Home > Rug, Kelim, Soumak, Textile Post Archive >The Met's animal-style rug Part II
email: jc@rugkazbah.com
Fri, Dec 1st, 2006 03:25:42 PM
Topic: The Met's animal-style rug Part II

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.

Author: john Lewis
email: john_lewis@mac.com
Fri, Dec 1st, 2006 03:25:42 PM

Your posting of Thursday, Nov 30th 02:15:37 AM is a statement from the heart which I suspect the 'silent majority" agrees with. Unfortunately, because I have no knowlege about the the rug in question I have nothing to contribute to the debate, so I keep quiet. I suspect there are many others who read your comments who do the same for the same reason. On another topic, I found in easier just to cancel my Hali subscription than complain about the degeneration of the magazine.

Author: Kore-eda Hirokazu
Thu, Nov 30th, 2006 05:35:11 PM


Author: jc
Thu, Nov 30th, 2006 02:15:37 AM

You know, we never ceased to be amazed by rugdom's apathy and perfidy.

The lack of response not only this idea but many of the other equally as provocative, challenging and, quite naturally in our opinion, totally realistic ones published here on RugKazbah demonstrates to a tee this apathy.

How well we know it is not only expressed vis-a-vis yours truly but rather it is endemic, no, wait a minute, epidemic in rugdom.

Worse than this silence of discourse on any matters of serious or exigent import is the juvenile, defensive and ignorant responses they often engender.

This thread is a perfect example and, once again, we know we are not the only one who has ever experienced this reaction.

The Met's provenance and description of their animal-style rug is dubious and highly debatable.

In our opinion it is absolutely nonsense, as is/was the story of how this rug came to the market.

The absence of any debate or questions and the virtual and total acceptance of this “story” speaks incredibly poorly for us all.

Rugdom will wallow in the muck of stupidity and ignorance until, as Arthur Upham Pope remarked more than a half a century ago there are serious changes:

“Books are not reviewed with frankness or knowledge, serious errors go unchallenged, methods are no where discussed or standards enforced. Of healthy controversial literature, the mark of growth and vitality, there is little trace. This situation is to no one’s advantage and is a reproach to American scholarship. Those who believe Muhammadan Art is really important should see that every sincere contribution in this field meets not only an open-minded welcome but, what is quite as important, the same sort of searching criticism which is as a matter of course accorded to contributions in other departments in the history of art where scholarly standards have been long established and more strictly maintained.”

We couldn’t have said it better ourselves.

The only prescription we see for making rugdom healthy is for everyone who calls him/her self a collector to get involved actively.

Buying more rugs, sponsoring more worthless conferences or parading more lackluster pseudo-scientific academics is not the sort of involvement we see as needed.

Rather, it requires far more thought and concern for the subject and less for the egos and business careers of those who call themselves rug collectors, cognoscenti and dealers.

Author: CK
Sat, Nov 25th, 2006 08:47:04 PM

You scared me boy, I will be more carefully from now on when I post here, you are a funny clown, I am glad that I finally found The Clownland, by the way , this free trial IP finder is expiring and I don’t want to buy it, Could you put me Back Please. Sometime I am checking this clownland to have fun, I won’t bother you again.

Author: SANTOZ
Fri, Nov 24th, 2006 03:46:25 PM

RK replies:

Hi cevat, you dope.

Everyone knows it’s you even though you’ve tried to decorate your stupid clown outfit with a sombrero and are struggling to dance the flamenco.

Try to be original would ya and don’t forget our admonition—using those open ports is dangerous, even in Brazil they don’t take kindly to trespassers.


Hi, I am a rug dealer from Brazil, A friend of recommended this web site to have fun, tell you the truth, you are the rug clown I have ever seen in my live, why don’t you perform this in Harvard Square, may be some body discovers you and you can be the famous clown in the world.

Author: Sue Zimmerman
Fri, Nov 24th, 2006 01:33:30 PM

RK Replies:

As we stated, apt fodder an analyst.

Go see one soon, it might help.


