PERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETS

1 HALI ISSUE 155

THE MAJOR PART of the MIAQ oriental rug collection waspurchased between 1997 and 2005 by the then chairman of thecountry’s National Council for Culture, Arts and Heritage, SheikhSaud bin Mohammad al-Thani,1 a cousin of the Emir, Sheikh Hamadbin Khalifa al-Thani. During this period, the Qataris acquired someninety classical and tribal carpets, kilims and textiles,2 mostlyfrom the 14th to early 18th centuries.3

I was introduced to Sheikh Saud in 1997, when he had justbegun seeking historical carpets for a new museum of Islamicart to be built in Qatar.4 He was courteous, charming and eng-agingly enthusiastic. His first request was how to acquire acomplete library of carpet books, his second was to see imagesof the greatest carpets still in private hands, and his third was to meet the owners with a view to buying these carpets for themuseum. He was not interested in merely assembling a compre-hensive collection of artefacts, but only wanted masterpieces.

At that time there were very few remarkable carpets availableon the market, but the idea of a well-funded museum of Islamicart in the heart of the Arab world,5 whose principal aim was toeducate and inspire new generations, with a mission to care forand properly display its collections, was an exciting prospect. TheWher Collection, the largest Western private holding of museum-quality historical carpets, assembled between 1960 and 1990, wasan obvious first port of call. We were also able to persuade sev-eral other senior collectors, often individuals in their autumnyears who were concerned about the future custodianship oftheir great carpets and textiles, to part with their treasures.

The Qataris were able to take advantage of the fact that fewother major collectors were actively buying historical carpets ofthe types prized by previous generations, either privately or atauction. For reasons of availability, cost and space, as well aschanging tastes, general collector interest had become mainlyfocused on more recent tribal rugs and textiles. Nor, in general,over the past century, have Western museums purchased suchcarpets.6 Most museum acquisitions are received as gifts,7 eventhough serious collectors have become increasingly reluctant to

give their carpets to museums, as they tend to be consigned todeep storage and are only rarely, if ever, displayed.8 Thus a well-endowed new museum with ambitious plans to exhibit a greatcarpet collection had an appeal that could not be denied.9

Our interest here centres on the art of the Iranian carpet. Withthe decline of Ilkhanid rule in the mid-14th century,10 Iran wasdivided between various princes and tribal chiefs who ruled dif-ferent regions, forming and breaking alliances to expand theirfiefdoms. History tells a tale of brothers poisoning brothers anda constant quest for personal gain, of ferocious battles and dread-ful deeds, in the face of which Islam was the only cohesive force.It is hard to imagine that great art was created under these cir-cumstances, but magnificent buildings, outstanding manuscripts,ceramics, metalwork, wood-carving, textiles, glass and poetry,all survive from this period.

But although many outstanding carpets are depicted in Iran-ian paintings from the 1350s to the 1450s,11 no intact rug has beenattributed to the Timurid period, only small fragments.12 The old-est complete Iranian carpets known today probably date from thesecond half of the 15th century, and can be attributed to centresthat include Tabriz,13 central,14 and eastern Iran.15 In 1502, ShahIsmail of the Safavid clan in Ardabil seized control of the wholeof northwestern Iran, and by 1509 he had reunified the wholecountry under Shia Islam.16

The Safavids ruled until 1736. Some of the greatest Iranian car-pets were made during the 16th and 17th centuries, and at least1,500 examples survive from this period, some complete, a fewin pristine condition, others worn and tired, and many fragments.We are able to group together those that share similar materialsand construction, which suggest that they were from the sameregion, city, workshop or loom. We also are able to form groupswith similar compositions but different techniques, indicatingthat designs were shared, borrowed or copied in different work-shops and regions.

European travellers to the Safavid realm in the 16th century suchas Chevalier Chardin, Joan Cunaeus, Thomas Herbert, Thadaeo

Detail of 2

Ph

oto

by:

Lon

gev

ity

a museumofmasterpieces Qatar’s new Museum of Islamic Art in Doha, capital of the oil-and gas-rich Gulf State, opensits doors to the public on 22 November 2008. In this, the first of an occasional series ofarticles on highlights of the collection, we concentrate on the group of Safavid Persiancarpets acquired by the MIAQ over the course of the past decade from private collectionsand at public auction. This article is an extended version, with citations and references aswell as additional images, of the abridgement published in HALI 155, Spring 2008, pp.72-89.

SAFAVID CARPETS IN THE MUSEUM OF ISLAMIC ART, QATAR

MICHAEL FRANSES

PERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETS

1 HALI ISSUE 155

THE MAJOR PART of the MIAQ oriental rug collection waspurchased between 1997 and 2005 by the then chairman of thecountry’s National Council for Culture, Arts and Heritage, SheikhSaud bin Mohammad al-Thani,1 a cousin of the Emir, Sheikh Hamadbin Khalifa al-Thani. During this period, the Qataris acquired someninety classical and tribal carpets, kilims and textiles,2 mostlyfrom the 14th to early 18th centuries.3

I was introduced to Sheikh Saud in 1997, when he had justbegun seeking historical carpets for a new museum of Islamicart to be built in Qatar.4 He was courteous, charming and eng-agingly enthusiastic. His first request was how to acquire acomplete library of carpet books, his second was to see imagesof the greatest carpets still in private hands, and his third was to meet the owners with a view to buying these carpets for themuseum. He was not interested in merely assembling a compre-hensive collection of artefacts, but only wanted masterpieces.

At that time there were very few remarkable carpets availableon the market, but the idea of a well-funded museum of Islamicart in the heart of the Arab world,5 whose principal aim was toeducate and inspire new generations, with a mission to care forand properly display its collections, was an exciting prospect. TheWher Collection, the largest Western private holding of museum-quality historical carpets, assembled between 1960 and 1990, wasan obvious first port of call. We were also able to persuade sev-eral other senior collectors, often individuals in their autumnyears who were concerned about the future custodianship oftheir great carpets and textiles, to part with their treasures.

The Qataris were able to take advantage of the fact that fewother major collectors were actively buying historical carpets ofthe types prized by previous generations, either privately or atauction. For reasons of availability, cost and space, as well aschanging tastes, general collector interest had become mainlyfocused on more recent tribal rugs and textiles. Nor, in general,over the past century, have Western museums purchased suchcarpets.6 Most museum acquisitions are received as gifts,7 eventhough serious collectors have become increasingly reluctant to

give their carpets to museums, as they tend to be consigned todeep storage and are only rarely, if ever, displayed.8 Thus a well-endowed new museum with ambitious plans to exhibit a greatcarpet collection had an appeal that could not be denied.9

Our interest here centres on the art of the Iranian carpet. Withthe decline of Ilkhanid rule in the mid-14th century,10 Iran wasdivided between various princes and tribal chiefs who ruled dif-ferent regions, forming and breaking alliances to expand theirfiefdoms. History tells a tale of brothers poisoning brothers anda constant quest for personal gain, of ferocious battles and dread-ful deeds, in the face of which Islam was the only cohesive force.It is hard to imagine that great art was created under these cir-cumstances, but magnificent buildings, outstanding manuscripts,ceramics, metalwork, wood-carving, textiles, glass and poetry,all survive from this period.

But although many outstanding carpets are depicted in Iran-ian paintings from the 1350s to the 1450s,11 no intact rug has beenattributed to the Timurid period, only small fragments.12 The old-est complete Iranian carpets known today probably date from thesecond half of the 15th century, and can be attributed to centresthat include Tabriz,13 central,14 and eastern Iran.15 In 1502, ShahIsmail of the Safavid clan in Ardabil seized control of the wholeof northwestern Iran, and by 1509 he had reunified the wholecountry under Shia Islam.16

The Safavids ruled until 1736. Some of the greatest Iranian car-pets were made during the 16th and 17th centuries, and at least1,500 examples survive from this period, some complete, a fewin pristine condition, others worn and tired, and many fragments.We are able to group together those that share similar materialsand construction, which suggest that they were from the sameregion, city, workshop or loom. We also are able to form groupswith similar compositions but different techniques, indicatingthat designs were shared, borrowed or copied in different work-shops and regions.

European travellers to the Safavid realm in the 16th century suchas Chevalier Chardin, Joan Cunaeus, Thomas Herbert, Thadaeo

Detail of 2

Ph

oto

by:

Lon

gev

ity

a museumofmasterpieces Qatar’s new Museum of Islamic Art in Doha, capital of the oil-and gas-rich Gulf State, opensits doors to the public on 22 November 2008. In this, the first of an occasional series ofarticles on highlights of the collection, we concentrate on the group of Safavid Persiancarpets acquired by the MIAQ over the course of the past decade from private collectionsand at public auction. This article is an extended version, with citations and references aswell as additional images, of the abridgement published in HALI 155, Spring 2008, pp.72-89.

SAFAVID CARPETS IN THE MUSEUM OF ISLAMIC ART, QATAR

MICHAEL FRANSES

PERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETS

1 HALI ISSUE 155

THE MAJOR PART of the MIAQ oriental rug collection waspurchased between 1997 and 2005 by the then chairman of thecountry’s National Council for Culture, Arts and Heritage, SheikhSaud bin Mohammad al-Thani,1 a cousin of the Emir, Sheikh Hamadbin Khalifa al-Thani. During this period, the Qataris acquired someninety classical and tribal carpets, kilims and textiles,2 mostlyfrom the 14th to early 18th centuries.3

I was introduced to Sheikh Saud in 1997, when he had justbegun seeking historical carpets for a new museum of Islamicart to be built in Qatar.4 He was courteous, charming and eng-agingly enthusiastic. His first request was how to acquire acomplete library of carpet books, his second was to see imagesof the greatest carpets still in private hands, and his third was to meet the owners with a view to buying these carpets for themuseum. He was not interested in merely assembling a compre-hensive collection of artefacts, but only wanted masterpieces.

At that time there were very few remarkable carpets availableon the market, but the idea of a well-funded museum of Islamicart in the heart of the Arab world,5 whose principal aim was toeducate and inspire new generations, with a mission to care forand properly display its collections, was an exciting prospect. TheWher Collection, the largest Western private holding of museum-quality historical carpets, assembled between 1960 and 1990, wasan obvious first port of call. We were also able to persuade sev-eral other senior collectors, often individuals in their autumnyears who were concerned about the future custodianship oftheir great carpets and textiles, to part with their treasures.

The Qataris were able to take advantage of the fact that fewother major collectors were actively buying historical carpets ofthe types prized by previous generations, either privately or atauction. For reasons of availability, cost and space, as well aschanging tastes, general collector interest had become mainlyfocused on more recent tribal rugs and textiles. Nor, in general,over the past century, have Western museums purchased suchcarpets.6 Most museum acquisitions are received as gifts,7 eventhough serious collectors have become increasingly reluctant to

give their carpets to museums, as they tend to be consigned todeep storage and are only rarely, if ever, displayed.8 Thus a well-endowed new museum with ambitious plans to exhibit a greatcarpet collection had an appeal that could not be denied.9

Our interest here centres on the art of the Iranian carpet. Withthe decline of Ilkhanid rule in the mid-14th century,10 Iran wasdivided between various princes and tribal chiefs who ruled dif-ferent regions, forming and breaking alliances to expand theirfiefdoms. History tells a tale of brothers poisoning brothers anda constant quest for personal gain, of ferocious battles and dread-ful deeds, in the face of which Islam was the only cohesive force.It is hard to imagine that great art was created under these cir-cumstances, but magnificent buildings, outstanding manuscripts,ceramics, metalwork, wood-carving, textiles, glass and poetry,all survive from this period.

But although many outstanding carpets are depicted in Iran-ian paintings from the 1350s to the 1450s,11 no intact rug has beenattributed to the Timurid period, only small fragments.12 The old-est complete Iranian carpets known today probably date from thesecond half of the 15th century, and can be attributed to centresthat include Tabriz,13 central,14 and eastern Iran.15 In 1502, ShahIsmail of the Safavid clan in Ardabil seized control of the wholeof northwestern Iran, and by 1509 he had reunified the wholecountry under Shia Islam.16

The Safavids ruled until 1736. Some of the greatest Iranian car-pets were made during the 16th and 17th centuries, and at least1,500 examples survive from this period, some complete, a fewin pristine condition, others worn and tired, and many fragments.We are able to group together those that share similar materialsand construction, which suggest that they were from the sameregion, city, workshop or loom. We also are able to form groupswith similar compositions but different techniques, indicatingthat designs were shared, borrowed or copied in different work-shops and regions.

European travellers to the Safavid realm in the 16th century suchas Chevalier Chardin, Joan Cunaeus, Thomas Herbert, Thadaeo

Detail of 2

Ph

oto

by:

Lon

gev

ity

a museumofmasterpieces Qatar’s new Museum of Islamic Art in Doha, capital of the oil-and gas-rich Gulf State, opensits doors to the public on 22 November 2008. In this, the first of an occasional series ofarticles on highlights of the collection, we concentrate on the group of Safavid Persiancarpets acquired by the MIAQ over the course of the past decade from private collectionsand at public auction. This article is an extended version, with citations and references aswell as additional images, of the abridgement published in HALI 155, Spring 2008, pp.72-89.

SAFAVID CARPETS IN THE MUSEUM OF ISLAMIC ART, QATAR

MICHAEL FRANSES

PERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETSPERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETS

HALI ISSUE 155 43 HALI ISSUE 155

1 The Rothschild

Tabriz medallion

carpet (right, and

detail above),

northwest Iran,

circa 1550. Wool

pile on a cotton

foundation, 3.56 x

6.58m (11'8" x 21'7").

MIAQ, no.CA20.

Photo courtesy

Christie’s, London

Krusinski, Anthony Sherley, Jean-Baptiste Tavernier and PietroDella Valle report that carpets were made in many centres, incl-uding Tabriz, Hamadan, Mosul, Baghdad, Kazvin, Kashan, Esfahan,Kerman, Yazd, Herat and Mashad, but few groups can be attribu-ted to a particular city, and even those with little certainty. Nocarpets survive with accompanying documents telling where, whenand by whom they were made. And while certain types of Iraniancarpets are depicted in European paintings from the late 16th cen-tury onwards, this confirms only that they were in vogue, notwhen they were made or imported: there are contemporaneousdocuments regarding the importation of Iranian carpets, but thedescriptions are too vague to identify them as specific types.

We may, of course, fairly reliably date certain Iranian classicalcarpets by direct comparison with the small number of inscribedand/or dated examples,17 or with the very few that can be iden-tified in 16th century documents such as inventories. But noneof the latter records indicate any place of manufacture. The onlymethod for suggesting the possible origin of surviving carpets isthus based upon grouping together examples that share specifictechnical or material features, and linking them either to carpetsfrom the 18th century or later that have known origins (Khorasanand Kerman), or with the few examples for which there is reas-onable documentary evidence of origin. For example, the majorityof the silk-pile ‘Polonaise’ rugs can be safely assigned to Esfahan.18

For other Iranian carpets from this period, determining theirsource is extremely difficult, but by forming clusters of relatedpieces (with, for example, identical minor borders or specificcolours), and then proposing sequences from one cluster toanother, using the few fixed points as ‘anchors’, it is possible tosuggest likely attributions.

Between 1996 and 2005 the MIAQ acquired ten complete Saf-avid carpets and three fragments.19 These represent workshops inTabriz, Kashan, Esfahan, Kerman and Herat (Khorasan), coveringseveral of the main areas of Safavid carpet weaving from the early16th century to the late 17th century. The Kerman and Khorasanexamples are unexceptional, but those from Tabriz, Kashan andEsfahan must be regarded as among the greatest examples known.

1 THE ROTHSCHILD TABRIZ MEDALLION CARPET This supremely beautiful carpet, with lustrous, high pile andfresh colours that are little changed since the day it was made, is the best-preserved classical Tabriz carpet extant 1.20 On mostexamples, particularly those with red grounds, the red lac dyehas corroded or worn. The intricacies of the design stand outagainst the dark blue ground, and combine with carefully formedlarge areas of colour – red, yellow, light blue and ivory – to givea balance and harmony that is rarely equalled.

The design combines a centralised composition, based on themedallion form with quartered medallions in the corners, andan underlying endless repeat pattern. The border appears to over-lay the field, offering just a glimpse of a much larger scheme inwhich, if we imagine the quarter medallions in their completeform, red- and ivory-ground medallions alternate diagonally.

The sixteen-lobed central medallion is outlined by a wide lightblue band, and its red ground is filled with arabesques and palm-ettes, with a yellow star set on a dark blue ground in the middle; ateach end is a yellow cartouche and a red pendant, both surroun-ded by the same wide light blue band. The quartered corner med-allions have a different scheme, although their half-cartoucheson light blue and pendants on ivory repeat the central cartouchesand pendants. The deep blue field is filled with continuous tinystems, from which protrude small side-view f lowers and palmettes.Overlaid on this are large elegant cloudbands in red, blue andivory, tan and pink. The stems carefully wind their way betweenthe medallions, filling the field with a f loral pattern. The cloud-bands pass under the medallion in just a few places, to reappearelsewhere, whereas in other related examples the medallionappears superimposed on the predominant background pattern.

The border is composed of cartouches and lobed medallions

against a red ground. In some Iranian carpets, such as the datedArdabil medallion pair in London and Los Angeles, the cartouchesare separated from the lobed medallions. The scheme used here,where the patterns appear overlaid or interlocking, can be seenon a number of other Tabriz carpets as well as on examples fromother centres.21

While admiring its immediate beauty, it is useful not only tocompare the Rothschild Tabriz to similar examples, but also toconsider its great rarity. I know of 32 complete ‘Tabriz’ carpets madebetween the late 15th and early 17th centuries, a further 21 thathave been either reduced in length or are missing borders, andsome 15 small fragments of field and border from different car-pets, as well as one multiple-niche prayer carpet or saf, and twoprayer rugs. Thus the entire surviving corpus of Tabriz carpetsfrom this period amounts to not much more than seventy pieces.22

Twenty-seven of these have secondary quarter-medallions inthe corners, only two have pendants and just one, the datedPope Pius IX hunting carpet in the Poldi Pezzoli Museum,23 has acartouche and pendant hanging from the secondary medallion.

The border most often found on classical Tabriz carpets is astrap-work pattern composed of large palmettes linked by twolevels of strap-work bands in different colours, one passing abovethe other (28 examples). Nine Tabriz carpets have borders withcartouches alternating with lobed medallions (in one the patternis repeated in two rows, in another the cartouches are placed ontheir sides); just seven have an interlocking cartouche and lobedmedallion border, as here; other border designs on the great Tabrizcarpets include palmettes, spiral arabesques and half-medallions.

Of the seventy known classical Tabriz carpets, three are closestto the Rothschild, having lobed medallions with cartouches andpendants on the central axes, and a field with large multi-coloured

1

PERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETSPERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETS

HALI ISSUE 155 43 HALI ISSUE 155

1 The Rothschild

Tabriz medallion

carpet (right, and

detail above),

northwest Iran,

circa 1550. Wool

pile on a cotton

foundation, 3.56 x

6.58m (11'8" x 21'7").

MIAQ, no.CA20.

Photo courtesy

Christie’s, London

Krusinski, Anthony Sherley, Jean-Baptiste Tavernier and PietroDella Valle report that carpets were made in many centres, incl-uding Tabriz, Hamadan, Mosul, Baghdad, Kazvin, Kashan, Esfahan,Kerman, Yazd, Herat and Mashad, but few groups can be attribu-ted to a particular city, and even those with little certainty. Nocarpets survive with accompanying documents telling where, whenand by whom they were made. And while certain types of Iraniancarpets are depicted in European paintings from the late 16th cen-tury onwards, this confirms only that they were in vogue, notwhen they were made or imported: there are contemporaneousdocuments regarding the importation of Iranian carpets, but thedescriptions are too vague to identify them as specific types.

We may, of course, fairly reliably date certain Iranian classicalcarpets by direct comparison with the small number of inscribedand/or dated examples,17 or with the very few that can be iden-tified in 16th century documents such as inventories. But noneof the latter records indicate any place of manufacture. The onlymethod for suggesting the possible origin of surviving carpets isthus based upon grouping together examples that share specifictechnical or material features, and linking them either to carpetsfrom the 18th century or later that have known origins (Khorasanand Kerman), or with the few examples for which there is reas-onable documentary evidence of origin. For example, the majorityof the silk-pile ‘Polonaise’ rugs can be safely assigned to Esfahan.18

For other Iranian carpets from this period, determining theirsource is extremely difficult, but by forming clusters of relatedpieces (with, for example, identical minor borders or specificcolours), and then proposing sequences from one cluster toanother, using the few fixed points as ‘anchors’, it is possible tosuggest likely attributions.

Between 1996 and 2005 the MIAQ acquired ten complete Saf-avid carpets and three fragments.19 These represent workshops inTabriz, Kashan, Esfahan, Kerman and Herat (Khorasan), coveringseveral of the main areas of Safavid carpet weaving from the early16th century to the late 17th century. The Kerman and Khorasanexamples are unexceptional, but those from Tabriz, Kashan andEsfahan must be regarded as among the greatest examples known.

1 THE ROTHSCHILD TABRIZ MEDALLION CARPET This supremely beautiful carpet, with lustrous, high pile andfresh colours that are little changed since the day it was made, is the best-preserved classical Tabriz carpet extant 1.20 On mostexamples, particularly those with red grounds, the red lac dyehas corroded or worn. The intricacies of the design stand outagainst the dark blue ground, and combine with carefully formedlarge areas of colour – red, yellow, light blue and ivory – to givea balance and harmony that is rarely equalled.

The design combines a centralised composition, based on themedallion form with quartered medallions in the corners, andan underlying endless repeat pattern. The border appears to over-lay the field, offering just a glimpse of a much larger scheme inwhich, if we imagine the quarter medallions in their completeform, red- and ivory-ground medallions alternate diagonally.

The sixteen-lobed central medallion is outlined by a wide lightblue band, and its red ground is filled with arabesques and palm-ettes, with a yellow star set on a dark blue ground in the middle; ateach end is a yellow cartouche and a red pendant, both surroun-ded by the same wide light blue band. The quartered corner med-allions have a different scheme, although their half-cartoucheson light blue and pendants on ivory repeat the central cartouchesand pendants. The deep blue field is filled with continuous tinystems, from which protrude small side-view f lowers and palmettes.Overlaid on this are large elegant cloudbands in red, blue andivory, tan and pink. The stems carefully wind their way betweenthe medallions, filling the field with a f loral pattern. The cloud-bands pass under the medallion in just a few places, to reappearelsewhere, whereas in other related examples the medallionappears superimposed on the predominant background pattern.

The border is composed of cartouches and lobed medallions

against a red ground. In some Iranian carpets, such as the datedArdabil medallion pair in London and Los Angeles, the cartouchesare separated from the lobed medallions. The scheme used here,where the patterns appear overlaid or interlocking, can be seenon a number of other Tabriz carpets as well as on examples fromother centres.21

While admiring its immediate beauty, it is useful not only tocompare the Rothschild Tabriz to similar examples, but also toconsider its great rarity. I know of 32 complete ‘Tabriz’ carpets madebetween the late 15th and early 17th centuries, a further 21 thathave been either reduced in length or are missing borders, andsome 15 small fragments of field and border from different car-pets, as well as one multiple-niche prayer carpet or saf, and twoprayer rugs. Thus the entire surviving corpus of Tabriz carpetsfrom this period amounts to not much more than seventy pieces.22

Twenty-seven of these have secondary quarter-medallions inthe corners, only two have pendants and just one, the datedPope Pius IX hunting carpet in the Poldi Pezzoli Museum,23 has acartouche and pendant hanging from the secondary medallion.

The border most often found on classical Tabriz carpets is astrap-work pattern composed of large palmettes linked by twolevels of strap-work bands in different colours, one passing abovethe other (28 examples). Nine Tabriz carpets have borders withcartouches alternating with lobed medallions (in one the patternis repeated in two rows, in another the cartouches are placed ontheir sides); just seven have an interlocking cartouche and lobedmedallion border, as here; other border designs on the great Tabrizcarpets include palmettes, spiral arabesques and half-medallions.

Of the seventy known classical Tabriz carpets, three are closestto the Rothschild, having lobed medallions with cartouches andpendants on the central axes, and a field with large multi-coloured

1

PERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETSPERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETS

2 The Sarre Ardabil

Shrine animal carpet

(right, and details

above and on p.2),

probably Kashan,

central Iran, mid-16th

century. Wool pile

with small areas

of silk-cored metal-

thread plainweave

on a silk foundation

1.83 x 3.54m

(6'0" x 11'7").

MIAQ, no.CA4.

HALI ISSUE 155 65 HALI ISSUE 155

cloudbands enclosed by an interlocking cartouche and crenella-ted medallion border: the Yerkes-Blumenthal in the MetropolitanMuseum, New York; the McMullan-Chicago in the Art Institute;and the Asfar-Sarkis in a private collection in Geneva.24

The finest classical Tabriz carpets, such as the Bode (Berlin)and the Mackay (Los Angeles) pair, were probably made for thecourt. A few examples appear substantially older than others andmay represent the earliest survivors, from the 15th century, butthe majority dates from the 16th century. They were no doubt madein considerable numbers and in a variety of qualities and formats.What is most surprising is that no more than two – the smallprayer rugs – seem to have survived in Iran.25 The extant exampleswere exported at various times: some went through Istanbul,26

others found their way to Italy, and yet more must have been soldthrough Hormuz to the Portuguese, as classical Tabriz carpets ser-ved as models for Araiallos carpets of the 16th and 17th centuries.

It is not known how the Rothschild family acquired this car-pet. While it may already have been in Vienna by 1891, it was notin the great Vienna exhibition. Following the Anschluss in 1938,it was seized from Barons Nathaniel and Albert von Rothschildand placed in the Austrian State Museum. It was first publishedin 1951,27 and not again until 1999, when the Austrian Governmentreturned it to the Rothschild heirs, who sold it at auction inLondon in July that year.

Christie’s William Robinson wrote of it that: “The carpet is veryclose to the [Asfar-Sarkis] in its design structure but it has lost therestraint and integrity of the early examples. The medallion nolonger arbitrarily overlays the field design. Instead, the fieldmotifs are worked to emphasise the centrality of the medallion,which in turn has a more obvious balance with the spandrels. Thewidth is slightly greater in proportion to the length comparedto the early carpets, therefore appearing more generous. Theborder design is also simplified into overlapping cartouches androundels. At the same time the colour scheme has been enlivenedto a remarkable brilliance, showing the Safavid love of colourwinning through over the Timurid exactitude of design.”28

The Yerkes-Blumenthal and McMullan-Chicago carpets maybe as early the second half of the 15th century and no later thanthe early 16th. They appear to be at least a generation older thanthe Afsar-Sarkis, which in turn is probably older than the Roth-schild. While its overall pattern can be compared with the threecarpets cited, its colouration, proportions and minor bordersare much more like the dated Pius IX hunting carpet, which hasa better-conceived lobed-medallion. There seems no reason todate the Rothschild any later than the end of the second quarterof the 16th century, during the reign of Shah Tahmasp, one ofthe most perfect large carpets from his reign.

2 THE SARRE ARDABIL SHRINE ANIMAL CARPETThe significance of this beautiful carpet lies not simply in itssuperb quality, fabulous wool, glorious colours and perfectdraughtsmanship 2, but also in its pedigree. Late in December1891, the firm of Vincent Robinson & Co., of Wigmore Street,Cavendish Square, London W1, reportedly received from theManchester-based carpet import and manufacturing firm Zeigler& Co.29 four 16th century Iranian carpets that were reputed to havecome from the Shrine in Ardabil of Sheikh Safi al-Din (1252-1334),a direct descendant of the Prophet. The Shrine formed part ofthe Holy Mosque of Ardabil, the historic home of the Safavids,30

and the carpets may have been a gift to the mosque from ShahTahmasp (1524-1576), the second Safavid ruler, who may havewalked on them when visiting the Shrine.

By the late 19th century the Shrine was in a desperate state ofrepair, and it is said that four carpets were sold to fund its res-toration, although no documents survive to support this claim.The famous four consisted of two pairs. The medallion carpets –now in the Victoria & Albert Museum, London, and the LosAngeles County Museum of Art – are the best known.31 Equallyimpressive, however, is the almost exact pair of animal carpets,

now divided between the Metropolitan Museum of Art, NewYork,32 and the MIAQ.33

In 1892, Edward Stebbing, managing director of Vincent Rob-inson & Co., published a monograph on The Holy Carpet of theMosque at Ardebil and arranged a two-week exhibition, includingthe London medallion carpet and the MIAQ animal carpet.34 Thefirm did not announce that either carpet had a pair, possiblybecause this was thought to diminish their importance andworth.35 Furthermore, sections of the Los Angeles carpet wererequired to complete the missing parts of its London twin, whichwas later offered in ‘pristine’ condition. Some doubt has beencast on whether or not these carpets actually came from Ardabil,because an ex-employee of Robinson’s apparently reported thatat least one carpet had in fact come from the Shrine of ImamReza in Mashad.36 However, apart from the history presented byVincent Robinson & Co., an eyewitness report suggests stronglythat the medallion carpets were from Ardabil,37 and their associ-ation with the Shrine was convincingly argued by Donald Kingin 1996.38 It is most likely that the animal carpets came from thesame place at the same time. Irrespective of their original source,their provenance, quality of manufacture and sublime beauty

2

Ph

oto

by:

Lo

ng

evit

y

Ph

oto

by:

Lo

ng

evit

y

PERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETSPERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETS

2 The Sarre Ardabil

Shrine animal carpet

(right, and details

above and on p.2),

probably Kashan,

central Iran, mid-16th

century. Wool pile

with small areas

of silk-cored metal-

thread plainweave

on a silk foundation

1.83 x 3.54m

(6'0" x 11'7").

MIAQ, no.CA4.

HALI ISSUE 155 65 HALI ISSUE 155

cloudbands enclosed by an interlocking cartouche and crenella-ted medallion border: the Yerkes-Blumenthal in the MetropolitanMuseum, New York; the McMullan-Chicago in the Art Institute;and the Asfar-Sarkis in a private collection in Geneva.24

The finest classical Tabriz carpets, such as the Bode (Berlin)and the Mackay (Los Angeles) pair, were probably made for thecourt. A few examples appear substantially older than others andmay represent the earliest survivors, from the 15th century, butthe majority dates from the 16th century. They were no doubt madein considerable numbers and in a variety of qualities and formats.What is most surprising is that no more than two – the smallprayer rugs – seem to have survived in Iran.25 The extant exampleswere exported at various times: some went through Istanbul,26

others found their way to Italy, and yet more must have been soldthrough Hormuz to the Portuguese, as classical Tabriz carpets ser-ved as models for Araiallos carpets of the 16th and 17th centuries.

It is not known how the Rothschild family acquired this car-pet. While it may already have been in Vienna by 1891, it was notin the great Vienna exhibition. Following the Anschluss in 1938,it was seized from Barons Nathaniel and Albert von Rothschildand placed in the Austrian State Museum. It was first publishedin 1951,27 and not again until 1999, when the Austrian Governmentreturned it to the Rothschild heirs, who sold it at auction inLondon in July that year.

Christie’s William Robinson wrote of it that: “The carpet is veryclose to the [Asfar-Sarkis] in its design structure but it has lost therestraint and integrity of the early examples. The medallion nolonger arbitrarily overlays the field design. Instead, the fieldmotifs are worked to emphasise the centrality of the medallion,which in turn has a more obvious balance with the spandrels. Thewidth is slightly greater in proportion to the length comparedto the early carpets, therefore appearing more generous. Theborder design is also simplified into overlapping cartouches androundels. At the same time the colour scheme has been enlivenedto a remarkable brilliance, showing the Safavid love of colourwinning through over the Timurid exactitude of design.”28

The Yerkes-Blumenthal and McMullan-Chicago carpets maybe as early the second half of the 15th century and no later thanthe early 16th. They appear to be at least a generation older thanthe Afsar-Sarkis, which in turn is probably older than the Roth-schild. While its overall pattern can be compared with the threecarpets cited, its colouration, proportions and minor bordersare much more like the dated Pius IX hunting carpet, which hasa better-conceived lobed-medallion. There seems no reason todate the Rothschild any later than the end of the second quarterof the 16th century, during the reign of Shah Tahmasp, one ofthe most perfect large carpets from his reign.

2 THE SARRE ARDABIL SHRINE ANIMAL CARPETThe significance of this beautiful carpet lies not simply in itssuperb quality, fabulous wool, glorious colours and perfectdraughtsmanship 2, but also in its pedigree. Late in December1891, the firm of Vincent Robinson & Co., of Wigmore Street,Cavendish Square, London W1, reportedly received from theManchester-based carpet import and manufacturing firm Zeigler& Co.29 four 16th century Iranian carpets that were reputed to havecome from the Shrine in Ardabil of Sheikh Safi al-Din (1252-1334),a direct descendant of the Prophet. The Shrine formed part ofthe Holy Mosque of Ardabil, the historic home of the Safavids,30

and the carpets may have been a gift to the mosque from ShahTahmasp (1524-1576), the second Safavid ruler, who may havewalked on them when visiting the Shrine.

By the late 19th century the Shrine was in a desperate state ofrepair, and it is said that four carpets were sold to fund its res-toration, although no documents survive to support this claim.The famous four consisted of two pairs. The medallion carpets –now in the Victoria & Albert Museum, London, and the LosAngeles County Museum of Art – are the best known.31 Equallyimpressive, however, is the almost exact pair of animal carpets,

now divided between the Metropolitan Museum of Art, NewYork,32 and the MIAQ.33

In 1892, Edward Stebbing, managing director of Vincent Rob-inson & Co., published a monograph on The Holy Carpet of theMosque at Ardebil and arranged a two-week exhibition, includingthe London medallion carpet and the MIAQ animal carpet.34 Thefirm did not announce that either carpet had a pair, possiblybecause this was thought to diminish their importance andworth.35 Furthermore, sections of the Los Angeles carpet wererequired to complete the missing parts of its London twin, whichwas later offered in ‘pristine’ condition. Some doubt has beencast on whether or not these carpets actually came from Ardabil,because an ex-employee of Robinson’s apparently reported thatat least one carpet had in fact come from the Shrine of ImamReza in Mashad.36 However, apart from the history presented byVincent Robinson & Co., an eyewitness report suggests stronglythat the medallion carpets were from Ardabil,37 and their associ-ation with the Shrine was convincingly argued by Donald Kingin 1996.38 It is most likely that the animal carpets came from thesame place at the same time. Irrespective of their original source,their provenance, quality of manufacture and sublime beauty

2

Ph

oto

by:

Lo

ng

evit

y

Ph

oto

by:

Lo

ng

evit

y

PERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETS

7 HALI ISSUE 155

rank the famous four among the greatest Safavid carpets ever made.In 1908, when Friedrich Sarre and Fredrik Martin published

their supplemental volume to the great Vienna work of 1896, theyincluded the MIAQ animal carpet, which had gone from Robin-son’s to Adolph Thiem, and thence to Sarre, who later loaned itto the Paris exhibition of 1903 and to the great Munich Islamicart exhibition in 1910. It is not known when Sarre acquired theanimal carpet, but he made no mention of a pair to it, nor of apair to the London medallion carpet, but would surely have doneso had he known about them. It seems that Robinson’s had soldthe second medallion and animal carpets to their client CharlesTyson Yerkes in New York, and their existence remained a secretfor some 18 years.39 The Yerkes Ardabil animal carpet was boughtby the Metropolitan Museum of Art at the Yerkes sale in April1910, and was included in their ‘Loan Exhibition of Early OrientalRugs’ in November the same year. It was described in the cata-logue by Wilhelm R. Valentiner: “On a claret ground, a balanceddesign repeating the motives of a lion and jackal attacking ablack Chinese deer spotted with yellow, and of running boarsand other animals; further enriched with peony f lowers, part-ially executed in silver”.40 Sarre’s carpet was later sold to John D. Rockefeller, Jr.,41 and passed thence to his son John D.Rockefeller III, who in the early 1970s sold it to a New Yorkdealer.42 It was acquired by the MIAQ in 2002.

It is unlikely that the Ardabil animal carpets were made ineither Tabriz or Ardabil, as has been suggested by others. Manyfeatures of their design, colours and weave relate them to carpetsattributed to central Iran, possibly Kashan, several hundred milessoutheast of Ardabil. In 1893, Stebbing attributed the MIAQ animalcarpet to early 16th century Kashan and described it thus: “A f loraltracery of soft colouring on a deep red ground forms the body ofthe carpet, a large number of the f lowers being worked with greatdelicacy, as it were in relief, on a base of silk-covered wire skil-fully introduced to give strength to the fabric, the whole treat-ment subordinate to a display of animal life, arranged in groupsor pairs across the carpet. Ten groups represent a dappled stag,pulled to the ground by a lion, and seized at the same time by atiger. In addition to these groups, ten wild boars are representedin full f light, the drawing strikingly recalling one of the animalsrepresented in the rock-cut sculptures of Tank-e-bostan, nearKermanshah, dating from AD 400. There are also ten large animals,perhaps bears, and twenty of smaller size, all drawn with greatfreedom. Border: deep blue ground, relieved by a regular but con-ventional treatment of the ‘cloud’ pattern in pink, and a verybeautiful interlacing treble trellis of buff, light blue, and green,the latter connected, at intervals of about six inches, by f lowerswoven in relief, as explained above, on a f lat ground of white, witha raised pile in blue and red. A narrow band of cream, relievedby a coloured tracery, separates the border from the centre, anda similar band of red completes the carpet on the outside.”43

Writing about the carpet in 1908, Sarre stated: “The intrusion ofthe Chinese element is of considerable assistance in the classifi-cation and fixing the time of manufacture of the Persian carpetsof the 16th century. To the first and earliest group, which we placein the first half of the 16th century, we assign those carpets whichshow a design for the middle field consisting of the thin tendriltracery with star and peony blossoms… interspersed with symmet-rical animal figures. The exceptionally finely woven carpet in thepossession of the author, may serve as an example, in which thered background is covered with fine tendril tracery, inter-workedwith portions of peony f lowers in silver thread, and on whichdiverse specimens of Persian fauna are symmetrically grouped, i.e.,the black deer with white spots, attacked by a lion and a panther,wolves, bears, lynxes and foxes. The colouring of the animals isnot true to nature but chosen by the fancy of the artist, so brownand also light green bears occur side by side. While two narrowlittle side borders, in carefully chosen colours, show arabesquesand f lower tendrils, the cloud band in the broad, dark blue middleborder is especially effective. Besides the cloud band the design

consists here of fine tendrils with arabesques and f lowers.”44

In 1938, Arthur Upham Pope attributed the Yerkes animal car-pet to Tabriz, along with the Ardabil medallion carpets and a num-ber of others which today we consider to be from central Iran.He also dated the carpet considerably later, to the reign of ShahAbbas. This is not surprising, as once he had ascribed it to Tabrizhe had no option but to place it further away in time from the greatTabriz medallion carpets of the 15th century and 16th centuries.Closer examination of the structure and style should have givenhim a clue that the Ardabil carpets might have been made some-where other than Tabriz, and in the earlier reign of Shah Tahmasp.Perhaps he should simply have compared the Ardabil animalcarpet with the small silk Kashan animal rugs.45 Some 35 yearslater, Maurice Dimand was still proposing a Tabriz attribution,46

although at least he dated the rug more correctly to between1524 and 1550. How he resolved the differences between thiscarpet and the great carpets from Tabriz no one will ever know.

In 1985, I was able to examine both the famous Kelekian prayerrug (in Paris),47 and the Sarre animal carpet (in New York).48 Iwas struck by their similarities of weave and colour, but wasunable to compare them side-by-side. However, in 2004, whenthey were both at Longevity Conservation Studio in London, Ifound the similarities so great that I concluded they were fromthe same workshop and possibly even by the same hand.49 Thetype of warp-wrapped metal thread used can be found on manyother 16th century Iranian wool pile rugs (including the ‘Salting’group of medallion rugs and related ‘Topkapı’ prayer rugs,50 whichare most likely to have been made in Kashan). There are also anumber of other types of wool pile carpets with metal threadfrom other centres in central Iran, such as the Enzenberg Esfahancarpet.51 Metal thread and the methods of wrapping are discus-sed below, in the context of the Rothschild ‘Polonaise’ rug 6.

3 THE SCHWARZENBERG ‘PARADISE PARK’ CARPET The creation of heaven on earth, the idea of a great walled gardenwhere nature could be controlled, animals contained for hunting,and every variety of tree could be planted, has been one of theaspirations of the rulers of Iran for more than two thousandyears. Around 540 BC, Cyrus the Great built the largest and mostbeautiful formal garden ever created at his capital Pasargadae,northeast of Shiraz.52 It was surrounded by a wall not only toprotect the garden from the encroaching sands, but also to keepcertain wild animals out and others in, for hunting. It is saidthat Cyrus himself designed the layout, with rows of f loweringtrees, shrubs, fruits, vegetables and f lowers from across hisempire, and planted many of the trees himself. Many stonewatercourses were created, some of which are still in placetoday. This famous garden, which Cyrus called ‘Paradaiza’, hasbecome known as his ‘Paradise Park’.53

Gardens and the quest for paradise have been fundamental toIranian thought ever since, and are continuously expressed inpoetry, literature and painting. The carpet is a mirror of heavenand a transportable ground plan – what better medium of artis-tic expression could have been created for the garden, as theessence of Iranian life has always been the move between sum-mer and winter quarters. To be able simply to roll up and carryone’s personal garden must have had tremendous appeal to poorand rich alike. The most sumptuous ‘Paradise Park’ garden car-pets were created for the nobility, and it is the few examples ofthis type that survive from the Safavid period, the golden age ofIranian art, that will be considered here.

The first record of a ‘garden’ carpet is from the 6th century.According to al Tabari, at the Ctesiphon Palace of the SasanianKing Khosrow I (531-579 AD) was “a huge carpet, depicting agarden with streams and paths, trees and beautiful spring f lowers.The wide border all round showed f lower-beds of various colour-ing, the ‘f lowers’ being blue, red, yellow, or white stones. Theground was yellowish, to look like earth, and it was worked ingold. The edges of the streams were worked in stripes, and bet-

Detail of 3

Ph

oto

by:

Lon

gev

ity

PERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETS

7 HALI ISSUE 155

rank the famous four among the greatest Safavid carpets ever made.In 1908, when Friedrich Sarre and Fredrik Martin published

their supplemental volume to the great Vienna work of 1896, theyincluded the MIAQ animal carpet, which had gone from Robin-son’s to Adolph Thiem, and thence to Sarre, who later loaned itto the Paris exhibition of 1903 and to the great Munich Islamicart exhibition in 1910. It is not known when Sarre acquired theanimal carpet, but he made no mention of a pair to it, nor of apair to the London medallion carpet, but would surely have doneso had he known about them. It seems that Robinson’s had soldthe second medallion and animal carpets to their client CharlesTyson Yerkes in New York, and their existence remained a secretfor some 18 years.39 The Yerkes Ardabil animal carpet was boughtby the Metropolitan Museum of Art at the Yerkes sale in April1910, and was included in their ‘Loan Exhibition of Early OrientalRugs’ in November the same year. It was described in the cata-logue by Wilhelm R. Valentiner: “On a claret ground, a balanceddesign repeating the motives of a lion and jackal attacking ablack Chinese deer spotted with yellow, and of running boarsand other animals; further enriched with peony f lowers, part-ially executed in silver”.40 Sarre’s carpet was later sold to John D. Rockefeller, Jr.,41 and passed thence to his son John D.Rockefeller III, who in the early 1970s sold it to a New Yorkdealer.42 It was acquired by the MIAQ in 2002.

It is unlikely that the Ardabil animal carpets were made ineither Tabriz or Ardabil, as has been suggested by others. Manyfeatures of their design, colours and weave relate them to carpetsattributed to central Iran, possibly Kashan, several hundred milessoutheast of Ardabil. In 1893, Stebbing attributed the MIAQ animalcarpet to early 16th century Kashan and described it thus: “A f loraltracery of soft colouring on a deep red ground forms the body ofthe carpet, a large number of the f lowers being worked with greatdelicacy, as it were in relief, on a base of silk-covered wire skil-fully introduced to give strength to the fabric, the whole treat-ment subordinate to a display of animal life, arranged in groupsor pairs across the carpet. Ten groups represent a dappled stag,pulled to the ground by a lion, and seized at the same time by atiger. In addition to these groups, ten wild boars are representedin full f light, the drawing strikingly recalling one of the animalsrepresented in the rock-cut sculptures of Tank-e-bostan, nearKermanshah, dating from AD 400. There are also ten large animals,perhaps bears, and twenty of smaller size, all drawn with greatfreedom. Border: deep blue ground, relieved by a regular but con-ventional treatment of the ‘cloud’ pattern in pink, and a verybeautiful interlacing treble trellis of buff, light blue, and green,the latter connected, at intervals of about six inches, by f lowerswoven in relief, as explained above, on a f lat ground of white, witha raised pile in blue and red. A narrow band of cream, relievedby a coloured tracery, separates the border from the centre, anda similar band of red completes the carpet on the outside.”43

Writing about the carpet in 1908, Sarre stated: “The intrusion ofthe Chinese element is of considerable assistance in the classifi-cation and fixing the time of manufacture of the Persian carpetsof the 16th century. To the first and earliest group, which we placein the first half of the 16th century, we assign those carpets whichshow a design for the middle field consisting of the thin tendriltracery with star and peony blossoms… interspersed with symmet-rical animal figures. The exceptionally finely woven carpet in thepossession of the author, may serve as an example, in which thered background is covered with fine tendril tracery, inter-workedwith portions of peony f lowers in silver thread, and on whichdiverse specimens of Persian fauna are symmetrically grouped, i.e.,the black deer with white spots, attacked by a lion and a panther,wolves, bears, lynxes and foxes. The colouring of the animals isnot true to nature but chosen by the fancy of the artist, so brownand also light green bears occur side by side. While two narrowlittle side borders, in carefully chosen colours, show arabesquesand f lower tendrils, the cloud band in the broad, dark blue middleborder is especially effective. Besides the cloud band the design

consists here of fine tendrils with arabesques and f lowers.”44

In 1938, Arthur Upham Pope attributed the Yerkes animal car-pet to Tabriz, along with the Ardabil medallion carpets and a num-ber of others which today we consider to be from central Iran.He also dated the carpet considerably later, to the reign of ShahAbbas. This is not surprising, as once he had ascribed it to Tabrizhe had no option but to place it further away in time from the greatTabriz medallion carpets of the 15th century and 16th centuries.Closer examination of the structure and style should have givenhim a clue that the Ardabil carpets might have been made some-where other than Tabriz, and in the earlier reign of Shah Tahmasp.Perhaps he should simply have compared the Ardabil animalcarpet with the small silk Kashan animal rugs.45 Some 35 yearslater, Maurice Dimand was still proposing a Tabriz attribution,46

although at least he dated the rug more correctly to between1524 and 1550. How he resolved the differences between thiscarpet and the great carpets from Tabriz no one will ever know.

In 1985, I was able to examine both the famous Kelekian prayerrug (in Paris),47 and the Sarre animal carpet (in New York).48 Iwas struck by their similarities of weave and colour, but wasunable to compare them side-by-side. However, in 2004, whenthey were both at Longevity Conservation Studio in London, Ifound the similarities so great that I concluded they were fromthe same workshop and possibly even by the same hand.49 Thetype of warp-wrapped metal thread used can be found on manyother 16th century Iranian wool pile rugs (including the ‘Salting’group of medallion rugs and related ‘Topkapı’ prayer rugs,50 whichare most likely to have been made in Kashan). There are also anumber of other types of wool pile carpets with metal threadfrom other centres in central Iran, such as the Enzenberg Esfahancarpet.51 Metal thread and the methods of wrapping are discus-sed below, in the context of the Rothschild ‘Polonaise’ rug 6.

3 THE SCHWARZENBERG ‘PARADISE PARK’ CARPET The creation of heaven on earth, the idea of a great walled gardenwhere nature could be controlled, animals contained for hunting,and every variety of tree could be planted, has been one of theaspirations of the rulers of Iran for more than two thousandyears. Around 540 BC, Cyrus the Great built the largest and mostbeautiful formal garden ever created at his capital Pasargadae,northeast of Shiraz.52 It was surrounded by a wall not only toprotect the garden from the encroaching sands, but also to keepcertain wild animals out and others in, for hunting. It is saidthat Cyrus himself designed the layout, with rows of f loweringtrees, shrubs, fruits, vegetables and f lowers from across hisempire, and planted many of the trees himself. Many stonewatercourses were created, some of which are still in placetoday. This famous garden, which Cyrus called ‘Paradaiza’, hasbecome known as his ‘Paradise Park’.53

Gardens and the quest for paradise have been fundamental toIranian thought ever since, and are continuously expressed inpoetry, literature and painting. The carpet is a mirror of heavenand a transportable ground plan – what better medium of artis-tic expression could have been created for the garden, as theessence of Iranian life has always been the move between sum-mer and winter quarters. To be able simply to roll up and carryone’s personal garden must have had tremendous appeal to poorand rich alike. The most sumptuous ‘Paradise Park’ garden car-pets were created for the nobility, and it is the few examples ofthis type that survive from the Safavid period, the golden age ofIranian art, that will be considered here.

