HP

L

The Doha ‘ashtapada’ silk carpet; Inca and Colonial Andean tunics; Rugs in the Ankara Vakıfl ar museum; Goya tapestries; ICOC fair preview; Tsutsugaki at Fukuoka;The Rautenstrauch-Joest museum in Cologne; Tibetan rugs at the Rubin museum

Issue 167 Spring 2011 UK £17 Europe £19 USA $36

Rest of the world £22 $42 www.hali.com

C A R P E T, T E X T I L E A N D I S L A M I C A R T

I

INDIAN SILK CARPETSINDIAN SILK CARPETS

HALI ISSUE 167 32 HALI ISSUE 167

ONE OF THE MOST BEAUTIFUL SILK PILE CARPETSin the world 1, the Doha ‘Ashtapada’ carpet, was acquired by theQatari National Council for Culture Arts and Heritage (NCCAH)in 1997. It has fresh vibrant colours, high silk pile, a superbartistic design and is in an outstanding state of preservation.2

It has been called the ‘Ashtapada’ carpet because of a uniquedesign detail, the gaming board knotted into the pattern 52.Ashtapada (literally ‘eight-legged’ in Sanskrit) is the name

given to an eight-square by eight-square Indian gaming board.3

It is also the name of an ancient Indian race game originallyplayed on such a board, probably with dice. The modern chess-board can possibly be traced back to the ashtapada board.4

When this unique silk carpet was acquired in Kathmandu in1988 by an American antiques dealer and his local partner, noother oriental carpet with this field design or with a gamingboard knotted into the pattern was known or published.

Although I prefer not to offer opinions without physicalexamination and scientific testing, prior to the carpet’s acquis-ition, my opinion was sought by the dealers in Nepal, basedin the first instance on detailed black and white images sentto me by fax.5 I responded, with all the necessary caveats, that inmy opinion the carpet was probably from the mid-15th century,made in India and based upon a Turkish or possibly a Spanishmodel. For while the exact leaf form in the field 2 could not befound on ceramics, stucco work, textile patterns or in manu-scripts, the general pattern seemed somewhat similar to designson 15th century Valencia armorial lustreware 3, in which we see

features such as the inversion of the leaf motif from row to row,and the spiral stem surrounding the leaves,6 which may havemorphed into octagons when transposed into a woven design.

I proposed that perhaps parts of the design were adapted from a15th century Spanish carpet, as elements within the medallionand the primary Kufesque borders are to be found on Spanishwool carpets of similar date, as well as, more commonly, onTurkish examples. I was already aware of wool pile carpets madein India in the 15th century copying either Spanish or Turkishdesigns 48, 49, and a small group of 15th century Indian lampassilks, rediscovered in Tibet in the 1960s, also have patterns basedupon Spanish originals, establishing that Spanish silk textiles hadreached India by this time. Although my initial proposal as to theorigin of parts of the pattern, as well as the Indian attribution,were firmly dismissed by the prospective purchasers, they never-theless proceeded with the acquisition.

The carpet’s American co-owner soon became convincedthat it had been made in Samarkand, the capital of the TimuridEmpire. He further proposed that the carpet may have belongedto Timur himself (who was particularly fond of chess), and thatthe Emperor would have sat on the medallion to play the game.While no Samarkand carpets from this period are known to havesurvived, the attribution was based in the first instance on relatedKufesque border designs on carpets depicted in Timurid periodminiature paintings 4, 29.

In 1996, not long after its first publication in Chess Monthlymagazine, ‘Tamerlane’s Chessboard Carpet from Samarkand’ was

The oldest securely dated complete silk pile carpetfrom the Muslim world,1 now in the Museum ofIslamic Art in Doha, is particularly significant inthe history of oriental carpets. Its synthesis ofpatterns casts light on the extensive trade andcultural links across Asia and the Mediterraneanregion between 1350 and 1450 that enabled thediffusion of an ‘International Style’ of Islamic artfamiliar from Iberia to India. With reference toelements of this style the author questions thecarpet world’s uncritical acceptance of a Persian orCentral Asian origin for this apparently uniquecarpet and proposes on technical and art historicalgrounds that it is a likely product of a weavingatelier in one of the Islamic courts of the Deccan.

MICHAEL FRANSES

asht

apad

a

1 The ‘Ashtapada’

carpet, possibly the

Deccan, south India,

first half 15th century.

Silk pile on a cotton

foundation, 1.63 x

3.71m (5'4" x 12'2").

Museum of Islamic

Art, Doha, Qatar,

CA.19.97

1

Ph

oto

gra

ph

:Lo

ng

evit

y,Lo

nd

on

INDIAN SILK CARPETSINDIAN SILK CARPETS

HALI ISSUE 167 32 HALI ISSUE 167

ONE OF THE MOST BEAUTIFUL SILK PILE CARPETSin the world 1, the Doha ‘Ashtapada’ carpet, was acquired by theQatari National Council for Culture Arts and Heritage (NCCAH)in 1997. It has fresh vibrant colours, high silk pile, a superbartistic design and is in an outstanding state of preservation.2

It has been called the ‘Ashtapada’ carpet because of a uniquedesign detail, the gaming board knotted into the pattern 52.Ashtapada (literally ‘eight-legged’ in Sanskrit) is the name

given to an eight-square by eight-square Indian gaming board.3

It is also the name of an ancient Indian race game originallyplayed on such a board, probably with dice. The modern chess-board can possibly be traced back to the ashtapada board.4

When this unique silk carpet was acquired in Kathmandu in1988 by an American antiques dealer and his local partner, noother oriental carpet with this field design or with a gamingboard knotted into the pattern was known or published.

Although I prefer not to offer opinions without physicalexamination and scientific testing, prior to the carpet’s acquis-ition, my opinion was sought by the dealers in Nepal, basedin the first instance on detailed black and white images sentto me by fax.5 I responded, with all the necessary caveats, that inmy opinion the carpet was probably from the mid-15th century,made in India and based upon a Turkish or possibly a Spanishmodel. For while the exact leaf form in the field 2 could not befound on ceramics, stucco work, textile patterns or in manu-scripts, the general pattern seemed somewhat similar to designson 15th century Valencia armorial lustreware 3, in which we see

features such as the inversion of the leaf motif from row to row,and the spiral stem surrounding the leaves,6 which may havemorphed into octagons when transposed into a woven design.

I proposed that perhaps parts of the design were adapted from a15th century Spanish carpet, as elements within the medallionand the primary Kufesque borders are to be found on Spanishwool carpets of similar date, as well as, more commonly, onTurkish examples. I was already aware of wool pile carpets madein India in the 15th century copying either Spanish or Turkishdesigns 48, 49, and a small group of 15th century Indian lampassilks, rediscovered in Tibet in the 1960s, also have patterns basedupon Spanish originals, establishing that Spanish silk textiles hadreached India by this time. Although my initial proposal as to theorigin of parts of the pattern, as well as the Indian attribution,were firmly dismissed by the prospective purchasers, they never-theless proceeded with the acquisition.

The carpet’s American co-owner soon became convincedthat it had been made in Samarkand, the capital of the TimuridEmpire. He further proposed that the carpet may have belongedto Timur himself (who was particularly fond of chess), and thatthe Emperor would have sat on the medallion to play the game.While no Samarkand carpets from this period are known to havesurvived, the attribution was based in the first instance on relatedKufesque border designs on carpets depicted in Timurid periodminiature paintings 4, 29.

In 1996, not long after its first publication in Chess Monthlymagazine, ‘Tamerlane’s Chessboard Carpet from Samarkand’ was

The oldest securely dated complete silk pile carpetfrom the Muslim world,1 now in the Museum ofIslamic Art in Doha, is particularly significant inthe history of oriental carpets. Its synthesis ofpatterns casts light on the extensive trade andcultural links across Asia and the Mediterraneanregion between 1350 and 1450 that enabled thediffusion of an ‘International Style’ of Islamic artfamiliar from Iberia to India. With reference toelements of this style the author questions thecarpet world’s uncritical acceptance of a Persian orCentral Asian origin for this apparently uniquecarpet and proposes on technical and art historicalgrounds that it is a likely product of a weavingatelier in one of the Islamic courts of the Deccan.

MICHAEL FRANSES

asht

apad

a

1 The ‘Ashtapada’

carpet, possibly the

Deccan, south India,

first half 15th century.

Silk pile on a cotton

foundation, 1.63 x

3.71m (5'4" x 12'2").

Museum of Islamic

Art, Doha, Qatar,

CA.19.97

1

Ph

oto

gra

ph

:Lo

ng

evit

y,Lo

nd

on

INDIAN SILK CARPETSINDIAN SILK CARPETS

HALI ISSUE 167 54 HALI ISSUE 167

2 Detail of the field

pattern of the

Ashtapada carpet 1

3 Leaf designs on

Spanish lustreware.

After V. Van de Put,

Hispano-Moresque

Ware of the XV

Century, London,

1904, pl.IIA, B

4 Humayun Faints

at the Sight of

Humay’s Portrait

(detail), Shiraz School

painting, dated 1420.

Staatliche Museen,

Berlin, I.4628

5 Timur Celebrates

His Conquest of Delhi

in 1398 (detail), from

the Zafarnama of

Sharafuddin Ali Yazdi,

Shiraz, 1436. Harvard

University Art

Museums (Arthur

M. Sackler Museum),

Cambridge, bequest

of the estate of Abby

Aldrich Rockefeller,

1960.198

6 A Tamerlane

chessboard.

7 Detail of the field

design of the

Ashtapada carpet

8 Field patterns of

carpets depicted in

Timurid paintings,

after Amy Briggs,

1940

9 Detail of the

medallion of the

Ashtapada carpet and

its surround 1

revealed to selected visitors at the 8th International Conferenceon Oriental Carpets in Philadelphia. A year later the carpet wassold by private treaty through Christie’s in London to the NCCAH.Most subsequent publications of the carpet have repeated theattribution to Timurid Central Asia.

However romantic such extravagant claims may have been then– and they certainly appear even more so today – they do notdiminish in any way the beauty and importance of this greatwork of art. But it is time to rethink the attribution through adetailed examination of many of the carpet’s particular features.

First, the Timur/Samarkand question needs to be addressed.Timur was of Turko-Mongol origin, born in 1336 in Kesh (nowShahrisyabz), south of Samarkand. An indirect descendant ofGenghis Khan and a fearsome warrior, from 1370 until his deathin 1405 he ruled a vast empire won by bloody conquest.7 Hisarmies attacked the very heart of Russia, reaching the gates ofMoscow; he fought the Ottomans in Anatolia and the Mamluksin Syria; his forces went deep into northern India; and his name

aroused dread and fear throughout Europe. Yet Timur thought ofhimself as a compassionate man – when he conquered cities,the craftsmen and artisans were spared and sent to work for himin Samarkand, and all the arts flourished under his rule.

Many miniature paintings of the period portray great rulersof the Islamic world seated upon carpets 29. Timur is shownseveral times, but we cannot be sure that any of these werepainted from life. So although their patterns must reflect thestyle of the period, we do not know where the artists saw theoriginal carpets. A Shiraz painting of 1436, from the Zafarnama ofSharafuddin Ali Yazdi, for example, depicts Timur celebratingthe conquest of Delhi in 1398 5: the floral border in red againstan orange ground is hard to read, and the tiny corner of fieldtantalisingly revealed beneath the bolster has glorious coloursbut is indecipherable.8 In any case, no known oriental paintingsdepict a carpet with a field like the Ashtapada carpet, nor asimilar medallion or games board, although a variety of almostidentical Kufesque primary border patterns can be seen in many

9

42

3

1

5

7

6

8

INDIAN SILK CARPETSINDIAN SILK CARPETS

HALI ISSUE 167 54 HALI ISSUE 167

2 Detail of the field

pattern of the

Ashtapada carpet 1

3 Leaf designs on

Spanish lustreware.

After V. Van de Put,

Hispano-Moresque

Ware of the XV

Century, London,

1904, pl.IIA, B

4 Humayun Faints

at the Sight of

Humay’s Portrait

(detail), Shiraz School

painting, dated 1420.

Staatliche Museen,

Berlin, I.4628

5 Timur Celebrates

His Conquest of Delhi

in 1398 (detail), from

the Zafarnama of

Sharafuddin Ali Yazdi,

Shiraz, 1436. Harvard

University Art

Museums (Arthur

M. Sackler Museum),

Cambridge, bequest

of the estate of Abby

Aldrich Rockefeller,

1960.198

6 A Tamerlane

chessboard.

7 Detail of the field

design of the

Ashtapada carpet

8 Field patterns of

carpets depicted in

Timurid paintings,

after Amy Briggs,

1940

9 Detail of the

medallion of the

Ashtapada carpet and

its surround 1

revealed to selected visitors at the 8th International Conferenceon Oriental Carpets in Philadelphia. A year later the carpet wassold by private treaty through Christie’s in London to the NCCAH.Most subsequent publications of the carpet have repeated theattribution to Timurid Central Asia.

However romantic such extravagant claims may have been then– and they certainly appear even more so today – they do notdiminish in any way the beauty and importance of this greatwork of art. But it is time to rethink the attribution through adetailed examination of many of the carpet’s particular features.

First, the Timur/Samarkand question needs to be addressed.Timur was of Turko-Mongol origin, born in 1336 in Kesh (nowShahrisyabz), south of Samarkand. An indirect descendant ofGenghis Khan and a fearsome warrior, from 1370 until his deathin 1405 he ruled a vast empire won by bloody conquest.7 Hisarmies attacked the very heart of Russia, reaching the gates ofMoscow; he fought the Ottomans in Anatolia and the Mamluksin Syria; his forces went deep into northern India; and his name

aroused dread and fear throughout Europe. Yet Timur thought ofhimself as a compassionate man – when he conquered cities,the craftsmen and artisans were spared and sent to work for himin Samarkand, and all the arts flourished under his rule.

Many miniature paintings of the period portray great rulersof the Islamic world seated upon carpets 29. Timur is shownseveral times, but we cannot be sure that any of these werepainted from life. So although their patterns must reflect thestyle of the period, we do not know where the artists saw theoriginal carpets. A Shiraz painting of 1436, from the Zafarnama ofSharafuddin Ali Yazdi, for example, depicts Timur celebratingthe conquest of Delhi in 1398 5: the floral border in red againstan orange ground is hard to read, and the tiny corner of fieldtantalisingly revealed beneath the bolster has glorious coloursbut is indecipherable.8 In any case, no known oriental paintingsdepict a carpet with a field like the Ashtapada carpet, nor asimilar medallion or games board, although a variety of almostidentical Kufesque primary border patterns can be seen in many

9

42

3

1

5

7

6

8

INDIAN SILK CARPETSINDIAN SILK CARPETS

HALI ISSUE 167 76 HALI ISSUE 167

15 The Seyh Baba

Yusuf Mosque two-

octagon with eight-

lobed flowers rug,

west Anatolia, 16th

century. 1.30 x 2.02m

(4'3" x 6'8"). TIEM,

Istanbul, no.700

16 Two-octagon

carpet fragment

(detail), west Anatolia,

late 16th century. 1.42

x 0.88m (4'8" x 2'11").

Museum of Islamic

Art, Berlin, KGM

1904,77

17 The Ballard

flowers in octagons

carpet (detail), Spain,

15th century. 1.54 x

2.74m (5'1" x 9'0").

St Louis Art Museum,

122.1929

18 The Convent of

Santa Ursula flowers

in octagons carpet

(detail), Alcaraz (?),

Spain, 15th century.

1.03 x 2.50m (3'5"

x 8'2"). Museum of

Islamic Art, Doha,

Qatar, CA 24

oriental and European paintings. The medallion and theseborder patterns are very much part of a 15th century interna-tional style that can be seen on surviving carpets from Spain,Anatolia, Syria and Persia.

The attribution to the orbit of the Timurid court lacksevidence to substantiate it, but is also extremely unlikely forother reasons. First, it would be most unusual for a great rulerto have a silk carpet made for himself – either as a gift orpersonal commission – from the loosely spun, lower-qualityfloss silk seen here. Much finer qualities of silk were readilyavailable in Samarkand itself, and from Persia and China.Additionally, it is unlikely that a silk pile carpet would havebeen made for such an eminent patron on a cotton foundationwith cotton fringes rather than a silk foundation with long silkfringes. Third, the quality of knotting is not particularly fine.Fourth, while we know that Timur played chess, it is most likelythat this was on the more complex ‘Tamerlane chessboard’,which is eleven squares across and ten squares deep 6.9 And itwould certainly be difficult to use upright chess pieces on aboard such as this, created on a carpet with high pile.

In the catalogue for an exhibition during the Doha CulturalFestival in 2004,10 Jon Thompson suggested that the carpetmight have been woven either in Persia or Central Asia. Hewrote: “In the past five hundred years Iran has had a complex andturbulent history ...as a result we know very little about the types of

carpets and textiles produced during the 15th century. There is, however,ample evidence from Persian paintings and from such written sources asdo exist that valuable carpets and textiles were produced in plenty at thistime, so it was a matter of great interest when this previously unknowncarpet, apparently of 15th century date, came to light. The pile… is workedin silk, and the small-scale endless-repeat pattern of the field is based onthe design of Chinese silk textiles of the 14th century. The central field isdominated by a large octagon containing a radial design with volutes.Similar designs are well known in 15th century Turkish carpets, oftenrather inexactly rendered as if copied from some earlier model. Thusquestions arise as to where it was woven. It was not hitherto realized thatcarpets with octagons were also a Persian tradition, for they appear inpaintings of the 14th century Jalayrid school of western Iran and survive ina few 15th century carpets of uncertain origin that are probably Persian.11

This appears to be the earliest surviving example of that tradition. Anotherfeature that would support a Persian or Central Asian origin for this piece(apart from its typically Persian weave) is the way the border design isneatly turned through forty-five degrees at each corner, a feature almostinvariably present in the carpets depicted in Persian paintings but which isextremely rare in surviving Turkish carpets. The presence of sixteen smallsquares laid out in the manner of a chess board has given rise to muchspeculation. Depictions of people playing chess are seen in Persian paintingsand it is certainly possible that this feature of the carpet was designed forthat purpose.”

It is always preferable to rely on a combination of science and

16

1813 14

10-12 Details of the

medallion of the

Ashtapada carpet

13 The Divrigi

‘Domes and

Squinches’

two-octagon carpet

(detail), east (?)

Anatolia, 14th

century. 2.02

x 3.42m (6'8" x

11'3"). Vakıflar

Carpet Museum,

Istanbul, A-217

14 The Goldschmidt

four-octagon ’large

pattern Holbein’

carpet (detail), west

Anatolia, second half

15th century. 2.00 x

4.30m (6'7" x 14'1").

Museum of Islamic

Art, Berlin, I.5526

10 12

11

15

17

INDIAN SILK CARPETSINDIAN SILK CARPETS

HALI ISSUE 167 76 HALI ISSUE 167

15 The Seyh Baba

Yusuf Mosque two-

octagon with eight-

lobed flowers rug,

west Anatolia, 16th

century. 1.30 x 2.02m

(4'3" x 6'8"). TIEM,

Istanbul, no.700

16 Two-octagon

carpet fragment

(detail), west Anatolia,

late 16th century. 1.42

x 0.88m (4'8" x 2'11").

Museum of Islamic

Art, Berlin, KGM

1904,77

17 The Ballard

flowers in octagons

carpet (detail), Spain,

15th century. 1.54 x

2.74m (5'1" x 9'0").

St Louis Art Museum,

122.1929

18 The Convent of

Santa Ursula flowers

in octagons carpet

(detail), Alcaraz (?),

Spain, 15th century.

1.03 x 2.50m (3'5"

x 8'2"). Museum of

Islamic Art, Doha,

Qatar, CA 24

oriental and European paintings. The medallion and theseborder patterns are very much part of a 15th century interna-tional style that can be seen on surviving carpets from Spain,Anatolia, Syria and Persia.

The attribution to the orbit of the Timurid court lacksevidence to substantiate it, but is also extremely unlikely forother reasons. First, it would be most unusual for a great rulerto have a silk carpet made for himself – either as a gift orpersonal commission – from the loosely spun, lower-qualityfloss silk seen here. Much finer qualities of silk were readilyavailable in Samarkand itself, and from Persia and China.Additionally, it is unlikely that a silk pile carpet would havebeen made for such an eminent patron on a cotton foundationwith cotton fringes rather than a silk foundation with long silkfringes. Third, the quality of knotting is not particularly fine.Fourth, while we know that Timur played chess, it is most likelythat this was on the more complex ‘Tamerlane chessboard’,which is eleven squares across and ten squares deep 6.9 And itwould certainly be difficult to use upright chess pieces on aboard such as this, created on a carpet with high pile.

