Bukhara and Its Ersari
These notes have to do with some rugs from Bukhara, some by Ersari. Behind the scene is the global conqueror, Timur. An allegedly contemporary portrait of him is:
A visitor to the imperial tomb in Samarcand in 1908 described
a floor textile: “a thick carpet… [with] a space
in the middle for the green-veined tombstone…unique in that
it fits the circular building exactly…[the design] is strikingly
original…a 600 year-old treasure…protected by a linen
cover…the lovely ancient design of arabesques and flowers,
woven into a white background…” 1 A
correspondence with the backdrop in the portrait is apparent.
A much earlier (1405) note on the mausoleum mentioned its “figured
and a tomb cover of black jade with inscriptions. 2 There
have been latter day visitors : “a dark green floor” 3 and
a jade tombstone, 4 no
carpet mention. Nor is an 1895 viaitor’s report encouraging in
the matter of space for a floor carpet. 5 Count
Palen’s details, however, can’t quite be dismissed; a Soviet carpet
specialist says the rug has disappeared. 6
Those who have studied Timurid culture point to its assimilation
both of Chinese and of Persian (Sasanian) art.7 8 One
of the world conqueror’s practices supported this taste;
an alleged Timur quote in Hafez is “… and I have depopulated
a great number of cities and provinces in order to augment the
glory and the richness of Samarcand and of Bokhara, which are ordinary
locations of my residences and the seat of my empire…” 9
Timurid style continued into its successor Uzbegs -- in Bukhara,
“…the Timourid traditions penetrated into Persia
and in the Uzbek States where they kept going for a long time.” 10 Others
say the same; for example “Timurid and Uzbek dynasties also
patronized Persian art, literature and historical writing”.
While Shebanye Khan, creator of Uzbeg power c. 1500 was an admirer
of Timurid art, there was a latter day exception; Nasrullah-khan
(1826 –1860), who scorned the arts, rejuvenated the military,
was very unpopular, and presided over a cultural decline. 11
Bukhara was ever of consequence, both regional trade hub and manufacturing
center. Its products are mentioned in medaeval chronicles
-- Zandaniji cloth, Yazdi cloth, cushions, prayer rugs, khalats (robes),
door hangings, and hanging tapestries. A passage in Yakut
was misread (in 1947) to include carpets, a mistake soon corrected
(in 1958), a translator’s failure to see a prefix; the mistranslated
word meant hanging tapestries. 12 Translations
of deep past terms for various textiles are tricky; words shifted
in meaning over time and between languages, plus the fact that
copying corrupted texts. 13
Of the 40 or so Bukhara guilds with by-laws (rissala)
32 produced manufactured items; among this corps du métier were
weavers, silk makers, velvet makers, “painters” of
saddles, felt makers, and silk dyers.14 (The
dyers were Jewish.) This enterprise continued. In 1823, a
“all sorts of cotton fabric” as well as silk; 15 fabric
production included mixed silk and cotton; at this same time another
observer remarked that “Russian stuffs” were providing
the patterns. 16 Cotton
(dyed and colored) and stuffs of silk were being produced but without
workplaces with more than 20 employees. 17
The product was high style, as can be seen in the velvet and gold
brocade saddle cover, below, photographed in 1885, typical of items
made for the Emir and his pals.
Figure # 2
Trade was intraregional. Some Bukhara exports did reach
Europe via a northern overland route through Orenberg; carpets,
however, were a trivial presence. For example, a customs
manifest in 1819: “5 rugs, 54 ordinary shawls, Cachmere shawls.” 18 The
main trade consisted of cotton products, ‘lames’ of
gold and silver, cochineal, coral, gold thread, velvet robes, silks,
and horses;19 trade
along the more direct Khiva route, in spite of the bad relations
between the two khanates, carried the same bulk items, raw and
finished cotton goods.20 Later
in the century the route continued to be unsafe, infested by robbers
(nomadic Kazaks), and somewhat problematic for trade purposes. 21 Skepticism
should greet any claim that rugs mattered much on either of these
pre-Russian conquest trade routes.
Figure # 3
While Bukhara city was important so were three other places:
Chardjui, (from Tchhar-djui, meaning four brooks, Amu Daria tributaries), 22 the
khanate’s second city; Karshi, a commercial hub inland from
the river and in due course connected to Bukhara and Kerki by railroad
spurs; and, Kerki, the river’s upper navigation limit, the
departure point for trade to Afghanistan.
