Outback Afshars

Return to Articles on Persian Tribal Rugs

Outback Afshars
(Original text & photos appeared in HALI 117, © 2001)

A small group of rugs sourced during the past decade in the bazaars of the Pakistani province of Baluchistan have an air de famille that raises tantalising questions. When and where were they made and what do they tell us of tribal weaving traditions in southern Iran and neighbouring territories?

During the 1990s many previously unrecorded types of weavings appeared on the international market. As well as ancient rugs in the Turco-Mongol tradition, which emerged from Tibet in unprecedented numbers, these included Caucasian and Central Asian heirloom pile rugs, flat weaves and textiles from the former Soviet republics, rare tribal and oasis rugs from Xinjiang, and, the subject of this article, a small group of possibly southeast Persian tribal rugs with Afshar design features.

Afshar tribal rugs present inherent problems to scholars and collectors. There is some doubt as to which of the myriad types of south Persian weavings should be classfied as Afshar, and we still have only a partial understanding of who the Afshar actually were. Parviz Tanavoli (HALI 37, 1988; HALI 57, 1991), Murray Eiland Jr. (Oriental Rugs from Pacfic Collections, 1990) and James Opie (Tribal Rugs, 1992) have contributed much to our grasp of the Afshar attribution, but the attempt to assign precise attributions to identifiable subtribes is often of limited value. However, the appearance of a hitherto unfamiliar group of weavings, apparently representing the early aesthetic of an unidentified group of Afshar weavers, means that the problem must be addressed.

The Afshar were Central Asian Turkic nomads, part of the ancient Oghuz Turkmen horde. They eventually populated areas of eastern Anatolia and, since the 16th century, have been present in Azarbayjan (northwest Iran). In relatively recent history, Afshar tribes have come to inhabit areas of northeast Iran (Khorasan) and northwest Afghanistan, and are perhaps best known in conjunction with studies of tribal rugs and peoples from the Kerman region of southern Iran.
After the seizure of power by the Afshar chieftain Nader Quli Khan -- who was crowned Nader Shah Afshar of Persia in 1737 -- diverse tribal groups swore allegiance and subsequently identfied themselves as Afshar. In the wake of Nader's triumphant sack of Delhi in the early 1740s, Afshar clans remained scattered from Kabul to Khorasan, living among the Afghan tribes, the Pathans, Tajiks, Uzbeks, and the tribes of the Chahar Aimaq Confederation. Khorasan itself remained under Afshar control until 1796. This patchwork of groups may help account for the confusing interpretation of later tribal census surveys by, among others, A. Cecil Edwards (The Persian Carpet, 1953). It is also unclear to what extent the Turkic peoples of the Kerman region are Afshar, or belong to other elements of the Qizilbash Turkmen Confederation, a significant power in the past of which the Afshar were at times a dominant member. We cannot therefore be certain of specfic attributions for rugs woven within this cultural milieu.

Figure 1. Asymmetric knot open right, cotton warps, 4'4" x 5'11"

The widespread use of Farsi by the Afshar in Iran is indicative of the loss of tribal cultural identity. With the loss of a traditional tribal language, integration is accelerated and artistic traditions slowly fade from memory or become transformed.

Nearly all aspects of the unusual group of rugs illustrated here are distinctive within an Afshar context, but perhaps the most striking features are their inconsistent structure and use of materials. The weave hardly resembles what we have come to expect in typical south Persian Afshar rugs of the 19th century. Commenting on the structure of the few 18th and early 19th century Afshar weavings he has examined, Parviz Tanavoli comments that they are "...closer in structure to Azerbaijani weaving than that of typical Afshar work. They usually have cotton or mixed cotton and wool foundations, are rather coarsely woven, with uneven backs and slightly exposed wefts".

While the coarse weave of these rugs is marked, the presence of 'lazy lines' is surprising (Figures 1, 2, and 3). No one appears able to recall having seen south Persian rugs with 'lazy lines', a trait usually associated with old Turkish rugs. This may perhaps imply an early dating, but in the absence of known benchmarks we cannot state with confidence the period of weaving of these rugs.

The structure and materials are quite curious. While the knot of all but two examples is asymmetric open right (3 and 4 are symmetrically knotted), in three of the seven rugs illustrated (2, 3, 4), the warps consist of cotton twisted with goat (or possibly horse) hair, and (7) has all-wool warps. The wefts of all seven contain cotton. Their 'archaic' appearance seems to suggest a nomadic origin, which the extensive use of cotton apparently belies. However, nomadic and semi-nomadic peoples in Central Asia occasionally grew or traded cotton, so it is not always safe to assume that a cotton or part-cotton foundation indicates a village or urban origin.

