|Date||:||01-04-2000 on 08:33 a.m.|
Thanks for this interesting and well presented Salon.
The colour constellation, the clear Turcoman influence, as well as the unplyed (single) red wefts of your rug seems to suggest Bergama at first, but a central Anatolian provenance can’t be ruled out. The palette constellation is also encountered in Central Anatolian rug.
The irregular shape of your rug suggests that it was probably not woven on a loom but was spanned between two trees. This was a common practice in the Kozak plateau from the Bergama area.
The kind of selvage is of some help to differentiate its area of origin. Here is a picture of a wedge shaped typical Central Anatolian selvage.
<img src="http://www.turkotek.com/salon_00033/RJH1.jpg" border="0">
The "Two-One-Two" arrangement as well and the central "turret" medallion are documented since the 15th century in the so-called "Large Patterned Holbein" carpets from Anatolia.
The layout suggests also the "Double niche Usaks" from the 16th-17th century and the 15th century or later "Re-entrant or Keyhole Bellini rugs"
Here is a picture from a double-keyhole Bellini rug.
<img src="http://www.turkotek.com/salon_00033/RJH2.jpg" border="0">
Your rug as well as Alexander’s one are closely related to a 15th century "Red Double-Niche Rug" from the Kirchheim’s collection which is illustrated as plate 200 in Orient Stars.
I wouldn’t have any problems if your rug was dated end 18th or early 19th century.
During last ICOC, a small Bergama rug from the first half of the 19th century with a design clearly related to the Alexander Seljuk prayer rug was on display at the antique fair.
<img src="http://www.turkotek.com/salon_00033/RJH4.jpg" border="0">
|Author||:||R. John Howe|
|Date||:||01-05-2000 on 07:13 a.m.|
|Hi Daniel - Thank you for your thoughts here. Also for posting Plate 200 from the Orient Stars collection. That piece is the only one I have seen, other than the one I referred to in Alexander's book, that seems fairly similar to my fragment. (My copy of Orient Stars was on loan when I wrote this salon text.) As to the selveges on my fragment, they are no longer there. And I saw no hint of the "wedges" that you mention, although with the piece now sewn to a backing that is harder to check. I don't think I've heard any prior allusion to the "woven between two trees" method of weaving. Would you say more about this? Do you have a citation? The handle of this piece is distinctive. It is coarse (25 knots per square inch), has a 1:1 knot ratio (5H,5V), is rather loosely woven and while it feel fairly flexible, it has a certain substance (a thickness)when on takes hold of it. It is interesting to see how Konya's geographic location is described in the literature. It seems usually to be designated as "Central Turkey" and that argument can clearly be made. But its far enough west that the rugs woven there and those in the Bergama would seem likely to be exposed to similar influences, yea, even to each other. Regards, R. John Howe|
|Date||:||01-05-2000 on 05:43 p.m.|
|Dear R.John, Here is a citation from “Antike Anatolische Teppische aus Osterreichischembesitz” published by the Society for Textile Art Research Vienna in 1983. Commenting a Bergama rug illustrated as plate 26 the authors say : “ The village rug from the Bergama region are in an unusual, almost square format. In the Kozak plateau such carpets are frequently not woven on a loom but are spanned between two trees, which gives rise to a curiously bulged outline.” What the authors mean is, I think, that the weavers used horizontal loom instead of vertical looms, with the two beams fixed to two trees. Rugs woven on horizontal looms have often an irregular shape. I haven’t any other information. Cordially, Daniel|