|Whether textile motifs were indeed copied from stone is
not verifiable, it may just as well be the other way round (see
Warpalawa in Marvin’s neighbouring thread). |
well taken! I say
“almost” because, you see, that is not a decorative pattern taken from a
textile and used as a decoration on a different context (sculpture,
architecture, etc.): that is, instead, the representation
a textile on stone.
You need to find the same border
a decoration in architecture - and so on - to sustain your point. Mind
you, it’s such a basic geometric pattern that it shouldn’t be too
Let me repeat instead, MY point of view on the matter,
trying to be - I hope - more clear.
As I already said, I criticize
the tendency to see EVERY motif on tribal rugs as having forcefully
esoteric meanings and arcane origins. Because motives could have very
simple, disparate origins, and without any particular meaning beyond their
decorative appearance (like the “running dog” rug border). Decorative
patterns also travel long distances and are freely copied between
different mediums and cultures. Or they may have independent origins, like
the pre-Colombian botehs. And let’s not forget that certain patterns may
also derive from technical limitations of the weave used, Marla
. Having in mind these possibilities, THEN we can look for
Now, to the Nestorian
In the “Kufic border” discussion you sustained that the
aforementioned border derived from a Nestorian design, hence I though you
were doing the same in this case.
If you had presented a picture of
such a ”textile from around 1900 with an East Syrian / Nestorian
instead of contemplating it in your mind, it could have
perhaps prevented the misunderstanding.
This being the situation, the
“Nestorian factor” still remains a mystery to me (and probably to our
other readers too) as well as why you keep mentioning it without showing a
shred of evidence, visual or otherwise.
Have a nice