| Dear All, Unless I missed them in one of the longer threads in
Daniel's very interesting and useful salon, I haven’t seen suggestions
that commercial considerations may have influenced the design similarity
of these pieces. One reason these carpets share similar designs but
different structures might be that weavers of different ethnic groups in
the same region may have found that this design sold. After all, these
pieces would have been made at a time when there was demand for such rugs
in the West. The Memling gul was already a familiar and popular design in
Europe and such a carpet would have great appeal and probably fetch a good
price. Given that most of the finer Caucasian rugs were woven to be sold
and probably exported, is it not likely that the weavers (or the middlemen
financing the weavers) adopted designs that were most popular? Look at all
the very fine Shirvan prayer rugs that ended up in Europe and the US in
the late 19th and early 20th centuries, without much evidence that they
were ever prayed upon or even meant to be prayed upon. To my eye, these do
not look like strictly “tribal” pieces; they look like luxury items that
were woven for sale, gifts, or trade. Unless they were all dowry
weavings,they don’t look like specifically “ethnic” pieces that would
necessarily have had a common or ritual use within a specific tribe, as
would be the case with very fine Turkmen weavings. That is not say that
whoever wove these lovely pieces may not have had one in their dwelling,
(tent,village house?) for special occasions, but can we rule out the
likelihood that these designs were chose more to satisfy a particular
taste among buyers in New York, London, Vienna or St. Petersburg than to
preserve or transmit traditional designs? With apologies for suggesting
something as prosaic as commercial motives in producing such handsome
pieces, Regards, Ken |