Home > Rug, Kelim, Soumak, Textile Post Archive >White Ground Caucasian (Kazak?) Cushion Cover ?
Author:David R.E. Hunt
email: david112460@msn.com
Sun, Jan 28th, 2007 06:51:31 PM
Topic: White Ground Caucasian (Kazak?) Cushion Cover ?

RK Replies:

Sorry but for the past few days we have been occupied in other quarters.

We imagine our webmaster will soon place the picture of your fragment here in this post and then, perhaps, we will add some of our comments.

As for one of your questions, David, is there any evidence of any selvedge on either of the two sides?

Also, what materials are the warp and weft spun from?

We'd believe they are wool, any color to them, especially there weft?

========================================

Hi Mr Cassin What is your opinion regarding this Kazak(?)fragment(ID#1307)? Is a fragment of a larger rug, a bagface, or yastik, and why? What of age, provenence?

Author: jc
email:
Sun, Jan 28th, 2007 06:51:31 PM

Who but a clown and fool like professor steve price could possibly believe the following about Hunt’s fragment.

“It might have been a prayer rug, a runner, a room size rug or an area rug.”

There is little doubt of the impossibilities Hunt’s morsel came from a “runner, room size or an area rug”.

Only a rug-idiot like price could possibly harbor such a thought and, what’s worse, is the reality only an egocentric poser like price would put his name to such a ridiculously absurd statement.

Just another example of why it's time to darken the lights over in clownland and pull the plug on its moderator, professor steve price.

Author: Marcus
email:
Sun, Jan 28th, 2007 11:39:40 AM

RK Replies:

Well, "marcus", if you had used your head for anything other than hanging your hat on, you would have realized there was no art historical analysis done here.

But, come to think of it, even if there was a box of rocks brain like you possess would never have learned anything, anyway.

How Grand Rapids, Michigan been treating ya?

======================================

First time I've ever read a real art historical analysis. Very impressive. Now I see why it takes an expert to do it.

Author: jc
email:
Sat, Jan 27th, 2007 11:03:04 AM

After examining the photos of the Hunt fragment we are sure it is what we have claimed from the get-go: The central "medallion" from a rug that was probably an early version of the others already cited that it resembles.

Here is the most salient photo, of the ones Hunt has online, that clearly shows this is the case.

As far as RK is concerned, it is case closed on this issue.

Author: David Hunt
email:
Fri, Jan 26th, 2007 10:03:20 PM

Hi RK

Find below the images you requested. http://adamanddavid1.homestead.com/transfront.jpg http://adamanddavid1.homestead.com/transback.jpg http://adamanddavid1.homestead.com/caucwarps.jpg http://adamanddavid1.homestead.com/caucweftsred.jpg

I have full size images if interested.

Dave

Author: jc
email:
Thu, Jan 25th, 2007 02:02:15 PM

We seem to believe those interested in Hunt's fragment have overlooked our statement:

"There is little doubt what we see here has been derived from the specific lexicon of Caucasian embroidery designs and, we are sure, if you begin to investigate this relationship you will be on the road to understanding where and how your pile fragment came into being."

This is the direction any investigations into this pattern's origination must take.

Forget about other searching for older piled carpets with this iconography or the silly discussion about whether or not the kafel example is better than Hunt's or vis-a-versa.

Concerning the later we will once again categorically state it isn't and the Hunt fragment, rather than Kafel's, demonstrates, in all respects, it's superior.

Author: Dave Hunt
email:
Wed, Jan 24th, 2007 10:57:14 PM

RK Replies:

hi Dave:

We'd like to see some better photos of the front and back of the corner where the weaver created that checkerboard to resolve the transition. You showed one photo of the front already, we'd need to see more, especially the warp and weft upclose.

==============================

Hi RK

Rest assured that I am not trying to asses the monetary value of my fragment over at that "other" site. I thought that others interested in the subject might enjoy seeing and discussing it,and that I could learn more in the process. I am truly interested in determining the age and provenance,within reasonable parameters,of the fragment. As a "collector" of rugs,among other things such as antiques,correct identification and categorization the objects in a collection is a compelling and satisfying intellectual process.

While I make no claim to expertise in the subject,I can honestly say that I believed the frag to be an older example,so in this respect I wasn't too far off the mark. None who have posted over at the "other" site make any particular claim to expertise in this area, and you do state that "a comprehensive art historical analysis,and only this approach is available and viable". Such an analysis could only be accurately made by one with much familarity with the subject,and I would suggest that anyone else with adequate knowledge of the subject matter would have submitted their opinion in regards to this interesting artifact by now.

So it seems that you are the resident authority, and by default the person best qualified to interpret this fragment. Quite a number of people have been following this thread,hence much public interest. Would you be willing to tell us a little more about this fragment? Can you cite some published examples of earlier and later examples? Contemporaneous examples? Just a brief overview would be adequate for our purposes.

No word from the vendor on the remaining fragments. They are probably gone,I'm afraid.I will keep looking, rest assured, you never know when something may surface.