In the catalogue for an exhibition during the Doha CulturalFestival in 2004,10 Jon Thompson suggested that the carpetmight have been woven either in Persia or Central Asia. Hewrote: “In the past five hundred years Iran has had a complex andturbulent history ...as a result we know very little about the types of

carpets and textiles produced during the 15th century. There is, however,ample evidence from Persian paintings and from such written sources asdo exist that valuable carpets and textiles were produced in plenty at thistime, so it was a matter of great interest when this previously unknowncarpet, apparently of 15th century date, came to light. The pile… is workedin silk, and the small-scale endless-repeat pattern of the field is based onthe design of Chinese silk textiles of the 14th century. The central field isdominated by a large octagon containing a radial design with volutes.Similar designs are well known in 15th century Turkish carpets, oftenrather inexactly rendered as if copied from some earlier model. Thusquestions arise as to where it was woven. It was not hitherto realized thatcarpets with octagons were also a Persian tradition, for they appear inpaintings of the 14th century Jalayrid school of western Iran and survive ina few 15th century carpets of uncertain origin that are probably Persian.11

This appears to be the earliest surviving example of that tradition. Anotherfeature that would support a Persian or Central Asian origin for this piece(apart from its typically Persian weave) is the way the border design isneatly turned through forty-five degrees at each corner, a feature almostinvariably present in the carpets depicted in Persian paintings but which isextremely rare in surviving Turkish carpets. The presence of sixteen smallsquares laid out in the manner of a chess board has given rise to muchspeculation. Depictions of people playing chess are seen in Persian paintingsand it is certainly possible that this feature of the carpet was designed forthat purpose.”

It is always preferable to rely on a combination of science and

16

1813 14

10-12 Details of the

medallion of the

Ashtapada carpet

13 The Divrigi

‘Domes and

Squinches’

two-octagon carpet

(detail), east (?)

Anatolia, 14th

century. 2.02

x 3.42m (6'8" x

11'3"). Vakıflar

Carpet Museum,

Istanbul, A-217

14 The Goldschmidt

four-octagon ’large

pattern Holbein’

carpet (detail), west

Anatolia, second half

15th century. 2.00 x

4.30m (6'7" x 14'1").

Museum of Islamic

Art, Berlin, I.5526

10 12

11

15

17

INDIAN SILK CARPETS

HALI ISSUE 167 9

INDIAN SILK CARPETS

8 HALI ISSUE 167

19 Detail of the

border design of the

Ashtapada carpet

art history to assess the date of a carpet, as designs are traditionaland were often copied over hundreds of years. In April 1991,samples from the carpet were sent for radiocarbon (C-14) testingat the Research Laboratory for Archaeology in Oxford, yieldinga date range of 1315-1640. In April 1998, when the NCCAH sentthe carpet to Longevity Conservation Studio in London forconservation, further samples of the warp threads were sent tothe Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich (ETH), whocarried out two more C-14 tests which yielded almost identicalresults and provided a mean range of 1434-1623.12 These results(see Appendix) conform well to the 15th century datingsuggested by art historical factors.

Also in 1998, samples of the silk pile yarns were sent for dyeanalysis by solvent extraction, followed by absorption spectro-

photometry and thin-layer chromatography (TLC), at TextileResearch in Archaeology, York. Their report showed that thenavy blue is an indigotin, probably natural indigo; the gold andyellow are a non-flavonoid yellow dye, probably saffron; thechartreuse and medium green are both indigotin and curcumin(turmeric) mixtures; and the red is the insect dye lac (Kerrialacca). All these dyes are native to India and lac, turmeric andindigo have been identified in many Indian silk textiles in thepast, while saffron is also known as a common Indian dye. Ofcourse Indian dyes were widespread within the Islamic world,so this analysis does not preclude the possibility that they couldhave been used in a Central Asian or Persian carpet during atime of Islamic influence.

It is interesting that Jon Thompson, writing in 2010 aboutwhat he describes as “the one surviving [15th century] carpet withPersianate features”, refers to the result of these dye tests asfollows: “Two shades of green were found to have been double-dyedwith indigo and curcumin, the latter most likely derived from turmeric. Itis never wise to place too much weight on a single piece of evidence, butthis finding raises important questions: maybe the place of this carpet inhistory needs a careful re-think.”

A relatively small number of oriental carpets made in thisperiod survive, but none have this octagonal lattice field pattern 2,that gives the impression of tile-work and can be viewed as agrid of 322 tiny, almost complete octagons (some hidden by theoverlaid gaming board). In rows across the carpet are five-petalled leaves, rather like harlequins’ caps, with the stem ofeach leaf curling round to form the octagonal grid and, togetherwith the stem around the inverted harlequin leaf above, forminga geometricised ‘S’ shape 7. Between the rows of octagons, andoffset diagonally, are symmetrical eight-petalled rosettes, withpairs of arrow-like extensions on each of the four axes. JonThompson suggests that the pattern may be based on Chinesesilk textile designs of the 14th century, but I have examinedmany such textiles, both surviving silks and their depictions inItalian paintings, and have found no connection.

Much of our understanding of the field patterns of 15th centurycourt workshop carpets is derived from their depiction inpaintings, whose value as evidence is limited. We cannot knowwhether the artist was looking at an actual carpet, and, if so,where it might have been made. The paintings do, however, givean idea of the importance of the carpets and of the populardesigns that were then in use. Although many of the carpetpatterns depicted in Amy Briggs’s oft-cited study of Timuridpaintings have similar Kufesque borders to that of the Ashtapadacarpet 26-28, 30, 47, none of the wide variety of lattices sheshows 8 are at all like its field design.13 Timurid period courtcarpets were clearly very sophisticated and for the most parttheir lattices are highly complex, often incorporating interlaceelements. Perhaps the closest, but still distant, comparison tothe Ashtapada carpet is to be found in a Shiraz School paintingof 1420 in the Museum of Islamic Art in Berlin 4, in which asimple lattice field of small interlocking octagons is surroundedby a knot-interlace border.14 Similar carpets can be seen incontemporaneous Indian miniature paintings.

In the centre of the Ashtapada carpet is a square 9 containing anoctagonal medallion as well as triangular motifs 10 in each cornerwhich, if brought together, would form a diamond shape. Thesealso appear on the Frauenknecht Indian carpet discussed below49. The outer part of the square comprises a border composed oftwo different hooked ornaments, one set within a hexagon 11,flanked on both sides by a narrow dotted line in black and white, adesign commonly found on kilims from Konya to Azerbaijan. Afurther narrow strip of field outlining the square and its borderis left undecorated, allowing the whole unit to ‘float’ on a plainred background, whereas the lattice field apparently continuesbeneath the off-centre gaming board, giving the illusion that theboard is laid on top of the lattice. Each side of the octagon hasfour trefoil-shaped protrusions outlined in yellow 12, as is the

23

2220

21

20 Corner detail of the

Divrigi ‘Domes and

Squinches’ two-

octagon carpet 13

21 Corner detail of

the Alaaddin Keykubad

Tomb ‘small-pattern

Holbein’ carpet frag-

ment, west Anatolia,

late 15th century. 1.00

x 1.87m (3'3" x 6'2").

Museum of Turkish

and Islamic Arts,

Istanbul, 303

22 Virgin and Child

with Angels, central

panel from the Altar-

piece of St Zeno of

Verona, by Andrea

Mantegna, ca. 1456-

60, Church of San

Zeno Maggiore,

Verona. Courtesy

Alinari/Bridgeman

Art Library

23 Corner detail of

the Ashtapada carpet

19

INDIAN SILK CARPETS

HALI ISSUE 167 9

INDIAN SILK CARPETS

8 HALI ISSUE 167

19 Detail of the

border design of the

Ashtapada carpet

art history to assess the date of a carpet, as designs are traditionaland were often copied over hundreds of years. In April 1991,samples from the carpet were sent for radiocarbon (C-14) testingat the Research Laboratory for Archaeology in Oxford, yieldinga date range of 1315-1640. In April 1998, when the NCCAH sentthe carpet to Longevity Conservation Studio in London forconservation, further samples of the warp threads were sent tothe Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich (ETH), whocarried out two more C-14 tests which yielded almost identicalresults and provided a mean range of 1434-1623.12 These results(see Appendix) conform well to the 15th century datingsuggested by art historical factors.

Also in 1998, samples of the silk pile yarns were sent for dyeanalysis by solvent extraction, followed by absorption spectro-

photometry and thin-layer chromatography (TLC), at TextileResearch in Archaeology, York. Their report showed that thenavy blue is an indigotin, probably natural indigo; the gold andyellow are a non-flavonoid yellow dye, probably saffron; thechartreuse and medium green are both indigotin and curcumin(turmeric) mixtures; and the red is the insect dye lac (Kerrialacca). All these dyes are native to India and lac, turmeric andindigo have been identified in many Indian silk textiles in thepast, while saffron is also known as a common Indian dye. Ofcourse Indian dyes were widespread within the Islamic world,so this analysis does not preclude the possibility that they couldhave been used in a Central Asian or Persian carpet during atime of Islamic influence.

It is interesting that Jon Thompson, writing in 2010 aboutwhat he describes as “the one surviving [15th century] carpet withPersianate features”, refers to the result of these dye tests asfollows: “Two shades of green were found to have been double-dyedwith indigo and curcumin, the latter most likely derived from turmeric. Itis never wise to place too much weight on a single piece of evidence, butthis finding raises important questions: maybe the place of this carpet inhistory needs a careful re-think.”

A relatively small number of oriental carpets made in thisperiod survive, but none have this octagonal lattice field pattern 2,that gives the impression of tile-work and can be viewed as agrid of 322 tiny, almost complete octagons (some hidden by theoverlaid gaming board). In rows across the carpet are five-petalled leaves, rather like harlequins’ caps, with the stem ofeach leaf curling round to form the octagonal grid and, togetherwith the stem around the inverted harlequin leaf above, forminga geometricised ‘S’ shape 7. Between the rows of octagons, andoffset diagonally, are symmetrical eight-petalled rosettes, withpairs of arrow-like extensions on each of the four axes. JonThompson suggests that the pattern may be based on Chinesesilk textile designs of the 14th century, but I have examinedmany such textiles, both surviving silks and their depictions inItalian paintings, and have found no connection.

Much of our understanding of the field patterns of 15th centurycourt workshop carpets is derived from their depiction inpaintings, whose value as evidence is limited. We cannot knowwhether the artist was looking at an actual carpet, and, if so,where it might have been made. The paintings do, however, givean idea of the importance of the carpets and of the populardesigns that were then in use. Although many of the carpetpatterns depicted in Amy Briggs’s oft-cited study of Timuridpaintings have similar Kufesque borders to that of the Ashtapadacarpet 26-28, 30, 47, none of the wide variety of lattices sheshows 8 are at all like its field design.13 Timurid period courtcarpets were clearly very sophisticated and for the most parttheir lattices are highly complex, often incorporating interlaceelements. Perhaps the closest, but still distant, comparison tothe Ashtapada carpet is to be found in a Shiraz School paintingof 1420 in the Museum of Islamic Art in Berlin 4, in which asimple lattice field of small interlocking octagons is surroundedby a knot-interlace border.14 Similar carpets can be seen incontemporaneous Indian miniature paintings.

In the centre of the Ashtapada carpet is a square 9 containing anoctagonal medallion as well as triangular motifs 10 in each cornerwhich, if brought together, would form a diamond shape. Thesealso appear on the Frauenknecht Indian carpet discussed below49. The outer part of the square comprises a border composed oftwo different hooked ornaments, one set within a hexagon 11,flanked on both sides by a narrow dotted line in black and white, adesign commonly found on kilims from Konya to Azerbaijan. Afurther narrow strip of field outlining the square and its borderis left undecorated, allowing the whole unit to ‘float’ on a plainred background, whereas the lattice field apparently continuesbeneath the off-centre gaming board, giving the illusion that theboard is laid on top of the lattice. Each side of the octagon hasfour trefoil-shaped protrusions outlined in yellow 12, as is the

23

2220

21

20 Corner detail of the

Divrigi ‘Domes and

Squinches’ two-

octagon carpet 13

21 Corner detail of

the Alaaddin Keykubad

Tomb ‘small-pattern

Holbein’ carpet frag-

ment, west Anatolia,

late 15th century. 1.00

x 1.87m (3'3" x 6'2").

Museum of Turkish

and Islamic Arts,

Istanbul, 303

22 Virgin and Child

with Angels, central

panel from the Altar-

piece of St Zeno of

Verona, by Andrea

Mantegna, ca. 1456-

60, Church of San

Zeno Maggiore,

Verona. Courtesy

Alinari/Bridgeman

Art Library

23 Corner detail of

the Ashtapada carpet

19

is straight and the illusion of rotation is lost, for althoughsimilar motifs around the inside edge of the octagon do twist,they do not do so in a uniform direction, so there is no sense ofmovement. These octagon carpets were popular around theMediterranean and are depicted in many European paintings.

The primary border pattern of the Ashtapada carpet, known inthe literature as “an open-Kufic border with large interlace” 19,25 isbelieved by some to be based upon a Persian model. Much is madeof the fact that on Persian carpets the corner solutions in theprimary borders are perfectly resolved. This feature is found onmost surviving Persian carpets, and on many examples depictedin 14th and 15th century Persian paintings: the pattern wrapsseamlessly from the end borders to the side borders, oftenturning onto the diagonal in the corners. On the vast majorityof Anatolian carpets, on the other hand, the end and sideborders are treated independently, with no allowance made forthe pattern to turn, so it simply appears to run off either theends or the sides. On the Ashtapada carpet the ‘Kufic’ borderturns the corner 23.

To every ‘rule’ there are exceptions. On a west Anatolianthree-octagon ‘large pattern Holbein’ carpet in Doha 32,26 forexample, a contrived motif is placed in each corner and noattempt is made to turn the pattern. A similar device is alsofound in the corners of the much earlier east Anatolian ‘Domesand Squinches’ carpet in the Vakıflar Carpet Museum, Istanbul20.27 But far more pertinent here is a late 15th century westAnatolian ‘small pattern Holbein’ fragment in the TIEM that hasanother variation of the open Kufic border with a perfectlyresolved corner solution 21.28

Many surviving Anatolian carpets do have properly conceivedcorners, but those with similar Kufesque border patterns to theAshtapada carpet all have unresolved corner solutions, for instancetwo ‘small pattern Holbeins’ with rows of small medallionswith interlacing – a fragmented example divided between theBardini Museum, Florence 24, and the Keir Collection (now inthe Museum of Islamic Art, Berlin).29 Anatolian carpets withthis field pattern and the same border as the Ashtapada carpetappear in European paintings from the mid-15th centuryonwards, most notably in Mantegna’s Madonna and Child altar-piece in San Zeno, Verona 22. The border is also similar to thaton a 15th century Spanish ‘small-pattern Holbein’ carpet basedon an Anatolian model 25, in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

It is likely that this ‘Holbein’ field pattern with a tile-likearrangement and a profusion of interlaced knots originated inPersia. Carpets with similar field designs are depicted in Persianpaintings of the early 15th century 29.30 Similarities can also beseen in the border patterns of many carpets in 14th and 15thcentury Persian paintings 26, 47,31 and the border was used in

large wheel-like pattern within the octagon. The white spokesthat form the ‘cogs’ of the wheel are rather complex, with doublehooks on each side and the central stem partially interlaced.The small extension that joins the cogs to the central octagon isturned 45 degrees, giving the illusion that the cogs are rotating.Within the wheel is a green octagon containing eight eight-pointed stars. In the very centre a four-petalled rosette floatsagainst the red background.

Other carpets are known with similar medallion patterns, andmay have one, two, three or even four large octagonal medallionsin the central field, or multiple octagons in rows. In the rugliterature similar carpets with large octagons have been called‘large-pattern Holbein’ rugs.15 The oldest surviving rugs knownwith patterns of large octagons with interlacing and a wheel-like motif in the centre were probably made in the 14th century:one is in the Museum of Islamic Art in Cairo,16 another in theVakıflar Museum, Istanbul 13.17

Rugs with similar patterns, materials and structures continuedto be made in the 15th and 16th centuries and are believed tohave been woven in eastern Anatolia or northern Syria. Thesehave been called ‘para-Mamluks’, a somewhat confusing label.18

At the time these lands were part of the Mamluk Empire,19 andwhile the origin of their patterns may not be part of a Mamluktradition, it is likely that the carpets were made within theEmpire by other peoples living under their dominance.

A number of other carpets survive with octagonal medallions,often set in squares or rectangles, that are attributed to westernAnatolia in the 15th and 16th centuries, including one in theMuseum of Islamic Art in Berlin 14.20 The octagonal medalliondesign was also widely used in Spain in the 15th century, althoughthe Iberian form appears to be directly taken from Anatolianoriginals and is almost invariably used in a rectangular grid with alarge octagon in each panel 17.21

There are many pattern variations within the octagons. In somethe spoke-like ornaments form a central interlaced star motif, inothers there is a four-lobed rosette surrounded by a wide bandwith eight-pointed stars, with the spoke-like motifs surroundingthis band. Some of the purest examples of the design survive in15th century Spanish copies, in particular where these motifsform the spokes of the wheel: their stems turn at the base togive the impression that the wheel is rotating. One example,probably from Alcaraz, is the Convent of Santa Ursula carpetnow in Doha (HALI 157, 2008, p.68), in which the illusion ofrotation is accentuated by the interlaced band surrounding thecentral eight-pointed star 18.22 On many Anatolian examples,including a 16th century fragment in Berlin 16, the stem is twistedto create the rotational effect;23 on others, such as a carpet inthe Turkish and Islamic Arts Museum in Istanbul 15,24 the stem

INDIAN SILK CARPETS INDIAN SILK CARPETS

HALI ISSUE 167 11

29

25

26 Humay in the

Palace of the Fairies

(detail), Humay u

Humayun copied for

Baysunghur ibn

Shahrukh, f. 10b.

Herat, 1427–8.

Nationalbibliothek,

Vienna, N.F.382

27 A Party at the

Court of Sultan-

Husayn Mirza (detail),

Bustan of Sa’di, ff. 1b-

2a. Herat, 1488.

General Egyptian

Book Organization,

Cairo, Adab Farsi 908

28 The Seduction of

Yusuf (detail), Bustan

of Sa’di, f. 52b. Herat,

1488. General Egypt-

ian Book Organization,

Cairo, Adab Farsi 908

29 Baysunghur ibn

Shahrukh seated in a

Garden (detail), folio

from the Kalila wa

Dimna of Nizamuddin

Abu’l-Ma’ali Nasrullah,

Herat, 1429. Topkapı

Sarayi Library,

Istanbul, R.1022

30 Nushaba Recog-

nising Iskandar by his

Portrait, Khamsa of

Nizami, f.244b. Herat,

copied 1445-46.

Topkapı Sarayi Library,

Istanbul, H.781

24 The Florence

small-pattern Holbein

carpet, Anatolia, late

15th century. 2.02m

(6'8") square. Bardini

Foundation, Florence,

7865

25 The Boston

Spanish ‘small-pattern

Holbein’ carpet

(detail), Alcaraz,

15th century. 2.06

x 4.62m (6'9" x

15'2"). Museum

of Fine Arts, Boston,

39.61424

26

27

3028

10 HALI ISSUE 167

is straight and the illusion of rotation is lost, for althoughsimilar motifs around the inside edge of the octagon do twist,they do not do so in a uniform direction, so there is no sense ofmovement. These octagon carpets were popular around theMediterranean and are depicted in many European paintings.

The primary border pattern of the Ashtapada carpet, known inthe literature as “an open-Kufic border with large interlace” 19,25 isbelieved by some to be based upon a Persian model. Much is madeof the fact that on Persian carpets the corner solutions in theprimary borders are perfectly resolved. This feature is found onmost surviving Persian carpets, and on many examples depictedin 14th and 15th century Persian paintings: the pattern wrapsseamlessly from the end borders to the side borders, oftenturning onto the diagonal in the corners. On the vast majorityof Anatolian carpets, on the other hand, the end and sideborders are treated independently, with no allowance made forthe pattern to turn, so it simply appears to run off either theends or the sides. On the Ashtapada carpet the ‘Kufic’ borderturns the corner 23.

To every ‘rule’ there are exceptions. On a west Anatolianthree-octagon ‘large pattern Holbein’ carpet in Doha 32,26 forexample, a contrived motif is placed in each corner and noattempt is made to turn the pattern. A similar device is alsofound in the corners of the much earlier east Anatolian ‘Domesand Squinches’ carpet in the Vakıflar Carpet Museum, Istanbul20.27 But far more pertinent here is a late 15th century westAnatolian ‘small pattern Holbein’ fragment in the TIEM that hasanother variation of the open Kufic border with a perfectlyresolved corner solution 21.28

Many surviving Anatolian carpets do have properly conceivedcorners, but those with similar Kufesque border patterns to theAshtapada carpet all have unresolved corner solutions, for instancetwo ‘small pattern Holbeins’ with rows of small medallionswith interlacing – a fragmented example divided between theBardini Museum, Florence 24, and the Keir Collection (now inthe Museum of Islamic Art, Berlin).29 Anatolian carpets withthis field pattern and the same border as the Ashtapada carpetappear in European paintings from the mid-15th centuryonwards, most notably in Mantegna’s Madonna and Child altar-piece in San Zeno, Verona 22. The border is also similar to thaton a 15th century Spanish ‘small-pattern Holbein’ carpet basedon an Anatolian model 25, in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

It is likely that this ‘Holbein’ field pattern with a tile-likearrangement and a profusion of interlaced knots originated inPersia. Carpets with similar field designs are depicted in Persianpaintings of the early 15th century 29.30 Similarities can also beseen in the border patterns of many carpets in 14th and 15thcentury Persian paintings 26, 47,31 and the border was used in

large wheel-like pattern within the octagon. The white spokesthat form the ‘cogs’ of the wheel are rather complex, with doublehooks on each side and the central stem partially interlaced.The small extension that joins the cogs to the central octagon isturned 45 degrees, giving the illusion that the cogs are rotating.Within the wheel is a green octagon containing eight eight-pointed stars. In the very centre a four-petalled rosette floatsagainst the red background.

