Here are two more rugs from the exhibition for your enjoyment. The first rug was labeled Konya/Karapinar, 17th century.
The next rug was labeled Ushak, ca. 1700.
Both images are from jozan.net, and given that more than half of the exhibited rugs have been published on-line, I now wonder why the organizer did not want pictures to be taken.
dragon on the loose
The first rug, the Konya Karapinar, has green spandrels that look suspiciously like the dragons from 18th century Caucasian Dragon rugs, with eye-ball-looking things, tails and scales.
Therefore I hereby pronounce that those Dragon rugs incontrovertably descended from this one.
Maybe those are actually dragon footprints, and the dragon is on the loose. ... I advice you to take cover.
Turkish Dragon Sighting
Corroborating evidence of the existence of Turkish dragons, as I have postulated above, has been confirmed on these very pages of Turkotek.
The "Miscellaneous (Rug Related) Topics" area has a current discussion of a book showing Turkish weavings. Both of the weavings shown by John Howe purport to show dragons in old Turkish rugs.
On the other hand, the only footprints noted are those of geese. Goose feet apparently are good wishes for a child.
I suspect the dragons are a reference to a Mother In Law. And because those are not extinct, hiding may well be the best course of action!
What's up with the medallion on the Karapinar? That's a wierdly asymmetrical way to change a design...
About the reluctance of the Philadelphia gallery people to permit photographs of the pieces: I think that's mostly just usual exhibition practice showing itself.
Sometimes lending collectors do not want photos taken of their pieces and many galleries and museums want to retain the option of selling such images for themselves.
In this case, Dennis Dodds, the curator, exhibited no relectance when I asked to take photos for use here. In fact, a great many of these pieces had already been published either in the ICOCVIII catalog or in the one for ICOCX. I think that's the case for both the pieces in this thread.
R. John Howe
I also find the "Konya/Karapinar" rug intriguing. It is (obviously?) a villager's interpretation of the classic double niche prayer rugs that are typically attributed to Ushak of the 17th and 18th century.
So, I am wondering, "Why is this rug to come from the Konya/Karapinar" region?" and "Why is it labeled as 17th century?"
Interestingly, I have not been able to find a similar village rug published in the literature, only the classical Ushak rugs. Has anyone seen something comparably?
The Ushak rugs were in their heyday in the 16th and 17th century. While quite a number of workshop productions have survived from that period, in 1977 Kurt Erdmann wrote in his book "The History of the Early Turkish Carpet" that to date no rug produced by nomads/semi-nomads from that period had appeared, and that any future discovery were unlikely as these rugs had been produced for home use, and were likely used up over the course of 300 years.
Based on this view the dating of the Konya/Karapinar rug seems quite aggressive. So, my question is, does Erdmann's view still hold today, or have in the meantime Turkish village productions from the 17th century been uncovered? And if so, what indicates that these pieces are possibly from the 17th century and not from a later time period?
Tim, Chuck -
I'm not sure I can answer your questions, but here is the gallery label for the Karapinar rug.
"Pile Rug, 17th century
Central Anatolia, Konya/Karapinar region
Collection of Dennis Dodds and Zinaida Vaganova
"In several of his paintings, the German artist Hans Holbein the Younger (1497-1543) featured a distinctive group of 15th-century Anatolian rugs woven in this style. The “Holbein” nomenclature has been adopted in the literature as a useful descriptor for the group as a whole. The earliest versions, known as “small-pattern Holbeins,” employed an overall repeat of small medallions.
"This carpet displays one of the design variants within the small-pattern Holbein group: a solitary medallion on an open field dyed with pale madder. Its outline is stepped with four graceful volutes on stems that issue from opposing axes. Inside the medallion is a quadri¬partite floral form consisting of four connected stylized blossoms. The eccentric spandrels in this village carpet are analogous to earlier 16th-century court versions— sometimes known as double-niche prayer rugs—that are rendered in a more fluid and curvilinear manner. An energetic and angular meandering vine attaches stylized flower heads and leaves in the broad, soft yellow border. The carpet displays unusual simplicity, scale and openness in the design."
This rug was also published as Plate 20 in the "Atlantic Collections" catalog from ICOC VIII in Philadelphia. Dennis Dodds likely wrote the caption for it there. It begins "Central Anatolia, 18th century..." The caption seems to relate it to another Central Anatolian rug with a similar design (Plate 17 in the same catalog) but one Dennis describes as having more "courtly refinement."
My sense is that he sees it as a nice country cousin of some more refined rugs of this type. Dennis seems now to see things in the spandrels that are analgous to some 16th century usages and has apparently decided that it should be estimated as older than it was in 1996. He apparently also thinks that a more precise geographic attribition can be made.
R. John Howe
Hopefully, he will illuminate us about his reasoning some day. -- Tim
Below images taken from Jozan Magazine, First image Alberto Levi's 16th century Karapinar rug, the central red field medallion is very similar design with Dodds Karapinar rug.
Here are 2 more 19th Century Karapinar rugs First one is from Rugs and Textiles the Other one is Denny Mehra's.
It is clearly appears to me that 19th century Karapinar rugs are Copied of early Karapinar rugs.
I am, as always, skeptical about date attributions, especially pre-19th century. With regard to the two in your post that are called 19th century Karapinar, I'd be surprised if either one is that old (but, I get surprised pretty often).
I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say that it appears to you that 19th century Karapinar rugs are Copied of early Karapinar rugs. The notion that designs on rugs are usually derived from rugs made in the same area or by the ancestors of the weaver isn't seriously doubted, as far as I know. Did you mean something deeper than that?
The 19th. Century Karapinar rug design goes back to as early as early 19th century, there is not much different between 19th century to 20th century ones we need to see them in person to determine the different if it is 19th or 20th century, it is hard to tell it from picture.
Mr. Dodd rug's design doesn't have 19th. Century rug design on it has 16th. Century Oushak design on it, the colorations seem a bit light though but I don’t know it is a village rug, anything can happen also did not see the rug in person.
Here is an interesting comparison piece to Dodd's Konya/Karapinar rug currently on show at ACOR.
The label states: "Karapinar rug fragment, central Anatolia, early 18th century. 1.10 x 2.70m (3'7' x 8'10")"
Here is a link to a 19th century Karapinar rug we show on our site.
I hope it will be to some help.
AKREP Oriental Rug Society, Gothenburg, Sweden
Thanks for the link. Since you didn't mention it in your post, the page that you link to is a very interesting little article by Sonny Berntsson. There's much more to it than the image.
In Sweden we are modest!
But we wish every "rug-lover" to visit our site and have a look at all images and articles.
TurkoTek is an excellent forum for comments.