People of the steppes have always been engaged in complementary
commerce with the oasis centers, the exchanging of raw and finished
articles such as rugs and felts for arms, metal, and artisan products. 23 An
early datum on intra-regional trade showed up in an 1869 Russian
government survey of the then new colonial territory -- standard
Imperial practice using interdisciplinary teams including an artist 24 (thought
to be an aid to research) -- an expedition incidentally producing
illustrations of Bukhara carpets (below); the Simakov team had
no knowledge about and probably no interest in carpets, the text
merely reporting what the team was told.
The Simakov book is significant in that the rugs were in Tashkent,
well to the north of Bukhara, their presence a measure of regional
carpet commerce. 25
Figure # 4
Figure # 5
The Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries
Figure # 6
Although Samarcand was the capital the Emir (c. 1879 portrait
above, sporting Russian medals) lived in Bukhara. Small cities
also were important.
Chardjui (in 1820) 1000 houses, 26 1834
population between four and five thousand, with a bazaar of “cloth
and horseclothes”, 2 -- 3 thousand people present; 27 later
(c. 1880) on the order of four thousand and a “big enough” commerce
with Turkmens, consisting of grains, knives, saddle covers, clothing
and utensils, and purchases of horses, sheep, and felt; 28 at
the end of the century an important transshipment point, incoming
by river, outgoing by rail. 29 It
also was the site of an important fortress; the beg (c. 1880, below)
was the Emir’s fourth, pious, son.
Figure # 7
Some observations about Karshi mention a hundreds yards long
street of wool bazaars, a chief mart for “cattle”,
and its being locus of a “vast” number of Turkmen carpets
and horse coverings for sale (1843); 30 there
were twenty thousand resident families, Tajiks and Uzbegs, and
a doubled winter population, mostly Uzbegs (c. 1820); 31 Karshi
was the khanate’s second center, “a very important
commercial town”. Bukhara city in 1843 was no different:
a bazaar with morning and evening carpet sections; 32 no
“considerable manufacturies”, work taking place at
home, a product line primarily of dyed mixed color cotton, plus
silk and “all kinds of clothing. 33 There
are many similar travel account descriptions.
The khanate was an ethnic stew 34 of
different peoples in varying locations -- small cities, and auls (hamlets)
on the steppes -- in two major ethnic groups, Iranians and Turks,
using Farsi and Turki, with the majority of city folk bilingual. All
had a common history, culture, and (for most) religion. Identity
was with clan, family, location, and local ruler: “…an
agglomeration of towns, villages, rural districts, and nomadic
and seminomadic tribes, held together loosely by economic ties
but primarily by loyalty to a common dynasty enforced through political
and military sanctions.” 35
Russian overlords and western visitors sometimes used the offensive
term Sart (yellow dog) to designate Uzbeg-speaking city dwellers. In
fact they could have been either Turks or Iranians. Some
outsider names for peoples -- Uzbeg-Turkmens, Khirgiz-Uzbegs and
the like are for the most part off the mark. Ethnicity and
language were not always an identity; there are occasional instances
of neighboring villages of the same ethnicity with one speaking
Farsi and the other Turki.
V. V. Stasov knew about such matters and in his review of the
Simakov book observed: “Central Asian art presents nothing
unique, intact, singular. No, on the contrary, it is a conglomeration
of creative activity of varying nationalities: Turks, Iranians,
Hindustanis, Arabs, Mongols and several other tribal groups.” 36
Some members of the Turkmen Academy of Arts and Sciences hold the
same view, and include Turkmen carpets in it. 37
The Bukhara Turkmens
The Amu Daria littoral, especially its left bank, was Turkmen
territory, many groups known under the rubric, Ersari, a clan of
a main Oghuz division, Kinik. 38
William Wood’s ethnohistory article 39 notes
Ersari movements in the Turkmens substantial departure from the
Mangishlak peninsula; in brief, they were early out (17th c.),
some initially to Khorezm (Khiva) and subsequently to Bukhara,
there certainly by the early 1700’s, to become sedentary
and agricultural. “The Turkomans are established all
along the length of the river in a corridor of four or five day’s
travel.” 40 Others
arrived in Bukhara later by a less direct route via an intermediate
stop on the southern rim of Turkmen territory. There is some dispute
among area specialists as to when Turkmens generally became sedentary,
the majority arguing early, a minority,41 later.
This issue is moot as far as carpets are concerned; substantial
settledness was a fact well before the time when the rugs around
nowadays were created.
