Earthsong

Earthsong

Friday, December 14, 2007

Mihael Franses reports: Almost two hundred major works of Safavid Persian art
are beautifully installed on the lower ground floor of the Louvre in `Le
Chant du monde, L’Art de l’Iran safavide, 1501-1736′, an exhibition that is
truly worth visiting.

Guest-curator Assadullah Souren Melikian-Chirvani is perhaps best known for
his art column in the weekend International Herald Tribune as well as for
regular articles in Art & Auction, but he is also a highly regarded expert in the
world of Islamic and pre-Islamic art, specialising in Sasanid and Timurid art,
and on metalwork in particular. His choice of exhibits is very personal, but
he has assembled a number of the greatest works of art from the Safavid period.

The exhibition includes more than forty ceramics and almost thirty metal
objects, along with book covers, pen cases and works in ivory. Textiles and
carpets are less well represented: two velvets (a coat above and a cover 1), a silk
embroidered wall panel 2 and three carpets. The vast majority of the exhibits,
however, over eighty in all, are illuminated manuscripts. Not being an expert
in this field, I can only admire their quality. There are a number of pages
from the famous dispersed Houghton Shahnameh, which is recognised as being on a
par with paintings by the greatest 16th century European masters. The
exhibits encapsulate the extraordinary refinement of the Safavid court, reflecting an
artistry that has evolved over more than 2,000 years, and the display is
clearly intended to be appreciated at different levels by both scholars anda lay
audience. I was there on a Monday morning, usually a quiet time for museums,
and the exhibition had already been running for some five weeks, but there was
still a substantial crowd.

Many of the paintings depict Safavid carpets and one can, moving from one to
the next, gain a very good overall impression of this art form. Indeed, apart
from the series of illustrations of actual carpets in Arthur Upham Pope’s A
Survey of Persian Art, it is difficult to see so many depictions of Safavid
carpets together in one place. Our knowledge of the art of the carpet is severely
hampered by the fact that so few actual examples have survived, making
articles on carpets in Iranian paintings, such as those by Amy Briggs, of great
importance to understanding the patterns.1

Among the paintings I counted thirty illustrations of carpets, as well as one
possible zilu cotton flatweave and two wonderful canopies. The paintings are
of such high quality that many depict fine details of the patterns and
glorious colours. The Metropolitan Museum’s painting of Sindokht, Mother of Rudabe,
Arriving in Kabul from the Houghton Shahnameh, for example, depicts two rugs
and a floor cloth, possibly in velvet 3. One rug has the typical Kufesque border
with interlace that we know so well from Timurid paintings, and a field
pattern with a small monochrome floral design found in the `Salting’ carpet
borders,2 which tends to be associated with early Safavid carpet design. Inthe
foreground of the painting is another rug, far more typical of early Safavid
carpets, with a green ground and a two-level spiral arabesque and split-leaf design
rather in the manner of northwest Iranian carpets;3 the border has two
overlapping meandering stems on a red ground.

A painting from the Sackler Gallery in Washington DC 4 depicts a huge carpet
spread out to cover the entire foreground (it is so large that none of the
borders can be seen), with glimpses of another carpet visible behind a row of
kneeling figures. The dark blue ground with stems and small multicoloured flowers
is reminiscent of the field pattern of the pair of Ardabil carpets in London
and Los Angeles.4 As I wrote in my `Postcard from Paris (hali.com, 29 November
2007), Eleanor Sims has rightly suggested that the carpets in many Persian
(Timurid and Safavid) paintings be artist’s impressions in which the colours
have been selected to suit the overall composition rather than for the accurate
representation of real carpets. However, this seems rather less likely to true
of the paintings exhibited in Paris.

The inclusion of carpet images in so many Safavid paintings indicates that
they were an integral part of the art of the period. It is sad that so few have
survived, and that so few Islamic art experts have turned their attention to
carpets, whose study is not usually regarded as one of the higher disciplines
within this field. Scholars of Islamic paintings who have approached the
subject from a different perspective to those familiar with the minutiae ofcarpet
material. Initially we tend to judge carpets on their immediate beauty, then
compare them to others from the same period, city, workshop or loom. To
understand carpets one requires vast experience handling and examining as many as
possible surviving examples, as well as in-depth awareness of structures, dyes and
minor details – a combination of this expertise with a knowledge ofSafavid
art in other mediums would be perfect. Unfortunately, to a carpet enthusiast,
Souren Melikian’s selection of Iranian carpets seems a little strange.

The exhibition contains two small all-silk carpets with early 16th century
patterns 5,6, and one fragment of a wool carpet on a silk foundation 7. When
most people think of Iranian silk carpets, they tend to imagine the small
commercial rugs made during the 19th and early 20th centuries. But to the
connoisseur, the art of almost all Iranian carpets had declined by about 1720, and a
purist might set a date of 1600 for the end of the high point. This particularly
applies to silk carpets, as the vast majority of 17th century examples tendto
be of the `Polonaise’ type, which are generally much coarser in weave and
cruder in drawing than their precursors. So few 16th century Safavid silk carpets
survive that is hardly surprising they are not widely known.

