Lot Essay
This rug comes from an easily recognisable group which became known as 'Lotto' in the middle part of this century as a result of the depiction of these rugs in paintings by the Venetian artist Lorenzo Lotto (1480-1556). They could equally been called after a number of other painters who also depicted these rugs in their paintings at that time. For a brief discussion on this subject see Mills, J.: ''Lotto' Carpets in Western Paintings', HALI, vol.3, no.4, pp.278-289.
Most authorities believe that these rugs were made in the Ushak area of Turkey in the sixteenth and seventeenth century. This dating is established primarily through the evidence of paintings by European artists from that period. For a summary of the appearances of 'Lotto' rugs in Netherlandish paintings see Ydema, O.: Carpets and their Datings in Netherlandish Painting 1540-1700, Zutphen, 1991, pp.27-32, diag. 1 and 3a. The dating is also helped by the import records at the time in Eastern European towns where a great number of these rugs have been found (Franses, M. and Pinner, R.: 'The 'Classical' Carpets of the 15th to 17th Centuries', HALI vol.6, no.4, p.358).
The field design of these rugs has been classified into three subgroups 'Anatolian', 'kilim' and 'ornamented' by Charles Grant Ellis ('The 'Lotto' Pattern as a Fashion in Carpets', in Ohm, A and Reber, H. (eds): Festschrift f/uur Peter Wilhelm Meister, Hamburg, 1975 and Ellis, C. G.: 'On 'Holbein' and 'Lotto' Rugs', Oriental Carpet & Textile Studies II, Carpets of the Mediterranean Countries 1400-1600, London 1986, pp.173-176, pls.13-15). The example offered here together with lots 423 and 432 in this sale are all from the 'kilim' field subgroup. This example is a particularly fine example of this type, being well drawn and balanced with polychrome highlights. It is also most unusual in the inclusion of white cotton highlights within the design.
Whilst the field design varies in details between rugs of the same period, variety in the border designs and quality have been the main basis for discussion on the origin of these pieces. The borders on all three rugs in this sale are of different types. The present example is the rarest of the three and was developed from examples of fifteenth century Anatolian rugs (Kirchheim, E. H. (ed.): Orient Stars, Stuttgart, 1993, pp.335, pl.213. for example), the present example having the addition of the small ivory octagonal panels with flowerheads. An example of almost identical design to ours is in Hungary (Batari, F.:Ottoman Turkish Carpets, Budapest, 1994, pp.48 and 103, pl.9). Another similar is in the Protestant church in Harman, Transylvania, (Vegh, G. and Layer, K.: Turkish Rugs in Transylvania, Fishguard, 1977, pl.3, dated there to the sixteenth century).
As a result of the descrepancies in design and structure between the rugs of this group it has been proposed that their production was not centralised but completed in a number of different workshops and ethnic groups within the Ushak region, using individual cartoons, possibly to meet the export demands at that time. These rugs were exported in great numbers to Europe from the start of the sixteenth to the mid-seventeenth century, when production appears to have ceased almost as suddenly as it commenced.
Most authorities believe that these rugs were made in the Ushak area of Turkey in the sixteenth and seventeenth century. This dating is established primarily through the evidence of paintings by European artists from that period. For a summary of the appearances of 'Lotto' rugs in Netherlandish paintings see Ydema, O.: Carpets and their Datings in Netherlandish Painting 1540-1700, Zutphen, 1991, pp.27-32, diag. 1 and 3a. The dating is also helped by the import records at the time in Eastern European towns where a great number of these rugs have been found (Franses, M. and Pinner, R.: 'The 'Classical' Carpets of the 15th to 17th Centuries', HALI vol.6, no.4, p.358).
The field design of these rugs has been classified into three subgroups 'Anatolian', 'kilim' and 'ornamented' by Charles Grant Ellis ('The 'Lotto' Pattern as a Fashion in Carpets', in Ohm, A and Reber, H. (eds): Festschrift f/uur Peter Wilhelm Meister, Hamburg, 1975 and Ellis, C. G.: 'On 'Holbein' and 'Lotto' Rugs', Oriental Carpet & Textile Studies II, Carpets of the Mediterranean Countries 1400-1600, London 1986, pp.173-176, pls.13-15). The example offered here together with lots 423 and 432 in this sale are all from the 'kilim' field subgroup. This example is a particularly fine example of this type, being well drawn and balanced with polychrome highlights. It is also most unusual in the inclusion of white cotton highlights within the design.
Whilst the field design varies in details between rugs of the same period, variety in the border designs and quality have been the main basis for discussion on the origin of these pieces. The borders on all three rugs in this sale are of different types. The present example is the rarest of the three and was developed from examples of fifteenth century Anatolian rugs (Kirchheim, E. H. (ed.): Orient Stars, Stuttgart, 1993, pp.335, pl.213. for example), the present example having the addition of the small ivory octagonal panels with flowerheads. An example of almost identical design to ours is in Hungary (Batari, F.:Ottoman Turkish Carpets, Budapest, 1994, pp.48 and 103, pl.9). Another similar is in the Protestant church in Harman, Transylvania, (Vegh, G. and Layer, K.: Turkish Rugs in Transylvania, Fishguard, 1977, pl.3, dated there to the sixteenth century).
As a result of the descrepancies in design and structure between the rugs of this group it has been proposed that their production was not centralised but completed in a number of different workshops and ethnic groups within the Ushak region, using individual cartoons, possibly to meet the export demands at that time. These rugs were exported in great numbers to Europe from the start of the sixteenth to the mid-seventeenth century, when production appears to have ceased almost as suddenly as it commenced.