Posted by Patrick Weiler on July 04, 1999 at 10:45:50:
In Reply to: Re: Shahsavan Mafrash Panels - The Minor Borders posted by Wendel Swan on July 04, 1999 at 05:49:23:
: Dear Marla,
: Citing structural imperatives for the origins of the borders, you posted, in part:
: "I cannot view one border as a degraded (or "evolved") version of the other, but rather see the two motifs as design entities with entirely separate histories. I have seen both old and young soumak examples of each. The differences between the two are subtle, but based absolutely on structural requirements in the original media."
: The orginal models or prototypes for these borders must have been created centuries ago. Wouldn't you agree that such subtle differences in the design degradation of these two borders, considered alone, does not form the basis for a substantial distinction in age?
I thought Marla had a good insight, suggesting that the "H" border came to this weaving from a different weaving idiom. It would explain the concurrent appearance of otherwise similar weavings with dissimilar motifs, without actually having a bearing on the relative age of the two weavings.
But, as mentioned by Steve in his article, (see below) a difference in age of 25 years can have a significant impact on the market value of an antique weaving. And this border could have been an indicator of greater age, due to it not having "survived" to later weavings.
Comparing the two weavings, to me the one with the "H" border does look older, but more as a result of the color combinations and wear to the edges of the weaving.
Meanwhile, as Steve has stubbed his toe on getting the next salon up, I guess he wouldn't mind if I mention that this mafrash panel was discussed in an article entitled "A Very Old Shahsavan Mafrash: How Old Is Very Old, from ORR vol 14, #1, Oct/Nov 1993.
Steve very succinctly covers most of the thoughts that have been brought up here in this salon in the article.
Post a Followup