Home > LACMA's Questionable Rug Purchase >The LACMA/dodds Rug's Probable Archetype
Sat, Dec 31st, 2005 06:56:20 PM
Topic: The LACMA/dodds Rug's Probable Archetype

In our last posting on this topic we pictured a border detail from a rug we feel provides the best archetypal version of what the weaver(s) of the LACMA/dodds piece endeavored to copy.

We mistakenly mentioned it had already been published here on RK.com but after doing some checking it appears never to be have been illustrated herein.

Therefore, without further ado here it is:

We will, in time, add some pertinent comments along with a cogent comparison of this early rug, some others of the “type” and the one the Los Angeles County Art Museum(LACMA) refuses to recognize as nothing more than a late genre copy.

Author: Cevat Kanig
Sat, Dec 31st, 2005 06:56:20 PM

RK Replies:

Every cloud has a silver lining.

Some clouds, however, are all silver.

RK.com will not miss you, your intransigence in believing your rug miasma when faced with fact and truth or any of your lopsided views and theories.

As for your having "waisted" your time or spilled your pearls before swine?

Puhleeeze, saying this after we told you to go packing is truly beyond comprehension.

We will not pine away for your "teaching" us what is "the right and the wrong".

And you won’t have to “waist” your time “checking” RK.com or trying to enter anonymously.

And by the way, cevat, a lot has happened in that 1 year you so disparagingly dismiss or did you forget:

1. Walter Denny repositioned his dating for the carpet 100 to 200 years later than he did originally. “Circa 1650-1750 but at the very end of that continuum" is a major revision and NB: we're on record from the getgo dating it 1750-1800.

2. Solely because of our effort an article appeared in the Los Angeles Times and, while it was 'shoot the messenger', ample evidence of LACMA's culpability leaked out -- not the least of which was the assistant director, nancy thomas, stating now the Museum knew it was 100 to 200 years older "...made no difference…”

To say this is preposterously stupid is too kind and her utterance flies in the face of what any credible one would be upon learning that information.

3. The only reason for LACMA’s post-purchase "dye analysis" and “C14 dating” is a response to RK’s crusade. We are sure the impending presentation of that data will only splatter more muck on LACMA doorstep and mire them deeper in doo doo.

No, cevat, you and others who still hold dear the notion the LACMA/dodds rug is 17th century, a “masterpiece of its type” as dodds told all who would listen, or museum worthy as LACMA is vainly trying to prove are foolish and uninformed.

So, now, to just say goodbye to you will surely not accurately express RK's feelings,


Education only covers your intelligentsia but stupidity stays forever.

Jack, I can’t discuss anything with you at any more, you have attitude problem that I can’t take and I do not like to argue with you neither, I can’t spend my time on you to teach you what is the right and the wrong, your web site started to bore me, unchanged music and the movies, it is sucks, past year you issued a topic which is not correct and keep writing about it I full year, it looks we waist our times to checking your side, we thought we may learn some think from you but I am sorry that I waste my time on you for nothing.


Author: Cevat Kanig
Sat, Dec 31st, 2005 03:08:11 AM

RK Replies: As expected you have only posted more of the same weak or fallacious arguments.

While they might sound reasonable to anyone who is a complete rug novice, half-blind or worse and/or someone who doesn’t look up the references you cite, to RK they are totally inadequate and amateurish.

In fact, the supporting “documentation” you provided for each and every one of your “poinds” -- it’s spelled points by the way -- has as much strength as a strand of over cooked spaghetti.

RK told you we have no time to waste baby-sitting your misplaced rug visions and less than half-baked theories and we don’t.

However, for the record and so you can not claim we ignored your “poinds” and only for those reasons, we will examine a few of them to show you the difference between analysis and gibberish.

1. Your absurd statement (your #1) monotonous coloration is “Normal” for circa 1550-1700 Early Turkish Village Rugs is so dense and defective we need to say no more in rebuttal.

2. Your erroneous theory(your #2) concerning the doubled minor borders in the LACMA rug has already been discussed and clearly rebutted on RK.com. The fact you’re still hanging on it doesn’t add support to your position, in fact it only lessens it.

Either your command of English is so poor as to prevent you from understanding we negated your position or you are just to stubborn to admit it.