The first record of a ‘garden’ carpet is from the 6th century.According to al Tabari, at the Ctesiphon Palace of the SasanianKing Khosrow I (531-579 AD) was “a huge carpet, depicting agarden with streams and paths, trees and beautiful spring f lowers.The wide border all round showed f lower-beds of various colour-ing, the ‘f lowers’ being blue, red, yellow, or white stones. Theground was yellowish, to look like earth, and it was worked ingold. The edges of the streams were worked in stripes, and bet-

Detail of 3

Ph

oto

by:

Lon

gev

ity

PERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETS

7 HALI ISSUE 155

rank the famous four among the greatest Safavid carpets ever made.In 1908, when Friedrich Sarre and Fredrik Martin published

their supplemental volume to the great Vienna work of 1896, theyincluded the MIAQ animal carpet, which had gone from Robin-son’s to Adolph Thiem, and thence to Sarre, who later loaned itto the Paris exhibition of 1903 and to the great Munich Islamicart exhibition in 1910. It is not known when Sarre acquired theanimal carpet, but he made no mention of a pair to it, nor of apair to the London medallion carpet, but would surely have doneso had he known about them. It seems that Robinson’s had soldthe second medallion and animal carpets to their client CharlesTyson Yerkes in New York, and their existence remained a secretfor some 18 years.39 The Yerkes Ardabil animal carpet was boughtby the Metropolitan Museum of Art at the Yerkes sale in April1910, and was included in their ‘Loan Exhibition of Early OrientalRugs’ in November the same year. It was described in the cata-logue by Wilhelm R. Valentiner: “On a claret ground, a balanceddesign repeating the motives of a lion and jackal attacking ablack Chinese deer spotted with yellow, and of running boarsand other animals; further enriched with peony f lowers, part-ially executed in silver”.40 Sarre’s carpet was later sold to John D. Rockefeller, Jr.,41 and passed thence to his son John D.Rockefeller III, who in the early 1970s sold it to a New Yorkdealer.42 It was acquired by the MIAQ in 2002.

It is unlikely that the Ardabil animal carpets were made ineither Tabriz or Ardabil, as has been suggested by others. Manyfeatures of their design, colours and weave relate them to carpetsattributed to central Iran, possibly Kashan, several hundred milessoutheast of Ardabil. In 1893, Stebbing attributed the MIAQ animalcarpet to early 16th century Kashan and described it thus: “A f loraltracery of soft colouring on a deep red ground forms the body ofthe carpet, a large number of the f lowers being worked with greatdelicacy, as it were in relief, on a base of silk-covered wire skil-fully introduced to give strength to the fabric, the whole treat-ment subordinate to a display of animal life, arranged in groupsor pairs across the carpet. Ten groups represent a dappled stag,pulled to the ground by a lion, and seized at the same time by atiger. In addition to these groups, ten wild boars are representedin full f light, the drawing strikingly recalling one of the animalsrepresented in the rock-cut sculptures of Tank-e-bostan, nearKermanshah, dating from AD 400. There are also ten large animals,perhaps bears, and twenty of smaller size, all drawn with greatfreedom. Border: deep blue ground, relieved by a regular but con-ventional treatment of the ‘cloud’ pattern in pink, and a verybeautiful interlacing treble trellis of buff, light blue, and green,the latter connected, at intervals of about six inches, by f lowerswoven in relief, as explained above, on a f lat ground of white, witha raised pile in blue and red. A narrow band of cream, relievedby a coloured tracery, separates the border from the centre, anda similar band of red completes the carpet on the outside.”43

Writing about the carpet in 1908, Sarre stated: “The intrusion ofthe Chinese element is of considerable assistance in the classifi-cation and fixing the time of manufacture of the Persian carpetsof the 16th century. To the first and earliest group, which we placein the first half of the 16th century, we assign those carpets whichshow a design for the middle field consisting of the thin tendriltracery with star and peony blossoms… interspersed with symmet-rical animal figures. The exceptionally finely woven carpet in thepossession of the author, may serve as an example, in which thered background is covered with fine tendril tracery, inter-workedwith portions of peony f lowers in silver thread, and on whichdiverse specimens of Persian fauna are symmetrically grouped, i.e.,the black deer with white spots, attacked by a lion and a panther,wolves, bears, lynxes and foxes. The colouring of the animals isnot true to nature but chosen by the fancy of the artist, so brownand also light green bears occur side by side. While two narrowlittle side borders, in carefully chosen colours, show arabesquesand f lower tendrils, the cloud band in the broad, dark blue middleborder is especially effective. Besides the cloud band the design

consists here of fine tendrils with arabesques and f lowers.”44

In 1938, Arthur Upham Pope attributed the Yerkes animal car-pet to Tabriz, along with the Ardabil medallion carpets and a num-ber of others which today we consider to be from central Iran.He also dated the carpet considerably later, to the reign of ShahAbbas. This is not surprising, as once he had ascribed it to Tabrizhe had no option but to place it further away in time from the greatTabriz medallion carpets of the 15th century and 16th centuries.Closer examination of the structure and style should have givenhim a clue that the Ardabil carpets might have been made some-where other than Tabriz, and in the earlier reign of Shah Tahmasp.Perhaps he should simply have compared the Ardabil animalcarpet with the small silk Kashan animal rugs.45 Some 35 yearslater, Maurice Dimand was still proposing a Tabriz attribution,46

although at least he dated the rug more correctly to between1524 and 1550. How he resolved the differences between thiscarpet and the great carpets from Tabriz no one will ever know.

In 1985, I was able to examine both the famous Kelekian prayerrug (in Paris),47 and the Sarre animal carpet (in New York).48 Iwas struck by their similarities of weave and colour, but wasunable to compare them side-by-side. However, in 2004, whenthey were both at Longevity Conservation Studio in London, Ifound the similarities so great that I concluded they were fromthe same workshop and possibly even by the same hand.49 Thetype of warp-wrapped metal thread used can be found on manyother 16th century Iranian wool pile rugs (including the ‘Salting’group of medallion rugs and related ‘Topkapı’ prayer rugs,50 whichare most likely to have been made in Kashan). There are also anumber of other types of wool pile carpets with metal threadfrom other centres in central Iran, such as the Enzenberg Esfahancarpet.51 Metal thread and the methods of wrapping are discus-sed below, in the context of the Rothschild ‘Polonaise’ rug 6.

3 THE SCHWARZENBERG ‘PARADISE PARK’ CARPET The creation of heaven on earth, the idea of a great walled gardenwhere nature could be controlled, animals contained for hunting,and every variety of tree could be planted, has been one of theaspirations of the rulers of Iran for more than two thousandyears. Around 540 BC, Cyrus the Great built the largest and mostbeautiful formal garden ever created at his capital Pasargadae,northeast of Shiraz.52 It was surrounded by a wall not only toprotect the garden from the encroaching sands, but also to keepcertain wild animals out and others in, for hunting. It is saidthat Cyrus himself designed the layout, with rows of f loweringtrees, shrubs, fruits, vegetables and f lowers from across hisempire, and planted many of the trees himself. Many stonewatercourses were created, some of which are still in placetoday. This famous garden, which Cyrus called ‘Paradaiza’, hasbecome known as his ‘Paradise Park’.53

Gardens and the quest for paradise have been fundamental toIranian thought ever since, and are continuously expressed inpoetry, literature and painting. The carpet is a mirror of heavenand a transportable ground plan – what better medium of artis-tic expression could have been created for the garden, as theessence of Iranian life has always been the move between sum-mer and winter quarters. To be able simply to roll up and carryone’s personal garden must have had tremendous appeal to poorand rich alike. The most sumptuous ‘Paradise Park’ garden car-pets were created for the nobility, and it is the few examples ofthis type that survive from the Safavid period, the golden age ofIranian art, that will be considered here.

The first record of a ‘garden’ carpet is from the 6th century.According to al Tabari, at the Ctesiphon Palace of the SasanianKing Khosrow I (531-579 AD) was “a huge carpet, depicting agarden with streams and paths, trees and beautiful spring f lowers.The wide border all round showed f lower-beds of various colour-ing, the ‘f lowers’ being blue, red, yellow, or white stones. Theground was yellowish, to look like earth, and it was worked ingold. The edges of the streams were worked in stripes, and bet-

Detail of 3

Ph

oto

by:

Lon

gev

ity

PERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETS

9 HALI ISSUE 155

3 The Schwarzenberg

‘Paradise Park’ carpet

(right, and details

above and on pages 8

and 12), central Iran,

circa 1550. Wool pile

on a silk and cotton

foundation, 2.57 x

5.17m (8'5" x 17'0")

it was loaned to the Österreichisches Museum für angewandteKunst (MAK) in Vienna. The MIAQ acquired it from the Schwarz-enberg family in March 2003. It has been published more thantwenty times, but without any light being shed on its place ofmanufacture. As to its age, we may propose an approximate datebased upon comparison with the few 16th century Iranian carpetsof known date. But since we have virtually no evidence fromthe 16th century that locates surviving examples to specificworkshops, weavers or dates, gaining a real understanding of theart of Safavid carpets is akin to attempting a vast jigsaw puzzlewith only a couple of dozen pieces in the box.

Close examination of the classical Safavid carpets that do sur-vive from the 16th century allows a glimpse of the design reper-toire of this golden age. Five specific groups are identifiable,made up of examples that share particular characteristics, all ormost of which can be seen in all or most examples. These go farbeyond basic design similarities or shared structural features andinclude, for example, identical hues of colour, specific colourcombinations, grades of wool, tiny details in weaving technique,such as edge or end finishes, minor characteristics of pattern, aswell as many other features. It is safe to assume that carpets which,when examined in detail, share a preponderance of the requisitefeatures, were made in the same location, workshop, village ortown.60 The five identifiable Iranian carpet groups are: northwest-ern Iran, from the late 15th century onward, attributed to Tabriz;61

southern Iran, from the second half of the 16th century onward,attributed to Kerman;62 eastern Iran (Khorasan), from the secondhalf of the 16th century onward, attributed to Herat;63 centralIran, from the 16th century onward, attributed to Kashan;64

central Iran, from the mid-16th century, attributed to Esfahan.65

Of course, contemporaneous Iranian and Western documentsclearly inform us that carpets were made in far more places than

HALI ISSUE 155 10

PERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETS

ween them stones bright as crystal gave the illusion of water, thesize of the pebbles being what pearls might be. The stalks andbranches were gold or silver, the leaves of trees and f lowersmade of silk, like the rest of the plants, and the fruits werecoloured stones.”54

The term ‘Paradise Park’ is used here to describe the fieldpattern of seven great 16th century Iranian carpet masterpieces.Qatar’s Schwarzenberg carpet 3 is one of these, the others beingthe Mantes Cathedral carpet in the Louvre, Paris; the Stieglitzcarpet in the Hermitage, St Petersburg; the Mackay carpet in theLos Angeles County Museum of Art; its identical pair, the Bodecarpet, now largely destroyed, in the Museum of Islamic Art,Berlin; the Hatvany carpet fragments, in the Brooklyn Museumand elsewhere; and the carpet divided between the Musée desArts Décoratifs, Paris, and Wawel Castle, Cracow.55 Three ofthese carpets, the Schwarzenberg,56 the Mantes and the Mackay,are virtually complete, and a fourth, the Paris-Cracow, would beif the two halves were re-united. The upper half of the Stieglitzis intact, but the lower half is missing; the Bode and the Hatvanyare now just fragments.

There is little about these beautiful carpets (apart from theMackay/Bode pair) to suggest they were the work of a single art-ist, as the style of drawing of the ornaments varies quite consid-erably. Nor do their features suggest that they were produced bya specific workshop: they have quite different border patterns,colours, wool and weave. But they include a number of specificmotifs or features, whose combination (they are seen individuallyon other 16th century Iranian carpets) identifies the ‘ParadisePark’ design: a central medallion with a pendant at each end anda cartouche or palmette between the pendant and the medallion,on a vertically and horizontally symmetrical field with each quar-ter mirrored around the centre;57 large paired cypress trees; decid-uous trees with five-petalled f lowers; Chinese phoenixes (feng-huang), leopards, lions, deer and f lying birds. Three also havedragons, three have houris, three have peacocks, four have ducksand two have fish. Although the patterns in the medallions, mainborders and minor borders are related through various features,none have the same overall composition, drawing or even style.

Susan Day has suggested, as have others, “that artists andcraftsmen were frequently shunted back and forth between thecities at the whim of the monarch”,58 but no evidence for this ispresented. If the same group of designers and weavers movedfrom city to city, one would see much closer connections suchas identical minor border patterns or the drawing of individualornaments. There are no such close connections. We may there-fore assume that whatever style was in fashion at a particulartime was interpreted by different weavers in diverse locations.There are relationships in the way that certain trees or animalcombats are composed, perhaps indicating that detaileddrawings of these motifs were circulated, but that the overallcompositions were less precise, allowing an individual style foreach workshop where the ‘Paradise Park’ carpets were woven.

The ‘Paradise Park’ carpets have been considered by almostevery historian of oriental carpets during the past century. In add-ition to the seven carpets cited above, a further eight important16th century Safavid carpets are often compared to the Schwarz-enberg, through various aspects of design, colour, weave andstyle. These are the Anhalt carpet in the Metropolitan Museum,New York; the Fossati ‘Darius of the Universe’ carpet in the PoldiPezzoli Museum, Milan; the Kohner-Cassirer carpet in the Mus-eum of Islamic Art, Berlin; the Bardini-Williams carpet in thePhiladelphia Museum of Art; the Chelsea carpet in the Victoria& Albert Museum, London; the Martin and Schwaiger fragments,both of the same carpet, in the Textile Museum, Washington DC;the Baron compartment carpet in the Musée Historique des Tissus,Lyon, and its pair, the Robinson compartment carpet in theMetropolitan Museum.59

The Schwarzenberg carpet was first exhibited in Vienna in1891 and published in the large ‘elephant’ folio edition. Latterly

3

Ph

oto

by:

Lon

gev

ity

Ph

oto

by:

Lon

gev

ity

PERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETS

9 HALI ISSUE 155

3 The Schwarzenberg

‘Paradise Park’ carpet

(right, and details

above and on pages 8

and 12), central Iran,

circa 1550. Wool pile

on a silk and cotton

foundation, 2.57 x

5.17m (8'5" x 17'0")

it was loaned to the Österreichisches Museum für angewandteKunst (MAK) in Vienna. The MIAQ acquired it from the Schwarz-enberg family in March 2003. It has been published more thantwenty times, but without any light being shed on its place ofmanufacture. As to its age, we may propose an approximate datebased upon comparison with the few 16th century Iranian carpetsof known date. But since we have virtually no evidence fromthe 16th century that locates surviving examples to specificworkshops, weavers or dates, gaining a real understanding of theart of Safavid carpets is akin to attempting a vast jigsaw puzzlewith only a couple of dozen pieces in the box.

Close examination of the classical Safavid carpets that do sur-vive from the 16th century allows a glimpse of the design reper-toire of this golden age. Five specific groups are identifiable,made up of examples that share particular characteristics, all ormost of which can be seen in all or most examples. These go farbeyond basic design similarities or shared structural features andinclude, for example, identical hues of colour, specific colourcombinations, grades of wool, tiny details in weaving technique,such as edge or end finishes, minor characteristics of pattern, aswell as many other features. It is safe to assume that carpets which,when examined in detail, share a preponderance of the requisitefeatures, were made in the same location, workshop, village ortown.60 The five identifiable Iranian carpet groups are: northwest-ern Iran, from the late 15th century onward, attributed to Tabriz;61

southern Iran, from the second half of the 16th century onward,attributed to Kerman;62 eastern Iran (Khorasan), from the secondhalf of the 16th century onward, attributed to Herat;63 centralIran, from the 16th century onward, attributed to Kashan;64

central Iran, from the mid-16th century, attributed to Esfahan.65

Of course, contemporaneous Iranian and Western documentsclearly inform us that carpets were made in far more places than

HALI ISSUE 155 10

PERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETS

ween them stones bright as crystal gave the illusion of water, thesize of the pebbles being what pearls might be. The stalks andbranches were gold or silver, the leaves of trees and f lowersmade of silk, like the rest of the plants, and the fruits werecoloured stones.”54

The term ‘Paradise Park’ is used here to describe the fieldpattern of seven great 16th century Iranian carpet masterpieces.Qatar’s Schwarzenberg carpet 3 is one of these, the others beingthe Mantes Cathedral carpet in the Louvre, Paris; the Stieglitzcarpet in the Hermitage, St Petersburg; the Mackay carpet in theLos Angeles County Museum of Art; its identical pair, the Bodecarpet, now largely destroyed, in the Museum of Islamic Art,Berlin; the Hatvany carpet fragments, in the Brooklyn Museumand elsewhere; and the carpet divided between the Musée desArts Décoratifs, Paris, and Wawel Castle, Cracow.55 Three ofthese carpets, the Schwarzenberg,56 the Mantes and the Mackay,are virtually complete, and a fourth, the Paris-Cracow, would beif the two halves were re-united. The upper half of the Stieglitzis intact, but the lower half is missing; the Bode and the Hatvanyare now just fragments.

There is little about these beautiful carpets (apart from theMackay/Bode pair) to suggest they were the work of a single art-ist, as the style of drawing of the ornaments varies quite consid-erably. Nor do their features suggest that they were produced bya specific workshop: they have quite different border patterns,colours, wool and weave. But they include a number of specificmotifs or features, whose combination (they are seen individuallyon other 16th century Iranian carpets) identifies the ‘ParadisePark’ design: a central medallion with a pendant at each end anda cartouche or palmette between the pendant and the medallion,on a vertically and horizontally symmetrical field with each quar-ter mirrored around the centre;57 large paired cypress trees; decid-uous trees with five-petalled f lowers; Chinese phoenixes (feng-huang), leopards, lions, deer and f lying birds. Three also havedragons, three have houris, three have peacocks, four have ducksand two have fish. Although the patterns in the medallions, mainborders and minor borders are related through various features,none have the same overall composition, drawing or even style.

Susan Day has suggested, as have others, “that artists andcraftsmen were frequently shunted back and forth between thecities at the whim of the monarch”,58 but no evidence for this ispresented. If the same group of designers and weavers movedfrom city to city, one would see much closer connections suchas identical minor border patterns or the drawing of individualornaments. There are no such close connections. We may there-fore assume that whatever style was in fashion at a particulartime was interpreted by different weavers in diverse locations.There are relationships in the way that certain trees or animalcombats are composed, perhaps indicating that detaileddrawings of these motifs were circulated, but that the overallcompositions were less precise, allowing an individual style foreach workshop where the ‘Paradise Park’ carpets were woven.

The ‘Paradise Park’ carpets have been considered by almostevery historian of oriental carpets during the past century. In add-ition to the seven carpets cited above, a further eight important16th century Safavid carpets are often compared to the Schwarz-enberg, through various aspects of design, colour, weave andstyle. These are the Anhalt carpet in the Metropolitan Museum,New York; the Fossati ‘Darius of the Universe’ carpet in the PoldiPezzoli Museum, Milan; the Kohner-Cassirer carpet in the Mus-eum of Islamic Art, Berlin; the Bardini-Williams carpet in thePhiladelphia Museum of Art; the Chelsea carpet in the Victoria& Albert Museum, London; the Martin and Schwaiger fragments,both of the same carpet, in the Textile Museum, Washington DC;the Baron compartment carpet in the Musée Historique des Tissus,Lyon, and its pair, the Robinson compartment carpet in theMetropolitan Museum.59

The Schwarzenberg carpet was first exhibited in Vienna in1891 and published in the large ‘elephant’ folio edition. Latterly

3

Ph

oto

by:

Lon

gev

ity

Ph

oto

by:

Lon

gev

ity

the five centres identified here.66 Over and above the 16th centurySafavid carpets that can be assigned to these groups, there areexamples that share some features, but not enough for inclusionwithin any of the groups. Nor do enough of them share suffici-ent common features conclusively to link them to each otherand thus form a new group. Many of the greatest Safavid carpets,those that are evidently the work of the great masters, that utilisethe best materials and have the most extensive range of colours,can be counted among these ‘f loating’ examples. We may con-clude that these could be unique survivors of workshops fromwhich no other examples are known.

The earliest scholarship on classical Iranian carpets datesback to the end of the 19th century, by which time the numberof extant examples was so small compared with what must havebeen made that the views expressed were mostly guesswork.Little that has been published on classical Iranian carpets isthoroughly researched or reaches plausible conclusions. Some‘Paradise Park’ pieces have been included in exhibitions, but it has never been possible to compare every similarity anddifference side-by-side, so expert opinions have been based on observations made on carpets thousands of miles apart.Other authors have merely reiterated the work of their prede-cessors without comment or reference, or have worked fromillustrations only, many in black and white, without physicallyexamining the carpets. While not ignoring them, we shouldtherefore treat the conclusions of earlier writers with caution.

The most prudent authors have simply labelled the Schwarz-enberg carpet ‘Iranian’. Nor can I disagree with the slightly morespecific label ‘central Iran’. In the catalogue to the 1891 Viennaexhibition, Friedrich Sarre attributed the Schwarzenberg carpetto Joshegan, but gave no reasons. In the Munich catalogue of 1910he offered no attributions. In 1926, Sarre and Hermann Trenkwaldascribed it to north Iran, relating it through certain design featuresto the Bardini-Williams tree carpet in Philadelphia,67 and sugges-ted that it is closest to the Stieglitz carpet in St Petersburg. Martin,writing in 1908, brought together many of the ‘Paradise Park’carpets. He attributed the Schwarzenberg and others to theTimurid period, a century earlier than is now accepted, and byinference attributed them to Herat, the Timurid capital. Wilhelmvon Bode, in 1911, and with Ernst Kühnel in 1922, did not attri-bute any Iranian carpets to any specific place of origin. However,in 1955, Kühnel began to suggest places of origin within thetext, attributing the Schwarzenberg and related carpets to Tabriz.

Pope attributed carpets of many different styles to Tabriz. Helinked the Bardini-Williams to the Schwarzenberg on the basisthat: “Most interesting are the closely woven web and knottedfringe on both ends, important diagnostic features which rarelysurvive, and which also indirectly support a northwest Persiaattribution, as such webbing and fringe are not found on carpetsof either East or Central Persia.” This is an interesting observat-ion, but so few carpets of this period have original end finishesintact, that one cannot arrive at such an opinion based on sucha small sample. Pope continues: “The promise implicit in theParadise park scene that ornaments the field of the [Bardini-Williams] fragment is delightfully carried out with more perfectpictorialism in a carpet, fortunately in almost perfect condition,belonging to Prince Johann zu Schwarzenberg, and the fact thatthe two pieces are technically almost identical, combined withtheir artistic similarity, is virtually proof that although later indate this carpet is a product of the same organisation. As in the[Bardini-Williams] piece a medallion system is superimposedupon the garden, but the combination is now more perfectlysynthesized, for the Schwarzenberg medallion functions as agreat pool in the centre of the park, with variegated ducks f loat-ing on its rippled surface, the bar and bell pendants are no moreinappropriate than garden beds, and the escutcheon is almostmerged with the field pattern by delicate and graceful elongat-ions. Again paired peacocks confront each other, and out of thesky in the corners great fêng-huangs come sweeping and f lutter-

ing down with pyrotechnic brilliance. The whole scene is framedin a power reciprocal, but this border composition is now moresubtly treated, with an overlaid design of pale blue cloudbandsthat define an opposed reciprocal, a new form of secondarydesign system.”

Pope concluded: “The Schwarzenberg carpet probably datesfrom the second quarter of the 16th century, but evidently theshop was still producing at the end of the century, for a piece inthe Hermitage [the Stieglitz] is obviously a late repetition of acartoon from the same school, even by the same hand.” Martin,on the other hand, dates the Steiglitz carpet slightly earlier thanthe Schwarzenberg, albeit a century earlier than we would today.“The vine-leaf palmette that takes the place of the bar-pendantreappears, as do the paired peacocks, the sweeping fêng-huangs,the reciprocal border, and the sky full of birds and clouds at thetop, which is a rather unusual feature of the Schwarzenberg car-toon.” The wool, weave and colours are so different in the Stieg-litz carpet that Pope’s view that they are from the same ‘shop’ isdifficult to understand.

May Beattie, writing in 1976, is undoubtedly correct that theMantes and Mackay carpets may be from northwest Iran. She relatesthe border of the Bardini-Williams to the Schwarzenberg, theStieglitz and the Chelsea, but also points out that the Stieglitzand the Schwarzenberg are woven differently. She does not att-ribute the Schwarzenberg to a specific centre, but rightly infersthat it is not from Kerman. In the Philadelphia Museum of Artcatalogue of 1988, Charles Grant Ellis tentatively attributes theBardini-Williams carpet to Kerman. He also considers it to be a‘Paradise-Park’ carpet, even though it lacks the paired cypresstrees seen on all the other examples. He attributes the Hatvanyand the Paris-Cracow carpets to eastern Iran,68 possibly Herat,an attribution with which I disagree. He writes that the Mackayand Bode carpets are “thought to be of Tabriz manufacture” –possible, but as yet not proven. Ellis tentatively attributes theStieglitz to the Kerman area because it has “a vase type of con-struction”, and points out that the Schwarzenberg “is dissimilarin construction and presumably derives from some undeter-mined central Persian center, possibly Kashan.”

Considering that Ellis rightly saw the ‘Paradise Park’ carpetsas the work of a number of different weaving centres, it is amaz-ing that ten years later, in 1998, Murray Eiland should proposethat so many carpets with such very different styles, colour, wooland weave were made in Kerman. I doubt that any of them comefrom there.69 Perhaps Eiland’s confusion stems from the Schwarz-enberg having a strap-work pattern in the medallion, like severalof the Kerman ‘Sanguszko’ carpets.70 However, this feature alsoappears in the Kevorkian medallion carpet,71 as well as othersthat are clearly neither from the same weaving centre as theSchwarzenberg, nor indeed from Kerman.

In my opinion, no other carpet has as yet been convincinglyassociated with the same workshop, or even the same city, asthe Schwarzenberg. Further examination may change this view,but this could probably only be achieved by side-by-side com-parison of all the related carpets. There may be some similar-ities in wool and colours to the Anhalt, and to the Baron andRobinson compartment carpets, which may all come from cen-tral Iran. However, there is nothing sufficiently similar in theirweave or style to lead one to assume that they are from the sameworkshops, or even from the same city. The relationship to theFossati is even less clear, apart from some details in drawing, andwe have always assumed that it comes from northwest Iran.72 Theborder of the Bardini-Williams has a similar reciprocal two-colourbackground, as does the Chelsea, but all are so different in weave,colours and wool that no real connection can be made. TheKohner-Cassirer is the least closely related in every way. It wouldbe pleasing to be able to link the Schwarzenberg to the Martinand Schwaiger fragments, but their only real connection is tothe Hatvany ‘Paradise Park’ carpet. The Schwarzenberg carpet issimply one of a few unique masterpieces from this period.

PERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETS

11 HALI ISSUE 155

Detail of 3

Ph

oto

by:

Lon

gev

ity

the five centres identified here.66 Over and above the 16th centurySafavid carpets that can be assigned to these groups, there areexamples that share some features, but not enough for inclusionwithin any of the groups. Nor do enough of them share suffici-ent common features conclusively to link them to each otherand thus form a new group. Many of the greatest Safavid carpets,those that are evidently the work of the great masters, that utilisethe best materials and have the most extensive range of colours,can be counted among these ‘f loating’ examples. We may con-clude that these could be unique survivors of workshops fromwhich no other examples are known.

The earliest scholarship on classical Iranian carpets datesback to the end of the 19th century, by which time the numberof extant examples was so small compared with what must havebeen made that the views expressed were mostly guesswork.Little that has been published on classical Iranian carpets isthoroughly researched or reaches plausible conclusions. Some‘Paradise Park’ pieces have been included in exhibitions, but it has never been possible to compare every similarity anddifference side-by-side, so expert opinions have been based on observations made on carpets thousands of miles apart.Other authors have merely reiterated the work of their prede-cessors without comment or reference, or have worked fromillustrations only, many in black and white, without physicallyexamining the carpets. While not ignoring them, we shouldtherefore treat the conclusions of earlier writers with caution.

The most prudent authors have simply labelled the Schwarz-enberg carpet ‘Iranian’. Nor can I disagree with the slightly morespecific label ‘central Iran’. In the catalogue to the 1891 Viennaexhibition, Friedrich Sarre attributed the Schwarzenberg carpetto Joshegan, but gave no reasons. In the Munich catalogue of 1910he offered no attributions. In 1926, Sarre and Hermann Trenkwaldascribed it to north Iran, relating it through certain design featuresto the Bardini-Williams tree carpet in Philadelphia,67 and sugges-ted that it is closest to the Stieglitz carpet in St Petersburg. Martin,writing in 1908, brought together many of the ‘Paradise Park’carpets. He attributed the Schwarzenberg and others to theTimurid period, a century earlier than is now accepted, and byinference attributed them to Herat, the Timurid capital. Wilhelmvon Bode, in 1911, and with Ernst Kühnel in 1922, did not attri-bute any Iranian carpets to any specific place of origin. However,in 1955, Kühnel began to suggest places of origin within thetext, attributing the Schwarzenberg and related carpets to Tabriz.

Pope attributed carpets of many different styles to Tabriz. Helinked the Bardini-Williams to the Schwarzenberg on the basisthat: “Most interesting are the closely woven web and knottedfringe on both ends, important diagnostic features which rarelysurvive, and which also indirectly support a northwest Persiaattribution, as such webbing and fringe are not found on carpetsof either East or Central Persia.” This is an interesting observat-ion, but so few carpets of this period have original end finishesintact, that one cannot arrive at such an opinion based on sucha small sample. Pope continues: “The promise implicit in theParadise park scene that ornaments the field of the [Bardini-Williams] fragment is delightfully carried out with more perfectpictorialism in a carpet, fortunately in almost perfect condition,belonging to Prince Johann zu Schwarzenberg, and the fact thatthe two pieces are technically almost identical, combined withtheir artistic similarity, is virtually proof that although later indate this carpet is a product of the same organisation. As in the[Bardini-Williams] piece a medallion system is superimposedupon the garden, but the combination is now more perfectlysynthesized, for the Schwarzenberg medallion functions as agreat pool in the centre of the park, with variegated ducks f loat-ing on its rippled surface, the bar and bell pendants are no moreinappropriate than garden beds, and the escutcheon is almostmerged with the field pattern by delicate and graceful elongat-ions. Again paired peacocks confront each other, and out of thesky in the corners great fêng-huangs come sweeping and f lutter-

ing down with pyrotechnic brilliance. The whole scene is framedin a power reciprocal, but this border composition is now moresubtly treated, with an overlaid design of pale blue cloudbandsthat define an opposed reciprocal, a new form of secondarydesign system.”

Pope concluded: “The Schwarzenberg carpet probably datesfrom the second quarter of the 16th century, but evidently theshop was still producing at the end of the century, for a piece inthe Hermitage [the Stieglitz] is obviously a late repetition of acartoon from the same school, even by the same hand.” Martin,on the other hand, dates the Steiglitz carpet slightly earlier thanthe Schwarzenberg, albeit a century earlier than we would today.“The vine-leaf palmette that takes the place of the bar-pendantreappears, as do the paired peacocks, the sweeping fêng-huangs,the reciprocal border, and the sky full of birds and clouds at thetop, which is a rather unusual feature of the Schwarzenberg car-toon.” The wool, weave and colours are so different in the Stieg-litz carpet that Pope’s view that they are from the same ‘shop’ isdifficult to understand.

May Beattie, writing in 1976, is undoubtedly correct that theMantes and Mackay carpets may be from northwest Iran. She relatesthe border of the Bardini-Williams to the Schwarzenberg, theStieglitz and the Chelsea, but also points out that the Stieglitzand the Schwarzenberg are woven differently. She does not att-ribute the Schwarzenberg to a specific centre, but rightly infersthat it is not from Kerman. In the Philadelphia Museum of Artcatalogue of 1988, Charles Grant Ellis tentatively attributes theBardini-Williams carpet to Kerman. He also considers it to be a‘Paradise-Park’ carpet, even though it lacks the paired cypresstrees seen on all the other examples. He attributes the Hatvanyand the Paris-Cracow carpets to eastern Iran,68 possibly Herat,an attribution with which I disagree. He writes that the Mackayand Bode carpets are “thought to be of Tabriz manufacture” –possible, but as yet not proven. Ellis tentatively attributes theStieglitz to the Kerman area because it has “a vase type of con-struction”, and points out that the Schwarzenberg “is dissimilarin construction and presumably derives from some undeter-mined central Persian center, possibly Kashan.”

Considering that Ellis rightly saw the ‘Paradise Park’ carpetsas the work of a number of different weaving centres, it is amaz-ing that ten years later, in 1998, Murray Eiland should proposethat so many carpets with such very different styles, colour, wooland weave were made in Kerman. I doubt that any of them comefrom there.69 Perhaps Eiland’s confusion stems from the Schwarz-enberg having a strap-work pattern in the medallion, like severalof the Kerman ‘Sanguszko’ carpets.70 However, this feature alsoappears in the Kevorkian medallion carpet,71 as well as othersthat are clearly neither from the same weaving centre as theSchwarzenberg, nor indeed from Kerman.

In my opinion, no other carpet has as yet been convincinglyassociated with the same workshop, or even the same city, asthe Schwarzenberg. Further examination may change this view,but this could probably only be achieved by side-by-side com-parison of all the related carpets. There may be some similar-ities in wool and colours to the Anhalt, and to the Baron andRobinson compartment carpets, which may all come from cen-tral Iran. However, there is nothing sufficiently similar in theirweave or style to lead one to assume that they are from the sameworkshops, or even from the same city. The relationship to theFossati is even less clear, apart from some details in drawing, andwe have always assumed that it comes from northwest Iran.72 Theborder of the Bardini-Williams has a similar reciprocal two-colourbackground, as does the Chelsea, but all are so different in weave,colours and wool that no real connection can be made. TheKohner-Cassirer is the least closely related in every way. It wouldbe pleasing to be able to link the Schwarzenberg to the Martinand Schwaiger fragments, but their only real connection is tothe Hatvany ‘Paradise Park’ carpet. The Schwarzenberg carpet issimply one of a few unique masterpieces from this period.

PERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETS

11 HALI ISSUE 155

Detail of 3

Ph

oto

by:

Lon

gev

ity

PERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETSPERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETS

HALI ISSUE 155 1413 HALI ISSUE 155

4 The Rothschild

Kashan medallion

and cartouches rug

(right, and detail

above), central Iran,

mid-16th century. Silk

pile on a silk foundat-

ion, 1.80 x 2.35m

(5'11" x 7'9"). MIAQ,

no.CA21.

4 THE ROTHSCHILD KASHAN MEDALLION AND CARTOUCHES SILK RUG The earliest surviving silk pile carpet known comes from Xinjiangin western China and dates from the 7th-10th century.73 Silkcarpets were certainly made in China during the Tang dynasty,as a huge red silk carpet made for the Emperor is described bythe poet Bai Juyi (772-846).74 The earliest record of a silk carpetmade in Iran is from the 6th century, for the Sasanian KingKhosrow I, mentioned above. However, no actual Iranian silkcarpets survive from before the 16th century, although a smallfragment in the Textile Museum, Washington DC, may well befrom the Timurid period.75 And while the so-called ‘Chess-garden’carpet now in the MIAQ has been attributed to Timurid Iran,76

I have always believed that it was made elsewhere. Possibly the earliest complete Iranian silk rug is the Gulben-

kian houri and inscription rug in Lisbon,77 which bears the date1529. A counterpart, the Pope small silk tomb cover in the Cin-cinnati Art Museum, may well be a 20th century reproduction inthe style of the Gulbenkian rug.78 Safavid silk carpets certainlyfound their way to the courts of Europe in the 16th century, ascan be seen from a number of references in inventories.79

The rare Safavid silk rugs attributed to 16th century Kashan areso fine that they were often thought to be velvet. They have aquality of craftsmanship that is unsurpassed, masterful drawing,exquisite colours and a balance of colour and proportion thatsuggests they were created by masters of the art. The MIAQ purchased the Rothschild ‘small-silk Kashan’ rug 4 at auction inLondon in 1999.80 Like the Tabriz medallion carpet 1, the Kashanwas seized from the Rothschilds after the Anschluss in 1938 andstored at the MAK in Vienna.

Rudolph M. Riefstahl first identified the ‘Kashan’ silk rugs in1916,81 although there does not appear to be any direct evidenceto attribute them to that city. In 1961, Kurt Erdmann discussed thefourteen examples that he knew, grouping them by design.82 In1987, Eberhart Herrmann wrote about the ‘small silk Kashans’ inrelation to the newly-published Bacri rug.83 In 1994, curator DanielWalker exhibited four silk Kashan rugs at the MetropolitanMuseum, and perfectly summarised the existing literature andadded his own observations in a HALI article.84 The ‘Kashan’ groupnow contains four complete large carpets and the borders from afifth: two hunting carpets (MAK, Vienna, and Museum of FineArts, Boston); two medallion carpets (Swedish Royal Collection,Stockholm, and one formerly belonging to the Polish state inWarsaw but lost during World War II); and the joined pair ofRothschild border fragments in the Museum für Kunst und Gewerbein Hamburg, which might have come from a carpet identical tothe lost Warsaw piece.85 To these can be added sixteen completesmall silk Kashan rugs and fragments of a seventeenth.86 FollowingErdmann, they have been divided according to their composition.87

The crenellated ogival medallion surrounded by a cloud-likeband seen in the centre of the Rothschild rug is unique amongthe small silk Kashans. The form of the medallion is similar, butnot identical to, that seen on some of the so-called ‘Kashan’ silkkilims. The small blue-ground medallion in the centre, with fouroutward-pointing palmettes surrounded by cusped arabesques,is somewhat reminiscent of small Ushak rugs from western Ana-tolia. The Morgan-Widener rug in the National Gallery, Washing-ton DC, is the only example that shares a similar field pattern,with an arrangement of cloudband-filled cartouches placedaround the medallion, as well as above and below the pendantsof both the central medallion and the quartered medallions onthe side axes, but it has an eight-lobed central medallion.

Both Walker and Robinson suggest that the pattern of the pri-mary border of the Rothschild rug is unique, and that the outerminor border is very similar to the inner minor borders on thelarge silk Kashan carpets in Stockholm and Boston. In fact, themain border is not entirely unique, as it resembles the strap-workseen on a group of 16th century hunting carpets from centralIran with wool pile and silk foundations.88 An all-silk border

fragment in a private collection has a design identical to the strap-work borders of the latter;89 and a complete silk-pile medallionrug with animals and the same border is in a private collectionin Lecco.90

These and other rugs strongly suggest that silk carpets weremade in a number of different cities in 16th century Iran. Amedallion rug with cartouche borders in Tehran, said to havesilk-pile, relates closely to the wool-pile ‘Salting’ rugs and wasalmost certainly made in the same workshops.91 The Stieglitz silkrug with medallions and cartouches in St Petersburg,92 is relatedin design to wool carpets at the Shrine at al-Najaf in Iraq. A cur-ious and beautiful small 17th century silk rug with a shrub designin the Metropolitan Museum of Art,93 has the narrow borderstripe typical of Tabriz carpets. Another small group comprisesthe all-silk Lichtenstein, Czartoryski and Rainey Rogers rugs,discussed below,94 which seem to be precursors of the cotton-warped ‘Polonaise’ rugs. Two silk pile carpets have strap-workdesigns in the field: the Shah Abbas I carpet at al-Najaf, and theAberconway fragment in the Victoria & Albert Museum,95 whichalso holds an Esfahan Armenian silk carpet woven in the shapeof a Christian ecclesiastical vestment with a crucifixion scene.96

A later silk rug with tree designs is in the Residenz Museum,Munich.97 From other workshops come the silk tree carpetsfrom the Mausoleum of Shah Abbas II at Qum,98 and the silk treecarpet in the Musée Historique des Tissus in Lyon.99

4

Ph

oto

by:

Lon

gev

ity

Ph

oto

by:

Lon

gev

ity

PERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETSPERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETS

HALI ISSUE 155 1413 HALI ISSUE 155

4 The Rothschild

Kashan medallion

and cartouches rug

(right, and detail

above), central Iran,

mid-16th century. Silk

pile on a silk foundat-

ion, 1.80 x 2.35m

(5'11" x 7'9"). MIAQ,

no.CA21.

4 THE ROTHSCHILD KASHAN MEDALLION AND CARTOUCHES SILK RUG The earliest surviving silk pile carpet known comes from Xinjiangin western China and dates from the 7th-10th century.73 Silkcarpets were certainly made in China during the Tang dynasty,as a huge red silk carpet made for the Emperor is described bythe poet Bai Juyi (772-846).74 The earliest record of a silk carpetmade in Iran is from the 6th century, for the Sasanian KingKhosrow I, mentioned above. However, no actual Iranian silkcarpets survive from before the 16th century, although a smallfragment in the Textile Museum, Washington DC, may well befrom the Timurid period.75 And while the so-called ‘Chess-garden’carpet now in the MIAQ has been attributed to Timurid Iran,76

I have always believed that it was made elsewhere. Possibly the earliest complete Iranian silk rug is the Gulben-

kian houri and inscription rug in Lisbon,77 which bears the date1529. A counterpart, the Pope small silk tomb cover in the Cin-cinnati Art Museum, may well be a 20th century reproduction inthe style of the Gulbenkian rug.78 Safavid silk carpets certainlyfound their way to the courts of Europe in the 16th century, ascan be seen from a number of references in inventories.79

The rare Safavid silk rugs attributed to 16th century Kashan areso fine that they were often thought to be velvet. They have aquality of craftsmanship that is unsurpassed, masterful drawing,exquisite colours and a balance of colour and proportion thatsuggests they were created by masters of the art. The MIAQ purchased the Rothschild ‘small-silk Kashan’ rug 4 at auction inLondon in 1999.80 Like the Tabriz medallion carpet 1, the Kashanwas seized from the Rothschilds after the Anschluss in 1938 andstored at the MAK in Vienna.

Rudolph M. Riefstahl first identified the ‘Kashan’ silk rugs in1916,81 although there does not appear to be any direct evidenceto attribute them to that city. In 1961, Kurt Erdmann discussed thefourteen examples that he knew, grouping them by design.82 In1987, Eberhart Herrmann wrote about the ‘small silk Kashans’ inrelation to the newly-published Bacri rug.83 In 1994, curator DanielWalker exhibited four silk Kashan rugs at the MetropolitanMuseum, and perfectly summarised the existing literature andadded his own observations in a HALI article.84 The ‘Kashan’ groupnow contains four complete large carpets and the borders from afifth: two hunting carpets (MAK, Vienna, and Museum of FineArts, Boston); two medallion carpets (Swedish Royal Collection,Stockholm, and one formerly belonging to the Polish state inWarsaw but lost during World War II); and the joined pair ofRothschild border fragments in the Museum für Kunst und Gewerbein Hamburg, which might have come from a carpet identical tothe lost Warsaw piece.85 To these can be added sixteen completesmall silk Kashan rugs and fragments of a seventeenth.86 FollowingErdmann, they have been divided according to their composition.87

The crenellated ogival medallion surrounded by a cloud-likeband seen in the centre of the Rothschild rug is unique amongthe small silk Kashans. The form of the medallion is similar, butnot identical to, that seen on some of the so-called ‘Kashan’ silkkilims. The small blue-ground medallion in the centre, with fouroutward-pointing palmettes surrounded by cusped arabesques,is somewhat reminiscent of small Ushak rugs from western Ana-tolia. The Morgan-Widener rug in the National Gallery, Washing-ton DC, is the only example that shares a similar field pattern,with an arrangement of cloudband-filled cartouches placedaround the medallion, as well as above and below the pendantsof both the central medallion and the quartered medallions onthe side axes, but it has an eight-lobed central medallion.

Both Walker and Robinson suggest that the pattern of the pri-mary border of the Rothschild rug is unique, and that the outerminor border is very similar to the inner minor borders on thelarge silk Kashan carpets in Stockholm and Boston. In fact, themain border is not entirely unique, as it resembles the strap-workseen on a group of 16th century hunting carpets from centralIran with wool pile and silk foundations.88 An all-silk border

fragment in a private collection has a design identical to the strap-work borders of the latter;89 and a complete silk-pile medallionrug with animals and the same border is in a private collectionin Lecco.90

These and other rugs strongly suggest that silk carpets weremade in a number of different cities in 16th century Iran. Amedallion rug with cartouche borders in Tehran, said to havesilk-pile, relates closely to the wool-pile ‘Salting’ rugs and wasalmost certainly made in the same workshops.91 The Stieglitz silkrug with medallions and cartouches in St Petersburg,92 is relatedin design to wool carpets at the Shrine at al-Najaf in Iraq. A cur-ious and beautiful small 17th century silk rug with a shrub designin the Metropolitan Museum of Art,93 has the narrow borderstripe typical of Tabriz carpets. Another small group comprisesthe all-silk Lichtenstein, Czartoryski and Rainey Rogers rugs,discussed below,94 which seem to be precursors of the cotton-warped ‘Polonaise’ rugs. Two silk pile carpets have strap-workdesigns in the field: the Shah Abbas I carpet at al-Najaf, and theAberconway fragment in the Victoria & Albert Museum,95 whichalso holds an Esfahan Armenian silk carpet woven in the shapeof a Christian ecclesiastical vestment with a crucifixion scene.96

A later silk rug with tree designs is in the Residenz Museum,Munich.97 From other workshops come the silk tree carpetsfrom the Mausoleum of Shah Abbas II at Qum,98 and the silk treecarpet in the Musée Historique des Tissus in Lyon.99

4

Ph

oto

by:

Lon

gev

ity

Ph

oto

by:

Lon

gev

ity

PERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETSPERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETS

HALI ISSUE 155 1615 HALI ISSUE 155

5 The Shah Suleiman

Tabriz hunting carpet

with medallion (right,

and detail above),

Tabriz, northwest

Iran, early 17th

century. Wool pile on

a cotton foundation,

2.60 x 5.84m

(8'6" x 19'2").

MIAQ, no.CA16

5 THE SHAH SULEIMAN TABRIZ HUNTING CARPETWITH MEDALLIONThis beautiful carpet is one of the best-known of those made inthe workshops of Tabriz in the early part of the 17th century 5.100 Ithas perfect balance of drawing and harmony of colours and is inpristine state, one of the best-preserved Safavid hunting carpetsextant. The designs we see are typical of the repertoire of theworkshops of Tabriz and Esfahan, and can be related to severalother historical Iranian carpets in collections around the world.

The overall design is vertically and horizontally symmetrical,mirrored through the centre on both axes. The field is filled witha network of stems and palmettes interspersed with cloudbands,single animals and other animals in combat. It is overlaid in thecentre with a large elongated lobed medallion with crenellatedoutlines, from each end of which extend spade-like pendants.The form of the medallion and pendants is reminiscent of theMarquand Kashan carpet in Philadelphia,101 while the simplicity ofthe design is more closely related to that of the Schutz Esfahanmedallion hunting rug in Lyon,102 or the Widener Esfahan carpetin Washington DC, also with a green-ground medallion.103 Thedecoration within the medallion of the Widener carpet is notunlike that of the secondary quartered corner medallions on the Shah Suleiman. The Schutz, on the other hand, has a smalloctafoil enclosing four ducks in the centre of the medallion, adesign often seen on classical Esfahan carpets and also on theShah Suleiman Tabriz carpet.104 The intertwined trees with birdsthat surround the octafoil with ducks are found on a number of other Safavid carpets, particularly on those attributed toEsfahan, but are more commonly used in the main field, and it is very unusual to find them in the medallion.

The large quarter-medallions in the corners of the field appearas part of an endless repeat design that passes out of sight beneaththe borders, so we see just a small part of an infinite composition.Not all Safavid medallion carpets have these motifs, which whenpresent either take the same shape as the central medallion, ashere, or are an entirely different form. Often they are filled witha different design to the central medallion. Here, palmettes,cloudbands and spiral arabesques are placed against an orange-pink background.

The monumental design of the Shah Suleiman carpet is bestcompared with the famous Seley medallion, cartouche and pen-dants carpet in the Metropolitan Museum of Art,105 which has asimilar large medallion with cartouche and pendants at each end,as well as large secondary part-medallions in the corners. Thespiral arabesque field with palmettes and cloudbands lacks birdsor animals, but they are included in the spades and octafoils ofthe spade, cartouche and octafoil border.

