.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
This rare carpet is part of the village weaving tradition of the Caucasus that was producing contemporaneously with court production in Ottoman Turkey and Safavid Iran. Due to its geographical location, the Caucasus, which was under Persian control at the time, was a melting pot of numerous artistic, religious and political influences. With it bold geometric design, the present carpet belongs to the so-called ‘Dragon' group thought to have been produced in workshops outside of the urban centers between the 16th and 19th centuries, displaying specific design features, centered around the imagery of stylised dragons.
THE 'DRAGON' DESIGN
The oldest representations of the mythical dragon creature come from Mesopotamia and China where the dragon has been an integral part of art since the 2nd millennium BC. The imagery of this creature quickly spread across Central Asia where it was displayed on trading goods of all kinds be it textiles, metalwork or drawings. The earliest Islamic representations of dragons from the 11th century are found on coins. Small and valuable, they travelled through the Near East in the pockets of merchants. Just a century later and they can be found on local architecture, on wooden doors, metal handles or on carpets and textiles.
The design of the ‘Dragon’ carpets consists of a field pattern composed of different coloured, overlaid lattices formed of pointed, serrated leaves creating intersecting lozenges, which alternately contain palmettes and are flanked by confronting stylised dragons, birds or animal figures. Of the known 'Dragon' carpets, the most archaic of these include dragon motifs with birds and running animals, relatively naturalistically drawn, which stand either alone or in confronting pairs facing a tree. The dragons were recognisable for their jagged mouth, long tongue, scaled and spotted skin and winged or flame-like appendages. The Theodor Graf carpet, that was originally found in a Damascene mosque and that displayed five lozenges across the field, is widely considered to be the oldest example of this type. That carpet was burnt and almost completely destroyed on 11 March, 1945 during a bomb raid on the vault of Berlin's Numismatic Collection, where it had been stored together with other classical rugs. Two relatively substantial fragments are all that remain in the Museum of Islamic Art, Berlin, (Serare Yetkin, Early Caucasian Carpets in Turkey, Vol. II, London, 1978, p.8, fig.118).
Animal combat groups were popular motifs in the late 16th and early 17th century, appearing in Persian paintings, book covers and, of course, within the magnificent carpets of the Safavid court, on which it is probable that Caucasian ‘Dragon’ carpets were modelled (Duncan Haldane, Islamic Book bindings in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London, 1983, no.106, pp.110-111, for example). Many of the classical Caucasian carpets of the 17th and early 18th centuries can be traced back to the Persian 17th century Kirman 'Vase' carpets from which the lattice of the present carpet stems (C.G. Ellis, Early Caucasian Rugs, Washington D.C, pp.12-13). In his discussion of 'Dragon' carpets, Ellis provides a useful key to the various animals which inhabit the lattice design (Ellis, op.cit., p.14). Fighting kylins, lions, fawn and running onager, pheasant, duck, leaping deer and, of course, dragons appear in varying degrees of stylisation. The present carpet displays heavily stylised outward facing, paired dragons on a dark brown field, arranged in rows enclosed by the rich red and golden yellow serrated branches however, the suggestion of the more ornate depictions found in the earlier group are absent.
GROUPS
Yetkin defines four types of 'Dragon' carpet: 'Archaic', ‘Four-Dragon’, ‘Dragon-and-Phoenix’ and as a further combined development of the latter, the ‘Two-Dragon’ style, into which the present carpet falls. It has been suggested that the earliest examples of the Caucasian 'Dragon' carpets have a greater number of repeats across the width of the weaving than in later pieces, although Yetkin suggests that the different groups were frequently developed in parallel (Yetkin, op.cit., p.25). An example of a 'Four-Dragon' carpet, from the collection of Charles Deering, was sold in Sotheby's New York, 27 September 2000, lot 35. The present 'Dragon' carpet is a superb example of the 'Two-Dragon' type carpet, in which the expansive multi-lozenge lattice of the earliest 'Dragon' carpets is narrowed to a 'loom-width' field design with a two lozenge lattice that places an emphasis on the palmettes of the central axis. A comparable carpet with a dark walnut-brown field but with slightly wider field design is in the Bruschettini collection, Genoa (Yetkin, op.cit., pl.122). Other related black ground examples include one in the Victoria and Albert Museum (Yetkin, op.cit., pl.123), another formerly in the Christopher Alexander collection which sold in these Rooms, 15 October 1998, lot 222, and a group of three fragments from the same carpet in the Textile Museum (Ellis, op.cit., pl.2; and Martin Volkmann, Alte Orientteppiche; Ausgewählte Stücke aus deutscher Privatsammlungen, Munich, 1985, no.10, pp.34-35).