In 1916, R.M. Riefstahl first identified the group of 16th century `Kashan’
silk rugs (although there appears to be no direct evidence to attribute anyof
the existing examples to that city).5 Then, in 1961, Kurt Erdmann discussed
the fourteen examples that he knew, grouping them by design.6 In 1987, Eberhart
Herrmann wrote about the `small silk Kashans’ in relation to the
newly-published Bacri rug.7 In 1994, curator Daniel Walker exhibited four silk Kashan
rugs at the Metropolitan Museum, and perfectly summarised the existing literature
and added his own observations in a HALI article.8 The `Kashan’ group now
contains four complete large carpets and the borders from a fifth: two Hunting
carpets (Museum für angewandte Kunst, Vienna, and Museum of Fine Arts,Boston);
two medallion carpets (Swedish Royal Collection, Stockholm, and one formerly
belonging to the Polish state in Warsaw, but lost during World War II); and
the joined pair of Rothschild border fragments in the Museum für Kunstund
Gewerbe in Hamburg, which might have come from a carpet identical to the lost
Warsaw piece.9 To these can be added sixteen complete small rugs and fragments of a
seventeenth.10

Silk rugs were certainly made in places other than Kashan in 16th and early
17th century Iran. A small silk carpet fragment survives in a Swiss collection
from probably the same workshop as the wool carpet fragment from the Edward
James Collection discussed below 8; and a complete silk-pile medallion rug with
animals and the same border is in a private collection in Lecco.11 There isa
medallion rug in Tehran, with cartouche borders and reportedly silk pile,
which relates closely to the wool-pile `Salting’ rugs and was certainly made in
the same workshops.12 The Stieglitz silk rug with medallions and cartouchesin
the Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg,13 relates in design to wool carpets in
the Shrine at al-Najaf in Iraq. A most curious and beautiful 17th century small
silk rug with a shrub design, displayed in the Metropolitan Museum,14 has the
narrow border stripe typical of Tabriz carpets.

Another small group comprises the all-silk Liechtenstein, Czartoryski and
Rainey Rogers rugs,15 which seem to be precursors of the cotton-warped `Polonaise’
rugs. Two silk pile carpets have strapwork designs in the field: the Shah
Abbas I carpet at al-Najaf, and the Aberconway carpet in the Victoria & Albert
Museum,16 which also houses an Esfahan Armenian silk carpet woven in the shape
of a Christian ecclesiastical vestment with a crucifixion scene.16 A later
silk rug with tree designs is in the Residenz Museum, Munich.17 From other
workshops come the silk tree carpets from the Mausoleum of Shah Abbas II atQum,18
and the silk tree carpet in the Musée Historique des Tissus in Lyon.19

It is strange that the two important Iranian silk-pile `tomb covers’
selected for the Louvre exhibition, were not discussed by the above-mentioned authors
when they wrote about Kashan rugs. Perhaps they did not consider them to be
from Kashan. The first of the two is the wonderful carpet now in the Gulbenkian
Museum in Lisbon 6.20 In HALI 114, Steven Cohen commented: `[This] enigmatic
silk-piled carpet, suitable as a tomb cover, is said to have been associated
with the Shrine of Imam Reza in Mashhad. Purchased in Tehran in 1939, and
tentatively attributed to the 16th century (in the museum catalogue), in design it
is either Timurid or early Safavid (if it is not a 19th century copy of an
earlier textile). Elegantly drawn animals, grotesque animal heads and linesof
Persian script are combined with arabesque stem scrolls to cover both the wide
red border and the narrow, dark brown rectangular central field and corner
spandrels. Without a full structural analysis combined with the results of C-14,
fibre and dye analysis, further speculation about its origin and date is
meaningless. But this could be one of the most remarkable textiles in the entire
Gulbenkian Collection.’21

Close examination the Gulbenkian rug, which was purchased from Arthur Upham
Pope, leaves me in no doubt that it is one of the most important of Safavid
silk carpets, and that anyone who has the opportunity to examine the corpusof
16th century Iranian silk rugs would come to the same conclusion. I am surprised
that neither Melikian nor Cohen compared its design to that of the famous
Beshiktash wool-pile blue-ground Vaq-Vaq rug, four fragments of which are
currently exhibited next door to the Louvre in the Musée des Arts Décoratifs.22 The
Gulbenkian and Beshiktash rugs are probably not from the same place, but seeing
them together prompts me to question the latter’s long-standing attribution
to India, especially as in weave it resembles little else from the
sub-continent.23

Melikian’s reading of the the Gulbenkian rug’s inscription and date, `
Ramadan 933′ (May/June 1529), which probably marks the date of its presentation,
seems highly likely. However, the jury remains out on the companion exhibitfrom
the Cincinnati Art Museum 7, which was also, interestingly, acquired from Pope
in 1953.24 While I am certain that the Pope/Gulbenkian rug is from Iran and
the 16th century, I am far less certain of the period or origin of the
Pope/Cincinnati rug, and Cohen’s comments regarding C-14 testing, dye and fibre
analysis are relevant here. It would be ideal if both rugs could be tested at the
same time in the same laboratory.