Glimpses of the whereabouts of the Bukhara Turkmens in the travel
literature note their sedentary nature, viz. (in 1823) “Since
twenty years ago this people had begun to get used to fixed residences.” 42 The
south bank of the Amu was irrigated, for cotton, its agriculturists
allegedly Uzbeg and Karakalpak, with Turkmens living on the steppes
fringe, the Ata in fixed houses and Ersaris in hamlets which moved
from one pasture to another. 43
Sightseers were not the only describers. Some, like Simakov
in Sir Daria oblast’ north of Bukhara, were on the
purposeful mission of inventorying new colonial territory.
Such a one was Capt. Komarov who reported on the Amu Daria extensive
irrigation, the dominant agricultural economic activity (cotton,
wheat, barley with cotton using half the cultivated land), and
naming four Ersari clans in 54 subdivisions. 44 Tumanovich,
writing in a Turkmen academic journal of 1926, identifies the clans
as Uluk, Gunyash, Kara, Bek-Aul’. 45
The Carpet Literature
Observations concerning Bukhara rugs appear in the early 20th c.
Russian carpet literature. Bedrock here is the big four --
Bogoliubov, Dudin, Felkersham, and Semenov. The reports of
the latter, better three say more or less the same thing. S.
M. Dudin gave a nod to Semenov’s expertise in that he had
spent more time in the region. 46 Felkersham
was careful to stress the uncertainties of who, what, where, and
when; he was not alone, the other authors saying the same thing
a bit less pointedly. Felkersham also surfaced a significant
fact: Kerki and Bashir carpet-making as “an important craft” began “a
mere 40 years ago.”47 That
is, the 1870’s.
The gist of Semenov is:
- Kerki was the principal production center of low priced
marketplace competitive rugs, and included the kishlak (small
political jurisdiction) Kizil-Ayak (between Kerki and the river);
the kishlak Bashir, the older rugs of which are an attractive
terra cotta color; the kishlak Tcakur near Kerki; and,
the kishlak Charchangi with rugs known by that name and
in typical Kizil-Ayak designs.
- Palas were made in Denaus and Karshi bekdoms, those
of Karshi being regarded as the best of Central Asia, and labeled “Arab” due
to the weavers’
alleged descent from Arabs; nomadic “Kirgiz-Uzbeg” called
Kattagan also made palas in the steppes south-east of
Bukhara. Shakmisydz in the same bekdom was the source of
beautiful silk fabric, sometimes called Iraki, folklore
(echoed in the travel literature) the makers having been descendants
of those brought into the area in the distant past.
- In Bukhara the demand for Bashir carpets exceeded that for any
other type; these inexpensive carpets were especially popular with
the “working” class; some of low quality were made
in the workshops of the Emir, mostly as presents; and, in general
Bashir carpets in the Bukhara khanate can be viewed as “government
One is an exhibition catalogue 48 which
in spite of understandable limitations of old-fashioned text and
lack of color illustration is rich with 54 illustrations showing
the various designs of the khanate, together with a good map, and
offering a good panorama of Bukhara carpet design.
Another is the only rug book written by Turkmens. 49 The
text (some in English) does not say much about Ersari carpets,
but a number are illustrated and accompanied by design and category
names (Kizil-Ayak, Bashir, Kerki). The illustration below
is a Kizil-Ayak carpet made in 1935, looking much like one
of the vintage Ersari types of the marketplace; the next illustration
is of a rug made in 1973, also called Kizil Ayak. Nothing
Figure # 8
Figure # 9
What, Who and Where
The Bukhara khanate product is a gallimaufry but two of its elements
One is the Kizil Ayak (both a place and a clan name, best taken
as an identity) group of rugs. The Wood article on the Turkmen diaspora takes
the Bukhara Kizil Ayak first to the southern rim of Turkmen country,
followed later by a move north to Bukhara. That some of their
product resembles that of the southern rim (Tekke, Saryk, etc.)
is to be expected and that it could have continued not surprising.
Another has to do with where the rugs were made. Some years
ago a contentious HALI article attacked an earlier essay which
contended that some came from the city or within the Bukhara cultural
sphere, plus an assertion that there “must have been” urban
carpet-making for several centuries.50 The
attack marshaled a list of travel account observations which did
not mention carpet-making in Bukhara city, and was accompanied
by a reference to an unsubstantiated claim in a latter day Soviet
carpet book (“… pile weaving was not practiced even
in its [Bukhara’s] vicinity, let alone in the town itself”).51
The travel account argument is not worth making. The affirmation
bears the burden of proof, and the urban carpet-making assertion
did not have any. There is an additional reason which is
not to bother with recitation of null sets; in this case due to
inability to choose among (a) absence of rugs; (b) presence of
rugs, missed; and, (c) rugs seen but not mentioned.
