.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
This group of Caucasian embroideries is extremely small, with few examples in circulation, and even fewer in good condition. Two different embroidery techniques were employed in Caucasian and Azerbijan embroideries, the cross-stitch and a diagonal long-stitch; ours uses the latter (Jennifer Wearden, "A Synthesis of Contrasts", Hali, vol.59, pp.102-111). Due to the nature of cross-stitch, the designs using that method often followed a geometric pattern of angular form, (Christie's, London, Battilossi Tappeti d'antiquariato, 11 February 1998, lot 81). With long-stitch however, softer and more fluid forms can be created as seen in the naturalistic representation of the birds, flowers and scrolling arabesque vine in this rug. The same fluidity can be seen in an early eighteenth century example in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London, (inv.no.192-1989).
Wearden discusses the various techniques and how designs were transferred and employed. Often the design was imprinted onto the cotton foundation with the aid of a resin or non-fast dye but here the use of a black and white gingham checked ground has been used. This particular ground material, sometimes blue and white, is not discussed by Wearden but is found on a number of other published examples (E. Heinrich Kirchheim et al., Orient Stars, A Carpet Collection, Stuttgart and London, 1993, pp. 68-69, pl.42; Ulrich Schurmann, Caucasian Rugs, Braunschweig, 1961, pp.350-1, pl.138; Christie's, London, 6 April 2006, lot 107; Christie's London 25 October 2007, lot 56 and Sotheby's, New York, 31 January 2014, lot 13). It also appears on an embroidery, similar to the Christie's, London, 2006 example in terms of design, recently exhibited at the XIII ICOC in Washington D.C. by Amin Motamedi. It would seem likely that the reasoning behind this was to serve as an alternative source of guidance. The weaver frequently worked from a squared chart upon which the design was drawn, against which they would have been able to match their work.
This prayer panel is one of those with the most curvilinear designs of very clear Safavid inspiration if not actual instruction. Wearden publishes three examples whose designs very clearly derive from Safavid textiles (op.cit, pls.8, 9 and 10). She dates those to the first quarter of the eighteenth century, although without giving strong rationale. Our panel, both in terms of drawing and in terms of the iconography, is one stage further removed from the high period Safavid textile designs than those. In style it certainly differs from most of the others woven in the technique, although it has features that it shares with them, particularly the example sold in Sotheby's, New York.
The drawing and in particular the proportions of the prayer arch of the present lot are however very close to those of cuerda seca tile panels in Julfa, notably those in the Church of St. George, dating from 1619. There one can see examples centred with identical vases issuing scrolling arabesques terminating with carnations beneath a palmette-filled mihrab and framed with alternating saz leaves, (John Carswell, New Julfa - The Armenian Churches and other Buildings, Oxford, 1968, pl.20, b). The present embroidery appears to have been made very much following the same style, although how long it took these designs to filter through to the Caucasus is hard to say.
Wearden discusses the various techniques and how designs were transferred and employed. Often the design was imprinted onto the cotton foundation with the aid of a resin or non-fast dye but here the use of a black and white gingham checked ground has been used. This particular ground material, sometimes blue and white, is not discussed by Wearden but is found on a number of other published examples (E. Heinrich Kirchheim et al., Orient Stars, A Carpet Collection, Stuttgart and London, 1993, pp. 68-69, pl.42; Ulrich Schurmann, Caucasian Rugs, Braunschweig, 1961, pp.350-1, pl.138; Christie's, London, 6 April 2006, lot 107; Christie's London 25 October 2007, lot 56 and Sotheby's, New York, 31 January 2014, lot 13). It also appears on an embroidery, similar to the Christie's, London, 2006 example in terms of design, recently exhibited at the XIII ICOC in Washington D.C. by Amin Motamedi. It would seem likely that the reasoning behind this was to serve as an alternative source of guidance. The weaver frequently worked from a squared chart upon which the design was drawn, against which they would have been able to match their work.
This prayer panel is one of those with the most curvilinear designs of very clear Safavid inspiration if not actual instruction. Wearden publishes three examples whose designs very clearly derive from Safavid textiles (op.cit, pls.8, 9 and 10). She dates those to the first quarter of the eighteenth century, although without giving strong rationale. Our panel, both in terms of drawing and in terms of the iconography, is one stage further removed from the high period Safavid textile designs than those. In style it certainly differs from most of the others woven in the technique, although it has features that it shares with them, particularly the example sold in Sotheby's, New York.
The drawing and in particular the proportions of the prayer arch of the present lot are however very close to those of cuerda seca tile panels in Julfa, notably those in the Church of St. George, dating from 1619. There one can see examples centred with identical vases issuing scrolling arabesques terminating with carnations beneath a palmette-filled mihrab and framed with alternating saz leaves, (John Carswell, New Julfa - The Armenian Churches and other Buildings, Oxford, 1968, pl.20, b). The present embroidery appears to have been made very much following the same style, although how long it took these designs to filter through to the Caucasus is hard to say.