I am not alone in my thoughts about the Pope/Cincinnati carpet. Several other
carpet experts with whom I have discussed it have also expressed doubts about
its date and suspect that it might well be a later `copy’. I first saw the
Gulbenkian rug in 1974, and the Cincinnati rug in the 1980s. Two further trips
to Lisbon convinced me that I had to see the two together, so I have Melikian
to thank for the opportunity.

As far as similarities between the two rugs are concerned, both have red-dyed
warps and their border patterns mirror on the horizontal and vertical axes.
But there are considerable differences. The Gulbenkian rug is made on its
length and the Cincinnati on its width. Several of the colours used for many of the
motifs on the Gulbenkian change in the mirrored design, but this does not
occur on the Cincinnati. The drawing of the houri in the corners and other
details on the Gulbenkian rug, particularly the cloudbands, is excellent, while the
drawing on the Cincinnati is much weaker. It is as if the latter design has
been copied: its perfect symmetry is almost mechanical and the drawing of the
outer minor border poor, unlike all other finely woven 16th century Persiansilk
rugs. I am also concerned by the manner in which the field design is mirrored
about its central axis, as if it too is copied from an incomplete section of
another composition, then mirrored.

But it is not just the weak drawing that troubles me, as there are many 16th
century Iranian wool pile rugs with such a weakness. More specifically, it is
the `handle’ of the rug. Although I have not been able to touch it, the pile
looks to have been purposefully worn, and the ageing seems unnatural. The
proportions of border to field are also troubling. The beauty of 16th century
Iranian carpets often lies in the very carefully constructed relationship between
the proportions of the major and minor borders and the field, which gives the
rugs an elegance that is lost in later centuries. None of the proportions here
feel comfortable.

It might be that the Cincinnati rug is a direct copy, either complete or in
part, of another rug, now lost. If so, the `copied’ inscriptions would create
confusion as regards origin or age. Dr Glenn Markoe, curator at Cincinnati,
has agreed to C-14 dating and perhaps also to dye analysis after the Louvre
exhibition.25

The third carpet selected by Melikian is the Edward James section from the
series of 16th century central Iranian red-ground hunting carpets 8. I found
this a curious choice, given the range of extraordinary Safavid carpets in other
collections, in particular French ones. Melikian compares the James sectionto
a painting in the Shah-Nama of Shah Tahmasp – but tantalisingly does not tell
us which one. We are programmed to believe that nothing Melikian does has not
been carefully planned, and consequently all the exhibits must have been
selected with great care. He must, therefore, have had very definite reasons for
selecting this piece, but these are not shared with us. More obvious choices
for a great Safavid exhibition – without trying to be too ambitiousor exceeding
a reasonable budget – might have been, for example: the Tabriz medallion
fragment or the small silk Kashan from the Musée des Gobelins, or the Hakkim
Bey/Peytel silk Kashan with animals, the Maciet Paris-Cracow central Iranian carpet
(my personal favourite) or the Mantes Cathedral carpet, all in the Louvre
Collection.

This is not to say that the James fragment is not beautiful, but it would
have been more exciting – had space permitted and if this particular design was
an important criterion – to have included one of the famous pair of`Emperor’
carpets (one in the MAK, Vienna, the other in the Metropolitan Museum, New
York, not that this is mentioned in the catalogue),26 which form the `first’
group of animal carpets from the same production centre as the James, as these
show a more complete version of the cartoon. The James fragment is part of the `
second’ group,27 of which only one complete example survives, also in the MAK,
but this does not show all the patterns that can be seen on the Emperor
carpets. Also based on the same cartoon is a corner fragment in the MAK, aswell as
two carpets reduced in length, one in the V&A and the other (the Bacri
carpet) now with Tabibnia in Milan. The James fragment may have come from one of them
, although again there is no mention of this in the catalogue. At least four
other smaller fragments are known, including one in the Musée des Arts
Décoratifs, currently on exhibition there.

`Le Chant du monde, L’Art de l’Iran safavide, 1501-1736′, was initially
intended to cover the later period of Safavid art, complementing the `Hunt for
Paradise: Court Arts of Iran, 1501-1576′ exhibition held in Milan and New York
in 2003, which concentrated on the earlier period. But a year before it wasdue
to open, the curator in charge left the museum, and Melikian stepped in. The
previous selection was scrapped and a new choice was made by Melikian alone.

Had time and space allowed, the addition of more great Safavid carpets might
have turned this exhibition into one of the most memorable ever: the last
truly exceptional exhibition of Persian art was the one curated by Arthur Upham
Pope at Burlington House in London in 1931. To have seen many of the best
Safavid carpets alongside so many outstanding paintings of the period wouldhave
been truly extraordinary. It had always been Daniel Walker’s aim tofollow his
magnificent Mughal carpet exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum of Art withone
on Safavid carpets, and this may still happen. Perhaps peace will prevail in
the world and the Iranians will one day step up to the plate and mount an
exhibition in Tehran to outclass and dazzle Pope, had he been alive to see it.

