Degeneration of Turkoman Weaving in the 19th Century:
Tekke and Yomud Juvals

by Steven Price

This Article Appeared in Vol. 16/1

Figure 1: Tekke juval face probably 1825-50 Dimensions, 4'0x2'4" Asymmetric knots, 12 per inch across and 24 per inch along the warps (288 knots per square inch).

Every major Turkoman tribe produced pile faced juvals. They were probably used to hold clothing, bedding, and similar items. This is in contrast to ak-juvals, mixed technique bags that apparently were made only by the Tekke and Ersari, and may have been for storing grain. The basic layout of juvals is a field surrounded by one or more borders, occupying roughly the upper three-fourths of the bag's face. The borders are typically surrounded by an undecorated area on the top and both sides. The lower quarter of the face (the skirt, or elem) is undecorated in some early Yomud juvals, but includes repeating motifs -- usually these are stylized flowers, trees or shrubs -- in most other kinds. The field typically contains rows of one type of gul or, more commonly, alternating rows of a major and a minor gul. Partial guls "disappear" into the borders, providing the illusion that the field is a window to an infinitely repeating design. There are reasons for believing that the weavers considered the partial guls at the edges of the field to be extremely important elements of the design. The number of complete major guls in the field can vary from as few as three in some Salor and early Tekke juvals, to 20 or more.

As in the previous article, we will consider two specimens of each of two types. One exemplifies what I believe to be excellence. The other is a pretty good example of a much later piece (the Tekke), or a very late piece with some rather interesting characteristics (the Yomud). As with Yomud asmalyks -- in fact, as with nearly all types of Turkoman weavings -- the major factors by which we judge quality are drawing, spacing, and color.

Almost without exception, characteristics that are associated with greater age are considered to be aesthetically superior and more desirable than those developing later. This is one of the two big reasons that older pieces are more likely to be beautiful than younger ones. The other is that only the best of the very old were preserved.

The drawing should be clear and should suggest that the weaver was sure of and understood what she was creating, rather than being clumsy or uncertain. The motifs should be about as tall as they are wide, not excessively flattened or elongated vertically. The design should include good amounts of space; ideally, the motifs will almost seem to float on the background. There should be many colors, and the overall balance of colors will tend to be light or, at least, not dark and somber. Many of the adjacent colors will have little contrast in the best pieces. This contributes to an impression of spaciousness and serenity.

Figure 2: Tekke juval face probably c. 1850 Dimensions, 5'4"x2'11' Asymmetric knots, 10 per inch across and 17 per inch along the warps (170 knots per square inch).

Wool quality, unfortunately, can't be illustrated in photographs, but is usually very good in all Turkoman work except the production of the second half of the 20th century. In any case, most people will learn to recognize excellent wool very quickly after handling a few examples. It is important, though, to remember that not all the Turkoman tribes used wool with the same feel and that typical pile length differs between tribes. Figure 1 and figure 2 show Tekke juvals. Each has a field of six Salor turreted guls as the major motif, and a skirt decorated with diagonally arranged stylized plants bearing three blossoms. Thus, their descriptions in most sale catalogs would be similar. The one shown in Figure 1 is an excellent specimen, although its condition is somewhat rough. It probably dates to the second quarter of the 19th century. My basis for this attribution is the outstanding palette, the spaciousness of the layout, and the exquisite drawing. Indeed, most of its characteristics could easily be taken as indicating an even earlier date. But the Tekke didn't use the turreted gul until they defeated the Salor in 1820, and it seems likely that their very earliest turreted gul juvals had only three major guls in the field, like those woven by the Salor themselves.

The drawing on the juval in Figure 1 is precise, clear, and with every element of the motifs delineated with assurance. This is especially obvious upon examination of the central crosses and the turrets in the major guls, the boxes and starflowers in the secondary elements in the field, and in the guard borders. The major guls are flattened compared to turreted guls on Tekke or Salor three gul juvals, a consequence of doubling the number of rows of guls in the field.

Despite the number of guls in the field in Figure 1, there are generous amounts of space around them. The turrets don't touch or even come very close to the border, nor do the major and minor guls crowd each other. There are only three borders, and the designs that comprise them are neither flattened nor cramped. The wide guard borders are particularly noteworthy. The arrangement of shrubs in the elem is, like the field and the borders, spacious.

