Posted by Erol Abit on June 21, 1999 at 17:41:24:
In Reply to: Re: Dating Rugs by Motifs posted by Steve Price on June 21, 1999 at 06:22:26:
My intention in posting the image of Pazyryk rug was not to discuss about it itself. Since one method of many ways in dating rugs is "the comparion", particularly, with older older rugs, We need a good reference point in comparison method and I chose Pazyryk as a reference. There was no chance in the weaving history to copy this rug one-to-one since it had been laying under ice. Keeping in mind this earlist rug as a reference point in the comparison method for dating rugs, the possibles copies of its later versions, hence motifs, must have been degenareted more and more through the history. The less degenareted rugs must be older rugs than more degenareted ones. However, I am not talking about details of motifs but about basic parts. For example, look at the borders of both Pazyryk and other rug that I posted on Show and Tell board. Their common characteristic is the similarity of the borders from the geometrical point of view even though fields are completely different. They both have three layers of borders looping when going inner to the center of the rug. No sign here about the age of the second rug following "the comparison rule" in determining the ages? If one wants to weave a rug now by copying the newer rug, he/she will probably reduce the numbers of borders or change some other basical parts according to the rule of degenerating followed by copy-rugs. That means, the rug which will be woven will be different than its previous version and the difference will tell use which rug is newer, which is older. And, fortunately, there is no copy of pazyryk rug so then it is a good candidate for a reference in dating rugs by "the method of comparison of motifs". But the criteria for comparisons must be elementary such as geometrical characteristics.
Post a Followup