If you carefully read what RK wrote you will see we never said the Anatolian fragment is Saryk, nor did we intimate it was.
Rather we stated, and will continue to provide more evidence, it is the progenitor of what Turkmen carpet collectors have referred to as the Saryk 'timurchin' gul.
We have often stated the belief many Turkmen collectors, researchers and 'scholars' have in the name-game system for Turkmen rugs -- this is a Tekke, this is a Yomud, this is a Saryk -- might be completely valid for post-1850 examples but for earlier historic examples it might not hold as true, or even be valid.
A name-tag like "S" group, or "Eagle-group 1/2/3", is far more positive and valid because these terms, and other like them, are based on verifiable structural analysis and not on extrapolating what existed in 1880 to what existed in 1780, or 1580.
Current 'scholarship' of Turkmen rugs is full of highly debatable data and until the materials, and yes structures, are carefully studied and the results compiled into data-bases this highly debatable situation will continue.
The pre-1800 ethnographic history of Turkmen group habitation and movement is extremely helpful, however, it is not exactly voluminous and more importantly it does not in even one instance connect any weaving now extant with a particular group.
We will soon post the next installment of our comparison of the ancient Saryk MC with this anatolian fragment. So stay tuned...
What makes you say that this is Saryk?