Thanks for clarifying your error and, as you can see, our webmaster has changed your post to reflect that admission.
So now on to your questions. We have decided to reprint them here, David, and then to post our replies afterwards in italics.
"To be honest I am not sure that it is a bagface, or yastik like cover, or even a small rug. It seems within the range of size exhibited by bagfaces from this region."
Your piece is not a khorjin face or a yastic -- it is a fragment from a rug.
By the way, David, you have already found that rug type and illustrated an example in clownland where this discussion has gone on for some time now, hasn't it?
"The size of the design elements, in proportion to the medallion as a whole, seem removed from those exhibited by the carpets. This "cartouche cross", with its four lateral "plumes" is striking and dominates the composition in a way not demonstrated by other examples (with which I am familiar).."
This may seem so to you but to eyes more experienced your position is untenable and frankly wrong.
Plus, the idea of a "cartouche cross" is also, in our estimation, incorrect both as terminology and in concept.
"There is a certain orientation of design, as in these corner cartouche with the "branch" elements which suggest a specific top vs. bottom orientation to the composition. And the "T" border also seems to demonstrate this same progression orientation, not found in other examples. The border seems wider, more like a proper border, than other examples. The rounding of the corners also seems more gradual than others. These, all taken together, suggest that this weaving is somehow special and different from the other examples."
Yes this is true, your fragment came from a rug that was older and better than the ones you have cited elsewhere.
"Unfortunately, there seems to be no remnants of any side or end finish, and to judge from the lack of crimping exhibited by the inch or so of weft threads extant on the lateral dimensions(which might indicate wrapping in a side finish?), the weaving is reduced in size by a couple of inches in either direction. I don't rule out the possibility of this being a fragment from a larger carpet, but it does seem to have some characteristics which give pause."
Trust us, David, it is a fragment.
"Maybe what I should be asking is:
1) if there exist any other known caucasian bagfaces with this "cartouche cross" seen in my fragment. I have seen numerous examples of caucasian bagfaces with some form of medallion, but none of this fragments particular motive"
You will not find any equally old, or older, examples with this iconography that were bagfaces. You can bet on that as well, as far as RK is concerned.
"2) on what types of weaving are the "cartouche cross" to be found? With what frequency? Geographic distribution? Particular time frame?"
We do not buy the term "cartouche cross" and, quite frankly, do not even understand how you came to apply this term to that pattern.
There is little doubt what we see here has been derived from the specific lexicon of Caucasian embroidery designs and, we are sure, if you begin to investigate this relationship you will be on the road to understanding where and how your pile fragment came into being.
"All this said, it could just be a fragment from a larger rug."
As we have stated above this is most assuredly the case.