Other carpets are known with similar medallion patterns, andmay have one, two, three or even four large octagonal medallionsin the central field, or multiple octagons in rows. In the rugliterature similar carpets with large octagons have been called‘large-pattern Holbein’ rugs.15 The oldest surviving rugs knownwith patterns of large octagons with interlacing and a wheel-like motif in the centre were probably made in the 14th century:one is in the Museum of Islamic Art in Cairo,16 another in theVakıflar Museum, Istanbul 13.17

Rugs with similar patterns, materials and structures continuedto be made in the 15th and 16th centuries and are believed tohave been woven in eastern Anatolia or northern Syria. Thesehave been called ‘para-Mamluks’, a somewhat confusing label.18

At the time these lands were part of the Mamluk Empire,19 andwhile the origin of their patterns may not be part of a Mamluktradition, it is likely that the carpets were made within theEmpire by other peoples living under their dominance.

A number of other carpets survive with octagonal medallions,often set in squares or rectangles, that are attributed to westernAnatolia in the 15th and 16th centuries, including one in theMuseum of Islamic Art in Berlin 14.20 The octagonal medalliondesign was also widely used in Spain in the 15th century, althoughthe Iberian form appears to be directly taken from Anatolianoriginals and is almost invariably used in a rectangular grid with alarge octagon in each panel 17.21

There are many pattern variations within the octagons. In somethe spoke-like ornaments form a central interlaced star motif, inothers there is a four-lobed rosette surrounded by a wide bandwith eight-pointed stars, with the spoke-like motifs surroundingthis band. Some of the purest examples of the design survive in15th century Spanish copies, in particular where these motifsform the spokes of the wheel: their stems turn at the base togive the impression that the wheel is rotating. One example,probably from Alcaraz, is the Convent of Santa Ursula carpetnow in Doha (HALI 157, 2008, p.68), in which the illusion ofrotation is accentuated by the interlaced band surrounding thecentral eight-pointed star 18.22 On many Anatolian examples,including a 16th century fragment in Berlin 16, the stem is twistedto create the rotational effect;23 on others, such as a carpet inthe Turkish and Islamic Arts Museum in Istanbul 15,24 the stem

INDIAN SILK CARPETS INDIAN SILK CARPETS

HALI ISSUE 167 11

29

25

26 Humay in the

Palace of the Fairies

(detail), Humay u

Humayun copied for

Baysunghur ibn

Shahrukh, f. 10b.

Herat, 1427–8.

Nationalbibliothek,

Vienna, N.F.382

27 A Party at the

Court of Sultan-

Husayn Mirza (detail),

Bustan of Sa’di, ff. 1b-

2a. Herat, 1488.

General Egyptian

Book Organization,

Cairo, Adab Farsi 908

28 The Seduction of

Yusuf (detail), Bustan

of Sa’di, f. 52b. Herat,

1488. General Egypt-

ian Book Organization,

Cairo, Adab Farsi 908

29 Baysunghur ibn

Shahrukh seated in a

Garden (detail), folio

from the Kalila wa

Dimna of Nizamuddin

Abu’l-Ma’ali Nasrullah,

Herat, 1429. Topkapı

Sarayi Library,

Istanbul, R.1022

30 Nushaba Recog-

nising Iskandar by his

Portrait, Khamsa of

Nizami, f.244b. Herat,

copied 1445-46.

Topkapı Sarayi Library,

Istanbul, H.781

24 The Florence

small-pattern Holbein

carpet, Anatolia, late

15th century. 2.02m

(6'8") square. Bardini

Foundation, Florence,

7865

25 The Boston

Spanish ‘small-pattern

Holbein’ carpet

(detail), Alcaraz,

15th century. 2.06

x 4.62m (6'9" x

15'2"). Museum

of Fine Arts, Boston,

39.61424

26

27

3028

10 HALI ISSUE 167

INDIAN SILK CARPETS

HALI ISSUE 167 13

33-39.Details of paint-

ings from a Deccani

anthology, south

India, 1435-36

33 Iskandar and a

Maiden Embrace on a

Throne in a Palace.

Sharafnama, Iskandar-

nama, Khamsa of

Nizami. Chester

Beatty Library, Dublin,

Per 124I, f.257b

34 Shirin and Khusrau

Sitting in a Park. The

Book of Shirin and

Khusrau, Khamsa of

Amir Khusrau. CBL,

Per 124II, f.44b

35 Iskandar Seated

at the Foot of Kay

Khusrau’s Throne,

Receiving a Goblet

from a Servant,

Sharafnama, Iskandar-

nama, Khamsa of

Nizami. CBL, Per

124I, f.232b

36 Iskandar Talks to

a Maiden in the

Temple of Qandahar

(detail). Iqbalnama,

Iskandarnama,

Khamsa of Nizami

CBL, Per 124I, f.291a.

37 Iskandar Seated

on a Carpet with Two

Philosphers. Iqbal-

nama, Iskandarnama,

Khamsa of Nizami.

CBL Per 124I, f.279b

38 Laila and Majnun

at School. The Rom-

ance of Laila and

Majnun, Khamsa of

Amir Khusrau. CBL,

Per 124II, f.89b

39 Iskandar is Joined

by his Wife and

Mother-in-Law at his

Tent. Sharafnama,

Iskandarnama,

Khamsa of Nizami.

CBL, Dublin, Per 124I,

f.220b

INDIAN SILK CARPETS

Herati painting throughout the 15th century 27, 28.32 However, itis not known where any such carpets were woven, and none areactually known to have survived. I have seen only one Timuridpainting from Herat, copied in 1445-1446, that depicts a carpetwith this Kufic and large knot interlace border and a small-scalefloral field pattern 30.33

The interlaced border pattern is also seen on a ‘para-Mamluk’niche rug, probably from Damascus, that survives in Iran 31.34 Arug with a similar border in which the field design appears tohave compartments appears in Mantegna’s fresco for the Cameradegli Sposi in the Palazzo Ducale, Mantua: the field design appearsto have compartments or may be similar to the three-octagon‘Holbein’ carpet in Qatar 32 placed on its side.

The same border is also found on carpets in Indian paintings.A Deccani anthology dated to the mid-1430s contains a numberof depictions of carpets 33-39 very similar to those seen in Persianminiatures of around the same time.35 Of course, the carpets inthe Indian paintings might be Persian (or those in the Persianpaintings might be Indian, but that is less likely). The artist inIndia was either copying another painting (which might havebeen Persian) or he was looking at an actual carpet, whichmight have been made in India, or made in Persia and broughtto India.

Although the interlace in the large knots on the Ashtapadacarpet is generally well conceived, errors occur in the outliningof the down-strokes and the lower baseline. It is possible thatin earlier versions of this pattern the artists/craftsmen fullyunderstood the scheme. The infill of the spaces within the knotsin ivory and yellow may well have been copied directly fromthe model used by the weaver, as the same feature can be foundon a few contemporaneous ‘Anatolian’ carpets depicted inItalian paintings 40-42.36 The placement of the patterns against amonochrome ground, allowing them to float free-and creatingthe illusion of multiple levels, is a device known from 14th,15th and early 16th century Anatolian rugs, but which seemsgradually to have become lost by the end of the 16th century.

The design of the inner guard border, composed of two ‘S’motifs side by side, not unlike a swastika 45, is fairly unusualbut has been found both as a field pattern and in the borders ona few early Anatolian carpets. Udo Hirsch suggests that it may

well be derived from the Phrygian ‘SS’ symbol.37 An Anatoliancarpet with this field design, acquired in Konya by FriedrichSarre in 1908, was destroyed by fire in World War II 43.38 Sarrerefers to much earlier Hittite monuments as the source for thispattern. A central Anatolian rug formerly in the Kirchheim FamilyCollection (now in Berlin), made in Konya in the 16th or 17thcentury, has a ‘kilim’ design in the central field and the double-‘S’pattern in the border 44.39 However, the most cogent compar-ison with the minor border of the Ashtapada carpet 45 is the minorborder 46 on the Frauenknecht Indian ‘Holbein’ rug discussedbelow 49,40 which is also created simply in black and white. Theouter border of a continuous row of triangles, here in ivoryoutlined in blue, often appears as an outer border on earlycarpets, including a few of those depicted in Timurid paintings 47.

Some forty years ago I noticed an illustration in a handbookof Indian carpet designs from the latter part of the 19th or early20th century of what appeared to be an Anatolian ‘large patternHolbein’ carpet from the second half of the 15th century.41 Uponcloser inspection, however, several tiny features suggested thecarpet had been made in India, almost certainly copied from acontemporaneous 15th century Anatolian original.

In the early 1990s, a two-volume Japanese publication42

pictured many of the carpets and textiles preserved in Kyotoby the city guilds that represent certain streets or districts andeach year decorate floats for the Gion Festival.43 Some of theworks of art used date from as early as the mid-13th century.These include carpets from Mongolia and India, silk textilesfrom China and tapestries from the Netherlands, and amongthem is another Indian copy of a 15th century Anatolian‘Holbein’ carpet 48.44

A number of design features on this Kyoto carpet areidentical to those on Anatolian carpets: the serif ‘S’-band on adark blue background that surrounds the octagon; the borderwith the meandering leaf stem and hook on a dark bluebackground; the surviving outer border with its string ofinverting rhombuses in alternate colours. However, in thesquare-shaped central medallion, the four triangular cornerpieces are filled with rows of small circles, which to date haveonly been observed on 15th century Spanish copies of Anatoliancarpets, although this may be because no Anatolian originals

36

35

31

31 The Chihil Sutun

‘Para-Mamluk’ niche

rug, north Syria or

east Anatolia, second

half 15th century.

1.05 x 1.41m (3'5"

x 4'8"). Carpet

Museum, Tehran

32 The Detroit three-

octagon rug (detail),

west Anatolia, C-14

dated to 1473-1662.

1.78 x 2.85m (5'10" x

9'4") . Museum of

Islamic Art, Doha

12 HALI ISSUE 167

32

33

34 37

38

39

INDIAN SILK CARPETS

HALI ISSUE 167 13

33-39.Details of paint-

ings from a Deccani

anthology, south

India, 1435-36

33 Iskandar and a

Maiden Embrace on a

Throne in a Palace.

Sharafnama, Iskandar-

nama, Khamsa of

Nizami. Chester

Beatty Library, Dublin,

Per 124I, f.257b

34 Shirin and Khusrau

Sitting in a Park. The

Book of Shirin and

Khusrau, Khamsa of

Amir Khusrau. CBL,

Per 124II, f.44b

35 Iskandar Seated

at the Foot of Kay

Khusrau’s Throne,

Receiving a Goblet

from a Servant,

Sharafnama, Iskandar-

nama, Khamsa of

Nizami. CBL, Per

124I, f.232b

36 Iskandar Talks to

a Maiden in the

Temple of Qandahar

(detail). Iqbalnama,

Iskandarnama,

Khamsa of Nizami

CBL, Per 124I, f.291a.

37 Iskandar Seated

on a Carpet with Two

Philosphers. Iqbal-

nama, Iskandarnama,

Khamsa of Nizami.

CBL Per 124I, f.279b

38 Laila and Majnun

at School. The Rom-

ance of Laila and

Majnun, Khamsa of

Amir Khusrau. CBL,

Per 124II, f.89b

39 Iskandar is Joined

by his Wife and

Mother-in-Law at his

Tent. Sharafnama,

Iskandarnama,

Khamsa of Nizami.

CBL, Dublin, Per 124I,

f.220b

INDIAN SILK CARPETS

Herati painting throughout the 15th century 27, 28.32 However, itis not known where any such carpets were woven, and none areactually known to have survived. I have seen only one Timuridpainting from Herat, copied in 1445-1446, that depicts a carpetwith this Kufic and large knot interlace border and a small-scalefloral field pattern 30.33

The interlaced border pattern is also seen on a ‘para-Mamluk’niche rug, probably from Damascus, that survives in Iran 31.34 Arug with a similar border in which the field design appears tohave compartments appears in Mantegna’s fresco for the Cameradegli Sposi in the Palazzo Ducale, Mantua: the field design appearsto have compartments or may be similar to the three-octagon‘Holbein’ carpet in Qatar 32 placed on its side.

The same border is also found on carpets in Indian paintings.A Deccani anthology dated to the mid-1430s contains a numberof depictions of carpets 33-39 very similar to those seen in Persianminiatures of around the same time.35 Of course, the carpets inthe Indian paintings might be Persian (or those in the Persianpaintings might be Indian, but that is less likely). The artist inIndia was either copying another painting (which might havebeen Persian) or he was looking at an actual carpet, whichmight have been made in India, or made in Persia and broughtto India.

Although the interlace in the large knots on the Ashtapadacarpet is generally well conceived, errors occur in the outliningof the down-strokes and the lower baseline. It is possible thatin earlier versions of this pattern the artists/craftsmen fullyunderstood the scheme. The infill of the spaces within the knotsin ivory and yellow may well have been copied directly fromthe model used by the weaver, as the same feature can be foundon a few contemporaneous ‘Anatolian’ carpets depicted inItalian paintings 40-42.36 The placement of the patterns against amonochrome ground, allowing them to float free-and creatingthe illusion of multiple levels, is a device known from 14th,15th and early 16th century Anatolian rugs, but which seemsgradually to have become lost by the end of the 16th century.

The design of the inner guard border, composed of two ‘S’motifs side by side, not unlike a swastika 45, is fairly unusualbut has been found both as a field pattern and in the borders ona few early Anatolian carpets. Udo Hirsch suggests that it may

well be derived from the Phrygian ‘SS’ symbol.37 An Anatoliancarpet with this field design, acquired in Konya by FriedrichSarre in 1908, was destroyed by fire in World War II 43.38 Sarrerefers to much earlier Hittite monuments as the source for thispattern. A central Anatolian rug formerly in the Kirchheim FamilyCollection (now in Berlin), made in Konya in the 16th or 17thcentury, has a ‘kilim’ design in the central field and the double-‘S’pattern in the border 44.39 However, the most cogent compar-ison with the minor border of the Ashtapada carpet 45 is the minorborder 46 on the Frauenknecht Indian ‘Holbein’ rug discussedbelow 49,40 which is also created simply in black and white. Theouter border of a continuous row of triangles, here in ivoryoutlined in blue, often appears as an outer border on earlycarpets, including a few of those depicted in Timurid paintings 47.

Some forty years ago I noticed an illustration in a handbookof Indian carpet designs from the latter part of the 19th or early20th century of what appeared to be an Anatolian ‘large patternHolbein’ carpet from the second half of the 15th century.41 Uponcloser inspection, however, several tiny features suggested thecarpet had been made in India, almost certainly copied from acontemporaneous 15th century Anatolian original.

In the early 1990s, a two-volume Japanese publication42

pictured many of the carpets and textiles preserved in Kyotoby the city guilds that represent certain streets or districts andeach year decorate floats for the Gion Festival.43 Some of theworks of art used date from as early as the mid-13th century.These include carpets from Mongolia and India, silk textilesfrom China and tapestries from the Netherlands, and amongthem is another Indian copy of a 15th century Anatolian‘Holbein’ carpet 48.44

A number of design features on this Kyoto carpet areidentical to those on Anatolian carpets: the serif ‘S’-band on adark blue background that surrounds the octagon; the borderwith the meandering leaf stem and hook on a dark bluebackground; the surviving outer border with its string ofinverting rhombuses in alternate colours. However, in thesquare-shaped central medallion, the four triangular cornerpieces are filled with rows of small circles, which to date haveonly been observed on 15th century Spanish copies of Anatoliancarpets, although this may be because no Anatolian originals

36

35

31

31 The Chihil Sutun

‘Para-Mamluk’ niche

rug, north Syria or

east Anatolia, second

half 15th century.

1.05 x 1.41m (3'5"

x 4'8"). Carpet

Museum, Tehran

32 The Detroit three-

octagon rug (detail),

west Anatolia, C-14

dated to 1473-1662.

1.78 x 2.85m (5'10" x

9'4") . Museum of

Islamic Art, Doha

12 HALI ISSUE 167

32

33

34 37

38

39

INDIAN SILK CARPETS

HALI ISSUE 167 15

INDIAN SILK CARPETS

14 HALI

40 Madonna and Child

Enthroned with Two

Saints (detail).

Ghirlandaio, 1483.

Uffizi Gallery,

Florence

41 St Mark Enthroned

with Saints (detail).

Giovanni da Udine,

1520. Udine

Cathedral

42 Saint Antoninus

(detail). Lorenzo

Lotto, 1542. Chiesa

dei Santi Giovanni e

Paolo, Venice

with this feature have survived. The central star made up of tinyhexagons does not correspond to any known Spanish orAnatolian originals, but the rope-like inner border can be seenon certain European textiles and tapestries as well as on Indian– but not on Anatolian or Persian – carpets and textiles.Nobuko Kajitani, former head of textile conservation at theMetropolitan Museum of Art, has confirmed that the wool andweave of the Kyoto carpet are both unmistakeably Indian.45

In 1999, Bertram Frauenknecht exhibited another fragmentedexample of this design type with unmistakeably Indian wooland colours 49, which in 2006 was published by Jon Thompsonas “possibly Indian”.46 It is interesting that the twisted tails onthe spokes within the octagons show the rotational effectdiscussed above, and the carpet has a similar triangular devicein each of the corners of the square surrounding the centraloctagon. On both carpets the hypotenuse of these triangulardevices is serrated while the short sides are straight andundecorated, and the motif is filled with a colourful ziz-zagpattern. On the Divrigi ‘Domes and Squinches’ carpet 20,thehypotenuse is flat and the sides are serrated, with the zig-zagssplit into individual sections; the same is true of the ‘Syrian’Chihil Sultan rug 31 and the western Anatolian three-octagoncarpet in Qatar 32. The latter arrangement is much morefamiliar from Anatolian carpets, while the scheme seen on thetwo Indian carpets allows the interstices design 10 to work farbetter when it is extended outwards, thus endorsing the conceptthat one is viewing only one of many medallions. It is likelythat the Ashtapada and Frauenknecht carpets were made in thesame region. On careful examination one can see the extremelyclose similarity in design of the black and white minor border,which is not found as a minor border pattern on other rugs.The Frauenknecht carpet also has very similar colouration tothe Ashtapada carpet.

The first publication of the Ashtapada carpet permitted by itsformer owners was in a 1996 article by the British chesshistorian Ken Whyld47 for the magazine Chess Monthly. He wrote:“The board is a little over 30cm square. The design ... still conceals a fewmysteries from its colours and markings, but its main function is clear...The chessboard presents the chess historian with new features...

Unchequered boards are still common in Asia, and so are boards with themysterious cross markings on specific squares. Nobody has been able togive a conclusive explanation for these, but the most popular theories arethat they are the legacy of a race game played on the same board, andthat the marked squares were either where the player entered pieces, orwhere the pieces were safe from the opponent’s attention. The colouringpattern is unique to this board, and I can offer only a suggestion. Becausethe playing surface was woven into a carpet it could not be exchanged foranother, and so perhaps it had to serve for many different types ofgames... The yellow outer frame of 28 squares might have been used for arace game, but on the other hand the colouring might simply be toseparate the central 36 squares for use in some other game. As a chessplayer Timur is perhaps best remembered for his enthusiasm for a form ofgame played on a larger board of 112 squares, but it seems likely that hiseveryday chess was on the standard 64-square board. If this carpet didbelong to Timur, it would be singularly appropriate.”

More recent research suggests that the board on the carpet isof Indian origin. There are several sources in Vedic and Sanskritliterature, some as early as the 4th century BC, and in thereligious writings of Buddhists and Jains in India, referring toashtapada as both a gaming board and a form of unspecified boardgame.48 According to some experts, by the 7th centuryreferences to ashtapada clearly signify a type of ancient chessgame with specific pieces on an 8 x 8 board. The game thenappears to have died out, but the term continued in use todescribe boards used for other games, including varieties ofchess until, by the 10th century, the name also seems to havefallen out of use.

Suggestions for what an ashtapada board looked like can befound in the literature 50,49 but according to Dr Irving Finkel atthe British Museum, who is currently completing The IndianBoard Game Survey with the Anthropological Survey of India,no original ashtapada boards survive. A variety of traditional8 x 8 Indian game boards do exist in which a certain number ofsquares are distinguished by cross-cuts 51. Such cross-cutsquares are remnants of a much earlier board game wheresquares of this kind presumably played a significant role in theplay of the game.50

As a game, ashtapada was probably also the ancestor of other

48

45

44

43 Konya rug, central

Anatolia, 15th or 16th

century. 1.16 x 1.92m

(3'10" x 6'4"). Formerly

Museum of Islamic

Art, Berlin, I.946,

destroyed in World

War II

44 Swastika carpet

fragment (detail),

Konya, 16th or

17th century. 1.05 x

0.87m (3'5" x 2'10").

Museum of Islamic

Art, Berlin, 1999/01

45 Detail of the inner

guard border of the

Ashtapada carpet 1

46 Detail of the border

of the ‘Holbein-style’

Indian rug 49

47 Tahmina Enters

Rustam’s Chamber,

Herat, ca. 1434–40.

Harvard University

Art Museums (Arthur

M. Sackler Museum),

Cambridge, MA,

1939.225

48 The Gion Matsuri

‘Holbein-style’ carpet

fragment (detail),

India, 15th century.

1.23 x 1.70m (4'0" x

5'7"). Gion Matsuri

Kita-Kannon-yama

Preservation Associ-

ation, Kyoto, Japan

49 The Frauenknecht

‘Holbein-style’ carpet

fragment (detail),

India, 15th century.