Your points are now well taken. Not that my intellectual capacity has expanded, or anything. I'll probably always be a slow learner and someone one who would much prefer "stupid" on my business card to "rug expert of great intellectual capacity and savvy". I'm just a simple stupid person who should be back in my studio, where efforts bear results and I'm happy. From now on I'll leave thinking and attempts at conversation to those much more qualified such as yourself. The giving of too much benefit of the doubt that people may be otherwise than what appears obvious to everyone else always trips me up, being stupid and all, I always try to figure things out for myself. So, thank you, for waking me up, monster. I'll be gone now. Sue

Author: CK
Thu, Nov 23rd, 2006 07:17:20 PM

RK Replies:

cevat, my little man, you are as boring as a broken record and, even worse, totally unoriginal.

Go amuse yourself by playing with the video games your children undoubtedly ask you to buy for them.

You might have to ask them, though, to help you play as we are sure a miget-brain of your mentality couldn't play checkers with a trained chimpanze.

By the way, using the anonymizer progam you bought to find open ports is actually a type of trespassing and it is illegal.

Keep bothering us and our webmaster will put together a report on your activities and submit it to those whose ports you are using.

Think we're kidding? Keep it up and you find out we aren't.

Remember, RK cares not at all about you or what you do, however, should you keep posting here we will cook your goose for you, you little creep.


Nothing is going on this web site, This web site getting boring ever other day, No participant no topics, no live, like an abandoned city , This is boring, show some activity , do some thing, work, think some things, wake up lazy boy, we want to hear fresh news, new ideas, new topics, some BS are OK but not much, My eyes are on you!

Author: Anon.
Thu, Nov 23rd, 2006 02:18:20 PM

RK Replies:

Thanks for the compliments.

Now go blow your nose and tie your shoelaces. That is if a cretin like you could manage such complicated maneuvers.


JC, you were born too late. You would have made a perfect Nazi. Sadistic, dumb as a quicksand sidewalk, and ready to believe that you are superhuman. What ever faults Sue has, she is more of a man than you'll ever be.

Author: Anon.
Thu, Nov 23rd, 2006 08:45:43 AM

RK Replies: Well, at least we are consistent and, unlike like you anonymouse, willing to sign our name to what we write. Forget about the level of the content compared with your attempt, anon.


JC, you are more disgusting every day. How did you eveer get accepted into the human race?

Author: CK
Wed, Nov 22nd, 2006 08:59:56 PM

RK Replies:

Phuleeze now, cevat, don't get yer knickers in a twist.

Take your`help and direct it elsewhere. It, like the rest of what you dribble, is worthless here.`


Jack, I would like to admit that I am shocked to, how come you say that I am not welcome here, you truly hearth my feelings, I was just trying to help you, we are here discussing Historic rugs but you always start a fight when some body agree or disagree with you, what do you want us to do? Why did you create a web site? Is it for public or for your egos, why it is discussion forum, to discuss by your self or to discuss with others, if you are going to discuss by public, so, we are here, but if you are going to discuss by your self, you don’t have to publish it for public view, if you are publishing we are here to protect the people wrong information, my eyes are on you!

Author: Sue Zimmerman
Wed, Nov 22nd, 2006 05:40:56 PM

RK Replies: An analyst would have fun with your reply but not us.


Jack, I have to say I am truly shocked by your response. I'm sorry you do not understand that I was trying to help but I was. Sue

Author: Sue Zimmerman
Wed, Nov 22nd, 2006 11:05:12 AM

RK Replies:

While RugKazbah.com is an open site and we welcome participation from all comers, we do not feel either you or cevat have the intellectual capacity, forget rug savvy, to post here.

We are tired, sue, of your stupid excuses and misrepresentations and though your transgressions are less than cevats, in the end, they are equally annoying.

Both of you should remain in professor clown's rug-challenged website, you are not welcome here.

You and cevat have heard this before and please make this the last time.