Delacroix is reported to have said that if you want to see colour, look at
Persian carpets. Sadly, on this occasion, for a Safavid show, we were a little
bereft in this department.

Notes

1. Amy Briggs, `Timurid Carpets, I, Geometric Carpets’, ArsIslamica, VII/1,
1940, pp.20-54; `Timurid Carpets, II, Arabesque and Flower Carpets’, Ars
Islamica, IX-XII, 1940, pp.146-58, figs.10-16.
2. See Murray Eiland & Robert Pinner, eds., Oriental Carpet and Textile
Studies V/2, The Salting Carpets, Danville, 1999.
3. E.g. The Imperial Austrian Medallion Carpet with spiral arabesque on a
green field and strapwork border. Tabriz, 15th or 16th century. 222 x 530 cm.
Gulbenkian Museum, Lisbon, no.T.97. Formerly: Emperor Charles V (?); Austrian
Imperial Collection; Calouste Gulbenkian Collection, Paris, acquired in Haifa in
1935. Published: Arthur Upham Pope, ed., A Survey of Persian Art, London & New
York, 1938-39, pl.1122; Donald King & David Sylvester, eds., The Eastern
Carpet in the Western World, London, 1983, pp.42, 85-6, no.58; Calouste Gulbenkian
Museum, Tapetes Orientais, Lisbon, 1985, pl.I; Steven Cohen, `Safavid and
Mughal Carpets in the Gulbenkian Museum, Lisbon’, HALI 114, 2001, pp.75-85, no.3.
4. The Ardabil carpets are widely published.
5. Rudolf Meyer Riefstahl, `Oriental Carpets in American Collections: Part
One. Three Silk Rugs in the Altman Collection’, Art in America, IV,1916,
pp.147ff.
6. Kurt Erdmann, `Die kleinen Seidenteppiche Kaschans’, Pantheon, XIX/4,
1961, pp.59ff, republished in English as `The Small Silk Carpets ofKashan’, in
Seven Hundred Years of Oriental Carpets, London, 1970, pp.61-65.
7. Eberhart Herrmann, `A Great Discovery’, HALI 36, 1987, pp.48-51, 105-6.
8. Daniel Walker, `Metropolitan Quartet’, HALI 76, 1994, pp.104-107.
9. The so-called `large silk Kashans’:
(1) The Vienna Silk Hunting Carpet. 331 x 687 cm. MAK, Vienna, no.T8336.
Formerly: Imperial Collection, Austria; reportedly gift of Tsar Peter the Great,
Russia, to Leopold I of Austria, 1698. Published: A. von Scala et al., Katalog
der Ausstellung Orientalischer Teppiche, im K.K.Ã-sterr. Handels-Museum, 1891,
Vienna, 1891, pp.256-7, no.320 (detail); Friedrich Sarre et al., Ausstellung
von Meisterwerken Muhammedanischer Kunst, Munich, 1910, no.1, pls.42, 43;
Friedrich Sarre & Hermann Trenkwald, Old Oriental Carpets, Leipzig, 1926-29, vol.I,
pls.1-5; Kurt Erdmann, `Tappeti Persani’, Dedalo, XII, 1932, pp.722-4; Pope
1938-39, op.cit., pls.1191-2; Ian Bennett, `The Emperor’s Old Carpets’, HALI
31, 1986, p.12; Angela Völker, Die Orientalischen Knüpfteppiche im MAK,
Vienna, 2001, pp.198-203, no.70.
(2) The Branicki Silk Kashan Hunting Carpet. 350 x 760 cm. Villa Willamove,
Warsaw, presumed destroyed during World War II. Formerly: Count Branicki
Collection, Warsaw. Published: Pope 1938-39, op. cit., pls.1195-6; Herrmann,
op.cit., pp.50, 105 (cited).
(3) Border fragments from the pair to the Branicki Silk Kashan Hunting
Carpet. 140 x 256 cm, two joined sections. Museum für Kunst und Gewerbe, Hamburg.
Formerly: Rothschild Collection; Ulrich Schürmann, Cologne. Published:Palais
Galliera, Paris, auction catalogue, 28 March 1968, lot 108; Peter Meister and
Siawosch Azadi, Persische Teppiche, Hamburg, 1971, p.19, no.2, frontispiece.
(4) The Torrigiani Silk Kashan Hunting Carpet. 255 x 480 cm. Museum of Fine
Arts, Boston, no.66.293. Formerly: Marchese Torrigiani Collection, Florence,
1879; Stefano Bardini, Florence; Adolphe Rothschild Collection, Paris; Maurice
Rothschild Collection, Paris; John Goelet Collection. Published: Sarre and
Trenkwald, op.cit., vol.II, pls.24-26; Ralph Pinder-Wilson et al., The Artsof
Islam, London, 1976, no.57; Walter B. Denny, `Ten Great Carpets’, review of the
exhibition of the same title at the Boston Museum of Fine Art, HALI 1/2, 1978,
pp.156-64, fig.4; Herrmann, op.cit., pp.50, 105 (cited); James Allan et al.,
Hunt for Paradise, Court Arts of Safavid Iran, 1501-1576, Asia Society, New
York, 2003, p.286, no.12.12.