A carpet of comparable design woven on a red ground was formerly in the Sharples family collection, and gifted to the Philadelphia Museum of Art in 1948 (inv. 1948-83-1), while a comparable carpet but with a slightly wider field design is in the collection of the Iparmüvészeti Museum, Budapest (Serare Yetkin, op.cit, fig.144, p.28). Both carpets depict dragons in the lattice compartments but do not feature any additional stylised birds or animal ornamentation. Moreover, the pattern on both carpets changes direction towards the center so that the palmettes and dragons present a similar picture viewed from either end. A further 'Two- Dragon' carpet with similar drawing on a red ground was bought in London in 1932 by Calouste Gulbenkian, now in the Gulbenkian Museum, Lisbon (inv. T96).
Unlike the afore-mentioned examples, the design in the present carpet places greater emphasis on the central medallion which is enclosed within a bold radiating ivory hooked frame. This so-called 'sunburst' medallion shows a transition from the earlier 'Dragon' carpets towards the overall 'Floral' carpets of the eighteenth century, as seen on a South Caucasian 'Sunburst' kelleh in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts (Ellis, op.cit., pl.17, pp.64-5), and another sold in The Bernheimer Family Collection of Carpets, in these Rooms, 14 February 1996, lot 18.
The design of the border on the present rug is a unique variant amongst the group. The woven angular vine that traverses the border is quite typical however, the usual curved bud now terminates with a larger stylised 'fingered' bud or leaf-form and appears somewhat zoomorphic in shape. This border design does not appear in Yetkin's listing of this group and appears to have no direct comparable (Yetkin, Vol II, op.cit. pp.83-89). While the field design of the present lot represents a relatively abstracted version of the Graf carpet, it is interesting to see that the border pattern has also undergone a similar and consistent abstraction process.
This striking, complete 'Dragon' carpet, with its much rarer dark walnut-brown ground, has not been seen on the open market for over thirty years. As a previously uncited example, with a unique border and fascinating transitional field design, this carpet perfectly illustrates the progression of carpet weaving in the Caucasus from the late 17th into the early 18th centuries.
THE 'DRAGON' DESIGN
The oldest representations of the mythical dragon creature come from Mesopotamia and China where the dragon has been an integral part of art since the 2nd millennium BC. The imagery of this creature quickly spread across Central Asia where it was displayed on trading goods of all kinds be it textiles, metalwork or drawings. The earliest Islamic representations of dragons from the 11th century are found on coins. Small and valuable, they travelled through the Near East in the pockets of merchants. Just a century later and they can be found on local architecture, on wooden doors, metal handles or on carpets and textiles.
The design of the ‘Dragon’ carpets consists of a field pattern composed of different coloured, overlaid lattices formed of pointed, serrated leaves creating intersecting lozenges, which alternately contain palmettes and are flanked by confronting stylised dragons, birds or animal figures. Of the known 'Dragon' carpets, the most archaic of these include dragon motifs with birds and running animals, relatively naturalistically drawn, which stand either alone or in confronting pairs facing a tree. The dragons were recognisable for their jagged mouth, long tongue, scaled and spotted skin and winged or flame-like appendages. The Theodor Graf carpet, that was originally found in a Damascene mosque and that displayed five lozenges across the field, is widely considered to be the oldest example of this type. That carpet was burnt and almost completely destroyed on 11 March, 1945 during a bomb raid on the vault of Berlin's Numismatic Collection, where it had been stored together with other classical rugs. Two relatively substantial fragments are all that remain in the Museum of Islamic Art, Berlin, (Serare Yetkin, Early Caucasian Carpets in Turkey, Vol. II, London, 1978, p.8, fig.118).
