quality. Researchers in oriental rug studies have adopted the scientific methods of art historians. These include detailed technical structural analysis, chemical and chromatographic dye analysis, and microscopic identification of fibers.
Tribal weavings have received greater research attention. Recently, our understanding of southwest Persian tribal weavings, Baluchi weavings, and Kurdish weavings has grown tremendously.
These are very positive trends. At the same time, there are problems in rug research. Because oriental rugs are relatively fragile artifacts, the historical record is incomplete.
There is no direct and continuous chain of evidence linking some types of rugs and their origins or documenting the evolution of rug designs.
Tribal peoples do not usually leave written records. The history, migrations, cultures, and crafts of many rug-weaving tribal peoples are poorly documented or not documented at all.
Recent wars and revolutions in the Near East have radically altered historic patterns of rug production and distribution. Current rug production conditions have not been thoroughly studied or documented.
Due to these and other research problems, there are gaps in our knowledge. In some cases, the gaps are occupied by partial research and reasoned speculation. In other cases, unverified knowledge and trade lore fills the void. Where information in the lexicon is speculative, we have tried to indicate this. There are controversies in rug attribution and design origin. Generally, where there are opposing views, the concepts and information are described in the lexicon as questioned. To present current and generally accepted views, information has been cross-checked against recently published research.
FORM OF ENTRIES.
A primary entry consists of a term or name followed by less common equivalent terms or names, cross-referenced. The language of origin, other than English, is enclosed in parentheses following the primary term. If there are additional foreign terms, their languages of origin also appear in parentheses. The same parentheses may enclose the original form of the foreign term or place name in italics. A literal translation of foreign terms and place names may be included in quotes. The definition or explanation follows. Then, cross-references are provided to related topics and terms. Strict letter-by-letter alphabetical order, regardless of spaces or hyphens, is used in sequencing primary entries. The format of entries is shown here:
primary entry (language of origin, original foreign term, “literal translation”),
secondary entry. Definition or explanation. See “cross-reference.”
DEFINITIONS.
The first definition of a term is usually the technical definition within the field of oriental rug and textile studies. This is followed by more specific definitions or definitions of the term in general usage. For place names, the location is given first followed by a description of weavings of that area. For names of ethnic groups, the geographical location of the group or other identifying information is given first followed by a description of their weavings.
TYPOGRAPHIC USAGE.
Boldface is used for primary and secondary terms or cross-referenced terms defined or explained within an entry. Parentheses enclose the language of origin of the entries. Capitalized initial letters are used for proper nouns and terms that are usually capitalized. Quotation marks or parentheses enclose references to other entries and translations of foreign words. Italics present foreign words in the context of an entry, scientific Latin names, subheadings, and publication titles.
TERMS FOR TEXTILE STRUCTURES.
In defining terms for textile structures, the common meaning of the term is presented first. This is usually followed by a definition using the system of classifying and describing rug structures in The Primary Structure of Fabrics by Irene Emery or Woven Structures by Marla Mallet. The terms “asymmetric knot” and “symmetric knot” are used in describing structure of pile fabrics. These are not technically correct terms, but they are used because they are generally understood in rug studies. The terms “soumak” and “weft wrapping” are used in the absence of more specific information. There are many types of weft wrapping, but published descriptions rarely differentiate these types for flatweaves.
Where structure or design information is given for rugs from a specific source, the structure or design is “average” or “typical,” unless otherwise noted. For a specific source, structural or design variation may be very great. For hand-knotted pile rugs, the pile is assumed to be wool unless otherwise noted.
For any specific source of rug production, structural and technical details may change over time according to commercial demand. Generally, there is an historical trend from higher to lower knot densities, from wool to cotton foundation, and from vegetable to synthetic dyes.
BIOGRAPHICAL DATA.
Brief biographical sketches are included of deceased individuals who achieved international prominence in rug studies or through their association with oriental rugs. A lexicon is about language. This lexicon is about the language of oriental rugs. It is analytical in that it presents very specific terms for rug origins, structures, and designs. Examining the parts rather than the whole makes this book useful. However, the attraction, charm, and beauty of oriental rugs is not in the parts, but in the whole. Many oriental rugs and other weavings are works of art, from the narrowest to the grandest meaning of the word “art.” An analytical understanding of oriental rugs is ultimately justified by the experience of oriental rugs as art.
Foreign Terms And Place Names by John R. Perry
A good part of the confusion surrounding rug terminology stems from the variety of languages used by the weavers, sellers, buyers, and connoisseurs of this most cosmopolitan of products. Very few of the names for relevant peoples, places, techniques, and types are to be found consistently spelled in the literature. Much of this inconsistency reflects dialect differences or a clash of sound, writing, and transcription systems in the languages subsequently involved. Thus “alcatif,” “qtifa,” and “kadife” all go back to the same Arabic term for a pile or nap rug, independently processed through Portuguese, Moroccan/French, and Turkish.
Some variants result simply from slips of the pen or typewriter. Many a sensible word has been turned into nonsense by the miswriting of u for n or b for h, or vice versa. Thus Murdschekar, Murchehkbur and Murcheh Khvort are all the same place to a Persian; it was a German (with a poor ear or a poor informant), a Frenchman (with poor eyesight or working from scribbled notes), and an Englishman (working from literary Persian) who carved “Murcheh Khurt” into such varied shapes.
There are no universal systems of transcription (written representation of the sounds of words) or transliteration (representation of the written form of words in a different writing system). In a work of reference, pedantry must give way to conciseness and accuracy, which involves compromises. Wherever possible, first place has been given to a widely accepted form, whether rigorously transcribed or not. A few general observations must suffice here on the relations between the language systems that are encountered in this field, with a note where these systems typically break down. This will help the reader identify analogous spellings, read and pronounce an unfamiliar term with confidence, and