Private collection.

Courtesy Bertram

Frauenknecht, Fürth

40

41

47

43 46

42 49

INDIAN SILK CARPETS

HALI ISSUE 167 15

INDIAN SILK CARPETS

14 HALI

40 Madonna and Child

Enthroned with Two

Saints (detail).

Ghirlandaio, 1483.

Uffizi Gallery,

Florence

41 St Mark Enthroned

with Saints (detail).

Giovanni da Udine,

1520. Udine

Cathedral

42 Saint Antoninus

(detail). Lorenzo

Lotto, 1542. Chiesa

dei Santi Giovanni e

Paolo, Venice

with this feature have survived. The central star made up of tinyhexagons does not correspond to any known Spanish orAnatolian originals, but the rope-like inner border can be seenon certain European textiles and tapestries as well as on Indian– but not on Anatolian or Persian – carpets and textiles.Nobuko Kajitani, former head of textile conservation at theMetropolitan Museum of Art, has confirmed that the wool andweave of the Kyoto carpet are both unmistakeably Indian.45

In 1999, Bertram Frauenknecht exhibited another fragmentedexample of this design type with unmistakeably Indian wooland colours 49, which in 2006 was published by Jon Thompsonas “possibly Indian”.46 It is interesting that the twisted tails onthe spokes within the octagons show the rotational effectdiscussed above, and the carpet has a similar triangular devicein each of the corners of the square surrounding the centraloctagon. On both carpets the hypotenuse of these triangulardevices is serrated while the short sides are straight andundecorated, and the motif is filled with a colourful ziz-zagpattern. On the Divrigi ‘Domes and Squinches’ carpet 20,thehypotenuse is flat and the sides are serrated, with the zig-zagssplit into individual sections; the same is true of the ‘Syrian’Chihil Sultan rug 31 and the western Anatolian three-octagoncarpet in Qatar 32. The latter arrangement is much morefamiliar from Anatolian carpets, while the scheme seen on thetwo Indian carpets allows the interstices design 10 to work farbetter when it is extended outwards, thus endorsing the conceptthat one is viewing only one of many medallions. It is likelythat the Ashtapada and Frauenknecht carpets were made in thesame region. On careful examination one can see the extremelyclose similarity in design of the black and white minor border,which is not found as a minor border pattern on other rugs.The Frauenknecht carpet also has very similar colouration tothe Ashtapada carpet.

The first publication of the Ashtapada carpet permitted by itsformer owners was in a 1996 article by the British chesshistorian Ken Whyld47 for the magazine Chess Monthly. He wrote:“The board is a little over 30cm square. The design ... still conceals a fewmysteries from its colours and markings, but its main function is clear...The chessboard presents the chess historian with new features...

Unchequered boards are still common in Asia, and so are boards with themysterious cross markings on specific squares. Nobody has been able togive a conclusive explanation for these, but the most popular theories arethat they are the legacy of a race game played on the same board, andthat the marked squares were either where the player entered pieces, orwhere the pieces were safe from the opponent’s attention. The colouringpattern is unique to this board, and I can offer only a suggestion. Becausethe playing surface was woven into a carpet it could not be exchanged foranother, and so perhaps it had to serve for many different types ofgames... The yellow outer frame of 28 squares might have been used for arace game, but on the other hand the colouring might simply be toseparate the central 36 squares for use in some other game. As a chessplayer Timur is perhaps best remembered for his enthusiasm for a form ofgame played on a larger board of 112 squares, but it seems likely that hiseveryday chess was on the standard 64-square board. If this carpet didbelong to Timur, it would be singularly appropriate.”

More recent research suggests that the board on the carpet isof Indian origin. There are several sources in Vedic and Sanskritliterature, some as early as the 4th century BC, and in thereligious writings of Buddhists and Jains in India, referring toashtapada as both a gaming board and a form of unspecified boardgame.48 According to some experts, by the 7th centuryreferences to ashtapada clearly signify a type of ancient chessgame with specific pieces on an 8 x 8 board. The game thenappears to have died out, but the term continued in use todescribe boards used for other games, including varieties ofchess until, by the 10th century, the name also seems to havefallen out of use.

Suggestions for what an ashtapada board looked like can befound in the literature 50,49 but according to Dr Irving Finkel atthe British Museum, who is currently completing The IndianBoard Game Survey with the Anthropological Survey of India,no original ashtapada boards survive. A variety of traditional8 x 8 Indian game boards do exist in which a certain number ofsquares are distinguished by cross-cuts 51. Such cross-cutsquares are remnants of a much earlier board game wheresquares of this kind presumably played a significant role in theplay of the game.50

As a game, ashtapada was probably also the ancestor of other

48

45

44

43 Konya rug, central

Anatolia, 15th or 16th

century. 1.16 x 1.92m

(3'10" x 6'4"). Formerly

Museum of Islamic

Art, Berlin, I.946,

destroyed in World

War II

44 Swastika carpet

fragment (detail),

Konya, 16th or

17th century. 1.05 x

0.87m (3'5" x 2'10").

Museum of Islamic

Art, Berlin, 1999/01

45 Detail of the inner

guard border of the

Ashtapada carpet 1

46 Detail of the border

of the ‘Holbein-style’

Indian rug 49

47 Tahmina Enters

Rustam’s Chamber,

Herat, ca. 1434–40.

Harvard University

Art Museums (Arthur

M. Sackler Museum),

Cambridge, MA,

1939.225

48 The Gion Matsuri

‘Holbein-style’ carpet

fragment (detail),

India, 15th century.

1.23 x 1.70m (4'0" x

5'7"). Gion Matsuri

Kita-Kannon-yama

Preservation Associ-

ation, Kyoto, Japan

49 The Frauenknecht

‘Holbein-style’ carpet

fragment (detail),

India, 15th century.

Private collection.

Courtesy Bertram

Frauenknecht, Fürth

40

41

47

43 46

42 49

INDIAN SILK CARPETS

HALI ISSUE 167 17

INDIAN SILK CARPETS

16 HALI ISSUE 167

50 Diagram of an

ashtapada board

51 Traditional 8 x 8

ashtapada board,

India, ca. 1900.

Glass beads on cloth.

British Museum,

London, 1995,1013.1

52 Detail of the

games board on the

Ashtapada carpet 1

popular Indian race games such as chaupur and, eventually,pachisi,51 variations of which were also played from Spain toChina, in particular in the Arab world,52 and has continued tobe popular in India to this day 53, 54. Rangachar Vasantha hascarefully described how board games such as pachisi or chauparwere played in Hampi in the Bahmanid Sultanate in centralsouthern India in the 14th to 16th centuries, and illustrates an8 x 8 grid, found in the “Virupaksha temple, perhaps used aschessboard. Four sides are carved with beautiful f loral design...According to local say (by elders), only the king or his officialsplayed this chaturangam game.”53

Ancient board games were not confined to India and similar– but not 8 x 8 – boards have been found in other easternregions, for instance carved on the floor in the Longmen cave-temples south of Luoyang in China’s Henan Province. Most ofthese were made between the later years of Northern Wei era(386-534 AD) and the middle of the Tang dynasty (618-907 AD).Six different boards were identified, but none of these were8 x 8 squares.54 In southeast Turfan in Xinjiang, a 7 x 7 boardwas unearthed with a cross in the middle that resembles anIndian chessboard.55 A similar 7 x 7 board was discoveredscratched into the marble throne in the courtyard of the Shah-iZinda necropolis in Samarkand.

Although no other rug has as yet been identified with a squaregaming board incorporated into its design, an Indian rug in thestorage of the Palace Museum in Beijing depicts a cross-shapedpachisi board 56.56 The field of the Beijing pachisi rug has a patternof flowers, leaves and stems in shades of red. A Timurid painting30 depicts a carpet with a similar, apparently random floral design.

The ‘free-floating’ black and white dotted border surroundingthe central field and the corner piece of the rug may suggest anearly date, perhaps 15th to 17th century. Looking at its cottonwarps in particular, the Beijing rug appears to have a typicallyIndian structure 57, and may have been made in the Deccan. FewIndian carpets survive that can be attributed with any certaintyto before 1600, and all of them come from northern India.However, closer examination of tile patterns from 15th centurycentral India may show that some have similar patterns tocarpets, or indeed be the only surviving representations of lostcarpet designs. One particular tile in the Divan-i’amm at Bidar,with a floral design in the field 55,57 has a very similar borderdesign to the Beijing rug.

The silk used for the Ashtapada carpet is not of the finestquality used in Timurid Persia and Mongol Central Asia, but acoarser floss silk commonly found in India. Its structure is evenmore revealing. On the sides two heavy cotton cords are placedside by side, the inner secured by the wefts, the outer by

magenta silk overcasting. This type of side finish is typical ofIndia. The end finish is also very particular: the cotton warpsare tied together with a kilim-like brocade in silk about 8mmwide, composed of a yellow line, two light-blue lines, a widecentral band in red and white interlocked, followed by a yellowline and two lines in light-blue. The warp ends are tied togetherwith small balls of silk, in yellow, blue, red, ivory and othercolours 58, a feature found on many Indian textiles, but not onPersian carpets or textiles.

There is now little doubt as to when the Ashtapada carpet wasmade: the combination of stylistic and scientific evidence pointsto a date sometime between 1400 and 1450. It is my hope thatI have also shed some light here on where it was made. Basedon the combination of available evidence, I believe that thiscarpet was made in India: design similarities to the Frauen-knecht and Gion rugs; the particular hues and dyes used; thespecific end finish and selvedge; the use of floss silk; and thepresence of the gaming board. Any one of these (except perhapsthe end braiding) might not be conclusive, but when weexamined the carpet together in Doha in 2008, Louise Mackie,Curator of Textiles and Islamic Art at the Cleveland Museum ofArt, concurred that the end finish and selvedge were typicallyIndian and not seen elsewhere.

Although I have examined thousands of Indian carpets andtextiles, I have never been to India and have only scantknowledge of the eccentricities of weave and pattern that occurfrom region to region. However, in my experience, this carpetcannot be related to pieces from northern or eastern India.Some similarities do exist that may connect it with some later16th to 18th century carpets from Hyderabad, as well as somelater 19th century carpets attributed to Warangal in the Deccan.This may indicate that the carpet was made in the Kingdom ofGolconda or in Bidar (Muhammadabad), which in the 15thcentury was part of the Bahmanid Sultanate (1347-1527), the firstindependent Islamic kingdom in central and southern India.58

The Bahmanid elite consisted of mainly Iranian and Turkicmigrants from northern India, with strong cultural andlinguistic links to Persia that to a large extent shaped theSultanate’s destiny.59 Based upon a date in the first half of the15th century for this carpet we may be looking at the reign ofAhmad Shah I Wali (1422-1436), a great patron of the arts whobrought in many skilled craftsmen from Iran.

This article is not intended to be the last word on the subject.Hopefully, scholars with far greater experience of Indian textileart such as Rosemary Crill, Steven Cohen, Rahul Jain, Jeff Spurrand others, will examine this wonderful carpet and point towhat they believe to be its true place of origin.

54

51 56 5852

53 Four Men Playing

Pachisi. William

Carpenter, Mandhata,

1851. Victoria & Albert

Museum, London,

IS 116-1881

54 Royal figure play-

ing chaupar (detail),

Kulu, India, ca. 1775.

Victoria & Albert

Museum, London,

IS.123-1954

55 Design of a tile

panel in the Divan-

i’amm at Bidar

56 The Beijing Pachisi

rug, the Deccan (?),

south India, 16th-

18th century. Palace

Museum, Beijing,

212520

57 Detail of the

corner of the Beijing

Pachisi rug

58 Detail of the

end finish of the

Ashtapada carpet 1

53

5550

57

INDIAN SILK CARPETS

HALI ISSUE 167 17

INDIAN SILK CARPETS

16 HALI ISSUE 167

50 Diagram of an

ashtapada board

51 Traditional 8 x 8

ashtapada board,

India, ca. 1900.

Glass beads on cloth.

British Museum,

London, 1995,1013.1

52 Detail of the

games board on the

Ashtapada carpet 1

popular Indian race games such as chaupur and, eventually,pachisi,51 variations of which were also played from Spain toChina, in particular in the Arab world,52 and has continued tobe popular in India to this day 53, 54. Rangachar Vasantha hascarefully described how board games such as pachisi or chauparwere played in Hampi in the Bahmanid Sultanate in centralsouthern India in the 14th to 16th centuries, and illustrates an8 x 8 grid, found in the “Virupaksha temple, perhaps used aschessboard. Four sides are carved with beautiful f loral design...According to local say (by elders), only the king or his officialsplayed this chaturangam game.”53

Ancient board games were not confined to India and similar– but not 8 x 8 – boards have been found in other easternregions, for instance carved on the floor in the Longmen cave-temples south of Luoyang in China’s Henan Province. Most ofthese were made between the later years of Northern Wei era(386-534 AD) and the middle of the Tang dynasty (618-907 AD).Six different boards were identified, but none of these were8 x 8 squares.54 In southeast Turfan in Xinjiang, a 7 x 7 boardwas unearthed with a cross in the middle that resembles anIndian chessboard.55 A similar 7 x 7 board was discoveredscratched into the marble throne in the courtyard of the Shah-iZinda necropolis in Samarkand.

Although no other rug has as yet been identified with a squaregaming board incorporated into its design, an Indian rug in thestorage of the Palace Museum in Beijing depicts a cross-shapedpachisi board 56.56 The field of the Beijing pachisi rug has a patternof flowers, leaves and stems in shades of red. A Timurid painting30 depicts a carpet with a similar, apparently random floral design.

The ‘free-floating’ black and white dotted border surroundingthe central field and the corner piece of the rug may suggest anearly date, perhaps 15th to 17th century. Looking at its cottonwarps in particular, the Beijing rug appears to have a typicallyIndian structure 57, and may have been made in the Deccan. FewIndian carpets survive that can be attributed with any certaintyto before 1600, and all of them come from northern India.However, closer examination of tile patterns from 15th centurycentral India may show that some have similar patterns tocarpets, or indeed be the only surviving representations of lostcarpet designs. One particular tile in the Divan-i’amm at Bidar,with a floral design in the field 55,57 has a very similar borderdesign to the Beijing rug.

The silk used for the Ashtapada carpet is not of the finestquality used in Timurid Persia and Mongol Central Asia, but acoarser floss silk commonly found in India. Its structure is evenmore revealing. On the sides two heavy cotton cords are placedside by side, the inner secured by the wefts, the outer by

magenta silk overcasting. This type of side finish is typical ofIndia. The end finish is also very particular: the cotton warpsare tied together with a kilim-like brocade in silk about 8mmwide, composed of a yellow line, two light-blue lines, a widecentral band in red and white interlocked, followed by a yellowline and two lines in light-blue. The warp ends are tied togetherwith small balls of silk, in yellow, blue, red, ivory and othercolours 58, a feature found on many Indian textiles, but not onPersian carpets or textiles.

There is now little doubt as to when the Ashtapada carpet wasmade: the combination of stylistic and scientific evidence pointsto a date sometime between 1400 and 1450. It is my hope thatI have also shed some light here on where it was made. Basedon the combination of available evidence, I believe that thiscarpet was made in India: design similarities to the Frauen-knecht and Gion rugs; the particular hues and dyes used; thespecific end finish and selvedge; the use of floss silk; and thepresence of the gaming board. Any one of these (except perhapsthe end braiding) might not be conclusive, but when weexamined the carpet together in Doha in 2008, Louise Mackie,Curator of Textiles and Islamic Art at the Cleveland Museum ofArt, concurred that the end finish and selvedge were typicallyIndian and not seen elsewhere.

Although I have examined thousands of Indian carpets andtextiles, I have never been to India and have only scantknowledge of the eccentricities of weave and pattern that occurfrom region to region. However, in my experience, this carpetcannot be related to pieces from northern or eastern India.Some similarities do exist that may connect it with some later16th to 18th century carpets from Hyderabad, as well as somelater 19th century carpets attributed to Warangal in the Deccan.This may indicate that the carpet was made in the Kingdom ofGolconda or in Bidar (Muhammadabad), which in the 15thcentury was part of the Bahmanid Sultanate (1347-1527), the firstindependent Islamic kingdom in central and southern India.58

The Bahmanid elite consisted of mainly Iranian and Turkicmigrants from northern India, with strong cultural andlinguistic links to Persia that to a large extent shaped theSultanate’s destiny.59 Based upon a date in the first half of the15th century for this carpet we may be looking at the reign ofAhmad Shah I Wali (1422-1436), a great patron of the arts whobrought in many skilled craftsmen from Iran.

This article is not intended to be the last word on the subject.Hopefully, scholars with far greater experience of Indian textileart such as Rosemary Crill, Steven Cohen, Rahul Jain, Jeff Spurrand others, will examine this wonderful carpet and point towhat they believe to be its true place of origin.

54

51 56 5852

53 Four Men Playing

Pachisi. William

Carpenter, Mandhata,

1851. Victoria & Albert

Museum, London,

IS 116-1881

54 Royal figure play-

ing chaupar (detail),

Kulu, India, ca. 1775.

Victoria & Albert

Museum, London,

IS.123-1954

55 Design of a tile

panel in the Divan-

i’amm at Bidar

56 The Beijing Pachisi

rug, the Deccan (?),

south India, 16th-

18th century. Palace

Museum, Beijing,

212520

57 Detail of the

corner of the Beijing

Pachisi rug

58 Detail of the

end finish of the

Ashtapada carpet 1

53

5550

57

INDIAN SILK CARPETSINDIAN SILK CARPETS

HALI ISSUE 167 1918 HALI ISSUE 167

Acknowledgements

My thanks to: Hussain al-Rajef,

formerly of the NCCAH, Doha;

Dr Oliver Watson, Mona al-Saie

and Kostas Hatziantoniou of the

Museum of Islamic Art, Doha.

Nicholas Waterhouse and Carole

Bellon of Longevity Conservation

Studio, for the photographs of the

carpet; Rosalind Bishop, senior

conservator at the time, who

washed the carpet, and supervised

the conservation work; Alex Thom-

pson, who conserved the carpet

and carried out the structure

analysis. Penelope Walton Rogers

for the dye analysis; Dr Georges

Bonani, who carried out the lastC-

14 tests. Stefan Weber and Anna

Beselin, for supplying images and

information from the Berlin

collection; Rosemary Crill, for

locating images of pachisi boards;

Dr Irving Finkel for his expert

advice on ancient Indian board

games. Dr Elaine Wright, Jill Unkel

and Francesca Galloway for their

help with Indian paintings; Alberto

Boralevi for his help with Italian

paintings; Nahla Nassar and

Michael Rogers of the Khalili

Study Centre in London for their

help with Persian paintings. Zhu

Chengru, former Deputy Director

of the Palace Museum, Beijing,

who gave permission for me to

examine carpets in the museum

storage; Yuan Hongqi and Liu

Baojian, the curators of carpets

at the Palace Museum. Dr

Alessandro Bruschettini, John

Eskenazi, Ben Evans, Nobuko

Kajitani, Sumru Krody and Louise

Mackie for their useful advice and

support. Rupert Waterhouse and

Daniel Shaffer for their tireless

editorial work and suggestions.

Structure Analysis

by Alex Thompson, 1998

Warp: cotton, off white,

Z10S, 51/dm, no depression.

Weft: cotton, beige, originally

orange, Z singles, 8 yarns

used together, 2 sheds/ weft

break, 28/dm

Knot: silk, single (?), 700/dm2

(ca. 45/in2), AS open left.

Sides: Attached overcast selvedge

in magenta silk over two warp

units, both of heavy cord, one

integral to the carpet (secured by

the wefts), the other free floating.

Ends: 6mm fine twining in silk,

warps tied in bundles, covered in

silk yarn to form tassels. Bottom

6mm balanced interlacing with

magenta silk.

Colours: (10) white, brown, gold,

yellow, 3 blues, mid-green,

chartreuse, magenta.

Handle: Heavy, supple, floppy.

Condition: Substrate exposed in

many places [on the surface].

A few medium sized holes, largest

7.2cm. A slit the entire width of

the carpet.

Carbon-14 Dating

1) Research Laboratory for

Archaeology and the History of

Art, Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit,

University of Oxford, 30 April

1991, Dr Clare Anglias. OxA-3124:

445 ± 70 years BP = (68% confi-

dence limit) AD 1405-1620; (95%

confidence limit) AD 1315-1640.

2) ETH, Swiss Federal Institute of

Technology, Zurich, Dr Georges

Bonani. Test 1, 28 July 1998, ETH-

18867: 445 ± 55 years BP. Test 2,

11 November 1998, ETH-19092:

400 ± 40 years BP. Combined

mean: 415 ± 30 years BP = (95%

confidence limit) AD 1434-1518

(85.7%); AD 1582-1623 (14.3%).

Dye Tests

While the carpet was at Longevity

Conservation Studio in London

samples of the pile were removed

and given to Penelope Walton

Rogers of Textile Research in

Archaeology, York, for dye analysis.

Her report, dated 12 August 1998,

states: “Ten samples of vividly

coloured silk yarn from a Central

Asian carpet were provided for

dye analysis. Six were selected for

analysis; the black, two of the

three blues and the white were

not tested. Analysis was by

solvent extraction, followed by

absorption spectrophotometry and

thin-layer chromatography (TLC).

