Home > Archive >17th Century Kelims? RK says BS Part II
Fri, Dec 17th, 2004 06:14:30 AM
Topic: 17th Century Kelims? RK says BS Part II

Just for grins RK took a quick jaunt thru Herr Brandl’s website. Seems Galerie Kelim has two supposed 17th century Kelims illustrated there. Well, 17th century in their estimation .

Here is the first:

Called Hotamis, a designation we’d not argue with too much though we would prefer just plain Konya. This corner fragment is nothing too very special and surely doesn’t deserve to be dated anywhere earlier than circa 1800 at best.


This is not the time and place to thoroughly examine early Anatolian slit-tapestry (Kelim) iconography - we have breached the issue before and interested readers might want to look elsewhere on the board for some of those threads. In short, comparing what appears here with any Kelims that are 17th century or earlier – there are fewer than 10 such examples in our estimation - would immediately prove our assertion.

There is a second Kelim on Brandl ‘s website also dated to the 17th century:

By the way both of these can be seen in the previous exhibitions Galerie Kelim has organized, in the present exhibition none are illustrated.

This kelim is from the 2000 exhibition and it is also tagged Hotamis. Good guess, however, Brandl missed the boat here entirely as this Kelim was made further east and south, we'd posit somewhere further down towards Aleppo. The cochineal field and some of the other motifs are definitely not associated with any weavings made near or around Hotamis, a more central Konya area village location.

Surprisingly, it appears this Kelim aged a century or two in Galerie Kelim’s storage because this same piece was then illustrated in the 2002 exhibition where it is dated 17th / 18th century, when it was only circa 1800 in 2000!

Did Brandl learn so much more about Kelims in the two intervening years or did he just realize it might be easier to sell it by making it older?

Either way, or any explanation other than admitting it to be a typo error, doesn’t say much for his expertise or opinion. And besides, no other explanation could hold any water for us or allow anyone to hold any confidence concerning Brandl's other supposed 17th century pieces.

Guess Galerie Kelim’s clientele has short memories, or at least Brandl believes they do.

Again if this years annual “Symbol and Color” exhibition - yes this has been a recurring show title since 2000 according to their website - contains any other alleged 17th century Kelims (there are none illustrated on their website’s announcement for the show) RK.com would take pleasure in debunking them as well.

Ok, we realize this statement is quite prejudicial since we haven’t even seen them yet. But based on Brandl and Galerie Kelim’s past performance how could we think otherwise?

Home   Buy/Sell at the Kazbah   Terms Of Service