Dave

Author: jc
email:
Tue, Jan 23rd, 2007 03:15:03 PM

Notwithstanding all the hot air and worse expelled over in professor clown’s romper rug room, there is little doubt the Hunt fragment is surely earlier than any of the other similar examples cited so far.

That includes the kafel piece, which for some unfathomable reason, the clown’s magpies believe is the best of type.

Wrong again, clowns, it ain’t and this is all RK has to say in response.

Author: jc
email:
Sun, Jan 21st, 2007 06:41:55 PM

The seemingly endless, and pointless, discussion Hunt’s, found sewn on the back of a chair, pile fragment has elicited elsewhere is frankly, as we see it, a complete waste of time.

It demonstrates well why they should be sequestered within a private email forum.

Of course Hunt, who is leading the charge, wants to “know” all about this mysterious object he found for a few dollars in some GoodWill Donation shoppe.

David, it’s worth whatever someone will pay for it and, of course you remember we inquired if you wished to sell it.

Regardless of it’s monetary value, it is, yes, better articulated than any of the other versions you and others have so far illustrated. But don’t forget there are still more, earlier ones mind you.

RK doesn’t feel inclined to present a comprehensive art historical analysis like we did to prove our position on the dodds “bogus Bellini” rug. Were we to, we could rather exactly place it on the continuum of known examples.

This and only this approach is available and viable—so trying to age-guess or place-provenance a piece like Hunt’s is a waste of time.

For the record, his fragment may or may not have come from a Karabagh Prayer rug as Hunt has posited but it surely came from a rug and was never made as a bag-face.

BTW RK does not believe any piled bagfaces were made when and where it originated.

But we do know Hunt’s fragment sits on the early end of similar examples and is not worth a whole hill of beans when compared to the far more real issues we all should be trying to solve.

Author: Hamburger
email:
Fri, Jan 19th, 2007 01:58:01 PM

Hallo jc Mors mors.

Author: Sue Zimmerman
email:
Tue, Jan 16th, 2007 03:17:25 PM

RK Replies:

We asked you not to post here, madam. We are not interested in anything you have to say.

Nor are we going to glorify your attempt to wiggle-out of the position you established for yourself or that rob also made for himself by countering your stupid assertion.

Do not post here again.

==============================

What Rob said in no way implied that Dave's fragment was questionable, either, so your whole last post was just about your own misunderstandings. You owe both of us an apology. Sue

Author: Sue Zimmerman Tue, Jan 16th, 2007 03:06:26 PM

Don't be silly. I am aware that Dave's fragment is first class. I would rather have one warp fringe of it than the whole little batch of the probable knockoffs based on it. Does it ever occur to you that you often misunderstand what I say? You have misunderstood what I said. Sue

Author: jc
email:
Tue, Jan 16th, 2007 12:56:12 PM

As expected the wagging tongues over in clownland, where "discussion" on this topic originated, have proven once more our position that website should be a private and not public forum.

Here's a somewhat reasonable (but really ridiculous comment because it implies the fragment is questionable, which it is not, or that it is not "old", which is equally as foolish an assumption) about Mr Hunt's fragment:

"Just a side remark : As soon as the Kaffel piece ( with the related medallion ) was shown, I valuated your fragment as being the original and the Kaffel piece just as a later, clumsy "imitation" of the kind.

Browsing a catalogue I saw another one like Kaffel's piece being sold at Christie's, London, ca. okt/nov. 2005, also with an amazing early date and apparently top condition.

It might stir up suspicious thoughts."

followed by another poster's far more obtuse and absurd conclusion:

" I'm hearing you loud and clear on this one. It wouldn't surprise me if on one day or another the whole "very small group of remarkably similar carpets", plus Dave's fragment, could be found under the same roof.

And not all that long ago either.

Well, at least Dave didn't get ripped off."

Yessshhhh, does the lay-public really have to be subjected to dribble like this, especially when it is directed at an obviously first-class bit of weaving like Hunt's frag?

Author: David Hunt
email: david10948@msn.com
Sun, Jan 14th, 2007 09:02:49 PM

RK Replies:

Good idea to contact the seller of the chair. And Keep searching, David, you never know where you will find interesting weavings -- after all RK knows of many interesting pieces that have been found in the most unlikely places, including the trash dump.

=============================

Hi RK

Thank you for taking the time to post your detailed response to my query.

The bagface premise was speculation on my part, a vehicle by which to try and obtain further information. I would have been thrilled if it did turn out to be a trapping, but I figured the prospect was rather slim.

The "cartouche cross" was my term, coined on the spur of the moment, for no other reason other than that I didn't know what to call this motive.

At present I am attempting to contact the vendor from whom I purchased this cushion, with the prospect of locating more fragments, but it is probably a long shot.

In the event any more fragments surface I'll let you know, and once again, thank you for the insight

Dave

Author: jc
email:
Sun, Jan 14th, 2007 01:27:44 PM

Thanks for clarifying your error and, as you can see, our webmaster has changed your post to reflect that admission.

So now on to your questions. We have decided to reprint them here, David, and then to post our replies afterwards in italics.

"To be honest I am not sure that it is a bagface, or yastik like cover, or even a small rug. It seems within the range of size exhibited by bagfaces from this region."