Much more serious, the rebuttal article 52 contains
a flat misrepresentation of the Semenov text. It was the Emir’s “workshops”,
plural, not “one” of them, which made rugs; the text
remarked that Bashir carpets were run-or-the-mill and bought by
the “working class”; there is nothing about upper class
patronage. Semenov did use the term “state carpets” but
in a very different sense: “ …in general Bashir carpets
in Bokhara khanate in the full sense of the word are government
carpets (gilam-i-davlyati)”. These Uzbeg words are “government
the Russian exactly reproduces. The comment is not complementary
but rather something along the lines of the Americanism, “it’s
good enough for government work.” The Emir gave away
cheap stuff; smart man.
Although Semenov, well grounded in the field and speaking Uzbeg,
may possibly have misperceived, what is unacceptable is flagrant
mistranslation and misinterpretation turning his statements upside
The matter of Bukhara carpets also furnishes two cases in point
illustrating another difficulty: the interpretation of travel accounts. One
early 20th c. description reads: “Bukhara is famous
for its rugs, its silks and its embroideries of silk on cotton…The
rugs and embroideries are in unique shades of red, not found elsewhere.” Also
mentioned is that there are “enormous” rug warehouses;
and, each family house has a loom, a family employing two or three
out of the total of 10 – 12 designs, overall only four or
five in use. 54 Sounds
good, persuasive in its details, but when probed unravels -- what
did the house looms make and where were the houses, and how much
of the material warehoused was transit trade? Carmine red
or terra cotta red? And so forth.
Another account (1894/5) observes: “(on the bazaar) We saw
none of that peculiar pattern so familiar to s all as ‘Bokhara’ carpets. I
am told that they are made in the outlying towns of the province. There
were none even in Amir’s palace.” But, the same text
22 pages earlier says (concerning the Emir’s palace)
“Bokhara carpets of rare quality and great value were tossed
here and there…” 55 Is
Mr. Shoemaker from Cincinnati Ohio pointing out that the Turkmen
type rug known as Bukhara in the export market is made in the khanate’s
outlying districts and that some other, product is gracing the
Emir’s palace? Does he know enough to be making such
a distinction or is he simply writing travelogue words?
A perspective a la that of Stasov and of Asgabat scholars is probably
The approach for the casual student of Bukhara carpets -- someone
without an advanced degree in Central Asian studies, Asian art,
and lacking Farsi, Turki, or Arabic script – should be to
relax and enjoy the diversity of their art.
The concept “Bukhara cultural sphere” is exactly right
and the sensible perspective.
Today’s nomenclature of Central Asia is quite different,
with its Soviet imposed reconfiguration into arbitrary political
jurisdictions and so-called national republics. 56 Farsi
was relabeled Tajik; Turkic splintered into Uzbeg, Kazak, and Turkmen. The
Soviet rearranging distorts any view of the folk of the weaving
hey-day, and books by Soviet authors are difficult to parse with
the earlier literature. Turkmen Soviet authors are somewhat less
doctrinaire and the better sources.
Even though the past is complex, obscure, and frequently distorted,
a proper outlook has been around for 30 years, in the form of an
essay by Konig. He got it straight -- the common artistic
heritage and the changing stew of clans, ethnicity, life style,
place names, and political jurisdictions. 57 And
had the wit to use one of the better sources, Pirkuleva, 58 an
Asgabat Turkmen. The essay contains considerable data about
weaving technics; this is good, and both the Moshkova and Pirkuleva
reports also have this information.
Not all is consistent, however. There is also the problem
that no weaving technique is unique to a single group.
Figure # 10
Konig set up a four-part organization of the Ersari category
. The two most clearly defined categories, Ersari and Kizil Ayak,
appear in the motif sketches above-- taken from the old Russian
literature, those in the top half “Ersari” and those
in the bottom “Kizil Ayak”. The two middle categories
are intermediate and appropriately cautious. The conflation of
the Kizil-Ayak and Bashir categories appears regularly in the old
literature 59 and
yet the Bashir and Kerki type names could be considered separate
categories, as late as 1934. 60
Central Asian Art History
By a commodius vicus of recirculation 61 through
the complexities of culture, shifting sands of history, and the
many faceted rugs, one returns to Timur. The texiles of his
era have long been known in Islamic art circles. 62 There
are various sources; one is miniatures (examples below).