The border of the Shah Suleiman carpet is composed of threemotifs: the spade, the octafoil and the cartouche, a combinationfirst seen on Safavid carpets as a field design. In the first half ofthe 16th century, the spade and octafoil can be seen in the fieldaround a central medallion in carpets attributed to Tabriz.106 Bythe middle of the century, the design had reached a height of per-fection, as seen in a pair of carpets attributed to central Iran,107

as well as three silk tapestry-woven carpets from Kashan.108 Theonly surviving Esfahan carpet known with a spade and quatrefoilfield design is the famous Clam-Gallas carpet in Vienna, attrib-uted to the 17th century, whose field is enclosed by a cartoucheand octafoil border.109

The use of the spade, octafoil and cartouche main border mayhave commenced around the middle of the 16th century. The ear-liest surviving example, represented by a number of fragmentsin various collections, is probably from Kashan.110 By the end ofthe 16th century, the design must have been in common use inthe better workshops of Esfahan. It is most often found in com-bination with a field of f loral arabesques with palmettes andcloudbands,111 rarely with a central medallion. Many smaller rugswith this field and border are woven on a silk foundation. Otherfield patterns are also used in conjunction with this border: the

Rockefeller Esfahan rug in the Carpet Museum, Tehran has a fieldfilled with animals,112 and another Esfahan in the MetropolitanMuseum, has a field with many small trees.113

Many 17th century carpets survive that we attribute to centralPersia in general and Esfahan in particular. A number of othercarpets survive that have many of the design elements that weassociate with Esfahan carpets, but their colours, wool and weaveare quite different. The colours and weave of the Shah Suleimancarpet are more like the large medallion carpets of Tabriz dis-cussed above. It is possible that designers or designs came fromcentral to northwest Iran and carpets were made there with‘Esfahan’ designs.

The Shah Suleiman carpet was with the Morosini family inVenice from the late 17th until the late 19th century. GeneralFrancesco Morosini (1618-1694) was one of the great sea-captainsof the 17th century, who captured Athens from the Turks in 1687.The following year, when he was elected Doge of Venice, theSafavid Shah Suleiman (1667-94) presented him with this imp-ortant carpet. The Safavids, who had a tradition of presentingcarpets as Imperial gifts, had long sought the Venetians as alliesagainst the Ottomans. Earlier, in 1603, Shah Abbas I sent a cert-ain Fathi Bey to Venice with silk carpets worked in gold andsilver. One of these, together with four other silk carpets whichwere part of a gift from the Persian Embassy in 1622, is still preserved in the Treasury of St Mark’s Cathedral in Venice. TheShah Suleiman carpet remained in the family and hung in theirpalace in Venice until it was sold at the Morosini sale in Venicein 1894, when it was acquired for a private collection in Rome.

The merit and importance of the Shah Suleiman carpet in Iranian art history – due to its superb drawing, fresh coloursand excellent condition – cannot be overstated. It is a master-piece of carpet art.

5

Ph

oto

by:

Lon

gev

ity

Ph

oto

by:

Lon

gev

ity

PERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETSPERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETS

HALI ISSUE 155 1615 HALI ISSUE 155

5 The Shah Suleiman

Tabriz hunting carpet

with medallion (right,

and detail above),

Tabriz, northwest

Iran, early 17th

century. Wool pile on

a cotton foundation,

2.60 x 5.84m

(8'6" x 19'2").

MIAQ, no.CA16

5 THE SHAH SULEIMAN TABRIZ HUNTING CARPETWITH MEDALLIONThis beautiful carpet is one of the best-known of those made inthe workshops of Tabriz in the early part of the 17th century 5.100 Ithas perfect balance of drawing and harmony of colours and is inpristine state, one of the best-preserved Safavid hunting carpetsextant. The designs we see are typical of the repertoire of theworkshops of Tabriz and Esfahan, and can be related to severalother historical Iranian carpets in collections around the world.

The overall design is vertically and horizontally symmetrical,mirrored through the centre on both axes. The field is filled witha network of stems and palmettes interspersed with cloudbands,single animals and other animals in combat. It is overlaid in thecentre with a large elongated lobed medallion with crenellatedoutlines, from each end of which extend spade-like pendants.The form of the medallion and pendants is reminiscent of theMarquand Kashan carpet in Philadelphia,101 while the simplicity ofthe design is more closely related to that of the Schutz Esfahanmedallion hunting rug in Lyon,102 or the Widener Esfahan carpetin Washington DC, also with a green-ground medallion.103 Thedecoration within the medallion of the Widener carpet is notunlike that of the secondary quartered corner medallions on the Shah Suleiman. The Schutz, on the other hand, has a smalloctafoil enclosing four ducks in the centre of the medallion, adesign often seen on classical Esfahan carpets and also on theShah Suleiman Tabriz carpet.104 The intertwined trees with birdsthat surround the octafoil with ducks are found on a number of other Safavid carpets, particularly on those attributed toEsfahan, but are more commonly used in the main field, and it is very unusual to find them in the medallion.

The large quarter-medallions in the corners of the field appearas part of an endless repeat design that passes out of sight beneaththe borders, so we see just a small part of an infinite composition.Not all Safavid medallion carpets have these motifs, which whenpresent either take the same shape as the central medallion, ashere, or are an entirely different form. Often they are filled witha different design to the central medallion. Here, palmettes,cloudbands and spiral arabesques are placed against an orange-pink background.

The monumental design of the Shah Suleiman carpet is bestcompared with the famous Seley medallion, cartouche and pen-dants carpet in the Metropolitan Museum of Art,105 which has asimilar large medallion with cartouche and pendants at each end,as well as large secondary part-medallions in the corners. Thespiral arabesque field with palmettes and cloudbands lacks birdsor animals, but they are included in the spades and octafoils ofthe spade, cartouche and octafoil border.

The border of the Shah Suleiman carpet is composed of threemotifs: the spade, the octafoil and the cartouche, a combinationfirst seen on Safavid carpets as a field design. In the first half ofthe 16th century, the spade and octafoil can be seen in the fieldaround a central medallion in carpets attributed to Tabriz.106 Bythe middle of the century, the design had reached a height of per-fection, as seen in a pair of carpets attributed to central Iran,107

as well as three silk tapestry-woven carpets from Kashan.108 Theonly surviving Esfahan carpet known with a spade and quatrefoilfield design is the famous Clam-Gallas carpet in Vienna, attrib-uted to the 17th century, whose field is enclosed by a cartoucheand octafoil border.109

The use of the spade, octafoil and cartouche main border mayhave commenced around the middle of the 16th century. The ear-liest surviving example, represented by a number of fragmentsin various collections, is probably from Kashan.110 By the end ofthe 16th century, the design must have been in common use inthe better workshops of Esfahan. It is most often found in com-bination with a field of f loral arabesques with palmettes andcloudbands,111 rarely with a central medallion. Many smaller rugswith this field and border are woven on a silk foundation. Otherfield patterns are also used in conjunction with this border: the

Rockefeller Esfahan rug in the Carpet Museum, Tehran has a fieldfilled with animals,112 and another Esfahan in the MetropolitanMuseum, has a field with many small trees.113

Many 17th century carpets survive that we attribute to centralPersia in general and Esfahan in particular. A number of othercarpets survive that have many of the design elements that weassociate with Esfahan carpets, but their colours, wool and weaveare quite different. The colours and weave of the Shah Suleimancarpet are more like the large medallion carpets of Tabriz dis-cussed above. It is possible that designers or designs came fromcentral to northwest Iran and carpets were made there with‘Esfahan’ designs.

The Shah Suleiman carpet was with the Morosini family inVenice from the late 17th until the late 19th century. GeneralFrancesco Morosini (1618-1694) was one of the great sea-captainsof the 17th century, who captured Athens from the Turks in 1687.The following year, when he was elected Doge of Venice, theSafavid Shah Suleiman (1667-94) presented him with this imp-ortant carpet. The Safavids, who had a tradition of presentingcarpets as Imperial gifts, had long sought the Venetians as alliesagainst the Ottomans. Earlier, in 1603, Shah Abbas I sent a cert-ain Fathi Bey to Venice with silk carpets worked in gold andsilver. One of these, together with four other silk carpets whichwere part of a gift from the Persian Embassy in 1622, is still preserved in the Treasury of St Mark’s Cathedral in Venice. TheShah Suleiman carpet remained in the family and hung in theirpalace in Venice until it was sold at the Morosini sale in Venicein 1894, when it was acquired for a private collection in Rome.

The merit and importance of the Shah Suleiman carpet in Iranian art history – due to its superb drawing, fresh coloursand excellent condition – cannot be overstated. It is a master-piece of carpet art.

5

Ph

oto

by:

Lon

gev

ity

Ph

oto

by:

Lon

gev

ity

PERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETS

6 The Rothschild

palmette and arab-

esque ‘Polonaise’

rug (right, and detail

above). Esfahan,

central Iran, circa

1600. Silk pile on

a cotton and silk

foundation with silver

brocading, 1.43 x

2.15m (4'8" x 7'1").

MIAQ, no.CA03,

PERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETS

HALI ISSUE 155 1817 HALI ISSUE 155

6 THE ROTHSCHILD PALMETTE AND ARABESQUE‘POLONAISE’ RUG This elegant rug is one of a distinctive group of 17th centuryIranian silk rugs with rows of individual stylised palmettes on aplain ground, made on the imperial looms established by ShahAbbas in Esfahan after he moved his capital there in 1898 6.114

According to Anthony Welch, “Shah ‘Abbas (1587-1629), whowas a man of great genius and a person of great understanding,considering that Persia was a barren country, where there waslittle trade, and by consequence little money, resolved to sendhis subjects into Europe with raw silks, so to understand whencethe best profit would arise, to bring money into his country. Towhich purpose, he resolved to make himself master of all thesilk in his own country by purchasing it himself, and to reap thegains by his factors; and withall, thought it necessary to seek analliance with the great kings of Europe, to engage them on hisside against the Turks.”115

Accounts written by 17th and 18th century travellers speak ofthe magnificent silk weaving of Esfahan and Kashan; and the so-called ‘Polonaise’ rugs – of which about a hundred survive – areperhaps the best-documented group of Safavid weaving.116 ShahAbbas and his successor Shah Safi both exported silk rugs, oftenembellished with gold and silver, with their embassies, and theseweavings were also much sought after by the nobility of Europe,Poland in particular, who sent merchants to Iran to purchase themon their behalf. Several carpets in European collections todaycan be traced back to diplomatic gifts in the 17th century. Themisnomer ‘Polonaise’ only came to be applied from the late 19thcentury onwards, when a silk carpet of this type from the col-lection of the Polish Prince Czartoryski was shown at the ParisInternational Exhibition of 1878. The carpet, now in the Metro-politan Museum of Art, New York,117 bore what was erroneouslybelieved to be the coat-of-arms of the Czartoryski family, and itwas assumed that it was woven in Poland. Even when the properplace of manufacture was established, the ‘Polonaise’ label stuck.

The field design on the present example, one of the mostbeautiful of the many designs seen on Esfahan ‘Polonaise’ rugs,is composed of vertical rows of arabesques, alternating in dia-gonal rows with palmettes that mirror each other and invert ineach row. The ornaments are worked with some parts in knot-ted silk pile as well as large areas where the warps are not knot-ted but worked with metal thread in a ‘sumakh-like’ brocadetechnique. In each ornament either gold or silver predominates:those parts worked in gold in one ornament are worked insilver in the opposing ornament, thus creating the variation;the ornaments are connected by a fine lattice of pink stems.

Authors have likened the palmettes to Chinese bats,118 but theyare clearly part of the repertoire of ornament used in Safavidart. The field is enclosed by a reciprocal trefoil border alter-nating in orange-red and silver brocading. Small yellow dotsare placed in the red trefoils. The alternation of plainness and

colour from row to row represents the very essence of classicalIranian design. The space formed by the background is in per-fect balance with the pattern; positive and negative ornamentsoppose each other, and these then repeat to form what appearsto be an endless design stretching to infinity.

Eight of these palmette and arabesque ‘Polonaise’ rugs areknown. They may originally have formed two sets of identicalpairs and four singles (which could also possibly have beenpairs). The most famous are an identical pair in SkoklosterCastle, Sweden, woven on a green ground with a salmoncoloured border, both in outstanding condition.119 The onlyother complete example on a green ground with a salmonborder is the Rothschild rug presented here. All the otherknown examples are small fragments or have been assembledfrom fragments. One composed of many parts, in the MuséeHistorique des Tissus in Lyon, with a salmon field and greenborder, may well have been made up from the largest survivingsections of an identical pair of rugs. Another example, a small

fragment in the MAK, Vienna, is so similar to one in the Rijks-museum in Amsterdam – also acquired from Vienna – that it isprobable these two were from the same piece or pair of pieces. I have not examined two further fragments that survive inHungary and Poland.

Most of the literature ascribes all ‘Polonaise’ rugs to the reignof Shah Abbas I in the first quarter of the 17th century, after hemoved his capital to Esfahan and rugs from the city’s workshopsgained international appeal, and considers them to be relativelyless fine copies of earlier masterpieces from Kashan. However,close examination of the techniques suggests that certain ‘Polonaise’ rugs may well have been made in the 16th century.

Most ‘Polonaise’ rugs are knotted with silk pile on cottonwarps and either cotton or silk wefts, although some – perhapsthe earliest – have silk warps. A small number are fully-knotted,but most, like the Rothschild rug, have areas where the warpsare not knotted but are worked in a sumakh-like brocadingtechnique. The thread used for the brocading is a metal threadcreated using f lattened strips of gold, silver-gilt or silverdiagonally wrapped around either a yellow or a white silk core. Similar metal thread can be found on a variety of wovenlampas silks and a number of wool pile rugs, including the Sarre Ardabil animal carpet 2 and the 16th century Enzenbergcarpet mentioned above,120 as well as a silk Kashan fragment,121

but the wrapping method used on these – a simpler warp-wrapping in the manner of a tapestry – is quite different. The metal thread is also used differently: on the Kashan fragment it is generally restricted to quite small areas and isoccasionally used for small f lowers or palmettes, and in thecase of the Enzenberg it is patterned; on the ‘Polonaise’ rugs it is more extensive, often covering the background to bothfield and border.

6

Ph

oto

by:

Lon

gev

ity

Ph

oto

by:

Lon

gev

ity

PERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETS

6 The Rothschild

palmette and arab-

esque ‘Polonaise’

rug (right, and detail

above). Esfahan,

central Iran, circa

1600. Silk pile on

a cotton and silk

foundation with silver

brocading, 1.43 x

2.15m (4'8" x 7'1").

MIAQ, no.CA03,

PERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETS

HALI ISSUE 155 1817 HALI ISSUE 155

6 THE ROTHSCHILD PALMETTE AND ARABESQUE‘POLONAISE’ RUG This elegant rug is one of a distinctive group of 17th centuryIranian silk rugs with rows of individual stylised palmettes on aplain ground, made on the imperial looms established by ShahAbbas in Esfahan after he moved his capital there in 1898 6.114

According to Anthony Welch, “Shah ‘Abbas (1587-1629), whowas a man of great genius and a person of great understanding,considering that Persia was a barren country, where there waslittle trade, and by consequence little money, resolved to sendhis subjects into Europe with raw silks, so to understand whencethe best profit would arise, to bring money into his country. Towhich purpose, he resolved to make himself master of all thesilk in his own country by purchasing it himself, and to reap thegains by his factors; and withall, thought it necessary to seek analliance with the great kings of Europe, to engage them on hisside against the Turks.”115

Accounts written by 17th and 18th century travellers speak ofthe magnificent silk weaving of Esfahan and Kashan; and the so-called ‘Polonaise’ rugs – of which about a hundred survive – areperhaps the best-documented group of Safavid weaving.116 ShahAbbas and his successor Shah Safi both exported silk rugs, oftenembellished with gold and silver, with their embassies, and theseweavings were also much sought after by the nobility of Europe,Poland in particular, who sent merchants to Iran to purchase themon their behalf. Several carpets in European collections todaycan be traced back to diplomatic gifts in the 17th century. Themisnomer ‘Polonaise’ only came to be applied from the late 19thcentury onwards, when a silk carpet of this type from the col-lection of the Polish Prince Czartoryski was shown at the ParisInternational Exhibition of 1878. The carpet, now in the Metro-politan Museum of Art, New York,117 bore what was erroneouslybelieved to be the coat-of-arms of the Czartoryski family, and itwas assumed that it was woven in Poland. Even when the properplace of manufacture was established, the ‘Polonaise’ label stuck.

The field design on the present example, one of the mostbeautiful of the many designs seen on Esfahan ‘Polonaise’ rugs,is composed of vertical rows of arabesques, alternating in dia-gonal rows with palmettes that mirror each other and invert ineach row. The ornaments are worked with some parts in knot-ted silk pile as well as large areas where the warps are not knot-ted but worked with metal thread in a ‘sumakh-like’ brocadetechnique. In each ornament either gold or silver predominates:those parts worked in gold in one ornament are worked insilver in the opposing ornament, thus creating the variation;the ornaments are connected by a fine lattice of pink stems.

Authors have likened the palmettes to Chinese bats,118 but theyare clearly part of the repertoire of ornament used in Safavidart. The field is enclosed by a reciprocal trefoil border alter-nating in orange-red and silver brocading. Small yellow dotsare placed in the red trefoils. The alternation of plainness and

colour from row to row represents the very essence of classicalIranian design. The space formed by the background is in per-fect balance with the pattern; positive and negative ornamentsoppose each other, and these then repeat to form what appearsto be an endless design stretching to infinity.

Eight of these palmette and arabesque ‘Polonaise’ rugs areknown. They may originally have formed two sets of identicalpairs and four singles (which could also possibly have beenpairs). The most famous are an identical pair in SkoklosterCastle, Sweden, woven on a green ground with a salmoncoloured border, both in outstanding condition.119 The onlyother complete example on a green ground with a salmonborder is the Rothschild rug presented here. All the otherknown examples are small fragments or have been assembledfrom fragments. One composed of many parts, in the MuséeHistorique des Tissus in Lyon, with a salmon field and greenborder, may well have been made up from the largest survivingsections of an identical pair of rugs. Another example, a small

fragment in the MAK, Vienna, is so similar to one in the Rijks-museum in Amsterdam – also acquired from Vienna – that it isprobable these two were from the same piece or pair of pieces. I have not examined two further fragments that survive inHungary and Poland.

Most of the literature ascribes all ‘Polonaise’ rugs to the reignof Shah Abbas I in the first quarter of the 17th century, after hemoved his capital to Esfahan and rugs from the city’s workshopsgained international appeal, and considers them to be relativelyless fine copies of earlier masterpieces from Kashan. However,close examination of the techniques suggests that certain ‘Polonaise’ rugs may well have been made in the 16th century.

Most ‘Polonaise’ rugs are knotted with silk pile on cottonwarps and either cotton or silk wefts, although some – perhapsthe earliest – have silk warps. A small number are fully-knotted,but most, like the Rothschild rug, have areas where the warpsare not knotted but are worked in a sumakh-like brocadingtechnique. The thread used for the brocading is a metal threadcreated using f lattened strips of gold, silver-gilt or silverdiagonally wrapped around either a yellow or a white silk core. Similar metal thread can be found on a variety of wovenlampas silks and a number of wool pile rugs, including the Sarre Ardabil animal carpet 2 and the 16th century Enzenbergcarpet mentioned above,120 as well as a silk Kashan fragment,121

but the wrapping method used on these – a simpler warp-wrapping in the manner of a tapestry – is quite different. The metal thread is also used differently: on the Kashan fragment it is generally restricted to quite small areas and isoccasionally used for small f lowers or palmettes, and in thecase of the Enzenberg it is patterned; on the ‘Polonaise’ rugs it is more extensive, often covering the background to bothfield and border.

6

Ph

oto

by:

Lon

gev

ity

Ph

oto

by:

Lon

gev

ity

PERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETSPERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETS

HALI ISSUE 155 2019 HALI ISSUE 155

7 The Franchetti

hunting design

tapestry (right, and

detail above), central

Iran, second half 16th

century. Weft-faced

tapestry weave in

silk and silver wrap-

ped silk on a silk

foundation, 1.51 x

2.19m (4'11" x 7'2").

MIAQ, no.CA02,

The latter effect can be seen on the rugs depicted in the 1564portraits of King João III of Portugal (with John the Baptist) andhis Austrian wife Queen Catarina (with St Catherine).122 Whileno silk carpets are mentioned in the Queen’s ‘list’ of 1528, in1557 an inventory records “four small gold and silk carpets, eightgold and silk and wool carpets and seventy wool carpets”.123 Therug depicted in both paintings looks like the type usually assignedto the ‘Polonaise’ group. Elements of the design resemble threeearly rugs of the ‘Polonaise’ type that form a transitional group:the Rainey Rogers rug has a silk foundation and no metal thread,while the Lichtenstein and Czartoryski rugs have their entirebackgrounds warp-wrapped in metal thread, in a more com-plicated version of the tapestry technique used on the Ardabilanimal 2 and Enzenberg rugs.124

Such luxury carpets must have also arrived at the court ofCosimo I and Eleonora di Toledo in Florence at around the sametime. Marco Spallanzani records two Iranian carpets in the Mediciarchives: one purchased in 1549, of gold and silk and wool, madein “Azzermia”, with what may be the Medici coat-of-arms; theother, from 1553, made in silk and gold with various animals, isdescribed as “Turkish” but from the description given is far morelikely to be Iranian.125 A number of documented silk and metalrugs survive from the early 17th century. One was given by ShahAbbas I to the Shrine of Imam Ali at al-Najaf in Iraq, along withfive other carpets and one kilim. A silk and metal rug was a giftfrom the Shah to Venice in 1603,126 and in 1639 a Persian embassysent by Shah Safi to Duke Frederic of Holstein Gottorp presen-ted, among other objects, the outstanding ‘Polonaise’ carpetsnow in Rosenborg Castle in Copenhagen.127

The ‘Polonaise’ rug presented here was once in the collectionof Alphonse de Rothschild in Vienna, from whence it passed toBaron Nathaniel de Rothschild in Paris, and was later acquiredby the Wildenstein family, Paris. It was purchased by The TextileGallery, London, at Sotheby’s in Monaco in 1979 for the WherCollection. It was exhibited at the Victoria & Albert Museumfor more than ten years, and in 1997 it was bought by the MIAQ.

SAFAVID SILK TAPESTRIESThe MIAQ owns two Safavid period Iranian silk tapestries (kilims),the Franchetti hunting design tapestry 7, and the Koelz pictorialtapestry depicting a vignette from the story of Layla and Majnun8. The tapestry technique is among the oldest forms of weaving,derived from a form of simple balanced tabby weave.

Whether Neolithic tapestries were depicted on wall paintingsat Çatal Hüyük in central Anatolia some 9,000 years ago remainsin doubt,128 but both warp- and weft-faced tapestry weaving canbe traced back to ancient times. A number of wool tapestrieshave been found in western China dating from circa 800-600 BC.In southern Siberia, figurative ‘toothed’ tapestries can be tracedback to at least the 4th century BC – examples in wool, of extra-ordinary quality, that are very much in the Iranian style, survivedin barrow 5 at Pazyryk in the Altai Mountains of Siberia.129 Bythe 3rd century BC, the technique was in common use in theoasis cities of the Taklamakan in Xinjiang. While the preferredtechnique for silk weaving in China during the Han period (206 BC-220 AD) was compound tabby, a small number offragments of silk tapestry survive.130

It is more than likely that silk tapestries were made in Iranduring Sasanian times (226-651 AD), as more complex silk weavessuch as samite survive. By the time of the Northern Song in China,f lattened gold strips attached to parchment or paper were incor-porated into the weave.131 Jon Thompson draws our attention toseveral examples from 12th century Iran as well as the outstand-ing 13th century Mongol Ilkhanid tapestry roundel in the DavidCollection, Copenhagen.132

Safavid Iran in the 16th century was famous not only for sump-tuous silk pile carpets, but also for silk velvet, silk brocade andsilk tapestry incorporating gold and silver thread. Our recordsinclude 48 Safavid tapestries, most of which are in museum col-

lections. They have a variety of field designs: animals in cartou-ches (4); a medallion containing birds or angels (3); a medallioncontaining dragons (4); f loral medallions (14); coats-of-arms(3); cartouche or pendant fields (3); f loral fields (4); pictorialand naturalistic patterns (5); ‘Ottoman’ type (4);133 plus a furtherseven of unknown design cited by various authors.134

The significance of tapestry making in Safavid art should notbe overlooked. Safavid tapestries are of extraordinary quality,colour and design, although possibly not quite as fine in weaveas Chinese tapestries (kesi), perhaps as a result of the manner inwhich the gold thread was incorporated into the weave in Iran.A Kashan tapestry-woven rug was first published as early as 1866,but attention was only focused on the group at the Masterpiecesof Islamic Art exhibition in Munich in 1910, where several wereshown. Five of these are in the Residenz Museum, Munich, inc-luding three with the arms of King Sigismund III Vasa of Poland;this and other examples with royal insignia have played a veryimportant part in determining the date and origin of the group,as they can be dated back to the silk kilims ordered by SeferMuratowicz in Kashan in 1601.135

7.THE FRANCHETTI HUNTING DESIGN KASHANSILK TAPESTRYThis extremely beautiful silk tapestry-woven rug is one of fourhighly important examples known with this composition 7. Itwas first published in 1938 by Gertrude Robinson in the journalPantheon, where we are tantalisingly told it was “the property ofa family, which had had trading relations with the East since theMiddle Ages”. It reappeared 38 years later, when it was sold byBaron Giorgio Franchetti from Rome at auction in London.136

The best-known tapestry carpet with a composition ofanimal designs in cartouches, formerly in the Figdor Collection,

7

Ph

oto

by:

Lon

gev

ity

Ph

oto

by:

Lon

gev

ity

PERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETSPERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETS

HALI ISSUE 155 2019 HALI ISSUE 155

7 The Franchetti

hunting design

tapestry (right, and

detail above), central

Iran, second half 16th

century. Weft-faced

tapestry weave in

silk and silver wrap-

ped silk on a silk

foundation, 1.51 x

2.19m (4'11" x 7'2").

MIAQ, no.CA02,

The latter effect can be seen on the rugs depicted in the 1564portraits of King João III of Portugal (with John the Baptist) andhis Austrian wife Queen Catarina (with St Catherine).122 Whileno silk carpets are mentioned in the Queen’s ‘list’ of 1528, in1557 an inventory records “four small gold and silk carpets, eightgold and silk and wool carpets and seventy wool carpets”.123 Therug depicted in both paintings looks like the type usually assignedto the ‘Polonaise’ group. Elements of the design resemble threeearly rugs of the ‘Polonaise’ type that form a transitional group:the Rainey Rogers rug has a silk foundation and no metal thread,while the Lichtenstein and Czartoryski rugs have their entirebackgrounds warp-wrapped in metal thread, in a more com-plicated version of the tapestry technique used on the Ardabilanimal 2 and Enzenberg rugs.124

Such luxury carpets must have also arrived at the court ofCosimo I and Eleonora di Toledo in Florence at around the sametime. Marco Spallanzani records two Iranian carpets in the Mediciarchives: one purchased in 1549, of gold and silk and wool, madein “Azzermia”, with what may be the Medici coat-of-arms; theother, from 1553, made in silk and gold with various animals, isdescribed as “Turkish” but from the description given is far morelikely to be Iranian.125 A number of documented silk and metalrugs survive from the early 17th century. One was given by ShahAbbas I to the Shrine of Imam Ali at al-Najaf in Iraq, along withfive other carpets and one kilim. A silk and metal rug was a giftfrom the Shah to Venice in 1603,126 and in 1639 a Persian embassysent by Shah Safi to Duke Frederic of Holstein Gottorp presen-ted, among other objects, the outstanding ‘Polonaise’ carpetsnow in Rosenborg Castle in Copenhagen.127

The ‘Polonaise’ rug presented here was once in the collectionof Alphonse de Rothschild in Vienna, from whence it passed toBaron Nathaniel de Rothschild in Paris, and was later acquiredby the Wildenstein family, Paris. It was purchased by The TextileGallery, London, at Sotheby’s in Monaco in 1979 for the WherCollection. It was exhibited at the Victoria & Albert Museumfor more than ten years, and in 1997 it was bought by the MIAQ.

SAFAVID SILK TAPESTRIESThe MIAQ owns two Safavid period Iranian silk tapestries (kilims),the Franchetti hunting design tapestry 7, and the Koelz pictorialtapestry depicting a vignette from the story of Layla and Majnun8. The tapestry technique is among the oldest forms of weaving,derived from a form of simple balanced tabby weave.

Whether Neolithic tapestries were depicted on wall paintingsat Çatal Hüyük in central Anatolia some 9,000 years ago remainsin doubt,128 but both warp- and weft-faced tapestry weaving canbe traced back to ancient times. A number of wool tapestrieshave been found in western China dating from circa 800-600 BC.In southern Siberia, figurative ‘toothed’ tapestries can be tracedback to at least the 4th century BC – examples in wool, of extra-ordinary quality, that are very much in the Iranian style, survivedin barrow 5 at Pazyryk in the Altai Mountains of Siberia.129 Bythe 3rd century BC, the technique was in common use in theoasis cities of the Taklamakan in Xinjiang. While the preferredtechnique for silk weaving in China during the Han period (206 BC-220 AD) was compound tabby, a small number offragments of silk tapestry survive.130

It is more than likely that silk tapestries were made in Iranduring Sasanian times (226-651 AD), as more complex silk weavessuch as samite survive. By the time of the Northern Song in China,f lattened gold strips attached to parchment or paper were incor-porated into the weave.131 Jon Thompson draws our attention toseveral examples from 12th century Iran as well as the outstand-ing 13th century Mongol Ilkhanid tapestry roundel in the DavidCollection, Copenhagen.132

Safavid Iran in the 16th century was famous not only for sump-tuous silk pile carpets, but also for silk velvet, silk brocade andsilk tapestry incorporating gold and silver thread. Our recordsinclude 48 Safavid tapestries, most of which are in museum col-

lections. They have a variety of field designs: animals in cartou-ches (4); a medallion containing birds or angels (3); a medallioncontaining dragons (4); f loral medallions (14); coats-of-arms(3); cartouche or pendant fields (3); f loral fields (4); pictorialand naturalistic patterns (5); ‘Ottoman’ type (4);133 plus a furtherseven of unknown design cited by various authors.134

The significance of tapestry making in Safavid art should notbe overlooked. Safavid tapestries are of extraordinary quality,colour and design, although possibly not quite as fine in weaveas Chinese tapestries (kesi), perhaps as a result of the manner inwhich the gold thread was incorporated into the weave in Iran.A Kashan tapestry-woven rug was first published as early as 1866,but attention was only focused on the group at the Masterpiecesof Islamic Art exhibition in Munich in 1910, where several wereshown. Five of these are in the Residenz Museum, Munich, inc-luding three with the arms of King Sigismund III Vasa of Poland;this and other examples with royal insignia have played a veryimportant part in determining the date and origin of the group,as they can be dated back to the silk kilims ordered by SeferMuratowicz in Kashan in 1601.135

7.THE FRANCHETTI HUNTING DESIGN KASHANSILK TAPESTRYThis extremely beautiful silk tapestry-woven rug is one of fourhighly important examples known with this composition 7. Itwas first published in 1938 by Gertrude Robinson in the journalPantheon, where we are tantalisingly told it was “the property ofa family, which had had trading relations with the East since theMiddle Ages”. It reappeared 38 years later, when it was sold byBaron Giorgio Franchetti from Rome at auction in London.136

The best-known tapestry carpet with a composition ofanimal designs in cartouches, formerly in the Figdor Collection,

7

Ph

oto

by:

Lon

gev

ity

Ph

oto

by:

Lon

gev

ity

PERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETSPERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETS

HALI ISSUE 155 2221 HALI ISSUE 155

8 The Koelz Legend

of Layla and Majnun

tapestry (right, and

detail above), central

Iran, late 16th or

early 17th century.

Silk tapestry weave,

1.29 x 1.79m

(4'3" x 5'10").

MIAQ, no.CA01

then for many years in the Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection, is now in the Miho Museum near Kyoto, Japan.137 In design it is the closest complete example to the Franchetti. The onlyother Safavid silk tapestry known with a design of animals in cartouches is a National Treasure of Japan in the Kodai-ji,Kyoto.138 It was used as the cloth for a jimbaori, or campaignsurcoat, for the military regent of the Momoyama period,Toyotomi Hideyoshi, who died in 1598, thus establishing thatthese tapestries were woven, at the latest, in the last quarter of the 16th century. A fourth example, reportedly withoutanimals, was in the Shrine at Ardabil.139

Bode considered the Figdor tapestry to be the earliest andmost beautiful of the group, but the Franchetti, unknown tohim, surpasses it in design. While similar harmonious coloursare used in both, the layout in the Franchetti creates a morebalanced effect. Offset twelve-lobed medallions each contain a single peacock, pelican, swan or deer, with the legendarysimurgh shown in the four central compartments. Animals,including lions, tigers and stags, surround the medallions, andthe design is reversed along the horizontal and vertical axes. In the Figdor, the rows of six-lobed medallions contain directrepeats of animals in combat, single birds and lions’ heads,again surrounded by other beasts. The design is reversed alongthe vertical axis, and on the horizontal axis alternate medal-lions in each row are reversed; the animals are orientated in thesame direction throughout the rug. Both have an ivory field, theFranchetti with navy medallions, the Figdor with blue. A bluemain border has a strap design, but the Franchetti also includescompartments bearing a single lion’s head. The surcoat in Japanshows a similar field design, with a border of quatrefoils joiningcartouches containing pairs of animals.

May Beattie has pointed out that the field composition withvarious cartouches was also used in contemporaneous wool pileweavings such as two of the ‘Sanguszko’ carpets, one with theDuke of Buccleuch at Boughton House, the other in the MuséeHistorique des Tissus, Lyon.140 The source of these carpets hasbeen much discussed, with the majority favouring either Kerman,or more likely Yazd.141

Many of the surviving Safavid tapestries may have been madein Kashan, but close examination suggests that they were alsomade in other centres. A detailed study of their designs, struct-ural characteristics and colours remains to be undertaken in orderto group related examples, although I doubt that the corpus ofextant examples is large enough to carry out a meaningful analysis.

8 THE KOELZ LAYLA AND MAJNUN KASHAN SILK TAPESTRYIn the scene from Persian romantic literature – the 12th centuryKhamsa of Nizami – depicted in this superb Safavid figurativetapestry 8,142 Layla sits beneath a canopy, contemplating heremaciated and bedraggled lover, Majnun, who has just returnedfrom banishment in the desert. Beside her stands a court atten-dant. Scattered below are various plants and objects. An inscrip-tion behind Layla reads: “Long Live the Government”.

As mentioned, a number of Safavid tapestries depict angels,birds and animals, either within medallions or simply withinthe field. Five are known that are more pictorial or naturalistic,their patterns quite possibly derived from paintings or tiledesigns.143 The most spectacular of these – certainly the oldestand additionally embellished with metal thread – is the Czar-toryski, with a tile-like field of eight-lobed medallions, eachwith an impressive houri and cartouches containing differentanimals. The Moore tapestry in the Yale University Art Gallery,New Haven, depicts horsemen hunting wild beasts with dogs,archers and falcons. Pope, in the Survey, illustrates these two as‘Textiles’, far removed from eleven other Safavid tapestries, whichare included among the ‘Carpets’.

In many ways the Moore tapestry is most like the Koelz Laylaand Majnun, as it depicts a naturalistic scene probably taken dir-

ectly from a painting. In neither example is the drawing partic-ularly successful, especially compared to European tapestries of the same period, whose makers had long experience inachieving naturalism. Two other Safavid tapestries, the LosAngeles-Khalili and Paris examples, seem to be far moreinf luenced by pictorial ceramic tile designs, as seen on thesides of buildings. The Los Angeles-Khalili tapestry is quitedifferent in colours and weave, with a depressed foundation, to all the other examples I have examined.

Not much is known about the history of this tapestry. It wasformerly in the collection of Dr Walter Norman Koelz of Water-loo, Michigan (1895-1989), a world expert on birds interested inconservation in developing countries, who was also a collectorof oriental art who collected widely throughout Asia, particularlyIran.144 The tapestry, which he may well have acquired in Iran,was apparently not published until after his death. It was sold atauction at Christie’s, New York, in 1990, for the benefit of TheNature Conservancy, and was later acquired by the MIAQ.

8

Ph

oto

by:

Lon

gev

ity

Ph

oto

by:

Lon

gev

ity

PERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETSPERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETS

HALI ISSUE 155 2221 HALI ISSUE 155

8 The Koelz Legend

of Layla and Majnun

tapestry (right, and

detail above), central

Iran, late 16th or

early 17th century.

Silk tapestry weave,

1.29 x 1.79m

(4'3" x 5'10").

MIAQ, no.CA01

then for many years in the Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection, is now in the Miho Museum near Kyoto, Japan.137 In design it is the closest complete example to the Franchetti. The onlyother Safavid silk tapestry known with a design of animals in cartouches is a National Treasure of Japan in the Kodai-ji,Kyoto.138 It was used as the cloth for a jimbaori, or campaignsurcoat, for the military regent of the Momoyama period,Toyotomi Hideyoshi, who died in 1598, thus establishing thatthese tapestries were woven, at the latest, in the last quarter of the 16th century. A fourth example, reportedly withoutanimals, was in the Shrine at Ardabil.139

Bode considered the Figdor tapestry to be the earliest andmost beautiful of the group, but the Franchetti, unknown tohim, surpasses it in design. While similar harmonious coloursare used in both, the layout in the Franchetti creates a morebalanced effect. Offset twelve-lobed medallions each contain a single peacock, pelican, swan or deer, with the legendarysimurgh shown in the four central compartments. Animals,including lions, tigers and stags, surround the medallions, andthe design is reversed along the horizontal and vertical axes. In the Figdor, the rows of six-lobed medallions contain directrepeats of animals in combat, single birds and lions’ heads,again surrounded by other beasts. The design is reversed alongthe vertical axis, and on the horizontal axis alternate medal-lions in each row are reversed; the animals are orientated in thesame direction throughout the rug. Both have an ivory field, theFranchetti with navy medallions, the Figdor with blue. A bluemain border has a strap design, but the Franchetti also includescompartments bearing a single lion’s head. The surcoat in Japanshows a similar field design, with a border of quatrefoils joiningcartouches containing pairs of animals.

May Beattie has pointed out that the field composition withvarious cartouches was also used in contemporaneous wool pileweavings such as two of the ‘Sanguszko’ carpets, one with theDuke of Buccleuch at Boughton House, the other in the MuséeHistorique des Tissus, Lyon.140 The source of these carpets hasbeen much discussed, with the majority favouring either Kerman,or more likely Yazd.141

Many of the surviving Safavid tapestries may have been madein Kashan, but close examination suggests that they were alsomade in other centres. A detailed study of their designs, struct-ural characteristics and colours remains to be undertaken in orderto group related examples, although I doubt that the corpus ofextant examples is large enough to carry out a meaningful analysis.

8 THE KOELZ LAYLA AND MAJNUN KASHAN SILK TAPESTRYIn the scene from Persian romantic literature – the 12th centuryKhamsa of Nizami – depicted in this superb Safavid figurativetapestry 8,142 Layla sits beneath a canopy, contemplating heremaciated and bedraggled lover, Majnun, who has just returnedfrom banishment in the desert. Beside her stands a court atten-dant. Scattered below are various plants and objects. An inscrip-tion behind Layla reads: “Long Live the Government”.

As mentioned, a number of Safavid tapestries depict angels,birds and animals, either within medallions or simply withinthe field. Five are known that are more pictorial or naturalistic,their patterns quite possibly derived from paintings or tiledesigns.143 The most spectacular of these – certainly the oldestand additionally embellished with metal thread – is the Czar-toryski, with a tile-like field of eight-lobed medallions, eachwith an impressive houri and cartouches containing differentanimals. The Moore tapestry in the Yale University Art Gallery,New Haven, depicts horsemen hunting wild beasts with dogs,archers and falcons. Pope, in the Survey, illustrates these two as‘Textiles’, far removed from eleven other Safavid tapestries, whichare included among the ‘Carpets’.

In many ways the Moore tapestry is most like the Koelz Laylaand Majnun, as it depicts a naturalistic scene probably taken dir-

ectly from a painting. In neither example is the drawing partic-ularly successful, especially compared to European tapestries of the same period, whose makers had long experience inachieving naturalism. Two other Safavid tapestries, the LosAngeles-Khalili and Paris examples, seem to be far moreinf luenced by pictorial ceramic tile designs, as seen on thesides of buildings. The Los Angeles-Khalili tapestry is quitedifferent in colours and weave, with a depressed foundation, to all the other examples I have examined.

Not much is known about the history of this tapestry. It wasformerly in the collection of Dr Walter Norman Koelz of Water-loo, Michigan (1895-1989), a world expert on birds interested inconservation in developing countries, who was also a collectorof oriental art who collected widely throughout Asia, particularlyIran.144 The tapestry, which he may well have acquired in Iran,was apparently not published until after his death. It was sold atauction at Christie’s, New York, in 1990, for the benefit of TheNature Conservancy, and was later acquired by the MIAQ.

8

Ph

oto

by:

Lon

gev

ity

Ph

oto

by:

Lon

gev

ity

PERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETSPERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETS

HALI ISSUE 155 2423 HALI ISSUE 155

9 The Rothschild

Esfahan ‘in and out’

palmette design

carpet (right, and

detail above), central

Iran, first half 17th

century. Wool pile

on a silk and cotton

foundation, 2.17 x

4.83m (7'1" x 15'10").

Photo courtesy

Christie’s, London

9.THE ROTHSCHILD ESFAHAN ‘IN-AND-OUT’PALMETTES CARPET This large carpet is typical of the group of finely knotted silkwarped Esfahan carpets made during the 16th and 17th centuries 9.Some have animals, some birds, others, like this, have only f loraldecoration composed of large and small palmettes, spiral tendrilsand cloudbands set against a deep red background. In the primaryborder are large inward- and outward-facing palmettes as wellas many small f lowerheads and stems set on a dark blue ground,highlighted by the use of white cotton in many of the palmettes.The pattern of the inner minor border is composed of a mean-dering stem with f lowers set on a green background; the outerminor border is missing.

So-called ‘Esfahan’ carpets made in the 16th and 17th centurieshave been among the most controversial of all in the study ofclassical carpets. There has never been any doubt about theirage, beauty and importance – they have always been held in thehighest esteem ¬– but the problem is where they were actuallymade. Many of the finest carpets of the ‘Esfahan’ type date fromthe second half of the 16th century, but carpet historians havebeen reluctant to attribute this important group to the city ofEsfahan, perhaps because it was not until 1598 that Shah Abbasthe Great moved his court there. However, the attribution toEsfahan is confirmed by the fact that they share many of thesame designs as the ‘Polonaise’ rugs – most of which are firmlyattributed to Esfahan – and several structural characteristics. It must have been the case that very fine imperial-quality rugswere made in a city that was not then the Safavid capital.

At the end of the 16th century, Shah Abbas I (r.1587-1628)established artistic workshops in Esfahan, as well as implement-ing an extraordinarily lavish building programme. He is knownto have been interested in the weaving of carpets, and recordsindicate that he designed them, and was himself a weaver. In1601, the Shah set up carpet workshops within the palace precinctsto produce work not only for the court but also for presentationto distinguished foreign visitors and as diplo¬matic gifts carriedby embassies travelling abroad. Designs were prepared by courtartists, and this new school of weaving soon gained great fame,both in the East and in the West.

Only a few rugs can be directly linked to Shah Abbas I. Amongthese are the six carpets and one kilim he gave to the Shrine ofImam Ali at al-Najaf in Iraq.145 Two of the carpets have silk pile,four (three of them fragments) have wool pile, and the kilimfragment is in silk. The Shah’s gift also included a number ofwoven silks and embroideries. The six pile carpets, the kilim,and many of the silks, are brocaded with gold and silver thread.Most outstanding of these is a huge strap-work design carpetmade in two halves measuring some 9.5 by 14 metres, which is,as far as I am aware, the largest silk carpet in the world; a size-able fragment from an almost identical carpet, once with LordAberconway, is in the Victoria & Albert Museum.146

The huge silk carpet is the only one of the al-Najaf piecesthat I would readily associate with Esfahan. The other five havemajor and minor border patterns akin to those of a differentgroup of carpets from central Iran. A complete saf and a borderfragment with a very similar pattern, inscribed “Donated by thedog of this Shrine Abbas”, must have been commissioned by theShah for the Shrine, although it is not known where or when theywere made. It is possible, although unlikely, that they were com-missioned before 1587, when Abbas became Shah, but it is likelythat they were made before 1623, when he occupied al-Najaf.147

Before defining the types of carpets currently attributed toEsfahan, it should be made clear that there are quantum differ-ences in colours and weave between the wool-pile with all-silkfoundation carpets that for the time being I tentatively attributeto Kashan, including the two Ardabil pairs and the ‘Salting’ car-pets, and the group (headed by the ‘Emperor’ carpets)148 attribu-ted below to Esfahan (Type 1), although a general ‘central Iran’label might be safer. There are similarities: the Emperor carpets,

like the Ardabil animal rugs, have red grounds embellished withmetal brocading, and their designs are similar to the Ardabilmedallion rugs, although more complex and with a greaterwealth of detail. Pope considered the pairs to be very closelyrelated, and described them as being “clearly the work of asingle and very gifted designer, one of the greatest that everturned his attention to carpets”.149

A typical feature of Esfahan carpets is their palette: a deep redground of lustrous wool with a rich and varied range of othercolours, including green, yellow and orange-red, suggesting thepresence of master dyers. There is some difference in artisticcontent between the rugs woven on silk foundations and thoseon cotton. In general, the former have a more exciting range ofmotifs and are more impressive in both colour and drawing. It isnoticeable, for instance, that the red-ground f loral rugs with silkwarps often have animals in their fields and/or birds in their mainborders, while those on cotton warps seldom have animals orbirds in their design.

All Esfahan carpets are similar in terms of overall design andstyle of drawing, but can be placed into three groups (with someoverlapping), of examples that are closely related to each otherin materials and technique. Type 1 has silk pile on an all-silkfoundation. Type 2 is woven on silk warps (often dyed yellow)and cotton wefts (often dyed red).150 A number of carpets ofTypes 1 and 2 share sufficient features to make it difficult todifferentiate between them. Some have areas where, instead ofpile, the wefts and warps are covered with tapestry-style warp-wrapping in yellow or ivory silk diagonally wrapped with silver,sometimes with additional patterning on the wrapping.151 This ismostly executed in the manner seen on several of the ‘Kashan’wool-pile rugs, although on some examples the wrapping followsthe sumakh style brocading of the ‘Polonaise’ rugs. Type 3 Esfahancarpets have wool pile and cotton warps and wefts (like most ofthe silk-pile ‘Polonaises’).

Many Esfahan silk rugs and some of the wool-pile rugs havesupplementary silk braiding, in some cases wrapped in metalthread, attached to each end, which also acts as a fringe. Cottonwarps were clearly used for strength, but the hint – even if false¬– that a carpet was made on a silk foundation, clearly added tothe luxury. The earliest known classical Iranian carpet with a

9

PERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETSPERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETS

HALI ISSUE 155 2423 HALI ISSUE 155

9 The Rothschild

Esfahan ‘in and out’

palmette design

carpet (right, and

detail above), central

Iran, first half 17th

century. Wool pile

on a silk and cotton

foundation, 2.17 x

4.83m (7'1" x 15'10").

Photo courtesy

Christie’s, London

9.THE ROTHSCHILD ESFAHAN ‘IN-AND-OUT’PALMETTES CARPET This large carpet is typical of the group of finely knotted silkwarped Esfahan carpets made during the 16th and 17th centuries 9.Some have animals, some birds, others, like this, have only f loraldecoration composed of large and small palmettes, spiral tendrilsand cloudbands set against a deep red background. In the primaryborder are large inward- and outward-facing palmettes as wellas many small f lowerheads and stems set on a dark blue ground,highlighted by the use of white cotton in many of the palmettes.The pattern of the inner minor border is composed of a mean-dering stem with f lowers set on a green background; the outerminor border is missing.

So-called ‘Esfahan’ carpets made in the 16th and 17th centurieshave been among the most controversial of all in the study ofclassical carpets. There has never been any doubt about theirage, beauty and importance – they have always been held in thehighest esteem ¬– but the problem is where they were actuallymade. Many of the finest carpets of the ‘Esfahan’ type date fromthe second half of the 16th century, but carpet historians havebeen reluctant to attribute this important group to the city ofEsfahan, perhaps because it was not until 1598 that Shah Abbasthe Great moved his court there. However, the attribution toEsfahan is confirmed by the fact that they share many of thesame designs as the ‘Polonaise’ rugs – most of which are firmlyattributed to Esfahan – and several structural characteristics. It must have been the case that very fine imperial-quality rugswere made in a city that was not then the Safavid capital.