Your piece is not a khorjin face or a yastic -- it is a fragment from a rug.

By the way, David, you have already found that rug type and illustrated an example in clownland where this discussion has gone on for some time now, hasn't it?

"The size of the design elements, in proportion to the medallion as a whole, seem removed from those exhibited by the carpets. This "cartouche cross", with its four lateral "plumes" is striking and dominates the composition in a way not demonstrated by other examples (with which I am familiar).."

This may seem so to you but to eyes more experienced your position is untenable and frankly wrong.

Plus, the idea of a "cartouche cross" is also, in our estimation, incorrect both as terminology and in concept.

"There is a certain orientation of design, as in these corner cartouche with the "branch" elements which suggest a specific top vs. bottom orientation to the composition. And the "T" border also seems to demonstrate this same progression orientation, not found in other examples. The border seems wider, more like a proper border, than other examples. The rounding of the corners also seems more gradual than others. These, all taken together, suggest that this weaving is somehow special and different from the other examples."

Yes this is true, your fragment came from a rug that was older and better than the ones you have cited elsewhere.

"Unfortunately, there seems to be no remnants of any side or end finish, and to judge from the lack of crimping exhibited by the inch or so of weft threads extant on the lateral dimensions(which might indicate wrapping in a side finish?), the weaving is reduced in size by a couple of inches in either direction. I don't rule out the possibility of this being a fragment from a larger carpet, but it does seem to have some characteristics which give pause."

Trust us, David, it is a fragment.

"Maybe what I should be asking is:

1) if there exist any other known caucasian bagfaces with this "cartouche cross" seen in my fragment. I have seen numerous examples of caucasian bagfaces with some form of medallion, but none of this fragments particular motive"

You will not find any equally old, or older, examples with this iconography that were bagfaces. You can bet on that as well, as far as RK is concerned.

"2) on what types of weaving are the "cartouche cross" to be found? With what frequency? Geographic distribution? Particular time frame?"

We do not buy the term "cartouche cross" and, quite frankly, do not even understand how you came to apply this term to that pattern.

There is little doubt what we see here has been derived from the specific lexicon of Caucasian embroidery designs and, we are sure, if you begin to investigate this relationship you will be on the road to understanding where and how your pile fragment came into being.

"All this said, it could just be a fragment from a larger rug."

As we have stated above this is most assuredly the case.

Author: Dave Hunt Sun, Jan 14th, 2007 11:52:12 AM

Hi RK Oh no, just a typographical error.Thanks for straightening out my post,and in advance for any info regarding this fragment. Dave

Author: RK
email:
Sun, Jan 14th, 2007 11:42:26 AM

Mr. Hunt:

RK will be glad to answer some of the myriad of questions you pose but first you must answer one from us.

As you may have realized, when RK does not capitalize someone's name we do it on purpose. That purpose being our opinion this person does not deserve our respect.

So, were you implying the same, or maybe even worse, by addressing us in a similar manner?

Author: David R.E. Hunt
email: david112460@msn.com
Sat, Jan 13th, 2007 09:43:45 PM

Hi Mr cassin

Warps are of two strands, one natural and one dk. brown, and wefts natural, two shots between each row of knots. Dimensions of extant pile work are 21 in. h. x 24 in. v., and about 23 x 27 including weft and warp ends. To be honest I am not sure that it is a bagface, or yastik like cover, or even a small rug. It seems within the range of size exhibited by bagfaces from this region.

The size of the design elements, in proportion to the medallion as a whole, seem removed from those exhibited by the carpets. This "cartouche cross", with its four lateral "plumes" is striking and dominates the composition in a way not demonstrated by other examples (with which I am familiar)..

There is a certain orientation of design, as in these corner cartouche with the "branch" elements which suggest a specific top vs. bottom orientation to the composition. And the "T" border also seems to demonstrate this same progression orientation, not found in other examples. The border seems wider, more like a proper border, than other examples. The rounding of the corners also seems more gradual than others. These, all taken together, suggest that this weaving is somehow special and different from the other examples.

Unfortunately, there seems to be no remnants of any side or end finish, and to judge from the lack of crimping exhibited by the inch or so of weft threads extant on the lateral dimensions(which might indicate wrapping in a side finish?), the weaving is reduced in size by a couple of inches in either direction. I don't rule out the possibility of this being a fragment from a larger carpet, but it does seem to have some characteristics which give pause. Maybe what I should be asking is:

1) if there exist any other known caucasian bagfaces with this "cartouche cross" seen in my fragment. I have seen numerous examples of caucasian bagfaces with some form of medallion, but none of this fragments particular motive

2) on what types of weaving are the "cartouche cross" to be found? With what frequency? Geographic distribution? Particular time frame?

All this said, it could just be a fragment from a larger rug.

Dave

Author: webmaster
email:
Sat, Jan 13th, 2007 12:54:32 PM

This is the photo of the fragment:

Author: jc
email:
Fri, Jan 12th, 2007 01:42:14 PM

The photo, as promised above, will be in the next post that will appear later today.

Home   Buy/Sell at the Kazbah   Terms Of Service