Our hardworking webmaster just rechecked the links one of our tour les jours ever doubting thomas of a reader submitted and informed us that, yes, the first link does now work and here is the is the photo:
And here is the second photo as well:
First off, and in typical fashion for this poster, he has attempted to critique our statements by drawing attention to something we actually never said and then using this in his dialogue. We understand his expression of the
English language is severely flawed but his putting words we never uttered in our mouth demonstrates either his comprehension of the English is even more flawed or his attempt is disingenuous. Frankly, in his case, we’d opine both of these are in play.
Don’t forget, we referenced the major border and not the minor ones and, regardless of the fact they are typical for an early Turkish Rug, the major one isn’t. 'Nuff said on this we trust.
If kanig had any reason understanding of early Turkish Rugs, as well as how to better critique someone who does, he would have not have cited that rug but rather the medallions found on an even more well-known and somewhat earlier Seljuk Rug.
Here there is some definite congruity, however, the fact this ubiquitous design was used as a field motif and not a border discounts any real relationship with our statement.
Let us mention in passing the reuse of a major design (which is how we would characterize this motif as it was used here -- note it is the only design in the field of this important rug), as the border design in another rug invariably signifies the former weaving is the earlier one.
We have often seen this to hold true when considering pre-18th century pile weavings, while the converse (a border design then used as a field design) is rarely the seen.
However, with pile weavings made after the 1700 this no longer as hard and fast a rule -- because examining rugs after this date demonstrates how some field patterns were conceived by lifting elements from the complex border designs (and sometimes even the entire design itself)of earlier rugs.
And this, early Turkish rug fans, is exactly the situation here, as the white field Seljuk rug is no doubt an earlier one than the rug kanig cites.
By the way it, too, was discovered in the Sultan Aleaddin Keykubad Mosque in Konya but we do not for a minute believe it was expressly made for the Museum while the case for the later, and much larger piece furnishing piece he cited, having been surely should be countenanced.
So let us repeat:The main border of the Met’s animal rug appears on no other early (pre-1600) Turkish rug,animal style or not.
And while we never intended our mention of this point to support our contention the rug is an Afshar made in Persia, it does support our contention it was not made in Turkey, nor does it belong in the small and august group of animal-style rugs that were.
As for the rest of kanig’s rant and his poorly orchestrated efforts to disprove our thesis about the Met’s animal rug? Well, the fact astute and knowledgeable readers can easily determine this for themselves allows us the liberty of forgoing wasting any of more of our time. ‘Nuff said here as well.
The Met’s rug is not a dishrag and we never said it was. However, it is not 13th century; nor is it comparable to the few really great animal-style pile-rugs, which surely might date from that time or even earlier, that were made in Turkey.
We should also add that even though some Afshar did settle in Turkey the colors and wool quality of the Met's rug are far more similar to Persian Afshar rugs, particularly the light, sky blue.
Again, we do not know any early Turkish rug, animal style or not, which has colors even remotely similar to it.
By the way, we have seen this rug in person a number of times, even once before the walker dumped all the Met's money to purchase it, and have never doubted: It is not Turkish and is, most likely, an Afshar rug made in Persia circa 1600 -- a copy, if you will, of the real animal-style rugs seen in those enchanting 14th century, 15th and 16th century paintings.
Lastly, as some of you probably know: The Met's rug was part of a group of 4 early rugs offered for sale in London many years ago. Two of them, what is now known as the faces rug and an animal-style rug are/were in the kirchheim collection (they are illustrated in his "Orient Stars book), the Met's was the third (and the runt of the litter if you will forgive us saying so). The fourth, and surely best of the animal-style ones, was purchased by an Italian collector who was at that time, and probably still is, the leading and most discriminating collector of early rugs in Italy.
We should also state our harboring the opinion kirchheim's animal-style rug is, in fact, a Kurdish weaving that we believe should also not really be placed in the small cluster of genuinely early Turkish animal-style rugs.
It is, like the Met's, what we believe to be a later rendition of this type of rug but, nonetheless it is somewhat earlier than their's. We'd date it to perhaps circa 1550 and believe it was, most likely, produced by Kurdish weavers living at that time in northeastern Turkey or what today we call Azerbaijan.
We should also mention it no longer is in the kirchheim collection, as he sold it soon after the book was published to a buyer from the middle East for a price that dwarfs what any other early Turkish rug has ever made!
Perhaps, someday we will discuss it and the faces rug both of which we'd like to state are far better examples than the rug walker bought and has championed. Of the two, we prefer the faces rug, even though the highly enigmatic symbolism it displays has been made veritably indecipherable because of it's fragmentary state.