First, let me acknowledge that I am out of my depth with Wendel's question.

But I have graduate student tendencies and a reasonable rug library and sometimes I read things that trigger questions for me.

In her little book "Tribal Rugs," (first published in 1978) Jenny Housego treats Shahsavan weaving on pages 8-12.

She lists several groups of Shahsavan and seems to acknowledge that particular features of the weavings among them are different but on page 9, she writes some sentences that attract my attention and that may be useful in the questions we are considering about the Italian rug and especially the one in this thread.

Here is what Ms. Housego writes:

"...there appear to be several distinguishing factors of Shahsavan pieces. One is the wool which in this part of Iran tends to be somewhat drier and grainy to the touch, as well as being rather darker in color..."

I'm not sure what she means by this sentence. Is she describing modal tendencies in the wool in Shahsavan pieces [and if so are these qualities what the expert Daniel quotes above in the original thread of this title was referring to? (and don't you hate experts who are both conclusionary and utterly elliptical?)] or is she describing the Persian wool in this part of the region and saying that Shahsavan wool is different from it?

On page 10 and 11 Ms. Housego discusses the weaving from the Hashtrud and Khamsa areas and says in this passage:

"...It is the Shahsavan who are responsible for the interesting tribal weaves. It remains an anomaly, however, that designs, colours, and certain techniques are quite distinct from those of the Moghan Shahsavan. The wool is softer, the use of white cotton is rare, colours are more muted, but above all it is in the repertoire of designs that each clan of the Shahsavan that the difference is most apparent. It is likely that traditionally each clan of the Shahsavan had its own designs. These, perhaps, remained intact among groups that were sent south, while the influx of Caucasian tribes into the Moghan Shahsavan in the later nineteenth century significantly influenced the weaving of those who remained behind..."

This second passage seems to me to suggest that she IS saying that the wool used by the Moghan Shahsavans is what she was talking about on page 9, when she uses the words "drier," "grainy," and "darker."

Just below the passage I quoted on page 9, Ms. Housego also talks about forms in Shahsavan pieces that move beyond the geometric.

She says: " Another (ed. distinghishing feature of Shahsavan pieces) is the predeliction of the Persian weaver for incidental detail - human figures, animals, birds, floral or tree forms - interspersed randomly through the main elements. The Caucasian was perhaps more concerned with fineness of weave, clear line and an uncluttered field."

What are we to make of what she says in these passages? Is she giving us something potentially useful to the issues in this thread and salon? Are her 1978 comments still cogent or have they been passed by now by subsequent analysis?

Regards,

R. John Howe

Daniel lamented that what one of the things that puzzle him of the Italian rug is the decorations scattered in the field: the "amulet-like" motifs, the “star in cross” and the "nude humans".

He pointed out that he does not “remember having seen ‘amulet-like’ motif in other rugs than Anatolian, Kurdish rugs from the Garrus area, Lori and other SW Persian rugs” and that “the most striking detail are the ‘star in cross’. I looked to hundreds pictures of rugs without finding ANY ONE showing this extremely rare feature WHILE ‘stars in octagons or hexagons’ are pretty common”.

Indeed there are very few examples of Caucasian carpets with jewelry look-like motifs. One of them is represented by a carpet depicted in plate 75, Caucasian Prayer Rugs. Ralph Kaffel notes: “Depictions of ‘jewellery’ pieces specifically the triangular pendants (daghdan) or amulet cases (turmar) evocative of Turkoman craft, are rarely used as ornamentation in Caucasian weavings….”. The note mentions another Marasali prayer rug carpet (Rippon Boswell, 30 May 1992, lot 141) where there is a similar use of pendants motives.

Another Caucasian carpet with this feature is represented by lot nr. 17 (Shirvan), Lefevre & Partners, London, 25 November 1983.

The “Star in cross” motive, though on a smaller scale than the Italian Rug, appears in plate 63 of Caucasian Prayer Rugs and labeled Daghestan.

Despite the few examples, I think Daniel got the point. The key of this carpet, in my opinion, is in its unusual secondary decoration scattered in the field. I would also add that that this kind of ornamentation is quite uncommon in early Caucasian carpets.

Within the exceptions there are the carpets already mentioned in this Salon (plate 77 in OS and the piece illustrated in Seltene Orientteppische X – Eberhart Herrmann. (EHX42)).

To these examples we can add the rug in lot nr 8 in Lefevre & Co., London 26 May 1978. The carpet is labeled “South-Caucasian Medallion Carpet” and dated to the 18th century. The entry of this lot explains: “While it undoubtedly belongs to the classic tradition and must have been woven in a city workshop … this carpet is intriguing because ornaments and stylized figures usually found in tribal carpets have been inserted amongst the classical palmettes and rosettes”.

Thanks

Guido

I fear that the written descriptions that you quote from Jenny Housego are nearly as useless as the characteristics of Shahsavan pile weaving that I tried to articulate in the first thread on that topic. This is a situation in which pictures and the ability to lay one's hands on examples are absolutely essential to a viable discussion.