Results: Navy blue = indigotin

(probably indigo, or woad or knot-

weed); Gold = non-flavonoid yellow

dye (see below); Chartreuse =

indigotin + curcumin (indigo =

turmeric); Medium green =

indigotin + curcumin (indigo =

turmeric); Red = laccacid acids

(lac, Kerria lacca); Yellow = non-

flavonoid yellow dye (see below).

Indigotin from natural sources

cannot be distinguished from

synthetic indigo, but, in this case,

where there are other natural

dyes, lac and turmeric present, it

is probable that the indigotin also

comes from a natural source: one

of the indigo plants, such as

Indigofera tinctoria, is the most

likely dye source in an Asian

context. Lac is derived from the

scale insect, Kerria lacca Kerr,

which originates in the Indian

subcontinent. Turmeric is a direct

yellow dye, derived from the

rhizome of the plant Curcuma

domestica Val. (formerly Curcuma

longa). The plant is a native of

India, but has also been cultivated

in southeast Asia. Tumeric was

used in combination with indigo

for both greens. The ratio of the

yellow dye to the blue varied,

indigo dominating in the mid-

green and turmeric in the

chartreuse. The yellow and gold

samples have been dyed with the

same dye, but it is difficult to be

sure of its identification. It does

not behave like a flavonoid (which

excludes weld, greenweed, Persian

berries, etc.); tannins were not

detected in any great quantity,

which rules out dyewoods; and

the dye is not turmeric, it does not

respond to the reagents used for

TLC of yellow dyes. The circum-

stantial evidence is not enough to

give a secure identification,

although saffron seems to be the

most likely candidate at present.

The saffron crocus, Crocus

sativus, is grown in southern

Europe, Turkey, Iran, India and

north Africa. Applied to an Alim

mordant, the stamens give an

orangey yellow, comparable with

the yarn samples analysed here.

Comment: All the dyes listed

above are native to India, and lac,

turmeric and indigo have been

identified in many Indian silk

textiles in the past (see, for

example, the sale catalogue of

Spink and Son Ltd, The Art of

Textiles, 1989, pp.163-4); saffron

has also been listed as one of the

common Indian dyes by several

authors. We have examined a few

textiles confidently identified as

Central Asia, but one set of

samples sent to us by The Textile

Gallery [ref. 15530], from a carpet

described as ‘Tiger in Octagon’,

and tentatively ascribed to Central

Asia in the 13th-17th centuries,

also proved to be dyed with

indigo, turmeric and lac (see TRA

report, by G.W. Taylor, 27 January

1992). Indian dyes were wide-

spread within the Islamic world

and may well have been used in a

Central Asian carpet during a

period of Islamic influence”.

Published

HALI 89, 1996, p.137 (detail); Ken

Whyld, ‘The Magic Carpet’, in

Chess Monthly, 61/8, 1996, pp.46-

7; Ernst J. Grube, ‘The World is a

Garden. The Decorative Arts of the

Timurid Period’, in Jill Tilden, ed.,

First Under Heaven: Hali Annual 4,

London 1997, p.22, fig.26 (detail);

Robert Pinner, with Steven Cohen,

Jacqueline Simcox and Daniel

Shaffer, ‘Work in Progress 1988-

1998’, HALI 100, 1998, p.81 (detail);

Jon Thompson, Silk, 13th to 18th

Centuries, Treasures from the

Museum of Islamic Art, Qatar,

Doha 2004, pp.88–89; Jon

Thompson, Milestones in the

History of Carpets, Milan, 2006,

p.145, fig.31 (detail); Jon Thomp-

son, ‘Carpets in the Fifteenth Cen-

tury’, in Jon Thompson, Daniel

Shaffer and Pirjetta Mildh, eds.,

Carpets and Textiles in the Iranian

World 1400-1700, Oxford & Genoa

2010, p.30, fig.1.

Exhibited

Philadelphia, 8th International

Conference on Oriental Carpets,

Wyndham Franklin Plaza Hotel, 31

October 4 November 1996; Doha,

Sheraton Doha Hotel, Silk and Ivory,

8th to 18th Centuries, Treasures

from the Museum of Islamic Art,

Qatar, Doha Cultural Festival, 28th

February to 24th March 2004.

Notes

1 The oldest record of a silk pile

carpet appears in a Chinese poem

by Bai Juyi (772-846 AD) about an

order made by the Tang dynasty

Zhenyuan Emperor (785-804) for a

silk pile palace carpet over100 ft

wide. A unique carpet fragment

carbon-dated to 680-960 AD has

recently been discovered; it has a

pattern of horses and figures

against a red ground, is knotted in

silk and wool and measures 70 x

111cm. An incomplete knotted silk

pile carpet in the Textile Museum,

Washington DC, with a design of

animals and a Kufesque border on

a gold ground, measuring 35 x

70cm, is thought to be from Iraq

or North Africa and has been

dated by some authorities to

before the 15th century, although

this has not yet been confirmed

by scientific tests.

2 I wish to extend my deep

gratitude to the NCCAH for

entrusting the carpet to me for

conservation and detailed study.

The carpet was sent to Longevity

Conservation Studio in London in

April 1998 on the instructions of

Hussain al-Rajef, then Director of

the Museum of Islamic Art. The

carpet was washed, fully conser-

ved and sewn to a mounting

cloth. C-14 tests were arranged

and a full structure analysis

undertaken, and the carpet was

returned to Qatar on completion

of the conservation work in

December 1998.

3 The term ashtapada was also

used to describe a legendary

being with eight legs and a type

of spider.

4 As Peter Stoneman points out,

there are conflicting stories about

the origins of chess: ‘Several

unsubstantiated hypotheses

placed the date of the invention of

chess far earlier than can be

supported by historic evidence.

According to one tale, the game

of chess was invented about 1000

BC by an Indian mathematician...

There are also unsubstantiated

stories pushing the date of chess

as far back as 3,000 years ago,

based on archeological discoveries

in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and India.’

See http://webspace.webring.com

/people/bc/captain_peter_anthony_

stonemann/chess.htm

5 These images were also shown

to John Eskenazi, who concurred

with my opinion.

6 See Van de Put, 1904, pl.II A, B.

7 Timur’s empire included eastern

Anatolia, the Crimea, Georgia,

Armenia, eastern Syria and Iraq in

the west, the whole of present-

day Iran, all of the Caucasus and

the lands that surround the Caspian

Sea apart from the northern shores,

present-day Uzbekistan and parts

of southern Kirghizistan, the whole

of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan,

Tajikistan and the eastern part of

Xinjiang, Afghanistan, Baluchistan

and the major part of Pakistan.

8 Timur Celebrates His Conquest

of Delhi in 1398, from the Zafar-

nama of Sharafuddin Ali Yazdi,

Shiraz, 1436. Harvard University

Art Museums (Arthur M. Sackler

Museum), Cambridge, bequest of

the estate of Abby Aldrich Rocke-

feller, inv.no.1960. 198. Published:

Washington DC 1989, p.105, no.30.

9 http://filer.case.edu/org/cwrums/

games/tamerlane.html: “[Tamerlane

chess] is possibly the most complex

variant of Shatranj (“chess’) ever

made. It is included in the family

called Shatranj Kamil and Shatranj

al-Kabir but easily stands out on

its own. It was very popular in

Persia and other lands and was

said to have been invented by the

chess master Timur himself. Tamer-

lane chess is played on a 10-by-11

board as well as two citadels, one

to the left of the ninth row, the

other to the right of the second

row.” See http://history.chess.free.

fr/tamerlane.htm: “According to

his biographer, [Timur] loved to

play chess and, precisely, he

preferred to play Shatranj al-kabîr,

‘great Chess’, rather than Shatranj

ash-shaghîr, the ordinary ‘small’

Chess.” For further information

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Tamerlane_chess, http://filer.case.

edu/org/cwrums/games/shatranj.

html, http://www.chessvariants.

com/historic.dir/tamerlane.html.

10 Doha, 2004, p.82. I was invited

to curate two exhibitions, Silk and

Ivory, for the Doha Cultural Festival

from 28 February to 24 March

2004; I selected the Silk exhibits

and invited Jon Thompson to write

the catalogue.

11 I refer to the so-called ‘para-

Mamluk’ carpets, a term coined

by Charles Grant Ellis that may be

on its way out. In a forthcoming

publication I shall propose a

reappraisal, contrary to current

thinking, along the lines that these

carpets belong to a Persian tradition

older than the Mamluk carpets,

and that it was this production

that provided a source for the

vocabulary of ornament of Mamluk

carpets rather than the other way

round.

12 During the past 25 years

Longevity Conservation Studio has

submitted more than 500 samples

for C-14 testing to laboratories all

over the world. In each case, no

indication was given to labora-

tories as to the perceived date in

advance of the test. Samples

extracted from the same textile

have often been sent to two or

more different laboratories, to act

as a control. On textiles made

before 1550 the results are very

consistent between one laboratory

and another. In almost all instances,

the scientific results have corres-

ponded with the ages predicted

using art historical factors.

13 Briggs, 1940.

14 Humayun Faints at the Sight of

Humay’s Portrait, Shiraz School,

dated 1420. Staatliche Museen,

Berlin. Published: Pope, 1938-39,

pl.864.

15 The term is used because the

German artist Hans Holbein the

Younger (1497-1543) depicted a

significant number of them in his

paintings. One group of these

carpets have a field design com-

posed of one to five large octa-

gons, often placed in squares,

known as ‘large-pattern Holbein’; a

second group have a field design

composed of offset rows of inter-

laced medallions alternating with

diamond-shaped medallions, known

as ‘small-pattern Holbein’.

16 The Cairo two-octagon carpet.

Anatolia, 14th century. Museum

of Islamic Art, Cairo. Published:

Moustapha, 1949; Thompson,

2006, pp.39, 146, 148, figs.136,

142.

17 The Divrigi ‘Domes and

Squinches’ two-octagon carpet.

Anatolia, 14th century. 202 x

342cm, incomplete. Vakıflar

Museum, Istanbul, inv.no.A-217.

Formerly: Ulu Mosque, Divrigi.

Published: Ellis, 1967; Vakıflar

Museum, 1988, pp.40-45, 9, 180-

1, pl.2 (with structure analysis:

Warp Z2S, wool, ivory. Weft Z,

wool, light red, 2 shoots, 1

straight, 2 wavy. Knots 2Z, Sy 2,

V 31 x H 28, = 868 knots/sq.dm.

Sides and ends missing); Phila-

delphia Museum of Art, 1988, p.9,

fig.2a; Eskenazi, 1986; Franses

and Bennett, 1988, p.37; Ölçer,

et al, 1996, pp.46-7, pl.31 (with

detail); Thompson 2006, p.39,

fig.2, pp.146-7, figs.137-8; Denny

2010, p.60, fig.2.

18 Some ‘para-Mamluk’ carpets

with octagon designs, northern

Syria or eastern Anatolia, second

half of the 15th century: (1) The

Bernheimer 4-and-1 octagons Para-

Mamluk Carpet. 112 x 116cm,

incomplete. Museum of Islamic

Art, Berlin, inv.no.I.33/60. Formerly:

Bernheimer Collection, Munich.

Published: Bernheimer, 1959,

fig.2; Ellis, 1963, figs.1, 3, 5; Ellis,

1967, p.19, note 33 (cited);

Erdmann, 1970, p.154, fig.198;

Museum of Islamic Art, 1988,

pp.67 and 217, pl.74; Pinner and

Franses, 1980, p.110, fig.209;

HALI 71, 1993, p.119; Thompson,

2006, p.136, fig.115. Exhibited:

Berlin, 1965. (2) The Chihil Sutun

Para-Mamluk Niche Rug with Kufic

Inscription. 105 x 141cm. Carpet

Museum, Tehran. Formerly: Chihil

Sutun Kiosk, Esfahan. Published:

Erdmann, 1966, pp.87-93; Ellis,

1967, pp.2-20; Gans-Ruedin, 1978,

pp.144-5; Mills, 1997, p.72, fig.1;

Franses, 1999, p.50, fig.31;

Thompson, 2006, p.137, fig.116.

Notes: Inscription reads “Hasten

to repent before death”. (3) The

Williams four- and-one octagons

Para-Mamluk Rug. 125 x 178cm.

Philadelphia Museum of Art,

inv.no.55-65-2. Formerly: Joseph

Lees Williams Memorial Collec-

tion, Philadelphia. Published: New

York, 1910, p.11, no.8; Erdmann,

1930, fig.8; Erdmann, 1961, fig.33;

Ellis, 1963, fig.2; Ellis, 1967, p.19,

note 33 (cited); Metropolitan

Museum of Art, 1973, fig.15; Ellis,

1978, p.32, fig.7; Atil, 1980, p.312,

ill. 178; Pinner and Franses, 1981,

p.41 (cited); London, 1983, p.66,

no.28; Black, 1985, p.52, fig.6b;

Pinner, 1986, p.6, fig.9; Philadel-

phia Museum of Art, 1988, pp.4-7,

pl.1; Völker, 2004, p.16; Thompson,

2006, p.138, fig.117. Exhibited:

New York, 1910; London, 1983.

(4) The Dresden Para-Mamluk

octagons rug. 44.5 x 40.5cm,

circular fragment. Kunstgewerbe

Museum, Dresden, inv.no.343.

Published: Lessing, 1887; HALI

71, 1993, p.106, fig.1; Ellis, 1997,

p.76, fig.8 (with structure analysis,

as ‘symmetrically knotted’); Thom-

pson, 2006, p.139, fig.120. Exhib-

ited: Hamburg, 7th ICOC, 1993.

19 The Mamluk Empire, which

began with the Bahri Dynasty in

1250, ruled from Cairo, Damascus

and Aleppo. To the east was the

Ilkhanid Mongol Empire of Persia

and the western part of Anatolia

was to be ruled by the Ottomans.

20 The Goldschmidt four-octagon

carpet. Western Anatolia, second

half 15th century. 200 x 430cm.

Museum of Islamic Art, Berlin,

inv.no.I.5526. Formerly: Art trade,

Paris, 1928; Jacob Goldschmidt.

Published: Kühnel, 1930, fig.1;

Erdmann, 1931, pp.95ff., fig.6;

Staatliche Museen, 1935, no.29;

Bode and Kühnel, 1955, p.31,

fig.16; Heinz, 1956, fig.1; Zaki,

1956, fig.689; Bode and Kühnel,

1958, p.36, fig.16; Erdmann, 1960,

fig.36 (detail); Schlosser, 1960,

fig.9 (detail); Milhofer, 1962,

fig.19; Ellis, 1963, p.7, fig.7;

Erdmann, 1963; Munich, 1965,

p.84, no.11; Darmstadt, 1965,

no.11; Museum für Islamische

Kunst, 1967, no.317, pl.4, fig.48;

APPENDICES

INDIAN SILK CARPETSINDIAN SILK CARPETS

HALI ISSUE 167 1918 HALI ISSUE 167

Acknowledgements

My thanks to: Hussain al-Rajef,

formerly of the NCCAH, Doha;

Dr Oliver Watson, Mona al-Saie

and Kostas Hatziantoniou of the

Museum of Islamic Art, Doha.

Nicholas Waterhouse and Carole

Bellon of Longevity Conservation

Studio, for the photographs of the

carpet; Rosalind Bishop, senior

conservator at the time, who

washed the carpet, and supervised

the conservation work; Alex Thom-

pson, who conserved the carpet

and carried out the structure

analysis. Penelope Walton Rogers

for the dye analysis; Dr Georges

Bonani, who carried out the lastC-

14 tests. Stefan Weber and Anna

Beselin, for supplying images and

information from the Berlin

collection; Rosemary Crill, for

locating images of pachisi boards;

Dr Irving Finkel for his expert

advice on ancient Indian board

games. Dr Elaine Wright, Jill Unkel

and Francesca Galloway for their

help with Indian paintings; Alberto

Boralevi for his help with Italian

paintings; Nahla Nassar and

Michael Rogers of the Khalili

Study Centre in London for their

help with Persian paintings. Zhu

Chengru, former Deputy Director

of the Palace Museum, Beijing,

who gave permission for me to

examine carpets in the museum

storage; Yuan Hongqi and Liu

Baojian, the curators of carpets

at the Palace Museum. Dr

Alessandro Bruschettini, John

Eskenazi, Ben Evans, Nobuko

Kajitani, Sumru Krody and Louise

Mackie for their useful advice and

support. Rupert Waterhouse and

Daniel Shaffer for their tireless

editorial work and suggestions.

Structure Analysis

by Alex Thompson, 1998

Warp: cotton, off white,

Z10S, 51/dm, no depression.

Weft: cotton, beige, originally

orange, Z singles, 8 yarns

used together, 2 sheds/ weft

break, 28/dm

Knot: silk, single (?), 700/dm2

(ca. 45/in2), AS open left.

Sides: Attached overcast selvedge

in magenta silk over two warp

units, both of heavy cord, one

integral to the carpet (secured by

the wefts), the other free floating.

Ends: 6mm fine twining in silk,

warps tied in bundles, covered in

silk yarn to form tassels. Bottom

6mm balanced interlacing with

magenta silk.

Colours: (10) white, brown, gold,

yellow, 3 blues, mid-green,

chartreuse, magenta.

Handle: Heavy, supple, floppy.

Condition: Substrate exposed in

many places [on the surface].

A few medium sized holes, largest

7.2cm. A slit the entire width of

the carpet.

Carbon-14 Dating

1) Research Laboratory for

Archaeology and the History of

Art, Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit,

University of Oxford, 30 April

1991, Dr Clare Anglias. OxA-3124:

445 ± 70 years BP = (68% confi-

dence limit) AD 1405-1620; (95%

confidence limit) AD 1315-1640.

2) ETH, Swiss Federal Institute of

Technology, Zurich, Dr Georges

Bonani. Test 1, 28 July 1998, ETH-

18867: 445 ± 55 years BP. Test 2,

11 November 1998, ETH-19092:

400 ± 40 years BP. Combined

mean: 415 ± 30 years BP = (95%

confidence limit) AD 1434-1518

(85.7%); AD 1582-1623 (14.3%).

Dye Tests

While the carpet was at Longevity

Conservation Studio in London

samples of the pile were removed

and given to Penelope Walton

Rogers of Textile Research in

Archaeology, York, for dye analysis.

Her report, dated 12 August 1998,

states: “Ten samples of vividly

coloured silk yarn from a Central

Asian carpet were provided for

dye analysis. Six were selected for

analysis; the black, two of the

three blues and the white were

not tested. Analysis was by

solvent extraction, followed by

absorption spectrophotometry and

thin-layer chromatography (TLC).

Results: Navy blue = indigotin

(probably indigo, or woad or knot-

weed); Gold = non-flavonoid yellow

dye (see below); Chartreuse =

indigotin + curcumin (indigo =

turmeric); Medium green =

indigotin + curcumin (indigo =

turmeric); Red = laccacid acids

(lac, Kerria lacca); Yellow = non-

flavonoid yellow dye (see below).

Indigotin from natural sources

cannot be distinguished from

synthetic indigo, but, in this case,

where there are other natural

dyes, lac and turmeric present, it

is probable that the indigotin also

comes from a natural source: one

of the indigo plants, such as

Indigofera tinctoria, is the most

likely dye source in an Asian

context. Lac is derived from the

scale insect, Kerria lacca Kerr,

which originates in the Indian

subcontinent. Turmeric is a direct

yellow dye, derived from the

rhizome of the plant Curcuma

domestica Val. (formerly Curcuma

longa). The plant is a native of

India, but has also been cultivated

in southeast Asia. Tumeric was

used in combination with indigo

for both greens. The ratio of the

yellow dye to the blue varied,

indigo dominating in the mid-

green and turmeric in the

chartreuse. The yellow and gold

samples have been dyed with the

same dye, but it is difficult to be

sure of its identification. It does

not behave like a flavonoid (which

excludes weld, greenweed, Persian

berries, etc.); tannins were not

detected in any great quantity,

which rules out dyewoods; and

the dye is not turmeric, it does not

respond to the reagents used for

TLC of yellow dyes. The circum-

stantial evidence is not enough to

give a secure identification,

although saffron seems to be the

most likely candidate at present.

The saffron crocus, Crocus

sativus, is grown in southern

Europe, Turkey, Iran, India and

north Africa. Applied to an Alim

mordant, the stamens give an

orangey yellow, comparable with

the yarn samples analysed here.

Comment: All the dyes listed

above are native to India, and lac,

turmeric and indigo have been

identified in many Indian silk

textiles in the past (see, for

example, the sale catalogue of

Spink and Son Ltd, The Art of

Textiles, 1989, pp.163-4); saffron

has also been listed as one of the

common Indian dyes by several

authors. We have examined a few

textiles confidently identified as

Central Asia, but one set of

samples sent to us by The Textile

Gallery [ref. 15530], from a carpet

described as ‘Tiger in Octagon’,

and tentatively ascribed to Central

Asia in the 13th-17th centuries,

also proved to be dyed with

indigo, turmeric and lac (see TRA

report, by G.W. Taylor, 27 January

1992). Indian dyes were wide-

spread within the Islamic world

and may well have been used in a

Central Asian carpet during a

period of Islamic influence”.

