|
I have come to the conclusion that there
should be carpets dating to around 1600 that are
related to the Persian type while beginning to
show those signs of degenerative design
divergence. There is a dated carpet in the
Textile Museum that fits my profile for this
early transitional phase Dragon Carpet. The
carpet Textile Museum R.36.1.4 is dated November
15, 1592. The late Charles Grant Ellis suggested
a somewhat later date for the carpet. With my
incredible respect for Ellis, I must note that I
find his dating argument in respect to this piece
less than compelling. He suggests that it is a
later copy by an uneducated weaver who somehow
draws the animals on the carpet closer to their
15th and 16th century forebears. Whether this rug
is a late 16th century transitional dragon Rug or
a nineteenth century copy is immaterial if this
is a later copy I still believe that carpets like
Textile Museum R.36.1.4 must have been created
that looked like Textile Museum R.36.1.4 and
would date to when this one was dated.
- Size: L. 4.45 m. (14',7") x W. 1.83
m. (6'0").
- Warp: Z2S wool in a light natural range
with occasional dark fibers. One level.
- Weft: Z2S wool in natural mixtures, dyed
a good red. Two shots, sometimes three.
- Pile: 2Z wool. Gordes knotted, pile lies
straight. 8 horiz. x l0 1/2 vert. per in.
(85 per sq.in.).
- Sides: Cut.
- Ends: Cut
- Colors: Ivory; black-brown; brown,
yellow-orange; yellow; dark brick and
light rose reds; dark medium and light
medium blues; blue-green; light
yellow-green; dull light violet.
- Condition: Some areas rewoven and a great
deal of reknotting, now faded. Outer
guard lost. Wear has been especially
severe along the center line.
|
|
Textile Museum. R 36.1.4
Published: Pope 1925: Ill. 2,
Bode and Kuhnel 1955, 1958: Fig. 40;
Erdmann 1962: Fig. 101;
Ellis 1970: Fig. A.
|
|
|
|
| Textile Museum R.36.1.4 2
inscription and date. November 15, 1592 |
Textile Museum R.36.1.4 The
palmette seems more clearly related to early
dragon rugs rather than later rugs. |
Textile Museum R.36.1.4 The
lions are much more closely related to the 16th
century prototypes that to 17th century or later
dragon rugs. |
Here we can compare the already derivative Fantastic
Animal with it's predecessor. I must conclude that this
rug is commercial but derivative of Persian court art.
When you see the perfection of Persian Court art it
becomes obvious that this is a copy of a copy of a copy.
Still it retains enough of the Court influence to make it
an obvious missing link between Court Art and Dragon
Rugs.
I offer this comparison to show the difference between
a commercial carpet and a Court workshop carpet.
|
|
| Detail - Munich's Staat.
Museum fur Volkerkunde inventory number 32-50-18 |
Detail - Textile Museum
R.36.1.4 When I see these side by side I am
struck by the thought that if this rug is a later
copy what was the source carpet to copy from. |
The Munich Vase Carpet Fragment is East
Persian and is of a style that was widely copied through
Persia.
Note: To further a long term research project I am
collecting data. When a piece such as this may be of
interest to others I have decided to share my notes prior
to culmination of the project. As such the attributions
are my own unless otherwise stated. Any additions,
information, or corrections, would be appreciated.
For Further Reading: Guide to
Rugs & Books
Thanks and best wishes,
J. Barry O'Connell Jr.
|
Persian
Rugs the O'Connell Guides
Tabriz
Rugs
Kashmar
Rugs
Isfahan
Rugs
Hamadan
Rugs
Mashad
Rugs
Gabbeh
Rugs
Heriz
Rugs
Ardabil
Rugs
Lylyan
Rugs
Turkmen
Rugs
Persian Rugs
Turkish Rugs
Suzani
Oriental
Rugs
Persian
Carpets
Baluch Rugs,
The Qashqai
and Qashqai Rugs
Veramin Rugs
Tribal Rugs
Khotan-Rugs
Khotan-Carpets
Kirman-Rugs
Kirman-Carpets
Antique-Rugs
Antique-Carpets
Shahsevan-Rugs
Oushak-Rugs
Mashad-Rugs
Gabbeh-Rugs
Kurdish-Rugs
Becoming
Missional
|