Re: Why the difference?

Subject:

Comments:
: : : : Tom Cole posted: : : : : "Wendel- While my own area of expertise does not extend to the Shahsevan and Baktiari, I believe I am in a position to identify a pre-1850 rug from the Afshar and Baluch groups. Regarding the Taimuri rug fragment pictured in HALI 97, Baluch Style, I believe that fragment is pre-1850. I have also seen a couple Afshar weavings I have no hesitation to date to pre-1850. Just looking at a picture of the pieces does not convey all the information necessary. Touching it, examining it closely and living with it for some time while comparing it to other examples of similar types will assist in this mundane process of assigning a date. As I have stated on cloudband, it is a MULTI-FACTORIAL process by which these rugs can be tentatively considered to be earlier than most of what we see." : : : : Dear Tom, : : : : The Taimuri fragment is splendid. I'm not a Belouch expert, but it has the "look" of an ancient and treasured masterpiece. It could be from 1850 or even 1750, I suppose, but wouldn't you concede that it also could have been woven in 1860 or 1870? The Afshar you advertised in the Marketplace section of that same Hali 97 also looks very old and might be one of the pre-1850 Afshars you believe can be identified as such. : : : : You know that I understand precisely the multi-factorial process. There being no teacher like experience, I have the greatest respect for the opinions of those who have seen and handled lots and lots of rugs. But their opinions are not evidence, such as pictorial records, provenance or scientific testing. : : : : Adages that I have personally used such as a rug having an "old back" or an "old handle" mean everything but prove nothing. The fineness of the wool, the compaction of wefts, the depression of warps, use and abuse are all factors in determining those tactile qualities that we all covet in what we communally refer to as the oldies. Yet those factors do not necessarily have anything to do with age. : : : : Collectively, we don't know, really know, very much about the age of tribal rugs. The participants in this board might gather and agree on a handful of tribal rugs (let's exclude Turkmen here) that could pre-date 1850. But our consensus, I believe, would still be a COULD. : : : : If we collected Old Master paintings, we could learn when, where and by whom the work was done, how many layers of paint there are, who the subject was, the name of the first buyer and even maybe the chain of title. Certainly not true with rugs. : : : : I sometimes find the process extremely frustrating. I've been working off and on for a couple of years on some attribution issues myself and the only conclusion I seem to be able to reach is that the more I learn, the less I know. : : : : Best regards, : : : : Wendel : : : : : : Wendel- That Afshar rug to which you refer is not a pre-1850 piece. And the Baluch fragment probably is not from a post-1850 period. Basing an assessment of age upon condition can also be tricky. Some rugs have been preserved,never used. Some had backs sewn onto them, thus preserving the backs in an unsettling fresh state. The more you learn, the less you know? Absolutely! Having that perspective on knowledge and the learning process is a healthy thing. I, too, share that view. : : The more you learn, the less you know? Well, this is a good advice that you gave me. Please, do not permit me to learn more. Actually, this saying is valid for those who gathered a lot of data but then faced with another difficulty, i.e. analysing the data. As we see in this "why the difference" thread too, we are turning around C14 spirally. C14 is at the center and we are coming close to it when we search for more "solid reference" and going away from it when we don't see any "rigid solid" at the center. : : These are my last words on C14. : : I didn't understand the terminology of C14 well because or necessity of chemistry background that I don't have. But I understood the calibration. it just uses "tree rings" and the tree rings may not be a suitable calibration because of the long age intervals between the rings if I am not wrong (probably wrong). But the next is what I want to say. How about if we use some rugs which their ages are known very accurately? This may help C14 test to give more accurate results if its accuracy range depends on calibration too. : : Regards, : : Erol : Erol, each tree grows a new ring every year, so you cannot complain about long intervals between them. However, your suggestion for verifying C14 dates against textiles of known date is, of course, an excellent one, and perhaps the only one that will convince the skeptics. Indeed, we have already mentioned the success in dating the Ardebil carpet in the L.A. Museum (end of 16th century). It would be nice, however, to obtain results for more recent textiles, say 17th and early 18th century. If anyone out there knows of such results, please check in! : With all this said, one must still strike a note of caution: It is not enough to show that C14 gets the right date for a 17th century rug; one must also show that it doesn't also give a 17th century date for later rugs. : Regards, Yon

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: