Home > Rug, Kelim, Soumak, Textile Post Archive >An Interesting Rug at Sartirana 2019
email: [email protected]
Thu, Nov 14th, 2019 09:36:16 AM
Topic: An Interesting Rug at Sartirana 2019

The interesting rug fragment offered at Sartirana

It's easy to talk and shoot off your mouth and this is what usually happens in rugDUMB. Few pundits really know anything past the obvious, and those that do rarely share their information in public.

So this leaves a dirth of reliable information for anyone who is searching for knowledge.

This is the main reason RK keeps rugkazbah.com online to provide reliable information, and second to do it so anyone who might disagree can voice their objections.

Of course both these reasons mean little in the petty amateurish self-centered world of carpet collecting where someone's name, and not the reliability of their information, is a primary element for belief.

At the recent Sartirana show in Turin one of the exhibitors offered the rug above. We do not know the price or who bought it, but this has nothing to do with making heads or tails of it.

It has an obviously rare, perhaps unique, design but this factor is the least important to ascertain where it was made and when. Forget trying to say by whom, or even any specific location where.

Some discussion has gone on over at fa-R-cebook, and as usual it is basically worthless chatter along with punditary posting of rug pics that they feel are similar. None of which in this case had any relevance.

Its amazing to RK that at this point in time ruggies cannot get it through their thick noggins design is the least indicative factor to provenance a weaving.

Structure does not lie but design does, as it is far easier to copy the design of an earlier rug than it is to weave it exactly like an original.

Add to that wool quality and color, both not very easily duplicated.

Designs can tell us something but great care is required to find such clues and then properly understand them.

In this case the border is an important clue because it is not found on any early, aka pre.1800, Anatolian rugs. In fact, it is not even Anatolian but rather one seen often on ShahSevan weavings from farther east.

Now we are not claiming this fragment is ShahSevan, only that it is not very Anatolian,

Also the weave is completely unlike anything that is Anatolian.

detail of the rug above reverse

Of course none of the internet punditary class have mentioned this important fact.

Now then, it appears from this photo the warps are cotton. Maybe this is an incorrect reading; however if it is not, this also points to non-Anatolian origin.

It could very well be a Persian village rug, perhaps Afshar?

The lack of anything similar from Anatolia and the extreme rarity of Persian village rugs made prior to the middle 19th century complicates any such conjecture.

Saying what it is DEFINITELY not -- central Anatolian -- is far easier than saying what it is.

But just based on the weave, without the cotton warp question, the color combination, tone and sensibility and the outer border, it is a no-brainer to say this is NOT an Anatolian weaving made in any village, town, city or workshop. Forget the well-worn out label Karapinar.

It's an interesting rug we'd guess is middle 18th to early 19th.

We do not like it a whole helluva lot, but do think it is a worthy and interesting piece of work.

We likewise do not see it as eminently beautiful or valuable.

But it was, as far as we could see from our virtual perusal of the offerings from the various dealers at Sartirana, the best buy at the show.

Remember, race fans, it's not the design but rather the structure, colors and wool quality that are the decisive facts to base any opinion on, other than someone likes it.

And until we would get the opportunity to handle it we cannot say what it is, but we'll stick to our guns it is not Anatolian.

Author: RK
email: [email protected]
Thu, Nov 14th, 2019 09:36:16 AM

Earlier this morning we received the latest postings on the Sartirana rug faRcebook thread.

Someone posted a picture of the reverse of an Anatolian rug that has marked similarities of weave to the Sartirana rug. He falsely and quite absurdly claimed it was a Karapinar.

This was based on an ludicrous attribution he got from michael craycraft, someone whose claims about rugs were more often than not just as laughable.

The rug is definitely not Karapinar but rather Karaman, a very easily determined attribution.

Here are those pictures alongside one of the reverse of the Sartirana rug.

Left: Detail of the front of the Karaman rug; Middle: Detail of the reverse of the Karaman rug; Right Detail of the Sartirana rug

Does look quite similar, however, absolutely nothing else about these two rugs is similar.

Most importantly the style of drawing the crisp articulation of motif in the Sartirana rug and the completely opposite amorphous and indistinct drawing in this Karaman, and all others of this type, belie there could be any relationship.

But thats not all the Karaman rug and all its brothers have long pile height, something quite different from the Sartirana rug, which even when it was brand new had a much lower pile height.

Plus the type of wool differs as well. The Sartirana rug has dry dull wool while the Karaman rug and all others of its type have shiny, glossy. oily wool.

So the single fact both have depressed warps and very tightly pulled weft that allow the warp thread to show through on the back has little meaning to try and propose a connection between these two rugs.

Also wear has abraded the backs of both rugs and increased the visibility of those warp threads.

So it back to the ole drawing board for the faRcebook jockys to try and substantiate a central Anatolian, and specifically a Karapinar, origin for the Sartirana rug.

Author: jc
email: [email protected]
Tue, Nov 12th, 2019 09:32:06 AM

RK has now read further comments by faRcebook jockey peter scholten, which appear below. They were made as an attempt to counter our position on this rug and bolster his.

