Re: Date on #3

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Salon ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Michael Wendorf on February 18, 1999 at 09:52:25:

In Reply to: Re: Date on #3 posted by Marvin Amstey on February 18, 1999 at 08:16:06:

: : Each of the four numerals is different. So, what remains is to match each with the four possible Arabic numerals that have vertical elements and secondary elements to the right of the vertical element. These possibilities are 1, 2, 3 and 4. The first numeral is definitely a "1". The fourth is definitely a "4" (the two disembodied knots form the hook). This leaves "2" and "3" for the second and third numerals. Since the second numeral is wider, it must be the "3". This leaves "2" for the third numeral. The last assignment explains the anomalous bulge at the top right of the second numeral. Thus, the date reads "1324". This translates to C.E. 1906, a perfectly reasonable date for the piece I see.
: : cordially, d.s.

: I agree it may be reasonable, but I have seen a number of rugs published with clearly read dates of 1,2,3,4suggesting that these are nonsense numbers much like the nonsense writing in cartouches of late 19th c. rugs. Marvin

Dear Marvin, David and others:

I seem to be having trouble with my posts appearing in the index, but if you click under Pat Weiler's post I have previously made a comment that the date initially posited seems to me not possible. I like David's sleuth analysis here, but even 1906 seems a bit early. Marvin's point ias a valuable one. It is dangerous to put much stock in many of these inwoven dates. Often they are altered, nonsense or even copies of dates from other pieces copied by an illiterate weaver. Even 1906 seems a little optimistic here. Thanks. Michael

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Salon ] [ FAQ ]