Turkotek and Ethnicity

A Non-verbal Linguistic Approach to Ethnicity

On Turkotek Richard Larkin raised an interesting question when he wrote: "For example, the competing claims of "Turkomans" and "Anatolians" are asserted, as though each of those groups were monolithic blocks that we fully understand, like chocolate and vanilla. But really, what do we mean in this context by "Turkomans?" What Turkomans, and when?"

What a great question. I use a different system then most people but being alone does not bother me and my system works. Language defines ethnicity. So if we want to know what group wove a type of rugs we go to the milk language of the weaver. Without getting overly complicated Kurdish weavers weave Kurdish rugs. (apologies to Michael Wendorf) and Tekke weavers wove Tekke rugs. When we want to define Turkish rugs we look to the people to narrow down the possible weaving groups. That is why I put together People of (Asian) Turkey by Language. we have 22 ethnic groups in 6 major language groups and two ethnic groups ethnically cleansed in the Massacres and deportations.

3 Afro-Asiatic languages making up less than 1% of the population.

9 Altaic languages making up 88% of the population. 88%.

2 Indo-European languages making up less than 1% of the population.

3 North Caucasian languages making up less than 1% of the population.

2 Kartvelian languages making up less than 1% of the population.

3 Kurdish languages making up 10% of the population.

Formerly about 10% of the population of Asian Turkey was Armenian and about 4% were Greek.

All appreciable quantities of Turkish rugs from Asian Turkey have to be attributed to one of these groups. There were no other significant groups.

I have proposed that Turkish be recodified as a derivative language of Turkmen. Specifically that Turkish descends from what I proposed to be called Ohguz Seljuk and that it be grouped with similar languages such as Turkmen and Northern and Southern Azeri. By the way I have also proposed that Northern and Southern Azerbaijani be renamed Northern and Southern Azeri. Supposedly this is going to be published this year but I am not holding my breath Still I hope to see it out soon. I am basing my conclusions on what I call Non-verbal linguistics. Only now are we seeing that language is more than sounds with meaning. I propose that structure and pattern contain a non-verbal element of language. For instance for us to know that a Kurdish rug is Kurdish by looking at the structure and pattern then the weaver has woven in a way that indicates the language of the weaver. Therefor the weaving is a form of non-verbal language. More later, it is a work night.

Turkish Rugs: How do we date Early Karapinar Carpets?

Karapinar Tulip Rug from the Philadelphia Museum of Art

How do we date Early Karapinar Carpets?
Not long ago Wendel Swan sent me a picture of the Textile Museum Karapinar tulip long rug. It is a magnificent rug and a very early example of the type but the Textile Museum has it listed as 19th century. How then can the Textile Museum date this rug so late? I think I have it figured out. I don't agree but now I think I understand the rational.

Mae Beattie identified a group of unusual Kilims that she dated to the 17th century. I believe that Court Kilim from the Ulu Mosque in Divrigi is an example of that group. So if Charlie Ellis accepted Mae Beattie's attribution of 17th century and I am sure he would because I think he helped her with it, then you can understand how he dated the Karapinar Tulip Rug from the Philadelphia Museum of Art to the 18th to 19th century. So if Karapinar Tulip Rug from the Philadelphia Museum of Art is 18th to 19th century then you can understand how Ellis who had a great deal of input on such thing at the Textile Museum would date the Textile Museum Karapinar tulip long rug to the 19th century.

The problem is that a number of rugs are plausibly date dated much earlier such as to Turkish Rugs: Karapinar Long Rug C. 1600 and Turkish Rugs: Karapinar Long Rug from the Vakiflar Museum Circa 1600 - 1700. My thought is that the Ottoman took Egypt in 1517 so why not date the Court Kilim from the Ulu Mosque in Divrigi to circa 1500. After all it is made in the Egyptian manner. So if we date that one to 1500 then we can quiet plausibly date Turkish Rugs: Karapinar Long Rug C. 1600, Turkish Rugs: Karapinar Long Rug from the Vakiflar Museum Circa 1600 - 1700, Textile Museum Karapinar tulip long rug, Turkish Rugs: Karapinar Long Rug Fragment from the Wolf Collection, and Karapinar Yellow Ground Tulip Rug from Berdj Achdjian to circa 1600 and into the 17th century. So where do we put the Karapinar Tulip Rug from the Philadelphia Museum of Art? How about mid 16th century?

L.A. Rug Expert Brian Morehouse weighes in on 18th Century Anatolian Turkmen

L.A. Rug Expert Brian Morehouse weighes in on 18th Century Anatolian Turkmen The level of discourse on Turkotek certainly has gone up a notch or two since Jim Allen started his 18th Century Anatolian Turkmen thread. Now L.A. Rug Expert Brian Morehouse has jumped into the discussion with both feet. Brian has come out with a variation of the old, Turkish Rugs are Armenian rugs, argument. Brian Morehouse wrote: "I cannot for the life of me see why anyone given current scholarship would still adhere to the Turkmen genesis for Anatolian Rugs. Do people really believe that Anatolian weaving traditions languished for thousands of years until the arrival of the Turkmen…..nonsense? Or that the Kurds or Armenians were not privy to the technology of pile weaving....nonsense! Clearly over a thousand years had passed from the time of the Greco-Romans and almost that long under Byzantine rule."

I was reading Kurt Erdmann's "700 years of Oriental Carpets" this afternoon and Erdmann made the point that there were Turkmen, Armenians, and Greeks. In fact he quoted Marco Polo in support of this. So as I read this Brian Morehouse's argument flashed through my mind and I realized that if we eliminate the Turkmen then all we have left are Greeks, Kurds, and Armenians. So were the Greeks weaving Brian's thousands of years of rug? If Greeks wove rugs why don't Greeks weave rugs. Are we to believe that Greeks wove for thousands of years and then fled the Turks and forgot. Nope, not likely in my book. So that leaves the Armenians and the Kurds. Now the Kurds are Eastern Anatolian. If Brian wants to attribute western and central Anatolian rugs to the Kurds then he is going to have to deal with the Turkotek Kurdish rug YO Michael Wendorf and his Kurdish heartland mandate.

So following the Morehouse argument that leaves the Armenians. I always suspected that some Central Anatolian rugs were Armenians but All of them? Keep tuned to Jim Allen's 18th Century Anatolian Turkmen thread for the latest in Internet rug scholarship.