Published

HALI 89, 1996, p.137 (detail); Ken

Whyld, ‘The Magic Carpet’, in

Chess Monthly, 61/8, 1996, pp.46-

7; Ernst J. Grube, ‘The World is a

Garden. The Decorative Arts of the

Timurid Period’, in Jill Tilden, ed.,

First Under Heaven: Hali Annual 4,

London 1997, p.22, fig.26 (detail);

Robert Pinner, with Steven Cohen,

Jacqueline Simcox and Daniel

Shaffer, ‘Work in Progress 1988-

1998’, HALI 100, 1998, p.81 (detail);

Jon Thompson, Silk, 13th to 18th

Centuries, Treasures from the

Museum of Islamic Art, Qatar,

Doha 2004, pp.88–89; Jon

Thompson, Milestones in the

History of Carpets, Milan, 2006,

p.145, fig.31 (detail); Jon Thomp-

son, ‘Carpets in the Fifteenth Cen-

tury’, in Jon Thompson, Daniel

Shaffer and Pirjetta Mildh, eds.,

Carpets and Textiles in the Iranian

World 1400-1700, Oxford & Genoa

2010, p.30, fig.1.

Exhibited

Philadelphia, 8th International

Conference on Oriental Carpets,

Wyndham Franklin Plaza Hotel, 31

October 4 November 1996; Doha,

Sheraton Doha Hotel, Silk and Ivory,

8th to 18th Centuries, Treasures

from the Museum of Islamic Art,

Qatar, Doha Cultural Festival, 28th

February to 24th March 2004.

Notes

1 The oldest record of a silk pile

carpet appears in a Chinese poem

by Bai Juyi (772-846 AD) about an

order made by the Tang dynasty

Zhenyuan Emperor (785-804) for a

silk pile palace carpet over100 ft

wide. A unique carpet fragment

carbon-dated to 680-960 AD has

recently been discovered; it has a

pattern of horses and figures

against a red ground, is knotted in

silk and wool and measures 70 x

111cm. An incomplete knotted silk

pile carpet in the Textile Museum,

Washington DC, with a design of

animals and a Kufesque border on

a gold ground, measuring 35 x

70cm, is thought to be from Iraq

or North Africa and has been

dated by some authorities to

before the 15th century, although

this has not yet been confirmed

by scientific tests.

2 I wish to extend my deep

gratitude to the NCCAH for

entrusting the carpet to me for

conservation and detailed study.

The carpet was sent to Longevity

Conservation Studio in London in

April 1998 on the instructions of

Hussain al-Rajef, then Director of

the Museum of Islamic Art. The

carpet was washed, fully conser-

ved and sewn to a mounting

cloth. C-14 tests were arranged

and a full structure analysis

undertaken, and the carpet was

returned to Qatar on completion

of the conservation work in

December 1998.

3 The term ashtapada was also

used to describe a legendary

being with eight legs and a type

of spider.

4 As Peter Stoneman points out,

there are conflicting stories about

the origins of chess: ‘Several

unsubstantiated hypotheses

placed the date of the invention of

chess far earlier than can be

supported by historic evidence.

According to one tale, the game

of chess was invented about 1000

BC by an Indian mathematician...

There are also unsubstantiated

stories pushing the date of chess

as far back as 3,000 years ago,

based on archeological discoveries

in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and India.’

See http://webspace.webring.com

/people/bc/captain_peter_anthony_

stonemann/chess.htm

5 These images were also shown

to John Eskenazi, who concurred

with my opinion.

6 See Van de Put, 1904, pl.II A, B.

7 Timur’s empire included eastern

Anatolia, the Crimea, Georgia,

Armenia, eastern Syria and Iraq in

the west, the whole of present-

day Iran, all of the Caucasus and

the lands that surround the Caspian

Sea apart from the northern shores,

present-day Uzbekistan and parts

of southern Kirghizistan, the whole

of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan,

Tajikistan and the eastern part of

Xinjiang, Afghanistan, Baluchistan

and the major part of Pakistan.

8 Timur Celebrates His Conquest

of Delhi in 1398, from the Zafar-

nama of Sharafuddin Ali Yazdi,

Shiraz, 1436. Harvard University

Art Museums (Arthur M. Sackler

Museum), Cambridge, bequest of

the estate of Abby Aldrich Rocke-

feller, inv.no.1960. 198. Published:

Washington DC 1989, p.105, no.30.

9 http://filer.case.edu/org/cwrums/

games/tamerlane.html: “[Tamerlane

chess] is possibly the most complex

variant of Shatranj (“chess’) ever

made. It is included in the family

called Shatranj Kamil and Shatranj

al-Kabir but easily stands out on

its own. It was very popular in

Persia and other lands and was

said to have been invented by the

chess master Timur himself. Tamer-

lane chess is played on a 10-by-11

board as well as two citadels, one

to the left of the ninth row, the

other to the right of the second

row.” See http://history.chess.free.

fr/tamerlane.htm: “According to

his biographer, [Timur] loved to

play chess and, precisely, he

preferred to play Shatranj al-kabîr,

‘great Chess’, rather than Shatranj

ash-shaghîr, the ordinary ‘small’

Chess.” For further information

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Tamerlane_chess, http://filer.case.

edu/org/cwrums/games/shatranj.

html, http://www.chessvariants.

com/historic.dir/tamerlane.html.

10 Doha, 2004, p.82. I was invited

to curate two exhibitions, Silk and

Ivory, for the Doha Cultural Festival

from 28 February to 24 March

2004; I selected the Silk exhibits

and invited Jon Thompson to write

the catalogue.

11 I refer to the so-called ‘para-

Mamluk’ carpets, a term coined

by Charles Grant Ellis that may be

on its way out. In a forthcoming

publication I shall propose a

reappraisal, contrary to current

thinking, along the lines that these

carpets belong to a Persian tradition

older than the Mamluk carpets,

and that it was this production

that provided a source for the

vocabulary of ornament of Mamluk

carpets rather than the other way

round.

12 During the past 25 years

Longevity Conservation Studio has

submitted more than 500 samples

for C-14 testing to laboratories all

over the world. In each case, no

indication was given to labora-

tories as to the perceived date in

advance of the test. Samples

extracted from the same textile

have often been sent to two or

more different laboratories, to act

as a control. On textiles made

before 1550 the results are very

consistent between one laboratory

and another. In almost all instances,

the scientific results have corres-

ponded with the ages predicted

using art historical factors.

13 Briggs, 1940.

14 Humayun Faints at the Sight of

Humay’s Portrait, Shiraz School,

dated 1420. Staatliche Museen,

Berlin. Published: Pope, 1938-39,

pl.864.

15 The term is used because the

German artist Hans Holbein the

Younger (1497-1543) depicted a

significant number of them in his

paintings. One group of these

carpets have a field design com-

posed of one to five large octa-

gons, often placed in squares,

known as ‘large-pattern Holbein’; a

second group have a field design

composed of offset rows of inter-

laced medallions alternating with

diamond-shaped medallions, known

as ‘small-pattern Holbein’.

16 The Cairo two-octagon carpet.

Anatolia, 14th century. Museum

of Islamic Art, Cairo. Published:

Moustapha, 1949; Thompson,

2006, pp.39, 146, 148, figs.136,

142.

17 The Divrigi ‘Domes and

Squinches’ two-octagon carpet.

Anatolia, 14th century. 202 x

342cm, incomplete. Vakıflar

Museum, Istanbul, inv.no.A-217.

Formerly: Ulu Mosque, Divrigi.

Published: Ellis, 1967; Vakıflar

Museum, 1988, pp.40-45, 9, 180-

1, pl.2 (with structure analysis:

Warp Z2S, wool, ivory. Weft Z,

wool, light red, 2 shoots, 1

straight, 2 wavy. Knots 2Z, Sy 2,

V 31 x H 28, = 868 knots/sq.dm.

Sides and ends missing); Phila-

delphia Museum of Art, 1988, p.9,

fig.2a; Eskenazi, 1986; Franses

and Bennett, 1988, p.37; Ölçer,

et al, 1996, pp.46-7, pl.31 (with

detail); Thompson 2006, p.39,

fig.2, pp.146-7, figs.137-8; Denny

2010, p.60, fig.2.

18 Some ‘para-Mamluk’ carpets

with octagon designs, northern

Syria or eastern Anatolia, second

half of the 15th century: (1) The

Bernheimer 4-and-1 octagons Para-

Mamluk Carpet. 112 x 116cm,

incomplete. Museum of Islamic

Art, Berlin, inv.no.I.33/60. Formerly:

Bernheimer Collection, Munich.

Published: Bernheimer, 1959,

fig.2; Ellis, 1963, figs.1, 3, 5; Ellis,

1967, p.19, note 33 (cited);

Erdmann, 1970, p.154, fig.198;

Museum of Islamic Art, 1988,

pp.67 and 217, pl.74; Pinner and

Franses, 1980, p.110, fig.209;

HALI 71, 1993, p.119; Thompson,

2006, p.136, fig.115. Exhibited:

Berlin, 1965. (2) The Chihil Sutun

Para-Mamluk Niche Rug with Kufic

Inscription. 105 x 141cm. Carpet

Museum, Tehran. Formerly: Chihil

Sutun Kiosk, Esfahan. Published:

Erdmann, 1966, pp.87-93; Ellis,

1967, pp.2-20; Gans-Ruedin, 1978,

pp.144-5; Mills, 1997, p.72, fig.1;

Franses, 1999, p.50, fig.31;

Thompson, 2006, p.137, fig.116.

Notes: Inscription reads “Hasten

to repent before death”. (3) The

Williams four- and-one octagons

Para-Mamluk Rug. 125 x 178cm.

Philadelphia Museum of Art,

inv.no.55-65-2. Formerly: Joseph

Lees Williams Memorial Collec-

tion, Philadelphia. Published: New

York, 1910, p.11, no.8; Erdmann,

1930, fig.8; Erdmann, 1961, fig.33;

Ellis, 1963, fig.2; Ellis, 1967, p.19,

note 33 (cited); Metropolitan

Museum of Art, 1973, fig.15; Ellis,

1978, p.32, fig.7; Atil, 1980, p.312,

ill. 178; Pinner and Franses, 1981,

p.41 (cited); London, 1983, p.66,

no.28; Black, 1985, p.52, fig.6b;

Pinner, 1986, p.6, fig.9; Philadel-

phia Museum of Art, 1988, pp.4-7,

pl.1; Völker, 2004, p.16; Thompson,

2006, p.138, fig.117. Exhibited:

New York, 1910; London, 1983.

(4) The Dresden Para-Mamluk

octagons rug. 44.5 x 40.5cm,

circular fragment. Kunstgewerbe

Museum, Dresden, inv.no.343.

Published: Lessing, 1887; HALI

71, 1993, p.106, fig.1; Ellis, 1997,

p.76, fig.8 (with structure analysis,

as ‘symmetrically knotted’); Thom-

pson, 2006, p.139, fig.120. Exhib-

ited: Hamburg, 7th ICOC, 1993.

19 The Mamluk Empire, which

began with the Bahri Dynasty in

1250, ruled from Cairo, Damascus

and Aleppo. To the east was the

Ilkhanid Mongol Empire of Persia

and the western part of Anatolia

was to be ruled by the Ottomans.

20 The Goldschmidt four-octagon

carpet. Western Anatolia, second

half 15th century. 200 x 430cm.

Museum of Islamic Art, Berlin,

inv.no.I.5526. Formerly: Art trade,

Paris, 1928; Jacob Goldschmidt.

Published: Kühnel, 1930, fig.1;

Erdmann, 1931, pp.95ff., fig.6;

Staatliche Museen, 1935, no.29;

Bode and Kühnel, 1955, p.31,

fig.16; Heinz, 1956, fig.1; Zaki,

1956, fig.689; Bode and Kühnel,

1958, p.36, fig.16; Erdmann, 1960,

fig.36 (detail); Schlosser, 1960,

fig.9 (detail); Milhofer, 1962,

fig.19; Ellis, 1963, p.7, fig.7;

Erdmann, 1963; Munich, 1965,

p.84, no.11; Darmstadt, 1965,

no.11; Museum für Islamische

Kunst, 1967, no.317, pl.4, fig.48;

APPENDICES

INDIAN SILK CARPETSINDIAN SILK CARPETS

HALI ISSUE 167 2120 HALI ISSUE 167

1909, pl.XXV; Erdmann, 1960,

fig.157; Erdmann, 1970, p.136,

fig.169. Became known as

‘Hitler’s Carpet’ after 1933.

39 Swastika carpet, Konya, 16th

or 17th century. 105 x 87cm,

incomplete. Kirchheim Family

Collection, Stuttgart. Published:

Kirchheim Collection, 1993, p.338,

pl.215. Further variations on this

pattern are discussed at length in

Orient Stars (Franses, 1993,

pp.274-5).

40 The Frauenknecht ‘Holbein-

style’ rug, India, 15th century.

Private collection. Formerly:

Bertram Frauenknecht, Munich.

Published: Thompson, 2006, p.46,

fig.18.

41 This may well have been in one

of the Latimer Surveys or in an

issue of the Journal of Indian Arts

and Handicrafts.

42 Gion Survey, 1992.

43 See Purdon, 1994.

44 The Gion Matsuri ‘Holbein-

Style’ Rug. India, 15th century.

123 x 170cm, incomplete in

length, wool pile on a cotton

foundation. Gion Matsuri Kita-

Kannon-yama Preservation

Association, Kyoto, Japan.

Published: Gion Festival, 1970,

pl.67 (erroneously attributed to

18th century, but correctly

catalogued as Indian); Gion

Survey, 1992, pl.30; New York,

1997, p.142, fig.138; Walker, 1997,

p.101, fig.6. Structure analysis

(Nobuko Kajatani): Warp Z6S,

white cotton. Weft: 3 shoots, 10Z

blue cotton, lazy lines. Pile: 2Z

wool, asymmetrically knotted

open to the left, 465 knots per

square dm. Sides: cord of 4 warps

(2 over 2, not plied), weft-

wrapped, overcasting of buff-

coloured cotton in most places but

also of golden yellow wool (same

as pile); triangular darts. Ends:

bottom has warp fringe with

approximately 20 warps gathered

and tied with thin extra strand of

cotton; top cut and bound.

45 Private communication.

46 The Frauenknecht ‘Holbein-

style’ rug. See note 40 above.

47 Kenneth Whyld (6 March 1926-

11 July 2003), British chess

author, researcher and historian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_

Whyld; www.kwabc.org.

48 Brock-Raming, 1999, pp.42-59.

In one Jain text from 300 BC, for

example, the wise man is instruc-

ted: “He should not learn [to play]

the ashtapada[-game], he should

not speak anything forbidden by

the law; a wise man should

abstain from fights and quarrels”;

although in others the game is

listed as one of the 72 arts that a

young prince should learn.

49 For example: Wilkins, 2002,

which also provides rules for the

game.

50 Private correspondence with

Dr Irving Finkel, Assistant Keeper,

Ancient Mesopotamian Languages

and Cultures at the British

Museum, 2011.

51 Pachisi, the national game of

India, resembles the modern

game Ludo played in the West. It

dates back to at least 4 AD and

remains popular today. Each player

has a set of pawns that start in his

or her corner of the board. The

goal is to move the pawns around

the board to the ‘home’ section.

Movement is controlled by dice.

All players move around the same

board, so they may capture each

other’s pawns. Captured pawns

are returned to their player’s

corner and must start their

journey over. The winner is the

first player to move all pawns

‘home’. See http://www.board-

gamegeek.com/boardgame/2136

/pachisi

52 Finkel, 2002, pp.65-78.

53 Vasantha, 2003, pp.25-36.

54 Board Game Studies, 5, 2002,

pp.25-33.

55 Ibid, pp.33-6.

56 I was made aware of this wool

pile rug during a research visit to

the Palace Museum in Beijing in

2000, and noted the similarities

between it and the Ashtapada

carpet.

57 Brend, 1986, p.89.

58 Golconda lies eleven kilometres

west of the city of Hyderabad, in

the modern state of Andhra

Pradesh. Its origins go back to 500

BC and it was reportedly named

after a Telugu word for Shepherd’s

Hill. At this time it was part of the

Kakatiyas Kingdom. From 1347-

1527, Golconda and Warangal

were part of the Bahmani Sultan-

ate, the first full independent

Islamic state in central India,

which was founded by Ala-ud-Din

Hassan Bahman Shah, possibly of

Tajik-Persian decent, who broke

away from the more powerful

Sultanate of Delhi. The Bahmani

Sultans from the late 14th century

were: Taj ud-Din Firuz Shah, 1397-

1422; Ahmad Shah I Wali, 1422-

1436; Aladdin Ahmad Shah II,

1436-1458; Aladdin Humayun

Zalim Shah, 1458-1461; Aladdin

Humayun Zalim Shah, 1458-1461;

Nizam Shah, 1461-1463;

Mohammed Shah III, Lashkari,

1463-1482; Mohammed Shah IV

(Mahmud Vira Shah) 1482-1518;

Ahmad Vira Shah III, 1518-1521;

Aladdin Shah, 1521-1522; Wali-

Allah Shah, 1522-1525; Kalim-Allah

Shah, 1525-1527. Information from

Wikipedia and Ansari, 1988.

59 Ansari, 1988. The state allowed

religious freedom and peoples of

all faiths worked in the govern-

ment, which allowed for great

trade with numerous countries

and brought considerable riches.

Works Cited

Ansari, N.H., ‘The Bahmanid

Dynasty’, in Encyclopaedia Iranica,

15 December 1988.

Aslanapa, Oktay, Turkish Arts,

translated by Herman Kreider,

Dogan Kardes, Istanbul, 1961.

Aslanapa, Oktay, One Thousand

Years of Turkish Carpets, Eren,

Istanbul, 1988.

Atil, Esin (ed.), Turkish Art,

Abrams, New York, 1980.

Ballard Collection, 1924, Catalogue

of Oriental Rugs in the Collection

of James F. Ballard, text by James

F. Ballard, with Arthur McLean and

Dorothy Blair, St. Louis, 1924.

Ballard Collection, 1935, Ballard

Collection of Oriental Rugs in the

City Art Museum of St. Louis, text

by Maurice Dimand, St. Louis, 1935.

Bennett, Ian (ed.), Rugs and

Carpets of the World, Greenwich

Editions, London, 2004.

Berlin, Martin-Gropius-Bau,

Europa und der Orient, 800–1900,

exhibition catalogue, 28 May to 27

August 1989, edited by Gereon

Sievernich and Hendrik Budde,

Bertelsmann, Berlin, 1989.

Berlin, Museum für Islamische

Kunst, Islamische Kunst in Berliner

Sammlungen – 100 Jahre

Museum für Islamische Kunst in

Berlin, exhibition catalogue, 19

October 2004 to 16 January 2005,

edited by Jens Kröger and D.

Heiden, Parthas, Berlin, 2004.

Bernheimer, Otto, Alte Teppiche

des 16. bis 18. Jahrhunderts der

Firma L. Bernheimer, Bernheimer,

Munich, 1959.

Bier, Carol, ‘Spanish and Mamluk

Carpets. Comparisons of

Decoration and Structure’, in

Ghereh, 36, pp.9–17, 2004.

Black, David (ed.), World Rugs

and Carpets, Feltham, 1985.

Bode, Wilhelm von, and E.

Kühnel, Vorderasiatische

Knüpfteppiche aus Älterer Zeit,

4th ed., revised, Klinkhardt &

Biermann, Braunschweig, 1955.

Bode, Wilhelm von, and Ernst

Kühnel, Antique Rugs from the

Near East, 4th ed., translated by

C.G. Ellis, London, 1958.

Bode, Wilhem von, and Ernst

Kühnel, Antique Rugs from the

Near East, translated by Charles

Grant Ellis, 4th edition, revised,

Bell & Sons, London, 1970.

Brend, Barbara, ‘The British

Library’s Shahnama of 1438 as a

Sultanate Manuscript’, in Facets of

Indian Art, edited by R. Skelton,

Andrew Topsfield and Susan

Stronge, symposium held at the

Victoria & Albert Museum,

London, 26-28 April 1982, pp.87-

93, London, 1986.

Briggs, Amy, ‘Timurid Carpets, I,

Geometric Carpets’, in Ars

Islamica, vol. VII, no. 1, pp.20–54,

1940.

Brock-Raming, Andreas, ‘The

Gaming Board in Indian Chess and

Related Board Games: A Termin-

ological Investigation’, in Board

Games Studies, 2, pp.42-59, 1999.

Bunt, Cyril G.E., Hispano-

Moresque Fabrics, F. Lewis, Leigh-

on-Sea, 1966.

Cavallo, Adolph, ‘A Carpet from

Cairo’, in Journal of the American

Research Center in Egypt, vol. I,

pp.69–97, Boston, 1962.

Darmstadt, Türkische Kunst,

exhibition catalogue, 8 May to 23

June 1965, pp.38–48, text by Kurt

Erdmann (part reprint of Erdmann,

1957; Erdmann, 1977), 1965.

Day, Susan, ‘“Chinoiserie” in

Islamic Carpet Design’, in HALI 48,

pp.38–45, December 1989.

Day, Susan (ed.), Great Carpets

of the World, Vendome Press,

New York, 1996.

Denny, Walter B., ‘Ten Great

Carpets’, review of the exhibition

of the same title at the Boston

Museum of Fine Art, Autumn, 1977,

in HALI 1/2, pp.156–64, 1978.

Denny, Walter B., ‘The Origin of

the Designs of Ottoman Court

Carpets’, in HALI vol. II, no. 1,

pp.6–11, Spring 1979.

Denny, Walter B., ‘Türkmen

Carpets and Early Rug Weaving in

the Western Islamic World’, in

HALI 4/2, pp.329–37, 1982.