However, although I concur with her descriptions, I either don't understand, or else I disagree with this portion: "… the wool … in this part of Iran tends to be somewhat drier and grainy to the touch, as well as being rather darker in color."

Pile weavings that I think are Shahsavan usually have glossy wool and they are generally not dark. Further, the warps are usually quite light in color. Grainy, dry and dark are not adjectives I would ever use to describe what I believe to be Shahsavan weaving.

Jenny will be in DC in the fall and we will have an opportunity to explore some of these issues with her, although she is now long removed from the world of nomadic weavings and has now concentrated on Indian textiles.

Best,

Wendel

Thanks for your, as always, interesting posting. You did extremely good research and the fact that you pointed so few Caucasian rugs showing the “amulet-like” motif is in favor of a “NOT Caucasian attribution”. It’s more easy to say what this rug isn’t than what it is.

As Patrick notices the origin of the “star crossed” may well have come from Holbein rugs.

There is one thing I can’t understand. It’s why so much “rare” devices are scattered in the field of this rug. Does this feature suggest that this rug is out of any tradition and has been woven by a fanciful weaver OR that it has been woven by weavers without “pile rug design” background who have copied and assembled several motifs to create this master piece? If it is, this would be in favor of Wendel’s possible “Shasavan” attribution.

Thanks,
Daniel

This carpet appeared last year (3 April) on the Discussion board of Cloudband. The owner attributed it to Shahsavan.

The carpets border contains the "ashik" motive and in the field there is the cross-star motive that appears in the Italian Rug and that Daniel pointed out.

The obvious reference for this carpet is the rug in the Tanavoli article (Hali 45, fig 7). There are also others - two related rugs that went on sale at SNY, 17 Dec 1999: Lot 151 and Lot 110. The latter is attributed to Shahsavan, Northwest Persia/South Caucasus while the former is labeled Kurdish, East Anatolia. The entry for lot 110 notes that "in this pile weaving, the field of floral boteh reflect Persian designs ... which illustrates the confluence of traditions in this area".
You may recall that also the Italian Rug field contains some boteh look-like motive.

My impression is that this evidence is in favor of Wendel's attribution for the Italian Rug.

Thanks

Guido

As I said, this is not an area in which I can comment with any knowledge, but one thing that sent me back to the Housego passages on Shahsavan weaving was noticing, the one time I saw the Italian rug in the wool, that the color palette seems darker than you usually choose.

And although the pile in the Italian rug is understandibly less than full (and this may disadvantage us in estimating its texture) the wool in it seemed different to me from some of the lighter colored Shahsavan pieces I've handled, which do have a noticably soft wool.

If I am reading Housego correctly, she seems to say that it is Moghan Shahsavan pieces that have darker colors and "drier" wool and those from other areas that exhibit lighter colors and softer wool.

How would you describe the wool in the Italian rug as compared to the lighter colored Shahsavan pile pieces you own?

I am struck by the apparent certainty of the expert Daniel quoted, when he indicated that the character of the wool in the Italian rug makes him sure that it's Shahsavan. Too bad we don't have his description of it too.

Regards,

R. John Howe

You said earlier that the Shahsavan "have and old tradition of flatweaves, and pile rugs would be relatively recent." After the border was closed between Russia and Persia in the 1860's, some of the Shahsavan became sedentary and, presumably began to weave more pile rugs, as is to be expected from villagers.

Having said that, I think it incorrect to conclude that "pile rugs would be relatively recent" and, ipso facto, the Italian rug could not be attributed to the Shahsavan. It is difficult to know which of the more recent pile rugs are Shahsavan. Assessing what they wove in the 18th Century is even more difficult. But this rug MAY provide a clue.

In the end, I can only say that this rug looks and feels to me like a very old Shahsavan and it has characteristics that I associate with Shahsavan pile weaving.

Amulets can be seen in East Caucasian rugs. True, amulets are often seen in Anatolian rugs, but this just isn't Anatolian. And they can be seen in Kurdish and Lori rugs, but this isn't Kurdish or Lori or other SW Persian.

We can't attribute by default, but the structure, handle and several of the minor motifs do give us a Shahsavan indication.

Best regards and thanks for the salon,

Wendel

On the topic of filler motifs, these “X” motifs are commonly found on Shahsavan sumak weavings from the Khamseh district.

Wendel

I am convinced - have been for a long time - that nomads didn't haul around looms that were more than, perhaps, 6 feet wide. But the "Italian Rug" is 4.5 feet wide, which seems not an unreasonable width for a loom that is portable. What is the widest you'd consider likely to be nomadic tribal?

Regards,

Steve Price

Mike is firmly on record that the Shahsavan wove no pile. Period. He believes that Tanavoli, Azadi, Frauenknecht, among others, are simply wrong to suggest that they did.

Wendel