The Vanishing Art of Willow Weaving in Gilgit-Baltistan
A historical and cultural account of the traditional craftsmanship practised by the various linguistic communities inhabiting Gilgit-Baltistan—namely, the Shina-, Burushaski-, Balti-, and Khowar-speaking communities—in the making of household utensils and other domestic articles, often known by distinct names in their respective languages.
As far as this writer is aware, some of these traditional articles are made through willow weaving and are known by names such as Shakailo, Tooneh, Karai, Kharatoh,Khutool, and Thalew, among others, in the Shina language.
Introduction: An Indigenous Craft Rooted in Everyday Life
Long before plastic containers, metal storage racks, factory-made baskets and modern building materials reached the remote valleys of Gilgit-Baltistan, the people of the region relied upon their intimate knowledge of local vegetation to meet their everyday household needs. Among the skills inherited from earlier generations was the art of weaving and interlacing the soft, slender twigs of particular willow species into practical objects for domestic use, storage, agriculture and the division of living spaces.
This traditional craftsmanship was not merely a means of making household articles. It represented an ingenious adaptation to the mountainous environment, where people transformed locally available natural materials into useful objects through patience, dexterity and knowledge acquired over generations.
In the Shina-speaking areas of Gilgit-Baltistan, the names Tooneh, Thaleo, Shakailo, Kharatoh,Khutool and Karae, as preserved in local usage, deserve careful documentation as part of the region's intangible cultural heritage. The precise form and function of each item may differ between villages and families, and the terminology should be recorded directly from knowledgeable local artisans and elders.
Of particular interest is the Shakailo, described in the accompanying Urdu passage as a screen-like, temporary partition made from the soft, thin branches of a particular tree. The passage identifies Haramosh, in the Gilgit region, as one of the places where this old tradition can still, though rarely, be encountered.
This surviving practice offers a valuable opportunity to document a form of indigenous craftsmanship that may otherwise disappear from collective memory.
1. Historical background and the evidence of earlier records
The traditional crafts of Gilgit-Baltistan developed in response to the region's geography, climate, available raw materials and largely self-sufficient village economy. Before the spread of modern manufactured goods, householders depended extensively on materials obtained from their immediate surroundings, including timber, grasses, reeds, wool and the flexible branches of trees and shrubs.
Historical accounts of the region provide a foundation for studying such practices. John Biddulph's Tribes of the Hindoo Koosh (1880) and David Lockhart Robertson Lorimer's linguistic and ethnographic studies of the early twentieth century are important sources for understanding the communities, languages and traditional life of the Shina-speaking region. Lorimer's work includes linguistic material relevant to Gilgit, Bagrote and Haramosh.
However, a distinction must be maintained between the general historical documentation of local communities and direct evidence concerning particular woven objects. The sources located for this account do not conclusively establish the antiquity, precise construction or traditional functions of every item named Tooneh, Thaleo, Shakailo, Kharatoh,Khutool and Karae. Their meanings should therefore be documented through local oral history and examination of surviving examples rather than attributed to a historical author without verification.
Modern documentation confirms that basket-making and related crafts have been recognised as part of the cultural heritage of Gilgit-Baltistan. A report on the work of Lok Virsa, published by Dawn in 2014, records efforts to document traditional crafts, including basketry, alongside other endangered forms of local craftsmanship.
The significance of these records is that they establish a broader context in which the traditional Shina willow craft can be investigated, preserved and presented as a distinct part of the region's material culture.
2. The willow: a gift of nature to the traditional artisan
The principal material described in the passage about the Shakailo is the soft, slender twig of a particular tree. Willow (Salix species) is a plausible candidate because its flexible shoots have long been used in basketry and other forms of interlaced construction. Studies of willow resources in Gilgit-Baltistan also recognise their importance for handicrafts and other household uses.
Nevertheless, the exact willow species used by the people of Haramosh remains to be identified. It would be premature to assign a scientific name without examining the plant or obtaining reliable local botanical evidence. The material may also vary from one locality to another.
Traditional artisans would have selected shoots according to their length, flexibility, thickness and freedom from excessive branching. Straight, young growth would be suitable for fine weaving, while thicker or sturdier branches could serve as structural supports.
The basic principle was simple but ingenious: individual twigs, too slender to provide strength on their own, could be interlaced into a larger structure capable of retaining its shape and performing a useful function.
3. The traditional preparation and weaving process
Although individual articles required different techniques, the following sequence describes the general method of willow-wicker craftsmanship. It should be understood as a reconstruction of the customary craft process, not as a claim that every stage has been independently documented in Haramosh.