(5) The Stockholm Silk Kashan Hunting Carpet. 285 x 555 cm. Royal
Collections, Stockholm, no.467. Published: Pope 1938-39, op.cit., pls.1193-4; Erdmann
1932, op.cit.; King and Sylvester, op.cit., p.43, no.65; HALI 5/3, 1983, p.309;
Herrmann, op.cit., pp.50, 105 (cited); HALI 72, 1993/1994, p.92.
10. The so-called `small silk Kashans’:
(1) The Bode Four-Lobed Medallion Design Silk Kashan Rug. 16th century. 180x
230 cm. Calouste Gulbenkian Museum, Lisbon, no.T.100. Formerly: Wilhelm von
Bode, Berlin; Schlossmuseum, Berlin; Frederick Sarre, Berlin; Calouste
Gulbenkian Collection, Paris (acquired in Amsterdam in 1936). Published: A.von Scala
et al., Orientalische Teppiche, 3 vols, Ã-sterreichischen Handels-Museum,
Vienna (London/Paris), 1892, vol.I, pl.XII; Erdmann 1932, op.cit.; Pope 1938-39,
op.cit., pl.1200; Erdmann 1970, op.cit., p.65, fig.68 (detail); Calouste
Gulbenkian Museum 1985, op.cit., pl.II; Herrmann, op.cit., pp.49, 51, 105; Walker
1994, op.cit., p.105 (cited); HALI 109, 2000, p.149; Cohen, op.cit., p.84, no.9;
Allan et al., op.cit., pp.292-3, no.12.17; Teresa Pacheco Pereira and Jessica
Hallett, The Oriental Carpet in Portugal, Carpets and Paintings, 15th-18th
Centuries, Lisbon, 2007, pp.86-7, no.23.
(2) The Altman Four-Lobed Medallion Design Silk Kashan Rug. 178 x 241 cm.
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; no.14.40.715. Formerly: Benjamin Altman
Collection, New York. Published: Sarre and Trenkwald, op.cit., vol.II, pl.41;
Maurice Dimand and Jean Mailey, Oriental Rugs in the Metropolitan Museum ofArt,
New York, 1973, pp.56, 102, no.14, fig.80; Walker 1994, op.cit., p.105, 120,
pl.2.
(3) The Goupil Four-Lobed Medallion Design Silk Kashan Rug. 185 x 245 cm.
Mobilier National (Musée des Gobelins), Paris, no.GOB1534. Formerly: Albert
Goupil Collection, Paris. Published: Von Scala et al. 1892, op.cit., vol.III,
pl.LXXV; Exhibition Catalogue of Persian Art, London, 1931, p.101, no.179 (cited);
Pope 1938-39, op.cit., pl.1201; Erdmann 1970, op.cit., p.61, fig.60; King and
Sylvester, op.cit., pp.92-3, no.68; Herrmann, op.cit., pp.49, 105 (cited);
Susan Day, `The Artist’s Eye: Carpet and Textile Collections of the Orientalists’
, HALI 126, 2003, pp.94-104, p.104, fig.22.
(4) The Khalili Four-Lobed Medallion Design Silk Kashan Rug. 180 x 242 cm.
Khalili Collection, Switzerland, no.txt144. To be published in the forthcoming
volume on carpets and textiles in the Khalili Collection.
(5) The Amsterdam Eight-Lobed Medallion Design Silk Kashan Rug. 168 x 245 cm.
Portuguese-Israelite Community Collection, Sephardi Synagogue, Amsterdam.
Published: Erdmann 1961, op.cit., p.161; Erdmann 1970, op.cit., p.63, fig.64;
King and Sylvester, op.cit., p.92 (cited); Herrmann, op.cit., pp.49, 105 (cited);
HALI 61, 1992, p.124.
(6) The Johnston Eight-Lobed Medallion Design Silk Kashan Rug. 171 x 249 cm.
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, no.58.46, acquired 1958. Formerly: John
Taylor Johnston Collection; Mrs Douglas M. Moffat. Published: Erdmann 1961,
op.cit., p.158; Erdmann 1970, op.cit., p.63, fig.65; Dimand and Mailey, op.cit.,
pp.58, 102-3, no.16, fig.82; King and Sylvester, op.cit., p.92, no.67;
Herrmann, op.cit., pp.49, 105 (cited); Walker 1994, op.cit., pp.107, 120, pl.4.
(7) The Bacri Eight-Lobed Medallion Design Silk Kashan Rug. 165 x 250 cm.
Bruschettini Foundation, Genoa. Formerly: Reportedly from the estate of a
European royal family; Bacri Frères, Paris; Herrmann, Munich; Wher Collection.
Published: Herrmann, op.cit., pp.48, 49, 105; HALI 53, 1990, p.115; James Allan et
al., op.cit., p.270, no.12.1.
(8) The Wittelsbach Banded Four-Lobed Medallion Design Silk Kashan Rug. 156x
266 cm. Bayerisches Nationalmuseum, Munich, no.1611. Formerly: House of
Wittelsbach Collection, Munich. Published: Sarre and Trenkwald, op.cit., vol.II,
pl.42 (cited); Exhibition Catalogue, op.cit., p.105, no.185 (cited); Pope
1938-39, op.cit., pl.1202; Erdmann 1970, op.cit., p.61, fig.61; Pinder-Wilson et
al., op.cit., p.100, no.62; Herrmann, op.cit., pp.49, 51, 105; HALI 124, 2002,
