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...
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.