The pile appears to have been longer than average for Afshar rugs. It is a common Asian nomadic practice to use thick rugs as sleeping mats, and it is reasonable to assume that these rugs may have served that purpose. If the Luri and Bakhtiari of southwest Iran used such weavings in their tents, the nomadic Afshar may have done so as well. We might then be dealing with what could loosely be termed 'Afshar gabbehs'.

The palette too differs from the Afshar norm, with startlingly saturated reds, greens and an electric light blue (Figure 2). To this must be added the omnipresent 'peach' colour. In my experience, this dyestuff is evident in old weavings and other utilitarian products (such as felt namads) from Central Asia and is considered an 'old' colour by collectors of these Turkic textiles. In what appear to be later examples of the group discussed here, this dye is absent (occasionally a synthetic dyestuff is substituted), which may support my view that rugs with this colour are perhaps older, before about 1870.

Figure 2. Circa 1800 (or before), 3'10" x 5'6" (1.17m x 1.68m), asymmetric knot open right, mixed cotton and animal hair warps.

Figure 2a. A detail image of the corresponding front and back of the rug showing the use of lazy lines.

The powerfully saturated palette can again be seen on the rug illustrated in Figure 1. The ground is an intense red while a brilliant green outlines the 'vase' motifs. A close examination of the 'vase' motif reveals some interesting features. The bulbous body of the vase consists of the ubiquitous Turkic ashik element while the green hooks depict bird or animal heads (the reciprocal red forms of the Turkic tauk nuska head) at the top. With the 'axehead' forms below, recalling an earlier Turkic tradition as seen in 13th century Anatolian rugs (Oktay Aslanapa, 1000 Years of Turkish Carpets, p.16, Þg.9), we thus see invoked a continuum of design throughout the Turkic cultural and tribal landscape.

Many Afshar rugs share the 2-1-2 medallion layout and stylised embellished portrayals of the vase elements, but usually with quartered medallions in the corners rather than the complete miniature medallions seen here. I would argue that it is possible to see this very unusual vase as an early interpretation of the device, representing more archaic draftsmanship than the apparently later stylised versions seen in most published examples. Charting the evolution of the vase design in Xinjiang rugs has been deemed important in determining chronology: in the same way, this may be an archetypal form of very early date.

The scale of the meandering blossom major border is also of interest. This is a common motif in the Turkic context, occurring

in weavings from Turkestan to the Caucasus and Anatolia. Eiland illustrates a bagface of uncertain provenance with this border on a white ground (Pacific Collections, pl.205), suggesting that it may come from the western Caucasus or eastern Anatolia. He also shows a bagface (pl.66) "probably from the Karadagh region", with a similar primary border and a Turkic medallion. The latter is unattributed, but suggests to me the possibility of Afshar work from northwest Persia, a tribal weaving made by descendants of the Qizilbash Turkmen.

Comparison with other 'conventional' Afshar weavings of similar design may help to date this rug. Turning again to Pacific Collections, a first half of the 19th century date is proposed for pl.46, a symmetrically knotted rug with deeply depressed warps, which shows cramped (as opposed to crowded) drawing, with a large vase filling most of the space between the large, well drawn, quartered corner medallions at top and bottom of the field. The central medallion too is rather 'squashed', as is that in an arguably later asymmetrically knotted (open right) version with heavily depressed warps (Pacific Collections, pl.48) in which the quartered medallions and vase at the top of the rug are also less well articulated. While drawing is far from the sole criterion in dating a weaving, it is clear that the example illustrated here incorporates qualities normally associated with older weavings.

Figure 3. Symmetric knot, mixed cotton and animal hair warps, 4'2" x 5'8" (1.27m x 1.79m)

Arguably dating to the mid-18th century or earlier, (Figure 2) may be the oldest of our group. The weave is very coarse and the patina on the back of the rug, as well as the design, suggest to me that it is older than the others. Tanavoli's allusion to a coarse weave in old Afshars, with the wefts "slightly exposed", has some resonance here.
The design, with an 'Afshar' treatment in the form of the medallions, is nevertheless entirely different to anything else I have previously seen in the Afshar sphere. The medallion centres, composed of concentric diamonds, are reminiscent of an aesthetic found in flatwoven textiles from Baluchistan. It is possible that this rug represents the convergence in design of a south Persian Afshar group with Baluch tribes of Baluchistan (or the Kerman region, where they were a significant minority until the mid-18th century). The Jebel Barez 'Afshar' flatweaves of Kerman and those of the Baluch tribes of adjacent Baluchistan and Sistan share many aesthetic and technical features. The wear pattern on the rug suggests it was not used on the floor, but possibly on a table for a period of time, perhaps accounting for its longevity. While the other rugs illustrated here may be viewed as apparently early interpretations of certain motifs within a familiar Afshar (or Turkic) format, this astonishingly dynamic field design expresses a barbaric beauty that reflects the nomadic milieu and the probable early period in which it was woven.

