Posted by Vincent Keers on 04-10-2003 08:14 AM:


Dear Bertram,

First things, first.
Yes there are Sahsevan, Shahsavan or Shah Savan.
A confederation of tribes. So far, so good.
But what are we looking for?
We're looking for specific rugs they made.

Up to this point, all that has been done is looking
for design combinations. Now it strikes me as a bit
odd that one of the main designs is a cross in
combination with the square.
Whatever anyone might think of the meaning of a
cross, it doesn't fit in an Islamic tradition.
A square behind a cross is a very Orthodox Christian symbol.
Shahsevan seem to be Islamic.

The main difference with Turkmen attributions is:
That can be done, by some of us, on the basis of technical aspects.
First they see it's Turkmen.
Then they investigate, if a more specified attribution can made.
So this attribution gets more specific along the way.
It not like: Ah, a Salor rug. Is it Turkmen?

We've all seen ugly Turkmen rugs.
Seen some ugly Luri, Shiraz etc. Ugly Dhagestan. Ugly soumack.
What I've not yet seen is an ugly Shahsevan.
All Shahsevan seem to good to be true.

Best regards,