3. The validity or even the relevance of your citing this rug:

to substantiate your attempt to disprove what we wrote(your #3) is, just like the other references you cite, way too far off any mark of veracity.

If you cannot see the obvious DIFFERENCES between the elem design in the LACMA/dodds rug and the one you cited either you are half blind or intellectually incapable of framing a cogent argument based on fact not fiction.

Plus this rug, from the Sultanahmet Museum in Istanbul, is not 15th/16th century. It is far more likely to be early 18th and your inability to recognize the difference between a 15th/16th weaving and one made 100’s of years later is, in our estimation, your problem in understanding our dating the LACMA/dodds rug circa 1800.

4. In closing we mention this rug you cited:

which is illustrated as Plate 21 in the ”Carpets of the Vakiflar” book, to support for your belief (your #4) the wonky drawing in the LACMA/dodds is “Nothing”.

Well, if once again you cannot see that the Vakiflar piece is a later, post 16th century, masterpiece “Bellini” (that was made circa 1700 in RK’s opinion, although it is dated by Balpinar and Hirsch the authors as 16th /17th century) and the LACMA/dodds rug is a Town factory produced late genre, circa 1800, copy we give up this exchange with you.

We will not, under any circumstances, continue this charade, nor will we allow you to do it on RK.com.

As we said you are entitled to your opinions, just refrain from posting them here as you do not have the expertise or skill to frame a cogent argument.

Nor do you apparently know the difference between analysis and gibberish.

You have proven our assertions about your miniscule rug expertise and for that reason we will not allow you to post here again until you can come up with real and not imagined contributions.

We do not mind anyone trying to disprove our positions or opinions but we will not waste time with those who, like you cevat, are unable to present factual rebuttal or critique.

So we have reached the end of the line with you and will not waste any more of our time glorifying your seriously flawed and fallible attempts to prove the LACMA rug is even circa 1650, let alone 16th century.

Novice eyes, even ones with 20/20 vision, cannot be trusted to see reality in a complex environment, especially one like historic Early Turkish Village weaving traditions where the lack large signposts and other easily found points of demarcation require far more expert ones.

So, cevat, go learn more about genuinely old historic weavings, improve your English comprehension and debating skills before you come back.

But if you persist in posting here in the same manner all your efforts so far have proven, you will leave no choice other than our preventing your doing so or even viewing RK.com.


Here Is Your 10 poinds and mine.

1. The monotonous coloration of this rug is the first and most obvious error. Basically it’s a red, white and blue weaving that lacks large color areas with the key choice colors – purple and green – that all masterpiece Early Turkish rugs display. The coloration also renders and limits the rug to a boring two dimensional portrait, whereas genuine weavings of this period all demonstrate the ability to create that all important third dimension.

Answer: That's Normal.

2. The all-too balanced and repetitious placing of minor borders (with the same design on either side of the main border) is a characteristic rarely seen in early Turkish rugs but rather in those made circa 1750/1800 and afterwards. Instead, the basic and universal single minor border layout is almost religiously followed, but when there are two minor borders, they are always different.

Answer: here is a star and lotto ushak rugs minor border are both same colors and design.

3. The unknown 'design' (11 above, 10 below) repeated across the two additional borders, or elem at the top and bottom of the rug, are also highly suspicious and weird. They look as if they were lifted directly from an early 19th century yastic, they surely never graced a circa 1600 main carpet. Novice eyes might consider them a ' nice touch' but for experienced viewers they are wrong, wrong, wrong

Answer: here is a 15th 16th Century central Anatolian rug In Hali Museum Sultanahmet/Istanbul, Brought Sivas /divrigi ulucami Has elem bordur.

And here is a Central Anatolian rug detail 16th. Century has similar elem border

4. The wonky and misshapen articulation the re-entrant design surrounding the field exhibits, especially on the lower left side, would never have been allowed by any 17th century weaver worth his or her salt. This type of uncontrolled drawing is frequently seen in late period reproductions, as well as out and out fakes.

Answer; That kind of mistake is Nothing

Here is similar design 15th 16th. century east anatolian rug, hali museum in Sultanahmet/Istanbul

5. The two ‘ghirlandaio medallions’ placed within the re-entrant areas display too much vertical compression and besides they lack the clarity of drawing captured by all real Classic Period Turkish rugs. Both of these are glaring errors characteristic of 19th century work and are not in any way associated with 17th century weaving.