The palette in the juval in Figure 1 is simply superb. They include a good dark green (somewhat bluish) and a beautiful sky blue among the 10 colors. Although white is used fairly liberally and with dramatic effect, the contrasts between adjacent colors are generally not extreme and the overall impression is tranquil rather than busy. The balance of colors tends not to be very dark. This is largely because of the clear, ruby red background and the prominent use of sky blue, which are further indications of age. The magenta silk would have lightened the color balance even more when it was new and still had long enough pile to be highly reflective. The only very dark tones, a blue, a green, and a brown, are not used in any large uninterrupted areas.

The juval shown in Figure 2 is probably 50 to 75 years younger than that in Figure 1. Although comparing the two illustrates virtually every significant element of what is meant when people refer to the degeneration of Turkoman weaving during the 19th century, Figure 2 is a better than average specimen of a late Salor gul Tekke juval. The field is smaller and the guls are very much more cramped and flattened in many of the others made around the same time as this one.

The drawing in Figure 2 is fairly good, although not nearly as precise as that in the older example. The major gul is a later derivative of the Salor gul, differing most obviously in the central element, but also having thicker outlines. The thicker outlining is not just due to the coarser weaving in the later juval (170 knots per square inch, compared to 288 knots per square inch in the early specimen). Indeed, thicker outlines are common in later Tekke juvals, some of which are woven with 300 or more knots per square inch.

The secondary field motif is the classic juval gul. The borders are not drawn badly, although the difference between the shapes of some of their designs in the horizontal and vertical borders is rather extreme. The elongation (or flattening, depending upon the orientation) of motifs in the borders, a phenomenon characteristic of later Turkoman work, is clearly evident when comparing the guard borders in Figure 1 with the border in Figure 2 that has the same nominal design.

The spacing in Figures 1 and 2 is probably their most striking difference. The proliferation of ornament was among the prominent trends in Turkoman weaving during the 19th century, manifested especially strongly in Tekke work as increased numbers of borders. The juval in Figure 2 has eight borders, compared with three borders in Figure 1. Despite the fact that the piece is considerably larger than earlier Tekke juvals, the field is a bit crowded and the borders are busy and narrow. The shrubs in the elem are far more crowded than they are in the juval in Figure 1. The plants are upside down in the younger piece. It is unthinkable that the weaver didn't understand that they are flowering plants, which makes this a curious and interesting error(?).

Except for a few places within the field, there is scarcely an undecorated spot large enough to accommodate a dime anywhere on the piece shown in Figure 2. Although considerably less desirable to Turkoman collectors than the early pieces, their busy-ness can be quite attractive when the borders are done well, as they are in this specimen. There is a sense of vibrant movement in some of the borders, derived from the drawing and colors as well as the spacing.

The palette of the juval in Figure 2 is far darker than that of Figure 1. While there is a reasonable number of colors (seven), including a yellow (there is no yellow in the older specimen), the overall impression is rather somber. The predominant red is dark, with a bluish cast, and the only blue is so dark as to almost look black.

Thus, the juval in Figure 1 exemplifies many of the qualities that collectors regard as excellence: the colors, drawing, and spacings that characterize the earliest Tekke work. Indeed, it is only the number of guls in the field that require attributing it to a date as late as 1825-1850. That in Figure 2, on the other hand, is a very nice example of a later weaving. It shows the influence the outside world had on the long traditions of Turkoman weavers in the 19th century, but if we used certain criteria for excellence, it might very well be considered superior to the older works. It is extremely dramatic and decorative, and many who haven't been indoctrinated in the niceties of tribal weavings would prefer it to earlier examples. They would enjoy the additional advantage of being able to obtain it at much less expense. However, it lacks the serenity that marks outstanding tribal weaving and tribal art in general.

Figure 3: Yomud juval probably c. 1850 Dimensions, 3'7"x2'8" Symmetric knots, 12 per inch across and 20 per inch along the warps (240 knots per square inch).

