Salon du Tapis d'Orient

Now to the rugs themselves.  First, it might be good to note that although sometimes different and more precise attributions are given for the pieces the catalog, a remarkable number of them are assigned (sometimes quite tentatively) to the Manisa Province.  The Manisa Province is on the north side of several often referred to as “the Aegean.”  Here is a link to a map that my make that location clearer. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Turkey_aegean_region.png 

The rugs are presented in the catalog in stylistic groups.

Early West Anatolian Rugs in Transylvania 

Rugs Attributed to the Usak and Selendi Regions 

“Transylvanian” Rugs with Iranian Design Influences 

Egyptian Rugs with Designs Related to Western Anatolian Rugs [I am not sure these were included in the exhibition (they do not have exhibition numbers), but they have their own section in the exhibition portion of the catalog.] 

“Transylvanian” Rugs with Ottoman Designs 

Two Ottoman Kilims
 

Below I have provided you one or more of each of these types, hoping that I am not violating “fair use” practice in the process. 

I am also going to include one Anatolian rug from the catalog that makes no claim to being a Transylvanian piece, but is famous and possibly related.

 

Early West Anatolian Rugs in Transylvania 

The piece below is number 5 in the exhibition.  

The gallery label reads in part: 

The Grunblatt Interlaced-Gul and Cross Rug
Possibly Bergama region, west Anatolia
Late 15^th or early 16^th century
154 x 220 cm, wool pile on a wool foundation 

The comment includes: “…The Grunblatt rug is an excellent example of the way in which on rugs of this group the drawing of the central octagons and eight-pointed stars in the center of the interlaced-Gul is generally much better conceived than the interlace on the perimeter, which is rarely well drawn…”  It also suggests that this border design is rarely found on “Interlaced-Gul and Cross rugs.”
 

Rugs Attributed to the Usak and Selendi Regions 

The piece below is number 14 in the exhibition.

 

The Budapest Scorpion Carpet
Possibly Selendi region, late 16^th or early 17^th century
143 x 201 cm, wool pile on wool foundation 

The descriptive paragraph says in part: 

“…The large floral emblems are part of a language whose form and meaning have evolved and changed over the centuries:  they probably originally represented a mythical creature, in combat with a second animal and later this motif was thought to represent a scorpion and that is the source of this rug’s designation.  The catalog seems to suggest that there are only four “scorpion” rugs known, two still in Transylvanian churches.
 

“Transylvanian” Rugs with Iranian Design Influences
 

This group of rugs is divided into three “periods:” first, second and third.  I have included one example in each of these periods. 

The rug below is number 19 in the exhibition catalog.
 

Here are some of the specifics of its description.

The Budapest First-Period “Transylvanian” Double-Niche Rug
Possibly central Manisa Province
Late 16^th or early 17^th century
132 x 172 c, wool pile on wool foundation 

The catalog comment in includes an indication that the “double-niche” designs from the first period are rarer than the single-niche ones.  It may not be self-evident but all of the rugs in this group have “a large lamp hanging at each end of the field.”  I personally like the contrast provided by the dark blue field ground color.

 

The piece below is number 20 in the exhibition catalog.
 

 

The Sibiu Second-Period “Transylvanian” Double-Niche Rug
Possibly Manisa Province, mid-17^th century
125 x 175 c, wool pile on wool foundation 

The catalog description says that there are fifteen rugs in this “second period” group (1675 – mid 17^th century).  It also estimates that there are likely “no more than 60 surviving first period and second period ‘Transylvanians’,” including those in western collections. Most have the “lamps” we saw in the first-period example above, but here the lamps have been replaces with large flowers.  The catalog description also indicates that the majority has the field corner treatment visible here with rosettes and large leaves.

The rug below is number 24 in the exhibition catalog.
 

The Gaspar-Foris Third-Period “Transylvanian” Double-Niche Rug
Possibly Manisa Province, early 18^th century
122 x 155 cm, wool pile on a wool foundation
Inscription: “N. Foris Martonne Gaspar Kata adta Adam Ek. 1800”
 

The catalog description calls this rug “charming,” but also says that it “shows how many design elements have become stereotyped by the early 18^th century.”  But it is still seen to retain “some delightful individual characteristics.”  The “minor borders, in particular, the inner one are unusual and beautifully executed.”

 

Egyptian Rugs with Designs Related to Western Anatolian Rugs
 

At this point in the catalog one encounters the group of rugs described in the title above.  I am not sure that they were included in the exhibition (they are given different catalog numbers) but they are treated integral to the catalog presentation of the exhibition rugs. 

I am going to show you two of the pieces in this group, the first because I think it is striking, the second for reasons that will become apparent.

The rug below is catalog number E1.