Another of the rugs illustrated here (Figure 4) shows a rendition of primary elements that calls to mind so-called 'Baluch' rugs from Khorasan, a not unexpected confluence of design given the proximity of tribes of the Chahar Aimaq Confederation and other 'Baluch' groups to scattered Afshar and Qizilbash groups in northwest Afghanistan and Khorasan. However, structural features of this symmetrically knotted rug, most notably its mixed cotton/animal hair warps, correspond to no known group of Khorasan tribal weavings. Although 'lazy lines' are absent, it has chromatic qualities, in particular the extensive use of 'peach' shades, that are present in what I believe to be older examples of this type of Afshar weaving.

We see a more conventional Afshar composition in (Figure 5), where the field is framed in a manner slightly reminiscent of the format employed on Ladik prayer rugs from Turkey. While Eiland describes this design as typically Afshar, I prefer the more general term 'Turkic', and seek its origins among Central Asian groups who migrated into Persia and Anatolia. The idea is reinforced by the bold presence of large Turkmen güls in the field and the multi-coloured 'shrub' border, akin to the alem design of certain Turkmen ensis and chuvals

Figure 4 Circa 1850, symmetric knot, mixd cotton and animal hair warps, 3'10" x 5'2" (1.17m x 1.57m) Typical southwest Persian tribal rug border motifs surround an atypical tile-like field pattern.

Figure 5. Cotton warps, symmetric knot. Large Turkmen 'gols' dominate the field design, possibly linking the Afshar to their true Turkmen heritage, as one of the sister tribes of the Ersari.

The rug in (Figure 6) is a particularly interesting example. The loose freehand drawing of a familiar Afshar lattice, with animals and other tertiary devices used as free-floating filler motifs at the side of the field, supports the possibility of a nomadic origin. The rug has an intensely saturated palette and shares only certain structural characteristics with the other examples shown here, being asymmetrically knotted on cotton warps. This coarser and bolder rendition of a well known theme in Afshar village weaving is very striking. The relationship with more refined Afshar weavings is apparent in terms of design but is handled in a very different manner.

The final piece (Figure 7) is only loosely related to the others. Woven on an all-cotton foundation, it is the closest of the examples illustrated to Tanavoli's description of older Afshar rugs. But an aesthetic rather different to that of the other pieces illustrated is expressed in both palette and treatment of design. Neither the saturated red nor corrosive olive/grey appear, while the ubiquitous 'peach' colour, in this case corrosive, makes only a modest appearance.

The fairly sophisticated blending of elements from the mina khani and herati floral patterns gives an enigmatic but ultimately satisfying result. The evolution of the mina khani motif has not been studied in depth, but the developed and confident form seen here suggests it may stem from tribal roots rather than being a derivative of elaborate court weavings.

One comparison may be found in a rug illustrated in Julian Homer's 1986 exhibition catalogue Exclusively Belouch (no.36, also HALI 30, p.93), classified as a (possibly Sistan) Baluch rug from the late 19th or early 20th century, an attribution I would question on the basis of the structural data. Like our example, the Homer rug has asymmetric knotting, open right, as is also the case in a relatively small group of 'Arab Baluch' rugs (most 'Baluch' rugs are open left). Moving beyond the 'Baluch' context, the knot corresponds to that of the vast majority of Turkmen rugs -- not unexpected given that the Afshar are Turkmen in origin.

Figure 6. A particularly bold and colorful example of a traditional Afshar design theme. Asymmetric knot open right, cotton warps, 4'3" x 5'11" (1.30m x 1.80m)

Figure 7 An Afshar(?) of some antiquity with a rather archaic rendition of the so-called 'Herati' pattern with features recalling early Beshir 'mina khani' weavings, notably the dots of color randomly arranged on the saturated dark blue ground. 3'9" x 6'6" (1.24m x 1.98m). The spontaneity and dynamism o f the drawing possibly contradicts conventional wisdom regarding the urban origins of the 'Herati' pattern.

Where does this brief discussion leave us in terms of understanding these 'rustic Afshar' rugs? It is possible they do not come from Iran. With their distinctive palette and archaic tribal designs, it seems unlikely that they were seen and then ignored by those who have studied Persian tribal rugs. Tanavoli's mention of the structural characteristics of older examples may provide an important clue. In conversation he has suggested a possible Azarbayjan provenance in former Afshar villages between Lake Urumia and Sarab. But that is a

long way from Baluchistan where the rugs were found. Then where? Kerman or Khorasan? Southwest Afghanistan or eastern Anatolia? And who wove them? The Afshar?

Or other tribes of the Qizilbash Turkmen? The untold stories of these rugs remain hidden and for now we must be content with learning to 'read' them. While published histories and ensuing interpretations may communicate a plausible reconstruction of the past, the rugs serve as a window, providing an unobstructed view into history itself.