Let us turn to the Yomud examples. Figure 3 is an excellent mid-19th century specimen. The wool has a beautiful, glossy patina, and the pile could be mistaken for fur by someone who handled it while blindfolded. The knot count, 240 per square inch, is extraordinary for a Yomud juval. Figure 4a and figure 4b are the front and back of a piece that was most likely to have been woven between the first and second World Wars. The pile band on its back is unusual, and therefore interesting, but the face illustrates what most Turkoman collectors would consider to exemplify the complete degeneration of traditional tribal weaving.

Figure 4a: Yomud juval, probably first half of the 20th century. Dimensions, 4'0'x2'4". Symmetric knots, 8 per inch across and 20 per inch along the warps (180 knots per square inch).

Figure 4b: Back of the juval in showing the pile band at the top.

The drawing on the juval in Figure 3 is excellent in every respect. The major guls (the juval gul) are clearly presented, only slightly flattened, and the minor guls (the chemche gul) are simple and elegant. The borders appear to be drawn by someone completely sure of what she was doing. This is especially evident in the fluidity of the guard borders and their nearly perfect internal reciprocity.

The spacing in the field is generous, and the guls almost seem to be floating on the background. The borders are uncrowded. The elem comprises nearly one-third of the face, and is undecorated. The borders, too, are plain except for two very simple bands and the pair of arrow-shaped closure indicators near the top.

The palette is wide (eight colors) and relatively light overall, with a fairly pale rust-red ground. All in all, Figure 3 shows a superb example of a the six gul Yomud juval. The type is common, but there is nothing commonplace about this specimen. Figure 4 is another Yomud juval, of much more recent vintage. The field, like that in Figure 3, is decorated with juval guls and chemche guls as secondaries, but the two pieces could hardly be more different.

The drawing of the major guls lacks grace, and the minor guls provide a good example of what is meant by a lack of understanding of the motif being produced. They are clearly derived from chemche guls, but are equally clearly not drawn in any of the many variations encountered in traditional weavings. The same remarks apply to the borders. This is especially evident if we compare the guard borders on the piece shown in Figure 4 with that in Figure 3. The beautifully reciprocal "running dog" shown in Figure 3 has evolved into the barely recognizable design seen in Figure 4. It is also evident that the major border in Figure 4 is descended from that in Figure 3. Here, too, there is every indication that the weaver really didn't understand the border's traditional design. It is not clear to me what the origin of the motifs filling the elem and the space just above the borders might be; they bear no obvious relationship to any Yomud designs of which I am aware.

The difference in spaciousness between the juvals shown in Figures 3 and 4 is especially striking. Of course, this is partly due to the larger number of guls in Figure 4, but there are other factors involved. The elem in Figure 3 is undecorated, as is the area just above the borders. In Figure 4, on the other hand, both regions are essentially covered with motifs. Even the rendering of the simple pair of rows of diagonal lines at the very top of the juval in Figure 3 becomes crowded in Figure 4. The contrasts resulting from the extensive use of white against the other colors, most of which are quite dark, also contributes to the busy appearance in Figure 4.

Although the palette of the juval in Figure 4 includes eight colors and a considerable amount of white, the overall impression is rather dark and somber. This is mostly because of the dark purplish red ground and extensive use of dark shades of reddish brown and blue.

The band of decorated pile at the top of the back of the piece in Figure 4 (Figure 4b) is unusual, and of unknown function. The pattern of wear on the front of the bag gives every indication that it served as a container, so it seems reasonable to assume that the inclusion of the pile strip on the back was for some reason other than simply to decorate. In contrast to that on the front, the pile on the back is essentially unworn. Thus, the back of the bag was not subjected to abrasion to the same extent as the front. Perhaps some reader will be able to offer ideas about the purpose of the pile on the back.

To briefly summarize: We have examined four Turkoman juvals, one pair made by Tekke and the other pair of Yomud origin. In each pair, one is representative of the old, traditional production and the other is more recent and shows clear evidence of the degeneration in Turkoman weaving that occurred during the 19th century, probably as a result of external influences and commercial interest in Turkoman work. Although the more recent pieces are attractive and interesting in their own way, the degeneration is apparent in every significant aspect of their appearance: in the drawing of the motifs, in their spacing and the busy-ness of the overall design, and in the colors.