Animal combat groups were popular motifs in the late 16th and early 17th century, appearing in Persian paintings, book covers and, of course, within the magnificent carpets of the Safavid court, on which it is probable that Caucasian ‘Dragon’ carpets were modelled (Duncan Haldane, Islamic Book bindings in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London, 1983, no.106, pp.110-111, for example). Many of the classical Caucasian carpets of the 17th and early 18th centuries can be traced back to the Persian 17th century Kirman 'Vase' carpets from which the lattice of the present carpet stems (C.G. Ellis, Early Caucasian Rugs, Washington D.C, pp.12-13). In his discussion of 'Dragon' carpets, Ellis provides a useful key to the various animals which inhabit the lattice design (Ellis, op.cit., p.14). Fighting kylins, lions, fawn and running onager, pheasant, duck, leaping deer and, of course, dragons appear in varying degrees of stylisation. The present carpet displays heavily stylised outward facing, paired dragons on a dark brown field, arranged in rows enclosed by the rich red and golden yellow serrated branches however, the suggestion of the more ornate depictions found in the earlier group are absent.
GROUPS
Yetkin defines four types of 'Dragon' carpet: 'Archaic', ‘Four-Dragon’, ‘Dragon-and-Phoenix’ and as a further combined development of the latter, the ‘Two-Dragon’ style, into which the present carpet falls. It has been suggested that the earliest examples of the Caucasian 'Dragon' carpets have a greater number of repeats across the width of the weaving than in later pieces, although Yetkin suggests that the different groups were frequently developed in parallel (Yetkin, op.cit., p.25). An example of a 'Four-Dragon' carpet, from the collection of Charles Deering, was sold in Sotheby's New York, 27 September 2000, lot 35. The present 'Dragon' carpet is a superb example of the 'Two-Dragon' type carpet, in which the expansive multi-lozenge lattice of the earliest 'Dragon' carpets is narrowed to a 'loom-width' field design with a two lozenge lattice that places an emphasis on the palmettes of the central axis. A comparable carpet with a dark walnut-brown field but with slightly wider field design is in the Bruschettini collection, Genoa (Yetkin, op.cit., pl.122). Other related black ground examples include one in the Victoria and Albert Museum (Yetkin, op.cit., pl.123), another formerly in the Christopher Alexander collection which sold in these Rooms, 15 October 1998, lot 222, and a group of three fragments from the same carpet in the Textile Museum (Ellis, op.cit., pl.2; and Martin Volkmann, Alte Orientteppiche; Ausgewählte Stücke aus deutscher Privatsammlungen, Munich, 1985, no.10, pp.34-35).
A carpet of comparable design woven on a red ground was formerly in the Sharples family collection, and gifted to the Philadelphia Museum of Art in 1948 (inv. 1948-83-1), while a comparable carpet but with a slightly wider field design is in the collection of the Iparmüvészeti Museum, Budapest (Serare Yetkin, op.cit, fig.144, p.28). Both carpets depict dragons in the lattice compartments but do not feature any additional stylised birds or animal ornamentation. Moreover, the pattern on both carpets changes direction towards the center so that the palmettes and dragons present a similar picture viewed from either end. A further 'Two- Dragon' carpet with similar drawing on a red ground was bought in London in 1932 by Calouste Gulbenkian, now in the Gulbenkian Museum, Lisbon (inv. T96).
Unlike the afore-mentioned examples, the design in the present carpet places greater emphasis on the central medallion which is enclosed within a bold radiating ivory hooked frame. This so-called 'sunburst' medallion shows a transition from the earlier 'Dragon' carpets towards the overall 'Floral' carpets of the eighteenth century, as seen on a South Caucasian 'Sunburst' kelleh in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts (Ellis, op.cit., pl.17, pp.64-5), and another sold in The Bernheimer Family Collection of Carpets, in these Rooms, 14 February 1996, lot 18.
The design of the border on the present rug is a unique variant amongst the group. The woven angular vine that traverses the border is quite typical however, the usual curved bud now terminates with a larger stylised 'fingered' bud or leaf-form and appears somewhat zoomorphic in shape. This border design does not appear in Yetkin's listing of this group and appears to have no direct comparable (Yetkin, Vol II, op.cit. pp.83-89). While the field design of the present lot represents a relatively abstracted version of the Graf carpet, it is interesting to see that the border pattern has also undergone a similar and consistent abstraction process.
This striking, complete 'Dragon' carpet, with its much rarer dark walnut-brown ground, has not been seen on the open market for over thirty years. As a previously uncited example, with a unique border and fascinating transitional field design, this carpet perfectly illustrates the progression of carpet weaving in the Caucasus from the late 17th into the early 18th centuries.