Welcome to TurkoTek's Discussion Forums

Archived Salons and Selected Discussions can be accessed by clicking on those words, or you can return to the Turkotek Home Page. Our forums are easy to use, and you are welcome to read and post messages without registering. However, registration will enable a number of features that make the software more flexible and convenient for you, and you need not provide any information except your name (which is required even if you post without being registered). Please use your full name. We do not permit posting anonymously or under a pseudonym, ad hominem remarks, commercial promotion, comments bearing on the value of any item currently on the market or on the reputation of any seller. Turkotek Discussion Forums - View Single Post - A timeline of kufic borders in rugs

View Single Post
Old September 24th, 2012, 10:50 PM   #12
Martin Andersen
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 63

Hi All

Well I will just pursue my mini anti-Gantzhorn crusade for one more post.
(and I will try to remember writing Volkmar Gantzhorns full name a lot when I criticize him, in the hope that the search engines will pick it up, probably a futile little battle against all the good offers from f.ex amazon.com)

Volkmar Gantzhorn uses a serie of very basic squared cross variations to categorize all rug types. The crosses do at the same time, according to Volkmar Gantzhorn, correspond to christian armenian ornamentation:

This is of course in itself a highly questionable method of categorization, but the actual way that Volkmar Gantzhorn uses and misuses his own method on specific non-cruciform patterns is even more questionable. Here is an example:

To make this very important 13th c Seljuk Kufic border fit into an Armenian context Volkmar Gantzhorn has to fantasize that the motif is a distorted half of another pattern which coincidently must have looked like an Armenian cross. This is in my opinion a highly disingenuously approach towards the simple fact that Seljuk pattern exist as it is, and of course primarily should be put into the context of other relevant existing patterns and motifs - and not imagined or non existing patterns.

Another example where Gantzhorn compares a geometric pattern from an Il-Khanid miniature with a minor border from a Seljuk rug:

Volkmar Gantzhorn starting point regarding the simple and very generic geometric Il-Khanid border is this: "Needless to say, what we have here is clearly a Christian symbol, in fact one of the most common among the monophysites in Armenia". In itself a gross overinterpretation of this fine little generic Il-khanid pattern, which of course might as well be turned 180 degree, making it something completely different from a cross on a hill - and turning the whole illustration the 180 degree would actually also show the Seljuk minor border as what it is: a miniature version of the larger Kufic motifs on the Seljuk main borders.

Martin Andersen is offline   Reply With Quote