A simple border system seems to be the rule in Early Caucasian blossoms carpets. Most often in these early carpets, the main border contains a vine meandering of small stylized flowers or small palmettes and is flanked by two tiny guard borders.

This picture, which I think is important, shows the only early Caucasian blossom rug I know, having a simple “ashik” border closely related to the border of the Italian rug and the borders seen in Shasavan soumak bags.

SNY-Dec 16 – 1998 – PLATE 119 – 18th century

Can this feature be of any help to attempt to determine an age or an origin for the Italian rug?

Thanks,

Daniel

Your research on this was excellent.

I think the Sotheby's example bears directly on the analytical process that must also be used for the Italian rug. Clearly this looks to me like a "rustic" version of the older blossom carpets, wherein a village (?) weaver copied the more formal elements of a workshop piece. The difference I see between this and the Italian rug is that the Italian rug is more of an interpretation than a copy.

You didn't mention the size, but I would imagine it to be small.

In the Sotheby's rug, "critters" are introduced that would not have been present in the workshop predecessors. Also, it seems that the weaver was not as familiar with the pattern, with the result being that we are uncertain as to exactly what some of the elements are or were.

Some people might be tempted to call this drawing or execution "archaic," but it is clear that this is a later interpretation and is an example of design evolution, denigration or devolution, as you will.

The border is really interesting. I couldn't dispute the 18th Century date. It does help, I think, to date the Italian rug and to establish that, long ago, village or nomadic weavers in the Caucasus and environs were copying or interpreting formal rugs, but using their own simpler border systems.

Wendel

The carpet illustrated in plate 77 of the Kirchheim collection (Orient Stars, page 143) presents a border where the "ashik" motive appears repeatedly, though within other elements.

Michael Franses attributes the carpet to the Karabagh region and dates it to the 18th century. The carpet has a much bigger size than the Italian Rug and, to my eyes, it looks much older.
Nevertheless, some characteristics of this carpet may be relevant to the present discussion.

1) The presence in the upper side of the rug of an "egg-palmette" design that is executed in a rather geometrical way.

2) The presence of a myriad of decorations and motives (including two small animals) that appear randomly scattered in the field of the carpet. This seems quite uncommon in Caucasian carpets of this age.

It may be interesting to note that Franses seems to relate this carpet to the Turkmen tradition because the presence in this carpet design of palmettes with an archaic "guls" resemblance (page 111).

Thanks and congratulations for the interesting Salon,

Guido

I am hesitant to draw any conclusions from the appearance of a Caucasian or other rug or two of relatively greater age with an ashik border. Certainly, I do not see how it helps us much to date or attribute the Italian rug.

I would think the ashik border is another of those that are simply ancient, symmetrical and fundamental in origin. I would suggest even that the origin of the border is not in a knotted pile tradition.

Several familiar village or "tribal" borders appear in dragon rugs, early Turkish and Persian rugs. Among these is the so-called leaf and wineglass. Does this help us necessarily date another village carpet? By itself, only marginally if at all.

Yetkin made the point that the borders of Caucasian carpets, like the field patterns, show both Anatolian and Iranian influences. It is the more angular drawing of the motifs which distinguishes the Caucasian designs. Wendel made the point that village or nomadic weavers in the Caucasus were copying or interpreting more formal rugs and using their own borders. I would generally agree about the first point but do not find the second particularly convincing insofar as it is difficult, if not impossible, to say a border such as the ashik belongs to anyone or any kind of weaver. It is a symmetrical device that is found almost universally in weaving.

Thanks for the Salon and posts, Michael

You should not have read my posting as suggesting that the "ashik" element belongs exclusively to local weavers in the Caucasus region. I had no intention of trying to convince anyone that it belongs to any particular people or area. Quite obviously, it is ubiquitous.

The borders of the Sotheby's rug and the Italian rug do clearly stem from a slit tapestry tradition, possibly suggesting that the weavers of both might be more familiar with that technique. To this extent, the border system is "theirs" and the field design is "someone else's."

I wish we knew more about the structure of the Sotheby's rug.

Wendel

Guido, I am glad you noticed the big (216 x 546cm) carpet illustrated in plate 77 of Orient Stars (OS77). Like you, when I prepared this Salon I feel there where some relations between some motifs and the layout of this rug and the Italian rug. This rug is without doubt a workshop product and Shusha is one place where such big carpets could have been woven.

A more rustic version of OS77, is illustrated in Seltene Orientteppische X – Eberhart Herrmann. (EHX42) – 18th century – 170 x 222 cm -

As all the readers don’t have these two books, it may be of interest to show the two rugs side by side. Reading back your post they will clearly see what you told.

I looked also to the Ballard Yomut carpet but don’t see any clear relations and don’t think it is worth to post a photo of it here.

OS77, EHX42, the Meyer Muller rug and other famous Eastern Anatolian palmette rugs are may be representative of a "new style" which emerged at the end of the 18th. Maybe the Italian rug is another example of this new style.

Wendel, I agree with you. The SNY blossom rug illustrated in my first posting, with two four legs "critters" drawn in the central medallion is clearly a more rustic version of older blossom carpets. The sizes of this rug are 157 x 213 cm .

Commenting the ubiquitous "ashik" border you suggest that the weavers of the Italian rug may have a "slit tapestry weave" background. Are you thinking to any specific group of weavers?

Thanks for all your very interesting comments,

Daniel

You asked whether I have in mind any group of weavers more familiar with slit tapestry that might have woven the Italian rug. Since several commentators, including Parviz Tanavoli, have suggested Shahsavan, I will make a separate post on that possibility.

Wendel

When I handled this rug, I thought it was a Shirvan, now I am less sure. I wonder whether you could comment not only on the shahsavan label, but also any attributions that you may have considered. The ashik border, by itself, does not seem like much to go on.

Thanks, Michael

When Parviz wrote that article in 1989, Hali inserted images and made certain changes without first consulting Parviz. The Kurdish panel is clearly not Shahsavan. Others are questionable but the argument made by most of the images is, I believe, sound.

Daniel's introduction speaks to Parviz having seen the Italian rug for the first time in Milan in 1999, but Parviz asserted quite positively to me then his belief that it is Shahsavan and "very old."

I will try to persuade Parviz to participate in this discussion. He has lived among the Shahsavan and is an astute observer of their culture and products. Nevertheless, the determination of exactly what is and what is not Shahsavan remains largely subjective or intuitive. The Italian rug does not yield to simple attribution.

Wendel

Orient Stars has been a rich source of images and information for me in this salon. Look at plate 44, Kasim Ushag design silk embroidery from Azerbaijan and the 17th Century, where you will see an image strikingly close to the Sotheby's rug.

The most interesting aspect is the border. It switches from a simplified kochanek motif to a simple S border. The simplicity of the border is comparable in style (not design) to that of the Sotheby's rug.

Wendel