 

 The Bode Mamluk Keyhole Rug with Cloudbands.
Cairo, first quarter 16^th century
120 x 162 cm, wool pile on a wool foundation 

The catalog comment on this rug includes:  “The unique Keyhole niche rug made in Cairo may owe its design origins to Anatolia.  Rugs with Keyhole or “Bellini” devices were being made in the Bergama and Usak regions of west Anatolian – and exported from there – from the second half of the 15^th century…” 

I think the niche treatment is very interesting and the cloudband border unusual and functional.

The rug below is catalog number E3. 

The Pollack Plain Field Ottoman Niche Rug
Cairo, second half of the 16^th century
123 x 183 cm, wool pile on silk foundation 

The catalog comment includes an indication that the niche treatment in this piece is similar to that in some “Transylvanian” rugs attributed to Kula and Ghiordes. 

I have included this second piece in this small group because, despite the rather complex designs, most of the “Transylvanian” pieces in this exhibition have signs that they are village rugs not those of an atelier. For example, silk is rarely used and the borders are almost always “butted.”  But this rug is different.  It is not only on a silk structure but its drawing has a finished precision usually the hallmark of “city” production.  All of the corners of its sumptuously rich main border are carefully mitered.  I think the careful execution of this rug separates it from the others in this exhibition.

“Transylvanian” Rugs with Ottoman Designs

 

I present three examples for this group.  The first two are very similar and I offer them both so that you can compare them.  A number of the other pieces in this group exhibit columns in their designs and I have also included one “column” rug. 

The rug below is number 27 in the catalog. 

 
The Sibiu Beige-Ground Plain Niche Rug
Probably southern Manisa Province, late 17^th century
124 x 169 cm, wool pile on a wool foundation 

The comment suggests comparison with a 16^th century Egyptian rug in the catalog (E2) for similarities in the spandrels. 

I want to attract your attention to its main border.  Look closely at its design and how it is executed on this piece (there will be a test ).

The similar rug I want to show you is number 28 in the catalog.
 

 

The Mays Beige-Ground Plain Niche Rug
Possibly southern Manisa Province, late 17^th century
132 x 175 cm, wool pile on a wool foundation
Inscription: “1720 D. Mays” 

The spandrel on this rug is a little different from that on the previous one, but I find the extra “lobe” at each side at the bottom adds aesthetic interest for me.  The inscription includes the date when it was donated to a Transylvanian church. 

The task I have for you is to compare the quite similar main borders on rugs 27 and 28 and to describe the differences you see.

The third rug in this group is number 34 in the catalog. 

The Csanyi Six-Column Niche Rug
Possibly eastern Manisa Province, late 17^th century
124 x 163 cm, wool pile on a wool foundation 

The descriptive paragraph says that most “coupled-column” niche rugs belong to a group that was woven in Usak Province. It also describes various features of the design varieties within them.  This piece, which may be from Manisa Province, has a “rosette in a lattice of stems” border that also occurs on one other piece in the broader group.

 

Two Ottoman Kilims

 

The last piece in this exhibition is an Ottoman kilim numbered 39 

 

The Bode Ottoman Prayer Kilim
Western Anatolia, 18^th century or earlier
114 x 169 cm, (ed. it says “wool pile,” but I’m pretty sure they mean “wool decoration”) on a wool foundation.
 

The catalog description suggests that this piece seems likely to be the product of a “specific professional workshop.”  It cautions that “the decidedly Ottoman nature of the floral motifs, especially the tulips” is not sufficient to tie this piece to the “court.”  Only one closely similar, but fragmented, piece is known.  It is acknowledged that there are similar more “rural” Anatolian kilims.

 

That is the end of the exhibition rugs, but I want to show you one more from one of the articles in the catalog.  Chapter 7 is “The history of the Turkish rug in Berlin.”  It treats, among other things the collecting of Wilhelm von Bode on of the early directors of the Museum of Applied Arts, in Berlin.  Von Bode both collected personally and bought rugs for this museum.  Perhaps his most famous purchase is of the rug below. 

The catalog labeling of this rugs is 

The Von Angeli Cloudband Niche Carpet
West Anatolia, 16^th century
120 x 180 cm, wool pile on a wool foundation

There is no suggestion that this rug is a “Transylvanian” rug.  Bode bought it for von Angeli in Venice, but later brought it back from him.  But it is attributed to the area where the “Transylvanian” rugs were made and is included in this catalog.  Its wonderful colors and strong graphic impact make it a piece, too tempting not to share with you (many will know it well) given the slightest chance.  This piece resides in the Museum of Islamic Art, Berlin. 

Although the Vakiflar and TIEM exhibitions were likely unsurpassed in the comprehensive richness of their material,  I think the "Transylvanian" exhibition was the best of the more focused ones I saw at ICOC XI.

Comments and corrections are invited. 

Regards, 

R. John Howe