p.47.
(9) The Coimbra Banded Four-Lobed Medallion Design Silk Kashan Rug. 175 x 277
cm. Museu Nacional de Machado de Castro, Coimbra, no.T 744. Published:
Herrmann, op.cit., pp.49, 50, 105; Walker 1994, op.cit., p.106 (cited); Jessica
Hallett and Teresa Pacheco Pereira, `The Queen’s List’, HALI 152, 2007, p.77;
Pereira and Hallett, op.cit., pp.86, 178, no.22.
(10) The Taylor Banded Four-Lobed Medallion Design Silk Kashan Rug. 163 x 254
cm. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, no.14.40.724. Formerly: J.E. Taylor
Collection, New York; Benjamin Altman Collection, New York. Published: Sarre
and Trenkwald, op.cit., vol.II, pl.42; Dimand and Mailey, op.cit., pp.57, 102,
no.15, fig.81; Herrmann, op.cit., pp.49, 105 (cited); Walker 1994, op.cit.,
pp.106, 120, pl.3.
(11) The Morgan Eight-Lobed Medallion Design Silk Kashan Rug. 173 x 240 cm.
National Gallery, Washington DC, no.1942.9.478. Formerly: J. Pierpoint Morgan
Collection; French & Co, New York; Joseph Widener Collection, Philadelphia,
1924. Published: Pope 1938-39, op.cit., pl.1197; Erdmann 1961, op.cit., p.162;
Erdmann 1970, op.cit., p.64, fig.67; Herrmann, op.cit., pp.49, 105 (cited);
Robert Wilson Torchia, `Widener’s Gift’, HALI 92, 1997, pp.88-97, fig.1.
(12) The Rothschild Lobed Ogival Medallion Design Silk Kashan Rug. 178 x 236
cm. Al-Thani Collection, Doha, no.CA.21.99. Formerly: Baroness Clarice de
Rothschild; Ã-sterreichisches Museum für Angewandte Kunst, Vienna,no.T9304.
Published: Erdmann 1961, op.cit., p.160; Erdmann 1970, op.cit., p.64, fig.66;
Christie’s, London, auction catalogue, 8 July 1999, lot 190; HALI 105, p.148; Jon
Thompson, Silk, 13th to 18th Centuries, Treasures from the Museum of Islamic
Art, Qatar, Doha, 2004, pp.58-61, no.13.
(13) The Princezza Animal Design Silk Kashan Rug. 178 x 238 cm. Metropolitan
Museum of Art, New York, no.14.40.721. Formerly: Prince Princezza Collection;
Edouard Chappey Collection; Benjamin Altman Collection, New York. Published:
Galerie Georges Petit, Paris, auction catalogue, 7 June 1907, lot 1912; Sarre
and Trenkwald, op.cit., vol.II, pl.39; Pope 1938-39, op.cit., pl.1199; Erdmann
1970, op.cit., p.62, fig.62; Dimand and Mailey, op.cit., pp.101-2, 142-3,
no.13, fig.79; Herrmann, op.cit.,
(14) The Ludlow Animal Design Silk Kashan Rug. 175 x 232 cm. Detroit
Institute of Art, no.25.23. Formerly: Lady Ludlow, London; Edsel Ford, Detroit.
Published: Erdmann 1932, op.cit.; Erdmann 1970, op.cit., p.62, fig.63; Herrmann,
op.cit., pp.49, 105 (cited).
(15) The Aynard Animal Design Silk Kashan Rug. 168 x 234 cm. Tehran Carpet
Museum, Tehran. Formerly: Edouard Aynard Collection, Lyon; David Rockefeller Jr.
Collection, New York. Published: Erdmann 1970, op.cit., p.62 (cited); HALI
2/2, 1979, p.99, fig.8; Herrmann, op.cit., pp.49, 105 (cited).
(16) The Hakkim Bey Animal Design Silk Kashan Rug. 109 x 124 cm. Muséede
Louvre, Paris, no.6741, acquired in 1919. Formerly: Hakkim Bey Collection; Joanny
Peytel Collection. Published: Sarre and Trenkwald, op.cit., vol.II, pl.40;
Erdmann 1970, op.cit., p.188, fig.233; King and Sylvester, op.cit., p.92, no.66;
Herrmann, op.cit., pp.49, 105 (cited); Susan Day, “Chinoiserie’ in Islamic
Carpet Design’, HALI 48, December 1989, pp.38-45, p.39.
(17) The Unger Silk Kashan Border Fragments. (a) 29 x 96 cm. Whereabouts
unknown. Formerly: Unger collection, Mexico City; Galerie Sailer, Salzburg.(b) 12
x 26 cm. Siesta collection, Milan. Formerly: Unger collection, Mexico City.
Unpublished.
11. The Swiss collection and Lecco rugs are both unpublished.
12. Ivory ground and lobed medallion silk pile rug with cartouche border.
Kashan?, 16th century. 193 x 228 cm. Iran Bastan Museum, Tehran. Published:Pope
1938-39, op.cit., pl.1156.
13. The Stieglitz Cartouche and Star Medallion Carpet. 167 x 231 cm, silk
pile with metal thread. State Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg, no.(V)T-1045.
Formerly: Stieglitz Museum, St Petersburg. Published: HALI 135, 2004, p.99;HALI