Stage 1 — Selection and collection
The artisan gathered suitable branches, choosing relatively straight, flexible shoots of the appropriate length and thickness. Collection had to be timed so that the twigs could bend without breaking.
Stage 2 — Preparation of the twigs
The shoots were sorted and unwanted side branches removed. Depending on their condition, they could be used fresh or softened by soaking. Thicker pieces might be split or trimmed when finer weaving was required.
Stage 3 — Formation of the framework
The artisan arranged the principal rods to establish the base, outline or supporting frame. In a partition such as a Shakailo, the framework would need to be sufficiently stable to maintain the required height and width.
Stage 4 — Interlacing
Flexible twigs were passed alternately in front of and behind the supporting rods. Repetition gradually produced a compact or open lattice, according to the intended purpose of the article.
Stage 5 — Finishing and adjustment
Protruding ends were trimmed or tucked into the weave. The artisan checked the firmness, shape and stability of the finished object, making adjustments wherever necessary.
The real skill lay not simply in crossing twigs but in judging how tightly they should be woven, how much pressure they could withstand and how the entire structure would behave once lifted, carried, installed or repeatedly used.
Unlike industrial production, this work depended heavily on the artisan's hands, eyesight, experience and familiarity with the properties of the material. The skill was commonly transmitted through observation and practice within the household and community.
4. The Shakailo: a traditional screen and temporary partition
The Shakailo merits particular attention because it represents a practical application of willow weaving beyond the manufacture of baskets and containers.
According to the Urdu description supplied for this article, a Shakailo is a screen-like, temporary wall made from the soft, thin twigs of a particular tree. The description further records that the custom survives, though with difficulty, in Haramosh, an area of Gilgit where Shina is spoken.
Its defining characteristic appears to be its function as a lightweight partition rather than a permanent masonry wall. Such an object could be constructed by interlacing flexible twigs into a framework that could be positioned, removed or relocated as required. The precise arrangements in traditional Haramosh households, however, need to be confirmed through firsthand observation.
The ingenuity of this technique lies in its economy of means. Instead of depending on bricks, cement, sawn timber or manufactured panels, the craftsperson uses branches that can be collected and shaped locally. The resulting screen is relatively lightweight, and its degree of openness can be adjusted according to the intended purpose.
A Shakailo is therefore more than a woven object. It represents a traditional solution to the practical problem of creating a temporary division within a rural living or working environment.
Its continued existence in Haramosh, as reported in the supplied account, is especially significant. If the number of people who can make one is diminishing, the knowledge required to construct it may disappear even before the surviving examples themselves are lost.
5. Tooneh, Thaleo, Kharatoh and Karae: documenting the household tradition
The other Shina names mentioned in the question should be treated as a small vocabulary of indigenous material culture. Each deserves an individual record establishing its appearance, use, method of construction and local variations.
Rather than assigning unverified English translations to these names, a systematic record should establish the following information:
Shina term | Information to document |
|---|---|
Tooneh | Its customary form, principal material, household purpose and method of construction. |
Thaleo | Its shape, dimensions, weaving pattern and the particular task for which it was used. |
Shakailo | Its use as a screen-like temporary partition, its supporting framework and how it was installed. |
Kharatoh | Its local meaning, traditional function, construction method and any differences between villages. |
Karae | Its form, intended use, materials and the way it was woven or assembled. |
This approach does not diminish the value of the traditional vocabulary. On the contrary, it prevents local knowledge from being lost through inaccurate translation or the mistaken assumption that similarly named objects in different valleys necessarily served the same purpose.
The documentation of traditional wickerwork elsewhere in the region offers a useful comparative starting point. For example, a 2025 account of Hunza's Giran and Chura Giran describes baskets made from willow or mulberry branches for carrying and transporting goods. These Burushaski names and their associated objects belong to a different local tradition, but they demonstrate how flexible woody branches were adapted to everyday needs in the mountain environment.
The comparison also highlights an important point: Gilgit-Baltistan's traditional crafts cannot be adequately described as a single, uniform regional practice. The materials, terminology, designs and uses may vary among Shina-, Burushaski- and other language-speaking communities.
6. The place of willow weaving in the traditional household economy
In earlier village life, a household article was valuable not merely because it served a purpose but also because it could be made or repaired with locally available resources.
Willow weaving embodied several practical advantages:
Local availability: suitable branches could be obtained from nearby trees and cultivated areas where willow grew.
Adaptability: the thickness and flexibility of the material could be matched to the intended object.
Repairability: damaged sections of many woven structures could be replaced without discarding the entire article.
Economy: the craft reduced dependence on manufactured goods that might be expensive or difficult to transport to remote settlements.
