.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
This carpet is one of seven widely published examples of what has been variously described as the 'strapwork' or 'arabesque' group, wool carpets with a field decorated by a lattice of broad sinuous branches rather than the narrower vines which are found on carpets such as the 'Vase' group. In an article of 1988, published just before this carpet resurfaced at auction in Christie's New York, Ian Bennet made the case that these carpets had been made in Iran. As well as specifically noting Benguiat's attribution from 1925, he also pointed to similarities between the design of the 'strapwork' carpets and the design principles underlying the 'Polonaise' group, especially the large example endowed to the shrine at Najaf during the brief Safavid occupation of the city between 1623 and 1638. He also identifies similarities between the design on this carpet and other Safavid designs, such as that adorning the dome of the Mosque of Sheikh Lutfallah, built in Isfahan in 1619, and 'the Isfahan Cope' in the Victoria and Albert Museum associated with the Armenian community of New Julfa (acc.nos.477-1894, T.30-1926, T.211-1930).
This point of view has been questioned by Murray L. Eiland Jr ('The Moghul "Strapwork" Carpets', Oriental Rug Review 11:6, 1991, pp.28-37). He makes the argument that the group was instead made in Mughal India. Certainly, three of the published group of strapwork carpets are in collections in India - two in Bijapur, and one in Jaipur - and in 1902 / 3 sir George Watt wrote that he believed the Bijapur carpets to have been woven in Kashmir. Eiland is also able to marshal examples of 'strapwork'-like designs appearing in Mughal miniatures and architecture. Ultimately, the close connection between Mughal and Safavid artistic styles and the regular commerce of art and artists between the two courts - to say nothing of the fact that the Mughal rulers themselves found their origins in Central Asia - can make it hard to identify the origin of particular designs, and indeed can make any claims that designs are inherently 'Safavid' or 'Mughal' inherently weak.
However, Eiland is perhaps too quick to dismiss the similarities between the 'Strapwork' group and 'Polonaise' carpets. He points to an earlier article by Kurt Erdmann in which he argued that all the 'Strapwork' group were designed based on an identical overall design, of which each carpet represented only a particular section ('The Pattern Structure of the Arabesque Carpets', Survey of Persian Art, Vol. XVI, Ashiya, 1977, pp.3160-6). The 'Polonaise' carpet in Najaf, he contends, instead is 'little more than a simple drop repeat'. However, Friedrich Spuhler's work on the 'Polonaise' group indicates that many example of 'Polonaise' rugs are governed by identical principles of selecting from a wider lattice, and indeed his 'System V' closely resembles the diagram drawn by Erdmann in his own article. If the same design principles were being used, then it is possible to attribute an identical origin to the 'Strapwork' group to the 'Polonaise' group, allowing us to confidently locate the carpets in Safavid Isfahan in the 17th century.
This point of view has been questioned by Murray L. Eiland Jr ('The Moghul "Strapwork" Carpets', Oriental Rug Review 11:6, 1991, pp.28-37). He makes the argument that the group was instead made in Mughal India. Certainly, three of the published group of strapwork carpets are in collections in India - two in Bijapur, and one in Jaipur - and in 1902 / 3 sir George Watt wrote that he believed the Bijapur carpets to have been woven in Kashmir. Eiland is also able to marshal examples of 'strapwork'-like designs appearing in Mughal miniatures and architecture. Ultimately, the close connection between Mughal and Safavid artistic styles and the regular commerce of art and artists between the two courts - to say nothing of the fact that the Mughal rulers themselves found their origins in Central Asia - can make it hard to identify the origin of particular designs, and indeed can make any claims that designs are inherently 'Safavid' or 'Mughal' inherently weak.
However, Eiland is perhaps too quick to dismiss the similarities between the 'Strapwork' group and 'Polonaise' carpets. He points to an earlier article by Kurt Erdmann in which he argued that all the 'Strapwork' group were designed based on an identical overall design, of which each carpet represented only a particular section ('The Pattern Structure of the Arabesque Carpets', Survey of Persian Art, Vol. XVI, Ashiya, 1977, pp.3160-6). The 'Polonaise' carpet in Najaf, he contends, instead is 'little more than a simple drop repeat'. However, Friedrich Spuhler's work on the 'Polonaise' group indicates that many example of 'Polonaise' rugs are governed by identical principles of selecting from a wider lattice, and indeed his 'System V' closely resembles the diagram drawn by Erdmann in his own article. If the same design principles were being used, then it is possible to attribute an identical origin to the 'Strapwork' group to the 'Polonaise' group, allowing us to confidently locate the carpets in Safavid Isfahan in the 17th century.