Answer: that design is holbein

6. This vertical compression continues in the two pairs of checkerboard designed triangles, which might be better described as horizontal spandrels, seen to the left and right of each of these ‘medallions’. Again this is indicative of 19th and not 17th century weaving.

Answer: That design is 16th. C. Holbein

The rug appears to me 17 th. Century Central anatolian rug.


Author: Cevat Kanig
Fri, Dec 30th, 2005 09:24:58 PM

RK Replies:

We have already posted a photo of the rug you mention, it is in the collection of the Berlin Museum.

Because you can find a rug or two of the "Bellini" type, or any other that is genuinely old, i.e. pre-1700, where two identical minor borders surround a major one, this has little import for our argument about the LACMA rug.

Plus, cevat, because the LACMA rug is more a Town factory rug, not a Village or from a Royal atelier production facility weaving, our arguments have been focused on that exact type of rug and not any of these others.

In fact, many of the most beautiful, and important, later "Bellini" rugs are Village pieces and not Town factory or Royal atelier pieces.

Theses are subtlities you aparently do not understand or, if you do, countenance.

We have written reams about what is wrong with the LACMA/dodds rug and why it is circa 1800 and not circa 1600.

To say your picking out a minor aspect of our extensive published analyses is picquyne might be giving you too much credit.

We are not interested in playing 20 question with you or anyone else. Nor do we need unlicensed back-seat drivers who can't even parallel park, let alone negotiate "S" curves at 100 mph plus.

You are entitled to your opinions, no matter how wrong or right RK knows they are. However, we have no time to waste reiterating our stated positions, especially to someone who can not present credible evidence we are in error.

And by the way, we stated:

"...repetitious placing of minor borders (with the same design on either side of the main border) is a characteristic rarely seen in early Turkish rugs but rather in those made circa 1750/1800 and afterwards."

We purposely wrote RARELY because we do know there are a few abberant examples of doubling the minor borders.

But, once again, and for the last time, rarely do pre1700 Early Turkish Village, yes VILLAGE RUGS, use doubled minor borders.

Here is the Berlin Museum rug you referenced.

We have moved the post where it appeared here on RK.com -- "Runt of the Re-entrants:the dodds/LACMA fiasco" -- up and it is now just below this thread.

We suggest you read through that, as 100's of others viewers have since it was written many months ago, after you read this.



You know that which rug we are going to discussing about if you be a bit kind, to remind you again it is LAGMA’s rug,

That may take a couple days or more, if you allow me, you are in this issue almost 1 full year like Brazilian movies, which won’t ends. I will show you that you are wrong but you have to discuss with me and be kind other wise we can’t discuss.

Our Discussion could be some think like this, I ask you question and you must respond it or you ask me question I will respond it, we'll find out that who is wrong, other wise that wont work and your story will never end like Brazilian series.

Let me star with this, you were showing 10 points, one of them was this: 2}The all-too balanced and repetitious placing of minor borders (with the same design on either side of the main border) is a characteristic rarely seen in early Turkish rugs but rather in those made circa 1750/1800 and afterwards. Instead, the basic and universal single minor border layout is almost religiously followed, but when there are two minor borders, they are always different.

I would like to show you evidence here is an early 16th. Century Bellini rug both minor border and colorationare are same , and I can show you more of them, so, my question on this: you are wrong on number 2 isn’t it? http://www.nga.gov/exhibitions/lotto/images/88f.jpg


Author: Cevat Kanig
Fri, Dec 30th, 2005 07:54:11 PM

RK Replies:

The coincidence of your emailing now, after we have stymied your anonymous IP searches to prevent you from participating, does seem to imply you have been doing that and have now given up trying to post using that method.

Deciding to do so in your own name was the only practical course you could take and it is fooling no one.

OK then disregarding that evidence, why should we choose to allow you to participate?

We are going to do so only to uphold our credo to maintain a totally open playing field that is unmoderated and uncensored.

We will allow you the oportunity but for how long will entirely depend on what your participation actually is.

What rug do you wish to discuss?