Knowledge passed between generations: techniques could be learned by watching experienced makers and practising the work at home.
These characteristics are consistent with the wider importance of traditional basketry documented in Gilgit-Baltistan. A regional overview of handmade baskets describes their use in carrying produce, storing household goods and supporting agricultural activities.
The craft also reflects a close relationship between human ingenuity and the natural environment. A willow branch growing beside a watercourse could become part of a useful household object through little more than skill, labour and an understanding of how living materials behave.
7. Why the tradition is disappearing
The decline of traditional willow weaving should be examined in the context of wider changes in village life.
Plastic containers, metal utensils, factory-made baskets and modern construction materials have made many traditional objects less necessary for everyday use. Younger people may have fewer opportunities to learn the techniques from older relatives, while the declining demand for handmade products reduces the incentive to practise the craft.
There is also a risk that knowledge of the raw material itself will be lost. Identifying the appropriate willow, choosing the right time to collect its shoots, preparing the twigs and judging their flexibility are all elements of practical knowledge that cannot be preserved merely by recording the name of the finished object.
The loss is consequently twofold: the disappearance of the physical articles and the erosion of the knowledge required to make them.
8. Preserving the craft: from oral memory to a documented heritage
The reported survival of the Shakailo in Haramosh provides a compelling reason to undertake a small, community-based documentation project.
Photograph surviving examples
Record the front, back, sides, supporting framework, joints and weaving pattern of each available object. Include measurements and photographs of the raw materials.
Interview elderly artisans and householders
Record the exact Shina names, pronunciation, traditional uses, local variations and memories associated with each object. Where possible, document a complete demonstration by a skilled maker.
Identify the willow species
Ask a botanist or forestry specialist to identify the plant from which the shoots are taken. Document its local name, growing habitat, harvesting season and suitability for weaving.
Prepare a Shina–English illustrated glossary
Give each traditional name its own entry, with a photograph, local definition, description of the weaving process and the name of the village where it was recorded.
Encourage practical transmission
Arrange demonstrations in schools, community gatherings and cultural exhibitions. Invite experienced makers to teach younger people, and explore whether selected objects could be adapted for contemporary household or decorative use.
The process should begin with the community rather than with assumptions imposed from outside. Elders and artisans should be recognised as the primary custodians of the knowledge, with their permission obtained for recording and publishing their demonstrations.
Conclusion: preserving a craft before it becomes a memory
The traditional willow craft of Gilgit-Baltistan is a reminder that the material culture of a society often preserves aspects of its history that formal political chronicles overlook. The names of household objects, the choice of particular branches, the rhythm of weaving and the practical uses of finished articles collectively reveal how people adapted to their surroundings.
The Shakailo of Haramosh is especially worthy of attention because the supplied local account describes it as a temporary, screen-like partition made from soft twigs and reports that the practice is now rarely encountered. Alongside Tooneh, Thaleo, Kharatoh and Karae, it deserves a place in a properly documented record of Shina craftsmanship.
The available historical and ethnographic sources provide a broader framework for studying this heritage, but further firsthand documentation is needed to establish the precise meanings, construction methods and historical continuity of these particular objects.
The priority, therefore, should be neither to romanticise the past nor to assume that every old practice must be revived unchanged. It should be to preserve authentic knowledge before the people who possess it are no longer able to pass it on.
A craft may disappear quietly when its last practitioner lays down the tools. But when its name, materials, techniques and history are faithfully recorded, future generations retain the opportunity to understand it, appreciate it and, if they choose, bring it back to life.
References and further reading
Biddulph, John. Tribes of the Hindoo Koosh. Calcutta: Office of the Superintendent of Government Printing, 1880. A historical and ethnographic source for the peoples and communities of the region.
Lorimer, David Lockhart Robertson. The Burushaski Language, together with his wider linguistic studies of northern Pakistan and the Shina-speaking region. Relevant for linguistic and ethnographic context.
Dawn. “Lok Virsa explores culture of Gilgit-Baltistan.” 2014. Read the report.
Hunza Times. “Giran and Chura Giran: The Traditional Wicker Baskets of Hunza Valley.” 6 February 2025. Read the account.
“Population Census of Salix Species and Socio-Economic Impacts in Gilgit Baltistan.” Research publication listed on ResearchGate. Consult the study.
Editorial note: The historical references above establish the broader regional and cultural context; they should not be cited as direct proof of the age or exact construction of the Shakailo. The supplied Urdu description is the basis for its identification as a temporary woven partition in Haramosh. A photograph, the local name of the willow and an interview with someone who has actually made or used a Shakailo would materially strengthen the account.
Comments