The LACMA/dodds "Bellini" rug was C14 tested at Arizona State University's(ASU) accelerator mass spectrometry(AMS) laboratory. Dr. Timothy Jull is the head scientist there and RK has spoken to him at length about his procedures and processes.
We have spoken to other C14 scientists as well, including Dr. Bonani, who did the testing for rageth's book project.
From our discussions with these two, and several other scientists, we came away believing Dr. Jull was the "man".
However, as impressed as we were with Jull and his methodology one important point needs to be mentioned.
When the Shroud of Turin was tested in 1988, ASU and Jull were chosen as one of the three participating labs.
All three, including ASU/Jull, pronounced the Shroud to be medieval (1250-1360) and not Biblical.
Since then, new tests have been done and those results negate the 1988 results and point to the Shroud being at least twice as old and perhaps even 2000 years old.
We mention this as just another reason to put into proper perspective any C14 date -- they are not fact but, once again, nothing more than opinion.
The inherent problems of calibration and contamination are manifest and anyone who makes light of them, or dismisses them completely as one online turko-idiot recently did, is no better than those who much mistakenly believed the world was flat.
C14 is nothing more than another tool to use in any attempt to date an undated object. It must be used in conjunction with other tools and concerning the LACMA/dodds "Bellini" no honest intellect would place absolute reliance on the C14 date without as seriously considering what an art historical comparison demonstrates.
RK has done already done this and it is online for all to see.
So, like the now discredited C14 dating of the Shroud of Turin, we may all see today's 1460-1650 dating of the LACMA/dodds "Bellini", regardless of the 95.4% probability, also disregarded.
One thing is sure, dodds's "Bellini" doesn't hold a candle in comparison to any other example that genuinely is pre-1700.
Just for grins we would like to republish the picture of the rug which we believe was the "model" and archetype for whoever made the LACMA/dodds "Bellini". It was published as part of our art historical assessment of Turkish "Bellini" re-entrant rugs
Here is our original post concerning this relationship, which like many other we have published about the LACMA/dodds dud of a "Bellini" is still online in our "LACMA's Questionable Rug Purchase" Topic Area.
While the archetypal example illustrated above does not appear on first take to be the model, for the later example LACMA now owns, that dissimilarity begins to dissipate when these two rugs are carefully compared.
The highly unusual, and in fact unique, added elem or border panel the LACMA rug displays at both ends appears to be an "interpretation' of the one our archetype features. This is the strongest link between these two somewhat disparate rugs.
Note the archetypal versions elem panel is only at one end, as another design can be seen in its place at the other end. The use of different designs for elem panels is far more in keeping with pre-19th century weaving traditions and this is just one more criteria implying the LACMA rug is circa 1800, as RK has maintained since beginning our opposition to LACMA's coverup, run and hide the facts modus operandi .
The archetype and the LACMA rug also share a double re-entrant design but this convention is almost unheard of in genuinely old pre-1650 -- "Bellini" rugs.
The examples in the paintings of Bellini and other artists of the 16th century are invariably prayer rugs with only one "re-entrant" at the bottom of the field and not two opposing ones like the archetypal and the LACMA version demonstrate.
By the way, the archetypal example probably dates circa 1700 and comparing the two totally negates any possibility LACMA's is older, or even as old, as it is.
The ragged-leaf border, another design facet found in later post circa 1600, "Bellini" rugs, is another area of common ground. Again the articulation it receives in the archetypal rug runs circles around the plain jane version LACMAs rug advances.
Clearly on every criterion the archetypal example is an older and better rug, although it is more provincial and unbridled than the LACMA example, which apes the "classical" model.
However the stiff uninspired drawing, the monotonous and limited coloration and, most significantly, the displaced and misunderstood design conventions, like placing an inner field demarcated by the borders connecting two 're-entrant' right against the inner guard border, can not help but prove it is a late, genre copy.
Mentioning it in the same breath with the great examples bearing Bellini's name, or even a unique and genuinely old example like our archetype, is nothing more than meaningless hot air.
In fact, in RK's world it is blasphemy and a disgrace to all the weavers who created the masterpieces of Early Turkish Village weaving that have come down to us.
And, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, LACMAs aint one of those.