At the end of the 16th century, Shah Abbas I (r.1587-1628)established artistic workshops in Esfahan, as well as implement-ing an extraordinarily lavish building programme. He is knownto have been interested in the weaving of carpets, and recordsindicate that he designed them, and was himself a weaver. In1601, the Shah set up carpet workshops within the palace precinctsto produce work not only for the court but also for presentationto distinguished foreign visitors and as diplo¬matic gifts carriedby embassies travelling abroad. Designs were prepared by courtartists, and this new school of weaving soon gained great fame,both in the East and in the West.

Only a few rugs can be directly linked to Shah Abbas I. Amongthese are the six carpets and one kilim he gave to the Shrine ofImam Ali at al-Najaf in Iraq.145 Two of the carpets have silk pile,four (three of them fragments) have wool pile, and the kilimfragment is in silk. The Shah’s gift also included a number ofwoven silks and embroideries. The six pile carpets, the kilim,and many of the silks, are brocaded with gold and silver thread.Most outstanding of these is a huge strap-work design carpetmade in two halves measuring some 9.5 by 14 metres, which is,as far as I am aware, the largest silk carpet in the world; a size-able fragment from an almost identical carpet, once with LordAberconway, is in the Victoria & Albert Museum.146

The huge silk carpet is the only one of the al-Najaf piecesthat I would readily associate with Esfahan. The other five havemajor and minor border patterns akin to those of a differentgroup of carpets from central Iran. A complete saf and a borderfragment with a very similar pattern, inscribed “Donated by thedog of this Shrine Abbas”, must have been commissioned by theShah for the Shrine, although it is not known where or when theywere made. It is possible, although unlikely, that they were com-missioned before 1587, when Abbas became Shah, but it is likelythat they were made before 1623, when he occupied al-Najaf.147

Before defining the types of carpets currently attributed toEsfahan, it should be made clear that there are quantum differ-ences in colours and weave between the wool-pile with all-silkfoundation carpets that for the time being I tentatively attributeto Kashan, including the two Ardabil pairs and the ‘Salting’ car-pets, and the group (headed by the ‘Emperor’ carpets)148 attribu-ted below to Esfahan (Type 1), although a general ‘central Iran’label might be safer. There are similarities: the Emperor carpets,

like the Ardabil animal rugs, have red grounds embellished withmetal brocading, and their designs are similar to the Ardabilmedallion rugs, although more complex and with a greaterwealth of detail. Pope considered the pairs to be very closelyrelated, and described them as being “clearly the work of asingle and very gifted designer, one of the greatest that everturned his attention to carpets”.149

A typical feature of Esfahan carpets is their palette: a deep redground of lustrous wool with a rich and varied range of othercolours, including green, yellow and orange-red, suggesting thepresence of master dyers. There is some difference in artisticcontent between the rugs woven on silk foundations and thoseon cotton. In general, the former have a more exciting range ofmotifs and are more impressive in both colour and drawing. It isnoticeable, for instance, that the red-ground f loral rugs with silkwarps often have animals in their fields and/or birds in their mainborders, while those on cotton warps seldom have animals orbirds in their design.

All Esfahan carpets are similar in terms of overall design andstyle of drawing, but can be placed into three groups (with someoverlapping), of examples that are closely related to each otherin materials and technique. Type 1 has silk pile on an all-silkfoundation. Type 2 is woven on silk warps (often dyed yellow)and cotton wefts (often dyed red).150 A number of carpets ofTypes 1 and 2 share sufficient features to make it difficult todifferentiate between them. Some have areas where, instead ofpile, the wefts and warps are covered with tapestry-style warp-wrapping in yellow or ivory silk diagonally wrapped with silver,sometimes with additional patterning on the wrapping.151 This ismostly executed in the manner seen on several of the ‘Kashan’wool-pile rugs, although on some examples the wrapping followsthe sumakh style brocading of the ‘Polonaise’ rugs. Type 3 Esfahancarpets have wool pile and cotton warps and wefts (like most ofthe silk-pile ‘Polonaises’).

Many Esfahan silk rugs and some of the wool-pile rugs havesupplementary silk braiding, in some cases wrapped in metalthread, attached to each end, which also acts as a fringe. Cottonwarps were clearly used for strength, but the hint – even if false¬– that a carpet was made on a silk foundation, clearly added tothe luxury. The earliest known classical Iranian carpet with a

9

PERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETS

Clockwise from

top left

10 King Edward VII’s

Coronation Carpet

with palmette design

(right and detail

above), Khorasan,

northeast Iran, circa

1700. Wool pile on a

cotton foundation,

2.99 x 6.70m

(9'10" x 22'0")

11 Section of a

Kerman shrub carpet,

central Iran, second

quarter 17th century.

1.20 x 1.83m

(3'11" x 6'0").

12 Section of a

Kerman palmette

and sickle-leaf carpet,

central Iran, second

quarter 17th century.

Wool pile on a cotton

foundation, 1.80 x

2.34m

(5'11" x 7'8")

13 Section of a

Kerman vase and

compartment lattice

carpet, central Iran,

second quarter 17th

century. Wool pile on

a cotton foundation,

0.59 x 0.51m

(1'11" x 1'8")

PERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETS

HALI ISSUE 155 2625 HALI ISSUE 155

silk fringe attached (although in a different manner) is the PopePius IX Tabriz carpet in Milan, dated either 1522-3 or 1542-3.152

Added braiding and fringes can also be found on carpets of the‘Salting’ type attributed to Kashan and on many of the Kashansilk kilims, although this is often different in character to thebraiding seen on Esfahans.153 Such apparent minutiae are usefulin defining the ‘signature’ features of carpets, and help to groupthem with kindred examples.

The most important exhibition ever assembled of Esfahancarpets of Types 2 and 3 was held in Lisbon in late 2007.154 Itbrought together 14 quite closely related examples,155 whichdetailed direct comparison suggests were quite possibly made inthe same centre over about a hundred-year period, with differ-ences of quality explained by the length of time over whichthey were produced, and manufacture in different workshops.Stylistic similarities between many of these and most of the‘Polonaise’ rugs, especially in the main and minor borders,strongly suggests that they were made in the same place, andthere is more than enough evidence for the origin of the ‘Polonaise’ silk carpets to make the attribution of these wool-pile examples to Esfahan logical and almost definitive.

The earliest designs woven in Esfahan were based on thoseused in the workshops of Tabriz from the first half of the 16thcentury, and on the patterns of carpets attributed to Kashan fromthe mid-16th century. However, by the early 17th century, such‘Esfahan’ designs might well have found their way back toTabriz, as has been suggested above in regard to the ShahSuleiman carpet 5.

The oldest documentary record for what I believe to be aType 2 carpet is in the Museu Nacional de Arte Antigua, Lisbon.Hallett and Pereira tell us that “Queen Caterina received twosuch carpets at her palace attached to the Convent of Madre deDeus in Xabregas (Lisbon) in 1571 and it is tempting to speculatethat the large ‘tree and animal’ carpet from the Convent, nowdivided between the Museu Nacional de Arte Antigua, Lisbonand The Textile Museum, Washington DC, may have originallybeen part of her collection.”156

In the last quarter of the 19th century, the English dealerVincent Robinson apparently considered the famous Esfahancarpet that bears his name to have been made in Spain.157 By theend of the 19th century, however, the majority of dealers andcollectors attributed rugs of this type to Esfahan. However,beginning in 1908 with F.R. Martin, some carpet historians haveperversely misattributed Esfahan carpets to Herat in Khorasan(even though carpets known to be from Khorasan have a com-pletely different structure); to India (where wool and dyes arevery different); or vaguely labelled them ‘Indo-Esfahan’.

Martin’s reasons for switching these carpets from central toeastern Iran are unconvincing and some of the points he makesin furtherance of his argument, such as the date of the Jaipurcarpets, are manifestly wrong. He writes of Shah Abbas estab-lishing carpet factories in Herat in the mid-16th century, and ofthese red-ground carpets having been made there at this time,But Abbas did not ascend the throne until 1587, and it is likelythat the earliest examples pre-date this. It seems that Martin,faced with the problem of attribution, and aware that Herat wassupposed to have been a leading centre of Persian carpet manu-facture in the 16th century, simply attributed everything to Herat.

Interestingly, Martin did note the continuance of weaving in19th century Khorasan. It is the existence of documented Khor-asan carpets of the late 18th and 19th centuries and their struc-tural similarities to certain 17th century Persian carpets, partic-ularly in their common and extensive use of the so-called juftiknot, that allows us to attribute a substantial group of the latterto Khorasan. And it is the technical and stylistic similarities ofthe Esfahan wool group to the silk ‘Polonaise’ rugs that sets themfirmly apart from the contemporaneous carpets of Khorasan 10.

Persian carpets were being imported into Italy, Spain, Portugal,the Netherlands and England during the 16th century. Many

reached Europe by sea through the southern port of Hormuz,where they were purchased by the English and Dutch East IndiaCompanies. Others came overland through Istanbul. It is per-haps surprising, therefore, that so few are depicted in Europeanpaintings. After the ‘Polonaise-like’ rug seen in the pair ofpaintings from 1564 of the King and Queen of Portugal,158 thenext recorded image of an Iranian carpet is not apparently until1598, and depicts a typical Esfahan carpet.159 By the beginning ofthe 17th century, and for the next hundred years, many Esfahantypes are depicted in Dutch, Flemish, Spanish, English and Por-tuguese paintings. Some types that are quite coarsely wovenappear as early as the very beginning of the 17th century, inc-luding one depicted by Rubens.160

The MIAQ’s palmette and arabesque Esfahan carpet had beenin the collection of Edmond de Rothschild before it was sold inthe early 1980s through Colnaghi, London, to The Textile Galleryand on to Cittone in Milan. It then went into the collection ofRoberto Calvi and was later sold at auction by his heirs.161

10-13 OTHER SAFAVID CARPETS IN THE MIAQIn addition to the Iranian carpets and silk tapestries discussed atlength above, the MIAQ currently owns a number of other Safavidrugs and fragments, including examples, not necessarily all of‘masterpiece’ quality, from Khorasan (Herat) and Kerman. Theseare mentioned here in passing for the sale of completeness.

A large Khorasan carpet of circa 1700 10, reputedly used atthe Coronation of King Edward VII in Westminster Abbey inAugust 1902, has a field pattern of inward- and outward-facingpalmettes set against a red ground, enclosed by a primary borderon a blue ground made up of alternating diagonal and inward-facing palmettes in shield-like lozenges with pairs of split-leaves, joined to a meandering stem. The palmettes in the fieldare typical of Khorasan carpets, and the serrated palmettes canbe seen in 18th and 19th century Harshang design carpets fromthe Caucasus. Reportedly once from a Spanish cathedral, it waspurchased by the museum at auction in London in 1997.162

The MIAQ also owns three rather worn fragments of typicalKerman ‘vase-technique’ carpets from the second quarter of the17th century, all acquired at auction in London. Two are quitesubstantial sections, one with a repeat design of horizontal rowsof different f lowering shrubs on a red ground 11,163 the other witha palmette and sickle-leaf pattern on a blue background 12.164

Finally, there is a tiny fragment from a very large Kerman carpetthat had a three-plane ‘vase’ design set on a diagonal, largeserrated-leaf lattice 13.165

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSI am indebted to Rupert Waterhouse and Daniel Shaffer for theirextensive editing of my text and for their many contributionsand additions. Thanks also to everyone who allowed me tostudy their rugs or provided advice and information, including:Alessandro Bruschettini, Susan Day, Hussain Rajab Al-Ismail,Anatol Ivanov, Thomas Farnham, Jack Franses, Jens Kröger, JohnMills, Mary Jo Otsea, Elisabeth Parker, William Robinson, DanielShaffer, Sheikh Saud al-Thani, Elena and Nikita Tsareva, andOliver Watson. Recognition should be given to Nicholas Water-house for untold hours devoted to curating the MIAQ collectionwhile it was in London, and for managing the conservation andpreparation of the carpets for exhibition at Longevity Conser-vation Studio in London, which was undertaken by Jill Beeney,Carole Bellon, Kate Judges, Alex Thompson and Rosalind Tuck-well, as well as by Mona Al Saie from the MIAQ. Photographywas done by Nicholas Waterhouse and Carole Bellon. Carbon-14analyses were carried out by Georges Bonani and Irka Hajas ofthe Institute of Particle Physics (ETH) in Zurich.

This article is an extended version, with full citations and references aswell as additional images, of the abridgement published in HALI 155,Spring 2008, pp.72-89. For notes and further plates see below.

1011

12

13

Ph

oto

by:

Lon

gev

ity

Ph

oto

by:

Lon

gev

ity

Ph

oto

by:

Lon

gev

ity

Ph

oto

by:

Lon

gev

ity

PERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETS

Clockwise from

top left

10 King Edward VII’s

Coronation Carpet

with palmette design

(right and detail

above), Khorasan,

northeast Iran, circa

1700. Wool pile on a

cotton foundation,

2.99 x 6.70m

(9'10" x 22'0")

11 Section of a

Kerman shrub carpet,

central Iran, second

quarter 17th century.

1.20 x 1.83m

(3'11" x 6'0").

12 Section of a

Kerman palmette

and sickle-leaf carpet,

central Iran, second

quarter 17th century.

Wool pile on a cotton

foundation, 1.80 x

2.34m

(5'11" x 7'8")

13 Section of a

Kerman vase and

compartment lattice

carpet, central Iran,

second quarter 17th

century. Wool pile on

a cotton foundation,

0.59 x 0.51m

(1'11" x 1'8")

PERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETS

HALI ISSUE 155 2625 HALI ISSUE 155

silk fringe attached (although in a different manner) is the PopePius IX Tabriz carpet in Milan, dated either 1522-3 or 1542-3.152

Added braiding and fringes can also be found on carpets of the‘Salting’ type attributed to Kashan and on many of the Kashansilk kilims, although this is often different in character to thebraiding seen on Esfahans.153 Such apparent minutiae are usefulin defining the ‘signature’ features of carpets, and help to groupthem with kindred examples.

The most important exhibition ever assembled of Esfahancarpets of Types 2 and 3 was held in Lisbon in late 2007.154 Itbrought together 14 quite closely related examples,155 whichdetailed direct comparison suggests were quite possibly made inthe same centre over about a hundred-year period, with differ-ences of quality explained by the length of time over whichthey were produced, and manufacture in different workshops.Stylistic similarities between many of these and most of the‘Polonaise’ rugs, especially in the main and minor borders,strongly suggests that they were made in the same place, andthere is more than enough evidence for the origin of the ‘Polonaise’ silk carpets to make the attribution of these wool-pile examples to Esfahan logical and almost definitive.

The earliest designs woven in Esfahan were based on thoseused in the workshops of Tabriz from the first half of the 16thcentury, and on the patterns of carpets attributed to Kashan fromthe mid-16th century. However, by the early 17th century, such‘Esfahan’ designs might well have found their way back toTabriz, as has been suggested above in regard to the ShahSuleiman carpet 5.

The oldest documentary record for what I believe to be aType 2 carpet is in the Museu Nacional de Arte Antigua, Lisbon.Hallett and Pereira tell us that “Queen Caterina received twosuch carpets at her palace attached to the Convent of Madre deDeus in Xabregas (Lisbon) in 1571 and it is tempting to speculatethat the large ‘tree and animal’ carpet from the Convent, nowdivided between the Museu Nacional de Arte Antigua, Lisbonand The Textile Museum, Washington DC, may have originallybeen part of her collection.”156

In the last quarter of the 19th century, the English dealerVincent Robinson apparently considered the famous Esfahancarpet that bears his name to have been made in Spain.157 By theend of the 19th century, however, the majority of dealers andcollectors attributed rugs of this type to Esfahan. However,beginning in 1908 with F.R. Martin, some carpet historians haveperversely misattributed Esfahan carpets to Herat in Khorasan(even though carpets known to be from Khorasan have a com-pletely different structure); to India (where wool and dyes arevery different); or vaguely labelled them ‘Indo-Esfahan’.

Martin’s reasons for switching these carpets from central toeastern Iran are unconvincing and some of the points he makesin furtherance of his argument, such as the date of the Jaipurcarpets, are manifestly wrong. He writes of Shah Abbas estab-lishing carpet factories in Herat in the mid-16th century, and ofthese red-ground carpets having been made there at this time,But Abbas did not ascend the throne until 1587, and it is likelythat the earliest examples pre-date this. It seems that Martin,faced with the problem of attribution, and aware that Herat wassupposed to have been a leading centre of Persian carpet manu-facture in the 16th century, simply attributed everything to Herat.

Interestingly, Martin did note the continuance of weaving in19th century Khorasan. It is the existence of documented Khor-asan carpets of the late 18th and 19th centuries and their struc-tural similarities to certain 17th century Persian carpets, partic-ularly in their common and extensive use of the so-called juftiknot, that allows us to attribute a substantial group of the latterto Khorasan. And it is the technical and stylistic similarities ofthe Esfahan wool group to the silk ‘Polonaise’ rugs that sets themfirmly apart from the contemporaneous carpets of Khorasan 10.

Persian carpets were being imported into Italy, Spain, Portugal,the Netherlands and England during the 16th century. Many

reached Europe by sea through the southern port of Hormuz,where they were purchased by the English and Dutch East IndiaCompanies. Others came overland through Istanbul. It is per-haps surprising, therefore, that so few are depicted in Europeanpaintings. After the ‘Polonaise-like’ rug seen in the pair ofpaintings from 1564 of the King and Queen of Portugal,158 thenext recorded image of an Iranian carpet is not apparently until1598, and depicts a typical Esfahan carpet.159 By the beginning ofthe 17th century, and for the next hundred years, many Esfahantypes are depicted in Dutch, Flemish, Spanish, English and Por-tuguese paintings. Some types that are quite coarsely wovenappear as early as the very beginning of the 17th century, inc-luding one depicted by Rubens.160

The MIAQ’s palmette and arabesque Esfahan carpet had beenin the collection of Edmond de Rothschild before it was sold inthe early 1980s through Colnaghi, London, to The Textile Galleryand on to Cittone in Milan. It then went into the collection ofRoberto Calvi and was later sold at auction by his heirs.161

10-13 OTHER SAFAVID CARPETS IN THE MIAQIn addition to the Iranian carpets and silk tapestries discussed atlength above, the MIAQ currently owns a number of other Safavidrugs and fragments, including examples, not necessarily all of‘masterpiece’ quality, from Khorasan (Herat) and Kerman. Theseare mentioned here in passing for the sale of completeness.

A large Khorasan carpet of circa 1700 10, reputedly used atthe Coronation of King Edward VII in Westminster Abbey inAugust 1902, has a field pattern of inward- and outward-facingpalmettes set against a red ground, enclosed by a primary borderon a blue ground made up of alternating diagonal and inward-facing palmettes in shield-like lozenges with pairs of split-leaves, joined to a meandering stem. The palmettes in the fieldare typical of Khorasan carpets, and the serrated palmettes canbe seen in 18th and 19th century Harshang design carpets fromthe Caucasus. Reportedly once from a Spanish cathedral, it waspurchased by the museum at auction in London in 1997.162

The MIAQ also owns three rather worn fragments of typicalKerman ‘vase-technique’ carpets from the second quarter of the17th century, all acquired at auction in London. Two are quitesubstantial sections, one with a repeat design of horizontal rowsof different f lowering shrubs on a red ground 11,163 the other witha palmette and sickle-leaf pattern on a blue background 12.164

Finally, there is a tiny fragment from a very large Kerman carpetthat had a three-plane ‘vase’ design set on a diagonal, largeserrated-leaf lattice 13.165

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSI am indebted to Rupert Waterhouse and Daniel Shaffer for theirextensive editing of my text and for their many contributionsand additions. Thanks also to everyone who allowed me tostudy their rugs or provided advice and information, including:Alessandro Bruschettini, Susan Day, Hussain Rajab Al-Ismail,Anatol Ivanov, Thomas Farnham, Jack Franses, Jens Kröger, JohnMills, Mary Jo Otsea, Elisabeth Parker, William Robinson, DanielShaffer, Sheikh Saud al-Thani, Elena and Nikita Tsareva, andOliver Watson. Recognition should be given to Nicholas Water-house for untold hours devoted to curating the MIAQ collectionwhile it was in London, and for managing the conservation andpreparation of the carpets for exhibition at Longevity Conser-vation Studio in London, which was undertaken by Jill Beeney,Carole Bellon, Kate Judges, Alex Thompson and Rosalind Tuck-well, as well as by Mona Al Saie from the MIAQ. Photographywas done by Nicholas Waterhouse and Carole Bellon. Carbon-14analyses were carried out by Georges Bonani and Irka Hajas ofthe Institute of Particle Physics (ETH) in Zurich.

This article is an extended version, with full citations and references aswell as additional images, of the abridgement published in HALI 155,Spring 2008, pp.72-89. For notes and further plates see below.

1011

12

13

Ph

oto

by:

Lon

gev

ity

Ph

oto

by:

Lon

gev

ity

Ph

oto

by:

Lon

gev

ity

Ph

oto

by:

Lon

gev

ity

PERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETSPERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETS

HALI ISSUE 155 2827 HALI ISSUE 155

For reasons of space, the exhib-

ition and publication citations

below, while extensive, are by

no means complete.

1 In March 2005, Sheikh Saud

stepped down as chairman of the

NCCAH as a result of a misunder-

standing over acquisitions with the

Government of that has since been

resolved. A number of works that

were in his private collection will

now go into the Qatar museums.

His personal interest is mainly in

ancient Egyptian art, and as the

Qatar government has no plans

for a museum of ancient art

(Greek, Roman, Egyptian and

Mesopotamian), he continues to

collect privately in this field.

2 In addition, more than 160 items

of costume were acquired for a

quite separate Costume Museum.

3 At present there are no plans for

a catalogue. It had been hoped to

publish a general book on the car-

pet and textile collection, as well

as a ‘very large format elephant

folio’ limited edition, printed to the

highest standards using up to nine

colours (a test on a smaller scale,

but to the same standards, was

carried out for the Silk and Ivory

catalogues for the 2004 Doha Cul-

tural Festival, thought at the time

to be the best printed illustrations

of carpets and textiles to date).

During 2004-2005, several well-

known scholars visited Qatar and

each agreed to contribute an essay

specific to their area of expertise.

Unfortunately, this publication pro-

ject was abandoned.

4 At first I did not take Sheik Saud’s

plans too seriously. In the Middle

East, people have usually acquired

new carpets as functional objects

for the floor, and a ‘used’ rug, how-

ever historic, might be regarded as

just a second-hand floor- or table-

cover, mattress or seating mat.

Appreciation of this medium in the

West stems from a long tradition

of art historical research and there

are hundreds of collectors, but over

the past forty years I have met

hardly anyone from the Arab world

with any real interest in or know-

ledge of the history of carpet des-

ign, or any sensitivity to the great

beauty of antique carpets. There

are of course exceptions; among

the handful of collectors from the

region have been some of the

most inspired connoisseurs in

this field, including Khalil Talhouni,

Sheikh Nasser al-Sabah, Jasim

Homaizi, and Hossein Afshar.

5 Much has been written in the

press about Sheikh Saud overpay-

ing for works of art. In my experi-

ence, however, he was cautious

on price and was keen neither to

overpay nor to gain that reputation,

as he believed that paying a ‘fair’

price would stand him in good

stead for further acquisitions. Some

very important carpets were not

acquired because the price seemed

too high.

6 There are exceptions: the Metro-

politan Museum of Art’s purchase

of the Kevorkian Jaipur Mughal

shrub carpet in 1972, and the

Cagan early animal rug in 1990;

the Museum of Islamic Art in Berlin

bought the French & Co. Mughal

animal carpet in 1973; the David

Collection in Copenhagen bought

a Seljuk carpet section from Bey-

shehir in 1991, and the Schotten-

kirche Mamluk carpet in 1987; and

the Miho Museum bought the

Sangusko Kerman carpet in 1994.

7 From the likes of Altman, Ford,

Getty, Rockefeller, Ballard, Myers,

McMullan and McCoy Jones.

8 Often little or no space is avail-

able for the permanent or semi-

permanent display of carpets, or

the funds and enthusiasm are not

available to create environment-

ally-controlled showcases such as

that designed for the Ardabil med-

allion carpet at the V&A.

9 The fabric of the new museum

building, designed by the Chinese-

American architect I.M. Pei, is mag-

nificent, jutting out onto an artifi-

cial island from Doha’s sea-front

Corniche. It is hoped that attention

to detail, lighting and presentation

will measure up to the huge efforts

made to assemble these works of

art. I wait with great interest to

see whether the interior designer

Jean-Michel Willmotte has the

experience and conservation know-

ledge necessary to display the car-

pets properly. Open display, esp-

ecially when the carpets are laid

flat on daises, will look wonderful

for a few years, but has many prob-

lems, and conservators are rightly

concerned about dust, fading, moth

and carpet beetles. A further dil-

emma is light. Established practice

of putting carpets and textiles in

constant light at no more than 50

lux is not good unless items are

regularly rotated (which requires a

large collection). Low light levels

make it difficult for viewers to app-

reciate the colours and beauty of

the carpets. It is better, both for

object and viewer, to increase illu-

mination for a limited period and

suppress it when the carpets are

not being viewed.

10 The Mongol Ilkhanids ruled Iran

from 1256, gaining complete power

following the sack of Baghdad by

Hulagu Khan in 1258. The empire

ended around 1335 with the death

of Abu Said. Descendants of the

family were governors of different

regions, but none were able to

gain complete control.

11 Amy Briggs, ‘Timurid Carpets, I,

Geometric Carpets’, Ars Islamica,

VII/1, 1940. pp.20-54; ‘Timurid

Carpets, II, Arabesque and Flower

Carpets’, Ars Islamica, IX-XII,

1940, pp.146-58 and figs.10-16.

12 Two Timurid carpets:

(1) Fragment with interlaced lattice

design. 56 x 35cm. Benaki Mus-

eum, Athens, no.16147. Thomas

W. Lentz & Glen D. Lowry (eds.),

Timur and the Princely Vision,

Washington 1989, pp.220, 353,

no.119; Louise W. Mackie, ‘A Piece

of the Puzzle. A 14th-15th Century

Persian Carpet Fragment Revealed’,

HALI 47, 1989, p.16, fig.1; Susan

Day (ed.), Great Carpets of the

World, New York 1996, p.115, pl.89.

(2) Silk carpet with animals and

inscribed border. 35 x 70cm.

Textile Museum, Washington DC;

Ralph Pinder-Wilson, Islamic Art:

One Hundred Plates in Colour

with an Introductory Essay on

Islamic Art, London 1957, pl.78.

13 Two Tabriz carpets, possibly late

15th century:

(1) The V&A Tabriz spirals and med-

allion carpet. Victoria & Albert Mus-

eum, London. (a) 396 x 604cm,

missing both ends. Arthur Upham

Pope (ed.), A Survey of Persian

Art, London & New York 1938-39,

pl.1112; Joseph V. McMullan,

Islamic Carpets, New York 1965,

pp.54-5, pl.10a (reconstruction). (b)

231 x 155cm, corner of field with

border. Formerly McMullan

Collection. Ibid., pp.52-3, pl.10.

(2) The Delaunay Tabriz spiral, split-

leaf and medallion carpet. 240 x

370cm, central section of field.

Musée des Gobelins, Paris, no.1375,

acquired 1892. Formerly Elie Dela-

unay. Exhibition Catalogue of Pers-

ian Art, London 1931, no.150; Pope

1938-39, pl.1115; Kurt Erdmann,

Oriental Carpets, New York 1960,

fig. 65; Donald King & David Syl-

vester, The Eastern Carpet in the

Western World, London 1983, p.87,

no.60; Roland Gilles et al., Tapis,

Present de L’Orient a l’Occident,

Paris 1989, pp.140-1; Day 1996,

p.123, fig.95.

Some authors, including Walter

Denny (Ten Great Carpets’, HALI

1/2, 1978, pp.156-64) and Susan

Day (Sakıp Sabancı Museum, Isfa-

han, Delhi, 3 Capitals of Islamic

Art, Masterpieces from the Louvre

Collection, Istanbul 2008, pp.195-6)

have proposed that another group

of northwest Iranian (or ‘Azerbai-

jan’) rugs can be assigned to the

late 15th or early 16th century:

I disagree and attribute them to

mid-16th century Tabriz:

(1) The Bardini Tabriz cloudband

and medallion carpet. 245 x 510cm.

Bardini Museum, Florence, no.730

/456. HALI, Italian supplement,

1981; Alberto Boralevi, ‘The Bar-

dini Persian Floral Medallion Car-

pet’, HALI 39, 1988, pp.14-15.

(2) The Boston Tabriz cloudband

and medallion carpet. 214 x 516cm.

Boston Museum of Fine Arts,

no.65.595. Formerly French & Co,

New York. An Exhibition of Antique

Oriental Rugs, Chicago 1947, no.24;

Denny 1978, fig.2; Walter B. Denny,

‘Türkmen Carpets and Early Rug

Weaving in the Western Islamic

World’, HALI 4/4, 1982, p.332,

fig.8 (detail); King & Sylvester,

p.85, no.57. Exhibited: Boston,

Museum of Fine Arts, 1977.

(3) The Fenaille Tabriz cloudband

and medallion carpet. 250 x 610cm.

Musée des Art Décoratifs, Paris,

no.11626. Roland Gilles et al., Hea-

ven in a Carpet, Paris & Lisbon

2004, pp.154-5, no.35 (with struc-

ture analysis); Sabancı 2008, no.77.

14 Two carpets from central Iran,

15th or early 16th century:

(1) The Baron compartment with

dragon and phoenix carpet. 400 x

800cm, wool pile on a silk founda-

tion. Musée Historique des Tissus,

Lyon, no.25.423. Formerly S. Baron,

Paris, 1893. F.R. Martin, A History

of Oriental Carpets before 1800,

Vienna 1908, p.39, fig.96 (detail);

Kurt Erdmann, Orientalische Tep-

piche aus Vier Jahrhunderten, Ham-

burg, 1950, p.31, no.100; Kurt Erd-

mann, Seven Hundred Years of

Oriental Carpets, London 1970,

p.182, pl. XIX (detail); Ian Bennett,

‘Splendours in the City of Silk,

part 3: The Safavid Masterpieces’,

HALI 34, 1987, pp.42-3, pl.XI, and

p.103 (with structure analysis).

(2) The Robinson compartment

with cragon and phoenix carpet.

340 x 498cm, reduced, wool pile

on a silk foundation. Metropolitan

Museum of Art, New York, acquired

in 1910, Frederick C. Hewitt Fund

no.10.61.3. Formerly Vincent Rob-

inson, London; Baron Adolph Thiem,

Berlin; Charles T. Yerkes Collection,

NOTES New York. Vincent Robinson, East-

ern Carpets, Twelve Early Examples,

London 1882, pl.III; John Kimberly

Mumford, The Yerkes Collection of

Oriental Carpets, New York 1910,

pl.XXV; Friedrich Sarre & Hermann

Trenkwald, Old Oriental Carpets,

Leipzig 1926-29, vol.II, pl.14 (detail,

with structure analysis); Pope 1938-

39, pl.1133; Wilhelm von Bode &

Ernst Kühnel, Antique Rugs from

the Near East, London 1958/1970,

p.127, fig.90; Erdmann 1962, fig.58;

Maurice Dimand & Jean Mailey,

Oriental Rugs in the Metropolitan

Museum of Art, New York 1973,

pp.46, 98, no.6 and pp.134-5, fig.67

(with detail and structure analysis);

Thomas J. Farnham, ‘The Yerkes

Collection’, HALI 101, 1998, p.74,

fig.1, and p.112, note 31.

15 During the 15th century one of

the most important centres of art

and culture in Iran was Herat in

Khorasan Province, east Iran (now

west Afghanistan). Over the past

century several carpet writers have

mistakenly attributed many classi-

cal carpets to this region. However,

we now believe that the number

attributable to Khorasan is much

smaller, as the materials and tech-

niques used in the area are relatively

easily identifiable (Michael Franses,

‘The Caucasus or North-East Persia:

A Question of Attribution’, in E.H.

Kirchheim et al., Orient Stars, A

Carpet Collection, London 1993,

pp.94-100; Daniel Walker, ‘Carpets

of Khorasan’, HALI 149, 2006,

pp.72- 77). The oldest Khorasan

carpets known, possibly 15th

century, are:

(1) Multiple-medallion carpet.

Sections in: Museum of Islamic

Art, Berlin, no.I.39/70 (Friedrich

Spuhler, Oriental Carpets in the

Museum of Islamic Art, Berlin,

London 1988, pp.110, 267, no.127);

Textile Museum, Washington DC,

no.R63.00.17; Metropolitan Mus-

eum of Art, New York, no.2001.54;

Marshall & Marilyn R. Wolf Col-

lection, New York (Walker 2006,

p.73, figs.2-4, with structure

analyses).

(2) Compartment design carpet.

Sections (both formerly with F.R.

Martin) in: Museum of Islamic Art,

Berlin, no.98.353 (Spuhler 1988,

pp.79, 218, no.75); Metropolitan

Museum of Art, New York, no.1991.

154 (Walker 2006, p.72, fig.1).

16 Shah Ismail Abu’l-Mozaffar bin

Sheikh Haydar bin Sheikh Junayd

Safawi,17 July 1487-23 May 1524.

17 Dated classical Iranian carpets:

(1) The Pope Pius IX Tabriz hunting

carpet. Dated either AH 929

(1522-3) or 949 (1542-3). 365 x

570cm. Brera Museum, Milan, on

loan to the Poldi Pezzoli Museum,

Milan, since 1923 no.DT1. Form-

erly Pope Pius IX, Rome; King

Victor Emmanuel, 1870-1919.

Sarre & Trenkwald, pls.22-3; Pope

1938-39, pl.1118; Bode & Kühnel

1970, p.108; Erdmann 1970, p.152,

fig.153; Dimand & Mailey, p.43,

fig.64; Ralph Pinder-Wilson et al.,

The Arts of Islam, London 1976,

p.98, pl.58. Other sections: (a) 135

x 48cm, section of lower right bo-

rder. Poldi Pezzoli Museum, Milan.

Formerly The Textile Gallery, Lon-

don; Wher Collection; private col-

lection, Genoa. Christie’s, London,

21 November 1985, lot 25; Michael

Franses & Ian Bennett, The Textile

Gallery Brochure No.2, London

1986. p.25, pl.X. (b) section of

lower border. Eberhart Herrmann,

Emmetten. Formerly The Textile

Gallery, London; Wher Collection.

(2) The Gulbenkian houri and

inscription silk rug. Dated 1529

AD. 93 x 236cm, silk pile on a silk

foundation. Gulbenkian Museum,

Lisbon, no.T.113. Reportedly from

the tomb of Imam Reza at Mashad;

Calouste Gulbenkian Collection,

Paris, acquired in 1939. Gulben-

kian Museum, Tapetes Orientais,

Lisbon 1985, pl.III; HALI 114, 2001,

p.75; Assadullah Souren Melikian-

Chirvani, Le Chant du monde, L’Art

de l’Iran safavide, 1501-1736, Paris

2007, pp.266-7, no.65.

(3) The London Ardabil medallion

carpet. Kashan (?), central Persia,

dated AH 946 (1539-1540). 530 x

1,052cm, wool pile on a silk foun-

dation. Victoria & Albert Museum,

London, no.272-1893. Pope 1938-

39, pls.1134-6; Donald King, ‘The

Ardabil Puzzle Unravelled’, HALI

88, 1996, p.88, fig.1.

(4) The Los Angeles Ardabil medal-

lion carpet. Kashan (?), central

Persia, dated AH 946 (1539-1540).

400 x 719cm, wool pile on a silk

foundation. Los Angeles County

Museum of Art, no.53.50.2. For-

merly John Paul Getty Collection.

Mumford 1910, pl.XXVII; King

1996, p.89, fig.2; Farnham 1998,

p.85, fig.22.

(5) Medallion vase carpet. Kerman,

dated AH 1067 (1656). Sarajevo

Museum (present whereabouts

uncertain). Pope 1938-39, pl.1238.

(6) Tree Carpet. Kerman, dated

AH 1082 (1671). Mausoleum of

Shah Abbas II, Qum. Pope 1938-

39, pl.1260.

18 For a comprehensive list of

‘Polonaise’ rugs, see Friedrich-Karl

Spuhler, Seidene Repräsentations-

teppiche der Mittleren bis Späten

Safawidenzeit. Die Sog. Polentep-

piche, Berlin 1968.

19 From 1997-2005, Longevity

Conservation Studio in London

acted as a freelance conservator

of carpets and textiles for the

MIAQ, whose in-house conser-

vator Mona al-Saie spent each

summer working in London pre-

paring carpets and textiles for

exhibition. Much of the collection

was analysed and photographed

at the Studio and in 2004, the

Studio made a full inventory in

preparation for a catalogue of the

collection. The project was aban-

doned in 2005 and no records

have been kept of acquisitions

after this date.

20 The Rothschild Tabriz

medallion carpet 1. Northwest

Iran, circa 1550. 356 x 658cm,

wool pile on a cotton foundation.

MIAQ, no.CA20, acquired at the

Rothschild auction, Christie’s,

London, 8 July 1999. Formerly

Louis Rothschild Collection, Vienna,

no.LR1575; Museum für angewan-

dte Kunst, Vienna, no.T.9490; heirs

of Rothschild estate. Published:

Siegfried Troll, Altorientalische

Teppiche, Vienna 1951, pl.3;

Charles Grant Ellis, Oriental Car-

pets in the Philadelphia Museum

of Art, Philadelphia 1988, p.176,

note 6 (cited); Christie’s, London,

8 July 1999, lot 188; HALI 105,

1999, p.149 (detail). Structure

analysis: Warp – White cotton,

Z4-5, marked displacement of

alternate warps; Weft – Cotton,

white, apricot-tan, 3 shoots, Z2;

Pile – Asymmetric knot, open left;

Colours – 11; Sides – not original;

Ends – missing.

21 Other classical Tabriz and north-

west Persian carpets with the

interlocking cartouche and

medallion border:

(1) The Yerkes-Blumenthal Tabriz

cloudband and medallion carpet.

464 x 1237cm, wool pile on a

cotton foundation. Metropolitan

Museum of Art New York, no.41.

100.113, gift of George Blumen-

thal. Formerly Charles T. Yerkes,

New York. Pope 1938-39, pl.1113

(detail); Dimand & Mailey, p.42,

fig.63 and pp.96-7, no.3 (with

structure analysis); Farnham 1998,

p.79, fig.12.

(2) The McMullan-Chicago Tabriz

cloudband and medallion carpet.

432 x 981cm. Art Institute of Chi-

cago. Formerly Joseph V.

McMullan, New York. McMullan,

pp.64-5, pl.12 (detail).

(3) The Asfar-Sarkis Tabriz cloud-

band and medallion carpet. 335 x

832cm. Private collection, Geneva.

Formerly Asfar & Sarkis, Damascus;

Count Gaetano Marzotto di Vald-

agno e Castelvecchio. Pope 1938-

39, pl.1114; Christie’s, London, 12

October 1989, lot 50.

(4) The Bardini Tabriz cloudband

and medallion carpet. See note

13 above.

(5) The Martin Tabriz arabesque and

medallion carpet. 279 x 373cm,

approximately half the length.

Whereabouts unknown. Formerly

F.R. Martin; private collection,

Vienna; Wher Collection. Christie’s,

London, 22 April 1999, lot 150.

(6) The Purrmann Tabriz spade-like

cartouche and medallion carpet.

Top half. Hans Purrmann Collect-

ion, Heidelberg. Eleanor Sims,

‘May Beattie’s Legacy’, HALI 131,

2003, p.114, fig.1.

(7) Northwest or central Iranian car-

pet, late 16th century, with inter-

locking cartouche and medallion

border. 365 x 800cm, reduced in

length. Carpet Museum, Tehran.

Formerly French & Co., New York;

Vojtech Blau, New York; The Textile

Gallery, London. Ian Bennett (ed.)

Rugs and Carpets of the World,

London 1978, p.87.

22 A number of carpets that have

been attributed to Tabriz such as

members of the ‘Salting’ group

(John Mills, ‘The Salting Group: A

History and a Clarification’, in

Murray L. Eiland & Robert Pinner

(eds.) Oriental Carpet and Textile

Studies, V/2, Danville 1999, pp.1-

17), can be grouped by materials

and weave with the Ardabil carpets

and possibly ascribed to Kashan.

Many of the remaining carpets

attributed to Tabriz also need reap-

praisal, including the Baron/Robin-

son pair (note 14 above), the Chel-

sea (Pope 1938-39, pls.1130-31),

the Anhalt (ibid., pls.1137-8), the

Garland (ibid., pl.1142), the Clam

Gallas (ibid., pl.1143), the Bardini

(ibid., pl.1144) and the Widener

(ibid., pl.1148), do not fit

comfortably into the main body of

rugs attributed to this region.

23 See note 17 above, no.1.

24 See note 21 above, nos.1-3.

25 For the Bode and Mackay

carpets see note 55, nos. 4-5.

Two Tabriz prayer rugs:

(1) The Chihil Sutun niche rug with

medallion. 99 x 159cm. Carpet

Museum, Tehran. Formerly Chihil

Sutun Palace, Esfahan. Kurt Erd-

mann, ‘Türkische Gebetsteppiche

im Tschihil Sutun’, in Dacca Mus-

eum, Nalini Kanta Bhattasali Com-

memoration Volume, pp.87-93,

PERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETSPERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETS

HALI ISSUE 155 2827 HALI ISSUE 155

For reasons of space, the exhib-

ition and publication citations

below, while extensive, are by

no means complete.

1 In March 2005, Sheikh Saud

stepped down as chairman of the

NCCAH as a result of a misunder-

standing over acquisitions with the

Government of that has since been

resolved. A number of works that

were in his private collection will

now go into the Qatar museums.

His personal interest is mainly in

ancient Egyptian art, and as the

Qatar government has no plans

for a museum of ancient art

(Greek, Roman, Egyptian and

Mesopotamian), he continues to

collect privately in this field.

2 In addition, more than 160 items

of costume were acquired for a

quite separate Costume Museum.

3 At present there are no plans for

a catalogue. It had been hoped to

publish a general book on the car-

pet and textile collection, as well

as a ‘very large format elephant

folio’ limited edition, printed to the

highest standards using up to nine

colours (a test on a smaller scale,

but to the same standards, was

carried out for the Silk and Ivory

catalogues for the 2004 Doha Cul-

tural Festival, thought at the time

to be the best printed illustrations

of carpets and textiles to date).

During 2004-2005, several well-

known scholars visited Qatar and

each agreed to contribute an essay

specific to their area of expertise.

Unfortunately, this publication pro-

ject was abandoned.

4 At first I did not take Sheik Saud’s

plans too seriously. In the Middle

East, people have usually acquired

new carpets as functional objects

for the floor, and a ‘used’ rug, how-

ever historic, might be regarded as

just a second-hand floor- or table-

cover, mattress or seating mat.

Appreciation of this medium in the

West stems from a long tradition

of art historical research and there

are hundreds of collectors, but over

the past forty years I have met

hardly anyone from the Arab world

with any real interest in or know-

ledge of the history of carpet des-

ign, or any sensitivity to the great

beauty of antique carpets. There

are of course exceptions; among

the handful of collectors from the

region have been some of the

most inspired connoisseurs in

this field, including Khalil Talhouni,

Sheikh Nasser al-Sabah, Jasim

Homaizi, and Hossein Afshar.

5 Much has been written in the

press about Sheikh Saud overpay-

ing for works of art. In my experi-

ence, however, he was cautious

on price and was keen neither to

overpay nor to gain that reputation,

as he believed that paying a ‘fair’

price would stand him in good

stead for further acquisitions. Some

very important carpets were not

acquired because the price seemed

too high.

6 There are exceptions: the Metro-

politan Museum of Art’s purchase

of the Kevorkian Jaipur Mughal

shrub carpet in 1972, and the

Cagan early animal rug in 1990;

the Museum of Islamic Art in Berlin

bought the French & Co. Mughal

animal carpet in 1973; the David

Collection in Copenhagen bought

a Seljuk carpet section from Bey-

shehir in 1991, and the Schotten-

kirche Mamluk carpet in 1987; and

the Miho Museum bought the

Sangusko Kerman carpet in 1994.

7 From the likes of Altman, Ford,

Getty, Rockefeller, Ballard, Myers,

McMullan and McCoy Jones.

8 Often little or no space is avail-

able for the permanent or semi-

permanent display of carpets, or

the funds and enthusiasm are not

available to create environment-

ally-controlled showcases such as

that designed for the Ardabil med-

allion carpet at the V&A.

9 The fabric of the new museum

building, designed by the Chinese-

American architect I.M. Pei, is mag-

nificent, jutting out onto an artifi-

cial island from Doha’s sea-front

Corniche. It is hoped that attention

to detail, lighting and presentation

will measure up to the huge efforts

made to assemble these works of

art. I wait with great interest to

see whether the interior designer

Jean-Michel Willmotte has the

experience and conservation know-

ledge necessary to display the car-

pets properly. Open display, esp-

ecially when the carpets are laid

flat on daises, will look wonderful

for a few years, but has many prob-

lems, and conservators are rightly

concerned about dust, fading, moth

and carpet beetles. A further dil-

emma is light. Established practice

of putting carpets and textiles in

constant light at no more than 50

lux is not good unless items are

regularly rotated (which requires a

large collection). Low light levels

make it difficult for viewers to app-

reciate the colours and beauty of

the carpets. It is better, both for

object and viewer, to increase illu-

mination for a limited period and

suppress it when the carpets are

not being viewed.

10 The Mongol Ilkhanids ruled Iran

from 1256, gaining complete power

following the sack of Baghdad by

Hulagu Khan in 1258. The empire

ended around 1335 with the death

of Abu Said. Descendants of the

family were governors of different

regions, but none were able to

gain complete control.

11 Amy Briggs, ‘Timurid Carpets, I,

Geometric Carpets’, Ars Islamica,

VII/1, 1940. pp.20-54; ‘Timurid

Carpets, II, Arabesque and Flower

Carpets’, Ars Islamica, IX-XII,

1940, pp.146-58 and figs.10-16.

12 Two Timurid carpets:

(1) Fragment with interlaced lattice

design. 56 x 35cm. Benaki Mus-

eum, Athens, no.16147. Thomas

W. Lentz & Glen D. Lowry (eds.),

Timur and the Princely Vision,

Washington 1989, pp.220, 353,

no.119; Louise W. Mackie, ‘A Piece

of the Puzzle. A 14th-15th Century

Persian Carpet Fragment Revealed’,

HALI 47, 1989, p.16, fig.1; Susan

Day (ed.), Great Carpets of the

World, New York 1996, p.115, pl.89.

(2) Silk carpet with animals and

inscribed border. 35 x 70cm.

Textile Museum, Washington DC;

Ralph Pinder-Wilson, Islamic Art:

One Hundred Plates in Colour

with an Introductory Essay on

Islamic Art, London 1957, pl.78.

13 Two Tabriz carpets, possibly late

15th century:

(1) The V&A Tabriz spirals and med-

allion carpet. Victoria & Albert Mus-

eum, London. (a) 396 x 604cm,

missing both ends. Arthur Upham

Pope (ed.), A Survey of Persian

Art, London & New York 1938-39,

pl.1112; Joseph V. McMullan,

Islamic Carpets, New York 1965,

pp.54-5, pl.10a (reconstruction). (b)

231 x 155cm, corner of field with

border. Formerly McMullan

Collection. Ibid., pp.52-3, pl.10.

(2) The Delaunay Tabriz spiral, split-

leaf and medallion carpet. 240 x

370cm, central section of field.

Musée des Gobelins, Paris, no.1375,

acquired 1892. Formerly Elie Dela-

unay. Exhibition Catalogue of Pers-

ian Art, London 1931, no.150; Pope

1938-39, pl.1115; Kurt Erdmann,

Oriental Carpets, New York 1960,

fig. 65; Donald King & David Syl-

vester, The Eastern Carpet in the

Western World, London 1983, p.87,

no.60; Roland Gilles et al., Tapis,

Present de L’Orient a l’Occident,

Paris 1989, pp.140-1; Day 1996,

p.123, fig.95.

Some authors, including Walter

Denny (Ten Great Carpets’, HALI

1/2, 1978, pp.156-64) and Susan

Day (Sakıp Sabancı Museum, Isfa-

han, Delhi, 3 Capitals of Islamic

Art, Masterpieces from the Louvre

Collection, Istanbul 2008, pp.195-6)

have proposed that another group

of northwest Iranian (or ‘Azerbai-

jan’) rugs can be assigned to the

late 15th or early 16th century:

I disagree and attribute them to

mid-16th century Tabriz:

(1) The Bardini Tabriz cloudband

and medallion carpet. 245 x 510cm.

