Lot Essay
The majority of early Turkish rugs known today are products of organized urban and cottage workshops whose products were exported to the West in fairly substantial numbers. Unfortunately, we have limited knowledge of other types of carpets from the domestic village looms of Anatolia. This lack of knowledge is a result of too few known pieces of these type from which to draw any reasonable conclusions. Hopefully as the study of carpets and fragments remaining in Turkey increases so will our knowledge of these beautiful and intriguing carpets.
The carpet seen here can be associated with other carpets believed to have been woven in central Anatolia. May Beattie suggests that these carpets should be attributed to Karapinar based on visual similarities to later carpets woven there in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Beattie, May: "Some Rugs of the Konya Region," Oriental Art, Vol. XXIII, No. 1, 1976). A few of the other examples which form this tentative group are: a carpet in the John D. McIlhenny Collection in the Philadelphia Museum of Art (see Ellis, C. G.: Oriental Carpets in the Philadelphia Museum of Art, Philadelphia, 1988, no. 36), a rug in the Wher Collection, Switzerland (see Tapis Present De L'Orient A L'Occident, Paris, 1989, pp.120-121), a carpet in the Vakiflar Museum, Istanbul (see Balpinar, B. and Hirsch, U.: Carpets of the Vakiflar Museum Istanbul, 1988, pl.34) and two carpets in the Museum of Islamic Art, Berlin (see Spuhler, F.: Oriental Carpets in the Museum of Islamic Art, Berlin, 1988, no.23 and no.24). All of these carpets share a bold palette and monumental sense of design which is emphasised by the lack of outlining on most of the motifs. These carpets also all share a striking resemblence to early kilim designs, which is probably a result of the above mentioned design characteristics. Of this group, the two Berlin pieces and the Philadelphia example appear to be more stiff and crowded in their drawing, suggesting that the Bernheimer, Wher Collection and Vakiflar pieces may be earlier examples. This could also indicate, however, that the group may not be as homogenous as we think and that the first three pieces may be from a related, but different tradition.
It is most likely the present carpet is fragmentary and is missing at least one more medallion repeat. The bottom end border has been rewoven with some minor patching to the spandrels. The patches used in the spandrels are obviously from the same carpet and most likely come from the original spandrels of the now missing end corners. The Wher collection carpet is also fragmentary and would most likely also have had another medallion repeat.
Hopefully, future scholarship will reveal more information about the history and traditions of this carpet. It is not necessary, however, to understand the historical context of this carpet to appreciate its astounding beauty.
The carpet seen here can be associated with other carpets believed to have been woven in central Anatolia. May Beattie suggests that these carpets should be attributed to Karapinar based on visual similarities to later carpets woven there in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Beattie, May: "Some Rugs of the Konya Region," Oriental Art, Vol. XXIII, No. 1, 1976). A few of the other examples which form this tentative group are: a carpet in the John D. McIlhenny Collection in the Philadelphia Museum of Art (see Ellis, C. G.: Oriental Carpets in the Philadelphia Museum of Art, Philadelphia, 1988, no. 36), a rug in the Wher Collection, Switzerland (see Tapis Present De L'Orient A L'Occident, Paris, 1989, pp.120-121), a carpet in the Vakiflar Museum, Istanbul (see Balpinar, B. and Hirsch, U.: Carpets of the Vakiflar Museum Istanbul, 1988, pl.34) and two carpets in the Museum of Islamic Art, Berlin (see Spuhler, F.: Oriental Carpets in the Museum of Islamic Art, Berlin, 1988, no.23 and no.24). All of these carpets share a bold palette and monumental sense of design which is emphasised by the lack of outlining on most of the motifs. These carpets also all share a striking resemblence to early kilim designs, which is probably a result of the above mentioned design characteristics. Of this group, the two Berlin pieces and the Philadelphia example appear to be more stiff and crowded in their drawing, suggesting that the Bernheimer, Wher Collection and Vakiflar pieces may be earlier examples. This could also indicate, however, that the group may not be as homogenous as we think and that the first three pieces may be from a related, but different tradition.
It is most likely the present carpet is fragmentary and is missing at least one more medallion repeat. The bottom end border has been rewoven with some minor patching to the spandrels. The patches used in the spandrels are obviously from the same carpet and most likely come from the original spandrels of the now missing end corners. The Wher collection carpet is also fragmentary and would most likely also have had another medallion repeat.
Hopefully, future scholarship will reveal more information about the history and traditions of this carpet. It is not necessary, however, to understand the historical context of this carpet to appreciate its astounding beauty.