Lot Essay
The misnomer 'Transylvanian' used for the group of rugs similar to the present rug stems from the fact that a large proportion of the surviving examples of the type were found in the Transylvanian region of Eastern Europe in present-day Romania. It is generally accepted today however that these rugs were woven in Western Anantolia possibly directly for the export market. As with many other examples of rugs exported to the West in large quantities Charles Grant Ellis proposes that some if not all were made in eastern Europe, making the name 'Transylvanian' a possible place of weaving as well as a convenient name by which to refer to the group.
As well as the many examples which survive in eastern Europe, many more can be found in paintings of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. While the name is most assuredly connected with the double-niche rugs (such as the present lot and lot 413) and the closely related small group of prayer rugs, since an exhibition in Budapest in 1914 it has also been applied to a larger group of related prayer rugs such as lots 426 and 427. This combination of types under the same heading was reinforced by the publication of Emil Schmutzler's Teppiche aus Siebenburgen in 1933 where this, the core type, is entered as type XI, and by the fact that as high a proportion of the other types are found in this part of central Europe as of this group.
Within the group a development of the design can be traced througn the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. In the earliest examples, such as the present lot, the field drawing is precise with the palmettes and leaves growing out from the two vases. The spandrels also in some of the earliest examples are the same as those found on the small double niche Ushak rugs such as lot 435, formed of interlaced arabesques. As here, the main border is composed of alternating stellar cartouches and panels. A number of the very earliest examples also have yellow fields such as one formerly in the Susan and Lewis Manilow Collection, previously sold in these Rooms 14 April 1976, lot 14. That example however had the spandrel design which became the norm in later examples of a central flowerhead flanked by leaf motifs. A very similar rug to that offered here together with the blue and red arabesque spandrels is from the McMullan Collection (McMullan, J. V.: Islamic Carpets, New York, 1965, no. 85, pp.270-1). The arabesque spandrels are also to be found on some of the single niche prayer rugs with yellow grounds such as that in the Brukenthal Museum, Sibiu (Vegh, G and Layer, K.: Turkish Rugs in Transylvania, London, 1977, no.11), one in the Metropolitan Museum (Dimand, M.S. and Mailey.: Oriental Rugs in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 1973, no. 89, p.226 and fig.176) and one in Emil Schmutzler's own collection (Schmutzler, op. cit., pl.42). Two very similar double-niche rugs with blue fields are found in the Museum of Applied Arts in Budapest (Batari, F.: Ottoman Turkish Carpets, Budapest, 1994, pl.50, p.141) and in the Victoria and Albert Museum (HALI vol.6 no.4, p.375, pl.36). In all the examples with arabesque spandrels noted the minor border is of identical design and colouring to that of the present rug. This is a classic example of the earliest and finest group of 'Transylvanian' rugs.
As well as the many examples which survive in eastern Europe, many more can be found in paintings of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. While the name is most assuredly connected with the double-niche rugs (such as the present lot and lot 413) and the closely related small group of prayer rugs, since an exhibition in Budapest in 1914 it has also been applied to a larger group of related prayer rugs such as lots 426 and 427. This combination of types under the same heading was reinforced by the publication of Emil Schmutzler's Teppiche aus Siebenburgen in 1933 where this, the core type, is entered as type XI, and by the fact that as high a proportion of the other types are found in this part of central Europe as of this group.
Within the group a development of the design can be traced througn the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. In the earliest examples, such as the present lot, the field drawing is precise with the palmettes and leaves growing out from the two vases. The spandrels also in some of the earliest examples are the same as those found on the small double niche Ushak rugs such as lot 435, formed of interlaced arabesques. As here, the main border is composed of alternating stellar cartouches and panels. A number of the very earliest examples also have yellow fields such as one formerly in the Susan and Lewis Manilow Collection, previously sold in these Rooms 14 April 1976, lot 14. That example however had the spandrel design which became the norm in later examples of a central flowerhead flanked by leaf motifs. A very similar rug to that offered here together with the blue and red arabesque spandrels is from the McMullan Collection (McMullan, J. V.: Islamic Carpets, New York, 1965, no. 85, pp.270-1). The arabesque spandrels are also to be found on some of the single niche prayer rugs with yellow grounds such as that in the Brukenthal Museum, Sibiu (Vegh, G and Layer, K.: Turkish Rugs in Transylvania, London, 1977, no.11), one in the Metropolitan Museum (Dimand, M.S. and Mailey.: Oriental Rugs in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 1973, no. 89, p.226 and fig.176) and one in Emil Schmutzler's own collection (Schmutzler, op. cit., pl.42). Two very similar double-niche rugs with blue fields are found in the Museum of Applied Arts in Budapest (Batari, F.: Ottoman Turkish Carpets, Budapest, 1994, pl.50, p.141) and in the Victoria and Albert Museum (HALI vol.6 no.4, p.375, pl.36). In all the examples with arabesque spandrels noted the minor border is of identical design and colouring to that of the present rug. This is a classic example of the earliest and finest group of 'Transylvanian' rugs.