Turkotek Discussion Forums - View Single Post

Pierre Galafassi · September 17th, 2013, 04:05 PM

Hi Filiberto,

I agree with you and if «one je-ne-sais-quoi» nearly qualifies as proof in Rugdom, with two or three, we are as you’d say in your beloved Firenze «in une botta di ferro», there can hardly be any doubt left.

You have surely noticed too
a) the resemblance of the (curvilinear) main field medallion in FIG 147 with the classical (but geometrical) Tschelaberd medallion , as well as
b) the secondary «dragon» border in FIG 205 (of course this border was not specific to Caucasian rugs, but surely at least as frequent there as in any other origin), or
c) the «spade» secondary border in FIG 201 and 202 (A border very frequent indeed in southern Caucasus rugs especially in Kazaks, but also (with a more precise design) rather frequent in classical northwestern Persian carpets. Not much used IMHO in any other rug weaving area.
d) the other (in addition to the one you just mentioned) variation of the «s» secondary border in FIG 205 again.

However, the hypothesis of a Caucasian origin has, to be frank, some weak points too:
a) Why did these rugs appear only in Dutch painting? Seventeenth century Dutch Navy and business were not really very active in the Mediterranean / Black Sea area and thus in the Caucasian area, were they?
b) As Marla observed several times in the past, motifs can be copied much more easily than structures. Here we don’t have a clue about rug structure at all. Mrs Ydema has the feeling that the Scheuneman motifs could have been inspired by motifs copied all around Asia. If that’s true, I think that such a "pot-pourri" would point the finger towards European-, probably Dutch weaving. I can’t well imagine a seventeenth century Central Asian- or Persian- weaver doing that in her remote black tent or yurt, can you?

best regards
Pierre

September 17th, 2013, 04:05 PM	#2
Pierre Galafassi Members Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 153	Hi Filiberto, I agree with you and if «one je-ne-sais-quoi» nearly qualifies as proof in Rugdom, with two or three, we are as you’d say in your beloved Firenze «in une botta di ferro», there can hardly be any doubt left. You have surely noticed too a) the resemblance of the (curvilinear) main field medallion in FIG 147 with the classical (but geometrical) Tschelaberd medallion , as well as b) the secondary «dragon» border in FIG 205 (of course this border was not specific to Caucasian rugs, but surely at least as frequent there as in any other origin), or c) the «spade» secondary border in FIG 201 and 202 (A border very frequent indeed in southern Caucasus rugs especially in Kazaks, but also (with a more precise design) rather frequent in classical northwestern Persian carpets. Not much used IMHO in any other rug weaving area. d) the other (in addition to the one you just mentioned) variation of the «s» secondary border in FIG 205 again. However, the hypothesis of a Caucasian origin has, to be frank, some weak points too: a) Why did these rugs appear only in Dutch painting? Seventeenth century Dutch Navy and business were not really very active in the Mediterranean / Black Sea area and thus in the Caucasian area, were they? b) As Marla observed several times in the past, motifs can be copied much more easily than structures. Here we don’t have a clue about rug structure at all. Mrs Ydema has the feeling that the Scheuneman motifs could have been inspired by motifs copied all around Asia. If that’s true, I think that such a "pot-pourri" would point the finger towards European-, probably Dutch weaving. I can’t well imagine a seventeenth century Central Asian- or Persian- weaver doing that in her remote black tent or yurt, can you? best regards Pierre