Bardini Museum, Florence, no.730

/456. HALI, Italian supplement,

1981; Alberto Boralevi, ‘The Bar-

dini Persian Floral Medallion Car-

pet’, HALI 39, 1988, pp.14-15.

(2) The Boston Tabriz cloudband

and medallion carpet. 214 x 516cm.

Boston Museum of Fine Arts,

no.65.595. Formerly French & Co,

New York. An Exhibition of Antique

Oriental Rugs, Chicago 1947, no.24;

Denny 1978, fig.2; Walter B. Denny,

‘Türkmen Carpets and Early Rug

Weaving in the Western Islamic

World’, HALI 4/4, 1982, p.332,

fig.8 (detail); King & Sylvester,

p.85, no.57. Exhibited: Boston,

Museum of Fine Arts, 1977.

(3) The Fenaille Tabriz cloudband

and medallion carpet. 250 x 610cm.

Musée des Art Décoratifs, Paris,

no.11626. Roland Gilles et al., Hea-

ven in a Carpet, Paris & Lisbon

2004, pp.154-5, no.35 (with struc-

ture analysis); Sabancı 2008, no.77.

14 Two carpets from central Iran,

15th or early 16th century:

(1) The Baron compartment with

dragon and phoenix carpet. 400 x

800cm, wool pile on a silk founda-

tion. Musée Historique des Tissus,

Lyon, no.25.423. Formerly S. Baron,

Paris, 1893. F.R. Martin, A History

of Oriental Carpets before 1800,

Vienna 1908, p.39, fig.96 (detail);

Kurt Erdmann, Orientalische Tep-

piche aus Vier Jahrhunderten, Ham-

burg, 1950, p.31, no.100; Kurt Erd-

mann, Seven Hundred Years of

Oriental Carpets, London 1970,

p.182, pl. XIX (detail); Ian Bennett,

‘Splendours in the City of Silk,

part 3: The Safavid Masterpieces’,

HALI 34, 1987, pp.42-3, pl.XI, and

p.103 (with structure analysis).

(2) The Robinson compartment

with cragon and phoenix carpet.

340 x 498cm, reduced, wool pile

on a silk foundation. Metropolitan

Museum of Art, New York, acquired

in 1910, Frederick C. Hewitt Fund

no.10.61.3. Formerly Vincent Rob-

inson, London; Baron Adolph Thiem,

Berlin; Charles T. Yerkes Collection,

NOTES New York. Vincent Robinson, East-

ern Carpets, Twelve Early Examples,

London 1882, pl.III; John Kimberly

Mumford, The Yerkes Collection of

Oriental Carpets, New York 1910,

pl.XXV; Friedrich Sarre & Hermann

Trenkwald, Old Oriental Carpets,

Leipzig 1926-29, vol.II, pl.14 (detail,

with structure analysis); Pope 1938-

39, pl.1133; Wilhelm von Bode &

Ernst Kühnel, Antique Rugs from

the Near East, London 1958/1970,

p.127, fig.90; Erdmann 1962, fig.58;

Maurice Dimand & Jean Mailey,

Oriental Rugs in the Metropolitan

Museum of Art, New York 1973,

pp.46, 98, no.6 and pp.134-5, fig.67

(with detail and structure analysis);

Thomas J. Farnham, ‘The Yerkes

Collection’, HALI 101, 1998, p.74,

fig.1, and p.112, note 31.

15 During the 15th century one of

the most important centres of art

and culture in Iran was Herat in

Khorasan Province, east Iran (now

west Afghanistan). Over the past

century several carpet writers have

mistakenly attributed many classi-

cal carpets to this region. However,

we now believe that the number

attributable to Khorasan is much

smaller, as the materials and tech-

niques used in the area are relatively

easily identifiable (Michael Franses,

‘The Caucasus or North-East Persia:

A Question of Attribution’, in E.H.

Kirchheim et al., Orient Stars, A

Carpet Collection, London 1993,

pp.94-100; Daniel Walker, ‘Carpets

of Khorasan’, HALI 149, 2006,

pp.72- 77). The oldest Khorasan

carpets known, possibly 15th

century, are:

(1) Multiple-medallion carpet.

Sections in: Museum of Islamic

Art, Berlin, no.I.39/70 (Friedrich

Spuhler, Oriental Carpets in the

Museum of Islamic Art, Berlin,

London 1988, pp.110, 267, no.127);

Textile Museum, Washington DC,

no.R63.00.17; Metropolitan Mus-

eum of Art, New York, no.2001.54;

Marshall & Marilyn R. Wolf Col-

lection, New York (Walker 2006,

p.73, figs.2-4, with structure

analyses).

(2) Compartment design carpet.

Sections (both formerly with F.R.

Martin) in: Museum of Islamic Art,

Berlin, no.98.353 (Spuhler 1988,

pp.79, 218, no.75); Metropolitan

Museum of Art, New York, no.1991.

154 (Walker 2006, p.72, fig.1).

16 Shah Ismail Abu’l-Mozaffar bin

Sheikh Haydar bin Sheikh Junayd

Safawi,17 July 1487-23 May 1524.

17 Dated classical Iranian carpets:

(1) The Pope Pius IX Tabriz hunting

carpet. Dated either AH 929

(1522-3) or 949 (1542-3). 365 x

570cm. Brera Museum, Milan, on

loan to the Poldi Pezzoli Museum,

Milan, since 1923 no.DT1. Form-

erly Pope Pius IX, Rome; King

Victor Emmanuel, 1870-1919.

Sarre & Trenkwald, pls.22-3; Pope

1938-39, pl.1118; Bode & Kühnel

1970, p.108; Erdmann 1970, p.152,

fig.153; Dimand & Mailey, p.43,

fig.64; Ralph Pinder-Wilson et al.,

The Arts of Islam, London 1976,

p.98, pl.58. Other sections: (a) 135

x 48cm, section of lower right bo-

rder. Poldi Pezzoli Museum, Milan.

Formerly The Textile Gallery, Lon-

don; Wher Collection; private col-

lection, Genoa. Christie’s, London,

21 November 1985, lot 25; Michael

Franses & Ian Bennett, The Textile

Gallery Brochure No.2, London

1986. p.25, pl.X. (b) section of

lower border. Eberhart Herrmann,

Emmetten. Formerly The Textile

Gallery, London; Wher Collection.

(2) The Gulbenkian houri and

inscription silk rug. Dated 1529

AD. 93 x 236cm, silk pile on a silk

foundation. Gulbenkian Museum,

Lisbon, no.T.113. Reportedly from

the tomb of Imam Reza at Mashad;

Calouste Gulbenkian Collection,

Paris, acquired in 1939. Gulben-

kian Museum, Tapetes Orientais,

Lisbon 1985, pl.III; HALI 114, 2001,

p.75; Assadullah Souren Melikian-

Chirvani, Le Chant du monde, L’Art

de l’Iran safavide, 1501-1736, Paris

2007, pp.266-7, no.65.

(3) The London Ardabil medallion

carpet. Kashan (?), central Persia,

dated AH 946 (1539-1540). 530 x

1,052cm, wool pile on a silk foun-

dation. Victoria & Albert Museum,

London, no.272-1893. Pope 1938-

39, pls.1134-6; Donald King, ‘The

Ardabil Puzzle Unravelled’, HALI

88, 1996, p.88, fig.1.

(4) The Los Angeles Ardabil medal-

lion carpet. Kashan (?), central

Persia, dated AH 946 (1539-1540).

400 x 719cm, wool pile on a silk

foundation. Los Angeles County

Museum of Art, no.53.50.2. For-

merly John Paul Getty Collection.

Mumford 1910, pl.XXVII; King

1996, p.89, fig.2; Farnham 1998,

p.85, fig.22.

(5) Medallion vase carpet. Kerman,

dated AH 1067 (1656). Sarajevo

Museum (present whereabouts

uncertain). Pope 1938-39, pl.1238.

(6) Tree Carpet. Kerman, dated

AH 1082 (1671). Mausoleum of

Shah Abbas II, Qum. Pope 1938-

39, pl.1260.

18 For a comprehensive list of

‘Polonaise’ rugs, see Friedrich-Karl

Spuhler, Seidene Repräsentations-

teppiche der Mittleren bis Späten

Safawidenzeit. Die Sog. Polentep-

piche, Berlin 1968.

19 From 1997-2005, Longevity

Conservation Studio in London

acted as a freelance conservator

of carpets and textiles for the

MIAQ, whose in-house conser-

vator Mona al-Saie spent each

summer working in London pre-

paring carpets and textiles for

exhibition. Much of the collection

was analysed and photographed

at the Studio and in 2004, the

Studio made a full inventory in

preparation for a catalogue of the

collection. The project was aban-

doned in 2005 and no records

have been kept of acquisitions

after this date.

20 The Rothschild Tabriz

medallion carpet 1. Northwest

Iran, circa 1550. 356 x 658cm,

wool pile on a cotton foundation.

MIAQ, no.CA20, acquired at the

Rothschild auction, Christie’s,

London, 8 July 1999. Formerly

Louis Rothschild Collection, Vienna,

no.LR1575; Museum für angewan-

dte Kunst, Vienna, no.T.9490; heirs

of Rothschild estate. Published:

Siegfried Troll, Altorientalische

Teppiche, Vienna 1951, pl.3;

Charles Grant Ellis, Oriental Car-

pets in the Philadelphia Museum

of Art, Philadelphia 1988, p.176,

note 6 (cited); Christie’s, London,

8 July 1999, lot 188; HALI 105,

1999, p.149 (detail). Structure

analysis: Warp – White cotton,

Z4-5, marked displacement of

alternate warps; Weft – Cotton,

white, apricot-tan, 3 shoots, Z2;

Pile – Asymmetric knot, open left;

Colours – 11; Sides – not original;

Ends – missing.

21 Other classical Tabriz and north-

west Persian carpets with the

interlocking cartouche and

medallion border:

(1) The Yerkes-Blumenthal Tabriz

cloudband and medallion carpet.

464 x 1237cm, wool pile on a

cotton foundation. Metropolitan

Museum of Art New York, no.41.

100.113, gift of George Blumen-

thal. Formerly Charles T. Yerkes,

New York. Pope 1938-39, pl.1113

(detail); Dimand & Mailey, p.42,

fig.63 and pp.96-7, no.3 (with

structure analysis); Farnham 1998,

p.79, fig.12.

(2) The McMullan-Chicago Tabriz

cloudband and medallion carpet.

432 x 981cm. Art Institute of Chi-

cago. Formerly Joseph V.

McMullan, New York. McMullan,

pp.64-5, pl.12 (detail).

(3) The Asfar-Sarkis Tabriz cloud-

band and medallion carpet. 335 x

832cm. Private collection, Geneva.

Formerly Asfar & Sarkis, Damascus;

Count Gaetano Marzotto di Vald-

agno e Castelvecchio. Pope 1938-

39, pl.1114; Christie’s, London, 12

October 1989, lot 50.

(4) The Bardini Tabriz cloudband

and medallion carpet. See note

13 above.

(5) The Martin Tabriz arabesque and

medallion carpet. 279 x 373cm,

approximately half the length.

Whereabouts unknown. Formerly

F.R. Martin; private collection,

Vienna; Wher Collection. Christie’s,

London, 22 April 1999, lot 150.

(6) The Purrmann Tabriz spade-like

cartouche and medallion carpet.

Top half. Hans Purrmann Collect-

ion, Heidelberg. Eleanor Sims,

‘May Beattie’s Legacy’, HALI 131,

2003, p.114, fig.1.

(7) Northwest or central Iranian car-

pet, late 16th century, with inter-

locking cartouche and medallion

border. 365 x 800cm, reduced in

length. Carpet Museum, Tehran.

Formerly French & Co., New York;

Vojtech Blau, New York; The Textile

Gallery, London. Ian Bennett (ed.)

Rugs and Carpets of the World,

London 1978, p.87.

22 A number of carpets that have

been attributed to Tabriz such as

members of the ‘Salting’ group

(John Mills, ‘The Salting Group: A

History and a Clarification’, in

Murray L. Eiland & Robert Pinner

(eds.) Oriental Carpet and Textile

Studies, V/2, Danville 1999, pp.1-

17), can be grouped by materials

and weave with the Ardabil carpets

and possibly ascribed to Kashan.

Many of the remaining carpets

attributed to Tabriz also need reap-

praisal, including the Baron/Robin-

son pair (note 14 above), the Chel-

sea (Pope 1938-39, pls.1130-31),

the Anhalt (ibid., pls.1137-8), the

Garland (ibid., pl.1142), the Clam

Gallas (ibid., pl.1143), the Bardini

(ibid., pl.1144) and the Widener

(ibid., pl.1148), do not fit

comfortably into the main body of

rugs attributed to this region.

23 See note 17 above, no.1.

24 See note 21 above, nos.1-3.

25 For the Bode and Mackay

carpets see note 55, nos. 4-5.

Two Tabriz prayer rugs:

(1) The Chihil Sutun niche rug with

medallion. 99 x 159cm. Carpet

Museum, Tehran. Formerly Chihil

Sutun Palace, Esfahan. Kurt Erd-

mann, ‘Türkische Gebetsteppiche

im Tschihil Sutun’, in Dacca Mus-

eum, Nalini Kanta Bhattasali Com-

memoration Volume, pp.87-93,

PERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETSPERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETS

HALI ISSUE 155 3029 HALI ISSUE 155

pls.VII-XII, Dacca 1966, pl.VIII;

Erwin Gans-Rueden, Iranian Car-

pets, Art, Craft and History, Fribourg

1978, pp.146-7 (with structure ana-

lysis); Michael Franses, ‘Some Wool

Pile Persian-Design Niche Rugs’, in

Eiland & Pinner 1999, p.80, fig.7.

(2) The Chihil Sutun niche rug with-

out medallion. 100 x 139cm. Car-

pet Museum, Tehran. Formerly

Chihil Sutun Palace, Esfahan. Erd-

mann 1966, pl.VII; Gans-Ruedin

1978, pp.148-9 (with structure

analysis); Franses 1999, p.80, fig.8.

It is said, without any firm evid-

ence, that the pair of medallion

and cartouche Tabriz carpets that

passed through Beghian in London

(Museum für angewandte Kunst,

Vienna, no.T.10211, Angela Völker,

Die Orientalischen Knüpfteppiche

im MAK, Vienna 2001, no.90;

Eberhart Herrmann, Emmetten,

HALI 61, 1992, pp.66-7) had once

come from the Ottoman Sultan

Selim I, who acquired them from

the Blue Mosque in Tabriz.

26 Three classical Tabriz carpets

in Istanbul:

(1) Section from the Katif Muslihidd

saf. 270 x 430cm, wool pile on a

cotton foundation. Turkish & Islamic

Arts Museum, Istanbul, no.105.

Possibly donated by Shah Tahmasp

to the Great Süleyman Mosque,

Istanbul, 1567; Katif Muslihidd

Mosque, Istanbul. Erwin Gans-

Ruedin, Indian Carpets, London

1984, pp.110-11; Day 1996, p.141,

no.112; Franses 1999, p.75, fig.1a.

(2) The Istanbul Tabriz spirals and

medallion carpet. Reduced in length.

Turkish & Islamic Arts Museum,

Istanbul. Unpublished.

(3) The Topkapı Tabriz cartouche

and medallion carpet. Approx. 300

x 700cm, reduced, with two holes

cut out for pillars. Whereabouts

unknown (seen by Kurt Erdmannin

a room in the harem in the mid-

1930s). Formerly Topkapı Palace

Museum, Istanbul. Christine Klose,

‘A Clarification: The Topkapı Harem

and the Vienna Medallion and Car-

touche Carpets’, HALI 64, 1992,

p.97, fig.2 (with structure analysis).

27 It is not clear whether the car-

pets were acquired by Anselm von

Rothschild in the 1860s and 1870s,

or by his three surviving sons,

Nathaniel, Albert and Ferdinand.

Ferdinand and Nathaniel both died

childless, Ferdinand shared his

collection between Waddesdon

Manor in England and the British

Museum, while Nathaniel’s passed

to Albert, re-uniting a major part of

the collection. Albert died in 1911

and his collections passed to his

sons Alphonse, Louis and Eugene.

28 Christie’s, London, 8 July 1999,

lot 188.

29 Ziegler & Co. was a British firm

of Swiss origin. Their first offices

in Tabriz were for the import of

goods produced in Manchester.

They had difficulty remitting their

revenue back to England, so in

1883 began manufacturing carpets

in Arak (Sultanabad) that could be

exported back to England. Soon

Ziegler controlled 2,500 looms in

Sultanabad and had a near mono-

poly for almost twenty years.

30 Ardabil is situated in northwest

Iran, in the heart of Azarbayjan

Province, not far from the border

with the Transcaucasus region; the

Caspian Sea lies some 60 kilo-

metres to the east and the provin-

cial capital Tabriz lies about 200

kilometres to the southwest. The

Safavids spoke Azeri, a Turkic

tongue, but their origins as Turkic

people of pure Aryan (Iranian) stock

are much disputed. They traced

their origins back to Ardabil in the

early 11th century, in order to estab-

lish the descent of the Safavid

house from the 7th Shia Imam,

Musa al-Kazim, and through him

to Ali, the first Imam. It was on this

basis that in Tabriz in 1501 the first

Safavid Shah, Ismail, declared his

right to rule Iran, but the official

Safavid genealogy was only written

in the mid-14th century and con-

tains inconsistencies. See Roger

Savory, Iran Under the Safavids,

Cambridge 1980, chapter 1.

31 See note 17 above, nos.3-4.

32 The Yerkes Ardabil Shrine animal

carpet. Probably Kashan, central

Iran, mid-16th century. 178 x

333cm, wool pile on a silk found-

ation. Metropolitan Museum of

Art, New York, no.10.61.2, pur-

chased at the Yerkes auction in

1910 (Frederick C. Hewitt Fund).

Reportedly from the Shrine of

Shaikh Safi at Ardabil; Ziegler &

Co., Manchester; Vincent Robin-

son & Co., London; Charles T.

Yerkes Collection, New York.

Published: Mumford 1910, pl.XVIII;

American Art Association, New

York, The Charles T. Yerkes Collec-

tion, 5 to 9 April 1910, lot 216

(Mumford assumed that this car-

pet, and its pair in the the Sarre

collection (published by Stebbing)

were one and the same); Wilhelm

Valentiner, Catalogue of a Loan

Exhibition of Early Oriental Rugs,

New York, 1910, no.25; Walter A.

Hawley, Oriental Rugs, Antique

and Modern, New York 1913, pl.14;

Wilhelm von Bode & Ernst Kühnel,

Vorderasiatische Knüpfteppiche

aus Älterer Zeit, Leipzig 1922, fig.85;

Friedrich Sarre, Ardabil, Berlin 1924,

pp.26-7 (cited); Sarre & Trenkwald,

vol.II, pl.38; Maurice Dimand, Hand-

book of Mohammedan Decorative

Arts, New York 1930, fig.192; Lon-

don 1931, no.99 (cited); Pope 1938-

39, pl.1177; Chicago 1947, no.17

(details); Ignace Schlosser, The

Book of Rugs, New York 1963,

p.125, no.46 (detail); Dimand &

Mailey, pp.100-1, no.11, p.52,

fig.75; Erdmann 1970, p.183

(detail); Gigi Pagnano, L’Arte del

Tappeto Orientale ed Europeo,

Busto Arsizio 1983, fig.215; Dimand

& Mailey, pp.100-1, no.11, p.52,

fig.75: King 1996, p.90, fig.3; Farn-

ham 1998, pp.75-87, p.82, fig.16..

33 The Sarre Ardabil Shrine

animal carpet 2. Probably Kashan,

central Iran, mid-16th century. 183

x 354cm, wool pile on a silk foun-

dation. MIAQ, no.CA43, acquired in

2002 through Grogan & Co., Bos-

ton, and The Textile Gallery, London.

Reputedly from the Shrine of

Shaikh Safi, Ardabil; Ziegler & Co.,

Manchester; Vincent Robinson &

Co., London; Baron Adolph Thiem,

Berlin; Friedrich Sarre Collection,

Berlin; Mrs John D. Rockefeller,

New York; private collection, New

York. Published: Edward Stebbing,

The Holy Carpet of the Mosque at

Ardebil, attached to the publication

of A Paper on Persian Carpets, read

at the Meeting of the Art Workers’

Guild, December, 1891, together

with A List of Carpets in the Col-

lection of Vincent Robinson and

Co., London 1892, no.3, pp.19-20,

(no mention is made of this carpet

coming from the Ardabil Shrine);

Edward Stebbing, The Holy Carpet

of the Mosque at Ardebil, London

1893, large format plates edition,

pl.4; Gaston Migeon, Exposition

des Arts Musulmans au Musée

des Arts Décoratifs, Paris 1903,

pl.79 (detail); A. von Scala, Wilhelm

Bode & Friedrich Sarre, Ancient

Oriental Carpets, Leipzig 1908, pl.7;

Friedrich Sarre, Altorientalische

Teppiche, Leipzig 1908, pl.VII;

Friedrich Sarre, ‘Ardabil’, in Die

Denkmäler Persischer Baukunst,

Berlin 1910, vol.I, p.44, fig.45 (‘Teil

eines angeblich aus der Moschee

des Schech Safi in Ardabil stam-

menden Knüpfteppichs, im Besitz

von F. Sarre in Berlin’); Ausstellung

München 1910. Ausstellung von

Meisterwerken Muhammedan-

ischer Kunst [carpets catalogued

by Friedrich Sarre], Munich 1910,

p.18, no.7, R.24 (cited); Wilhelm

Bode, Anciens Tapis d’Orient, Paris

1911, fig.27 (detail); Friedrich Sarre

& F.R. Martin (eds.), Ausstellung

von Meisterwerken Muhammed-

anischer Kunst in München 1910,

Munich 1912, vol.4, no.7; Friedrich

Sarre, Ardabil, Berlin 1924 (revised

reprint of Sarre 1910), pp.26-8,

fig.23; Gaston Migeon, Manuel

d’Art Musulman, Vol.2, Arts Plas-

tiques et Industriels, Paris 1927,

pp.372-4, p.370, fig.450 (detail);

Jens Kröger, ‘Paris-Berlin-Lisbon.

Several carpets and exhibtions of

carpets in the late nineteenth and

early twentieth centuries’, in Gilles

2004, pp.58-63, p.59, fig.1. Struc-

ture: Warp – silk, Z2S, ivory, 176

per dm, fairly depressed. Weft –

silk, Z singles, 1 yarn used together,

ivory, 3 sheds per weft break,

weft break count 88 per dm. Pile –

wool, asymmetric knots open on

left, 7,744 per dm2. Colours – 13

(ivory, yellow, golden orange, pink,

magenta, blue, navy, green, fawn

and brown-black). Some of the

flowers in the field and border are

of silk-cored metal thread inter-

lacing (plainweave).

34 As well as the two Ardabil

carpets, the exhibition included

about twenty others from the firm

and two belonging to Mr J.E. Taylor.

The following year the text was re-

published by private subscription as

a folio edition of 50 copies .

35 It is surprising that Vincent

Robinson did not include any of

these four carpets in the second

of his two folio editions. The first

volume (Robinson 1882), contains

some superb historical carpets,

including: one of a pair of early

compartment carpets (see note 14

above, no.2), and a 16th century

medallion and animal rug, both in

the Metropolitan Museum of Art;

a 16th century silk-foundation rug

from central Iran; a 17th century

‘Polonaise’ rug from Esfahan; and

the famous 17th century Mughal

Indian Fremling carpet in the Vict-

oria & Albert Museum. The second

volume (Vincent Robinson, East-

ern Carpets, Twelve Early Exam-

ples (Second Series), London

1893) includes the famous mid-

16th century Robinson-Sangiorgi

carpet (Pope 1938-39, pl.1179).

36 Rexford Stead, The Ardabil

Carpets, Malibu 1974, p.36. How-

ever, it is possible that the Robin-

son employee was talking about

the Robinson-Yerkes-Frick Mughal

shrub carpet, which may have

come from Mashad: some impor-

tant Mughal lattice carpets left the

Shrine in Mashad and are now in

Western collections. In Gardens of

Eternal Spring, New York 2006,

Steven Cohen goes to great lengths

to uncover the provenance of the

Frick Mughal Tree carpet, querying

Sarre’s ownership of the larger

section that was with Robinson.

Thomas Farnham and I believe

that Sarre may have acquired the

Tree carpet from Robinson and

returned it to him after 1901,

when Yerkes was in London

buying carpets.

37 Stead, p.37, quoting William

Richard Holmes, who described

the Shrine in 1845.

38 King 1996, pp.88-92, and p.116.

The discussion of their source

was set out by Martin Weaver,

‘The Ardebil Puzzle’, in Textile

Museum Journal, XXIII, 1984,

pp.43-51. Doubts were also raised

by A H. Morton, ‘Carpets at

Ardebil in the 18th century,’ in

Oriental Art, xxiii, 1977, pp.470-1.

Accounts written in 1842 by the

then British Consul in Tabriz, Keith

Edward Abbott (Narrative of a

Journey from Tabriz along the

Shores of the Caspian Sea, 1843,

unpublished MS, London, Public

Records Office, FO 251/40, p. 32),

and William Richard Holmes

(Sketches of the shores of the

Caspian Sea, London, 1845, p.37),

leave little doubt that they saw at

least one magnificent carpet in

terrible condition bearing the same

date as the Ardabil. The account

given by Heinrich Jacoby in How

to know Oriental Carpets and

Rugs, London 1962, pp.27-28

(originally ABC des echten Tep-

pichs, 1949), is convincing.

39 In 1910, Mumford published

the folio edition of the collection

of carpets belonging to the dis-

graced businessman Charles Tyson

Yerkes, who had died five years

earlier. The text from Mumford’s

volume of hand-painted illustrat-

ions was used for the American

Art Association auction catalogue

on 8 April 1910. Farnham 1998,

p.80, tells us that “Edward Robin-

son, the assistant director of the

Metropolitan Museum, and his

colleague Wilhelm Valentiner att-

ended the sale. They arrived with

money to spend. Just a week

before the auction, Valentiner wrote

to his friend and mentor Wilhelm

von Bode [at the Berlin Museum],

to inform him about the Metro-

politan’s plans… (to spend) some

100,000 of dollars to purchase some

of the most beautiful carpets.”

40 Valentiner, p.31.

41 “Rockefeller purchased [the Ard-

abil carpet] through Arthur Upham

Pope in November 1925. Initially

John D., Jr. agreed to pay $40,000

for the carpet plus $2,000 for rep-

airing it and $5,000 to $10,000 in

import duties. (At the time the

United States imposed a 55% ad

valorem tariff on all carpets impor-

ted into the country. How Rocke-

feller thought he could get away

with paying less than $22,000 is

something I do not understand.)

The repairs were done in Paris by

Meurdoch Indjoudjian’s restorers.

The work took until June 1926 and

cost approximately $7,000. When

the carpet finally arrived in New

York, the Customs Officials

presented JDR, Jr. with a bill for

$22,083.25. He calculated the final

cost of the carpet, including Pope’s

commission, to be $75,000.”

Thomas J. Farnham, private

communication, 12 March 2008.

42 Vojtech Blau.

43 Stebbing, pl.4.

44. Sarre 1908, pl.VII.

45 Small silk Kashan animal rugs:

(1) The Princezza animal design

silk Kashan rug. 178 x 238cm.

Metropolitan Museum of Art, New

York, no.14.40.721. Formerly Prince

Princezza Collection; Edouard Chap-

pey Collection; Benjamin Altman

Collection, New York. Galerie

Georges Petit, Paris, 7 June 1907,

lot 1912; Sarre & Trenkwald, vol.II,

pl.39; Pope 1938-39, pl.1199; Erd-

mann 1970, p.62, fig.62; Dimand

& Mailey, pp.101-2, 142-3, no.13,

fig.79; Eberhart Herrmann, ‘A

Great Discovery’, HALI 36, 1987,

pp.48-51, 105-6, pp.49, 105 (cited);

Daniel Walker, ‘Metropolitan Quar-

tet’, HALI 76, 1994, pp.104-107,

pp.104, 120, pl.1.

(2) The Ludlow animal design silk

Kashan rug. 175 x 232cm. Detroit

Institute of Art, no.25.23. Formerly

Lady Ludlow, London; Edsel Ford,

Detroit. Erdmann 1970, p.62, fig.63;

Herrmann 1987, pp.49, 105 (cited).

(3) The Aynard animal design silk

Kashan rug. 168 x 234cm. Carpet

Museum, Tehran. Formerly Edouard

Aynard Collection, Lyon; David

Rockefeller Jr. Collection, New

York. Erdmann 1970, p.62 (cited);

HALI 2/2, 1979, p.99, fig.8; Herr-

mann 1987, pp.49, 105 (cited).

(4) The Hakki Bey/Peytel animal

design silk Kashan rug. 109 x

124cm. Musée du Louvre, Paris,

no.6741, acquired in 1919. Form-

erly Hakki Bey Collection; Joanny

Peytel Collection. Sarre & Trenk-

wald, vol.II, pl.40; Erdmann 1970,

p.188, fig.233; King & Sylvester,

p.92, no.66; Herrmann 1987, pp.49,

105 (cited); Susan Day, ‘“Chinois-

erie” in Islamic Carpet Design’,

HALI 48, 1989, pp.38-45, p.39.

46 Dimand & Mailey, p.53.

47 The Kelekian Niche Rug. Kashan

(?), probably 1560s. 110 x 160cm,

wool pile on a silk foundation, with

metal thread. Private collection,

Turin. Formerly Topkapı Palace, Ist-

anbul; Kelekian Collection, Istanbul;

Brauer Collection, Florence; Julius

Böhler, Munich; Bacri Frères, Paris;

The Textile Gallery, London. Pub-

lished: Martin 1908, p.53, fig.132;

Sarre & Martin 1912, vol.I, no.61,

pl.83; Migeon 1927, vol.II, p.379,

fig.454; London 1931, p.225,

no.523; Pope 1938-39, pl.1166;

Franses & Bennett 1986, pp.16-19,

pl.VIII; Franses 1999, p.83, pl.2. C-

14 dating: 1454-1641 AD.

Structure analysis: Warp – silk,

Z-spun, 2S ply, ivory. Weft – silk,

Z-spun, unplied, dyed yellow, 3

shoots. Pile – wool, Z-spun, 2 ply,

asymmetric knots pulled to the

left, 8,400 per dm2. Metal brocad-

ing – areas of rug left unknotted

and wrapped in silver thread with

a silk core. Colours – 13 (magenta,

rose, beige, orange, two greens,

two blues, two yellows, light

green-blue, ivory, corroded-black).

48 At the home of Vojtech Blau.

49 In the 1990s I was also able to

compare the Rothschild ‘Salting’

rug now in the Khalili Collection

side-by-side with the London Arda-

bil medallion carpet and two frag-

ments from the border of the Los

Angeles carpet. The similarities in

weave and colours are so great

that I am inclined to attribute these

carpets to the same workshop.

50 Mills 1999; Franses 1999.

51. Two 16th century wool pile

rugs with metal thread from

central Iran:

(1) The Enzenberg palmette and

arabesque Esfahan carpet. 178 x

370cm, wool pile on a silk and

cotton foundation with metal

thread. Thyssen-Bornemisza Family

Collection, no.DEC0458. Formerly

Count Arthur Enzenberg Collection,

Vienna; Dr W. von Dirksen Collec-

tion, Berlin; Countess de Béarn

Collection, Paris, Marquis de Ganay

Collection, Paris; Rosenberg &

Stiebel, Paris. Published: A. Von

Scala et al., Katalog der Ausstel-

lung Orientalischer Teppiche, im

K.K.Österr. Handels-Museum, 1891,

Vienna 1891, no.355, illus. p.273

(detail); Martin 1908, p.73, fig.168;

Bode & Kühnel 1922, p.21, fig.31

(detail); Migeon 1927, p.380; Kurt

Erdmann, review of ‘Arazzi e Tap-

peti Antichi. Mercedes e Vittorio

Viale. Rezension’, Ars Orientalis, II,

pp.571-89, 1957, p.577, note 2

(cited); May H. Beattie, The Thys-

sen-Bornemisza Collection of Ori-

ental Rugs, Castagnola 1972,

pp.41-5, pl.IV (with structure ana-

lysis); Friedrich Spuhler, The Thys-

sen-Bornemisza Collection, Carpets

and Textiles, London 1998, pp.100-

3, no.20 (with structure analysis).

(2) The Santa Clara medallion and

vine scroll rug. 152 x 215.5cm,

wool pile on a silk and cotton

foundation. Museu Nacional de

Machado de Castro, no.T.746.

Formerly Convent of Santa Clara,

Coimbra. Teresa Pacheco Pereira &

Jessica Hallett, The Oriental

Carpet in Portugal, Carpets and

Paintings, 15th-18th Centuries,

Lisbon 2007, pp.92, 178, no.25

(with structure analysis).

52 Cyrus was first King of Anshan,

and then became King of Persia

(546-529 BC). The first recorded

‘garden’ is Eden – whether and

where it existed or not has never

been proven. The second great

historical garden, the so-called

Hanging Gardens of Babylon

(Shu-anna, Semiramis, Tintir), was

reportedly built by King Nebuchad-

nezzar in about 600 BC, but its

exact site and size have never

been determined. The gardens of

Babylon would have pre-dated

Pasargadae by about sixty years.

53 The term was taken up by Pope

(1938-39, pp.2263-5) to describe,

according to Ellis (1988, p.163),

“the carpets in which woods and

covers abound in game of all sorts

to be hunted, streams and springs

never run dry, and trees and shrubs

never lose their blossoms”.

54 George Rawlinson, The Seven

Great Monarchies Of The Ancient

Eastern World, vol.7: The Sassan-

ian or New Persian Empire.

55 Seven Iranian ‘Paradise Park’

carpets from the 16th century:

(1) The Schwarzenberg ‘Paradise

Park’ carpet 1. Central Iran, circa

1550. 257 x 517cm, wool pile on a

silk and cotton foundation. Acqu-

ired by th MIAQ in 2003 through

Galerie Sanct Lucas, Vienna, and

The Textile Gallery, London. Form-

erly Prince Adolf Schwarzenberg,

Vienna; Prince Charles Schwarz-

enberg Collection, Vienna, no.3.

Von Scala et al. 1891, p.260,

no.322 (cited); A. von Scala et al.,

Orientalische Teppiche, Vienna

1892, no.41, pl.XXXI; Wilhelm

Bode, Vorderasiatische Knüpftep-

piche aus Älterer Zeit, Leipzig [n.d.],

fig.19 (detail); Martin 1908, p.38,

fig.92; Sarre & Martin, vol.I, pl.45,

no.4 (with structure analysis);

PERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETSPERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETS

HALI ISSUE 155 3029 HALI ISSUE 155

pls.VII-XII, Dacca 1966, pl.VIII;

Erwin Gans-Rueden, Iranian Car-

pets, Art, Craft and History, Fribourg

1978, pp.146-7 (with structure ana-

lysis); Michael Franses, ‘Some Wool

Pile Persian-Design Niche Rugs’, in

Eiland & Pinner 1999, p.80, fig.7.

(2) The Chihil Sutun niche rug with-

out medallion. 100 x 139cm. Car-

pet Museum, Tehran. Formerly

Chihil Sutun Palace, Esfahan. Erd-

mann 1966, pl.VII; Gans-Ruedin

1978, pp.148-9 (with structure

analysis); Franses 1999, p.80, fig.8.

It is said, without any firm evid-

ence, that the pair of medallion

and cartouche Tabriz carpets that

passed through Beghian in London

(Museum für angewandte Kunst,

Vienna, no.T.10211, Angela Völker,

Die Orientalischen Knüpfteppiche

im MAK, Vienna 2001, no.90;

Eberhart Herrmann, Emmetten,

HALI 61, 1992, pp.66-7) had once

come from the Ottoman Sultan

Selim I, who acquired them from

the Blue Mosque in Tabriz.

26 Three classical Tabriz carpets

in Istanbul:

(1) Section from the Katif Muslihidd

saf. 270 x 430cm, wool pile on a

cotton foundation. Turkish & Islamic

Arts Museum, Istanbul, no.105.

Possibly donated by Shah Tahmasp

to the Great Süleyman Mosque,

Istanbul, 1567; Katif Muslihidd

Mosque, Istanbul. Erwin Gans-

Ruedin, Indian Carpets, London

1984, pp.110-11; Day 1996, p.141,

no.112; Franses 1999, p.75, fig.1a.

(2) The Istanbul Tabriz spirals and

medallion carpet. Reduced in length.

Turkish & Islamic Arts Museum,

Istanbul. Unpublished.

(3) The Topkapı Tabriz cartouche

and medallion carpet. Approx. 300

x 700cm, reduced, with two holes

cut out for pillars. Whereabouts

unknown (seen by Kurt Erdmannin

a room in the harem in the mid-

1930s). Formerly Topkapı Palace

Museum, Istanbul. Christine Klose,

‘A Clarification: The Topkapı Harem

and the Vienna Medallion and Car-

touche Carpets’, HALI 64, 1992,

p.97, fig.2 (with structure analysis).

27 It is not clear whether the car-

pets were acquired by Anselm von

Rothschild in the 1860s and 1870s,

or by his three surviving sons,

Nathaniel, Albert and Ferdinand.

Ferdinand and Nathaniel both died

childless, Ferdinand shared his

collection between Waddesdon

Manor in England and the British

Museum, while Nathaniel’s passed

to Albert, re-uniting a major part of

the collection. Albert died in 1911

and his collections passed to his

sons Alphonse, Louis and Eugene.

28 Christie’s, London, 8 July 1999,

lot 188.

29 Ziegler & Co. was a British firm

of Swiss origin. Their first offices

in Tabriz were for the import of

goods produced in Manchester.

They had difficulty remitting their

revenue back to England, so in

1883 began manufacturing carpets

in Arak (Sultanabad) that could be

exported back to England. Soon

Ziegler controlled 2,500 looms in

Sultanabad and had a near mono-

poly for almost twenty years.

30 Ardabil is situated in northwest

Iran, in the heart of Azarbayjan

Province, not far from the border

with the Transcaucasus region; the

Caspian Sea lies some 60 kilo-

metres to the east and the provin-

cial capital Tabriz lies about 200

kilometres to the southwest. The

Safavids spoke Azeri, a Turkic

tongue, but their origins as Turkic

people of pure Aryan (Iranian) stock

are much disputed. They traced

their origins back to Ardabil in the

early 11th century, in order to estab-

lish the descent of the Safavid

house from the 7th Shia Imam,

Musa al-Kazim, and through him

to Ali, the first Imam. It was on this

basis that in Tabriz in 1501 the first

Safavid Shah, Ismail, declared his

right to rule Iran, but the official

Safavid genealogy was only written

in the mid-14th century and con-

tains inconsistencies. See Roger

Savory, Iran Under the Safavids,

Cambridge 1980, chapter 1.

31 See note 17 above, nos.3-4.

32 The Yerkes Ardabil Shrine animal

carpet. Probably Kashan, central

Iran, mid-16th century. 178 x

333cm, wool pile on a silk found-

ation. Metropolitan Museum of

Art, New York, no.10.61.2, pur-

chased at the Yerkes auction in

1910 (Frederick C. Hewitt Fund).

Reportedly from the Shrine of

Shaikh Safi at Ardabil; Ziegler &

Co., Manchester; Vincent Robin-

son & Co., London; Charles T.

Yerkes Collection, New York.

Published: Mumford 1910, pl.XVIII;

American Art Association, New

York, The Charles T. Yerkes Collec-

tion, 5 to 9 April 1910, lot 216

(Mumford assumed that this car-

pet, and its pair in the the Sarre

collection (published by Stebbing)

were one and the same); Wilhelm

Valentiner, Catalogue of a Loan

Exhibition of Early Oriental Rugs,

New York, 1910, no.25; Walter A.

Hawley, Oriental Rugs, Antique

and Modern, New York 1913, pl.14;

Wilhelm von Bode & Ernst Kühnel,

Vorderasiatische Knüpfteppiche

aus Älterer Zeit, Leipzig 1922, fig.85;

Friedrich Sarre, Ardabil, Berlin 1924,

pp.26-7 (cited); Sarre & Trenkwald,

vol.II, pl.38; Maurice Dimand, Hand-

book of Mohammedan Decorative

Arts, New York 1930, fig.192; Lon-

don 1931, no.99 (cited); Pope 1938-

39, pl.1177; Chicago 1947, no.17

(details); Ignace Schlosser, The

Book of Rugs, New York 1963,

p.125, no.46 (detail); Dimand &

Mailey, pp.100-1, no.11, p.52,

fig.75; Erdmann 1970, p.183

(detail); Gigi Pagnano, L’Arte del

Tappeto Orientale ed Europeo,

Busto Arsizio 1983, fig.215; Dimand

& Mailey, pp.100-1, no.11, p.52,

fig.75: King 1996, p.90, fig.3; Farn-

ham 1998, pp.75-87, p.82, fig.16..

33 The Sarre Ardabil Shrine

animal carpet 2. Probably Kashan,

central Iran, mid-16th century. 183

x 354cm, wool pile on a silk foun-

dation. MIAQ, no.CA43, acquired in

2002 through Grogan & Co., Bos-

ton, and The Textile Gallery, London.

Reputedly from the Shrine of

Shaikh Safi, Ardabil; Ziegler & Co.,

Manchester; Vincent Robinson &

Co., London; Baron Adolph Thiem,

Berlin; Friedrich Sarre Collection,

Berlin; Mrs John D. Rockefeller,

New York; private collection, New

York. Published: Edward Stebbing,

The Holy Carpet of the Mosque at

Ardebil, attached to the publication

of A Paper on Persian Carpets, read

at the Meeting of the Art Workers’

Guild, December, 1891, together

with A List of Carpets in the Col-

lection of Vincent Robinson and

Co., London 1892, no.3, pp.19-20,

(no mention is made of this carpet

coming from the Ardabil Shrine);

Edward Stebbing, The Holy Carpet

of the Mosque at Ardebil, London

1893, large format plates edition,

pl.4; Gaston Migeon, Exposition

des Arts Musulmans au Musée

des Arts Décoratifs, Paris 1903,

pl.79 (detail); A. von Scala, Wilhelm

Bode & Friedrich Sarre, Ancient

Oriental Carpets, Leipzig 1908, pl.7;

Friedrich Sarre, Altorientalische

Teppiche, Leipzig 1908, pl.VII;

Friedrich Sarre, ‘Ardabil’, in Die

Denkmäler Persischer Baukunst,

Berlin 1910, vol.I, p.44, fig.45 (‘Teil

eines angeblich aus der Moschee

des Schech Safi in Ardabil stam-

menden Knüpfteppichs, im Besitz

von F. Sarre in Berlin’); Ausstellung

München 1910. Ausstellung von

Meisterwerken Muhammedan-

ischer Kunst [carpets catalogued

by Friedrich Sarre], Munich 1910,

p.18, no.7, R.24 (cited); Wilhelm

Bode, Anciens Tapis d’Orient, Paris

1911, fig.27 (detail); Friedrich Sarre

& F.R. Martin (eds.), Ausstellung

von Meisterwerken Muhammed-

anischer Kunst in München 1910,

Munich 1912, vol.4, no.7; Friedrich

Sarre, Ardabil, Berlin 1924 (revised

reprint of Sarre 1910), pp.26-8,

fig.23; Gaston Migeon, Manuel

d’Art Musulman, Vol.2, Arts Plas-

tiques et Industriels, Paris 1927,

pp.372-4, p.370, fig.450 (detail);

Jens Kröger, ‘Paris-Berlin-Lisbon.

Several carpets and exhibtions of

carpets in the late nineteenth and

early twentieth centuries’, in Gilles

2004, pp.58-63, p.59, fig.1. Struc-

ture: Warp – silk, Z2S, ivory, 176

per dm, fairly depressed. Weft –

silk, Z singles, 1 yarn used together,

ivory, 3 sheds per weft break,

weft break count 88 per dm. Pile –

wool, asymmetric knots open on

left, 7,744 per dm2. Colours – 13

(ivory, yellow, golden orange, pink,

magenta, blue, navy, green, fawn

and brown-black). Some of the

flowers in the field and border are

of silk-cored metal thread inter-

lacing (plainweave).

34 As well as the two Ardabil

carpets, the exhibition included

about twenty others from the firm

and two belonging to Mr J.E. Taylor.

The following year the text was re-

published by private subscription as

a folio edition of 50 copies .

35 It is surprising that Vincent

Robinson did not include any of

these four carpets in the second

of his two folio editions. The first

volume (Robinson 1882), contains

some superb historical carpets,

including: one of a pair of early

compartment carpets (see note 14

above, no.2), and a 16th century

medallion and animal rug, both in

the Metropolitan Museum of Art;

a 16th century silk-foundation rug

from central Iran; a 17th century

‘Polonaise’ rug from Esfahan; and

the famous 17th century Mughal

Indian Fremling carpet in the Vict-

oria & Albert Museum. The second

volume (Vincent Robinson, East-

ern Carpets, Twelve Early Exam-

ples (Second Series), London

1893) includes the famous mid-

16th century Robinson-Sangiorgi

carpet (Pope 1938-39, pl.1179).

36 Rexford Stead, The Ardabil

Carpets, Malibu 1974, p.36. How-

ever, it is possible that the Robin-

son employee was talking about

the Robinson-Yerkes-Frick Mughal

shrub carpet, which may have

come from Mashad: some impor-

tant Mughal lattice carpets left the

Shrine in Mashad and are now in

Western collections. In Gardens of

Eternal Spring, New York 2006,

Steven Cohen goes to great lengths

to uncover the provenance of the

Frick Mughal Tree carpet, querying

Sarre’s ownership of the larger

section that was with Robinson.

Thomas Farnham and I believe

that Sarre may have acquired the

Tree carpet from Robinson and

returned it to him after 1901,

when Yerkes was in London

buying carpets.

37 Stead, p.37, quoting William

Richard Holmes, who described

the Shrine in 1845.

38 King 1996, pp.88-92, and p.116.

The discussion of their source

was set out by Martin Weaver,

‘The Ardebil Puzzle’, in Textile

Museum Journal, XXIII, 1984,

pp.43-51. Doubts were also raised

by A H. Morton, ‘Carpets at

Ardebil in the 18th century,’ in

Oriental Art, xxiii, 1977, pp.470-1.

Accounts written in 1842 by the

then British Consul in Tabriz, Keith

Edward Abbott (Narrative of a

Journey from Tabriz along the

Shores of the Caspian Sea, 1843,

unpublished MS, London, Public

Records Office, FO 251/40, p. 32),

and William Richard Holmes

(Sketches of the shores of the

Caspian Sea, London, 1845, p.37),

leave little doubt that they saw at

least one magnificent carpet in

terrible condition bearing the same

date as the Ardabil. The account

given by Heinrich Jacoby in How

to know Oriental Carpets and

Rugs, London 1962, pp.27-28

(originally ABC des echten Tep-

pichs, 1949), is convincing.

39 In 1910, Mumford published

the folio edition of the collection

of carpets belonging to the dis-

graced businessman Charles Tyson

Yerkes, who had died five years

earlier. The text from Mumford’s

volume of hand-painted illustrat-

ions was used for the American

Art Association auction catalogue

on 8 April 1910. Farnham 1998,

p.80, tells us that “Edward Robin-

son, the assistant director of the

Metropolitan Museum, and his

colleague Wilhelm Valentiner att-

ended the sale. They arrived with

money to spend. Just a week

before the auction, Valentiner wrote

to his friend and mentor Wilhelm

von Bode [at the Berlin Museum],

to inform him about the Metro-

politan’s plans… (to spend) some

100,000 of dollars to purchase some

of the most beautiful carpets.”

40 Valentiner, p.31.

41 “Rockefeller purchased [the Ard-

abil carpet] through Arthur Upham

Pope in November 1925. Initially

John D., Jr. agreed to pay $40,000

for the carpet plus $2,000 for rep-

airing it and $5,000 to $10,000 in

import duties. (At the time the

United States imposed a 55% ad

valorem tariff on all carpets impor-

ted into the country. How Rocke-

feller thought he could get away

with paying less than $22,000 is

something I do not understand.)

The repairs were done in Paris by

Meurdoch Indjoudjian’s restorers.

The work took until June 1926 and

cost approximately $7,000. When

the carpet finally arrived in New

York, the Customs Officials

presented JDR, Jr. with a bill for

$22,083.25. He calculated the final

cost of the carpet, including Pope’s

commission, to be $75,000.”

Thomas J. Farnham, private

communication, 12 March 2008.

