For the record
When I first read Horst’s present essay, my first reaction was – for obvious reasons – to question the soundness of publishing it on Turkotek. But I quickly changed my mind: after all, Horst is imposing on us his “Nestorian theory” rather often since its first appearance in the thread About the Kufic border and people have the right to know what it’s all about.
For the record, here it’s the first Nestorian appearing (post # 239, May 10th, 2012):
(Actually the sketch refers to a “3-4th c "Sassanid Era Nestorian proto-form"; that particular definition ignominiously sunk when it crashed again a post of an outraged Marla Mallett.)
Insistently pressed to reveal if the source of the sketch had some real foundation Horst answered that yes, “The ink drawings are after an existing rug… I can’t do better than attribute it to a 15th to 19th c age span… I am working on an English language version of the paper presented last autumn and hope that it will find a publisher. Because of this, I would prefer not to show a picture of the rug here and now.” (abridged).
But, ladies and gentlemen Horst had shown it already, here on Turkotek - first in a detail on 09/22/2006, then the whole thing on 10/03/2006 - see the archived thread nude figures on rugs
and Rug 3:
On 09-26-2006, on the same thread, Horst added more details, omitted in the current Salon:
Of the three rugs he bought
On 10-03-2006 the two older rugs were shown more entirely.
and Rug 2:
Eight years later, of the three rugs, Rug 1 becomes possibly four (!!!) centuries older and the focus of the current Salon.
Rug 3 isn’t mentioned anymore.
from Horts’s own “Herki sumac” becomes a “Rug auctioned in Germany in 2005”
See following caption of the present salon: Plates 11,12: (from left) Rug auctioned in Germany in 2005; Eagleton (1988) plate 63 ‘Barzani rug’ ”
It also clear that footnote # 10 refers to rugs in plates 11 and 12, the 12 being the “Barzani rug”:
Please notice that, in this caption, the sumak becomes a “pile rug”.
Resuming: like illegitimated sons whose mention brings shame on the family, the younger rug is ignored; the other is disowned – it has even its “genre” changed.
I find very intriguing the omissions, especially of the fact that rug N. 2 “advertised as a Qashqai rug” (by whom, may I ask?) belonged to Horst.
Perhaps Horst doesn’t want us to recall that at the time he thought his three rugs were just three Herki sumac “with the same generic design”?
Above all, how can a sumak rug transmogrify into a pile rug? Is Horst taking us for a ride?
Anyway, I am aware that these are only trivial questions: reading this Salon, one should realize that there are bigger issues. And the answer to all of them should also be quite evident…
That’s why I’ll try to refrain from making any comment on its actual content. Suffice to say that it exceeded my expectations; I have to sincerely thank Horst for that.
as Horst clearly must be taking us for a ride, I suppose its okay to have a bit of fun. Here the proto-proto form of the composite symbol ( http://www.venganza.org )
Perhaps I should correct myself: re-reading Horst’s posts in the 2006 thread (reading Horst’s prose is always a task that requires abnegation and a lot of concentration) he didn’t say that the all the three Herki sumaks he posted at the beginning belonged to him.
We later learn (in the thread of 2006) that he bought three Herki sumacs. But he only said that the first one belonged to him, so I am not sure anymore that the also other two rugs in the pictures belonged to him.
What is sure is the fact that in 2006 rug number 2 was indicated as a sumac and in the salon it becomes a pile rug auctioned in Germany in 2005.
My apologies for the imprecision.