.jpg?w=1)
拍品專文
The knot count is approximately 18V x 16H per square inch.
This beautiful small fragment comes from the main border of what must have been one of the most beautiful carpets ever woven. Larger fragments of the border are in the Brooklyn Museum (Erdmann, Kurt, Seven Hundred Years of Oriental Carpets, London, 1970, fig. 220). The most notable part of the whole carpet is the central medallion, part of which was in the collection of Baron Hatvany in Budapest and was last seen during the second World War (Pope, Arthur Upham, A Survey of Persian Art, Oxford, 1938, pl. 1141). A further fragment from the carpet entered the Musee des Tissues, Lyon in 1900 (Bennett, Ian, "Splendours of the City of Silk, part 2, Ten Safavid Masterpieces", Hali 33, January-March 1987, p. 40). The present piece adjoins the Lyon fragment.
There has been considerable variance on the attribution of a weaving center for this carpet. Pope suggested Tabriz which Erdmann concurred with. Bennett suggested Kashan or Isfahan for the Lyon example, while East Persia was suggested by Cselenyi when this piece was published. Charles Grant Ellis suggested Herat for the Brooklyn fragments, also suggesting that they came from more than one carpet ("Some compartment designs for Carpets, and Herat", Textile Museum Journal, Vol. 1, no. 4, 1965).
Wherever it was made, it is a remarkable and gorgeous fragment, a survival from what must have been an astoundingly beautiful carpet.
This beautiful small fragment comes from the main border of what must have been one of the most beautiful carpets ever woven. Larger fragments of the border are in the Brooklyn Museum (Erdmann, Kurt, Seven Hundred Years of Oriental Carpets, London, 1970, fig. 220). The most notable part of the whole carpet is the central medallion, part of which was in the collection of Baron Hatvany in Budapest and was last seen during the second World War (Pope, Arthur Upham, A Survey of Persian Art, Oxford, 1938, pl. 1141). A further fragment from the carpet entered the Musee des Tissues, Lyon in 1900 (Bennett, Ian, "Splendours of the City of Silk, part 2, Ten Safavid Masterpieces", Hali 33, January-March 1987, p. 40). The present piece adjoins the Lyon fragment.
There has been considerable variance on the attribution of a weaving center for this carpet. Pope suggested Tabriz which Erdmann concurred with. Bennett suggested Kashan or Isfahan for the Lyon example, while East Persia was suggested by Cselenyi when this piece was published. Charles Grant Ellis suggested Herat for the Brooklyn fragments, also suggesting that they came from more than one carpet ("Some compartment designs for Carpets, and Herat", Textile Museum Journal, Vol. 1, no. 4, 1965).
Wherever it was made, it is a remarkable and gorgeous fragment, a survival from what must have been an astoundingly beautiful carpet.