We have FASTI as a starting point, but I will probably also return to memo-writing and sorting in the tradition of the grounded theory approach which I applied years back when I developed a 'theory of presentation' based on observations of document use and 'knowledge management' in the field of service engineering.
The aim of memo writing is to develop more complex concepts from the careful line-by-line reading and analysis of field notes, for example notes relating to typical constellations, myths, opinions, or processes related to rugs.
Working on shaky foundations will also mean making extensive use of discussions in rug discussion boards such as Turkotek. There is ample case material to try out the fit of concepts. There is also the potential of direct feedback, by posting links to or small excerpts of the developing theory to get a feedback from rug lovers and collectors. Maybe some questions will lead to interviews with rug dealers — there are many here in the Hamburg freeport area (while it still exists).
I found a quote about anthropological research which I think may be useful for methodological orientation — it reminded me that the theory need not be based only on books, papers and online resources but on a direct involvement with the field of study.
Bob Scholte: "What seems to me to be urgently required is a genuinely dialectical position, one in which 'analytical procedures and descriptive devices are chosen and determined by reflection on the nature of the encountered phenomena and on the nature of that encounter' (Fabian, 1971, p. 25). This would mean that every procedural step in the constitution of anthropological knowledge is accompanied by radical reflection and epistemological exposition. In other words, if we assume that an antropological understanding of others is conditioned by our capacity to open ourselves to those others (cf. Huch 1970, p. 30) we cannot and should not avoid the 'hermeneutic circle' (cf. Ricoeur, 1971), but must explicate, as part of our activities, the intentional processes of constitutive reasoning which make both encounter and understanding possible. Indeed, 'the question is not...how to avoid it, but...how to get properly into it.' (cf. Radnitzky, 1968, p. 23)"