Posted by Michael Wendorf on July 26, 1999 at 07:56:37:
In Reply to: Re: Some Thoughts posted by Wendel Swan on July 26, 1999 at 07:43:54:
: Dear Sophia,
: Thank you for the comments. I am quite certain that this rug is not Kurdish.
: Unfortunately, when faced with a plethora of weavings without "Schurrmann-esque" labels, we often revert to suggesting Kurdish. Because the Kurds wove so many different designs and with such diverse structures, "Kurdish" often becomes, erroneously, an attribution by default.
: Similarly, "Shahsavan" is often applied by default to geometric weaving (including pile rugs) with animals or human figures. Ebay, for example, currently abounds with Shahsavan attributions, some of which are blatantly incorrect.
: I have very carefully avoided an attribution because I believe that, in the end, none can be certain. While this rug has some attributes of what I believe are Shahsavan, some aspects (particularly the border) give me pause.
: In the spirit of shameless self-promotion, I will say that I am speaking at ICOC in Italy on the topic of Shahsavan pile weaving and that the images in this Salon will be a part of my paper. Therefore, constructive criticism is most welcome.
Dear Sophia and Wendel:
Though there are some extremely old Kurdish rugs with cotton wefts and wool warps, I agree with Wendel that this rug is not Kurdish. The selvedge Sophia descibes is probably not original
and not what I associate with Kurds. Cotton warps and wefts are not associated with traditional kurdish weavings in my experience. Cotton is more common in Shahsavan weavings including the designs found in the subject rug when worked in flatweaves, for example the mafrash side panel and other examples like it.
Kind regards, Michael
Post a Followup