.jpg?w=1)
拍品專文
Another related example to the one offered here with a similar field lattice is in the Wher Collection, Thompson, J.:Carpet Magic, Cambridgeshire, 1983, p. 147 pl.146. The similarity in the field design can be linked in design and type to the example sold at Christie's New York 10 April 1995, lot 100. However, it is atypical in field motifs to another Pashmina group, which are predominately of the millefleurs design. A millefleurs example was sold in Christie's London, 20 October 1992, lot 352, another is in the Textile Museum, Washington (McMullan, Joseph V.,: Islamic Carpets, New York, 1965, no. 34) and a third example sold in Christie's London from The Bernheimer Family Collection of Carpets, London 14 February, 1996.
The Pashmina wool used for this group comes only from the mountain goats of Ladakh and Tibet. The use of Pashmina wool today in shawls from the Kashmir region in Northern India would indicate a local tradition of knowledge of the complicated use of this extremely rare and expensive wool. This reinforces the probability of an Indian origin for the group. The dating of the group has been the subject of considerable discussion, with suggestions varying from the 17th century through to the first half of the 19th. An unpublished fragment in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, inventory no. 14.40.719, has a far larger scale of design than the others known and can be dated with certainty to the 17th century, probably to the second quarter thereof. The present lot, more typical of the group, can safely be dated to the 18th century.
The Pashmina wool used for this group comes only from the mountain goats of Ladakh and Tibet. The use of Pashmina wool today in shawls from the Kashmir region in Northern India would indicate a local tradition of knowledge of the complicated use of this extremely rare and expensive wool. This reinforces the probability of an Indian origin for the group. The dating of the group has been the subject of considerable discussion, with suggestions varying from the 17th century through to the first half of the 19th. An unpublished fragment in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, inventory no. 14.40.719, has a far larger scale of design than the others known and can be dated with certainty to the 17th century, probably to the second quarter thereof. The present lot, more typical of the group, can safely be dated to the 18th century.