Jack, I meant that many structural details of the Met animal rug are visible in the photo I mentioned. I thought that were you to have that book at hand you might have answered AReaders wefting question. As you didn't I thought you must be traveling and not have access to the book photo yourself. I cannot, myself, provide a clear scan of it as I don't have the computer equipment to do so. Maybe you don't have that book and it was a jump to assume that you do. I don't know. I thought maybe some things visible in that photo, though very circumstantial, might lend support to your position and that you might want that posted so that info gathered from structural analysis could enter the picture a bit. I certainly was not implying that you don't know how to analyze woven structures. I think you do. If you don't want to talk about it that's up to you and none of my business and fine with me. Maybe I was being naive in my line of thought. Don't know. Maybe I'd be better off not knowing. I don't know that either. Is this explanation of my former post clear enough to understand? I hope so. I was not questioning your expertise, which I think you have plenty of, if that's the intention you were thinking I posted for, that's not the case. Sue

Author: CK
Wed, Nov 22nd, 2006 10:56:37 AM

Hi Christopher, Please watch out your language because there are kids here reading this side to have fun with this clown. Jack, you know what Sue is meaning, she means that you are a dummy and you don’t know any think, didn’t you understand that? Do I have to tell you all what people are saying about you, ok, I tell you what they say; they all say that you are a Jerk.

Author: Chris
Wed, Nov 22nd, 2006 06:12:38 AM

RK Replies:

We removed your post, "chris" for obvious reasons

How's englewood doing these days?

Are there other clowns like you littering the sidewalks?

Anyway, you impudent and probably equally impotent cretin, your comment was, to say the least, poorly put but we guess totally expected for someone like you who is obviously incapable of saying anything else



Author: Hans Muller
email: Dr. H. Muller@hotmail.com
Tue, Nov 21st, 2006 08:56:03 PM

RK Replies: Listen up cevat, you clown. You and hans both post from the same IP location. Why bother going thru the charade of using pseudonyms when you can't even remember to change the IP's.

Once a fool, cevat, always a fool.


Hey dummy A Writer Hi Jack, So, You should know that who i am now, did you believe that al i wrote for you , you should be such a dummy to believing them.

Author: CK
Tue, Nov 21st, 2006 08:45:48 PM

Hey dummy A Writer , Could you tell me that where were you when the God was giving a way brains to human being, where you with Jack. What were you doing with him, learning how to be a Jerk from The Satan?

Author: Sue Zimmerman
Tue, Nov 21st, 2006 12:34:36 PM

RK Replies: Away from our rug books? Please now,Sue, what does this mean and what are you inferring by saying it?


A Reader, and Readers, If you want to learn why this Met animal rug is "not as labeled" and more about structural analysis than, say, Dan Walker seems to know, study the big photo detail of the rug on page 265 of James Opie's "Tribal Rugs". Don't let the fact that James Opie himself obviously hasn't studied it stop you. Apparently JC is away from his rug books. Sue Zimmerman

Author: A Reader
Mon, Nov 20th, 2006 11:35:31 PM

RK Replies: It's hard to tell about the wefting but, about those you mention, it surely isn't as difficult.


Hello Jack, Please do not let the foolish ones interupt your important work. cevet Kanig is a well known bumbler. This other Donald or whoever is of no substance. As I look at the second photo on this page I am struck by the wear pattern. do you think it issingle wefted like a Hamadan rug? A Reader

Author: CK
Thu, Nov 16th, 2006 02:01:18 PM

Hi Hans, You must be either very naive or very amateur making complement about jack knowledge, I will e mail you and let know about more about him and also I will let you know the trusted rug places that you can get information about historic rugs. stay away from this guy, if you don’t you will se that at the end of the discussion you will hate him, you don’t know how jerk he is, every body knows that, you are the only person in this whole universe appreciates his useless works and his stupid ideas. So, be Aware!

Author: Hans Muller
email: dr.h.muller@hotmail.com
Thu, Nov 16th, 2006 10:04:10 AM

I have finally had a chance to search upon the website that has been edited by Steve Price. After analyzing, I have come to a conclusion that there are numerous active members in that website who constantly participates, and there are many discussions that are being held in that website. I also looked in your website Wamri and honestly, I got shocked. I have nothing to say, but it was incredibly magnificent, and I would like to congratulate you in your amazing success. What I don’t understand is that there are many people who are ganging upon you guys, and you guys successfully defend yourself. Wamri and Rug Kazbah proves the saying “the pen is mightier then the sword” After browsing Wamri, the perspective of my life has changed. Now I look at life through a different angle, and for this I thank you Mr.Cassin. Please keep up the good work, and I wish you the best of luck, although you don’t need it.