Denny, Walter B., ‘Anatolia, Tabriz

and the Carpet Design Revolution’,

in Carpets and Textiles in the

Iranian World 1400-1700, edited by

Jon Thompson, Daniel Shaffer and

Pirjetta Mildh, The May Beattie

Archive at the Ashmolean Museum

& The Bruschettini Foundation for

Islamic and Asian Art, Oxford &

Genoa 2010, pp.58-71.

Doha, Sheraton Hotel, Silk, 13th

to 18th Centuries, Treasures from

Reichel, 1969, pp.170-1, pl.58

(detail); Bode and Kühnel, 1970,

p.34, fig.16 (detail); Erdmann,

1970, opp.p.108, pl.VIII (detail);

Museum für Islamische Kunst,

1971, no.585; Propyläen, 1973,

p.387, fig.406; Yetkin, 1974/1981,

p.66, fig.34; Denny, 1979, p.22,

pl.3 (detail); Mackie, 1979, p.94,

fig.27 (detail); Museum für Islam-

ische Kunst, 1979, pp.158-9,

no.585, pls 14, 15 (details, with

structure analysis); Museum für

Islamische Kunst, 1980, no.44;

Frankfurt am Main, 1980, p.156,

fig.104; Spuhler, 1980, pl.III, fig.3;

Ruppersberg, 1981, p.182; Pietsch,

1981, p.24; Klose, 1983, p.23,

fig.6; Pagnano, 1983, pl.8; Black,

1985, p.51, fig.a; Ellis, 1986, p.167,

fig.5; Museum of Islamic Art,

1988, pp.31, 147, no.4 (with

structure analysis); Aslanapa,

1988, p.84, pl.65; Berlin, 1989,

pp.178, 620, no.4/138, fig.192;

Gantzhorn, 1991, p.189, pl.291;

Day, 1996, pp.50-1, 71, fig.44

(details); Ölçer, et al., 1996, pp.60-

1, 227, pl.39 (with structure

analysis); Türkmen, 1999, p.109

(detail); Berlin, 2004, p.42, no.23;

Bennett, 2004, p.100 (detail);

Thompson, 2006, p.52, fig.31;

HALI 148, 2006, p.99; Spallanzani,

2007, p.211, pl.73. Exhibited:

Munich, 1965; Darmstadt, 1965;

Berlin, 1989; Berlin, 2004.

21 The Ballard Flowers in

Octagons Carpet. Spain, 15th

century. 154 x 274cm. St. Louis

Art Museum, inv.no.122.1929.

Formerly: James F. Ballard

Collection, St. Louis. Published:

May, 1945, p.56, fig.27; Ballard

Collection, 1924, pp.184-5, no.101;

Ballard Collection, 1935, pl.XII;

Torres, 1942, fig.13; London, 1983,

p.27, fig.29; Day, 1989, p.321,

fig.318; Gantzhorn, 1990, p.230,

fig.341; HALI 113, 2000, p.123

(detail); Ghereh, 25, 2000, p.75.

Exhibited: Pittsburgh, Carnegie

Institute, 1923; Indianapolis, John

Herron Art Institute, 1924.

22 The Convent of Santa Ursula

flowers in octagons carpet. Spain,

15th century. (a) 103 x 250cm,

incomplete, three octagons.

Museum of Islamic Art, Qatar,

inv.no.CA24. Formerly: Reportedly

from the Convent of Santa Ursula,

Guadalajara; Adolfo Loewi Collec-

tion, Venice, no.7.419 b; Benedava,

Paris; Wher Collection. Published:

Ferrandis Torres, 1942, fig.15; Ellis,

1986, p.168, fig.6; Franses, 2008,

p.68, fig.1. (b) 97 x 390cm, four

octagons. Textile Museum,

Washington DC, inv.no.R44.2.2

(R84.12), acquired 1931. Formerly:

reportedly from the Convent of

Santa Ursula, Guadalajara; Adolfo

Loewi Collection, Venice; George

Hewitt Myers Collection, Washing-

ton DC. Published: Textile Museum,

1953, p.17, pls XVI-XVII (with

structure analysis); Bunt, 1966,

fig.46; Weeks and Treganowan,

1969, p.19, right (detail); Washing-

ton DC, 1972, no.30 (cited); Sherrill,

1974, p.535, fig.5; Mackie, 1977,

p.26, fig.15; Mackie, 1979, p.91,

fig.12; Gantzhorn, 1990, p.229,

fig.340; Sherrill, 1996, p.37, pl.28;

Sherrill, 2001, p.84, fig.2 (detail);

Washington DC, 2003, pp.25, 283,

fig.23 (with structure analysis);

Bier, 2004, pp.12-13. Exhibited:

Washington DC, 1972; Washington

DC, 2003.

23 Two-octagon rug, western

Anatolia, late 16th century. 142 x

88cm. Museum of Islamic Art,

Berlin, inv.no.KGM 1904,77.

24 The Seyh Baba Yusuf Mosque

two-octagon with eight-lobed

flowers rug, western Anatolia,

16th century. 130 x 202cm,

incomplete in width. Museum

of Turkish and Islamic Arts,

Istanbul, inv.no.700. Formerly:

Seyh Baba Yusuf Mosque,

Sivrihisar. Published: Aslanapa,

1961, pl.III; Ellis, 1963, p.9, fig.11;

Bode and Kühnel, 1970, p.33,

fig.13;HALI 25, 1985, p.41; Ellis,

1986, p.165, fig.2; Gantzhorn,

1991, p.179, pl.257; Ölçer, 1993,

p.53, fig.18 (detail); Ölçer, et al.,

1996, pp.51, 226, pl.32 (with

structure analysis); Ghereh, 10,

1996, p.69; Roccella, 2001, p.68,

fig.1 (detail); Istanbul, 2007, pp.37,

159-60, no.15 (with structure

analysis). Exhibited: Istanbul,

St. Irene Museum, ‘The Turkish

Carpet Through History’, ICOC,

October 1984; Istanbul, 2007.

25 See Pinner and Stanger, 1978.

26 The Detroit three-octagon rug.

Western Anatolia, C-14 dated to

1473-1662. 178 x 285cm. Museum

of Islamic Art, Doha. Formerly: The

Textile Gallery, London; private

collection, Bloomfield Hills.

Published: Thompson, 2006,

p.145, fig.132 (detail). Exhibited:

Detroit Institute of Arts.

27 The Divrigi ‘Domes and

Squinches two-octagon carpet.

See note 17 above.

28 The Alaaddin Keykubad small-

pattern Holbein carpet. Western

Anatolia, 16th century. 100 x

187cm, section. Museum of

Turkish and Islamic Arts, Istanbul,

inv.no.303. From the tomb of

Alaaddin Keykubad, Konya.

Published: Ölçer, et al., 1996,

p.73; Istanbul, 2007, p.33, no.11

(with structure analysis); Denny

2010, p.62, fig.4. An almost

identical border with resolved

corner solutions on what looks

like a western Anatolian rug is

depicted in a tempera on wood

painting of ca. 1483, Madonna and

Child Enthroned with Saints, by

Domenico Ghirlandaio, in the Uffizi

Gallery, Florence.

29 Small-pattern Holbein carpets

with unresolved corner solutions:

(1) The Florence small-pattern

Holbein carpet, Anatolia, late 15th

century. (a) 202 x 202cm, lower

left section. Bardini Foundation,

Florence, inv.no.7865. (b) 193 x

94cm, section. Keir Collection,

acquired 1971. Formerly: Salvadore

Collection, Florence. Published:

Keir Collection, 1978, pp.34-5,

pl.5; London, 1983, p.53, no.6;

Ellis, 1985, pp.65-7, no.R-30 (with

structure analysis). (2) The

Düsseldorf-Berlin small pattern

Holbein rug. Anatolia, late 15th

century. 89 x 157cm, section.

Museum of Islamic Art, Berlin,

inv.no.I.6737. Formerly: Municipal

Collection, Düsseldorf. Published:

Erdmann, 1955, fig.27 (detail);

Schlosser, 1963, p.88, fig.6;

Erdmann, 1970, p.145, fig.184;

Ellis, 1985, p.65, no.R-29 (cited);

Ellis, 1986, p.171, fig.7 (detail).

30 The Disappearance of Kay

Khusraw Related to Luhrasp, in a

Shahnameh, copied for Baisunghur.

Herat, 1429-30 AD . Gulistan

Palace Museum, Tehran.

Published: Pope, 1938-39, vol. V,

pl.870; Briggs, 1940, p.35, fig.42

(detail drawing).

31 Some carpets in Persian

paintings: (1) Humay in the Palace

of the Fairies (detail), Humay u

Humayun copied for Baysunghur

ibn Shahrukh, f.10b. Herat, 1427-

28. Nationalbibliothek, Vienna,

inv.no.N.F.382. Published:

Washington DC, 1989, p.220,

fig.82. (2) Baysunghur ibn

Shahrukh Seated in a Garden,

Kalila u Dimna of Nizamuddin

Abu’l-Ma’ali Nasrullah, f.1b-2a.

Herat, 1429. Topkapı Sarayi Library,

Istanbul, inv.no.R.1022. Published:

Washington DC, 1989, pp.66, 110,

no.21. (3) Tahmina Enters Rustam’s

Chamber, possibly from an

anthology. Herat, ca. 1434-40.

Harvard University Art Museums

(Arthur M. Sackler Museum),

Cambridge, inv.no.1939.225.

Published: Washington DC, 1989,

p.130, no.45.

32 Carpets in two Herat paintings

of 1488: (1) A Party at the Court of

Sultan-Husayn Mirza, Bustan of

Sa’di, f.1b-2a. General Egyptian

Book Organization, Cairo, Adab

Farsi 908. Published: Washington

DC, 1989, p.260. (2) The Seduction

of Yusuf, Bustan of Sa’di, f.52b.

General Egyptian Book Organiz-

ation, Cairo, Adab Farsi 908.

Published: Washington DC, 1989,

p.294.

33 Nushaba Recognizing Iskandar

by His Portrait, Khamsa of Nizami,

f.244b. Herat, copied 1445-46.

Topkapı Sarayi Library, Istanbul,

inv.no.H.781. Published: Wash-

ington DC, 1989, p.378, Appendix

3, 4c.

34 The Chihil Sutun Para-Mamluk

niche rug with Kufic Inscription.

See note 18 above, no.(2).

35 Chester Beatty Library, Dublin,

Per 124, 2 volumes. Also,

Shahnama, dated 1438, in the

British Library, London, inv.no.Or.

1403. See Brend, 1986, for a

discussion of the Indian attribution

of these manuscripts.

36 Some carpets with filled-in

interlaced knots in the borders in

Italian paintings: (1) Madonna and

Child Enthroned with Two Saints.

Ghirlandaio, 1483. Galerie Uffizi,

Florence. (2) St. Catherine. Biagio

d’Antonio (Tucci or Tuccio)(1446-

1516). (3) Doge Loredan and Four

Advisers. Giovanni Bellini, 1507.

Gemäldegalerie, Berlin. (4) St

Mark Enthroned with Saints.

Giovanni da Udine (Giovanni

Nanni, Giovanni de’ Ricamatori)

(Udine 1487-ca.1564, Rome),

1520. Udine Cathedral. (5) The

Last Supper. Francesco di Giro-

lamo da Santacroce, ca. 1540s.

Church of San Francesco della

Vigna, Venice. (6) Saint Antoninus.

Lorenzo Lotto, 1542. Chiesa dei

Santi Giovanni e Paolo, Venice.

37 Private correspondence, 1992.

The Phrygians were an Indo-

European people who first

appeared in Anatolia about the

year 1200 BC and were a major

central Anatolian power in the 8th

century BC, when their kingdom

comprised practically the whole of

central and west Anatolia, with its

capital at Gordion. Excavations

have revealed impressive

architecture and rock-hewn

sculpture decorated with

geometrical ornament in relief.

38 ‘Hitler’s Carpet’, Konya, 15th or

16th century. 116 x 192cm.

Destroyed by fire in World War II.

Formerly: Museum of Islamic Art,

Berlin, inv.no.I.946, acquired in

1908 in Konya. Published: Sarre,

INDIAN SILK CARPETSINDIAN SILK CARPETS

HALI ISSUE 167 2120 HALI ISSUE 167

1909, pl.XXV; Erdmann, 1960,

fig.157; Erdmann, 1970, p.136,

fig.169. Became known as

‘Hitler’s Carpet’ after 1933.

39 Swastika carpet, Konya, 16th

or 17th century. 105 x 87cm,

incomplete. Kirchheim Family

Collection, Stuttgart. Published:

Kirchheim Collection, 1993, p.338,

pl.215. Further variations on this

pattern are discussed at length in

Orient Stars (Franses, 1993,

pp.274-5).

40 The Frauenknecht ‘Holbein-

style’ rug, India, 15th century.

Private collection. Formerly:

Bertram Frauenknecht, Munich.

Published: Thompson, 2006, p.46,

fig.18.

41 This may well have been in one

of the Latimer Surveys or in an

issue of the Journal of Indian Arts

and Handicrafts.

42 Gion Survey, 1992.

43 See Purdon, 1994.

44 The Gion Matsuri ‘Holbein-

Style’ Rug. India, 15th century.

123 x 170cm, incomplete in

length, wool pile on a cotton

foundation. Gion Matsuri Kita-

Kannon-yama Preservation

Association, Kyoto, Japan.

Published: Gion Festival, 1970,

pl.67 (erroneously attributed to

18th century, but correctly

catalogued as Indian); Gion

Survey, 1992, pl.30; New York,

1997, p.142, fig.138; Walker, 1997,

p.101, fig.6. Structure analysis

(Nobuko Kajatani): Warp Z6S,

white cotton. Weft: 3 shoots, 10Z

blue cotton, lazy lines. Pile: 2Z

wool, asymmetrically knotted

open to the left, 465 knots per

square dm. Sides: cord of 4 warps

(2 over 2, not plied), weft-

wrapped, overcasting of buff-

coloured cotton in most places but

also of golden yellow wool (same

as pile); triangular darts. Ends:

bottom has warp fringe with

approximately 20 warps gathered

and tied with thin extra strand of

cotton; top cut and bound.

45 Private communication.

46 The Frauenknecht ‘Holbein-

style’ rug. See note 40 above.

47 Kenneth Whyld (6 March 1926-

11 July 2003), British chess

author, researcher and historian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_

Whyld; www.kwabc.org.

48 Brock-Raming, 1999, pp.42-59.

In one Jain text from 300 BC, for

example, the wise man is instruc-

ted: “He should not learn [to play]

the ashtapada[-game], he should

not speak anything forbidden by

the law; a wise man should

abstain from fights and quarrels”;

although in others the game is

listed as one of the 72 arts that a

young prince should learn.

49 For example: Wilkins, 2002,

which also provides rules for the

game.

50 Private correspondence with

Dr Irving Finkel, Assistant Keeper,

Ancient Mesopotamian Languages

and Cultures at the British

Museum, 2011.

51 Pachisi, the national game of

India, resembles the modern

game Ludo played in the West. It

dates back to at least 4 AD and

remains popular today. Each player

has a set of pawns that start in his

or her corner of the board. The

goal is to move the pawns around

the board to the ‘home’ section.

Movement is controlled by dice.

All players move around the same

board, so they may capture each

other’s pawns. Captured pawns

are returned to their player’s

corner and must start their

journey over. The winner is the

first player to move all pawns

‘home’. See http://www.board-

gamegeek.com/boardgame/2136

/pachisi

52 Finkel, 2002, pp.65-78.

53 Vasantha, 2003, pp.25-36.

54 Board Game Studies, 5, 2002,

pp.25-33.

55 Ibid, pp.33-6.

56 I was made aware of this wool

pile rug during a research visit to

the Palace Museum in Beijing in

2000, and noted the similarities

between it and the Ashtapada

carpet.

57 Brend, 1986, p.89.

58 Golconda lies eleven kilometres

west of the city of Hyderabad, in

the modern state of Andhra

Pradesh. Its origins go back to 500

BC and it was reportedly named

after a Telugu word for Shepherd’s

Hill. At this time it was part of the

Kakatiyas Kingdom. From 1347-

1527, Golconda and Warangal

were part of the Bahmani Sultan-

ate, the first full independent

Islamic state in central India,

which was founded by Ala-ud-Din

Hassan Bahman Shah, possibly of

Tajik-Persian decent, who broke

away from the more powerful

Sultanate of Delhi. The Bahmani

Sultans from the late 14th century

were: Taj ud-Din Firuz Shah, 1397-

1422; Ahmad Shah I Wali, 1422-

1436; Aladdin Ahmad Shah II,

1436-1458; Aladdin Humayun

Zalim Shah, 1458-1461; Aladdin

Humayun Zalim Shah, 1458-1461;

Nizam Shah, 1461-1463;

Mohammed Shah III, Lashkari,

1463-1482; Mohammed Shah IV

(Mahmud Vira Shah) 1482-1518;

Ahmad Vira Shah III, 1518-1521;

Aladdin Shah, 1521-1522; Wali-

Allah Shah, 1522-1525; Kalim-Allah

Shah, 1525-1527. Information from

Wikipedia and Ansari, 1988.

59 Ansari, 1988. The state allowed

religious freedom and peoples of

all faiths worked in the govern-

ment, which allowed for great

trade with numerous countries

and brought considerable riches.

Works Cited

Ansari, N.H., ‘The Bahmanid

Dynasty’, in Encyclopaedia Iranica,

15 December 1988.

Aslanapa, Oktay, Turkish Arts,

translated by Herman Kreider,

Dogan Kardes, Istanbul, 1961.

Aslanapa, Oktay, One Thousand

Years of Turkish Carpets, Eren,

Istanbul, 1988.

Atil, Esin (ed.), Turkish Art,

Abrams, New York, 1980.

Ballard Collection, 1924, Catalogue

of Oriental Rugs in the Collection

of James F. Ballard, text by James

F. Ballard, with Arthur McLean and

Dorothy Blair, St. Louis, 1924.

Ballard Collection, 1935, Ballard

Collection of Oriental Rugs in the

City Art Museum of St. Louis, text

by Maurice Dimand, St. Louis, 1935.

Bennett, Ian (ed.), Rugs and

Carpets of the World, Greenwich

Editions, London, 2004.

Berlin, Martin-Gropius-Bau,

Europa und der Orient, 800–1900,

exhibition catalogue, 28 May to 27

August 1989, edited by Gereon

Sievernich and Hendrik Budde,

Bertelsmann, Berlin, 1989.

Berlin, Museum für Islamische

Kunst, Islamische Kunst in Berliner

Sammlungen – 100 Jahre

Museum für Islamische Kunst in

Berlin, exhibition catalogue, 19

October 2004 to 16 January 2005,

edited by Jens Kröger and D.

Heiden, Parthas, Berlin, 2004.

Bernheimer, Otto, Alte Teppiche

des 16. bis 18. Jahrhunderts der

Firma L. Bernheimer, Bernheimer,

Munich, 1959.

Bier, Carol, ‘Spanish and Mamluk

Carpets. Comparisons of

Decoration and Structure’, in

Ghereh, 36, pp.9–17, 2004.

Black, David (ed.), World Rugs

and Carpets, Feltham, 1985.

Bode, Wilhelm von, and E.

Kühnel, Vorderasiatische

Knüpfteppiche aus Älterer Zeit,

4th ed., revised, Klinkhardt &

Biermann, Braunschweig, 1955.

Bode, Wilhelm von, and Ernst

Kühnel, Antique Rugs from the

Near East, 4th ed., translated by

C.G. Ellis, London, 1958.

Bode, Wilhem von, and Ernst

Kühnel, Antique Rugs from the

Near East, translated by Charles

Grant Ellis, 4th edition, revised,

Bell & Sons, London, 1970.

Brend, Barbara, ‘The British

Library’s Shahnama of 1438 as a

Sultanate Manuscript’, in Facets of

Indian Art, edited by R. Skelton,

Andrew Topsfield and Susan

Stronge, symposium held at the

Victoria & Albert Museum,

London, 26-28 April 1982, pp.87-

93, London, 1986.

Briggs, Amy, ‘Timurid Carpets, I,

Geometric Carpets’, in Ars

Islamica, vol. VII, no. 1, pp.20–54,

1940.

Brock-Raming, Andreas, ‘The

Gaming Board in Indian Chess and

Related Board Games: A Termin-

ological Investigation’, in Board

Games Studies, 2, pp.42-59, 1999.

Bunt, Cyril G.E., Hispano-

Moresque Fabrics, F. Lewis, Leigh-

on-Sea, 1966.

Cavallo, Adolph, ‘A Carpet from

Cairo’, in Journal of the American

Research Center in Egypt, vol. I,

pp.69–97, Boston, 1962.

Darmstadt, Türkische Kunst,

exhibition catalogue, 8 May to 23

June 1965, pp.38–48, text by Kurt

Erdmann (part reprint of Erdmann,

1957; Erdmann, 1977), 1965.

Day, Susan, ‘“Chinoiserie” in

Islamic Carpet Design’, in HALI 48,

pp.38–45, December 1989.

Day, Susan (ed.), Great Carpets

of the World, Vendome Press,

New York, 1996.

Denny, Walter B., ‘Ten Great

Carpets’, review of the exhibition

of the same title at the Boston

Museum of Fine Art, Autumn, 1977,

in HALI 1/2, pp.156–64, 1978.

Denny, Walter B., ‘The Origin of

the Designs of Ottoman Court

Carpets’, in HALI vol. II, no. 1,

pp.6–11, Spring 1979.