And by the way, cevat, we never had any discussions. You rambled in here like a dude ranch cowboy with new chaps and a shiny six-shooter.

You quickly got summarily booted out the exit door because you had nothing of importance to say and, even worse, you thought, most incorrectly we add, you could shoot some holes in our hat.

Our advice to you is:
1. either to present something intelligent and of substance, with proper documentation and support,

2. or forget about RK.com and go play with steev and the mini-minds he shepherds.

We have no time to waste baby-sitting your novice rug theories or misplaced rug visions.

Nor will we allow you unfettered use of this board to do so.

With that in mind you are free to try and offer what ever you like but do not slip back into your 'old ways'.

Should you we will make you disappear as quickly as a snowball on a hot stove.



Firs of all let me tell you that you knew my IP address and you never ban my IP address, isn’t it thru?

If you like to “discuss” this rug again I am open for it, are you?


Author: William Bellini
Thu, Dec 29th, 2005 12:34:21 PM

RK Replies:

As we wrote yesterday anyone can cut and paste rug photos, or URL's that illustrate them, but few have enough intellectual capacity or expertise to understand the photos and fewer still can relate what they know to those who don't.

From the get-go we recognized the fractured English of this post and the previous one as belonging to cevat kanig.

Since he was banned from RK.com for his BS months ago, he is now probably using a program to mask his IP and substitute another anonymous, or hacked one, in its place.

Bully for him, however, we are not interested in his fractured English, his fractured rug nonsense or his fractured self-proclaimed knowledge about rugs.

We did look up the various references he cited but to what end? They are hardly related to the discussion at hand, nor do they add anything to it, which is typical for kanig's efforts online or elsewhere as we have heard from others who once knew him.

Unless he posts something that is interesting or cogent and gets off his pathetic desire to one up RK, which is as probable as his winning the lottery, we will once again ban him from participation.

We recommend readers, who have time on their hands, to look up the web pages he cites so they, too, can witness the miniscule understanding of genuinely old rugs a poser like kanig has, in addition to his inability to add anything of note to any serious discussion about them.

By the way, we suggest kanig go back to professor price=clown’s website where the level of rug talk is far more in keeping with his, at best, rug 101 matriculation.


Mr. Jack,
The picture that Kanig’s posted is 17th Century Konya Rug It looks to me you do not now much about Turkish rugs, Let me teach you some, the first picture is Bellini rug 16th. Century the minor borders are same! Colors and design,


The second picture is 16th Century Lotto rug it border that Mr. Kanig posted your side,


3rd. Picture is detail of the painting winch you posted has same border which Mr. Kanig posted.


And here is the border design that you can see in many Lotto rugs


The last picture is the elem border, Mr. Kanig posted past year you were claming it as unknown, I wonder if you are going to see it this time.


I personally handled many Turkish rug in past and I do not believe that you did as much as I did. 18th century oushak rugs are different than LAGMA’s rug you are just a noisy person, who attack people personally live calling people on the phone asking questions. Consider himself rug expert, must be fun for you, keep doing it you are so funny.


Author: jc
Wed, Dec 28th, 2005 10:42:27 PM

For the last several days we were musing with putting the pic of the 'archetype' online again but had not done so as the picture's source could not be located.

Almost all of the pics we have, whether digital or paper photo, are referenced, i.e. source of the pic and any other details, from dating to structure, are known. Very few, especially digital, are unknown.

One that slipped between the cracks was the 'archetype' cevat kanig called attention to, mind you, for completely different reasons we do now.

Being fairly sure we had re-published it already, we had our web genius look for it. But to no avail, as it was in the archives and, since we didn’t request a look in there, we missed it.

But before that was known, we posted it (re-posted it, in fact) and wrote we had made an error so here it is for the first time.

We've now had a chance to look at the www.virtualistanbul.com website, the only ‘source’ of the archetype photo for the present.

It is tagged "Konya 17th century" with no other comments. Too bad, it would be nice to know in which Mosque or what region of Anatolia it was discovered.

Life is often stranger than fiction and right next to it on their website is a Ladik prayer rug.

Now remember what Walter Denny states, post-purchase, after examining the LACMA/dodds rug last year when he was in LA?

He declared it to be from Ladik and while we do not possibly believe LACMA’s rug, the one Denny called Ladik, is from Ladik, it is very well possible the ‘archetype’ is.

