The card double weave technique used for the sample in my photo is unfamiliar to most Western weavers. Two small separate sheds are made simultaneously, with the cards turned on their corners. The pack of cards is rocked back and forth in quarter turns, allowing the weaver to produce two separate fabric layers. Groups of cards are turned within the pack to make the design. Both the process and the end result are very different from the most common kind of card weaving, warp twining.
Since the same designs can appear in both card double-weave bands and double-weave bands made with heddles, only obscure clues tell us which method was used. A card double weave has tiny warp twists at each point of color exchange, but these are very difficult to see. It is more practical to look for interruptions in the plain-weave sequences at vertical color boundaries.
In double weaves made with cards, the warps always exchange in pairs, while in loom-woven double cloths, they need not do so. Errors in loom-woven pieces can be telling. If a weaver is careless in picking up the pattern, or if she misunderstands the process, there may be discrepancies between the number of warps in the two fabric layers. Recent blue and white double-weave Qashqa'i straps that have been loom-woven are particularly sloppy in this respect, suggesting that traditionally these south Persian straps may have all been made instead with cards. In the Tanavoli illustrations of a double-weave band that Dr. Foitl mentioned, (Shahsavan, Fig. 85 and 86, and Plate 274) it is not the design that tells us the piece was made by means other than cards; the warp-picking errors are informative. Several pattern parts have different numbers of warps on the top and bottom fabric layers. Dr. Foitl has said that the Anatolian bands in Plates 148 and 149 of the Yayla catalog were not made with cards, but there are no detail photos and he has offered no proof -- merely stated that he has collected bands for a long time and has tried some of the techniques.
When identifying band constructions, some people confuse card double weaves with the card double faced weaves that have been produced in several parts of Asia. These do not have two separate cloth layers, although colors reverse on the two sides. But, it is a common mistake to assume that only the double-faced weaves are card woven.
Since Dr. Foitl claims expertise on card weaving, and thus on twining, I have a related issue to raise. We find some very peculiar weave diagrams in his section on traditional flatweave structures in Yayla (pp. 227-238). Diagram 11, for example, which he calls a complementary weft weave, actually shows three-span weft twining. His Diagram 12 is called a complementary warp weave, but it instead shows three-span warp twining -- impossible on a loom with heddles. His Diagram 14 supposedly shows a supplementary warp structure but it also has warps that twist repeatedly in a consistent direction. Individually threaded heddles do not permit such a construction. If a pattern is picked from pairs of warps threaded together through heddles, random warp twists can occur, but this small drawing shows repeated, erroneous pick-ups -- 57 in all -- each producing an S-twist of warp pairs. It is virtually impossible to continue for long in making such pick-ups from tightly twisted warp pairs. It is certainly pointless. Does Dr. Foitl not realize that warp twining can be accomplished satisfactorily with only one kind of weaving device: a pack of cards?
I'm aware that all of this linguistic gobbledy-gook can numb the brain and convince non-weaver ruggies that nothing technical is of interest. It is what I have tried my best to avoid previously, concentrating instead on ways that the weaver's practical concerns have affected design evolution.
Marla Mallett
Atlanta, Georgia
Dear Ron,
It gave me quite a start and even a chill when I read in Donald Wilber's "Afterword" (Vol. 15, No. 4, p. 43) that his article therein would be his last contribution to the world of rugs.
There are few relief pitchers warming up in the rug bullpen who can match this man's eloquence. Aside from his sheer ability, his broad background relating to rugs and his willingness to chip away at the great sessile boulders of commonly held rug untruths, he is also possessed of that most rare commodity (at least in print, for I've never met him): he is just plain sensible. I will miss him -- that is, if you fail to squeeze a couple more articles out of him.
Incidently, I have just today spelt Malayir with an "i". Perhaps tomorrow it will be Kerman with an "e"...
Kirk Wynn
Omaha, Nebraska
Dear Mr. O'Callaghan,
I have read with great interest Dr. Wilber's article, "A Descriptive Catalogue of Dated Rugs and of Inscribed Rugs," in the last issue of ORR. It is a monumental feat of scholarship for which he is to be congratulated. It is indeed sad that Dr. Wilber has decided to retire from his very productive career.
I have only two minor points that I would like to raise. Dr. Wilber commenting on the often rather confusing business of translating A.H. dates into Christian dates states that some of the formulas are rather imprecise, even when applying the infamous 33.7 with which we have all been struggling. He therefore advises to use one of the conversion Tables available. I would have found it useful if he had told us on which formulas the Table he suggested was based.
A second minor point regards the problem of transliteration from the Arabic to our own alphabet. Dr. Wilber strenuously objects to the use of e.g., "Dj" of Tsch" for the sound of "J" or "Ch", stating also that "... the use of ou for u as in Borjalou cannot be tolerated" and that "Djs must not be permitted to contaminate Borjalu, Bijar, and Genje." Obviously in every language the spelling which best produces the sound in question is chosen. As we all know, a very large portion of the "tapetological" literature has been and still is published in German and to call their transliteration an aberration seems to me a bit excessive. Dr. Wilber will forgive me if his attitude reminds me of a patient of mine with whom I was having a conversation on the advantages of being able to speak more than one language. With an obvious reference to the King James Bible, this delightful British old lady forcefully stated: "If English is good enough for God, it is good enough for me!"
Franco Lloy, M.D.
Vancouver, British Columbia