believe that gabba represent much older traditions of pile weaving, and that their origins may date to the emergence of this technique in the steppes of Central Asia soon after domestication of sheep.

PLATE I. Gabba, southwestern Persia(?), 19th century. Wool pile on wool warp and weft. 208.5 × 129.5 cm. The Textile Museum R33.00.4. Acquired by George Hewitt Myers.

PLATE II. Gabbas on display at a Qašqāʾī tent in the garmsīr (q.v.). After M. Aḥmadī and M. Maḵmalbāf, Gabba: fīlm-nāma wa ʿaks, Tehran, 1375 Š./1996.

PLATE III. A gabba in a contemporary style. After M. Aḥmadī and M. Maḵmalbāf, Gabba: fīlm-nāma wa ʿaks, Tehran, 1375 Š./1996.

Bibliography:

L. Beck, Nomad: A Year in the Life of a Qashqaʾi Tribesman in Iran, London, 1991.
R. D. Biggs, ed., Discoveries from Kurdish Looms, Seattle, 1983.
G. D. Bornet, Gabbeh: The Georges D. Bornet Collection III, Baar, Switzerland, 1995.
A. De Franchis and J. T. Wertime, Lori and Bakhtiyari Flatweaves, Tehran, 1976.
J.-P. Digard, Techniques des nomades Baxtyâri d’Iran, Cambridge and Paris, 1981.
W. Eagleton, An Introduction to Kurdish Rugs and Other Weavings, New York, 1988.
M.-R. Ḥasanbeygī, “Gabba,” Faṣl-nāma-ye ʿašāyerī, no. 6, 1367 Š./1988, pp. 121-26.
L. M. Helfgott, Ties that Bind: A Social History of the Iranian Carpet, Washington and London, 1994.
Ḥ. Īzadpanāh, Farhang-e lorī, Tehran, 1343 Š./1964.
D. W. Martin, “The Gabbehs of Fars: An Abstract Tribal Art,” Hali 5/4, 1983, pp. 462-73.
I. D. Mortensen, Nomads of Luristan: History, Material Culture, and Pastoralism in Western Iran, Copenhagen, 1993.
Museo nazionale della montagna “Duca degli Abruzzi,” I Gabbeh: un’arte tribale astratta tappeti del Sud-Ovest persiano, catalogue of an exhibition, 14 May-26 June, 1988, Cahiers Museomontagna 58, Turin, 1988.
I. C. Neff and C. V. Maggs, Dictionary of Oriental Rugs, London and Johannesburg, 1977
J. Opie, Tribal Rugs of Southern Persia, Portland, Ore., 1985.
S. Parhām and S. Āzādī, Dastbāfhā-ye ʿašāyerī-e wa rūstāʾī-e Fārs, Tehran, 1365 Š./1986.
H. Reinisch, Gabbeh: The Georges D. Bornet Collection I, Catalogue of an Exhibition at the Graz Kunstlerhaus, 4 April to 20 April 1986, Graz and London, 1986.
T. Sabahi, Splendeurs des tapis d’Orient, Paris, 1987.
H. Sadighi and K. Hawkes, Gabbehs: Stammesteppiche der Bergnomaden am Zagros, Berlin, 1991.
A. Sette, T. Meglioranzi, and L. Zoccatelli, Gabbeh: Tappeti tribali della Persia meridionale, Verona, 1988.
P. F. Stone, The Oriental Rug Lexicon, Seattle, 1996, p. 83.
P. Tanāvolī, Qālīča-ye šīrī-e Fārs, Tehran, 2536 (1356) Š./1977.
Idem, “Gabbeh,” Hali 5/4, 1983, pp. 474-76.
P. Tanavoli and S. Amanolahi, Gabbe: The George D. Bornet Collection II, Baar, Switzerland, 1991.
J. Wertime, “The Names, Types, and Functions of Nomadic Weaving in Iran,” in A. N. Landreau, ed., Yoruk: The Nomadic Weaving Tradition of the Middle East, Pittsburgh, 1978, pp. 23-26.

(Jean-Pierre Digard and Carol Bier)

Originally Published: December 15, 2000

Last Updated: February 2, 2012

The Luri are a nomadic tribe of shepherds inhabiting the valleys of the Zagros Mountains in south-western Iran, a large area they share with other pastoral tribes.

Enjoy a short early 20^th century Pathḕ documentary Women of Persia depicting the life of that ancient nomadic tribe.

Thank you for watching

A.G,