Catalogue Notes: "Inscribed with verses from the Koran: "O true believers, give alms of that which we have bestowed on you, before the day cometh wherein there shall be no merchandizing, nor friendship, nor intercession. The infidels are unjust doers. GOD! there is no God but he; the living, the self-subsisting: neither slumber nor sleep seizeth him; to him belongeth whatsoever is in heaven, and on earth. Who is he that can intercede with him, but through his good pleasure? He knoweth that which is past, and that which is to come unto them, and they shall not comprehend anything of his knowledge, but so far as he pleaseth. His throne is extended over heaven and earth and the preservation of both is no burden unto him. He is the High, the Mighty. " and "Let there be no violence in religion. Now is right direction manifestly distinguished from deceit; whoever therefore shall deny Tagut (idols), and believes in God, he shall surely take hold on a strong handle, which shall not be broken; God is he who heareth and seeth."; along the sides, "Verily God and his angels bless the prophet: 0 true believers, do ye also bless him, and salute him with a respectful salutation." This rug belongs to a controversial group of inscribed prayer rugs where scholars significantly differ in their attributions as to date and place of origin. Currently, there is a movement a foot to reexamine these rugs more closely, see Franses and Bennett, "The Topkapi Prayer Rugs," Hali, issue 39, pp. 20-27, rather than inclusively dismissing them as 19th Century Turkish work, which has been the prevailing belief for the last 40 years and most recently reiterated by Rogers and Tezcan in The Topkapi Saray Museum Carpets, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1987, p. 17. As both of these duets of authors note, early carpet scholars, such as Pope, Martin, Sarre and Trenkwald, considered this group of inscribed rugs as Safavid Persian work-, these early scholars do, however, differ in their more specific regional attributions. Kurt Erdmann, uncomfortable with these period attributions, believes the rugs to "reproduce the Persian style of the 16th Century remarkably well, but a wrong note is often struck in the coloring," see Erdmann, Seven Hundred Years of Oriental Carpets, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1970, 'Persian Carpets of Turkish Provenance,' pp. 76-80. In this chapter, Erdmann explains how an inscribed carpet in the Victoria and Albert Museum aroused his suspicions and that a "mass of evidence makes it likely that they were made in the neighborhood of Constantinople not earlier than the eighteenth century." Erdmann, op. cit., p. 78. Franses and Bennett point out, however, that Erdmann's "mass of evidence is never qualified, Hali op cit., p. 23, but was unfortunately accepted by most scholars since Erdmann's writings in 1941. The Victoria and Albert carpet which first gave rise to Erdmann's doubts was donated by George Salting and therefore became known as the 'Salting carpet,' with the related inscribed rugs, henceforth, forming the 'Salting' group, see Charles Grant Ellis, Oriental Carpets in the Philadelphia Museum of Art, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1988, plate 37, "The Marquand Medallion Carpet," pp. 110-115, where he promotes the Salting theory. In view of the substantial doubt that Franses and Bennett cast on this theory, it seems appropriate for a re-evaluation and examination of each 'Salting' group piece individually. In design, the presently offered lot closely resembles the prayer rug in the Topkapi Saray, illustrated as plate 20 in Rogers and Tezcan, op. cit., and the Bardini-Altman prayer rug in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, cat. no. 49, illustrated as figure 122 in Dimand and Mailey, Oriental Rugs in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 1973. Having examined first hand both the Bardini-Altman rug and the present lot, they share in handle and structure a cotton and silk foundation with a bristly, asymmetrical knotted wool pile. From appearance, the Topkapi example and the present lot could have been woven as a pair; their designs are nearly identical with only the color scheme reversed. Rogers and Tezcan, however, provide a structural analysis of the Topkapi rug indicating an all wool foundation (Rogers and Tezcan, op. cit., P. 134.) Interestingly, Franses and Bennett point out that many of the structural analyses in Topkapi Carpets may not be correct, see Franses and Bennett, Hali, op. cit., pp. 21-22, allowing the possibility that the structure of the Topkapi rug and the present lot are in fact similar, supporting the suggestion that they may be a pair. Many design elements, such as the large flowering vase of the present lot, and the ascending trees at the base of the mihrab found in the offered example, the Bardini-Altman rug and the Topkapi rug can also be found in other 16th-I 7th century Persian weavings. Most notably, the trees resemble those of a carpet in the Philadelphia Museum of Art, illustrated as plate 47 by Ellis, op. cit., which he ascribes to Persia, 16th-17th century; and the vase, as Rogers and Tezcan note, op. cit., p. 30, resembles the vase in plates 1130 and 1131 in A. U. Pope, A Survey of Persian Art, vol. VI, Oxford University Press, 1939, which he dates to 16th Century Tabriz. Rogers and Tezcan, op. cit., p. 8, note that the design of these controversial inscribed rugs would have been highly unusual within the decorative arts design motifs of 19th century Turkey, which were then heavily influenced by European design. The authors ascribe this apparent discrepancy to a revival of classical designs in Turkish carpet weaving. They also note that Sarre, Trenkwald and Martin remarked on the considerable age and condition of the Topkapi rugs when they examined them in the early decades of this century. Rogers and Tezcan concede that it is unlikely that the rugs would have been only fifty years old when Sarre, Trenkwald and Martin examined them and furthermore that such esteemed scholars would have been in error, op. cit., p. 28. Despite these confusing and contradicting assertions, Rogers and Tezcan persist in following the 'Salting' theory and attribute all the inscribed rugs to 19th century Turkey, rather than taking into consideration their questions and perhaps arriving at a new, enlightening conclusion. " 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 and may be different that the catalogue attribution. Any additions, information, or corrections, would be appreciated.
For Further Reading: Thanks and best wishes, J. Barry O'Connell Jr. |
||||||||||||||||
