Turkotek Discussion Forums

Turkotek Discussion Forums (http://www.turkotek.com/VB37/index.php)
-   Miscellaneous (rug-related) Topics (http://www.turkotek.com/VB37/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   Western Anatolian rug fragment big picture appreciated (http://www.turkotek.com/VB37/showthread.php?t=3713)

Guido Roncarolo October 13th, 2016 02:46 PM

Western Anatolian rug fragment big picture appreciated
Hello all,

I'm new to this forum, but I have a keen interest in Anatolian rugs.
I'd like to know if anyone has a hi-resolution picture of this carpet


Does anyone know if this fragment is described in
Weaving Heritage of Anatolia (2 Volumes)

Tezcan, Hulya; Sumiyo Okimura; Kathleen Hamilton Gundogdu; eds.

Thank you!


Lloyd Kannenberg October 13th, 2016 09:30 PM

Hi Guido,

This piece is shown (inverted with respect to your image) as Plate 91 in Volume 2 of "Weaving Heritage of Anatolia". The Catalogue Notes say that it is from the Seth Yusuf Mosque in Sivrihisar.


Lloyd Kannenberg

Guido Roncarolo October 14th, 2016 07:16 AM

Hi Lloyd,

Thank you so much for the info!
Now I know what I might ask Santa :)



Hans von Blickstein October 14th, 2016 10:19 AM

date of fragment
Gentlemen and Gentle Ladies of Turkotek:

Interesting is this fragment. But more interesting is the date the person who posted it to the interenet has given it.

This is no 19th century Anatolian rug. Such a guess is way off. I would imagine this fragment is 16th century. What do you think?

Also perhaps I am wrong about who has given it that date. Maybe it is so dated in the books you are discussing?

Cheers to all

Lloyd Kannenberg October 14th, 2016 02:45 PM

Hi Hans, Guido and All,

"Weaving Heritage from Anatolia" dates this piece asn 17th - 18th century, which seems reasonable to me.

Best wishes,

Lloyd Kannenberg

H.v.Blickstein October 14th, 2016 03:39 PM

date of fragment
To Mr. Kannenberg:

I sincerely doubt this rug is 18th century or 17th as well.

There are a number of aspects which tell me it is earlier.

For instance the extreme wide major border, and just one real minor border.
The white backround inner border, both very unusual and often seen on
16th century and earlier rugs. Also that main border is outstanding unusual.
So is what remains of the outer minor border. What we can see and imagine.

Then the large motives in the field, and the almost magical manner they work with
each other is not something seen in rugs dated to the 18th century.

I am not trying to start an argument that is impossible to really know what is
the truth. I am just expressing my opinion and trying to by reason show why
I think like that.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:43 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.