Author: Volf-gang
Wed, Nov 15th, 2006 07:14:56 PM

RK Replies:

We have removed this post because RugKazbah.com is an English language forum and it was done in a foreign language, i.e. German.

We suggest, should the writer feel it is important, it be translated into English and re-posted. However, from our rudimentary understanding of the German language, we gathered it was an advert for a website. If this is the case we'd prefer it not be reposted.

We also removed a second post from the same writer because it contained a link to a website, which we presume was the one mentioned in the first post and while we are not against having links to other websites those links must have some relevance to a subject under discussion.

Author: Hans Muller
Wed, Nov 15th, 2006 09:52:08 AM

RK Replies:

Greetings Hans:

Clownland is a pseudonym we coined. It is not a website per se but it does refer to one run by a rather rug-ignorant professor from Virginia and a few other equally unenlightned rugophiles.

We are so disgusted with this group and their daily chatterbox website we have blocked mention of it by name here on rugkazbah.

So if you email our webmaster:
webmaster at rugkazbah dot com
he will be glad to send you a direct link.

We'd be most interested in your feedback, so please do return and post again after you have checked it out.


Dear JC, I was searching online for a rug discussion forum and I have stumbled myself into this discussion form. The discussion I have recently have read has given sudden interest to me. The thing I couldn't comprehend was this so called "Clownland" Is this a website or something, because for the last two days I have googled this, and all I found was http://www.clownland.com.au/ or something like this. Would you please be so kind and give me a specific url adress to this website? Best!

Author: OMFG!
Tue, Nov 14th, 2006 12:21:37 PM

It was brought here from another planet by aliens, using teleportation. Try to prove that I\'m wrong.

Author: cevat kanig
Mon, Nov 13th, 2006 09:48:38 AM

RK Replies: The reason you insist on posting here can only be ascribed to the fact you believe by doing so you will gain something.

Let us put that notion to rest, kanig.

You will not now or in the future, nor have you in the past, gained anything and your fractured fairy-tales, whether about yourself or whatever, are frankly boring and droll.

What is also boring and droll is listening to a nobody spin absurdly ridiculous claims to be a great rug restorer and/or incredibly knowledgeable about Turkish rugs.

These statements are laughable, as is the rest of the crapola you write.


Some one has to have some clue to say that some thing is exist or not, I give you a sample such as; to find out what it is coking in the Kitchen there are 3 ways to understand what is coking in the kitchen, first way is that you smell some thing is coking in the kitchen, if you smell The food for example, Let say, it is Fish smelling, the first one has clue, which it smell fish, The second one is you have to see what is coking in the kitchen, you see the fish is coking in the kitchen then you can say with no hesitate, it is fish coking in the kitchen and smelling fish , the second one has evidence which is "it is fish" and smell fish ,but the third one is you eat it and then say it was a fish, it was rockfish it was fresh taste good and you get vitamins minerals est. the third one is clarifies what what it is .>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am an expert Antique rug restorer since 1978 from Istanbul, Turkey, We had a rug since I was 12 years old, I restored many antique Turkish rug, also I bought and sold thousands of them, I know almost single village in Turkey where the rug was produced, and what design they use, what kind of weaving they have, how I know because I restored thousands of them. Also I taught many people that which one are natural dyes which one isn't. And where the rug was woven, we are the source of this kind information, now, my experience is that The Met's rug is a Turkish Weaving, and the rug was woven After Seljuk by Ottoman Turks in Central Anatolia, All designs are on the rug is Seljuk design the weaving is Turkish weaving, and that has been Approved by many scholars but not idiots like you. You did not smell the fish, you did not see what is coking and you did not taste it, probably you don't understand what I am talking about, so, how do you know idiot. I would not give you info about my personal life but I am an honest family guy has 2 boys they are 12 years and 15 years old and have a happy live, I am not homeless like you living in Vans, Hotel rooms have no family, pathetic street dog, by the way I have also small amount of collection, I enjoy them, some time I buy and trade them, I enjoy the way it is. One thing is that you are right about it is that I am wasting my time in here with idiot like you.

