Well, mr Youngster or is it ms?
First off symmetric knotting and very fine are not criteria anyone could possibly use to attribute this weaving.
Remember, the most significant aspect is its "unique"ness, which does not bode well for it or any other type of weaving.
Also remember rarely is something that is genuine unique, though that said it does happen.
So from the info provided we, or anyone else who is honest, have no clue as to what it is. Again we know what it isn't and our suggestion it might be Khirgiz was but a stab in the dark.
What other information would help to more positively provenance it?
First RK would want to examine it in the flesh, to see the color in daylight, to feel the wool, and to see the weft and warp under magnification. These facts would help us to relate it to other weavings we know far more about.
Then to do a dye test to determine the source of the red dye and mordants.
And as for it being a saddle cover? This, too, is nothing but wanton speculation on newman's part, as nothing we have ever seen suggests it might be.
As for the "leg wear" that NAMBLA pervert newman mentions as evidence?
Phuleeze now, get a grip. How could anyone possibly believe that turko-babble?
I wasn't trying to suggest that anyone is a "fool".
I thought that Newman said that it was symmetrically knotted and very fine. But I agree with you that Saryk seems a stretch, and I find it a very dubious attribution unless there is stronger justification.
My point was that it would be interesting to hear what specific possibilities you would suggest for attribution other than Saryk. What more would you need to know about the weaving to come to an educated guess?