42 Vojtech Blau.

43 Stebbing, pl.4.

44. Sarre 1908, pl.VII.

45 Small silk Kashan animal rugs:

(1) The Princezza animal design

silk Kashan rug. 178 x 238cm.

Metropolitan Museum of Art, New

York, no.14.40.721. Formerly Prince

Princezza Collection; Edouard Chap-

pey Collection; Benjamin Altman

Collection, New York. Galerie

Georges Petit, Paris, 7 June 1907,

lot 1912; Sarre & Trenkwald, vol.II,

pl.39; Pope 1938-39, pl.1199; Erd-

mann 1970, p.62, fig.62; Dimand

& Mailey, pp.101-2, 142-3, no.13,

fig.79; Eberhart Herrmann, ‘A

Great Discovery’, HALI 36, 1987,

pp.48-51, 105-6, pp.49, 105 (cited);

Daniel Walker, ‘Metropolitan Quar-

tet’, HALI 76, 1994, pp.104-107,

pp.104, 120, pl.1.

(2) The Ludlow animal design silk

Kashan rug. 175 x 232cm. Detroit

Institute of Art, no.25.23. Formerly

Lady Ludlow, London; Edsel Ford,

Detroit. Erdmann 1970, p.62, fig.63;

Herrmann 1987, pp.49, 105 (cited).

(3) The Aynard animal design silk

Kashan rug. 168 x 234cm. Carpet

Museum, Tehran. Formerly Edouard

Aynard Collection, Lyon; David

Rockefeller Jr. Collection, New

York. Erdmann 1970, p.62 (cited);

HALI 2/2, 1979, p.99, fig.8; Herr-

mann 1987, pp.49, 105 (cited).

(4) The Hakki Bey/Peytel animal

design silk Kashan rug. 109 x

124cm. Musée du Louvre, Paris,

no.6741, acquired in 1919. Form-

erly Hakki Bey Collection; Joanny

Peytel Collection. Sarre & Trenk-

wald, vol.II, pl.40; Erdmann 1970,

p.188, fig.233; King & Sylvester,

p.92, no.66; Herrmann 1987, pp.49,

105 (cited); Susan Day, ‘“Chinois-

erie” in Islamic Carpet Design’,

HALI 48, 1989, pp.38-45, p.39.

46 Dimand & Mailey, p.53.

47 The Kelekian Niche Rug. Kashan

(?), probably 1560s. 110 x 160cm,

wool pile on a silk foundation, with

metal thread. Private collection,

Turin. Formerly Topkapı Palace, Ist-

anbul; Kelekian Collection, Istanbul;

Brauer Collection, Florence; Julius

Böhler, Munich; Bacri Frères, Paris;

The Textile Gallery, London. Pub-

lished: Martin 1908, p.53, fig.132;

Sarre & Martin 1912, vol.I, no.61,

pl.83; Migeon 1927, vol.II, p.379,

fig.454; London 1931, p.225,

no.523; Pope 1938-39, pl.1166;

Franses & Bennett 1986, pp.16-19,

pl.VIII; Franses 1999, p.83, pl.2. C-

14 dating: 1454-1641 AD.

Structure analysis: Warp – silk,

Z-spun, 2S ply, ivory. Weft – silk,

Z-spun, unplied, dyed yellow, 3

shoots. Pile – wool, Z-spun, 2 ply,

asymmetric knots pulled to the

left, 8,400 per dm2. Metal brocad-

ing – areas of rug left unknotted

and wrapped in silver thread with

a silk core. Colours – 13 (magenta,

rose, beige, orange, two greens,

two blues, two yellows, light

green-blue, ivory, corroded-black).

48 At the home of Vojtech Blau.

49 In the 1990s I was also able to

compare the Rothschild ‘Salting’

rug now in the Khalili Collection

side-by-side with the London Arda-

bil medallion carpet and two frag-

ments from the border of the Los

Angeles carpet. The similarities in

weave and colours are so great

that I am inclined to attribute these

carpets to the same workshop.

50 Mills 1999; Franses 1999.

51. Two 16th century wool pile

rugs with metal thread from

central Iran:

(1) The Enzenberg palmette and

arabesque Esfahan carpet. 178 x

370cm, wool pile on a silk and

cotton foundation with metal

thread. Thyssen-Bornemisza Family

Collection, no.DEC0458. Formerly

Count Arthur Enzenberg Collection,

Vienna; Dr W. von Dirksen Collec-

tion, Berlin; Countess de Béarn

Collection, Paris, Marquis de Ganay

Collection, Paris; Rosenberg &

Stiebel, Paris. Published: A. Von

Scala et al., Katalog der Ausstel-

lung Orientalischer Teppiche, im

K.K.Österr. Handels-Museum, 1891,

Vienna 1891, no.355, illus. p.273

(detail); Martin 1908, p.73, fig.168;

Bode & Kühnel 1922, p.21, fig.31

(detail); Migeon 1927, p.380; Kurt

Erdmann, review of ‘Arazzi e Tap-

peti Antichi. Mercedes e Vittorio

Viale. Rezension’, Ars Orientalis, II,

pp.571-89, 1957, p.577, note 2

(cited); May H. Beattie, The Thys-

sen-Bornemisza Collection of Ori-

ental Rugs, Castagnola 1972,

pp.41-5, pl.IV (with structure ana-

lysis); Friedrich Spuhler, The Thys-

sen-Bornemisza Collection, Carpets

and Textiles, London 1998, pp.100-

3, no.20 (with structure analysis).

(2) The Santa Clara medallion and

vine scroll rug. 152 x 215.5cm,

wool pile on a silk and cotton

foundation. Museu Nacional de

Machado de Castro, no.T.746.

Formerly Convent of Santa Clara,

Coimbra. Teresa Pacheco Pereira &

Jessica Hallett, The Oriental

Carpet in Portugal, Carpets and

Paintings, 15th-18th Centuries,

Lisbon 2007, pp.92, 178, no.25

(with structure analysis).

52 Cyrus was first King of Anshan,

and then became King of Persia

(546-529 BC). The first recorded

‘garden’ is Eden – whether and

where it existed or not has never

been proven. The second great

historical garden, the so-called

Hanging Gardens of Babylon

(Shu-anna, Semiramis, Tintir), was

reportedly built by King Nebuchad-

nezzar in about 600 BC, but its

exact site and size have never

been determined. The gardens of

Babylon would have pre-dated

Pasargadae by about sixty years.

53 The term was taken up by Pope

(1938-39, pp.2263-5) to describe,

according to Ellis (1988, p.163),

“the carpets in which woods and

covers abound in game of all sorts

to be hunted, streams and springs

never run dry, and trees and shrubs

never lose their blossoms”.

54 George Rawlinson, The Seven

Great Monarchies Of The Ancient

Eastern World, vol.7: The Sassan-

ian or New Persian Empire.

55 Seven Iranian ‘Paradise Park’

carpets from the 16th century:

(1) The Schwarzenberg ‘Paradise

Park’ carpet 1. Central Iran, circa

1550. 257 x 517cm, wool pile on a

silk and cotton foundation. Acqu-

ired by th MIAQ in 2003 through

Galerie Sanct Lucas, Vienna, and

The Textile Gallery, London. Form-

erly Prince Adolf Schwarzenberg,

Vienna; Prince Charles Schwarz-

enberg Collection, Vienna, no.3.

Von Scala et al. 1891, p.260,

no.322 (cited); A. von Scala et al.,

Orientalische Teppiche, Vienna

1892, no.41, pl.XXXI; Wilhelm

Bode, Vorderasiatische Knüpftep-

piche aus Älterer Zeit, Leipzig [n.d.],

fig.19 (detail); Martin 1908, p.38,

fig.92; Sarre & Martin, vol.I, pl.45,

no.4 (with structure analysis);

PERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETSPERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETS

HALI ISSUE 155 3231 HALI ISSUE 155

Bode 1911, fig.19 (detail); Carl Hopf,

Die Altpersischen Teppiche, Munich

1913, p.21, fig.28; A.F. Kendrick &

C.E.C. Tattersall, Hand-Woven Car-

pets, Oriental and European, Lon-

don 1922, p.23; Bode/Kühnel 1922,

pp.14-15, fig.13 (detail); Heinrich

Glück & Ernst Diez, Die Kunst des

Islams, Berlin 1925, p.376; Sarre &

Trenkwald, pl.21 (detail, with struc-

ture analysis); Migeon 1927, p.366

(cited); Julius Orendi, Das Gesamt-

wissen über antike und neue Tep-

piche des Orients, Vienna 1930,

vol.II, p.159, fig.805; London 1931

(see note 13 above), no.138 (cited);

Pope 1938-39, pl.1203; Bode/Küh-

nel 1958/1970, fig.69; Schlosser,

p.118, no.38 (detail); Pinder-Wilson

et al., pp.98-9, no.59 (with struc-

ture analysis); Ellis 1988, p.165,

fig.48a; Murray L. Eiland., ‘Rethink-

ing Kerman, A New Look at Some

Safavid Carpets’, HALI 100, 1998,

pp.98-103, p.99. Structure analysis:

Warp – cotton, Z5S, 138 per dm,

blue, depressed. Weft – silk, pos-

sibly very slightly Z spun singles,

1 yarn used together, beige, 3

sheds per weft break, weft break

count 72 per dm. Pile – wool, Z

singles, 2 yarns used together,

asymmetric knots open on left,

4,900 per dm2. Colours – 10 (off

white, light orange, orange, mag-

enta, pink, light blue, mid blue,

navy, green and brown-black).

Ends – top, 1cm band of magenta

silk singles (like those used for the

selvedge) weft-faced interlacing

(plainweave); bottom, 1cm band of

beige silk singles (like those used

for weft) weft-faced interlacing

(plainweave). Selvedge (left side

only) – attached selvedge

comprising 2 warp units (1 free

floating blue cotton cord and 1

integral cotton cord) overcast with

beige and magenta silk singles.

(2) The Mantes ‘Paradise Park’

carpet. 379 x 783cm. Musée du

Louvre, Paris, no.OA6610, wool

pile on a cotton foundation. Form-

erly Collegiale de Mantes, acquired

in 1912. Gaston Migeon, Musée

du Louvre, L’Orient Musulman,

Paris 1922, vol.I, no.125; Sarre &

Trenkwald, vol.II, pls.31, 32 (details,

with structure analysis); Pope 1938-

39, p.2292 and pl.1127; Eiland,

pp.101-2, fig.7 (detail); Musée du

Louvre, Arabesques et Jardins de

Paradis, Paris 1989, p.245, no.187

(with structure analysis); Sabancı

2008, pp.200-1, no.81 (detail).

(3) The Stieglitz ‘Paradise Park’ car-

pet. 262 x 251cm, upper half.

State Hermitage Museum, St

Petersburg, no.vt-994. Formerly

Stieglitz Collection. Published;

Sarre & Trenkwald, vol.II, pl.21

(cited); London 1931, no.255;

Pope 1938-39, pp.2308, 2385,

pl.1204; Ernst Kühnel, ‘Ein neuer-

worbener Persischer Tierteppich’,

in Berliner Museen, Berichte aus

den ehemaligen Preussischen

Kunstsammlungen, 1957, p.8, ill.4;

May H. Beattie, Carpets of Central

Persia, Sheffield 1976, pp.34-5,

no.1a (with structure analysis); Ellis

1988, fig.48b (detail) and p.164,

note 5; Eiland, p.100, fig.4 (detail);

HALI 153, 2007, p.38.

(4) The Mackay ‘cranes’ medallion

coronation carpet. 570 x 816cm,

wool pile on a cotton and wool

foundation. Los Angeles County

Museum of Art, no.49.8. Formerly

private collection, USA; Clarence

Mackay, Long Island; John Paul

Getty, Malibu. Published: Sarre &

Trenkwald, vol.II, pl.27 (detail, with

structure analysis); London 1931,

no.116 (cited); Pope 1938-39,

pl.1128; Bode/Kühnel 1958/1970,

p.103, fig.71; Dimand & Mailey,

pp.42-3, fig.65; Pinder-Wilson et

al., p.99, fig.60 (with structure

analysis); Day 1996, pp.128-9,

pl.100 (detail). Reportedly laid out

in front of the throne in Westmin-

ster Abbey, London, for the coron-

ation ceremony of King Edward VII

in August 1902.

(5) The Von Bode ‘Paradise Park’

carpet. 365 x 604cm originally, but

badly damaged in World War II –

less than a quarter now remains.

Museum of Islamic Art, Berlin,

no.I.1. Formerly Wilhelm von Bode,

acquired from a synagogue in

Genoa around 1890. Published

Martin 1908, p.33, fig.85; Bode/

Kühnel 1922, fig.12 (detail); Migeon

1927, pp.359-60, fig.442; Erdmann

1970, p.126, fig.151 (detail); Ellis

1988, p.164, note 7 (cited).

(6) The Hatvany ‘Paradise Park’

carpet. (a) 191 x 211cm. Where-

abouts unknown. Possibly Applied

Arts Museum, Budapest, subse-

quently lost during World War II.

Formerly Baron Ferenc Hatvany,

Budapest. Pope 1938-39, pl.1141;

Charles Grant Ellis, ‘Some Com-

partment Designs for Carpets, and

Herat’, in Textile Museum Journal,

I/4, 1965, pp.42-56, p.47, fig.8 and

p.55, notes 18, 22 and 23; Erdmann

1970, p.74, fig.82; HALI 30, 1986,

p.37; Day 1996, p.126, pl.98.

(b) ‘Angel’ section, 38 x 101cm,

and six or more field and border

sections, wool pile on a silk foun-

dation. Brooklyn Museum, New

York, no.36.213. Gift of Mrs Her-

bert L. Pratt in 1936. Formerly

Stefano Bardini, Florence; Charles

T. Yerkes Collection, New York;

Cottier & Co.; Mr and Mrs Herbert

L. Pratt. Published: Mumford 1910,

pl.VII; American Art Association

1910, lot 205; Valentiner, p.35,

no.28; Ellis 1965, pp.48 and 50,

fig.11, and p.55, note 24; Erdmann

1970, pp.74 and 176, fig.220; King

& Sylvester, p.89, no.63; Ian Ben-

nett, ‘Splendours in the City of Silk,

part 2: Ten Safavid Masterpieces’,

HALI 33, 1987, p.40, fig.1; HALI

88, 1996, p.107; Farnham 1998,

p.86, fig.25 and note 44; Thomas

J. Farnham, ‘Bardini, Classical

Carpets, and America’, HALI 119,

2001, p.77, fig.6. (c) 44 x 63cm,

corner section. Musée Historique

des Tissus, Lyon, no.26.799, acq-

uired in 1900. Formerly S. Baron,

Paris. Ellis 1965, pp.48-9, fig.10

and p.55, note 24 (with structure

analysis); Erdmann 1970, p.176

(cited); Bennett 1987, part 2, p.40,

pl.1, and note 4 (with structure

analysis). (d) 43 x 17cm. Wher Col-

lection. Formerly Dikran Kelekian,

New York; John Schorscher, Tor-

onto; The Textile Gallery, London.

Ladislav Cselenyi, Oriental Rugs

from the Collection of John Schor-

scher, Toronto 1972, supplement.

(7) The Maciet Paris-Cracow

medallion and trees carpet. (a) 410

x 350cm, top half. Musée des Arts

Décoratifs, Paris, no.10614. For-

merly Jules Maciet. Published:

Martin 1908, p.36, fig.93 (detail);

Friedrich Sarre, ‘Die Teppiche auf

der Mohammedanischen Ausstel-

lung in München 1910’, Kunst und

Kunsthandwerk, XIII, 1910, pl.XVIII

(with structure analysis); Migeon

1927, pp.359-60, fig.442; Pope

1938-39, pl.1140; Bode/Kühnel

1958/1970, p.102, fig.70; Ellis 1965,

pp.46-7, figs.7, 7a; Erdmann 1970,

p.93, fig.103 and p.177; HALI 48,

1989, p.51 (detail); Day 1996, p.127,

pl.99; James Allan et al., Hunt for

Paradise, Court Arts of Safavid

Iran, 1501-1576, New York 2003,

p.302, no.2.22; Susan Day, ‘A Con-

noisseur and a Gentleman, Jules

Maciet and the Musée des Arts

Décoratifs’, HALI 153, 2007, p.101,

fig.13; Sabancı 2008, p.198, no.79.

(b) 440 x 307cm, lower half.

Treasury of Cracow Cathedral (on

loan to Wawel Royal Castle), don-

ated by King Jan Sobieski III, who

captured it at the Battle of Parkany

in 1683. Sarre 1910, pl.VIII, no.8

(with structure analysis); Erdmann

1970, p.177 (cited); Gans-Ruedin

1978, pp.44-5 (with structure

analysis); Day 1996, p.127 (cited);

Tadeusz Majda, Arcydziela Sztuki

Perskiej ze Zbiorów Polskich,

Warsaw 2002, p.90, no.36 (with

structure analysis).

56 The Schwarzenberg is missing

the outer guard border on one

side, but is otherwise complete.

57 An exception is the in the

medallion of the Hatvany carpet,

which depicts a scene with figures.

58 Day 1996, p.128.

59 Other carpets related to the

Schwarzenberg carpet:

(1) The Anhalt medallion and cloud-

bands carpet. 412 x 802cm. Met-

ropolitan Museum of Art, New

York, no.46.128, Gift of Samuel H.

Kress Foundation, through Rush

H. Kress. Formerly Duke of Anhalt,

Dessau (reputedly captured at the

siege of Vienna, 1683); Sir Joseph

Duveen, New York; Samuel H.

Kress; Rush H. Kress. Published:

Persian Art, An Illustrated Souvenir

of the Exhibition of Persian Art at

Burlington House London 1931,

London 1931, p.90, no.850; Pope

1938-39, pls.1137-9 (details); Bode/

Kühnel 1958/1970, p.91, fig.60;

Dimand & Mailey, p.48, pp.98-9,

no.7, pp.136-7, fig.69 (with detail);

King & Sylvester, p.88, fig.62;

Gans-Ruedin 1978, pp.42-3 (detail,

with structure analysis).

(2) The Fossati ‘Darius of the

Universe’ medallion carpet. 227

x 505cm, wool pile with metal

brocade on a silk foundation. Poldi

Pezzoli Museum, Milan, no.424.

Formerly Giovanni Fossati; Gian

Giacomo Poldi Pezzoli, acquired at

auction in 1855. Martin 1908, p.47,

figs.118-9 and p.49; Sarre & Trenk-

wald, vol.II, pls.29, 30 (detail, with

structure analysis); Migeon 1927,

pp.369 and p.372, fig.449; Pope

1938-39, p.2324 and pl.1154 (detail);

Kurt Erdmann, ‘The Art of Carpet

Making’, in “A Survey of Persian

Art. Rezension”, Ars Islamica, VIII,

Ann Arbor 1941, pp.137, 162;

Bode/Kühnel 1958/1970, p.104,

fig.72; Gans-Ruedin 1978, pp.57-8

(with structure analysis); HALI 61,

1992, p.118; Day 1996, p.128, and

p.130, pl.101.

(3) The Kohner-Cassirer medallion

and animals carpet. 225 x 427cm,

wool pile on a cotton and wool

foundation. Museum of Islamic

Art, Berlin, no.I.7/56, acquired in

1956. Formerly Kohner Collection,

Budapest; Bernheimer Collection,

Munich; Adolf Cassirer, Berlin.

Published: Arthur Upham Pope

Catalogue of a Loan Exhibition of

Early Oriental Carpets, Chicago

1926, no.9; London 1931, no.255;

Pope 1938-39, pl.1204 (detail);

Bode/Kühnel 1955, p.100, fig.74;

Erdmann 1970, p.152, fig.195;

Beattie 1976, p.87, no.64; Spuhler

1988, pp.80, 220, pl.78 (with

structure analysis); Eiland, p.101.

(4) The Bardini-Williams medallion

and trees carpet. 515 x 415cm,

reduced in length, wool pile on a

cotton, wool and silk foundation.

Philadelphia Museum of Art,

Joseph Lees Williams Memorial

Collection, no.55-65-26. Formerly

Stefano Bardini, Florence; Indjou-

djian, Paris; M.F. Schutz, Paris;

Joseph Lees Williams, Norristown.

Martin 1908, p.36, fig.91; Pope

1938-39, pl.1129; Beattie 1976,

p.86, no.63; Ellis 1988, pp.160-7,

pl.48 (with details, and structure

analysis); Eiland, p.100, fig.3;

Farnham 2001, p.81, fig.15.

(5) The Chelsea medallions and

animals carpet. 315 x 541cm, wool

pile on a silk foundation. Victoria &

Albert Museum, London, no.589-

1890. Formerly art market, Chel-

sea, London; reputedly William

Morris, London. Martin 1908, p.33,

fig.86 (detail); Sarre & Trenkwald,

vol.II, pl.15 (with structure analy-

sis); Pope 1938-39, pp.2301-2, and

pls.1130-2; Bode/Kühnel

1958/1970, p.125, fig.89; Erdmann

1970, p.184, fig.231 (detail); Gans-

Ruedin 1978, pp.36-7 (detail, with

structure analysis); King & Sylves-

ter, p.30, fig.33; Day 1996, p.111,

fig.85 (detail); HALI 100, 1998,

front cover and p.4 (detail); Eiland,

p.103, fig.8.

(6a) The Martin strap-work border

fragment. Textile Museum, Wash-

ington DC, no.33.4.15. Formerly

F.R. Martin, Stockholm; Dikran

Kelekian Collection, Paris and New

York; George Hewitt Myers Collec-

tion, Washington DC. Martin 1908,

p.40, fig.101; Ellis 1965, p.42, fig.1.

(6b) The Schwaiger cartouche frag-

ment. Textile Museum, Washing-

ton DC, no.33.4.9. Formerly Imre

Schwaiger, London, 1927; George

Hewitt Myers Collection, Washing-

ton DC. Ellis 1965, p.43, fig.2.

(7/8) The Baron and Robinson

carpets. See note 14 above.

60 Very few exhibitions of classical

carpets have been based on shared

technical, material and aesthetic

characteristics that clearly identify

specific groups. Only four have

concentrated on specific classical

Persian types, ‘Polish Rugs’, Metro-

politan Museum of Art, New York,

1930; ‘Masterpieces of Iranian Rugs

and Textiles’, Textile Museum,

Washington DC, 1964; ‘Carpets of

Central Persia’ [Kerman], (Sheffield

1976, see Beattie 1976; and ‘Khor-

asan’ carpets (Textile Museum,

Washington DC, 2006, see Walker

2006). Other exhibitions of this

nature include: Cairene rugs, see

Ernst Kühnel & Lousia M. Bellin-

ger, Cairene Rugs and Others

Technically Related, Washington

DC 1957; Spanish rugs, see Ernst

Kühnel & Louisa M. Bellinger,

Catalogue of Spanish Rugs, 12th

to 19th Century, Washington DC

1953; Caucasian carpets, see

Charles Grant Ellis, Early Caucas-

ian Rugs, Washington DC 1975;

Mughal carpets, see Daniel Walker,

Flowers Underfoot, Indian Carpets

of the Mughal Era, New York 1997.

See also Pereira & Hallett 2007

(note 154 below), which included

a large group of Esfahan carpets.

61 Pope 1938-39 correctly attri-

butes the northwest Iranian medal-

lion carpets, pls.1112-1125, to

Tabriz, pls.1191-202 and 1262-5 to

Kashan, and pls.1206-14 to Kerman,

but it is hard to agree with some

of his other attributions.

62 The attribution of this group had

been much discussed over the

years, but it was not until the

Sheffield exhibition of 1976 and

May Beattie’s excellent catalogue

that the group was clearly assem-

bled. All but ten of the examples

in the catalogue were from Kerman.

Seven were correctly attributed to

other places: no.5, the Hakki Bey/

Peytel small silk Kashan rug; no.5a,

the Buccleuch Esfahan silk ‘Polon-

aise’ rug; no.6, the Doistau Louvre

silk Kashan kilim; no.8, the Figdor-

Thyssen silk Kashan kilim; no.48,

the Hewett Istanbul ‘fake’ vase

carpet; no.61, the Burrell fragment

of the Ardabil ‘Kashan’ medallion

carpet; and no.62, a ‘Tabriz’ border

fragment in the Keir Collection.

Three others were perhaps incor-

rectly attributed to Kerman: no.1a,

the Stieglitz ‘Paradise Park’ carpet;

no.63, the Bardini-Williams ‘Para-

dise Park’ carpet; and no.64, the

Cassirer hunting carpet.

63 See Franses 1993, pp.94-114,

‘The Caucasus or North-East Per-

sia: A Question of Attribution’, and

‘The Influences of Safavid Persian

Art upon an Ancient Tribal Culture’,

where the principal examples of

the group are clearly defined.

64 Erdmann 1970, pp.61-5.

65 This group has caused the most

difficulty because many of them

have long been confused with Herat

carpets, while others have been

confused with those from Tabriz.

66 Pope made attributions to other

specific places in Iran, including

Jawshaqan Qali, Yazd and Fars.

Many of the rugs he assigned to

Jawashaqan Qali are now correctly

reattributed to Kerman (Beattie

1976) and those assigned to Fars

Province in southwestern Iran

have been reattributed to Kashmir.

However, most of the rugs that he

mistakenly attributed to eastern

Iran were probably made in central

Iran, some perhaps in Esfahan.

67 Ellis 1988, pp.153-9, pl.47.

68 Ellis 1965, pp.46-9; Ellis 1988,

pp.164-5.

69 Eiland, proposing a ‘new’ type

for the fine weave carpets from

Kerman, in my opinion incorrectly

attributed several of the ‘Paradise

Park’ carpets and related examples

to Kerman, including the Schwarz-

enberg, the Mantes, and the Stieg-

litz, as well as the Bardini-Williams,

the Kohner-Cassirer and the Chel-

sea. He ignores Beattie’s observa-

tion that while “the border of the

Bardini-Williams carpet with its

reciprocal colour scheme... relates

to... the Schwarzenberg carpet...

and to the Chelsea”, all of them

are woven differently (Beattie 1976,

p.23). If Eiland were looking for

fine-weave ‘vase-group’ Kerman

carpets he might have considered

sickle-leaf pieces such as the Cor-

coran throne carpet, the Jekyll frag-

ments, the Remarque arabesque

and shrub fragment (see below, 1-

3), or any of the ‘Sanguszko’ type

carpets (ibid.; Ian Bennett & Mich-

ael Franses, ‘The Buccleuch Euro-

pean Carpets & Others in the Ori-

ental Style’, HALI 66, 1992, p.113).

Perhaps Eiland’s confusion arose

because Beattie had attributed

the Stieglitz and Bardini-Williams

carpets to Kerman (Beattie 1976,

pp.11-12, 34). I am not sure that

the Bardini-Williams is Kerman, as

the attribution is based on one

element of structure only, and it

has none of the stylistic features

of Kerman. The same can perhaps

be said for the Stieglitz, which I

last examined over 25 years ago.

Some Kerman sickle-leaf carpets:

(1) The Corcoran throne carpet.

195 x 265cm, wool pile. Corcoran

Gallery of Art, Washington DC,

no.26-278, on loan to The Textile

Museum, Washington DC. Form-

erly William A. Clark Collection.

See Pope 1938-39, p.2384, pl.1234;

Charles Grant Ellis, ‘Kirman’s Her-

itage in Washington: Vase Rugs in

the Textile Museum, in Textile Mus-

eum Journal, II/3, 1968, p.19, fig.2;

Dimand & Mailey, p.77, fig.107;

Beattie 1976, p.50, no.15, pl.6.

(2) The Jekyll sickle-leaf Kerman

carpet. (a) Wher Collection. 230 x

155cm. (b) Private collection,

London. 88 x 100cm. Formerly

Jekyll’s, London; Cartier Collection

(?), Paris; Bakadjian, Paris; The

Textile Gallery, London; Kirchheim

Collection, Stuttgart; The Textile

Gallery, London. Roland Gilles et

al., p.149.

(3) The Remarque arabesque and

shrubs fragment. 200 x 94cm,

section, wool pile on a cotton,

wool and silk foundation. Where-

abouts unknown. Formerly Eric

Maria Remarque; Paulette God-

dard Collection, Ascona; Eberhart

Herrmann, Munich; private col-

lection, Switzerland. See Soth-

eby’s, London, 18-19 November

1976, lot 14; Jean Lefevre, The

Persian Carpet, London, 1997,

pp.32-3, no.5. Exhibited: Paris,

Institut du Monde Arabe, 1989-94.

70 Two Kerman ‘Sanguszko’ car-

pets with strap-work medallions:

(1) Victoria & Albert Museum,

London. 268 x 516cm. Sarre 1908,

pl.XXII, no.25.

(2) The Béhague Sanguszko car-

pet. 275 x 509cm, wool pile on a

cotton and wool foundation. Thys-

sen-Bornemisza Collection, Lug-

ano, no.DEC0456. Formerly Coun-

tess de Béhague (de Béarn) Col-

lection, Paris; Marquis de Ganay

Collection, Paris; Rosenberg &

Stiebel, Paris. See Pope 1938-9,

pp.2349, 2353, 2451, pl.1210; Erd-

mann 1941, p.169; Beattie 1972,

pp.23-7, pl.II (with structure ana-

lysis); Beattie 1976, pp.36-7, no.2,

and pl.2; Spuhler 1998, pp.80-3,

no.15 (with structure analysis).

71 Pope 1938-39, pl.1163.

72 While the Fossati carpet (note

59 above) is probably not from the

same workshops as the Graf

Buquoy carpet (Pope 1938-39,

pl.1116) or the Parish-Watson

carpet (ibid., pl.1120), it is nearer

in general feel to these than to the

Schwarzenberg.

73 Private collection. Carbon-dated

680-960 AD. Unpublished.

74 A paper on the ‘Red Silk Rug’

in the poem by Bai Juyi was read

at the Textile Museum, Washing-

ton DC by Ulrich Schürmann.

More recently it was discussed by

Adele Schlombs in Michael Franses

& Hans König, Glanz der Himmels-

söhne, Kaiserliche Teppiche aus

China 1400-1750, London 2005, p.6.

75 See note 12 above, no.2.

76 The ‘Chess-Garden’ Carpet.

162.5 x 371cm. MIAQ, no.CA19.

HALI 89, 1996, p.137; HALI 100,

1998, p.81; Jon Thompson, Silk,

13th to 18th Centuries, Treasures

from the Museum of Islamic Art,

Qatar, Doha 2004, pp.82-5, no.20.

PERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETSPERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETS

HALI ISSUE 155 3231 HALI ISSUE 155

Bode 1911, fig.19 (detail); Carl Hopf,

Die Altpersischen Teppiche, Munich

1913, p.21, fig.28; A.F. Kendrick &

C.E.C. Tattersall, Hand-Woven Car-

pets, Oriental and European, Lon-

don 1922, p.23; Bode/Kühnel 1922,

pp.14-15, fig.13 (detail); Heinrich

Glück & Ernst Diez, Die Kunst des

Islams, Berlin 1925, p.376; Sarre &

Trenkwald, pl.21 (detail, with struc-

ture analysis); Migeon 1927, p.366

(cited); Julius Orendi, Das Gesamt-

wissen über antike und neue Tep-

piche des Orients, Vienna 1930,

vol.II, p.159, fig.805; London 1931

(see note 13 above), no.138 (cited);

Pope 1938-39, pl.1203; Bode/Küh-

nel 1958/1970, fig.69; Schlosser,

p.118, no.38 (detail); Pinder-Wilson

et al., pp.98-9, no.59 (with struc-

ture analysis); Ellis 1988, p.165,

fig.48a; Murray L. Eiland., ‘Rethink-

ing Kerman, A New Look at Some

Safavid Carpets’, HALI 100, 1998,

pp.98-103, p.99. Structure analysis:

Warp – cotton, Z5S, 138 per dm,

blue, depressed. Weft – silk, pos-

sibly very slightly Z spun singles,

1 yarn used together, beige, 3

sheds per weft break, weft break

count 72 per dm. Pile – wool, Z

singles, 2 yarns used together,

asymmetric knots open on left,

4,900 per dm2. Colours – 10 (off

white, light orange, orange, mag-

enta, pink, light blue, mid blue,

navy, green and brown-black).

Ends – top, 1cm band of magenta

silk singles (like those used for the

selvedge) weft-faced interlacing

(plainweave); bottom, 1cm band of

beige silk singles (like those used

for weft) weft-faced interlacing

(plainweave). Selvedge (left side

only) – attached selvedge

comprising 2 warp units (1 free

floating blue cotton cord and 1

integral cotton cord) overcast with

beige and magenta silk singles.

(2) The Mantes ‘Paradise Park’

carpet. 379 x 783cm. Musée du

Louvre, Paris, no.OA6610, wool

pile on a cotton foundation. Form-

erly Collegiale de Mantes, acquired

in 1912. Gaston Migeon, Musée

du Louvre, L’Orient Musulman,

Paris 1922, vol.I, no.125; Sarre &

Trenkwald, vol.II, pls.31, 32 (details,

with structure analysis); Pope 1938-

39, p.2292 and pl.1127; Eiland,

pp.101-2, fig.7 (detail); Musée du

Louvre, Arabesques et Jardins de

Paradis, Paris 1989, p.245, no.187

(with structure analysis); Sabancı

2008, pp.200-1, no.81 (detail).

(3) The Stieglitz ‘Paradise Park’ car-

pet. 262 x 251cm, upper half.

State Hermitage Museum, St

Petersburg, no.vt-994. Formerly

Stieglitz Collection. Published;

Sarre & Trenkwald, vol.II, pl.21

(cited); London 1931, no.255;

Pope 1938-39, pp.2308, 2385,

pl.1204; Ernst Kühnel, ‘Ein neuer-

worbener Persischer Tierteppich’,

in Berliner Museen, Berichte aus

den ehemaligen Preussischen

Kunstsammlungen, 1957, p.8, ill.4;

May H. Beattie, Carpets of Central

Persia, Sheffield 1976, pp.34-5,

no.1a (with structure analysis); Ellis

1988, fig.48b (detail) and p.164,

note 5; Eiland, p.100, fig.4 (detail);

HALI 153, 2007, p.38.

(4) The Mackay ‘cranes’ medallion

coronation carpet. 570 x 816cm,

wool pile on a cotton and wool

foundation. Los Angeles County

Museum of Art, no.49.8. Formerly

private collection, USA; Clarence

Mackay, Long Island; John Paul

Getty, Malibu. Published: Sarre &

Trenkwald, vol.II, pl.27 (detail, with

structure analysis); London 1931,

no.116 (cited); Pope 1938-39,

pl.1128; Bode/Kühnel 1958/1970,

p.103, fig.71; Dimand & Mailey,

pp.42-3, fig.65; Pinder-Wilson et

al., p.99, fig.60 (with structure

analysis); Day 1996, pp.128-9,

pl.100 (detail). Reportedly laid out

in front of the throne in Westmin-

ster Abbey, London, for the coron-

ation ceremony of King Edward VII

in August 1902.

(5) The Von Bode ‘Paradise Park’

carpet. 365 x 604cm originally, but

badly damaged in World War II –

less than a quarter now remains.

Museum of Islamic Art, Berlin,

no.I.1. Formerly Wilhelm von Bode,

acquired from a synagogue in

Genoa around 1890. Published

Martin 1908, p.33, fig.85; Bode/

Kühnel 1922, fig.12 (detail); Migeon

1927, pp.359-60, fig.442; Erdmann

1970, p.126, fig.151 (detail); Ellis

1988, p.164, note 7 (cited).

(6) The Hatvany ‘Paradise Park’

carpet. (a) 191 x 211cm. Where-

abouts unknown. Possibly Applied

Arts Museum, Budapest, subse-

quently lost during World War II.

Formerly Baron Ferenc Hatvany,

Budapest. Pope 1938-39, pl.1141;

Charles Grant Ellis, ‘Some Com-

partment Designs for Carpets, and

Herat’, in Textile Museum Journal,

I/4, 1965, pp.42-56, p.47, fig.8 and

p.55, notes 18, 22 and 23; Erdmann

1970, p.74, fig.82; HALI 30, 1986,

p.37; Day 1996, p.126, pl.98.

(b) ‘Angel’ section, 38 x 101cm,

and six or more field and border

sections, wool pile on a silk foun-

dation. Brooklyn Museum, New

York, no.36.213. Gift of Mrs Her-

bert L. Pratt in 1936. Formerly

Stefano Bardini, Florence; Charles

T. Yerkes Collection, New York;

Cottier & Co.; Mr and Mrs Herbert

L. Pratt. Published: Mumford 1910,

pl.VII; American Art Association

1910, lot 205; Valentiner, p.35,

no.28; Ellis 1965, pp.48 and 50,

fig.11, and p.55, note 24; Erdmann

1970, pp.74 and 176, fig.220; King

& Sylvester, p.89, no.63; Ian Ben-

nett, ‘Splendours in the City of Silk,

part 2: Ten Safavid Masterpieces’,

HALI 33, 1987, p.40, fig.1; HALI

88, 1996, p.107; Farnham 1998,

p.86, fig.25 and note 44; Thomas

J. Farnham, ‘Bardini, Classical

Carpets, and America’, HALI 119,

2001, p.77, fig.6. (c) 44 x 63cm,

corner section. Musée Historique

des Tissus, Lyon, no.26.799, acq-

uired in 1900. Formerly S. Baron,

Paris. Ellis 1965, pp.48-9, fig.10

and p.55, note 24 (with structure

analysis); Erdmann 1970, p.176

(cited); Bennett 1987, part 2, p.40,

pl.1, and note 4 (with structure

analysis). (d) 43 x 17cm. Wher Col-

lection. Formerly Dikran Kelekian,

New York; John Schorscher, Tor-

onto; The Textile Gallery, London.

Ladislav Cselenyi, Oriental Rugs

from the Collection of John Schor-

scher, Toronto 1972, supplement.

(7) The Maciet Paris-Cracow

medallion and trees carpet. (a) 410

x 350cm, top half. Musée des Arts

Décoratifs, Paris, no.10614. For-

merly Jules Maciet. Published:

Martin 1908, p.36, fig.93 (detail);

Friedrich Sarre, ‘Die Teppiche auf

der Mohammedanischen Ausstel-

lung in München 1910’, Kunst und

Kunsthandwerk, XIII, 1910, pl.XVIII

(with structure analysis); Migeon

1927, pp.359-60, fig.442; Pope

1938-39, pl.1140; Bode/Kühnel

1958/1970, p.102, fig.70; Ellis 1965,

pp.46-7, figs.7, 7a; Erdmann 1970,

p.93, fig.103 and p.177; HALI 48,

1989, p.51 (detail); Day 1996, p.127,

pl.99; James Allan et al., Hunt for

Paradise, Court Arts of Safavid

Iran, 1501-1576, New York 2003,

p.302, no.2.22; Susan Day, ‘A Con-

noisseur and a Gentleman, Jules

Maciet and the Musée des Arts

Décoratifs’, HALI 153, 2007, p.101,

fig.13; Sabancı 2008, p.198, no.79.

(b) 440 x 307cm, lower half.

Treasury of Cracow Cathedral (on

loan to Wawel Royal Castle), don-

ated by King Jan Sobieski III, who

captured it at the Battle of Parkany

in 1683. Sarre 1910, pl.VIII, no.8

(with structure analysis); Erdmann

1970, p.177 (cited); Gans-Ruedin

1978, pp.44-5 (with structure

analysis); Day 1996, p.127 (cited);

Tadeusz Majda, Arcydziela Sztuki

Perskiej ze Zbiorów Polskich,

Warsaw 2002, p.90, no.36 (with

structure analysis).

56 The Schwarzenberg is missing

the outer guard border on one

side, but is otherwise complete.

57 An exception is the in the

medallion of the Hatvany carpet,

which depicts a scene with figures.

58 Day 1996, p.128.

59 Other carpets related to the

Schwarzenberg carpet:

(1) The Anhalt medallion and cloud-

bands carpet. 412 x 802cm. Met-

ropolitan Museum of Art, New

York, no.46.128, Gift of Samuel H.

Kress Foundation, through Rush

H. Kress. Formerly Duke of Anhalt,

Dessau (reputedly captured at the

siege of Vienna, 1683); Sir Joseph

Duveen, New York; Samuel H.

Kress; Rush H. Kress. Published:

Persian Art, An Illustrated Souvenir

of the Exhibition of Persian Art at

Burlington House London 1931,

London 1931, p.90, no.850; Pope

1938-39, pls.1137-9 (details); Bode/

Kühnel 1958/1970, p.91, fig.60;

Dimand & Mailey, p.48, pp.98-9,

no.7, pp.136-7, fig.69 (with detail);

King & Sylvester, p.88, fig.62;

Gans-Ruedin 1978, pp.42-3 (detail,

with structure analysis).

(2) The Fossati ‘Darius of the

Universe’ medallion carpet. 227

x 505cm, wool pile with metal

brocade on a silk foundation. Poldi

Pezzoli Museum, Milan, no.424.

Formerly Giovanni Fossati; Gian

Giacomo Poldi Pezzoli, acquired at

auction in 1855. Martin 1908, p.47,

figs.118-9 and p.49; Sarre & Trenk-

wald, vol.II, pls.29, 30 (detail, with

structure analysis); Migeon 1927,

pp.369 and p.372, fig.449; Pope

1938-39, p.2324 and pl.1154 (detail);

Kurt Erdmann, ‘The Art of Carpet

Making’, in “A Survey of Persian

Art. Rezension”, Ars Islamica, VIII,

Ann Arbor 1941, pp.137, 162;

Bode/Kühnel 1958/1970, p.104,

fig.72; Gans-Ruedin 1978, pp.57-8

(with structure analysis); HALI 61,

1992, p.118; Day 1996, p.128, and

p.130, pl.101.

(3) The Kohner-Cassirer medallion

and animals carpet. 225 x 427cm,

wool pile on a cotton and wool

foundation. Museum of Islamic

Art, Berlin, no.I.7/56, acquired in

1956. Formerly Kohner Collection,

Budapest; Bernheimer Collection,

Munich; Adolf Cassirer, Berlin.

Published: Arthur Upham Pope

Catalogue of a Loan Exhibition of

Early Oriental Carpets, Chicago

1926, no.9; London 1931, no.255;

Pope 1938-39, pl.1204 (detail);

Bode/Kühnel 1955, p.100, fig.74;

Erdmann 1970, p.152, fig.195;

Beattie 1976, p.87, no.64; Spuhler

1988, pp.80, 220, pl.78 (with

structure analysis); Eiland, p.101.

(4) The Bardini-Williams medallion

and trees carpet. 515 x 415cm,

reduced in length, wool pile on a

cotton, wool and silk foundation.

Philadelphia Museum of Art,

Joseph Lees Williams Memorial

Collection, no.55-65-26. Formerly

Stefano Bardini, Florence; Indjou-

djian, Paris; M.F. Schutz, Paris;

Joseph Lees Williams, Norristown.

Martin 1908, p.36, fig.91; Pope

1938-39, pl.1129; Beattie 1976,

p.86, no.63; Ellis 1988, pp.160-7,

pl.48 (with details, and structure

analysis); Eiland, p.100, fig.3;

Farnham 2001, p.81, fig.15.

(5) The Chelsea medallions and

animals carpet. 315 x 541cm, wool

pile on a silk foundation. Victoria &

Albert Museum, London, no.589-

1890. Formerly art market, Chel-

sea, London; reputedly William

Morris, London. Martin 1908, p.33,

fig.86 (detail); Sarre & Trenkwald,

vol.II, pl.15 (with structure analy-

sis); Pope 1938-39, pp.2301-2, and

pls.1130-2; Bode/Kühnel

1958/1970, p.125, fig.89; Erdmann

1970, p.184, fig.231 (detail); Gans-

Ruedin 1978, pp.36-7 (detail, with

structure analysis); King & Sylves-

ter, p.30, fig.33; Day 1996, p.111,

fig.85 (detail); HALI 100, 1998,

front cover and p.4 (detail); Eiland,

p.103, fig.8.

(6a) The Martin strap-work border

fragment. Textile Museum, Wash-

ington DC, no.33.4.15. Formerly

F.R. Martin, Stockholm; Dikran

Kelekian Collection, Paris and New

York; George Hewitt Myers Collec-

tion, Washington DC. Martin 1908,

p.40, fig.101; Ellis 1965, p.42, fig.1.

(6b) The Schwaiger cartouche frag-

ment. Textile Museum, Washing-

ton DC, no.33.4.9. Formerly Imre

Schwaiger, London, 1927; George

Hewitt Myers Collection, Washing-

ton DC. Ellis 1965, p.43, fig.2.

(7/8) The Baron and Robinson

carpets. See note 14 above.

60 Very few exhibitions of classical

carpets have been based on shared

technical, material and aesthetic

characteristics that clearly identify

specific groups. Only four have

concentrated on specific classical

Persian types, ‘Polish Rugs’, Metro-

politan Museum of Art, New York,

1930; ‘Masterpieces of Iranian Rugs

and Textiles’, Textile Museum,

Washington DC, 1964; ‘Carpets of

Central Persia’ [Kerman], (Sheffield

1976, see Beattie 1976; and ‘Khor-

asan’ carpets (Textile Museum,

Washington DC, 2006, see Walker

2006). Other exhibitions of this

nature include: Cairene rugs, see

Ernst Kühnel & Lousia M. Bellin-

ger, Cairene Rugs and Others

Technically Related, Washington

DC 1957; Spanish rugs, see Ernst

Kühnel & Louisa M. Bellinger,

Catalogue of Spanish Rugs, 12th

to 19th Century, Washington DC

1953; Caucasian carpets, see

Charles Grant Ellis, Early Caucas-

ian Rugs, Washington DC 1975;

Mughal carpets, see Daniel Walker,

Flowers Underfoot, Indian Carpets

of the Mughal Era, New York 1997.

See also Pereira & Hallett 2007

(note 154 below), which included

a large group of Esfahan carpets.

61 Pope 1938-39 correctly attri-

butes the northwest Iranian medal-

lion carpets, pls.1112-1125, to

Tabriz, pls.1191-202 and 1262-5 to

Kashan, and pls.1206-14 to Kerman,

but it is hard to agree with some

of his other attributions.

62 The attribution of this group had

been much discussed over the

years, but it was not until the

Sheffield exhibition of 1976 and

May Beattie’s excellent catalogue

that the group was clearly assem-

bled. All but ten of the examples

in the catalogue were from Kerman.

Seven were correctly attributed to

other places: no.5, the Hakki Bey/

Peytel small silk Kashan rug; no.5a,

the Buccleuch Esfahan silk ‘Polon-

aise’ rug; no.6, the Doistau Louvre

silk Kashan kilim; no.8, the Figdor-

Thyssen silk Kashan kilim; no.48,

the Hewett Istanbul ‘fake’ vase

carpet; no.61, the Burrell fragment

of the Ardabil ‘Kashan’ medallion

carpet; and no.62, a ‘Tabriz’ border

fragment in the Keir Collection.

Three others were perhaps incor-

rectly attributed to Kerman: no.1a,

the Stieglitz ‘Paradise Park’ carpet;

no.63, the Bardini-Williams ‘Para-

dise Park’ carpet; and no.64, the

Cassirer hunting carpet.

63 See Franses 1993, pp.94-114,

‘The Caucasus or North-East Per-

sia: A Question of Attribution’, and

‘The Influences of Safavid Persian

Art upon an Ancient Tribal Culture’,

where the principal examples of

the group are clearly defined.

64 Erdmann 1970, pp.61-5.

65 This group has caused the most

difficulty because many of them

have long been confused with Herat

carpets, while others have been

confused with those from Tabriz.

66 Pope made attributions to other

specific places in Iran, including

Jawshaqan Qali, Yazd and Fars.

Many of the rugs he assigned to

Jawashaqan Qali are now correctly

reattributed to Kerman (Beattie

1976) and those assigned to Fars

Province in southwestern Iran

have been reattributed to Kashmir.

However, most of the rugs that he

mistakenly attributed to eastern

Iran were probably made in central

Iran, some perhaps in Esfahan.

67 Ellis 1988, pp.153-9, pl.47.

68 Ellis 1965, pp.46-9; Ellis 1988,

pp.164-5.

69 Eiland, proposing a ‘new’ type

for the fine weave carpets from

Kerman, in my opinion incorrectly

attributed several of the ‘Paradise

Park’ carpets and related examples

to Kerman, including the Schwarz-

enberg, the Mantes, and the Stieg-

litz, as well as the Bardini-Williams,

the Kohner-Cassirer and the Chel-

sea. He ignores Beattie’s observa-

tion that while “the border of the

Bardini-Williams carpet with its

reciprocal colour scheme... relates

to... the Schwarzenberg carpet...

and to the Chelsea”, all of them

are woven differently (Beattie 1976,

p.23). If Eiland were looking for

fine-weave ‘vase-group’ Kerman

carpets he might have considered

sickle-leaf pieces such as the Cor-

coran throne carpet, the Jekyll frag-

ments, the Remarque arabesque

and shrub fragment (see below, 1-

3), or any of the ‘Sanguszko’ type

carpets (ibid.; Ian Bennett & Mich-

ael Franses, ‘The Buccleuch Euro-

pean Carpets & Others in the Ori-

ental Style’, HALI 66, 1992, p.113).