Author: Cevat Kanig
Sun, Nov 12th, 2006 11:06:18 PM

Challenged one:

FYI: Someone doesn't have to see something to know it exists or, in this case, once existed.

There is no doubt Afshar were located in Iran circa 1600 and while there is no proof positive they were weaving rugs, it is highly doubtful they weren't.

So your incessant questioning our belief the Met's rug is an Afshar woven circa 1600 is quite stupid.

The corollary of the question you raise, which is something anyone who has enough intelligence to read the New York Times would pose to you is: Go prove the contrary, i.e. that the Afshar did not weave.

Everytime you have come to RugKazbah.com you have engaged in the type of circular, ignorant and faulty logic you are now mired in.

First you presented evidence about minor borders, which was totally irrelevant.

Then, like the chirping magpie you are, you harp on another oblique tangent you believe will show how smart you are.

Face facts, kanig, you are a nobody rug-repairman who labors for an hourly wage in an out of the way rug- shoppe fixing mediocre decorative rugs RK wouldn't pickup if we saw them in someone’s trash. Sadly, your ideas about historic rugs are equally as pedestrian.

You have no collection, you have done nothing notable in/for the world of rugs, etc. etc.

Actually you have only shot off your mouth, said little, and cut and pasted pictures from websites others have built.

In fact, posting here to RugKazbah.com surely must be the highlight of your existence.

Our visitor logs show how many times a day you come here.

It's a lot of visits, even more than your compatriot in rug lunacy, professor steev price does.

We have told you to get lost, you are unwelcome here -- not for the fact you present ideas alien to ours but because you ideas are just plain alien, out of this world and the confines the intellectual level RugKazbah advances.

Go do something notable in rugdom, which is something we doubt you will ever achieve, rather than waste your ‘time’ making a fool of yourself posting here.

Yes, kanig, that's all you have done and your ridiculous notion you are showing the world anything else is as far from reality as your belief you are rug knowledgeable.


Jack, I asked you that if you ever seen a circa 1600 Afshar rug? and you don't want to answer this simple question, why you don't want to answer it , is it to hard for you to understand the question or is it hard to admit the truth, let me tell you the truth, the truth is that you have never seen an afshar rug circa 1600 even 1700 even circa 1800, but you claim that the Met's rug is circa 1600 made in Iran By Afshar tribes, you have no evidence and no proves and thinking that people to believe that , jack, trust me on this you have a big mouth talking all kind of BS, I hope people doesn’t take you seriously, I have never seen here a positive thing, you always fight with people, you look mirror every day and think that how clever and how superior you are, for you every body is an idiot, they know nothing, they have many things to learn from you, but they are so idiot they reject learning things from you, People are not idiot like you to expect your crazy unrealistic thoughts.

Author: Cevat Kanig
Sun, Nov 12th, 2006 10:09:30 AM

RK Replies:

Discussing a rug with someone who doesn't understand the first thing about what a discusion entails is impossible.

You are a child, kanig, go play in professor clown's sandbox -- it is proven you are way over your head here and your continuing to protest proves it even more.


Are you going to make me regret of what Dummy if you have "anything" in your hand bring it up sucker, we are discussing a rug here, and you are treating me to regret, are you becaming a mafia scarface Tony Montana? do what ever you can but don't call me on the phone , i don't have time listening your BS. THE END

Author: C.KANIG
Sat, Nov 11th, 2006 09:49:06 AM

The only sucker here is you, kanig.

Once before you started down this road and, let us remind you, should you continue you will regret it.


You sucker did not answer my question yet, my question is if any of your personality has seen circa 1600 Afshar rug. Why don’t you want to answer a simple question, are you idiot or something else that we don’t know about you?

Author: Cevat Kanig
Fri, Nov 10th, 2006 11:06:52 PM

RK Replies: Being that we are the owner of this board and our raison d’etre for starting it was to expose and critique the nonsense that passes for knowledge in rugdom, we felt it necessary, once again, to try and have the last word.

First off, kanig, if you had even an inkling of insight into what is going on here you'd know the issue is not if/that this border design pre-dates 1600 but that it does not appear on any rug, animal-style or not, that does.

