Posted by Steve Price on June 22, 1999 at 20:17:22:
In Reply to: Re: Are better rugs peferentially preserved?/Harry's post posted by Patrick Weiler on June 22, 1999 at 18:57:34:
I didn't even know I was being picked on (what, me, insensitive?)! I never said anything about the Khan or his treasures.
Let me take one last crack at it. The khan probably preserved the pieces he thought were the best ones he had. The poor people probably preserved the ones they thought were the best ones they had. Not always, but often enough to be a factor determining what, on average, got preserved.
Now, which ones did the poor people think were their best ones? It is likely that the cost of the rug was an element that influenced their thinking. In fact, why would they buy a more expensive one if they didn't think it was better tha nthe cheaper one? It did cost more, after all.
Now, if the poor people tend to preserve their most expensive pieces more than their least expensive pieces, and the rich people do the same, what happens to the population of rugs woven during their periods of initial accumulation? What happens is, on the average, the better ones get preserved and the worse ones get trashed. And when they hand these things on to their kids, they tell them, this is a really expensive, high class item. Take care of it. Sooo, the surviving older rugs are, on the average, better than the typical rugs made when those things were woven.
Anyway, why not talk a bit about how to determine the date of fabrication of a tribal rug? Wouldn't that be a neat change of pace?
Post a Followup