Figure # 11
Figure # 12
Another is textile fragments, showing grids or rosettes which
touch with blossoms at the point of contact, a Sasanian echo. 63
Yet another is manuscript illustrations:
Figure # 13
Figure # 14
There were two rather different styles -- floral and curvilinear,
loosely speaking, Persianate; and geometricized floral in an all-over
repeat employing two sets of motifs the one larger, the other smaller,
loosely speaking, Turkic.
Borders frequently involved “characteristic Timurid band
of flowers”. 64 At
a very general level, this is the case in many rug genres. And
in Bukhara, stemming from its artistic heritage.
It is not too much of a stretch to see the Timurid style in some
The argument, which is only circumstantial, is simple: it is not
unreasonable to speculate that settled Turkmens weavers could pick
up the Timurid version of all over geometric patterns. This proximity
argument also applies to some motifs of the Khiva Chodor.
Some Ersari gols of today may have come about later than
one might think.
The teapot tempest concerning Bukhara rugs may hold one more little
lesson -- the bias that city work is commercial and somehow unworthy,
and that only
“tribal” products have merit, along the lines of the
used car which was owned by a little old lady who drove it only
once a week to church. This view assumes a false dichotomy
-- city one thing, tribal, another. Reality is that country
folk wove rugs partly for income and accordingly wove for city
folk. And, country weavers adopted designs and patterns of
city style if they liked them.
Particularly in Bukhara circumstances it is hard to imagine anything
other than this two way street with cross-overs of pattern and
K. K., Memories of 1908—1909, trans N. J. Couriss,
London, 1964, PAGE.
Lucien, Essai sur la civilization Timurid, Journal
Asiatique, #2, April – Juin, 1926, p. 255.
Nikolai, Bokhara: Its Amir and Its People, trans. C.
A. de Bode, 1845, p. 131.
A. and Fauvelle, R., Samarkand, La Bien Guardee,
M. M., The Sealed Provinces of the Czar, 1895, p. 132.
Tsareva, in conversation.
Lucien, op. cit., p. 253.
Georges de, Voyage d’Orenbourg a Boukhara fait en 1820,
1826, p. 288.
Lacy, Silvestre, Histoire des Poets, “Douletschah
bar-Alaeddoulet, per Khodja Hafez Schirazi”, Notices
et Extraits des Manuscrits, 1799, p. 241.
10 Bouvat, op.
cit., p. 258.
Edward A., The Modern Uzbeks, 1990, p. 13, p. 111.
Richard N., The History of Bukhara, 1954,
p. 15, pp. 19-20, p. 119.
example, articles in Ars Islamica, Vol 1, Vol 2, Vol
Micel, trans. J. Castagne, Les Corps de métiers en
Asie Centrale, extract from Revue des Etudes Islamiques,
Vol II,, 1928.
P. L., “Fragments of a Journey in Bukharia”, Nouvelles
Annales des Voyages, Paris, 1823, p. 165.
Larenaudiere, Nouvelles Annales des Voyages, (a survey
article) Vol. XXIX, 1826, p. 316-17.
17 Iakovlev, op.
cit., Vol XVIII, p. 156, p. 165; Reception d’une
Caravane a Orenburg, Nouvelles Annals des Voyages, second
series, Vol 19/20, 1831, p. 127.
18 Meyendorf, op.
cit., p. 241.
19 Iakovlev, op.
cit., p, 167
20 ibid., p.164,
p. 167, 169; Embasy to Bucharia by Dr. Eversman, Physician,
and Mr. Jacovlew, Secretary to the Embasy, Russian Missions to
the Interior of Asia, London 1823, p. 40.
K. A., Put’ v Tsentral’nayi Azii, St. Petersburg,
1871, p. 39.
Ali Reis, Travels … of the Turkish Admiral, (1553 –1556),
trans. A. Vambery, 1899, p. 78.
Pierre, Les Relations Nomades-Sedentaires, in Seminaire
sur les nomadism en Asie Centrale, Berne, l977, p. 77/78.
M. Dudin later came to Central Asia in the same role, illustrating
a good deal of its architecture.
N. E., L’Art de l’Asie Central, Recueil de l’Art
Decoratif de l’Asie Central, Plate #4 -- #7, St. Petersburg,
26 Meyendorf, op.
cit., p. 156.
Alexander, Travels into Bokhara, 1834, Vol. II, p.2.
