Posted by Michael Wendorf on August 11, 1999 at 13:13:15:
In Reply to: Re: rug 3 posted by Wendel Swan on August 10, 1999 at 16:43:42:
: Dear Michael, Daniel and all,
: Daniel's rug does appear to be a variant in the design continuum of the Kazaks of the Yohe/Rudnick line, but they have about the same relationship as fourth cousins twice removed.
: Michael, I think it is particularly interesting that you drew our attention to the Shirvan example in Hali 82, wherein the central medallion is an eight pointed star rather than a six-sided device as is found in the Yohe/Rudnick and "Kagizman" groups. While we can only speculate on how designs evolve, I believe these groups as well as the Karachov Kazaks trace their lineage back to (and well beyond) the Holbein carpets and Ushaks.
: The Shirvan example in Hali tracks closer to the Ushak models, but the Yohe/Rudnick rug group does not differ significantly - except for having six sides to the medallion rather than eight. This may be due to no more than interpretation or evolution of the design, for the internal elements are nearly identical.
: A phenomenon that I have noticed and hope to discuss in a future Salon is the tendency of many otherwise symmetrical design elements to be pointed on the north/south or vertical axis and blunted on the east/west or horizontal axis. You will find this commonly in rugs of Turkic speaking people: Turkmen, Shahsavan and those of the Caucasus, among others.
: While the Holbein 2-1-2 format is at least centuries old, during the 19th Century there can be seen a profusion of interpretations of this format which do not seem to change radically. The Kagizman rugs are East Anatolian versions of the Karachov Kazaks and are probably approximate contemporaries. For the most part, there is little fundamental deviation within each of the groups (as you have pointed out) and yet they remain distinct from the other.
: Like certain other designs, it is plausible that these two design groups developed rapidly in the second half of the 19th Century (possibly due to increased market demands). I cannot recall seeing either a Karachov or a Kagizman (as we are here applying those terms) that I thought was significantly older than the others in the group were.
: Daniel's #3, on the other hand, may be much later and/or created in a different weaving culture. I think it may be Eastern Anatolian, although Southern Caucasus is possible.
: The design ancestors of all of them can be seen in old Islamic architecture (12th - 15th Centuries).
I largely agree with what you have posted. But I do not think that the so-called Kagizman group rugs are simply east anatolian versions of the Karachov Kazaks (or versions of the Kazak group with related medallions I identified for that matter). They do share a 2-1-2 format but the medallions are fundamentally and consistantly different.
One unusual characteristic that distinguishes the Kagizman group from all the Kazaks is that the top vertical point is often jagged, suggesting a mountain or hill perhaps while all the other lines or points are straight diagonals. The coloration is also completely different. The Kagizman group has a distinctive and unique main border system.
I believe the Kagizman group is a separate and uniquely Kurdish interpretation of the same or related design source. And I do not see them or the design as market driven. Many of the examples, in fact most that I have seen, remain in wonderful condition with signs of hanging and being shown great care by their previous owners
and with dark, deeply saturated colors not normally associated with more commercially oriented rugs.
Thank you. Michael W.
Post a Followup