拍品专文
The 'waq-waq' carpet is one of the most discussed of all carpets in the classical repertoire. Fifteen fragments of this carpets survive, all of which with the exception of the present example are on display at or in the reserves of public institutions. It is also not clear whether the surviving fragments are all from the same carpet, or if there were more than one original. As well as the well-known group of fragments, there are two further complete examples made from the same cartoon although of later date, one in the Bernheimer Collection with a pink ground (Bernheimer, O.: Alte Teppiche des 16. bis 18. Jahrhunderts, Munich 1959, bild 78) and a large example in a private collection with a green ground.
The group of fifteen fragments has been attributed during the course of this century to 15th century Asia Minor, to sixteenth and seventeenth century Persia and to India. Most authorities are now agreed that India is the only possible origin. The dating however is still disputed. While most discussions conclude with a 17th century date (for example Walker, D.: 'Classical Indian Rugs', HALI, Vol.4, No.3, pp.255-257), Stuart Carey Welch (India, Art and Culture 1300-1900, exhibition catalogue, New York 1985, no. 95, pp.159-1600, followed by Brand, M and Lowry, G.D. (Akbar's India, Art from the Mughal City of Victory, no.71, pp.109-113), argue coherently for a date of the late 16th century.
The full list of other fragments from the(se) carpet(s) is as follows: 1. & 2. Musée du Louvre, Paris, inv. no.7255 (2 fragments)
3. Detroit Institute of the Arts, inv. no. 31.64
4. Metropolitan Museum of Art, inv. no. 1971.263.3 (ex. McMullan Coll.)
5-7. M. H. de Young Memorial Museum, San Francisco, inv. nos. Sachs 1952-33,34 and 35 (3 fragments)
8. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, inv. no. 04.1697
9. State Hermitage, St. Petersburg, inv. no. YT 1017
10. The Burrell Collection, Glasgow, inv. no. 9/1
11 & 12. The Textile Museum, Washington, inv. nos. R 63.00.20 A & B (2 fragments)
13. The David Collection, Copenhagen, inv. no. text.32
14. Private Collection, on view at the Sackler Gallery, Harvard University Art Museums, loan no. 358-1983
A close comparison of the above fragments shows very differing standards of draughtsmanship. The leopards show this as clearly as any other motif. While some have similar drawing to the present fragment (3,10), other have a more attenuated figure without the apparent disembodiment of the rear leg (7,8,13). The latter fragments also have looser drawing on the goat's head, making it larger and clumsier, while allowing less space around the individual animal heads. All these points would indicate that there was more than one original carpet.
It is very probable that the present fragment originally adjoined no.14. The scrolls issuing from the leopard's mouth are continued onto that fragment in the same colours which also has the mirror image leopard of the same drawing.
The group of fifteen fragments has been attributed during the course of this century to 15th century Asia Minor, to sixteenth and seventeenth century Persia and to India. Most authorities are now agreed that India is the only possible origin. The dating however is still disputed. While most discussions conclude with a 17th century date (for example Walker, D.: 'Classical Indian Rugs', HALI, Vol.4, No.3, pp.255-257), Stuart Carey Welch (India, Art and Culture 1300-1900, exhibition catalogue, New York 1985, no. 95, pp.159-1600, followed by Brand, M and Lowry, G.D. (Akbar's India, Art from the Mughal City of Victory, no.71, pp.109-113), argue coherently for a date of the late 16th century.
The full list of other fragments from the(se) carpet(s) is as follows: 1. & 2. Musée du Louvre, Paris, inv. no.7255 (2 fragments)
3. Detroit Institute of the Arts, inv. no. 31.64
4. Metropolitan Museum of Art, inv. no. 1971.263.3 (ex. McMullan Coll.)
5-7. M. H. de Young Memorial Museum, San Francisco, inv. nos. Sachs 1952-33,34 and 35 (3 fragments)
8. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, inv. no. 04.1697
9. State Hermitage, St. Petersburg, inv. no. YT 1017
10. The Burrell Collection, Glasgow, inv. no. 9/1
11 & 12. The Textile Museum, Washington, inv. nos. R 63.00.20 A & B (2 fragments)
13. The David Collection, Copenhagen, inv. no. text.32
14. Private Collection, on view at the Sackler Gallery, Harvard University Art Museums, loan no. 358-1983
A close comparison of the above fragments shows very differing standards of draughtsmanship. The leopards show this as clearly as any other motif. While some have similar drawing to the present fragment (3,10), other have a more attenuated figure without the apparent disembodiment of the rear leg (7,8,13). The latter fragments also have looser drawing on the goat's head, making it larger and clumsier, while allowing less space around the individual animal heads. All these points would indicate that there was more than one original carpet.
It is very probable that the present fragment originally adjoined no.14. The scrolls issuing from the leopard's mouth are continued onto that fragment in the same colours which also has the mirror image leopard of the same drawing.