Chodor Rugs: 17th C. Mangyshlak(?) Chodor Chuval 17th C. Gallery-Arabesque |
||||||||
JBOC Attribution: Oriental Rugs > Turkmen Rugs > Chodor Rugs
Galerie Arabesque and Michael
Craycraft
http://www.Gallery-Arabesque.com
Mangyshlak(?) Chodor chuval PRICE $ 7,500.00 (USD)
Size: 125cm(H) x 79cm(W) / 4'1"(H) x 2'7"(W)
Region: Central Asia ? Turkmen ? Chodor
Item Type: Rugs and Carpets ? Bags and Trappings ? Chuval
Materials: wool with camel wefts
Structure / Technique: pile, asymmetric knot open right
Condition: Good
Comments On Condition
Near complete with folded and sewn top, pile is good but
uneven, two or three very small moth tracks, some of the
very top is missing, a few small urine dribbles in the
elem and three very, very small holes.
Full Description
This is a speculators' dream. It is either an exceptional
19th century Caspian Chodor or it is 17th century
Mangyshlak Chodor. If I still have it this October it
will be submitted for carbon dating. For the moment it is
being offered for $7,500. If it carbon dates to 17th
century or earlier the value will quadruple.
There are a number of reasons why it should be 19th
century. Primary among these is that most Turkoman
weavings are from this era. Secondarily, at a glance it
looks pretty much like a normal (19th century) Turkoman
weaving. Certainly there are Caspian Yomuds with a
similar palette, the gul is drawn like a normal Chodor
gul, the borders and secondary gul are familiar or at
least known. So why look any further? Well, because some
of us are Turkomaniacs. Looking deeper is second nature.
Upon closer inspection a numbers of details are found to
be atypical. First the secondary sarkhalka border. It's
just not like the other girls. Compare it with other
Chodor or Saryk versions; it just doesn't match. This
particular rendition appears to be unique. We know the
main border to be both common and archaic. Afterall, it
is common to the Afshar and they haven't been much of a
presence in central Asia since the Seljuk movements. It
is typical for 19th century Chodor and Yomut work. But
once again, upon close inspection we find that this
articulation to be very different. The horizontal aspects
look elongated and squashed, late even, but when one
reads the reciprocal (white) aspect the border takes on a
whole new meaning. The vertical versions of this border
are textured or 'spotted ' like the bodies of dragons and
other mythical beasts in early carpets. If we read the
figurative design to be birds or phoenix then perhaps we
might attempt to extrapolate the textured reciprocal into
dragons. Not too far fetched. The gul itself is very good
but it certainly doesn't vary much from other early 19th
century nine gul Chodor chuvals except in one category;
color. The others don't come in this palette. Indeed the
colors are very unusual for Chodor work and quite
exceptional for any Turkoman tribe. Finally, the
structure. The warps are on one plane, not depressed,
like the few examples that we know to be Mangyshlak. The
knot count appears to be a bit high for Chodor work also.
Certainly not a completely convincing argument but one
does wonder as to exactly what is the explaination for
this unusual chuval. Sooner or later it will have to be
submitted to science.
Seen on: http://www.cloudband.com/
Thanks and best wishes,
J. Barry O'Connell Jr.