153, 2007, p.37.
14. On permanent display, on loan from a private collection. Published:
Maurice Dimand, A Guide to an Exhibition of Oriental Rugs and Textiles, NewYork,
1935, no.23.
15. Pope 1938-39, op.cit., pls.1242-3, 1261.
16. Two silk strapwork carpets:
(1) The Shah Abbas I pair of silk strapwork carpets. Each with borders on
three sides only, made to lie next to each other. 478 x 1403 cm each (together
956 x 1403 cm). Shrine of Imam Ali at al-Najaf. Gift of Shah Abbas I. Published:
Mehmet Aga-Oglu, Safawid Rugs and Textiles, The Collection of the Shrine of
Imam `Ali at Al-Najaf, New York, 1941, p.30, pl.1.
(2) The Aberconway silk strapwork carpet. 252 x 137 cm, section from the
field with two side borders. Victoria & Albert Museum, London. Published: Pope 1938
-39, op.cit., pl.1252.
17. Pope 1938-39, op.cit., pl.1253; HALI 36, 1987, pp.7, 11; Berdj Achdjian
and Dickran Kouymjian, `The Legacy of the Indjoudjians’, HALI 142, 2005,
pp.68-73, fig.5.
18. Pope 1938-39, op.cit., pl.1251.
19. Pope 1938-39, op.cit., pls.1258-60.
20. Ian Bennett, `Splendours in the City of Silk, part 3: The Safavid
Masterpieces’, HALI 34, 1987, pp.42-50, pl.XVIII.
21. The Gulbenkian Houri and Inscription Silk Rug. Iran, dated 1529. 93 x 236
cm, silk pile on a silk foundation. Gulbenkian Museum, Lisbon, no.T.113.
Formerly: Reportedly from the tomb of Imam Riza at Mashhad; Calouste Gulbenkian
Collection, Paris, acquired in Gulbenkian in 1939. Published: Calouste
Gulbenkian Museum 1985, op.cit., pl.III; Cohen, op.cit., p.75, fig.1; Assadullah Souren
Melikian-Chirvani, Le Chant du monde, L’Art de l’Iran safavide, 1501-1736,
Paris, 2007, pp.266-7, no.65.
22. Cohen, op.cit., p.85.
23. The Martin-Beshiktash Vaq-Vaq (`Talking Tree’) Carpet. Five fragments
(four on display, largest fragment 85 x 103 cm). Musée des Arts Décoratifs,
Paris, no.5212, acquired in 1889. Formerly: C. Beshiktash. Published: Rémi
Labrusse (cur.), Pur Décors? Chefs-d’oeuvre de l’Islamaux Arts Décoratifs, Paris,
2007, pp.209, 343, no.220. Other fragments (many linked back to F.R. Martin)
survive in: the Kestner Museum, Hanover; the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston; the
National Museum, Stockholm; and the Burrell Collection, Glasgow. Discussed by
Hanna Erdmann, `Mughal Carpet with Grotesques’, HALI 4/3, 1982, pp.224-5, 236.
24. The question of the origin of the Vaq-Vaq rug is discussed in great
detail by Daniel Walker, Flowers Underfoot, Indian Carpets of the Mughal Era, New
York, 1997, pp.68-80, who also comes down on the side of India.
25. The Pope Small Silk Tomb Cover? 305 x 106.7 cm. Cincinnati Art Museum,
Cincinnati, no.1953.24. Formerly: Arthur Upham Pope. Published: Anthony Welch,
Shah Abbas & the Arts of Isfahan, New York, 1973, pp.42, 67-8, no.25;
Melikian-Chirvani, op.cit., pp.268-9, no.66. Note: A translation ofthe script written
by Arthus G. Arberry, Pembroke College, Cambridge, and edited or `reformulated’
by Phyllis Ackerman, is on file at the museum and came at the time of
acquisition. I am grateful to Dr Glenn Markoe of the Cincinnati Museum of Art for
all the information on this rug.
26. Daniel Walker, then curator at the Cincinnati Museum of Art, arranged for
the rug to be examined for its dye content by Harold Mailland of the
Indianapolis Museum in the 1970s. The record states that 33 distinct dye areas were
noted, and of these, 18 were tested in order to determine whether they are
natural or synthetic; all proved to be dyed with natural dyestuffs; none ofthe
dyestuffs were analysed for specific identification. The techniques of dye
analysis have advanced greatly since then, and it should be possible to discover the
exact make-up of each of the dyes.
27. The Emperor Hunting Carpets. Central Iran, 16th century:
(1) 350 x 742 cm, wool pile on a silk foundation, with silk fringes. MAK,
Vienna, no.T8334. Formerly: Reportedly a gift from Emperor Peter the Great of
Russia to Emperor Leopold I of Austria (1658-1705) in 1698; Hapsburg Imperial