Perhaps Eiland’s confusion arose

because Beattie had attributed

the Stieglitz and Bardini-Williams

carpets to Kerman (Beattie 1976,

pp.11-12, 34). I am not sure that

the Bardini-Williams is Kerman, as

the attribution is based on one

element of structure only, and it

has none of the stylistic features

of Kerman. The same can perhaps

be said for the Stieglitz, which I

last examined over 25 years ago.

Some Kerman sickle-leaf carpets:

(1) The Corcoran throne carpet.

195 x 265cm, wool pile. Corcoran

Gallery of Art, Washington DC,

no.26-278, on loan to The Textile

Museum, Washington DC. Form-

erly William A. Clark Collection.

See Pope 1938-39, p.2384, pl.1234;

Charles Grant Ellis, ‘Kirman’s Her-

itage in Washington: Vase Rugs in

the Textile Museum, in Textile Mus-

eum Journal, II/3, 1968, p.19, fig.2;

Dimand & Mailey, p.77, fig.107;

Beattie 1976, p.50, no.15, pl.6.

(2) The Jekyll sickle-leaf Kerman

carpet. (a) Wher Collection. 230 x

155cm. (b) Private collection,

London. 88 x 100cm. Formerly

Jekyll’s, London; Cartier Collection

(?), Paris; Bakadjian, Paris; The

Textile Gallery, London; Kirchheim

Collection, Stuttgart; The Textile

Gallery, London. Roland Gilles et

al., p.149.

(3) The Remarque arabesque and

shrubs fragment. 200 x 94cm,

section, wool pile on a cotton,

wool and silk foundation. Where-

abouts unknown. Formerly Eric

Maria Remarque; Paulette God-

dard Collection, Ascona; Eberhart

Herrmann, Munich; private col-

lection, Switzerland. See Soth-

eby’s, London, 18-19 November

1976, lot 14; Jean Lefevre, The

Persian Carpet, London, 1997,

pp.32-3, no.5. Exhibited: Paris,

Institut du Monde Arabe, 1989-94.

70 Two Kerman ‘Sanguszko’ car-

pets with strap-work medallions:

(1) Victoria & Albert Museum,

London. 268 x 516cm. Sarre 1908,

pl.XXII, no.25.

(2) The Béhague Sanguszko car-

pet. 275 x 509cm, wool pile on a

cotton and wool foundation. Thys-

sen-Bornemisza Collection, Lug-

ano, no.DEC0456. Formerly Coun-

tess de Béhague (de Béarn) Col-

lection, Paris; Marquis de Ganay

Collection, Paris; Rosenberg &

Stiebel, Paris. See Pope 1938-9,

pp.2349, 2353, 2451, pl.1210; Erd-

mann 1941, p.169; Beattie 1972,

pp.23-7, pl.II (with structure ana-

lysis); Beattie 1976, pp.36-7, no.2,

and pl.2; Spuhler 1998, pp.80-3,

no.15 (with structure analysis).

71 Pope 1938-39, pl.1163.

72 While the Fossati carpet (note

59 above) is probably not from the

same workshops as the Graf

Buquoy carpet (Pope 1938-39,

pl.1116) or the Parish-Watson

carpet (ibid., pl.1120), it is nearer

in general feel to these than to the

Schwarzenberg.

73 Private collection. Carbon-dated

680-960 AD. Unpublished.

74 A paper on the ‘Red Silk Rug’

in the poem by Bai Juyi was read

at the Textile Museum, Washing-

ton DC by Ulrich Schürmann.

More recently it was discussed by

Adele Schlombs in Michael Franses

& Hans König, Glanz der Himmels-

söhne, Kaiserliche Teppiche aus

China 1400-1750, London 2005, p.6.

75 See note 12 above, no.2.

76 The ‘Chess-Garden’ Carpet.

162.5 x 371cm. MIAQ, no.CA19.

HALI 89, 1996, p.137; HALI 100,

1998, p.81; Jon Thompson, Silk,

13th to 18th Centuries, Treasures

from the Museum of Islamic Art,

Qatar, Doha 2004, pp.82-5, no.20.

PERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETSPERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETS

HALI ISSUE 155 3433 HALI ISSUE 155

77 The Gulbenkian houri and ins-

cription silk rug. See note 17, no.2.

78 The Pope small silk tomb cover.

305 x 106.7cm. Cincinnati Art

Museum, Cincinnati, no.1953.24.

Formerly Arthur Upham Pope. See

Anthony Welch, Shah Abbas & the

Arts of Isfahan, New York 1973,

pp.42, 67-8, no.25; Melikian-Chir-

vani, pp.268-9, no.66; Jill Tilden,

‘Safavid Art Paris Style’, HALI 154,

2007, p.115. A translation of the

script by Arthur G. Arberry, Pem-

broke College, Cambridge, edited

or ‘reformulated’ by Phyllis Acker-

man, is on file at the museum. I

am grateful to Dr Glenn Markoe

for information on this rug. For

further discussion see Michael

Franses, ‘Earthsong’, www.hali.com,

14 December 2007.

79 References to Persian silk car-

pets can be found in 16th century

European inventories, e.g.: (a) a

large all-silk Persian carpet in the

1583 inventory of the castle of

Joinville (Monique King, ‘French

Documents Relating to Oriental

Carpets, 15th-16th Century’, in

Robert Pinner & Walter B. Denny

(eds.), Oriental Carpet & Textile

Studies II; Carpets of the Mediter-

ranean Countries 1400-1600,

London 1986, p.137); (b) the 1589

inventory of Catherine de Medici

mentions a Persian carpet of silk

with gold ground measuring 356 x

158cm (ibid., p.136). See also the

Rothschild Polonaise carpet 6, note

100 below. Also, Ottoman minia-

ture paintings and written records

attest to carpets among diplomatic

gifts from the Safavid Shahs to the

Ottoman Sultans, e.g.:(a) Shahquli,

the Safavid governor of Erevan,

was sent at the head of an emb-

assy to congratulate Sultan Selim

II on his accession in 1567. His

arrival is depicted in a painting by

NakkaÎ Osman. The Hungarian

ambassador was present, and he

saw “silk carpets from Hamadan

and Dargazan... twenty large silk

carpets and many small in which

birds, animals and flowers were

worked in gold… the train consis-

ted of 700 men and 19,000 pack

animals, bearing all sorts of luxur-

ies, including woollen carpets so

heavy that seven men could scar-

cely carry them”; (b) a number of

carpets were given as an inaugural

gift by Shah Tahmasp to the Süley-

maniye Mosque in Istanbul, as

recorded in a letter of 1556 from

the Shah (see Pope 1938-39,

vol.III, pp.2334-5).

80 The Rothschild medallion

and cartouches rug 4. Kashan,

central Iran, mid-16th century. 180

x 235cm, silk pile on a silk foun-

dation. MIAQ, no.CA21, acquired

at the Rothschild auction at Chris-

tie’s, London, 8 July 1999, lot 190.

Formerly Rothschild Collection,

Vienna, no.AR2008; MAK, Vienna,

no.T9304; heirs of the Rothschild

estate.Published: Siegfried Troll,

Altorientalische Teppiche, Vienna

1951, p.5, pl.11; Kurt Erdmann,

‘Die kleinen Seidenteppiche Kas-

chans’, in Pantheon, XIX/4, 1961,

pp.159ff.; Erdmann 1970, p.74,

pl.66; Dora Heinz, ‘Die Persischen

Teppiche im Österreichischen

Museum für angewandte Kunst’,

in Bustan, 4/1, 1970-71, p.23;

Angela Volker (ed.), Kunst des

Islam, Vienna 1977, pp.34, 46,

no.17 (with structure analysis);

Christie’s London, 8 July 1999, lot

190; HALI 105, 1999, p.148; Thom-

pson 2004, pp.58-61, no.13. Struc-

ture analysis: Warp – silk, Z2S, 186

per dm, yellow, depressed. Weft –

silk, singles (no discernable spin),

1 yarn used together, ivory, 3

sheds per weft break, weft break

count 114 per dm.

Pile – silk, singles (no discernable

spin), 1 yarn used together, asym-

metric knots open on left, 10,600

per dm2. Colours – 10 (ivory, cream,

very pale blue, yellow, gold, green,

blue-green, blue, magenta and

brown-black). Ends – top, 4mm

band of magenta silk weft-faced

interlacing (plainweave); bottom,

6mm band of magenta silk weft-

faced interlacing (plainweave).

Selvedge – overcast over two

warp units (Z2S4Z cord).

81 Rudolf Meyer Riefstahl, ‘Ori-

ental Carpets in American Collec-

tions: Part One. Three Silk Rugs in

the Altman Collection’, in Art in

America, IV, 1916, pp.147ff.

82 Erdmann 1961, republished as

‘The Small Silk Carpets of Kashan’,

Erdmann 1970, pp.61-65.

83 Herrmann 1987.

84 Walker 1994.

85 The ‘large silk Kashans’:

(1) The Vienna silk hunting carpet.

331 x 687cm. MAK, Vienna,

no.T8336. Formerly Habsburg

Collection, Austria; reportedly gift

of Tsar Peter the Great, Russia, to

Leopold I of Austria, 1698. Von

Scala et al. 1891, pp.256-7, no.320

(detail); Sarre & Trenkwald, vol.I,

pls.1-5; Kurt Erdmann, ‘Tappeti

Persani’, in Dedalo, XII, 1932,

pp.722-4; Pope 1938-39, pls.1191-

2; Ian Bennett, ‘The Emperor’s Old

Carpets’, HALI 31, 1986, p.12;

Völker, pp.198-203, no.70 (with

structure analysis); Thomas J.

Farnham, ‘From Lessing to Etting-

hausen’, HALI 154, 2007, p.86,

fig.14.

(2) The Branicki slk Kashan hunting

carpet. 350 x 760cm. Villa

Willamove, Warsaw, presumed

destroyed during World War II.

Formerly Count Branicki Collect-

ion, Warsaw. Pope 1938-39,

pls.1195-6.

(3) Border fragments from the pair

to the Branicki silk Kashan hunting

carpet. 140 x 256cm, two joined

sections. Museum für Kunst und

Gewerbe, Hamburg. Formerly

Rothschild Collection; Ulrich

Schürmann, Cologne. Palais

Galliera, Paris, 28 March 1968,

lot 108. See Peter W. Meister &

Siawosch U. Azadi, Persische

Teppiche, Hamburg 1971, p.19,

no.2, frontispiece.

(4) The Torrigiani silk Kashan

hunting carpet. 255 x 480cm.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston,

no.66.293. Formerly Marchese

Torrigiani Collection, Florence,

1879; Stefano Bardini, Florence;

Adolphe Rothschild Collection,

Paris; Maurice Rothschild Col-

lection, Paris; John Goelet Col-

lection. See Sarre & Trenkwald,

vol.II, pls.24-26; Pinder-Wilson et

al., no.57; Denny 1978, pp.156-64,

fig.4; Allan et al., p.286, no.12.12;

Farnham 2007, p.87, fig.15.

(5) The Stockholm silk Kashan

hunting carpet. 285 x 555cm.

Swedish Royal Collection, Stock-

holm, no.467. Pope 1938-39,

pls.1193-4; Erdmann 1932; King &

Sylvester, p.43, no.65; HALI 5/3,

1983, front cover and p.309; HALI

72, 1993/1994, p.92.

86 The ‘small silk Kashans’:

(1) The Bode four-lobed medallion

rug. 16th century. 180 x 230cm.

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). A. von Scala et al. 1892,

vol.I, pl.XII; Erdmann 1932; Pope

1938-39, pl.1200; Erdmann 1970,

p.65, fig.68 (detail); Calouste Gul-

benkian Museum 1985, pl.II; Herr-

mann 1987, pp.49, 51, 105; HALI

109, 2000, p.149; Steven Cohen,

“Safavid and Mughal Carpets in

the Gulbenkian Museum, Lisbon,

HALI 114, 2001, p.84, no.9; Allan

et al., pp.292-3, no.12.17; Pereira

& Hallett, pp.86-7, no.23.

(2) The Altman four-lobed medal-

lion rug. 178 x 241cm. Metropoli-

tan Museum of Art, New York;

no.14.40.715. Formerly Benjamin

Altman Collection, New York. See

Sarre & Trenkwald, vol.II, pl.41;

Dimand & Mailey, pp.56, 102,

no.14, fig.80; Walker 1994, p.105,

120, pl.2.

(3) The Goupil four-lobed medallion

rug. 185 x 245cm. Musée des

Gobelins, Paris, no.GOB1534.

Formerly Albert Goupil Collection,

Paris. See Von Scala et al. 1892,

vol.III, pl.LXXV; London 1931,

p.101, no.179 (cited); Pope 1938-

39, pl.1201; Erdmann 1970, p.61,

fig.60; King & Sylvester, pp.92-3,

no.68; 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

rug. 180 x 242cm. Khalili Collect-

ion, Switzerland, no.TXT144. For-

merly Private collection, London;

Anglo-Persian Carpet Co., London;

The Textile Gallery, London.

(5) The Amsterdam eight-lobed

medallion rug. 168 x 245cm.

Portuguese-Israelite Community

Collection, Sephardi Synagogue,

Amsterdam. Erdmann 1970, p.63,

fig.64; HALI 61, 1992, p.124.

(6) The Johnston eight-lobed

medallion rug. 171 x 249cm.

Metropolitan Museum of Art, New

York, no.58.46, acquired 1958. For-

merly John Taylor Johnston

Collection; Mrs Douglas M. Mof-

fat. See Erdmann 1970, p.63,

fig.65; Dimand & Mailey, pp.58,

102-3, no.16, fig.82; King & Syl-

vester, p.92, no.67; Walker 1994,

pp.107, 120, pl.4.

(7) The Bacri eight-lobed medallion

rug. 165 x 250cm. Bruschettini

Foundation, Genoa. Reputedly

from the estate of a European

royal family; Bacri Frères, Paris;

Herrmann, Munich; Wher Collec-

tion. See Herrmann 1987, pp.48,

49, 105; HALI 53, 1990, p.115;

Allan et al., p.270, no.12.1.

(8) The Wittelsbach banded four-

lobed medallion rug. 156 x 266cm.

Bayerisches Nationalmuseum,

Munich, no.1611. Formerly House

of Wittelsbach Collection, Munich.

Pope 1938-39, pl.1202; Erdmann

1970, p.61, fig.61; Pinder-Wilson

et al., p.100, no.62; Herrmann

1987, pp.49, 51, 105; HALI 124,

2002, p.47.

(9) The Coimbra banded four-lobed

medallion rug. 175 x 277cm. Museu

Nacional de Machado de Castro,

Coimbra, no.T 744. See Herrmann

1987, pp.49, 50, 105; Jessica Hal-

lett & Teresa Pacheco Pereira, ‘The

Queen’s List’, HALI 152, 2007, p.77;

Pereira & Hallett, pp.86, 178, no.22.

(10) The Taylor banded four-lobed

medallion rug. 163 x 254cm.

Metropolitan Museum of Art, New

York, no.14.40.724. Formerly J.E.

Taylor Collection, New York; Ben-

jamin Altman Collection, New York.

See Sarre & Trenkwald, vol.II,

pl.42; Dimand & Mailey, pp.57,

102, no.15, fig.81; Walker 1994,

pp.106, 120, pl.3.

(11) The Morgan-Widener eight-

lobed medallion rug. 173 x 240cm.

National Gallery of Art, Washing-

ton DC, no.1942.9.478. Formerly

J. Pierpont Morgan Collection;

French & Co., New York; Joseph

Widener Collection, Philadelphia,

1924. Pope 1938-39, pl.1197; Erd-

mann 1970, p.64, fig.67; Robert

Wilson Torchia, ‘Widener’s Gift’,

HALI 92, 1997, pp.88-97, fig.1.

(12) The Rothschild medallion and

cartouches rug 4. See note 80.

(13-16) Silk animal rugs. See note

45 above.

(17) The Unger silk border frag-

ments. (a) 29 x 96cm. Where-

abouts unknown. Formerly Unger

Collection, Mexico City; Galerie

Sailer, Salzburg. (b) 12 x 26cm.

Siesta Collection, Milan. Formerly

Unger Collection, Mexico City.

Unpublished.

87 Four have a four-lobed medal-

lion (Bode, Altman, Goupil and

Khalili); three have an eight-lobed

medallion (Amsterdam, Johnston

and Bacri); three have a medallion

with appendages framed by a band

(Wittelsbach, Coimbra and Taylor);

two have a medallion with appen-

dages surrounded by groups of

cartouches (Morgan-Widener and

Rothschild); and four have animals

in a landscape and no central motif

(Princezza, Ludlow, Aynard and

Hakki Bey-Peytel).

88 Hunting carpets with strap-

work borders, central Iran,

16th century:

(1) The Vienna hunting carpet.

308 x 732cm, reduced in length.

MAK, Vienna, no.T 8376/1922 KB.

Sarre & Trenkwald, vol.I, pl.9 (top

half); Völker, pp.230-31, no.81

(with structure analysis).

(2) The London hunting carpet.

Victoria & Albert Museum, London,

no.601-1894. A.F. Kendrick, Guide

to the Collection of Carpets, Victoria

and Albert Museum, London 1920,

no.4, pl.IV (detail). Cut horizontally,

central section removed, bottom

part joined to top.

(3) The Bacri Hunting Carpet. 275

x 384cm, reduced in length. Moshe

Tabibnia, Milan. Formerly Bacri

Frères, Paris, The Textile Gallery,

London; Wher Collection. See

Franses & Bennett 1986, pp.20-4,

pl.IX; HALI 128, 2003, p.45; HALI

130, 2003, p.105 (detail); Berdj

Achdjian & Dikran Kouymjian, ‘The

Legacy of the Indjoudjians’, HALI

142, 2005, p.69; HALI 143, 2005,

p.33, Erratum (detail); Jon Thom-

pson, Milestones in the History of

Carpets, Milan 2006, pp.186-90,

pl.17 (with structure analysis).

Cut horizontally, central section

removed, bottom part joined to

the top across centre, outer guard

border missing. In December 1997

a border fragment acquired at

Sotheby’s New York (16 October

1996, lot 150; 41 x 166cm) was

reattached.

(4) The Constantinople hunting

carpet. 135 x 181cm, corner

section of border and field. MAK,

Vienna, no.Or 311. Formerly Con-

stantinople art market, 1891; KK

Handels-Museum, Vienna. See

Martin 1908, p.47, fig.122; Sarre &

Trenkwald, vol.I, pl.10; Gans-

Ruedin 1978, pp.92-3 (with struc-

ture analysis); Völker, pp.232-3,

no.82 (with structure analysis).

Smaller fragments of the

same group:

(1) The Turin hunting carpet frag-

ment. 110 x 60cm, section of field

and border. Museo Civico, Turin,

no.2910. Taher Sabahi, ‘Un Safa-

vide a Torino, Un frammento del

XVI secolo dalle collezioni del

Museo Civico’, Ghereh, 1/1, 1993,

pp.30-1.

(2) The Myers hunting carpet frag-

ment. Major and inner border only.

Textile Museum, Washington DC,

no.R.33.4.8, George Hewitt Myers

Collection. Ellis 1965, p.45, fig.5,

and p.55 note 12 (with structure

analysis).

(3) The Hopf hunting carpet frag-

ment. 38 x 124cm, section of main

border. Marshall & Marilyn R. Wolf

Collection, New York. Formerly

private collection, Europe. Hopf,

p.23, pl.31; Sotheby’s, New York,

20 September 2001, lot 64 (with

structure analysis); HALI 120,

2002, p.130.

(4) The James hunting carpet frag-

ment. 122.5 x 222cm, section of

central field. Edward James Foun-

dation, Sussex. Melikian-Chirvani,

pp.244-5, no.52; Tilden, p.117.

(5) The Aynard hunting carpet

fragment. 44 x 66cm, section of

field. Musée des Arts Décoratifs,

Paris, no.19417. Formerly Joseph

Aynard Collection, Paris. Musée

du Louvre, Arabesques et Jardins

de Paradis, Paris 1989, p.283,

no.217; Rémi Labrousse, Purs

Décors, Paris 2007, p.337, no.153;

Tilden, p.117.

(6) The Liberec hunting carpet

fragment. 82 x 288cm, section

of central field with parts of the

narrow guard border attached

incorrectly on three sides. North

Bohemia Museum, Liberec, Czech

Republic, no.T3684.85. Pope

1938-39, pl.1176.

(7) The French & Co. hunting

carpet fragment. 38 x 122cm,

three border strips and three

corner sections joined together.

Formerly French & Co., New York.

Pope 1926, no.11 (cited).

(8) The David hunting carpet frag-

ment. 27 x 57.5cm. David Collec-

tion, Copenhagen, no.5/1973.

Kjeld von Folsach, Islamic Art. The

David Collection, Copenhagen

1990, p.247, no.416.

(9) The Yerkes hunting carpet

fragment. 82 x 193cm, section

of central field with outer minor

border added. Formerly Yerkes

Collection; Captain J.R. De Lamar.

Mumford 1910, pl. III.

(10) The Musée des Arts Décor-

atifs fragment. 75 x 40cm, border

section on a green ground. Pinder

Wilson 1957, pl.81b.

89 23 x 40cm, section, silk pile on

a silk foundation. Wher Collection.

Formerly Unger Collection, Mexico

City. Unpublished.

90 119 x 167cm, silk pile on a

silk foundation. Private collection,

Lecco. Unpublished.

91 Ivory ground and lobed medal-

lion silk pile rug with cartouche

border. Kashan (?), 16th century.

193 x 228cm. Iran Bastan Museum,

Tehran. Pope 1938-39, pl.1156.

92 The Stieglitz cartouche and star

medallion carpet. 167 x 231cm,

silk pile with metal thread. State

Hermitage Museum, St Peters-

burg, no.(V)T-1045. Formerly

Stieglitz Museum, St Petersburg.

HALI 135, 2004, p.99; HALI 153,

2007, p.37.

93 The Homberg trees, flowers

and birds rug. 16th century. 87 x

78cm. Private collection, New

York, on loan to the Metropolitan

Museum of Art, New York. For-

merly Octave Homberg Collection,

Paris, acquired in Constantinople,

reportedly decorating the tomb

of a sultan and previously from a

mosque in Konya; John D. Rocke-

feller III, New York. Galerie George

Petit, Paris, 3 to 5 June 1931, lot

122, pl.LIII and frontispiece; Maur-

ice Dimand, A Guide to an Exhibit-

ion of Oriental Rugs and Textiles,

New York 1935, no.23 (as ‘velvet’).

The narrow border stripe is typical

of Tabriz carpets.

94 See note 124 below.

95 Two silk strap-work carpets:

(1) The Shah Abbas I pair of silk

strap-work carpets with borders

on three sides only, made to lie

next to each other. Each 478 x

1,403cm. Shrine of Imam Ali at

al-Najaf. Gift of Shah Abbas I.

Mehmet Aga-OÌlu, 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 strap-work

carpet. 252 x 137cm, section from

the field with two side borders.

Victoria & Albert Museum, London.

Pope 1938-39, pl.1252; HALI 41,

1988, p.43.

96 Pope 1938-39, pl.1253; HALI

36, 1987, pp.7, 11; Achdjian &

Kouymjian, fig.5.

97 Pope 1938-39, pl.1251.

98 Ibid, pls.1258-60.

99 Ian Bennett, ‘Splendours in the

City of Silk, part 3: The Safavid

Masterpieces’, HALI 34, 1987,

pp.42-50, pl.XVIII.

100The Shah Suleiman hunting

carpet with medallion 5. Tabriz,

northwest Iran, early 17th century.

260 x 584cm, wool pile on a cotton

foundation. MIAQ, no.CA16, acq-

uired in September 1999 through

The Textile Gallery, London. For-

merly Shah Suleiman, 1688; Doge

Francesco Morosini, Venice; Estate

of Countess Lauredana Gatterburg-

Morosini (d.1884); Baroness de

Blanc, Rome; Ahuan Ltd., London;

The Textile Gallery, London; Luis

Virata, Manila. Published: Soth-

eby’s, London, 12 October 1982,

lot 47 (unsold); HALI 5/2, 1982,

p.196; The Unity of Islamic Art,

Riyadh 1985, p.181, no.158; Fran-

ses 1999, p.63, fig.34. Exhibited:

‘The Unity of Islamic Art’, at The

King Faisal Center for Research

and Islamic Studies, Riyadh, 1985.

Structure analysis: Warp – cotton,

ivory. Weft – wool, red, taut, first

and third shoots; cotton, ivory,

wavy, second shoot. Pile – wool,

asymmetric knots open on the

left, 2418 per dm2. Colours – 13

(ivory, two pinks, yellow, blue-

green, three blues, green, red,

orange, black, brown). Selvedges

– wool selvedge over 2 bundles of

3 warps with additional weft

thread, red. Ends – 8cm cotton

kilim ends, ivory.

101 The Marquand Kashan carpet.

central Iran, 16th century. 182 x

357cm, wool, cotton and silk pile

on a silk foundation, with metal

brocading. Philadelphia Museum

of Art, no.43-28-1. Formerly reput-

edly Sultan Abdulaziz, Turkey, 1876;

Henry G. Marquand, New York;

PERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETSPERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETS

HALI ISSUE 155 3433 HALI ISSUE 155

77 The Gulbenkian houri and ins-

cription silk rug. See note 17, no.2.

78 The Pope small silk tomb cover.

305 x 106.7cm. Cincinnati Art

Museum, Cincinnati, no.1953.24.

Formerly Arthur Upham Pope. See

Anthony Welch, Shah Abbas & the

Arts of Isfahan, New York 1973,

pp.42, 67-8, no.25; Melikian-Chir-

vani, pp.268-9, no.66; Jill Tilden,

‘Safavid Art Paris Style’, HALI 154,

2007, p.115. A translation of the

script by Arthur G. Arberry, Pem-

broke College, Cambridge, edited

or ‘reformulated’ by Phyllis Acker-

man, is on file at the museum. I

am grateful to Dr Glenn Markoe

for information on this rug. For

further discussion see Michael

Franses, ‘Earthsong’, www.hali.com,

14 December 2007.

79 References to Persian silk car-

pets can be found in 16th century

European inventories, e.g.: (a) a

large all-silk Persian carpet in the

1583 inventory of the castle of

Joinville (Monique King, ‘French

Documents Relating to Oriental

Carpets, 15th-16th Century’, in

Robert Pinner & Walter B. Denny

(eds.), Oriental Carpet & Textile

Studies II; Carpets of the Mediter-

ranean Countries 1400-1600,

London 1986, p.137); (b) the 1589

inventory of Catherine de Medici

mentions a Persian carpet of silk

with gold ground measuring 356 x

158cm (ibid., p.136). See also the

Rothschild Polonaise carpet 6, note

100 below. Also, Ottoman minia-

ture paintings and written records

attest to carpets among diplomatic

gifts from the Safavid Shahs to the

Ottoman Sultans, e.g.:(a) Shahquli,

the Safavid governor of Erevan,

was sent at the head of an emb-

assy to congratulate Sultan Selim

II on his accession in 1567. His

arrival is depicted in a painting by

NakkaÎ Osman. The Hungarian

ambassador was present, and he

saw “silk carpets from Hamadan

and Dargazan... twenty large silk

carpets and many small in which

birds, animals and flowers were

worked in gold… the train consis-

ted of 700 men and 19,000 pack

animals, bearing all sorts of luxur-

ies, including woollen carpets so

heavy that seven men could scar-

cely carry them”; (b) a number of

carpets were given as an inaugural

gift by Shah Tahmasp to the Süley-

maniye Mosque in Istanbul, as

recorded in a letter of 1556 from

the Shah (see Pope 1938-39,

vol.III, pp.2334-5).

80 The Rothschild medallion

and cartouches rug 4. Kashan,

central Iran, mid-16th century. 180

x 235cm, silk pile on a silk foun-

dation. MIAQ, no.CA21, acquired

at the Rothschild auction at Chris-

tie’s, London, 8 July 1999, lot 190.

Formerly Rothschild Collection,

Vienna, no.AR2008; MAK, Vienna,

no.T9304; heirs of the Rothschild

estate.Published: Siegfried Troll,

Altorientalische Teppiche, Vienna

1951, p.5, pl.11; Kurt Erdmann,

‘Die kleinen Seidenteppiche Kas-

chans’, in Pantheon, XIX/4, 1961,

pp.159ff.; Erdmann 1970, p.74,

pl.66; Dora Heinz, ‘Die Persischen

Teppiche im Österreichischen

Museum für angewandte Kunst’,

in Bustan, 4/1, 1970-71, p.23;

Angela Volker (ed.), Kunst des

Islam, Vienna 1977, pp.34, 46,

no.17 (with structure analysis);

Christie’s London, 8 July 1999, lot

190; HALI 105, 1999, p.148; Thom-

pson 2004, pp.58-61, no.13. Struc-

ture analysis: Warp – silk, Z2S, 186

per dm, yellow, depressed. Weft –

silk, singles (no discernable spin),

1 yarn used together, ivory, 3

sheds per weft break, weft break

count 114 per dm.

Pile – silk, singles (no discernable

spin), 1 yarn used together, asym-

metric knots open on left, 10,600

per dm2. Colours – 10 (ivory, cream,

very pale blue, yellow, gold, green,

blue-green, blue, magenta and

brown-black). Ends – top, 4mm

band of magenta silk weft-faced

interlacing (plainweave); bottom,

6mm band of magenta silk weft-

faced interlacing (plainweave).

Selvedge – overcast over two

warp units (Z2S4Z cord).

81 Rudolf Meyer Riefstahl, ‘Ori-

ental Carpets in American Collec-

tions: Part One. Three Silk Rugs in

the Altman Collection’, in Art in

America, IV, 1916, pp.147ff.

82 Erdmann 1961, republished as

‘The Small Silk Carpets of Kashan’,

Erdmann 1970, pp.61-65.

83 Herrmann 1987.

84 Walker 1994.

85 The ‘large silk Kashans’:

(1) The Vienna silk hunting carpet.

331 x 687cm. MAK, Vienna,

no.T8336. Formerly Habsburg

Collection, Austria; reportedly gift

of Tsar Peter the Great, Russia, to

Leopold I of Austria, 1698. Von

Scala et al. 1891, pp.256-7, no.320

(detail); Sarre & Trenkwald, vol.I,

pls.1-5; Kurt Erdmann, ‘Tappeti

Persani’, in Dedalo, XII, 1932,

pp.722-4; Pope 1938-39, pls.1191-

2; Ian Bennett, ‘The Emperor’s Old

Carpets’, HALI 31, 1986, p.12;

Völker, pp.198-203, no.70 (with

structure analysis); Thomas J.

Farnham, ‘From Lessing to Etting-

hausen’, HALI 154, 2007, p.86,

fig.14.

(2) The Branicki slk Kashan hunting

carpet. 350 x 760cm. Villa

Willamove, Warsaw, presumed

destroyed during World War II.

Formerly Count Branicki Collect-

ion, Warsaw. Pope 1938-39,

pls.1195-6.

(3) Border fragments from the pair

to the Branicki silk Kashan hunting

carpet. 140 x 256cm, two joined

sections. Museum für Kunst und

Gewerbe, Hamburg. Formerly

Rothschild Collection; Ulrich

Schürmann, Cologne. Palais

Galliera, Paris, 28 March 1968,

lot 108. See Peter W. Meister &

Siawosch U. Azadi, Persische

Teppiche, Hamburg 1971, p.19,

no.2, frontispiece.

(4) The Torrigiani silk Kashan

hunting carpet. 255 x 480cm.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston,

no.66.293. Formerly Marchese

Torrigiani Collection, Florence,

1879; Stefano Bardini, Florence;

Adolphe Rothschild Collection,

Paris; Maurice Rothschild Col-

lection, Paris; John Goelet Col-

lection. See Sarre & Trenkwald,

vol.II, pls.24-26; Pinder-Wilson et

al., no.57; Denny 1978, pp.156-64,

fig.4; Allan et al., p.286, no.12.12;

Farnham 2007, p.87, fig.15.

(5) The Stockholm silk Kashan

hunting carpet. 285 x 555cm.

Swedish Royal Collection, Stock-

holm, no.467. Pope 1938-39,

pls.1193-4; Erdmann 1932; King &

Sylvester, p.43, no.65; HALI 5/3,

1983, front cover and p.309; HALI

72, 1993/1994, p.92.

86 The ‘small silk Kashans’:

(1) The Bode four-lobed medallion

rug. 16th century. 180 x 230cm.

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). A. von Scala et al. 1892,

vol.I, pl.XII; Erdmann 1932; Pope

1938-39, pl.1200; Erdmann 1970,

p.65, fig.68 (detail); Calouste Gul-

benkian Museum 1985, pl.II; Herr-

mann 1987, pp.49, 51, 105; HALI

109, 2000, p.149; Steven Cohen,

“Safavid and Mughal Carpets in

the Gulbenkian Museum, Lisbon,

HALI 114, 2001, p.84, no.9; Allan

et al., pp.292-3, no.12.17; Pereira

& Hallett, pp.86-7, no.23.

(2) The Altman four-lobed medal-

lion rug. 178 x 241cm. Metropoli-

tan Museum of Art, New York;

no.14.40.715. Formerly Benjamin

Altman Collection, New York. See

Sarre & Trenkwald, vol.II, pl.41;

Dimand & Mailey, pp.56, 102,

no.14, fig.80; Walker 1994, p.105,

120, pl.2.

(3) The Goupil four-lobed medallion

rug. 185 x 245cm. Musée des

Gobelins, Paris, no.GOB1534.

Formerly Albert Goupil Collection,

Paris. See Von Scala et al. 1892,

vol.III, pl.LXXV; London 1931,

p.101, no.179 (cited); Pope 1938-

39, pl.1201; Erdmann 1970, p.61,

fig.60; King & Sylvester, pp.92-3,

no.68; 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

rug. 180 x 242cm. Khalili Collect-

ion, Switzerland, no.TXT144. For-

merly Private collection, London;

Anglo-Persian Carpet Co., London;

The Textile Gallery, London.

(5) The Amsterdam eight-lobed

medallion rug. 168 x 245cm.

Portuguese-Israelite Community

Collection, Sephardi Synagogue,

Amsterdam. Erdmann 1970, p.63,

fig.64; HALI 61, 1992, p.124.

(6) The Johnston eight-lobed

medallion rug. 171 x 249cm.

Metropolitan Museum of Art, New

York, no.58.46, acquired 1958. For-

merly John Taylor Johnston

Collection; Mrs Douglas M. Mof-

fat. See Erdmann 1970, p.63,

fig.65; Dimand & Mailey, pp.58,

102-3, no.16, fig.82; King & Syl-

vester, p.92, no.67; Walker 1994,

pp.107, 120, pl.4.

(7) The Bacri eight-lobed medallion

rug. 165 x 250cm. Bruschettini

Foundation, Genoa. Reputedly

from the estate of a European

royal family; Bacri Frères, Paris;

Herrmann, Munich; Wher Collec-

tion. See Herrmann 1987, pp.48,

49, 105; HALI 53, 1990, p.115;

Allan et al., p.270, no.12.1.

(8) The Wittelsbach banded four-

lobed medallion rug. 156 x 266cm.

Bayerisches Nationalmuseum,

Munich, no.1611. Formerly House

of Wittelsbach Collection, Munich.

Pope 1938-39, pl.1202; Erdmann

1970, p.61, fig.61; Pinder-Wilson

et al., p.100, no.62; Herrmann

1987, pp.49, 51, 105; HALI 124,

2002, p.47.

(9) The Coimbra banded four-lobed

medallion rug. 175 x 277cm. Museu

Nacional de Machado de Castro,

Coimbra, no.T 744. See Herrmann

1987, pp.49, 50, 105; Jessica Hal-

lett & Teresa Pacheco Pereira, ‘The

Queen’s List’, HALI 152, 2007, p.77;

Pereira & Hallett, pp.86, 178, no.22.

(10) The Taylor banded four-lobed

medallion rug. 163 x 254cm.

Metropolitan Museum of Art, New

York, no.14.40.724. Formerly J.E.

Taylor Collection, New York; Ben-

jamin Altman Collection, New York.

See Sarre & Trenkwald, vol.II,

pl.42; Dimand & Mailey, pp.57,

102, no.15, fig.81; Walker 1994,

pp.106, 120, pl.3.

(11) The Morgan-Widener eight-

lobed medallion rug. 173 x 240cm.

National Gallery of Art, Washing-

ton DC, no.1942.9.478. Formerly

J. Pierpont Morgan Collection;

French & Co., New York; Joseph

Widener Collection, Philadelphia,

1924. Pope 1938-39, pl.1197; Erd-

mann 1970, p.64, fig.67; Robert

Wilson Torchia, ‘Widener’s Gift’,

HALI 92, 1997, pp.88-97, fig.1.

(12) The Rothschild medallion and

cartouches rug 4. See note 80.

(13-16) Silk animal rugs. See note

45 above.

(17) The Unger silk border frag-

ments. (a) 29 x 96cm. Where-

abouts unknown. Formerly Unger

Collection, Mexico City; Galerie

Sailer, Salzburg. (b) 12 x 26cm.

Siesta Collection, Milan. Formerly

Unger Collection, Mexico City.

Unpublished.

87 Four have a four-lobed medal-

lion (Bode, Altman, Goupil and

Khalili); three have an eight-lobed

medallion (Amsterdam, Johnston

and Bacri); three have a medallion

with appendages framed by a band

(Wittelsbach, Coimbra and Taylor);

two have a medallion with appen-

dages surrounded by groups of

cartouches (Morgan-Widener and

Rothschild); and four have animals

in a landscape and no central motif

(Princezza, Ludlow, Aynard and

Hakki Bey-Peytel).

88 Hunting carpets with strap-

work borders, central Iran,

16th century:

(1) The Vienna hunting carpet.

308 x 732cm, reduced in length.

MAK, Vienna, no.T 8376/1922 KB.

Sarre & Trenkwald, vol.I, pl.9 (top

half); Völker, pp.230-31, no.81

(with structure analysis).

(2) The London hunting carpet.

Victoria & Albert Museum, London,

no.601-1894. A.F. Kendrick, Guide

to the Collection of Carpets, Victoria

and Albert Museum, London 1920,

no.4, pl.IV (detail). Cut horizontally,

central section removed, bottom

part joined to top.

(3) The Bacri Hunting Carpet. 275

x 384cm, reduced in length. Moshe

Tabibnia, Milan. Formerly Bacri

Frères, Paris, The Textile Gallery,

London; Wher Collection. See

Franses & Bennett 1986, pp.20-4,

pl.IX; HALI 128, 2003, p.45; HALI

130, 2003, p.105 (detail); Berdj

Achdjian & Dikran Kouymjian, ‘The

Legacy of the Indjoudjians’, HALI

142, 2005, p.69; HALI 143, 2005,

p.33, Erratum (detail); Jon Thom-

pson, Milestones in the History of

Carpets, Milan 2006, pp.186-90,

pl.17 (with structure analysis).

Cut horizontally, central section

removed, bottom part joined to

the top across centre, outer guard

border missing. In December 1997

a border fragment acquired at

Sotheby’s New York (16 October

1996, lot 150; 41 x 166cm) was

reattached.

(4) The Constantinople hunting

carpet. 135 x 181cm, corner

section of border and field. MAK,

Vienna, no.Or 311. Formerly Con-

stantinople art market, 1891; KK

Handels-Museum, Vienna. See

Martin 1908, p.47, fig.122; Sarre &

Trenkwald, vol.I, pl.10; Gans-

Ruedin 1978, pp.92-3 (with struc-

ture analysis); Völker, pp.232-3,

no.82 (with structure analysis).

Smaller fragments of the

same group:

(1) The Turin hunting carpet frag-

ment. 110 x 60cm, section of field

and border. Museo Civico, Turin,

no.2910. Taher Sabahi, ‘Un Safa-

vide a Torino, Un frammento del

XVI secolo dalle collezioni del

Museo Civico’, Ghereh, 1/1, 1993,

pp.30-1.

(2) The Myers hunting carpet frag-

ment. Major and inner border only.

Textile Museum, Washington DC,

no.R.33.4.8, George Hewitt Myers

Collection. Ellis 1965, p.45, fig.5,

and p.55 note 12 (with structure

analysis).

(3) The Hopf hunting carpet frag-

ment. 38 x 124cm, section of main

border. Marshall & Marilyn R. Wolf

Collection, New York. Formerly

private collection, Europe. Hopf,

p.23, pl.31; Sotheby’s, New York,

20 September 2001, lot 64 (with

structure analysis); HALI 120,

2002, p.130.

(4) The James hunting carpet frag-

ment. 122.5 x 222cm, section of

central field. Edward James Foun-

dation, Sussex. Melikian-Chirvani,

pp.244-5, no.52; Tilden, p.117.

(5) The Aynard hunting carpet

fragment. 44 x 66cm, section of

field. Musée des Arts Décoratifs,

Paris, no.19417. Formerly Joseph

Aynard Collection, Paris. Musée

du Louvre, Arabesques et Jardins

de Paradis, Paris 1989, p.283,

no.217; Rémi Labrousse, Purs

Décors, Paris 2007, p.337, no.153;

Tilden, p.117.

(6) The Liberec hunting carpet

fragment. 82 x 288cm, section

of central field with parts of the

narrow guard border attached

incorrectly on three sides. North

Bohemia Museum, Liberec, Czech

Republic, no.T3684.85. Pope

1938-39, pl.1176.

(7) The French & Co. hunting

carpet fragment. 38 x 122cm,

three border strips and three

corner sections joined together.

Formerly French & Co., New York.

Pope 1926, no.11 (cited).

(8) The David hunting carpet frag-

ment. 27 x 57.5cm. David Collec-

tion, Copenhagen, no.5/1973.

Kjeld von Folsach, Islamic Art. The

David Collection, Copenhagen

1990, p.247, no.416.

(9) The Yerkes hunting carpet

fragment. 82 x 193cm, section

of central field with outer minor

border added. Formerly Yerkes

Collection; Captain J.R. De Lamar.

Mumford 1910, pl. III.

(10) The Musée des Arts Décor-

atifs fragment. 75 x 40cm, border

section on a green ground. Pinder

Wilson 1957, pl.81b.

89 23 x 40cm, section, silk pile on

a silk foundation. Wher Collection.

Formerly Unger Collection, Mexico

City. Unpublished.

90 119 x 167cm, silk pile on a

silk foundation. Private collection,

Lecco. Unpublished.

91 Ivory ground and lobed medal-

lion silk pile rug with cartouche

border. Kashan (?), 16th century.

193 x 228cm. Iran Bastan Museum,

Tehran. Pope 1938-39, pl.1156.

92 The Stieglitz cartouche and star

medallion carpet. 167 x 231cm,

silk pile with metal thread. State

Hermitage Museum, St Peters-

burg, no.(V)T-1045. Formerly

Stieglitz Museum, St Petersburg.

HALI 135, 2004, p.99; HALI 153,

2007, p.37.

93 The Homberg trees, flowers

and birds rug. 16th century. 87 x

78cm. Private collection, New

York, on loan to the Metropolitan

Museum of Art, New York. For-

merly Octave Homberg Collection,

Paris, acquired in Constantinople,

reportedly decorating the tomb

of a sultan and previously from a

mosque in Konya; John D. Rocke-

feller III, New York. Galerie George

Petit, Paris, 3 to 5 June 1931, lot

122, pl.LIII and frontispiece; Maur-

ice Dimand, A Guide to an Exhibit-

ion of Oriental Rugs and Textiles,

New York 1935, no.23 (as ‘velvet’).

The narrow border stripe is typical

of Tabriz carpets.

94 See note 124 below.

95 Two silk strap-work carpets:

(1) The Shah Abbas I pair of silk

strap-work carpets with borders

on three sides only, made to lie

next to each other. Each 478 x

1,403cm. Shrine of Imam Ali at

al-Najaf. Gift of Shah Abbas I.

Mehmet Aga-OÌlu, 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 strap-work

carpet. 252 x 137cm, section from

the field with two side borders.

Victoria & Albert Museum, London.

Pope 1938-39, pl.1252; HALI 41,

1988, p.43.

96 Pope 1938-39, pl.1253; HALI

36, 1987, pp.7, 11; Achdjian &

Kouymjian, fig.5.

97 Pope 1938-39, pl.1251.

98 Ibid, pls.1258-60.

99 Ian Bennett, ‘Splendours in the

City of Silk, part 3: The Safavid

Masterpieces’, HALI 34, 1987,

pp.42-50, pl.XVIII.

100The Shah Suleiman hunting

carpet with medallion 5. Tabriz,

northwest Iran, early 17th century.

260 x 584cm, wool pile on a cotton

foundation. MIAQ, no.CA16, acq-

uired in September 1999 through

The Textile Gallery, London. For-

merly Shah Suleiman, 1688; Doge

Francesco Morosini, Venice; Estate

of Countess Lauredana Gatterburg-

Morosini (d.1884); Baroness de

Blanc, Rome; Ahuan Ltd., London;

The Textile Gallery, London; Luis

Virata, Manila. Published: Soth-

eby’s, London, 12 October 1982,

lot 47 (unsold); HALI 5/2, 1982,

p.196; The Unity of Islamic Art,

Riyadh 1985, p.181, no.158; Fran-

ses 1999, p.63, fig.34. Exhibited:

‘The Unity of Islamic Art’, at The

King Faisal Center for Research

and Islamic Studies, Riyadh, 1985.

Structure analysis: Warp – cotton,

ivory. Weft – wool, red, taut, first

and third shoots; cotton, ivory,

wavy, second shoot. Pile – wool,

asymmetric knots open on the

left, 2418 per dm2. Colours – 13

(ivory, two pinks, yellow, blue-

green, three blues, green, red,

orange, black, brown). Selvedges

– wool selvedge over 2 bundles of

3 warps with additional weft

thread, red. Ends – 8cm cotton

kilim ends, ivory.

101 The Marquand Kashan carpet.

central Iran, 16th century. 182 x

357cm, wool, cotton and silk pile

on a silk foundation, with metal

brocading. Philadelphia Museum

of Art, no.43-28-1. Formerly reput-

edly Sultan Abdulaziz, Turkey, 1876;

Henry G. Marquand, New York;

PERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETSPERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETS

HALI ISSUE 155 3635 HALI ISSUE 155

Vitall Benguiat, New York, 1903-32;

French & Co., New York; Mrs John

D. McIlhenny, Georgetown. Ellis

1988, pp.110-15.

102 The Schutz medallion hunting

rug. Possibly Esfahan, circa 1600.

221 x 160cm. Musée Historique

des Tissus, Lyon, no.23.921. Form-

erly M.F. Schutz, Paris, 1883. Pope

1938-39, pl.1150; Bennett 1987,

part 2, p.42, pl.III.

103 The Widener Medallion carpet.

National Gallery of Art,

Washington DC. no.1942.9.477.

229 x 427cm. Formerly Joseph

Widener. Pope 1938-39, pl.1148;

Gans-Ruedin 1978, pp.56-7;

Torchia, p.92, fig 4.

104 Ducks appear in the middle of

carpets from other weaving cen-

tres: e.g., an unusual small silk rug

that has features of both Kashan

and Esfahan rugs in the Iran Bastan

Museum, Tehran (Gans-Ruedin

1978, pp.54-5).

105 The Seley medallion, cartouche

and pendants carpet. Esfahan,

early 17th century. 730 x 300cm.

Metropolitan Museum of Art, New

York. Formerly Vitall and Louis

Benguiat, New York; Mr & Mrs

Louis E. Seley, New York. Ernst

J. Grube, The World of Islam,

London 1966, p.150, fig.90.

106 Some Tabriz carpets with

spade and octafoil field designs:

(1) 294 x 746cm. MAK, Vienna,

no.T.10211. Formerly Beghian,

London. Völker, pp.256-7, no.90.

(2) 302 x 742cm. Eberhart Herr-

mann, Emmetten. Formerly Beg-

hian, London; Vojtech Blau, New

York. HALI 5/2, 1982, p.196, fig.3

(detail); HALI 61, 1992, pp.66-7.

(3) 150 x 460cm, top left corner.

Kunstmuseum, Düsseldorf,

no.12446/7. Formerly Bock Collec-

tion, Aachen. Sarre & Trenkwald,

vol.II, pl.14; Erdmann 1950, no.

100, fig. 28; Meister & Azadi,

pp.24-5, no. 5.

(4) 182 x 193cm, central section.

Formerly Wher Collection. Chris-

tie’s, London, 3 May 2001, lot 74.

