(ed. Part I was originally written and published online in Nov. 2013. A year or so later it was moved to our online Archives. Today March 28, 2018 we moved it here along with publishing Part II, which we believe sheds some additional light on the small group of early cruciform medallion, aka 'yellow' rugs. What's it got to do with wendel aka swindle swan and a fragment he owns? Read on and find out.)
Most probably a workshop central Anatolian cruciform rug; TIEM collection, Istanbul
In 1981 RK acquired what has become known as the king of the yellow rugs..
Konya, probably Cappadocia, area yellow rug fragment, 3 feet x 7 feet, circa 1600; RK collection
We have illustrated it before and some readers are probably familiar with it.
The rug is a champion, and whether there were originally three, five, seven medallions, as some later examples of the type display, it’s a moot point when it come to viewing it.
Some years ago, actually in 2008, we noticed some palaver about the type on a website which chronicles what are known as the Saturday morning Textile Museum meetings.
Each one of these meeting has a presenter who talks on a topic of his/her choice, bringing along related examples to show the audience.
The episode in question had daniel, aka do nothing dan, walker who at the time was still the director of the Textile Museum, not having been kicked out of his position yet, as the presenter and his topic was “rug fragments”.
These get-togethers are boring as a subway ride and rarely if ever are anything but late 19th century pedestrian weavings shown.
This one was no different, however, a slide of the later rug below, most probably a workshop product and not a true village rug like the one above, was shown.
So-called, and mistakenly, ‘Karapinar’ rug, circa 1750; TIEM Collection, Istanbul
The reason was in response to some “questions” a participant had concerning a rug fragment, shown below, and two others he had recently purchased.
Circa 1850 central Anatolian rug fragment; wendle swan collection
Here are the questions:
1. Where were they from?
2. What did the textile from which they came look like originally?
3. How old are they?
Besides for the fact walker scratched his head and he said nothing the owner, who by the way was hajji baba rug-waterboy wendel aka swindle swan, proceeded to try and answer his own questions.
There is no doubt swan is a turkomoron, who would do better to keep his yapper shut and forever dispense with the notion he has something to say.
He has been around for more than 40 years but still talks like a rug-neophyte, who has command of the terms but no understanding of what they might mean.
Forget about anything original ever coming from mr swan.
RK is not going to waste time recounting the worthless words swan spilled but we will not let this quote pass by unnoticed.
“At some point, the cruciform device became a mainstay of the Karapinar repertoire, commonly used in rustic rugs.”
Please, swindle, you dope “rustic rugs”?
Get a grip and disappear from the scene and take your dumbass comments with you.
By the way RK would date the TIEM rug circa 1750, from what we call the clipper ship period.
It is typical in all respects for this period of workshop rug – good strong natural dyes with a design based on an earlier period model.
Here are the two examples side by side for a comparison, which shows the two dimensional character and derivative articulation workshop weavings of this period display.
Also we doubt highly the TIEM rug was made in Karapinar, as swan stated giving the following useless criteria for such a provenance –“Note the less dominant cruciform device in the detail above and the lavish use of purple, a characteristic of Karapinar rugs thought to be from the 16th and 17th centuries.”
There are other Anatolian rug types which use cruciform, and to think a lavish use of purple is a keynote of Karapinar rugs is equally a non sequitor.
As for wendel swan’s fragment?
RK wouldn’t bother to bend down and pick it up if we saw it lying on the ground for free.