First off, cut the sarcastic BS, as we do not appreciate being toyed with or patronized. Also, if you want to discuss anything with us, especially a complex topic like the one you raise, doing so from the position of anonymity does not encourage us to reveal anything to you.
If you chose to write in again with your name attached to your post, or if you email us privately with that information, we will reveal more of our thoughts on this subject.
Basically, and very basically we must add, your approach to this question is limited by your reliance on "history" where, if fact, little or no actual history exists.
Rug weaving and textile production, particularly pre-1700, happened in a myriad of circumstances, for a myriad of reasons and was done by a myriad of different groups.
To expect, as you say "the path of artistic ideas in that period.[to be]..coming from the cities to the rural country... [or]... that it is the reverse that the village women created the art and it spread to the workshops of Tabriz." is frankly myopic.
You must remember, there has been a continuous reliance on reproducing iconic design(s) since the Paleolithic period.
There can be little doubt some, yes very, very few, weavings -- be they pile, flat-weave, or embroidery -- are indelibly connected with this tradition.
Then there are the mysterious and still little understood 'cultures' that rose and fell in the eastern Mediterranean area.
Some of these peoples left little behind, barely enough to even sense they were there, let alone enough to outline the who and what about them.
So your question opens up a Pandora’s box -- one we, well some of us, can sense and discuss but not fully explain.
Another factor you miss is that sericulture is far older than the 16th century and until we have enough data to compare samples, it would be impossible to determine where the silk in this embroidery was generated.
Our plans for forensic testing that are hinted at here, and on the Weaving Art Museum website, are intended to unravel (no pun intended) this story and many others.
The choice is yours, reveal who you are (and from your IP address we know you have posted here before under other pseudonyms) and we will discuss and reveal more or, don't, and be happy with the big picture answer we have provided.
My dear RK,
You do provoke thought, don't you now.
I admire your wit and wisdom as the master of all things woven.
Still I am troubled by your missive The source of the 'eagle' "device".
Are you postulating a separate indigenous origin of the art that we see manifested in the pre-16th century ‘Caucasian’ embroidery.
When you say "pre-16th century" I assume you are pointing back to the Caucasus in the Akgoyunlu Turkmen dynasty period. If you mean Karagoyunlu please tell us.
I see this as potentially early dating since Caucasian sericulture prior to the reign of Thahmasp Safavid is a bit of a mystery.
Still if anyone would know about sericulture it would be you.
So what people then were the stitchers of this embroidery? We know later work was Azeri but in this very early period to whom do you attribute it.
The art of the Akgoyunlu Turkmen dynasty was very sophisticated. But most historians see the path of artistic ideas in that period as coming from the cities to the rural country.
Are you suggesting that it is the reverse that the village women created the art and it spread to the workshops of Tabriz.
Please take my question as sincere since I look to you as the preeminent expert on rugs in the world today.
RKs secret admirer