(5) 272 x 609cm. Private collect-

ion, Genoa. Formerly Bernheimer,

Munich, no.55938. Christie’s, Lon-

don, 14 February 1996, lot 101.

107 The Baron and Robinson

carpets, see note 14 above.

108 Franchetti, see note 122.

109. The Clam-Gallas spade and

quatrefoil carpet. Esfahan, 17th

century. 273 x 540cm. MAK,

Vienna, no.T.9026. Formerly Count

Clam-Gallas. Sarre & Trenkwald,

vol.II, pl.17; Pope 1938-39, pl.1143;

Gans-Ruedin 1978, pp.46-7; Völker,

pp.238-41, no.85 (with structure

analysis).

110 Hatvany, see note 55, no.6.

111 Some Esfahan carpets with

arabesque, palmette and cloud-

band field designs and spade,

octafoil and cartouche borders:

(1) 154 x 218cm. Corcoran Gallery

of Art, Washington DC, no.26.287.

Formerly Senator William A. Clark.

Valentiner, pp.50-1, no.42.

(2a) Textile Museum, Washington

DC, no.R.33.4.7. Section of border

and field. Ellis 1965, pp.48-9, fig.9.

(2b) 86 x 109cm. Wher Collection.

Formerly Schorscher Collection,

Toronto; The Textile Gallery, Lon-

don. Cselenyi 1972, no.8; Soth-

eby’s, New York, 3-5 February

1977, lot 301; Lefevre, London, 7

October 1977, lot 2.

(3) 278 x 367cm, reduced in width

and length. MAK, Vienna, no.Or.315.

Sarre & Trenkwald, vol.I, pl.16;

Völker, pp.236-7, no.84.

(4) Musée des Arts Décoratifs,

Paris, no.5484. Ellis 1965, p.49

(cited) and p.55, note 20d.

(5) 183 x 348cm. Whereabouts

unknown. Formerly Charles T.

Yerkes, New York; S.M. Milliken.

Mumford, pl.XI; American Art

Association, lot 209.

(6) 107 x 119cm, section of border

with field. Metropolitan Museum

of Art, New York. Formerly Joseph

V. McMullan, New York. McMullan,

pp.66-7, pl.13.

(7a) Textile Museum, Washington

DC no.R.33.4.12. Formerly Imre

Schwaiger; George Hewitt Myers,

Washington DC. Ellis 1965, p.49,

fig.13.

(7b) 80 x 317.5cm, two side bor-

ders sewn together. Whereabouts

unknown. Pope 1938-39, pl.1184.

(8) Victoria & Albert Museum, Lon-

don, no.T.131-1926. Border section

with tiny field remnant.

(9) 152 x 224cm. Sheikh Nasser

al-Sabah, Kuwait. On loan to the

Kuwait National Museum. Lefevre,

London, 7 October 1977, lot 3.

(10) 148 x 208cm. Keir Collection,

Ham, Surrey. Sotheby’s, London, 8

December 1967, lot 23; Friedrich

Spuhler, Islamic Carpets and

Textiles in the Keir Collection,

London 1978, pp.91, 99, no.46.

(11) 233 x 500cm. Rijksmuseum,

Amsterdam, no.17270. Formerly

N.N. Collection, Amsterdam. P.

Otten, Tentoonstelling Oostersche

Tapijten, Delft 1948, pl.IX, no.11.

(12) 121 x 186cm, reduced in width.

Whereabouts unknown. Formerly

Private collection, south Germany.

Erdmann 1950, fig.23, no.73.

(13) Corcoran Gallery of Art, Wash-

ington DC, no.26.265. Ellis 1965,

p.49 (cited) and p.55, note 20b.

(14) Whereabouts unknown. For-

merly Freiherr Tucher von Simmels-

dorf, Germany. Sarre 1908, pl.6.

112 The Rockefeller animal design

pictorial carpet. Esfahan, early 17th

century. 150 x 240cm, incomplete,

wool pile on a silk and cotton foun-

dation. Carpet Museum, Tehran.

Formerly John D. Rockefeller.

Pope 1938-39, pls.1182-3; Gans-

Ruedin 1978, p.89.

113 The Fletcher tree design rug.

Esfahan, early 17th century. 156 x

208cm, wool pile on a silk and

cotton foundation. Metropolitan

Museum of Art, New York,

no.17.120.142. Formerly Mr and

Mrs Isaac Fletcher, New York.

Dimand and Mailey, p.80, fig.110,

p.111, no.40.

114 The Rothschild palmette and

arabesque ‘Polonaise’ rug 6.

Esfahan, central Iran, circa 1600.

143 x 215cm, silk pile on a cotton

and silk foundation with silver bro-

cading. MIAQ, no.CA03, acquired

in 1997 through The Textile Gallery,

London. Formerly Baron Alphonse

de Rothschild; Baron Nathaniel de

Rothschild; Wildenstein Collection,

Paris; Akram Ojjeh, S.S. France;

Wher Collection. Apollo, CX/08,

June 1979, p.236; Sotheby’s,

Monaco, 25-26 June 1979, lot 85;

HALI II/3, 1979, p.255. Exhibited

at The Victoria & Albert Museum,

London, 1980.

115 Welch, p.18.

116 Spuhler 1968.

117 Dimand & Mailey, pp.61, 103,

fig.84, no.17.

118 Anki Dahlin, ‘Count Wrangel’s

Legacy, Oriental Carpets at Skok-

loster Slott’, HALI 55, 1991, p.121.

119 Some Esfahan ‘Polonaise’

rugs with the palmette and

arabesque design:

(1a/b). 144 x 222cm and 142 x

215cm. Skokloster Castle, Lake

Mälaren, Sweden, acquired in

1847. Martin 1908, p.63, pl.IX;

Spuhler 1968, p.210, nos.130, 131

(cited); Dahlin, p.121-3, fig.8 and

p.136 notes 16 and 17.

(2) 150 x 280cm, reduced in length

and width, patched and pieced,

possibly composed from a pair of

rugs. Musée Historiques des

Tissus, Lyon, no.25.136. Acquired

by the Musée d’Archéologie de

Lyon in 1880 and given in exch-

ange in 1890. Bennett 1987, Part

3, pp.46, 48, 104, note 68 (with

structure analysis); Dahlin, p.121

and p.136, note 8 (cited); Spuhler

1968, p.180, no.47 (cited).

(3) 165 x 107cm, pieced and reas-

sembled, salmon ground with green

border. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam,

no.RBK.17275. Formerly Dr Albert

Figdor, Vienna; Bernheimer, Mun-

ich; Dr F. Mannheimer. Von Scala

et al. 1891, no.386; Artaria & Cas-

sirer, Vienna, 11-13 June 1930,

vol.I, pl.XLVIII, lot 200; Bode/ Kühnel

1955, p.146, fig.113, 1958 and

1970, p.155, fig.113.

(4) 92 x 67cm, incomplete, salmon

ground with green border. MAK,

Vienna, no.0304/1892/NH nr. 13934.

Sarre & Trenkwald, vol.I, pl.30

(with structure analysis); Spuhler

1968, p.180, no.113 (cited): Völker,

pp.212-13, no.75 (with structure

analysis).

(5) 87 x 139cm, incomplete. Mus-

eum of Applied Art, Budapest,

no.10.669. Karoly Layer et al., Régi

Perzsa Szönyegek, Budapest

1936, p.23, no.35.

(6) 69 x 185cm, incomplete. Lwow.

Sztuka Perska i jej wpywy, Warsaw

1935, p.48, no.11, pl.2; Spuhler

1968, p.180, no.46 (cited).

120 See note 51 above, no.1.

121 See note 86 above, no.17.

122 Museu Nacional de Azulejo,

Lisbon. Formerly Convento da

Madre de Deus, Lisbon. Pereira &

Hallett, pp.84-5, nos.20, 21; HALI

154, 2007, p.134, no.3.

123 Pereira & Hallett, p.40.

124 Three early ‘Polonaise’ rugs:

(1) The Rainey Rogers ‘Polonaise’

rug. 173 x 228cm. Formerly Mrs

Rainey Rogers, New York; Hagop

Kevorkian, New York, no. 42; Doris

Duke, New Jersey. The Art News,

New York, 14 June 1930 (title page);

New York, Metropolitan Museum

of Art, Loan Exhibition of Persian

Rugs of the so-called Polish Type,

New York, 1930, no.15, pl.1; Wil-

liam H, McCleary, ‘Polish Rugs

from Persia’, The Antiquarian, XV,

1930, p. 62; Pope 1938-39, pl.1261;

Parke-Bernet Galleries, New York,

18-20 November 1943, lot 407;

Chicago 1947, no.13; Spuhler 1968,

pp.214-215, no. 141; Sotheby’s,

New York, 8 December 1990, lot

54; Christie’s, New York, 3 June

2008.

(2) The Liechtenstein ‘Polonaise’

rug. 139 x 210cm. Vaduz, Liech-

tenstein. Prince Johann II von

Liechenstein, Vaduz, since 1893.

Published: Vienna 1892, pl.V, fig.6;

Bode 1902, fig.33; Martin 1908,

fig.153; Sarre & Martin 1912, pl.56;

Henry-René D’Allemagne, Du

Khorassan au Pays des Backh-

tiaris, Trois Mois de Voyage en

Perse, Paris 1911, vol.III, plate on

p.18; Bode/Kühnel 1914, fig.41;

Bode/Kühnel 1922, fig.44; Heinrich

Glück & Ernst Diez, Die Kunst des

Islam, Propyläen Kunstgeschichte,

vol.5, Berlin 1925, p.392; Julius

Orendi, Das Gesamtwissen über

antike und neue Teppiche des

Orients, 2 vols, Vienna 1930,

fig.815; Pope 1938-39, pl.1242;

Phyllis Ackerman, Guide to the

Exhibition of Persian Art, New York

1940, p.50, no.17; Ernst Diez, Iran-

ische Kunst, Vienna 1944, fig.116;

Ernst Kühnel, Die Arabesque,

Wiesbaden 1949, and The

Arabesque, Meaning and Trans-

formation of an Ornament, Graz

1976, fig.17; Albert Achdjian, Le

Tapis, Un Art Fondamental, The

Rug, A Fundamental Art, Paris

1949, p.233 ; Bode/ Kühnel 1955,

fig.109.

(3) The Czartoryski ‘Polonaise’ rug.

162 x 233cm. Czartoryski Museum,

Cracow, no.I.673. Published: E.

Lièvre, Les Collections Celèbres

d’Oeuvres d’Art, Paris 1866, pl.60;

Alois Riegl, Altorientalische Tep-

piche, Leipzig 1891, p.194; Stefan

S. Komornicki, Muzeum Ksiazat

Czartoryskich w Krakowie, Cracow

1929, fig.177; Pope 1938-39,

pl.1243; Spuhler 1968, p.175,

no.30; Christie’s, London, 11

October 1990, lot 34 (withdrawn).

125 Marco Spallanzani, Oriental

Rugs in Renaissance Florence,

Florence 2007, records in the

Medici archives: (1) p.141, doc.137,

1549: “Payment by Cosimo I de’

Medici for a rug d’oro s seta e

lana, arme, di variati colori, lavorato

in Azzermia [a region of Iran],

mezzano Bartolomeo Sredoni.”

(2) p.142, doc.141, 1553: in the

Medici Guardaroba in Palazzo

Vecchio, seat of the court of

Cosimo I and Eleonora di Toledo,

“suno tappet vellutato turchesco

di seta e oro, fatto con varij animali,

di br.4 lungo e largo br. 22⁄3rds.”

126 See note 133 above.

127 Dimand & Mailey, p.60; Fried-

rich Spuhler et al., Denmark’s Cor-

onation Carpets, Copenhagen, 1987;

Mogens Bencard, ‘Denmark’s Cor-

onation Carpets, HALI 32, 1986,

pp.18-21.

128 Andrea Maréchal, ‘Anatolian

Kilims: The Riddle of Çatal Hüyük’,

HALI 26, 1985, pp.6-11.

129 S.I. Rudenko, Frozen Tombs of

Siberia–the Pazyryk Burials of Iron

Age Horsemen, London 1970,

figs.177a-c.

130 Krishna Riboud, ‘China’s Buried

Past’, HALI 34, 1987, pp.32-41.

131 James C.Y. Wyatt & Anne E.

Wardwell, When Silk Was Gold,

Central Asian and Chinese Textiles,

New York 1997.

132 Thompson 2006, pp.202-9;

HALI 85, 1996 (cover).

133 Thompson rightly shows that

the tulip design is part of Safavid

as well as Ottoman art. Further

evidence is offered by an unpub-

lished Safavid kilim covered with

tulips signed in Persian ‘al-Tabrizi’

that was once in the Khalili Collec-

tion. However, a particular group

of these tapestries stands out as

different in colours and style to

other Safavid tapestries: Thomp-

son lists the examples in the Tex-

tile Museum, Washington DC, and

in the Shrine at al-Najaf; to these

should be added a fragment simi-

lar to the Washington tapestry in

the Saud al-Thani collection, Lon-

don, and a prayer niche example

in the Topkapı Palace in Istanbul

(Hülya Tezcan & Sumiyo Okumura,

Textile Furnishings from the Top-

kapı Palace Museum, 2007, no. 3).

134 Spuhler 1968, pp.235-54, lists

38 examples.

135 Tadeusz Mankowski, ‘Note on

the Cost of Kashan Carpets at the

Beginning of the 17th Century’,

Bulletin of American Institute for

Persian Art and Archaeology, 1, 4,

1935, pp.152-3; Tadeusz Mankow-

ski, ‘Some Documents from Polish

Sources Relating to Carpet Making

in the Time of Shah Abbas I’, in

Pope 1938-39, pp.2431-6; Thom-

pson 2006.

136 The Franchetti hunting

design silk tapestry 7. Central Iran,

second half 16th century. 151 x

219cm, weft-faced tapestry weave

in silk and silver wrapped silk on a

silk foundation. MIAQ, no.CA02,

Acquired through The Textile

Gallery, London. Formerly Baron

Giorgio Franchetti, Rome (private

communication with Jack Franses,

who met the Baron and his son in

Rome); acquired by The Textile Gal-

lery, London for the Wher Collec-

tion. Kurt Erdmann, ‘Ein Persischer

Wirkteppich der Safawidenzeit’,

Pantheon, XXI, 1938, p.66;

Gertrude Robinson, ‘An Unknown

Sixteenth-Century Persian Carpet’,

Burlington Magazine, LXXII, 1938,

pp.103-5; Sotheby’s, London, 19

November 1976, lot 45; Weltkunst,

November 1976, p.2073; Bennett

1978, p.86.

137 The Figdor animal design silk

tapestry. Central Iran, second half

16th century.125 x 192cm. Miho

Museum, Shigaraki-no-Sato, Shiga,

Japan. Formerly Dr Albert Figdor,

Vienna; Thyssen-Bornemisza Col-

lection, Lugano. See Sarre 1910,

p.478f, fig.15; Bode/Kühnel 1922,

p.27, fig.47; Pope 1938-39, p.2404,

pl.1268A; Beattie 1972, p.31, pl.III;

HALI 65, 1992, p.111; Spuhler

1998, pp.84-97, pl.16.

138 Toyotomi Hideyoshi’s surcoat.

Kodai-ji, Kyoto. Spuhler 1998, p.87,

fig.1. HALI 76, 1994, p.108.

139 Beattie 1972, p.35, note 6.

140 Buccleuch ‘Sanguszko’: Ben-

nett & Franses 1992, pp.95-107.

Delaittre-Bellanger ‘Sanguszko’,

Lyon: Bennett 1987, Part 2, p.49.

141 Beattie 1976

142 The Koelz Legend of Layla

and Majnun silk tapestry 8.

Central Iran, late 16th or early 17th

century. 129 x 179cm, tapestry

weave in silk. MIAQ, no.CA01.

Christie’s, New York, 7 April 1990,

lot 149 (detail on front cover);

HALI 51, 1990, p.187. Structure

analysis: Warp – silk, white, S2Z,

224 per dm, depressed. Weft –

silk, S3Z, 1 yarn used together,

224-240 wefts per dm. Colours –

18 (two whites, beige, dark beige,

grey, olive, brown, red-brown, very

dark brown, yellow, three greens,

light blue, medium blue, navy,

brown-red, orange. Slit-tapestry

on depressed warp, not totally

weft-faced, some warp showing.

Interlaced outlining. Selvedges –

plain interlacing, 12 warps faced

with orange weft, 12 warps faced

with brown. Ends – top, missing

apart from traces of brown stripe,

raggedy edge; bottom, missing

apart from small bits of brown

stripe, raggedy edge.

143 Pictorial or naturalistic Safavid

silk tapestries:

(1) The Moore pictorial tapestry.

Kashan (?), 140 x 83cm, tapestry

weave in silk. Yale University Art

Gallery, New Haven. Formerly

Mrs William H. Moore Collection,

Chicago. Pope 1938-39, pp.2151-2,

2404, pl.1092.

(2) The Legend of Layla and Majnun

Kashan pictorial tapestry.

(3) The Czartoryski Kashan pictorial

tapestry. 212 x 275cm, tapestry

weave in silk with metal thread.

Czartoryski Museum, Cracow.

Formerly Princess Maria Ludwika

Czartoryska, until 1941; seized by

German troops; the Hagop Kevork-

ian Foundation, New York; Soth-

eby’s, London, 1970; Kay Robert-

son, Los Angeles; Los Angeles

County Museum of Art; on 6

March 2002 returned to Prince

Adam Czartoryski on behalf of the

Princes Czartoryski Foundation

Museum, Cracow. Pope 1938-39,

pls.1090-91.

(4) Tapestry with cypress trees,

birds and flowering shrubs.

Kerman (?) 65 x 116cm, tapestry

weave in silk. Whereabouts

unknown. La Gazette de l’Hôtel

Drouot, 39, 2 November 1990,

p.XX; Boisgirard, Paris, L’Art de

l’Islam, 26 November 1990, lot 51.

(5) The Los Angeles flowering

vase tapestry. Kerman (?) 73 x

198cm, tapestry weave in silk.

Khalili Collection. Formerly private

collection, Los Angeles. Christie’s,

New York, 27 May 1987, lot 70.

144 Dr Koelz was a zoologist, not

the background one would expect

for a collector of oriental art, but it

was this that first took him to Asia.

In 1939 he began a seven-year

exploration of Persia, followed by

trips to India, Nepal and Assam.

He held an appointment with the

University of Michigan for 74 years

and in 1956 was awarded the

Meyer Memorial Award for out-

standing contributions to the

world of agriculture.

145. Published in Aga-OÌlu. The

Shrine of Imam ‘Ali is one of the

holiest of Shi‘ite shrines. “In the

year 1508, the country was occu-

pied by Shah Isma‘il, whose first

act was a pilgimage to the Shrine.

Twenty-three years later, Iraq was

added to the domain of the Turks

…Suleiman the Magnificent visited

the shrine … in 1534. In 1623,

Baghdad, as well as al-Najaf and

Karbala was temporarily occupied

by Shah ‘Abbas I, but his successor,

Shah Safi I, was forced by the

Turks to abandon the cities in

1638. From that date until 1919,

Iraq was under Turkish rule.” (p.6)

146 See note 95 above.

147 Aga-OÌlu shows the close

similarity in design and style

between the smaller silk carpet in

al-Najaf and a silk carpet in St

Mark’s Treasury in Venice (no.26.

Pope 1938-39, pl.1244; Aga-OÌlu,

fig.7) that was given by Abbas to

the Doge Mariano Grimini in 1603,

as well as to other wool pile

carpets such as one in the Shrine

of Imam Reza in Mashad (Pope

1938-39, pl.1185; Aga-OÌlu, fig.8;

Gans-Ruedin 1978, p.83).

148 The Emperor Peter the Great

hunting carpets:

(1) 350 x 742cm, wool pile on a

cotton and silk foundation, with silk

fringes. MAK, Vienna, no.T.8334.

Reputtedly a gift from Tsar Peter

the Great of Russia to Emperor

Leopold I of Austria (1658-1705),

1698; Habsburg Imperial Collec-

tion. Sarre & Trenkwald, vol.I,

pls.6-8; Bode/Kühnel, 1958/1970,

fig.84; Gans-Ruedin 1978, pp.65-6;

Völker, pp.224-9, no.80.

(2) 330 x 751cm. Metropolitan

Museum of Art, New York,

PERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETSPERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETS

HALI ISSUE 155 3635 HALI ISSUE 155

Vitall Benguiat, New York, 1903-32;

French & Co., New York; Mrs John

D. McIlhenny, Georgetown. Ellis

1988, pp.110-15.

102 The Schutz medallion hunting

rug. Possibly Esfahan, circa 1600.

221 x 160cm. Musée Historique

des Tissus, Lyon, no.23.921. Form-

erly M.F. Schutz, Paris, 1883. Pope

1938-39, pl.1150; Bennett 1987,

part 2, p.42, pl.III.

103 The Widener Medallion carpet.

National Gallery of Art,

Washington DC. no.1942.9.477.

229 x 427cm. Formerly Joseph

Widener. Pope 1938-39, pl.1148;

Gans-Ruedin 1978, pp.56-7;

Torchia, p.92, fig 4.

104 Ducks appear in the middle of

carpets from other weaving cen-

tres: e.g., an unusual small silk rug

that has features of both Kashan

and Esfahan rugs in the Iran Bastan

Museum, Tehran (Gans-Ruedin

1978, pp.54-5).

105 The Seley medallion, cartouche

and pendants carpet. Esfahan,

early 17th century. 730 x 300cm.

Metropolitan Museum of Art, New

York. Formerly Vitall and Louis

Benguiat, New York; Mr & Mrs

Louis E. Seley, New York. Ernst

J. Grube, The World of Islam,

London 1966, p.150, fig.90.

106 Some Tabriz carpets with

spade and octafoil field designs:

(1) 294 x 746cm. MAK, Vienna,

no.T.10211. Formerly Beghian,

London. Völker, pp.256-7, no.90.

(2) 302 x 742cm. Eberhart Herr-

mann, Emmetten. Formerly Beg-

hian, London; Vojtech Blau, New

York. HALI 5/2, 1982, p.196, fig.3

(detail); HALI 61, 1992, pp.66-7.

(3) 150 x 460cm, top left corner.

Kunstmuseum, Düsseldorf,

no.12446/7. Formerly Bock Collec-

tion, Aachen. Sarre & Trenkwald,

vol.II, pl.14; Erdmann 1950, no.

100, fig. 28; Meister & Azadi,

pp.24-5, no. 5.

(4) 182 x 193cm, central section.

Formerly Wher Collection. Chris-

tie’s, London, 3 May 2001, lot 74.

(5) 272 x 609cm. Private collect-

ion, Genoa. Formerly Bernheimer,

Munich, no.55938. Christie’s, Lon-

don, 14 February 1996, lot 101.

107 The Baron and Robinson

carpets, see note 14 above.

108 Franchetti, see note 122.

109. The Clam-Gallas spade and

quatrefoil carpet. Esfahan, 17th

century. 273 x 540cm. MAK,

Vienna, no.T.9026. Formerly Count

Clam-Gallas. Sarre & Trenkwald,

vol.II, pl.17; Pope 1938-39, pl.1143;

Gans-Ruedin 1978, pp.46-7; Völker,

pp.238-41, no.85 (with structure

analysis).

110 Hatvany, see note 55, no.6.

111 Some Esfahan carpets with

arabesque, palmette and cloud-

band field designs and spade,

octafoil and cartouche borders:

(1) 154 x 218cm. Corcoran Gallery

of Art, Washington DC, no.26.287.

Formerly Senator William A. Clark.

Valentiner, pp.50-1, no.42.

(2a) Textile Museum, Washington

DC, no.R.33.4.7. Section of border

and field. Ellis 1965, pp.48-9, fig.9.

(2b) 86 x 109cm. Wher Collection.

Formerly Schorscher Collection,

Toronto; The Textile Gallery, Lon-

don. Cselenyi 1972, no.8; Soth-

eby’s, New York, 3-5 February

1977, lot 301; Lefevre, London, 7

October 1977, lot 2.

(3) 278 x 367cm, reduced in width

and length. MAK, Vienna, no.Or.315.

Sarre & Trenkwald, vol.I, pl.16;

Völker, pp.236-7, no.84.

(4) Musée des Arts Décoratifs,

Paris, no.5484. Ellis 1965, p.49

(cited) and p.55, note 20d.

(5) 183 x 348cm. Whereabouts

unknown. Formerly Charles T.

Yerkes, New York; S.M. Milliken.

Mumford, pl.XI; American Art

Association, lot 209.

(6) 107 x 119cm, section of border

with field. Metropolitan Museum

of Art, New York. Formerly Joseph

V. McMullan, New York. McMullan,

pp.66-7, pl.13.

(7a) Textile Museum, Washington

DC no.R.33.4.12. Formerly Imre

Schwaiger; George Hewitt Myers,

Washington DC. Ellis 1965, p.49,

fig.13.

(7b) 80 x 317.5cm, two side bor-

ders sewn together. Whereabouts

unknown. Pope 1938-39, pl.1184.

(8) Victoria & Albert Museum, Lon-

don, no.T.131-1926. Border section

with tiny field remnant.

(9) 152 x 224cm. Sheikh Nasser

al-Sabah, Kuwait. On loan to the

Kuwait National Museum. Lefevre,

London, 7 October 1977, lot 3.

(10) 148 x 208cm. Keir Collection,

Ham, Surrey. Sotheby’s, London, 8

December 1967, lot 23; Friedrich

Spuhler, Islamic Carpets and

Textiles in the Keir Collection,

London 1978, pp.91, 99, no.46.

(11) 233 x 500cm. Rijksmuseum,

Amsterdam, no.17270. Formerly

N.N. Collection, Amsterdam. P.

Otten, Tentoonstelling Oostersche

Tapijten, Delft 1948, pl.IX, no.11.

(12) 121 x 186cm, reduced in width.

Whereabouts unknown. Formerly

Private collection, south Germany.

Erdmann 1950, fig.23, no.73.

(13) Corcoran Gallery of Art, Wash-

ington DC, no.26.265. Ellis 1965,

p.49 (cited) and p.55, note 20b.

(14) Whereabouts unknown. For-

merly Freiherr Tucher von Simmels-

dorf, Germany. Sarre 1908, pl.6.

112 The Rockefeller animal design

pictorial carpet. Esfahan, early 17th

century. 150 x 240cm, incomplete,

wool pile on a silk and cotton foun-

dation. Carpet Museum, Tehran.

Formerly John D. Rockefeller.

Pope 1938-39, pls.1182-3; Gans-

Ruedin 1978, p.89.

113 The Fletcher tree design rug.

Esfahan, early 17th century. 156 x

208cm, wool pile on a silk and

cotton foundation. Metropolitan

Museum of Art, New York,

no.17.120.142. Formerly Mr and

Mrs Isaac Fletcher, New York.

Dimand and Mailey, p.80, fig.110,

p.111, no.40.

114 The Rothschild palmette and

arabesque ‘Polonaise’ rug 6.

Esfahan, central Iran, circa 1600.

143 x 215cm, silk pile on a cotton

and silk foundation with silver bro-

cading. MIAQ, no.CA03, acquired

in 1997 through The Textile Gallery,

London. Formerly Baron Alphonse

de Rothschild; Baron Nathaniel de

Rothschild; Wildenstein Collection,

Paris; Akram Ojjeh, S.S. France;

Wher Collection. Apollo, CX/08,

June 1979, p.236; Sotheby’s,

Monaco, 25-26 June 1979, lot 85;

HALI II/3, 1979, p.255. Exhibited

at The Victoria & Albert Museum,

London, 1980.

115 Welch, p.18.

116 Spuhler 1968.

117 Dimand & Mailey, pp.61, 103,

fig.84, no.17.

118 Anki Dahlin, ‘Count Wrangel’s

Legacy, Oriental Carpets at Skok-

loster Slott’, HALI 55, 1991, p.121.

119 Some Esfahan ‘Polonaise’

rugs with the palmette and

arabesque design:

(1a/b). 144 x 222cm and 142 x

215cm. Skokloster Castle, Lake

Mälaren, Sweden, acquired in

1847. Martin 1908, p.63, pl.IX;

Spuhler 1968, p.210, nos.130, 131

(cited); Dahlin, p.121-3, fig.8 and

p.136 notes 16 and 17.

(2) 150 x 280cm, reduced in length

and width, patched and pieced,

possibly composed from a pair of

rugs. Musée Historiques des

Tissus, Lyon, no.25.136. Acquired

by the Musée d’Archéologie de

Lyon in 1880 and given in exch-

ange in 1890. Bennett 1987, Part

3, pp.46, 48, 104, note 68 (with

structure analysis); Dahlin, p.121

and p.136, note 8 (cited); Spuhler

1968, p.180, no.47 (cited).

(3) 165 x 107cm, pieced and reas-

sembled, salmon ground with green

border. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam,

no.RBK.17275. Formerly Dr Albert

Figdor, Vienna; Bernheimer, Mun-

ich; Dr F. Mannheimer. Von Scala

et al. 1891, no.386; Artaria & Cas-

sirer, Vienna, 11-13 June 1930,

vol.I, pl.XLVIII, lot 200; Bode/ Kühnel

1955, p.146, fig.113, 1958 and

1970, p.155, fig.113.

(4) 92 x 67cm, incomplete, salmon

ground with green border. MAK,

Vienna, no.0304/1892/NH nr. 13934.

Sarre & Trenkwald, vol.I, pl.30

(with structure analysis); Spuhler

1968, p.180, no.113 (cited): Völker,

pp.212-13, no.75 (with structure

analysis).

(5) 87 x 139cm, incomplete. Mus-

eum of Applied Art, Budapest,

no.10.669. Karoly Layer et al., Régi

Perzsa Szönyegek, Budapest

1936, p.23, no.35.

(6) 69 x 185cm, incomplete. Lwow.

Sztuka Perska i jej wpywy, Warsaw

1935, p.48, no.11, pl.2; Spuhler

1968, p.180, no.46 (cited).

120 See note 51 above, no.1.

121 See note 86 above, no.17.

122 Museu Nacional de Azulejo,

Lisbon. Formerly Convento da

Madre de Deus, Lisbon. Pereira &

Hallett, pp.84-5, nos.20, 21; HALI

154, 2007, p.134, no.3.

123 Pereira & Hallett, p.40.

124 Three early ‘Polonaise’ rugs:

(1) The Rainey Rogers ‘Polonaise’

rug. 173 x 228cm. Formerly Mrs

Rainey Rogers, New York; Hagop

Kevorkian, New York, no. 42; Doris

Duke, New Jersey. The Art News,

New York, 14 June 1930 (title page);

New York, Metropolitan Museum

of Art, Loan Exhibition of Persian

Rugs of the so-called Polish Type,

New York, 1930, no.15, pl.1; Wil-

liam H, McCleary, ‘Polish Rugs

from Persia’, The Antiquarian, XV,

1930, p. 62; Pope 1938-39, pl.1261;

Parke-Bernet Galleries, New York,

18-20 November 1943, lot 407;

Chicago 1947, no.13; Spuhler 1968,

pp.214-215, no. 141; Sotheby’s,

New York, 8 December 1990, lot

54; Christie’s, New York, 3 June

2008.

(2) The Liechtenstein ‘Polonaise’

rug. 139 x 210cm. Vaduz, Liech-

tenstein. Prince Johann II von

Liechenstein, Vaduz, since 1893.

Published: Vienna 1892, pl.V, fig.6;

Bode 1902, fig.33; Martin 1908,

fig.153; Sarre & Martin 1912, pl.56;

Henry-René D’Allemagne, Du

Khorassan au Pays des Backh-

tiaris, Trois Mois de Voyage en

Perse, Paris 1911, vol.III, plate on

p.18; Bode/Kühnel 1914, fig.41;

Bode/Kühnel 1922, fig.44; Heinrich

Glück & Ernst Diez, Die Kunst des

Islam, Propyläen Kunstgeschichte,

vol.5, Berlin 1925, p.392; Julius

Orendi, Das Gesamtwissen über

antike und neue Teppiche des

Orients, 2 vols, Vienna 1930,

fig.815; Pope 1938-39, pl.1242;

Phyllis Ackerman, Guide to the

Exhibition of Persian Art, New York

1940, p.50, no.17; Ernst Diez, Iran-

ische Kunst, Vienna 1944, fig.116;

Ernst Kühnel, Die Arabesque,

Wiesbaden 1949, and The

Arabesque, Meaning and Trans-

formation of an Ornament, Graz

1976, fig.17; Albert Achdjian, Le

Tapis, Un Art Fondamental, The

Rug, A Fundamental Art, Paris

1949, p.233 ; Bode/ Kühnel 1955,

fig.109.

(3) The Czartoryski ‘Polonaise’ rug.

162 x 233cm. Czartoryski Museum,

Cracow, no.I.673. Published: E.

Lièvre, Les Collections Celèbres

d’Oeuvres d’Art, Paris 1866, pl.60;

Alois Riegl, Altorientalische Tep-

piche, Leipzig 1891, p.194; Stefan

S. Komornicki, Muzeum Ksiazat

Czartoryskich w Krakowie, Cracow

1929, fig.177; Pope 1938-39,

pl.1243; Spuhler 1968, p.175,

no.30; Christie’s, London, 11

October 1990, lot 34 (withdrawn).

125 Marco Spallanzani, Oriental

Rugs in Renaissance Florence,

Florence 2007, records in the

Medici archives: (1) p.141, doc.137,

1549: “Payment by Cosimo I de’

Medici for a rug d’oro s seta e

lana, arme, di variati colori, lavorato

in Azzermia [a region of Iran],

mezzano Bartolomeo Sredoni.”

(2) p.142, doc.141, 1553: in the

Medici Guardaroba in Palazzo

Vecchio, seat of the court of

Cosimo I and Eleonora di Toledo,

“suno tappet vellutato turchesco

di seta e oro, fatto con varij animali,

di br.4 lungo e largo br. 22⁄3rds.”

126 See note 133 above.

127 Dimand & Mailey, p.60; Fried-

rich Spuhler et al., Denmark’s Cor-

onation Carpets, Copenhagen, 1987;

Mogens Bencard, ‘Denmark’s Cor-

onation Carpets, HALI 32, 1986,

pp.18-21.

128 Andrea Maréchal, ‘Anatolian

Kilims: The Riddle of Çatal Hüyük’,

HALI 26, 1985, pp.6-11.

129 S.I. Rudenko, Frozen Tombs of

Siberia–the Pazyryk Burials of Iron

Age Horsemen, London 1970,

figs.177a-c.

130 Krishna Riboud, ‘China’s Buried

Past’, HALI 34, 1987, pp.32-41.

131 James C.Y. Wyatt & Anne E.

Wardwell, When Silk Was Gold,

Central Asian and Chinese Textiles,

New York 1997.

132 Thompson 2006, pp.202-9;

HALI 85, 1996 (cover).

133 Thompson rightly shows that

the tulip design is part of Safavid

as well as Ottoman art. Further

evidence is offered by an unpub-

lished Safavid kilim covered with

tulips signed in Persian ‘al-Tabrizi’

that was once in the Khalili Collec-

tion. However, a particular group

of these tapestries stands out as

different in colours and style to

other Safavid tapestries: Thomp-

son lists the examples in the Tex-

tile Museum, Washington DC, and

in the Shrine at al-Najaf; to these

should be added a fragment simi-

lar to the Washington tapestry in

the Saud al-Thani collection, Lon-

don, and a prayer niche example

in the Topkapı Palace in Istanbul

(Hülya Tezcan & Sumiyo Okumura,

Textile Furnishings from the Top-

kapı Palace Museum, 2007, no. 3).

134 Spuhler 1968, pp.235-54, lists

38 examples.

135 Tadeusz Mankowski, ‘Note on

the Cost of Kashan Carpets at the

Beginning of the 17th Century’,

Bulletin of American Institute for

Persian Art and Archaeology, 1, 4,

1935, pp.152-3; Tadeusz Mankow-

ski, ‘Some Documents from Polish

Sources Relating to Carpet Making

in the Time of Shah Abbas I’, in

Pope 1938-39, pp.2431-6; Thom-

pson 2006.

136 The Franchetti hunting

design silk tapestry 7. Central Iran,

second half 16th century. 151 x

219cm, weft-faced tapestry weave

in silk and silver wrapped silk on a

silk foundation. MIAQ, no.CA02,

Acquired through The Textile

Gallery, London. Formerly Baron

Giorgio Franchetti, Rome (private

communication with Jack Franses,

who met the Baron and his son in

Rome); acquired by The Textile Gal-

lery, London for the Wher Collec-

tion. Kurt Erdmann, ‘Ein Persischer

Wirkteppich der Safawidenzeit’,

Pantheon, XXI, 1938, p.66;

Gertrude Robinson, ‘An Unknown

Sixteenth-Century Persian Carpet’,

Burlington Magazine, LXXII, 1938,

pp.103-5; Sotheby’s, London, 19

November 1976, lot 45; Weltkunst,

November 1976, p.2073; Bennett

1978, p.86.

137 The Figdor animal design silk

tapestry. Central Iran, second half

16th century.125 x 192cm. Miho

Museum, Shigaraki-no-Sato, Shiga,

Japan. Formerly Dr Albert Figdor,

Vienna; Thyssen-Bornemisza Col-

lection, Lugano. See Sarre 1910,

p.478f, fig.15; Bode/Kühnel 1922,

p.27, fig.47; Pope 1938-39, p.2404,

pl.1268A; Beattie 1972, p.31, pl.III;

HALI 65, 1992, p.111; Spuhler

1998, pp.84-97, pl.16.

138 Toyotomi Hideyoshi’s surcoat.

Kodai-ji, Kyoto. Spuhler 1998, p.87,

fig.1. HALI 76, 1994, p.108.

139 Beattie 1972, p.35, note 6.

140 Buccleuch ‘Sanguszko’: Ben-

nett & Franses 1992, pp.95-107.

Delaittre-Bellanger ‘Sanguszko’,

Lyon: Bennett 1987, Part 2, p.49.

141 Beattie 1976

142 The Koelz Legend of Layla

and Majnun silk tapestry 8.

Central Iran, late 16th or early 17th

century. 129 x 179cm, tapestry

weave in silk. MIAQ, no.CA01.

Christie’s, New York, 7 April 1990,

lot 149 (detail on front cover);

HALI 51, 1990, p.187. Structure

analysis: Warp – silk, white, S2Z,

224 per dm, depressed. Weft –

silk, S3Z, 1 yarn used together,

224-240 wefts per dm. Colours –

18 (two whites, beige, dark beige,

grey, olive, brown, red-brown, very

dark brown, yellow, three greens,

light blue, medium blue, navy,

brown-red, orange. Slit-tapestry

on depressed warp, not totally

weft-faced, some warp showing.

Interlaced outlining. Selvedges –

plain interlacing, 12 warps faced

with orange weft, 12 warps faced

with brown. Ends – top, missing

apart from traces of brown stripe,

raggedy edge; bottom, missing

apart from small bits of brown

stripe, raggedy edge.

143 Pictorial or naturalistic Safavid

silk tapestries:

(1) The Moore pictorial tapestry.

Kashan (?), 140 x 83cm, tapestry

weave in silk. Yale University Art

Gallery, New Haven. Formerly

Mrs William H. Moore Collection,

Chicago. Pope 1938-39, pp.2151-2,

2404, pl.1092.

(2) The Legend of Layla and Majnun

Kashan pictorial tapestry.

(3) The Czartoryski Kashan pictorial

tapestry. 212 x 275cm, tapestry

weave in silk with metal thread.

Czartoryski Museum, Cracow.

Formerly Princess Maria Ludwika

Czartoryska, until 1941; seized by

German troops; the Hagop Kevork-

ian Foundation, New York; Soth-

eby’s, London, 1970; Kay Robert-

son, Los Angeles; Los Angeles

County Museum of Art; on 6

March 2002 returned to Prince

Adam Czartoryski on behalf of the

Princes Czartoryski Foundation

Museum, Cracow. Pope 1938-39,

pls.1090-91.

(4) Tapestry with cypress trees,

birds and flowering shrubs.

Kerman (?) 65 x 116cm, tapestry

weave in silk. Whereabouts

unknown. La Gazette de l’Hôtel

Drouot, 39, 2 November 1990,

p.XX; Boisgirard, Paris, L’Art de

l’Islam, 26 November 1990, lot 51.

(5) The Los Angeles flowering

vase tapestry. Kerman (?) 73 x

198cm, tapestry weave in silk.

Khalili Collection. Formerly private

collection, Los Angeles. Christie’s,

New York, 27 May 1987, lot 70.

144 Dr Koelz was a zoologist, not

the background one would expect

for a collector of oriental art, but it

was this that first took him to Asia.

In 1939 he began a seven-year

exploration of Persia, followed by

trips to India, Nepal and Assam.

He held an appointment with the

University of Michigan for 74 years

and in 1956 was awarded the

Meyer Memorial Award for out-

standing contributions to the

world of agriculture.

145. Published in Aga-OÌlu. The

Shrine of Imam ‘Ali is one of the

holiest of Shi‘ite shrines. “In the

year 1508, the country was occu-

pied by Shah Isma‘il, whose first

act was a pilgimage to the Shrine.

Twenty-three years later, Iraq was

added to the domain of the Turks

…Suleiman the Magnificent visited

the shrine … in 1534. In 1623,

Baghdad, as well as al-Najaf and

Karbala was temporarily occupied

by Shah ‘Abbas I, but his successor,

Shah Safi I, was forced by the

Turks to abandon the cities in

1638. From that date until 1919,

Iraq was under Turkish rule.” (p.6)

146 See note 95 above.

147 Aga-OÌlu shows the close

similarity in design and style

between the smaller silk carpet in

al-Najaf and a silk carpet in St

Mark’s Treasury in Venice (no.26.

Pope 1938-39, pl.1244; Aga-OÌlu,

fig.7) that was given by Abbas to

the Doge Mariano Grimini in 1603,

as well as to other wool pile

carpets such as one in the Shrine

of Imam Reza in Mashad (Pope

1938-39, pl.1185; Aga-OÌlu, fig.8;

Gans-Ruedin 1978, p.83).

148 The Emperor Peter the Great

hunting carpets:

(1) 350 x 742cm, wool pile on a

cotton and silk foundation, with silk

fringes. MAK, Vienna, no.T.8334.

Reputtedly a gift from Tsar Peter

the Great of Russia to Emperor

Leopold I of Austria (1658-1705),

1698; Habsburg Imperial Collec-

tion. Sarre & Trenkwald, vol.I,

pls.6-8; Bode/Kühnel, 1958/1970,

fig.84; Gans-Ruedin 1978, pp.65-6;

Völker, pp.224-9, no.80.

(2) 330 x 751cm. Metropolitan

Museum of Art, New York,

PERSIAN CLASSICAL CARPETS

37 HALI ISSUE 155

no.43.121.1. Reputedly gift of

Emperor Peter the Great of Russia

to Emperor Leopold I of Austria

(1658-1705), 1698; Habsburg

Imperial collection; Mrs Edith

Rockefeller McCormick, New York.

Pope 1938-39, pl.1174; Dimand &

Mailey, pp.140-1, fig.76, p.101,

no.12; Sabahi, pp.38-9.

149 Pope 1938-39, vol.III, p.2361.

150 The group is quite large.

Among the best examples are:

(1a) The Madre de Deus tree and

animal carpet. Museu Nacional de

Arte Antigua, Lisbon. Hallett &

Pereira, pp.72-3, figs.1,2; Pereira &

Hallett, nos.18,19.

(1b) End section. Textile Museum,

Washington DC.

(2) The Robinson-Sangiorgi cloud-

band and palmette Esfahan carpet.

285 x 455cm. Bruschettini Collect-

ion, Genoa. Robinson 1893.

151 Metal thread is also discus-

sed in the context of the Roth-

schild ‘Polonaise’ 6.

152 See note 17 (1) above, The

Pope Pius IX Tabriz hunting carpet.

On cotton warps, at both ends it

has a woven silk fringe, silver-wrap-

ped in places, tied to the warps

some 10cm into the rug.

153 For an image of one of the

braiding types, see Thompson

2006, p.215, figs.182-3.

154 ‘The Oriental Carpet in

Portugal Carpets and Paintings,

15th-17th Centuries’, curated by

Teresa Pacheco Pereira and Jes-

sica Hallett, Museu Nacional de

Arte Antigua, Lisbon, 31 July-18

November 2007.

155 Pereira & Hallet, nos.18, 25,

27, 29, 33-40, 44, 45. No.28 has

been excluded from this list as it

may be a rug with an ‘Esfahan’

design but from another location.

156. Hallett & Pereira Pereira &

Hallet, pp.79-83: “receipt book of

the anteroom of Our Lady, the

[Portuguese] Queen [D. Caterina]

…in Xabregas on the 3rd January,

1571 [Queen Caterina] received…

another carpet with a red field

with green and beige branches,

and beige lions and beasts, and

other wild animals in blue, and

parrots and other birds in diverse

colours; and a green border with

beige and white birds [decorated]

with other colours; it has a length

of seven and eleven-twelfths

covados and a width of seven-

twelfths covados.”

157 Perhaps it actually means that

the carpet was discovered in Spain

or Portugal.

158 See note 154 above.

159 Unknown artist, Portrait of Jean

Charles de la Faille, Lord of Rym-

enam, aged 30. Royal Museum of

Fine Arts, Brussels. Onno Ydema,

Carpets and Their Datings in Neth-

erlandish Paintings, 1540-1700,

Woodbridge 1991, p.154, no.343.

160 Peter Paul Rubens, Holy Family

with St. Elizabeth, Madonna of

the Basket, ca. 1615. Palazzo Pitti,

Florence.

161 The Rothschild ‘in-and-out’

palmettes carpet 9, Esfahan,

second half 16th century, 216 x

478cm, wool pile on a silk and

cotton foundation. Dyed with lac,

madder, weld, and indigo. Formerly:

Edmund de Rothschild Collection,

Geneva; Colnaghi, London; The

Textile Gallery, London; Cittone,

Milan; Roberto Calvi Collection,

Milan and London. Christie’s,

London, 24 April 1997, lot 530;

HALI 93, 1997, p. 127 (detail).

162 King Edward VII’s palmette

design coronation carpet 10.

Khorasan, northeast Iran, circa

1700. 299 x 670cm, wool pile on a

cotton foundation. Reputedly from

a cathedral in Spain; Duveen Bros.,

London; Genevieve Garvan Brady

Collection, New York, 1937; David

Zorn & Co., Chicago; Mr & Mrs

James C. Donnell II Collection;

Yves Mikaeloff, Paris. American

Art Association, New York, 1937,

lot 2024; Sotheby’s, New York,

4 June 1988, lot 205; Christie’s,

London, 16 October 1997, lot 100;

HALI 96, 1998, p.141. A fragmen-

ted Khorasan carpet probably from

the late 16th or early 17th century,

once with Mrs Rockefeller McCor-

mick, has a closely related design,

but with the addition of animals

(Pope, Survey, 1964 edition, vol.XII,

pl.1181a; 1967 edition, pl.1181a).

The McCormick Khorasan has a

very unusual border pattern, sim-

ilar to that of the Fenaille Tabriz

cloudband and medallion carpet in

the Musée des Art Décoratifs,

Paris (see note 13 above).

163 Section of a Shrub Carpet,

on a red ground 11. Kerman,

second quarter 17th century. 120

x 183cm. Sotheby’s, London, 15

October 1997, lot 68. The pattern,

which repeats every fourth row, is

composed of horizontal rows of

different shrubs set against a red

background. Other examples are

known on yellow, ivory and blue

grounds (Beattie 1976, p.79, no.54).

More commonly found are Kerman

‘shrub’ carpets, with individual

shrubs placed in a diagonal lattice

(Beattie 1976, pp.80-3, nos.55-8).

Almost all the extant examples

with this pattern are fragmented;

the most spectacular complete

example is the red-ground Lady

Dudley shrub lattice carpet (Ben-

nett 1978, p.78).

164 Section of a palmette and

sickle-leaf carpet, on a blue

ground 12. Kerman, second

quarter 17th century. 180 x

234cm. Sotheby’s, London, 15

October 1997, lot 69. This large

field fragment of a sickle-leaf

design Kerman carpet has portions

of the guard border and primary

border remaining on the right

hand side. The most spectacular

complete example of this type on

a red ground is the Throne carpet

in the Corcoran Gallery of Art,

Washington DC; a complete blue-

ground example is in the

Gulbenkian Museum, Lisbon

(Beattie 1976, pp.50, no.15, and

p.93, no.70).

165 Section of a vase and

compartment lattice carpet,

on a green ground 13. Kerman,

second quarter 17th century. 59 x

51cm. Formerly Yves Mikaeloff,

Paris. Christie’s, London, 16 Octo-

ber 1997, lot 74. This. Beattie

informs us of other fragments

with the same design in more

than twenty different collections

(Beattie 1976, pp.74-5, no.49).