We have added ours in italics and let readers be the judge if he succeeded..

Peter Scholten: Just read Cassin's take on this fragment. I agree on the dating (I'd put it around 1750), but that's about all, and his reasoning makes no sense to me.

Well, peter, if our reasoning makes no sense how were you then able to comment about it with the specifity youve mustered.

Better said would have been you do not agree because if it did not make sense how would you be able to comment?

So say what you mean and mean what you say.

And yes it is perfectly clear you are just trying to denigrate what RK said with hot air innuendo.

PS: He starts by claiming that the key is in the minor border which, he says, only appears further east.

RK did not say the border was key. Again you are not being exact, just fishing around trying to dismisss what RK said.

Here is what we wrote about the border:

Designs can tell us something but great care is required to find such clues and then properly understand them.

In this case the border is an important clue because it is not found on any early, aka pre.1800, Anatolian rugs. In fact, it is not even Anatolian but rather one seen often on ShahSevan weavings from farther east.

Now we are not claiming this fragment is ShahSevan, only that it is not very Anatolian,

Also the weave is completely unlike anything that is Anatolian.

There is a big difference between the word key that scholten puts in our mouth and the word clue that RK used.

Also, mr scholten, go show us all any circa 1750 or earlier Anatolian village rug with a weave like the Sartirana rug has. You cant because none exists, as it is not Anatolian.

This, its weave dear mr scholten, is key to refuting any Anatolian orgin, and it is not surprising you avoided this point.

PS: He suggests Shahsevan and then goes along with the Luri suggestion.

Again, this is grossly misstating our position. RK never mationed the word Luri, and only stated the border is one found on ShahSevan weavings.

Here is what we said: In fact, it is not even Anatolian but rather one seen often on ShahSevan weavings from farther east.

Now we are not claiming this fragment is ShahSevan, only that it is not very Anatolian.

So again mr scholten is caught putting words in RKs mouth that we never uttered.

He does this to try and twist our position into one he can then refute. Sorry, scholten this is not the way to argue your case.

PS: This border is not found in Anatolia, he says. Les Tunas, however, shows us that that is not the case. Cassin later acknowledges that it does occur, but on workshop carpets. So, it was in the Anatolian design repertoire and, as was commonly done, was adapted in village weaving.

While what scholten says here has some validity, he once more twists it to try to prove his point.

Regardless there are one or two instances where this specific border, and not ones that look like it but are not really the same, appear on classical worshop weavings, there is absolutely no evidence it was in the Anatolian village rug design repertoire, as scholten states.

This is nothing but undocumented and unsupportable overstatement and exaggeration. For were it fact there would be lots more instances where this border would appear in village rugs.

And there are none, only one or two Oushak workshop classical rugs with it.

Plus the wholesale idea of early village capet weavers adopting workshop classical carpet designs is highly debatable, as the converse -- classical carpet weavers being influenced by early village carpet designs -- is equally as plausible

PS: So, the border argument falls flat

If the tiny number, actually two, instances of this border showing up in Anatolian weavings, and only workshop ones, make our argument fall flat what about the countless instances this specific border appears in non-Anatolian weavings?

We suggest the only thing falling flat here is scholtens belly-flop into the pool of reality.

Not to mention his twisting our words once more.

PS:...He then suggests that it has some cotton warps. Muhammet Solak says it is old restoration and my hunch is he's right.

Unfortunately this picture of the back of the rug does not have high enough resolution but it is good enough for the following conclusions.

1. As Muhammet Solak correctly says, and was obvious to us before he did, there is an area of repair where what appears to be cotton warps were used. We have marked it 1.>>

However, almost everywhere else there are little white specks, as markings 2.>>, 3.>> and 4.>> show. These are places where the warps are visible.

Now then, the fact these specks are so white is convincing enough to believe they are not wool but most likely cotton.

These are undoubtedly and definitely the rugs original warps. So while area 1.>>s white warps can be explained away as being cotton used for the repairs that explanation does not cover all the other places where white specks can be seen.

PS: So, that argument for not being central Anatolian fails, also....

Does it? Only if you believe scholten is not misstating our position, or that all those white specks are anything but the original warps, and they are most probably wool, not cotton.

PS: He claims that it has an odd color composition not found in Anatolia. For me, these are classic Karapinar colors...

They are?

Please mr scholten show all of us two central Anatolian village rugs, or even one, that have the drab, dry look this Sartirara rug shows.

And while you are at it show us the weave they have is comparable to the Sartirana rug.

Bet you dollars to donut holes scholen cannot.

PS: He suggests Afshar, for no reason I can discern, apart from the use of tulips in the design.

RK threw out the idea it might be Afshar based on the lack of any other suitable provenance, and because the Afshar (Avshar) were a large and very widely spread group whose territories bridged many weaving areas and styles.

But not central Anatolia.

Also while they must have been weaving rugs before the 19th century none are known. Could this be one was our idea.

And we never mentioned tulips, so for scholten to ascribe the tulip idea to RK is nothing but another of his attempts to play ventriloquist.

