Custom Carpet - Variations or aberrations?
Custom Carpet - Variations or aberrations?
The products we are dealing with are custom carpets, handmade rugs - made by the hands of man, not by machines, and therefore deviations from the normal type are to be expected.
But the word 'aberration' is too readily used instead of establishing through proper research the reason for eccentricity.
Deviations from the norm can, and do, patently occur as the result of varying degrees of skill in the application of the technique required. It is not uncommon to find skilful and unskillful work in the same antique Persian rugs. This may occur as the result of teacher and pupil working on the same piece, or merely because of varying degrees of application exerted at different times. The more one examines weave patterns, the more one becomes aware of this type of variation, but they are all nevertheless, readily recognizable as the weave pattern of a particular group.
What the skeptics must realize is that these variations, or aberrations, are not of such a degree that one will find a Hamadan with a Kashan weave, or a Kuba with a Kazak weave, or a Salor with an Ersari weave - to name a few impossibilities. Designs were widely borrowed but never the totality of the technique of manufacture.
The variations to be seen in the same sarouk ferahan rugs may be deliberate, for example, border areas woven in a technique different from the main area. This is not an uncommon method of giving greater strength to an area normally subjected to the most wear. The border technique may not be typical of the group's weave pattern, but the combination of the two may well be typical, for example, the short extra wefts to be found on the sides of Sarouk Ferahan persian rugs .
An interesting example of two techniques in one antique carpet, both of which are representative of the same area, is a Melayer photographed for the authors' records. The major portion of this rug is made in the single-wafted technique typical of the northern part of Melayer, with interpolated bands of various widths in a double-wafted technique typical of the style found in southern Melayer. The explanation for this combination is not known. It could be the work of a helpful visitor who is accustomed to working in the other technique, a display of versatility on the part of one weaver, or an unconscious reference to a previous habit.
Whether or not a weave pattern is an aberration of a known group of weavers or is representative of some other group, possibly unidentified, can only be established by reference to sufficient examples to substantiate a conclusion. The further back in time one goes the less possible does this become because of insufficient surviving examples. In theory that gloomy statement appears to be indisputable until one examines the facts. It is true that pictures are all that remain of some rugs of the past, but a lot of rugs that have been referred to and illustrated in early publications are well preserved in museums or private collections. Some examples from previous eras have survived because they were representative of a type or, more important, because they were treasured possessions - treasured because of the quality of both their conception and execution.
With regard to their execution, two or three rugs with the same weave pattern would indicate to us, if not to the cynics, that the weave pattern is not an aberration. In this context fragments of sarouk antique rugs can be of great assistance for purposes of comparison.
From the eighteenth century onwards more examples survive and obviously many more inferior articles survive. The quantity may make the task of comparison more onerous but at the same time if properly undertaken it will make the conclusions relatively more valid.
Where nothing but illustrations survive one is forced to refer to the only evidence available, but at the same time one must be conscious that the evidence is suspect as it is not the best evidence. How frequently is one referred both in text and conversation to an illustration of a rug in support of a disputed identification. This usually occurs with regard to a unique or at least very uncommon design. But how much more valid would the reference be if one were able to compare weave pattern. Under the entry 'Turkoman' in the dictionary, we have mentioned a too-eager tendency to classify according to known categories when the weave pattern indicates either an aberration or an attribution that has not yet been identified. We have no doubt that an obligation to show the front and the weave pattern of every persian antique rugs illustrated would be rewarded by something far more positive and interesting than the label 'provenance unknown' custom carpet.
The products we are dealing with are custom carpets, handmade rugs - made by the hands of man, not by machines, and therefore deviations from the normal type are to be expected.
But the word 'aberration' is too readily used instead of establishing through proper research the reason for eccentricity.
Deviations from the norm can, and do, patently occur as the result of varying degrees of skill in the application of the technique required. It is not uncommon to find skilful and unskillful work in the same antique Persian rugs. This may occur as the result of teacher and pupil working on the same piece, or merely because of varying degrees of application exerted at different times. The more one examines weave patterns, the more one becomes aware of this type of variation, but they are all nevertheless, readily recognizable as the weave pattern of a particular group.
What the skeptics must realize is that these variations, or aberrations, are not of such a degree that one will find a Hamadan with a Kashan weave, or a Kuba with a Kazak weave, or a Salor with an Ersari weave - to name a few impossibilities. Designs were widely borrowed but never the totality of the technique of manufacture.
The variations to be seen in the same sarouk ferahan rugs may be deliberate, for example, border areas woven in a technique different from the main area. This is not an uncommon method of giving greater strength to an area normally subjected to the most wear. The border technique may not be typical of the group's weave pattern, but the combination of the two may well be typical, for example, the short extra wefts to be found on the sides of Sarouk Ferahan persian rugs .
An interesting example of two techniques in one antique carpet, both of which are representative of the same area, is a Melayer photographed for the authors' records. The major portion of this rug is made in the single-wafted technique typical of the northern part of Melayer, with interpolated bands of various widths in a double-wafted technique typical of the style found in southern Melayer. The explanation for this combination is not known. It could be the work of a helpful visitor who is accustomed to working in the other technique, a display of versatility on the part of one weaver, or an unconscious reference to a previous habit.
Whether or not a weave pattern is an aberration of a known group of weavers or is representative of some other group, possibly unidentified, can only be established by reference to sufficient examples to substantiate a conclusion. The further back in time one goes the less possible does this become because of insufficient surviving examples. In theory that gloomy statement appears to be indisputable until one examines the facts. It is true that pictures are all that remain of some rugs of the past, but a lot of rugs that have been referred to and illustrated in early publications are well preserved in museums or private collections. Some examples from previous eras have survived because they were representative of a type or, more important, because they were treasured possessions - treasured because of the quality of both their conception and execution.
With regard to their execution, two or three rugs with the same weave pattern would indicate to us, if not to the cynics, that the weave pattern is not an aberration. In this context fragments of sarouk antique rugs can be of great assistance for purposes of comparison.
From the eighteenth century onwards more examples survive and obviously many more inferior articles survive. The quantity may make the task of comparison more onerous but at the same time if properly undertaken it will make the conclusions relatively more valid.
Where nothing but illustrations survive one is forced to refer to the only evidence available, but at the same time one must be conscious that the evidence is suspect as it is not the best evidence. How frequently is one referred both in text and conversation to an illustration of a rug in support of a disputed identification. This usually occurs with regard to a unique or at least very uncommon design. But how much more valid would the reference be if one were able to compare weave pattern. Under the entry 'Turkoman' in the dictionary, we have mentioned a too-eager tendency to classify according to known categories when the weave pattern indicates either an aberration or an attribution that has not yet been identified. We have no doubt that an obligation to show the front and the weave pattern of every persian antique rugs illustrated would be rewarded by something far more positive and interesting than the label 'provenance unknown' custom carpet.