.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
This graphic runner belongs to a very small group all of which have a similar endless repeat design on either an ivory or dark brown field which are discussed by Michael Franses, Orient Stars, A Carpet Collection, Stuttgart and London, 1993, p 92. Connected to each ascending central hooked flower head are a pair of flanking serrated hooked leaves around which there are scattered small ornaments and flower heads. Of the six other known pieces, three were formerly owned by Yahya Arhan in Istanbul. One of these is now in the Kirchheim Collection, op. cit., no.61, also published Eberhart Herrmann, Seltene Orientteppiche III, no.50, Munich, 1980. Of the two other Arhan pieces, one is now in the al-Sabah Collection, (Friedrich Spuhler, Carpets from the Islamic Lands, London, 2012, p.140, Cat. 32) formerly with Eskenazi, the other a fragment, which was sold in Sotheby’s New York, 16 December 1993, lot 75 as part of the Collection of Dr. Jon Thompson. A well-documented example resides in the Österreichisches Museum fur angewandte Kunst in Vienna, (Angela Volker, Die Orientalishcehn Knupfteppiche im MAK, Vienna, pp.334-5, pl. 122) whilst a lesser known, unpublished example is reportedly in the Mosque of Ali Pasha, Tokat, in Turkey. The final known runner was offered for sale at Sotheby’s, London, 20 April 1983, lot 123.
Of these, the present lot is most similar to the Tokat and Sotheby’s London examples in terms of their darker brown fields whilst the remaining pieces are all on ivory. Whilst the field designs appear to differ little, the border designs are quite varied. Our runner is the longest of the group, at just under 14ft., and is unique in its use of the scrolling ‘S’ motif in the border.
At the time it was published, the Kirchheim example was noted as being on a cotton foundation. The Dr. Jon Thompson fragment that sold in Sotheby’s New York is remarkably similar in drawing to that piece, with the same linked stellar flower head border and is noted as having both a wool warp and weft. It is suggested in Sotheby's research that the technical analysis of the Kirchheim runner is incorrect and that it is of the same wool construction as theirs. In addition the Kirchheim example is the shortest in length of the group and has an added upper border, which suggests that it may have been reduced at some stage. It is possible therefore that the Sotheby’s fragment is indeed part of the Orient Stars runner, reducing the number of known examples to six.
When examining the overall design of the present lot one can see strong similarities to late 17th, early 18th century Caucasian ‘Dragon’ and floral carpets, (see Charles Grant Ellis, Early Caucasian Rugs, Washington, 1975, plate 6), however when considering the colour palette, construction and the overall quality of the wool which is thicker and softer than the often dryer and shorter clipped wool of the Caucasus, it is not entirely impossible to suggest an East Anatolian provenance for our runner.
Of these, the present lot is most similar to the Tokat and Sotheby’s London examples in terms of their darker brown fields whilst the remaining pieces are all on ivory. Whilst the field designs appear to differ little, the border designs are quite varied. Our runner is the longest of the group, at just under 14ft., and is unique in its use of the scrolling ‘S’ motif in the border.
At the time it was published, the Kirchheim example was noted as being on a cotton foundation. The Dr. Jon Thompson fragment that sold in Sotheby’s New York is remarkably similar in drawing to that piece, with the same linked stellar flower head border and is noted as having both a wool warp and weft. It is suggested in Sotheby's research that the technical analysis of the Kirchheim runner is incorrect and that it is of the same wool construction as theirs. In addition the Kirchheim example is the shortest in length of the group and has an added upper border, which suggests that it may have been reduced at some stage. It is possible therefore that the Sotheby’s fragment is indeed part of the Orient Stars runner, reducing the number of known examples to six.
When examining the overall design of the present lot one can see strong similarities to late 17th, early 18th century Caucasian ‘Dragon’ and floral carpets, (see Charles Grant Ellis, Early Caucasian Rugs, Washington, 1975, plate 6), however when considering the colour palette, construction and the overall quality of the wool which is thicker and softer than the often dryer and shorter clipped wool of the Caucasus, it is not entirely impossible to suggest an East Anatolian provenance for our runner.