Turkotek Discussion Forums - View Single Post

Martin Andersen · September 16th, 2012, 09:15 AM

I will have to line up with Steve

Pierres systematical approach (to any subject), is a huge asset for the discussions here at Turkotek.
(but I can't take credit for leading the former discussion, Filiberto and Pierre sure did theirs - and pro et contra certainly has interesting dynamics in these discussion)

There is no doubt that the discussion about the rugborders being Kufic, Kufesque, pseudo-Kufic or non-Kufic is old. It goes at least back to Frederik Robert Martins discovery of the Seljuk rugs and his book "A History of Oriental Carpets from before 1800" in 1908.
Volkmar Gantzhorns "The Christian Oriental Carpet" from 1991, and its quest for giving all oriental rugs a primarily Armenian/Christian origin seem to be the, from my point of view, problematic source of the non-Kufic origin standpoint today.

best Martin

September 16th, 2012, 09:15 AM	#3
Martin Andersen Members Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 121	I will have to line up with Steve Pierres systematical approach (to any subject), is a huge asset for the discussions here at Turkotek. (but I can't take credit for leading the former discussion, Filiberto and Pierre sure did theirs - and pro et contra certainly has interesting dynamics in these discussion) There is no doubt that the discussion about the rugborders being Kufic, Kufesque, pseudo-Kufic or non-Kufic is old. It goes at least back to Frederik Robert Martins discovery of the Seljuk rugs and his book "A History of Oriental Carpets from before 1800" in 1908. Volkmar Gantzhorns "The Christian Oriental Carpet" from 1991, and its quest for giving all oriental rugs a primarily Armenian/Christian origin seem to be the, from my point of view, problematic source of the non-Kufic origin standpoint today. best Martin