PLEASE WRITE TO THE EDITOR, HALI, 50 POLAND STREET, LONDON W1F 7AX, UK FAX: +44 (0)20 7578 7222 E-MAIL: hali@centaur.co.uk

LETTERS

NOT SO EASILY FORGOTTEN David and Sue Richardson’s article ‘The Forgotten Tribe’ (HALI 142, pp.75-79) brings welcome attention to the Karakalpak people, albeit by way of a controversial alternate view of Karakalpak history. However, I believe that HALI readers will be more interested to learn about the Karakalpak’s intriguing weavings. Luckily, there are several accessible sources for this information, contrary to the authors’ statement that Ludmilla Beresneva’s 1994 booklet (in Russian) is the most recent work available. In 1995, Beresneva and A.S. Teselkin published a thorough article focusing on weavings from the State Oriental Museum, Moscow, with many illustrations from this institution and the Decorative Arts Collection, Tashkent, accompanied by a commentary by George O'Bannon (‘The Karakalpak Rug Collection of the Museum of Oriental Art, Moscow’, Oriental Rug Review, 16/1, p.124). This is available online at www.rugreview.com/1karakal.htm). Beresneva also wrote two short popular accounts touching on Kazakh, Kirghiz,and Karakalpak weaving and jewellery (Arts & The Islamic World33, pp.8088), while O’Bannon added a new section introducing Karakalpak rugs to his English translation of V.G. Moshkova’s Carpets of the People of Central Asia, Tucson 1996, pp.102-105. The Xth ICOC in Washington in 2003 gave many in the West their first chance to see textiles from four major Uzbekistan museums, including a group of Karakalpak works (HALI 126, pp.3435). Two chapters in A World of Carpets and Textiles(Murray L. Eiland Jr. ed.) discuss Karakalpak textiles from the State Museum of Arts in Nukus: Marinika Babanazarova gives an overview of the collection (‘Folk Treasures from the State Museum of Arts of the Republic of Karakalpakstan’, pp.218-222), while Elena Tsareva provides a detailed discussion of Karakalpak pile weavings (pp.232-235). Tsareva’s work, based on examination of almost one thousand pieces, classifies common designs, and calls attention to special characteristics of Karakalpak weaving structure. These include the use of symmetric knots, single wefts of camel hair, and ‘irregular’ weaving techniques. The critical role of I.V. Savitsky in preserving Karakalpak culture must be stressed. The Richardsons mention that he assembled the

collection of costumes and carpets in the Nukus Museum. This was the fruit of his tireless activities during the period 1957-1966, when he travelled across Karakalpakstan collecting traditional jewellery, rugs, embroidered costumes, tent furnishings, and horse decorations. He gathered more than 3,500 textiles for the museum. Other museums of the former USSR were also beneficiaries of his work. Fifty-one Karakalpak pile weavings in the State Oriental Museum, Moscow, were collected by I.V. Savitsky in the 1950s and presented to the museum in 1958. Similarly, more than 200 Karakalpak textiles in the St. Petersburg’s Russian Ethnographic Museum were also sent by Savitsky in the early 1960s. It is through his vision, energy and persistence that this heritage was not lost. I hope that HALI may get an opportunity to discuss Karakalpak textiles in greater depth in future articles. Richard Isaacson, Washington DC

RARE AND UNPOPULAR As the buyer of the vertically banded East Caucasian rug recently discussed in Auction Price Guide (HALI 142, p.114), I would like to add several commentsand an observation. In describing the rug in its 28 May 2005 catalogue, Rippon Boswell does not mention that James Opie had previously published it in Tribal Rugs(1992, p.291). I am aware of less than a dozen other pieces of this type that have either been published or appeared on the market, and in so far as I am the owner of several of the pieces cited in your APG comment, I am flattered to be identified as “the foremost collector of the genre.” In the search for these rugs I have had two responses from dealers when I inquire about them: the first and most forthright response is: “they're very rare.” The second more common response is "they're

not very popular." It took me some time to realise that the latter response translates in all languagesto “we don't have any”. Terry Alan Templitz, M.D., Chevy Chase, Maryland, USA

GIVING DUE PRAISE We authors are a sensitive lot, and so it is unsurprising that I take issue with parts of Jack Haldane’s generally nice review of my book, Flatwoven Rugs and Textiles from the Caucasus(HALI 142, pp.59-61). He mentions that few of the pieces have the type of wear he would expect to see on pieces that are, as I believe, between eighty and a hundred and fifty years old. In this he assumes that such wear would be obvious from photos. More to the point, flatwoven textiles were mostly woven for dowries, and while some were used afterwards, others were kept in storage as precious family possessions. Indeed, if the existence of wear established the age of a textile, many collectors would have to part with their most prized possessions. He also states that the book should have included “credible dating”. Unless a piece has a date

woven in (and the authenticity of woven dates is problematic), of necessity we have to rely on dyes, the feel of the material, adherence to conventional design and structure, and in a few cases what we know about the actual history of the piece. On the basis of these criteria, none of the pieces in the collection are “relatively recent”, and to imply that they are, based on how they look in the photographs, is a disservice to the book. Also, while he mentions the field visits, he does not mention that this is, to my knowledge, the only text available to Western readers about Caucasian flatwoven textile using fieldwork to establish provenance. As such, it should be an invaluable reference work that will not be easily duplicated, as in the Caucasus there are precious few examples left in situ for future study. Robert H. Nooter, Washington DC

HALI 144 I 17