This is the crux of our position and the meat of the matter you have failed to even get on your fork, let alone chew or digest.

This and not English comprehension is your problem.

The fact you, or anyone else, can prove it "goes back 1000's of years" is meaningless and your ardor to "prove" this, or that you "know more than" RK, is typical behavior for a dumb bastard like yourself.

Regardless of the fact you might "mean well"(which we highly doubt) or that you can cut and paste rug photos to prove your rug-fantasies cuts no cloth here nor would it anywhere else.

The first rule of intelligent and successful critique is to comment on what is said and not invent fantasy issues or distortions to prove a position unrelated to the one in question.

You have consistently done this every time you have ventured into RugKazbah to post.

Don't feel you are alone here, you have company -- steev price, your internet buddy, has used the same twisted, dopey modus operandi in his efforts to "prove" RK is anything but what we say we are and know.

"Birds of a feather flock together" and coo-coos like you and price=clown have proven flight plans that anyone who reads or has read your posting to this board can easily determine.

We are tired of having to parry clumsy, pointless lunges from the likes of you all, no matter how little effort on our part it takes to deflect and nullify them.

Like cutting bread with a sharp knife, responding to a rug ignoramus like you or price=clown dulls our blade and we refuse to waste valuable time with clowns and poseurs whose fantasies of "besting" us are as fallacious as the tooth-fairy or Santa Claus.

You bring no reward nor do you bring presents, the only thing dopes of your ilk prove is what dopes and bigmouths you are.

Go back to the oblivion you came from, your "time" is up here, kanig -- we will not permit you, or anyone else, to post hali-quality pseudo-facts and uninformed opinion nor will we cheer any ludicrous and pointless attempt to do so.

Saying you quit after the boss hands you a pink slip proves nothing but a weak-mind filled with worthless delusion.

This is clearly your plight but it is nothing strange in rugdom, you have much company, the prices and howes are not the only others who exhibit the same catastrophic belief they can “prove” themselves right and RK wrong by inventing non-issues and then solving them.

Go show us a pre-1600 or even pre-1700 Turkish rug with the main border design, that's the issue here.

Not only are we sure you, or anyone else, will not be able to do this but, more to the point in your case, we’re sure you have trouble even identifying such a weaving.

So, kanig, make good on your now oft-repeated Auf Wiedersehen, it’s past time, way past.


Jack, You don't have any evidence that shows the Major border of the Met's rug does not pre dates Circa 1600 Turkish weaving .I can show you that design goes back to 1000's of years. you can't even answer a simple question wich an idiot can answer it,I konw you have multible personalty, would you please ask other of you if he ever seen a Afshar weaving dates circa 1600. So long Sucker.

Author: Interested observer
Fri, Nov 10th, 2006 01:58:29 PM

RK Replies:

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist’s cranial capacity to imagine our stance on the Met's animal-style rug would raise a lot of people's hackles and elicit some disbelieving posts.

We thank you for posing yours in a civil and intelligent fashion and, for that reason, are answering you immediately though other and probably more important tasks await our attention.

Your incredulity concerning the singularity of this border pattern is reasonable and the only response we can off is as follows:

After more than 25 years of intensively studying, researching and collecting pre-1800 Turkish Village Rugs we have amassed quite a comprehensive understanding of this idiom. Surely we do not know every last rug, nor are we privy to those that are unknown to the pages of the many books, old and new, dealing with these weavings.

However, when one speaks about rugs woven prior to 1700, then prior to 1600, or finally prior to 1500 the number of examples decreases incredibly with each of these increments.

Therefore please note when we stated: "Another fact leading us to dis-believe the rug is an early Turkish rug is the reality the main border is one never seen on any early Turkish rug, animal style or otherwise." we implied, as you correctly pose, on any pre-1600 Turkish rug.

We stand by our statement and defy anyone to produce an example to negate it.

Clearly, for this to happen, the rug in question will have to pass our scrutiny in examining it's probable dating.

So the gauntlet we threw down is still there for anyone to try and pick up -- just make sure your choice and reasoning abilities are not along the lines of those expressed by kanig or any of the other mini-minds, like professor price, who gravitate there seeking support and solace from others who are equally as challenged and rug ignorant.

