|Subject||:||Caucasian Rug Formats|
|Author||:||Wendel Swan mailto:%email@example.com|
|Date||:||07-27-2001 on 11:39 a.m.|
Here is the Italian rug compared to two other rugs in a way that should at least be thought provoking.
Some comments need to be made about sizes.
The McMullan Tree rug (plate 47) is 9’ 7” x 4’ 3” which is comparable to the Italian rug. Although McMullan doesn’t date this rug, it is shown first among three that he describes as being in the 18th Century style. The pattern is generally thought to derive from Persian garden carpets. A number of mid- to late- 19th Century rugs of a squarer format are known, but the McMullan example is, so far as I know, unique in this class.
The older (18th Century) Ellis 15 measures 17” 5” x 7’ 7” which is consistent with the format for the so-called Classical Caucasian dragon and blossom carpets. Ellis describes this rug as “unique – an amalgam of several types.”
Most of the Caucasian and Northwest Persian rugs of the 19th Century are not in these sizes or proportions. Nor do they have the simple and limited border systems of the McMullan tree rug or the Italian rug. These seem to be characteristics of earlier carpets.
To my eye, there is an affinity in proportion, scale, elements, border systems, tone and color palette that suggest that they all came from relatively nearby geographical areas. I also see the tree rug and the Italian rug as being part of a transitional group that existed between the production of the 18th Century and the boom of the 19th.
With its increasingly separated elements, Ellis 15 seems to be a transitional piece from the earlier dragon and blossom carpets.
Perhaps other could comment on this relationship in time and distance.