When a technical analysis is available we could go further but that’s how it appears to us now.

As for its age? Regardless of where it was woven it is undoubtedly generations older than the LACMA/dodds rug, we advanced 100 years older and we’ll stick there.

In any event, it’s a far better example of an Early Turkish Village Rug – of this there is no doubt.

Granted, a very provincial one but it is artistic vision; the LACMA/dodds but a soul-less, two-dimensional contrivance of that vision.

In the end it is all about art -- and for Near Eastern weaving that means inspiration within tradition -- and while it is undeniable art is ethereal, it is far more definable and universal than beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Author: Warmer Bross
Wed, Dec 28th, 2005 05:22:37 PM

RK Replies:

Yes, we missed it there and appreciate your having found it but, eventhough you feel this is significant, in fact nothing much has actually changed.

At the time it was originally posted, we readily admitted the 'similarity' between the elem panels but we did not agree then, nor do we now, that they are the same or that this proves anything besides an “interpretative” relationship.

The elem panel on the LACMA/dodds rug is far less genuine than the one on the archetype rug; this all can see and, of course, we are leading the band in that observation.

If you remember, or re-read his posts, cevat kanig was arguing our entire judgment of the LACMA/dodds rug was incorrect and he offered the photo of the archetype as proof.

We have few words to offer to those we wrote then and, in fact, here is a verbatim account:
“In his last vain attempt to disprove our analysis of the dodds/LACMA rug he(ed. cevat kanig) offered as reference this photo to substantiate his cockeyed fantasy:

The photo comes from a website called Virtual Istanbul.

This carpet, while not a world-beater of a re-entrant, is far superior in every respect (save condition) to LACMA’s recent purchase.

It dates, in our opinion to the first quarter of the 18th century. That said, there are, in fact, huge differences their ages, which we believe are closer to 100 years rather than the 50 or so denny has acknowledged, belie.

But before expending some effort to prove this, let’s examine kanig’s supposed raison d’etre for offering it - the designs in the elem:

Previously, we referred to them as “The unknown 'design' (11 above, 10 below) repeated across the two additional borders, or elem at the top and bottom of the rug, are also highly suspicious and weird.

They look as if they were lifted directly from an early 19th century yastic, they surely never graced a circa 1600 main carpet. Novice eyes might consider them a ' nice touch' but for experienced viewers they are wrong, wrong, wrong”.

According to kanig, they are the same as those on the carpet pictured above and he offers them as proof we erred concerning our assessment of that rug .

We will agree they are vaguely similar however novice eyes, especially like kanig’s when they are trying to prove a point, often mistake vague similarities for exact matches.

Here they are side by side you be the judge:

In Part II we will use the carpet kanig offered to demonstrate, for all those who are still doubt, why the dodds/LACMA rug is leagues below even one of this ilk and is, as we have maintained, nothing more than a late period reproduction.”

By the way, while we offered an early 18th century date for the archetype then and have now stated it is circa 1700, we do not view this as a significant change in position.

Nor do we feel calling it the LACMA/dodds rug archetype is, in any regard, changing what we wrote when this reference was first offered to RK.com by kanig.

We have made it perfectly clear our opinion of kanig's rug knowledge is minimal but his energy in "finding" references, most of which unfortunately are not even close to germane or believable, is admirable.

So for the record, let us thank WB for finding the photo in RK's archive and for kanig who sent it in originally.

In closing let us state:

Because both of you lack the required level of intellectual power and rug expertise to negate what is written here on RK.com, your pronounced desire to do so nullifies any import your efforts might otherwise engender.

Finding a picture, copying it and publishing or posting it is not synonymous with being able to understand it, nor could that effort be compared to someone's who understands and can make others understand as well.


Mr. Jack,

That picture Has been post this side past year, i think you are cunfusing the things as usualy, here is the link you may like to check it out what were you talking about it. http://www.rugkazbah.com/boards/records.php?id=921&refnum=921


Author: jc
Wed, Dec 28th, 2005 05:11:21 PM

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 version’s 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 LACMA’s 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 weavings that have come down to us.

And, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, LACMA’s ain’t one of those.

Home   Buy/Sell at the Kazbah   Terms Of Service