As far as answering the other questions you ask we respectfully decline -- not for wont of anything to say but rather since we see them as just more nit-picking irrelevance.

Regardless of how many early Turkish rugs were made, how many we think were made or any of the other unanswerables you express below we can only say: Go prove us wrong.

Remember the proof is in the pudding -- just make sure in that effort you, or any other disbeliever, doesn't end up splattering it all over your faces and nice clean white shirts. =


Hi RK,

You present some unique hypotheses, but do you think that you have enough evidence to make categorical statements such as: "The main border of the Met’s animal rug appears on no other early (pre-1600) Turkish rug,animal style or not"? To prove this statement, you would need to know the main border design of every pre-1600 Turkish rug, or at least for a high percentage of them.

How many Turkish rugs do you think were woven before 1600?

How many pre-1600 Turkish rugs have you or anyone else seen, in person or in pictures?

What is your estimate of the percentage of all pre-1600 Turkish rugs that have been seen by you, or anyone else still living? If the percentage is very low (even less than 10% or 20%), then on what basis can you be sure that there were no pre-1600 Turkish rugs with that main border design?

Author: Cevat Kanig
Fri, Nov 10th, 2006 09:10:51 AM

RK Replies: We have now had about enough of kanig's outbursts. His continued failures to even comprehend what we write, let alone respond in kind, plus his desire to prove himself an expurt are uninteresting and droll -- forget the fact his erroneous proofs are equally as irrelevant.

After all, and because, his regular hangout is turkohtek.com, where rug idiocy and ignorance are the norm, who would expect different? Surely not RK.

We will now strongly suggest kanig remove himself and go back to clownland where there is hope his fractured fairy-tales about rugs can receive their just due and proper attention.

They are not appreciated here and his unwillingness to recognize this is as much the problem as his mistaken ideas about the rugs themselves.

By the way, his newest proof is factual but, really now, we did not say our statement about the re-use of designs was inclusive of all instances. Again his failure to understand this difference is where he becomes lost in a sea of his own BS and frustration, which is of course his problem and not ours or any of RugKazbah.com readers.


Dear Readers, Below two Pictures are Seljuk carpet fragments,You can copy and paste the links. As pictures shows, the border design used on a field design or the field design used on border, I show here evidence instate of talking like Jack, he does not have any evidence not even one that shows the rug is Circa 1600 made in Iran By Afshar Tribes,But i have evidence that shows the rug is After Seljuk made in Ottoman Beylik Period, I am going to ask this question again and again , still did not get the answer of it yet "HAVE YOU EVER SEEN ANY AFSHAR RUG CIRCA 1600?" if yes then show us. Below is a Seljuk border. http://members.cox.net/ckanig/seljuk.JPG And this is a Seljuk Carpet, the field Design is the border design of firs picture. http://members.cox.net/ckanig/seljuk1.JPG So, you are wrong again.

Author: Donald Duck
email: DonaldDuck@DonaldDuck.com
Fri, Nov 10th, 2006 04:41:48 AM

RK Replies: Firstly, if you knew anything about html coding, which like your rug expertise we sincerely doubt could fill a thimble let alone a decent sized sack, the hanging html tag wouldn't begin your post, chum.

Secondly, sending your post to a "friend" in Chicago because we crippled your abilities to access our site from your computers is nothing to crow about.

Thirdly, instead of spewing invective and meaningless, BS, attempts at characterizing us as anything but what we are how about showing everyone what you imply you know about rugs -- specifically the ones we are discussing?

We'll be surprised if you can muster anything decent in this regard, let alone anything noteworthy. Go prove us wrong, big mouth...



Aloha Jack,

I’m still in Hawaii and not yet in Siberia, as you can see.

I also changed my name, and I will continue to do that. And this time I put some html code, so it looks nicer.

As for what you say in this thread… You’re overstepping yourself. What an abominable bullshit! Take the damned medications, that’s my advice.

My greetings to your webmaster - poor guy, having to deal with a dickhead like you.



Home   Buy/Sell at the Kazbah   Terms Of Service