Weil, La Tourkmenie et les Tourkmenes, trans. of article
in Voienny Sbornik.
William Eleroy, Turkestan, the Heart of Asia, 1911,
p. 111, p. 113.
30 Khanikov, op,
cit., p. 141.
Wm. and Trebeck, George, Travels, 1841, p. 503.
32 Khanikov, op.
cit., p. 117 ff.
and Jakoview, op. cit., p. 55.
Ian M., “Ethnic Groups of the Bukharian State ca. 1920
and the Question of Nationality”, in Allworth, The
Nationality Question in Central Asia., p. 141.
Seymour, “National Consciousness and the Politics of The
Bukhara Peoples’s Republic”, The Nationality
Question in Soviet Central Asia, ed. Edward
Allworth, 1973; a number of papers in this collection make the
V. V., Sobranie Sochinenii, Vol. II, St. Petersburg,
1894, p. 700.
D., “Turkmen National Carpet Patterns and Their Regeneration
During the Years of Independence of Turkmenistan”; Zaletayev,
V. S., “Elements and Symbols of Animalism in Ornaments
of a Turkmen Carpet”; Niyazi, N. N., “Origin and
History of Denomination of Turkmen Carpets’ Ornaments”;
papers at the symposium on the art of Turkmen carpets, Asgabat,
L., Reference Sheets, People of the Rug, Textile Museum
Convention, Oct. 16—18, 1998.
William, “Turkmen Ethnohistory”, in Vanishing
de l’Asie Centrale par Mir Abdoul Kerim Boukhary, 1740 –1818, trans.
Ch. Schefer, p. 171.
Yu., “Nomadic and Sedentary Elements Among the Turkmens”, Central
Asian Journal, Vol XXV, #1-2, 1981.
42 Iakovlev, op.
cit., p. 162.
Henri, A Travers l’Asie Central, 1885, p. 206.
Capt. G.-Sh., Karatkia Statisticheskia Svedeniya o plemen
ersari..., Sbornik geografieskikh, topografischneskikh i satisticheskikh
materialov po Azii, Vol. 25, p. 278 ff.
O., Turkmenistan i…, Materaly k izucheniu
istorii i etnografii, Askabad, 1926, p. 86.
S. M., Kovrovye izdelina Srednei Azii, Sbornik Muzeya Antropologii
i Etnografii, t. VII, p. 103.
Baron A., Starinnie Kovry Srednei Azii, Starye Gody, April-May,
1915, pp. 34-37.
H. M. and Boucher, J. W., The Ersari and Their Weavings, 1975.
N. and Khodzhamukhamedov, N., Kovry Turkmenstan, Ashkhabad,
J., op. cit., p. 180.
Elena, Rugs and Carpets from Central Asia, Leningrad,
1984, p. 6.
Robert, HALI, Vol 3 no 4, p. 294 ff. p. 300. The best face that
can be put upon the almost complete reversal of the Semenov text
is an egregiously poor translation. There is other mischief
with respect to references to the Moshkova text; perhaps the
facts were being fitted to the policy.
Edward Allworth, Columbia University.
Wm. E., Turkestan, the Heart of Asia,
New York, 1911, p.167, 168.
Robert J., “Convergence and Nationality Literature of Central
Asia”, in Allworth, Nationality Question…, op.
cit., p. 20.
Hans, “Ersari Carpets”, Turkmen, ed. Thompson
and Mackie, 1980, p. 190 ff.
Anna. Konig used either a German translation or the Russian
of “Kovrovoe tkachestva turkmen doliny srednei amu-dar’i”, Material’naya
kul’tura narodov Srednei Azii i Kazakhstana, Moscow,
1966; a long article with a considerable review of the Imperial
literature, with Dudin considered the best; a shorter and easier
to handle essay, same substance but without a literature review,
is her Domashnie promysly i remesla Turkmen doliny srednei
Amydar’i vo vtorou polovine XIX – nachale XX v.,
for example, Logofet, D. M., Na Granitsakh Srednei Azii, Vol.
I, 1909, p. 124-25.
A. K., Sovietskie Kovry i Ikh Eksport, 1934. 18.
Amy, “Timurid Carpets”, Ars Islamica, Vol.
VII, Pt. 1, p. 20 ff.
Thomas, and Lowry, Glenn, Timur and the Princely Vision, 1989,
F. R., Miniatures From the Period of Timur, Ms. Of Poems
of Sultan Ahmad Jalair, 1926, p. 9.
Reports | Print