Collection. Published: Sarre and Trenkwald, op.cit., vol.I, pls.6-8; Völker,
op.cit., pp.224-9, no.80 (with full bibliography).
(2) 330 x 751 cm. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, no.43.121.1.
Formerly: Reportedly gift of Emperor Peter the Great of Russia to Emperor Leopold I of
Austria (1658-1705) in 1698; Hapsburg Imperial collection; Mrs Edith
Rockefeller McCormick, New York. Published: Pope 1938-39, op.cit., pl.1174; Dimand and
Mailey, op.cit., pp.140-1, fig.76 and p. 101, no.12.
28. A group of animal carpets from central Iran, 16th century:
(a) Complete carpets and larger fragments:
(1) The Vienna Hunting Carpet. 308 x 732 cm. Museum für angewandte Kunst,
no.T8376/1922 KB. Published: Sarre and Trenkwald, op.cit., vol.I, pl.9; Völker,
op.cit., pp.230-31, no.81 (with full bibliography).
(2) The London Hunting Carpet. Victoria & Albert Museum, London, no.601.1894.
Published: C.E.C. Tattersall, Guide to the Collection of Carpets, Victoria
and Albert Museum, London, 1931, pl.IV (detail). Notes: Carpet has been cut
horizontally, the central section removed and the bottom part joined to thetop.
(3) The Bacri Hunting Carpet. 275 x 308 cm, shortened in length across the
centre, outer guard border missing. Moshe Tabibnia, Milan. Formerly: Bacri
Frères, Paris; The Textile Gallery, London; Wher Collection. Published: Michael
Franses and Ian Bennett, The Textile Gallery Brochure No.2, London, 1986, pp.20-
24, pl.IX (with notes on most of the related examples); HALI 128, 2003, p.45;
Jon Thompson, Milestones in the History of Carpets, Milan, 2006, pp.186-90,
pl.17. Notes: Carpet has been cut horizontally, the central section removedand
the bottom part joined to the top; in December 1997 a border fragment acquired
at Sotheby’s New York (16 October 1996, lot 150; 41 x 166 cm) was reattached.
(4) The Constantinople Hunting Carpet Fragment. 135 x 181 cm, corner section
of border and field. MAK, Vienna, no.Or 311/1981/1907. Formerly:
Constantinople art market, 1891. Published: Sarre and Trenkwald, op.cit., vol.I, pl.10;
King and Sylvester, op.cit., p.97, no.74; Völker, op.cit., pp.232-3, no.82 (with
full bibliography).
(b) Smaller fragments:
(1) The Turin Hunting Carpet fragment. Museo Civico, Turin. 110 x 60 cm,
parts of field and border. Published: Mercedes Viale and Vittorio Viale, Arazzi e
Tappeti Antichi, Turin, 1952, pp.187-8, no.6, pl.128.
(2) The Myers Hunting Carpet fragment. Major and inner border only. Textile
Museum, Washington DC. Formerly: George Hewitt Myers Collection. Published:
Charles Grant Ellis, `Some Compartment Designs for Carpets, and Herat’, Textile
Museum Journal, I/4, 1965, pp.42-56, fig.5.
(3) The Hopf Hunting Carpet fragment. 38 x 124 cm, section of main border.
Marshall and Marilyn Wolf Collection, New York. Published: Sotheby’s, New York,
auction catalogue, 14 December 2001, lot 64.
(4) The James Hunting Carpet fragment. 122.5 x 222 cm, wool pile on a silk
foundation, section of central field. Edward James Foundation, Sussex.
Published: Melikian-Chirvani, op.cit., pp.244-5, no.52.
(5) The Aynard Hunting Carpet fragment. 44 x 66 cm, section of field. Musée
des Arts Décoratifs, Paris, no.19417. Formerly: Joseph Aynard Collection,
Paris. Published: Labrusse, op.cit., p.337, no.153.
(6) The Liberec Hunting carpet fragment. 82 x 288 cm, fragment of central
field with parts of the narrow guard border attached incorrectly on three sizes.
North Bohemian Museum, Liberec (formerly Reichenberg), Czech Republic.
Published: Pope 1938-39, op.cit., pl.1176.
7) The French & Co Hunting Carpet fragment. Whereabouts unknown. Formerly:
French & Co. New York. Published: Arthur Upham Pope, Catalogue of a Loan
Exhibition of Early Oriental Carpets, Art Club of Chicago, 1926, no.11. Notes:
Possibly from another group.
(8) The David Hunting Carpet fragment. 27 x 57.5 cm. David Collection,
Copenhagen, no.5/1973. Published: Kjeld von Folsach, Islamic Art. The David
Collection, David Collection, Copenhagen, 1990, p.247, no.416.