PS: What he seems to forget is that, a couple paragraphs earlier he's just told us that structure, and not design, is the only way to attribute rugs. The weave on the fragment in question doesn't remind me of any Afshar I can bring to mind (Cassin would, probably, say we don't know enough about 18th c. Persian tribal weaving. To which I'd say "then why bring it up?")....

Yes, about structure? RK only alluded to the Sartirana rug being Afshar while scholten boldly declares it is central Anatolian, specifically Karapinar. While it is plain to see from the photo above it structurally has nothing in common with any central Anatolian weavings.

Again RK asks scholten to show us any Anatolian village rug with a back like the Sartirana rug.

We never said its weave looked like any Afshar but it looks more like an Afshar weave than any Anatolian Village rug we have ever seen.

And here is another observation: Even though this picture is not high enough resolution this rug does appear to possibly be single-wefted. More about this follows.

PS: And, finally, Cassin completely ignores the classic Karapinar style of drawing without outlining....

Sorry to bust balloons but there is NO classic Karapinar style of anything.

Looking at the numerous and sundry rugs and carpets called karapinar there is hardly anything they have in common. Weaves, colors, design schemes are all over the board.

The lack of outlining seen in some few rugs attributed to Karapinar is a valid point. However, since it is not close to universal and there are other non-Karapinar rugs with this design anomaly, claiming it is the lynch pin of provenance for the Sartirana rug is highly questionable.

PS:In the end, the only conclusion Cassin is really willing to get behind is that it is DEFINITELY NOT central Anatolian. To which, I say "baloney".

He might say baloney but he has done little to nothing to prove it is central Anatolian.

Proving it is something, in this case Karapinar, is much less plausible than RKs proving it isnt something , ie. a central Anatolian village rug, or even a mythic karapinar hamlet and surrounding vicinity weaving.

In closing and after giving the puzzle of where the Sartirana rug was made, or by whom, much thought RK wants to narrow our original farther east than Karapinar to another arrow shot in the dark: it was made by some branch of the Veramin/Baluch weaving confederations who inhabited extreme northwest Iran near the Caspian Sea.

This might explain the rather dull coloration, the highly unusual depressed warp and possible single-weft structure.

Sure it is a puzzle but scholten and all the other pundits who believe it is a Karapinar rug have no proof other than the lack of design outlining, which is no leg to stand on.

The weave is so unlike anything ever called karapinar, and thats a multitude of dissimilar weavings, that thinking it was made there has to be belief in the realms of the Loch Ness monster, BigFoot, and building #7 just fell down because of structural damage.

The Sartirana rug is a fooler, and what few facts there are point not to a village weaving from karapinar, but something made farther east, likely in a workshop-type environment or one made for sale and not use.

Look at the weave. The picture does not lie, nor does it say karapinar. Back to the drawing board faRcebook jockeys, particularly you peter scholten.

Author: RK
email: [email protected]
Wed, Nov 6th, 2019 12:13:05 PM

The faRcebook crowd has been lit up by RK's comments. Regrettably much of that fire has centered on trying to diss RK and not substantively discuss the issues we raised.

One vorciferous farcebook jockey, massoud milani who is a Paris flea-marketeer, faRcebook group 'admin', and self-professed carpet expert, moans and groans about RK and wants to duke it out with us over at faRcebook.

He even claims to have originated the idea the rug was made well east of Anatolia, he says Persian. However, it is perfectly clear our suggestion it was made far east of Anatolia predates any from him.

He also claims we only learned of the rug through faRcebook, which is another bogus lie as someone who attended Sartirana sent us a picture before it was presumably sold.

And on top of all that milani claims we also only learned about Sartirana through farcebook when in fact we have known about it since its first iteration, and even attended the fair in 2010.

Like most of the wanna-bes in rugDUMB milani is a mag-pie flapjaw whose commentary is as worthless as using a broken clock to tell time.

Another jockey ali reza tuna, aka tuna fish, posted a photo of an Oushak rug with the same minor obrder in hopes of dashing asunder our thoughts about it. However, dear mr tuna-fish, our point this border is not found on any Anatolian rugs concerned Village rugs and not workshop products like that Oushak. We thought in context this was clear but a re-reading showed us we were not specific enough. Regardless, early Anatolian village rugs are far less adulterated than workshop examples, something the rug in question surely is. Sorry, try again mr. tuna fish.

Another jockey claims RK based his comments on the possible presence of a cotton warp. But in fact anyone who can read the King's english would see we only questioned this and based nothing else upon it.

This all, and plenty more, is a perfect example of why RK eschews participation in faRcebook and refuses to engage anyone on that platform.

Any and everyone is welcome to post here on RugKazbah.comand we'll be glad to discuss with them topics of their chosing.

Also unlike faRcebook RK does not collect your personal information, require registration, censor or delete anything anyone posts, besides what is considered vile and dsgusting by contemporary standards.

Home   Buy/Sell at the Kazbah   Terms Of Service

© 2002/2019 rugkazbah.com ©