Denny, Walter B., ‘Türkmen

Carpets and Early Rug Weaving in

the Western Islamic World’, in

HALI 4/2, pp.329–37, 1982.

Denny, Walter B., ‘Anatolia, Tabriz

and the Carpet Design Revolution’,

in Carpets and Textiles in the

Iranian World 1400-1700, edited by

Jon Thompson, Daniel Shaffer and

Pirjetta Mildh, The May Beattie

Archive at the Ashmolean Museum

& The Bruschettini Foundation for

Islamic and Asian Art, Oxford &

Genoa 2010, pp.58-71.

Doha, Sheraton Hotel, Silk, 13th

to 18th Centuries, Treasures from

Reichel, 1969, pp.170-1, pl.58

(detail); Bode and Kühnel, 1970,

p.34, fig.16 (detail); Erdmann,

1970, opp.p.108, pl.VIII (detail);

Museum für Islamische Kunst,

1971, no.585; Propyläen, 1973,

p.387, fig.406; Yetkin, 1974/1981,

p.66, fig.34; Denny, 1979, p.22,

pl.3 (detail); Mackie, 1979, p.94,

fig.27 (detail); Museum für Islam-

ische Kunst, 1979, pp.158-9,

no.585, pls 14, 15 (details, with

structure analysis); Museum für

Islamische Kunst, 1980, no.44;

Frankfurt am Main, 1980, p.156,

fig.104; Spuhler, 1980, pl.III, fig.3;

Ruppersberg, 1981, p.182; Pietsch,

1981, p.24; Klose, 1983, p.23,

fig.6; Pagnano, 1983, pl.8; Black,

1985, p.51, fig.a; Ellis, 1986, p.167,

fig.5; Museum of Islamic Art,

1988, pp.31, 147, no.4 (with

structure analysis); Aslanapa,

1988, p.84, pl.65; Berlin, 1989,

pp.178, 620, no.4/138, fig.192;

Gantzhorn, 1991, p.189, pl.291;

Day, 1996, pp.50-1, 71, fig.44

(details); Ölçer, et al., 1996, pp.60-

1, 227, pl.39 (with structure

analysis); Türkmen, 1999, p.109

(detail); Berlin, 2004, p.42, no.23;

Bennett, 2004, p.100 (detail);

Thompson, 2006, p.52, fig.31;

HALI 148, 2006, p.99; Spallanzani,

2007, p.211, pl.73. Exhibited:

Munich, 1965; Darmstadt, 1965;

Berlin, 1989; Berlin, 2004.

21 The Ballard Flowers in

Octagons Carpet. Spain, 15th

century. 154 x 274cm. St. Louis

Art Museum, inv.no.122.1929.

Formerly: James F. Ballard

Collection, St. Louis. Published:

May, 1945, p.56, fig.27; Ballard

Collection, 1924, pp.184-5, no.101;

Ballard Collection, 1935, pl.XII;

Torres, 1942, fig.13; London, 1983,

p.27, fig.29; Day, 1989, p.321,

fig.318; Gantzhorn, 1990, p.230,

fig.341; HALI 113, 2000, p.123

(detail); Ghereh, 25, 2000, p.75.

Exhibited: Pittsburgh, Carnegie

Institute, 1923; Indianapolis, John

Herron Art Institute, 1924.

22 The Convent of Santa Ursula

flowers in octagons carpet. Spain,

15th century. (a) 103 x 250cm,

incomplete, three octagons.

Museum of Islamic Art, Qatar,

inv.no.CA24. Formerly: Reportedly

from the Convent of Santa Ursula,

Guadalajara; Adolfo Loewi Collec-

tion, Venice, no.7.419 b; Benedava,

Paris; Wher Collection. Published:

Ferrandis Torres, 1942, fig.15; Ellis,

1986, p.168, fig.6; Franses, 2008,

p.68, fig.1. (b) 97 x 390cm, four

octagons. Textile Museum,

Washington DC, inv.no.R44.2.2

(R84.12), acquired 1931. Formerly:

reportedly from the Convent of

Santa Ursula, Guadalajara; Adolfo

Loewi Collection, Venice; George

Hewitt Myers Collection, Washing-

ton DC. Published: Textile Museum,

1953, p.17, pls XVI-XVII (with

structure analysis); Bunt, 1966,

fig.46; Weeks and Treganowan,

1969, p.19, right (detail); Washing-

ton DC, 1972, no.30 (cited); Sherrill,

1974, p.535, fig.5; Mackie, 1977,

p.26, fig.15; Mackie, 1979, p.91,

fig.12; Gantzhorn, 1990, p.229,

fig.340; Sherrill, 1996, p.37, pl.28;

Sherrill, 2001, p.84, fig.2 (detail);

Washington DC, 2003, pp.25, 283,

fig.23 (with structure analysis);

Bier, 2004, pp.12-13. Exhibited:

Washington DC, 1972; Washington

DC, 2003.

23 Two-octagon rug, western

Anatolia, late 16th century. 142 x

88cm. Museum of Islamic Art,

Berlin, inv.no.KGM 1904,77.

24 The Seyh Baba Yusuf Mosque

two-octagon with eight-lobed

flowers rug, western Anatolia,

16th century. 130 x 202cm,

incomplete in width. Museum

of Turkish and Islamic Arts,

Istanbul, inv.no.700. Formerly:

Seyh Baba Yusuf Mosque,

Sivrihisar. Published: Aslanapa,

1961, pl.III; Ellis, 1963, p.9, fig.11;

Bode and Kühnel, 1970, p.33,

fig.13;HALI 25, 1985, p.41; Ellis,

1986, p.165, fig.2; Gantzhorn,

1991, p.179, pl.257; Ölçer, 1993,

p.53, fig.18 (detail); Ölçer, et al.,

1996, pp.51, 226, pl.32 (with

structure analysis); Ghereh, 10,

1996, p.69; Roccella, 2001, p.68,

fig.1 (detail); Istanbul, 2007, pp.37,

159-60, no.15 (with structure

analysis). Exhibited: Istanbul,

St. Irene Museum, ‘The Turkish

Carpet Through History’, ICOC,

October 1984; Istanbul, 2007.

25 See Pinner and Stanger, 1978.

26 The Detroit three-octagon rug.

Western Anatolia, C-14 dated to

1473-1662. 178 x 285cm. Museum

of Islamic Art, Doha. Formerly: The

Textile Gallery, London; private

collection, Bloomfield Hills.

Published: Thompson, 2006,

p.145, fig.132 (detail). Exhibited:

Detroit Institute of Arts.

27 The Divrigi ‘Domes and

Squinches two-octagon carpet.

See note 17 above.

28 The Alaaddin Keykubad small-

pattern Holbein carpet. Western

Anatolia, 16th century. 100 x

187cm, section. Museum of

Turkish and Islamic Arts, Istanbul,

inv.no.303. From the tomb of

Alaaddin Keykubad, Konya.

Published: Ölçer, et al., 1996,

p.73; Istanbul, 2007, p.33, no.11

(with structure analysis); Denny

2010, p.62, fig.4. An almost

identical border with resolved

corner solutions on what looks

like a western Anatolian rug is

depicted in a tempera on wood

painting of ca. 1483, Madonna and

Child Enthroned with Saints, by

Domenico Ghirlandaio, in the Uffizi

Gallery, Florence.

29 Small-pattern Holbein carpets

with unresolved corner solutions:

(1) The Florence small-pattern

Holbein carpet, Anatolia, late 15th

century. (a) 202 x 202cm, lower

left section. Bardini Foundation,

Florence, inv.no.7865. (b) 193 x

94cm, section. Keir Collection,

acquired 1971. Formerly: Salvadore

Collection, Florence. Published:

Keir Collection, 1978, pp.34-5,

pl.5; London, 1983, p.53, no.6;

Ellis, 1985, pp.65-7, no.R-30 (with

structure analysis). (2) The

Düsseldorf-Berlin small pattern

Holbein rug. Anatolia, late 15th

century. 89 x 157cm, section.

Museum of Islamic Art, Berlin,

inv.no.I.6737. Formerly: Municipal

Collection, Düsseldorf. Published:

Erdmann, 1955, fig.27 (detail);

Schlosser, 1963, p.88, fig.6;

Erdmann, 1970, p.145, fig.184;

Ellis, 1985, p.65, no.R-29 (cited);

Ellis, 1986, p.171, fig.7 (detail).

30 The Disappearance of Kay

Khusraw Related to Luhrasp, in a

Shahnameh, copied for Baisunghur.

Herat, 1429-30 AD . Gulistan

Palace Museum, Tehran.

Published: Pope, 1938-39, vol. V,

pl.870; Briggs, 1940, p.35, fig.42

(detail drawing).

31 Some carpets in Persian

paintings: (1) Humay in the Palace

of the Fairies (detail), Humay u

Humayun copied for Baysunghur

ibn Shahrukh, f.10b. Herat, 1427-

28. Nationalbibliothek, Vienna,

inv.no.N.F.382. Published:

Washington DC, 1989, p.220,

fig.82. (2) Baysunghur ibn

Shahrukh Seated in a Garden,

Kalila u Dimna of Nizamuddin

Abu’l-Ma’ali Nasrullah, f.1b-2a.

Herat, 1429. Topkapı Sarayi Library,

Istanbul, inv.no.R.1022. Published:

Washington DC, 1989, pp.66, 110,

no.21. (3) Tahmina Enters Rustam’s

Chamber, possibly from an

anthology. Herat, ca. 1434-40.

Harvard University Art Museums

(Arthur M. Sackler Museum),

Cambridge, inv.no.1939.225.

Published: Washington DC, 1989,

p.130, no.45.

32 Carpets in two Herat paintings

of 1488: (1) A Party at the Court of

Sultan-Husayn Mirza, Bustan of

Sa’di, f.1b-2a. General Egyptian

Book Organization, Cairo, Adab

Farsi 908. Published: Washington

DC, 1989, p.260. (2) The Seduction

of Yusuf, Bustan of Sa’di, f.52b.

General Egyptian Book Organiz-

ation, Cairo, Adab Farsi 908.

Published: Washington DC, 1989,

p.294.

33 Nushaba Recognizing Iskandar

by His Portrait, Khamsa of Nizami,

f.244b. Herat, copied 1445-46.

Topkapı Sarayi Library, Istanbul,

inv.no.H.781. Published: Wash-

ington DC, 1989, p.378, Appendix

3, 4c.

34 The Chihil Sutun Para-Mamluk

niche rug with Kufic Inscription.

See note 18 above, no.(2).

35 Chester Beatty Library, Dublin,

Per 124, 2 volumes. Also,

Shahnama, dated 1438, in the

British Library, London, inv.no.Or.

1403. See Brend, 1986, for a

discussion of the Indian attribution

of these manuscripts.

36 Some carpets with filled-in

interlaced knots in the borders in

Italian paintings: (1) Madonna and

Child Enthroned with Two Saints.

Ghirlandaio, 1483. Galerie Uffizi,

Florence. (2) St. Catherine. Biagio

d’Antonio (Tucci or Tuccio)(1446-

1516). (3) Doge Loredan and Four

Advisers. Giovanni Bellini, 1507.

Gemäldegalerie, Berlin. (4) St

Mark Enthroned with Saints.

Giovanni da Udine (Giovanni

Nanni, Giovanni de’ Ricamatori)

(Udine 1487-ca.1564, Rome),

1520. Udine Cathedral. (5) The

Last Supper. Francesco di Giro-

lamo da Santacroce, ca. 1540s.

Church of San Francesco della

Vigna, Venice. (6) Saint Antoninus.

Lorenzo Lotto, 1542. Chiesa dei

Santi Giovanni e Paolo, Venice.

37 Private correspondence, 1992.

The Phrygians were an Indo-

European people who first

appeared in Anatolia about the

year 1200 BC and were a major

central Anatolian power in the 8th

century BC, when their kingdom

comprised practically the whole of

central and west Anatolia, with its

capital at Gordion. Excavations

have revealed impressive

architecture and rock-hewn

sculpture decorated with

geometrical ornament in relief.

38 ‘Hitler’s Carpet’, Konya, 15th or

16th century. 116 x 192cm.

Destroyed by fire in World War II.

Formerly: Museum of Islamic Art,

Berlin, inv.no.I.946, acquired in

1908 in Konya. Published: Sarre,

the Museum of Islamic Art, Qatar,

exhibition catalogue, Doha Festival,

28 February to 18 March 2004,

text by Jon Thompson, National

Council for Culture, Arts and

Heritage, Doha, 2004.

Ellis, Charles Grant, ‘A Soumak

Woven Rug in a 15th Century

International Style’, in Textile

Museum Journal, vol. I, no. 2,

pp.3–20, Washington DC, 1963.

Ellis, Charles Grant, ‘Mysteries

of the Misplaced Mamluks’, in

Textile Museum Journal, vol. II,

no. 2, pp.2–20, Washington DC,

1967.

Ellis, Charles Grant, ‘Carpet

Collections of the Philadelphia

Museum of Art’, in Textile

Museum Journal, vol. 17,

pp.29–44, Washington DC, 1978.

Ellis, Charles Grant, ‘Ellis in

Holbeinland’, in Oriental Carpet &

Textile Studies I, edited by Robert

Pinner and Walter Denny, pp.55-

75, Hali/OCTS, London, 1985.

Ellis, Charles Grant, ‘On

“Holbein” and “Lotto” Rugs’, in

Oriental Carpet & Textile Studies,

Vol. II, pp.163–76, Hali/OCTS,

London, 1986.

Ellis, Charles Grant, ‘Lessing’s

Chameleon’, in HALI 93, pp.76–7,

July 1997.

Erdmann, Kurt, ‘Some Obser-

vations on the So-Called “Damas-

cus Rugs”’, in Art in America and

Elsewhere, vol. 19, no. 1, pp.3–22,

December 1930.

Erdmann, Kurt, ‘Neuerwerbungen

der Islamischen Kunstabteilung

der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin’,

in Kunstwanderer, vol. 13,

pp.95ff., 1931.

Erdmann, Kurt, Der Orientalische

Knüpfteppich, Tübingen, 1955.

Erdmann, Kurt, Oriental Carpets,

New York and London, 1960.

Erdmann, Kurt, ‘Neuere Unter-

suchungen zur Frage der Kairener

Teppiche’, in Ars Orientalis, vol. 4,

pp.65–105, 1961.

Erdmann, Kurt, ‘Neuere

Untersuchungen zur Frage der

Kairener Teppiche. Berichtungen

und Nachfräge’, [notes to

Erdmann, 1961] in Ars Orientalis,

vol. 5, p.284, 1963.

Erdmann, Kurt, ‘Türkische

Gebetsteppiche im Tschihil Sutun’,

in Nalini Kanta Bhattasali Com-

memoration Volume, pp.87–93, pls

VII–XII, Dacca Museum, 1966.

Erdmann, Kurt, Seven Hundred

Years of Oriental Carpets, Faber

and Faber, London, 1970.

Eskenazi, John, ‘Connoisseur’s

Choice: The Vakıflar Domes and

Squinches Carpet’, in HALI 32,

pp.8–9, October/November/

December 1986.

Finkel, Irving L., ‘Pachisi in Arab

Garb’, in Board Game Studies, 5,

pp.65-78, 2002.

Frankfurt, Museum für

Kunsthandwerk, etc., Werner

Brüggemann & Harald Böhmer,

Teppiche der Bauern und Nomaden

in Anatolien, exhibition catalogue,

Frankfurt-am-Main, November

1980 to January 1981, Munich,

Staaliches Museum für Völker-

kunde, March to May 1981,

Krefeld, Textilmuseum, July to

September 1981, Lübeck, Museum

für Kunst und Kulturgeschichte,

October 1981 to January 1982,

Verlag Kunst & Antiquitäten,

Hannover, 1980.

Franses, Michael, ‘The “Historical”

Carpets from Anatolia’, in Orient

Stars, A Carpet Collection, E.

Heinrich Kirchheim, Stuttgart and

Hali Publications Ltd, London,

pp.262–72, 1993.

Franses, Michael, ‘Some Wool

Pile Persian-Design Niche Rugs’, in

Oriental Carpet and Textile Studies,

Vol. V, Part 2, pp.36–136, edited by

Murray L. Eiland Jr. and Robert

Pinner, ICOC, Danville, 1999.

Franses, Michael, ‘A Museum of

Masterpieces. 2: Iberian and East

Mediterranean Carpets in the

Museum of Islamic Art, Doha’, in

HALI 157, pp.68–77, Autumn 2008.

Franses, Michael, and Ian

Bennett, ‘The Vakiflar Carpet

Collection’, in HALI 38, pp.32–41,

March/April 1988.

Gans-Rueden, Erwin, Iranian

Carpets, Art, Craft and History,

Office du Livre, Fribourg, 1978.

Gantzhorn, Volkmar, Der christlich

orientalische Teppich, Eine Darstel-

lung der ikonographischen und

ikonologischen Entwicklung von

den Anfängen bis zum 18.

Jahrhundert, Benedikt Taschen,

Cologne, 1990.

Gantzhorn, Volkmar, The Christian

Oriental Carpet, Bendikt Taschen,

Cologne, 1991.

Gion Festival, Gion Matsuri

Senshoku Meiken-Shu (Selected

Textiles from the Gion Festival),

[five authors], Unso-do, Kyoto,

1970.

Gion Survey, Kajitani, Nobuko,

Kojiro Yoshida and Daniel Walker,

Gion Matsuri Yama-Hoko Kesohin

Chosa Hokokusho:Torai Sensho-

kuhin no Bu [The Survey Report

on the Float-Coverings in the Gion

Festival: Imported Textiles and

Carpets], Kyoto, 1992.

Grube, Ernst J., ‘The World is a

Garden. The Decorative Arts of the

Timurid Period’, in Hali Annual 4,

pp.8-25, Hali Publications, London,

1997.

Heinz, Dora, Alte Orientteppiche,

Wohnkunst und Hausrat/Einst und

Jetzt, vol. 24, Darmstadt, 1956.

Istanbul, International

Conference on Oriental Carpets,

Weaving Heritage of Anatolia,

catalogue of exhibitions for the

11th ICOC, 19 to 22 April 2007,

edited by Hülya Tezcan and

Sumiyo Okumura, 2 vols, ICOC,

Istanbul, 2007.

Keir Collection, Ham, Islamic

Carpets and Textiles in the Keir

Collection, text by Friedrich

Spuhler, Faber and Faber, London,

1978.

Kirchheim Collection, Orient

Stars, A Carpet Collection, text by

E. Heinrich Kirchheim, Michael

Franses, et. al., E. Heinrich

Kirchheim, Stuttgart, and Hali

Publications Ltd, London, 1993.

Klose, Christine, ‘Changing

Patterns in Anatolian Carpets,

From Two Paintings in France and

China Around 1400’, in HALI 6/1,

pp.21–3, 1983.

Kühnel, Ernst, ‘Ein neuerworbener

Holbeinteppich’, in Berliner

Museen, 51/6, pp.140–45, 1930.

Kühnel, Ernst, ‘Die Baysonghur

Handschrit der Islamischen

Kunstabteilung’, in Jahrbuch des

Preussisches Kunstsammlungen,

52, pp.133–52, 1931.

Lessing, Julius, Alt Orientalische

Teppichmuster nach Bildern und

Originalen des XV.–XVI. Jahr-

hunderts, Wasmuth, Berlin, 1877.

London, Hayward Gallery, The

Eastern Carpet in the Western

World, exhibition catalogue, 20

May to 10 July 1983, text by

Donald King, with essays by John

Mills and David Sylvester, The Arts

Council of Great Britain, London,

1983.

Mackie, Louise W., ‘Two Remark-

able Fifteenth Century Carpets

from Spain’, in Textile Museum

Journal, vol. IV, no. 4, pp.15–27,

1977.

Mackie, Louise, ‘Native and

Foreign Influences in Carpets

Woven in Spain during the 15th

Century’, in HALI 2/ 2, pp.88–95,

Summer 1979.

May, Florence Lewis, ‘Hispano-

Moresque Rugs’, in Notes Hispanic

V, The Hispanic Society of America,

New York, 1945.

Metropolitan Museum of Art,

NewYork, Oriental Rugs in the

Metropolitan Museum of Art, text

by Maurice Dimand and Jean

Mailey, Metropolitan Museum of

Art, New York, 1973.

Milhofer, S.A., Das Goldene Buch

des Orientteppichs, Schmidt-

Küster, Hannover, 1962.

Mills, John, ‘The Chihil Sutun

“Para-Mamluk” Prayer Rug’, in

HALI 93, pp.72–6, July 1997.

Moustapha, Mohamed, Le

Musée de l’Art Arabe au Caire,

Cairo, 1949.

Munich, Stadt-Museum,

Türkische Kunst, Historische

Teppiche und Keramik, exhibition

catalogue of the Kunstrat, text by

Ernst Kühnel, 8 July to 22 August

1965, Munich, 1965.

Museum für Islamische Kunst,

Berlin, Katalog 1967, Staatliche

Museen Preussischer Kulturbesitz,

Berlin, 1967.

Museum für Islamische Kunst,

Berlin, Katalog 1971, Staatliche

Museen Preussischer Kulturbesitz,

Berlin, 1971.

Museum für Islamische Kunst,

Berlin, Katalog 1979, Staatliche

Museen Preussischer Kulturbesitz,

Berlin, 1979.

Museum für Islamische Kunst,

Berlin Wegleitung Islamisches

Museum, text by Volkmar Ender-

lein, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin,

Berlin, 1980.

Museum of Islamic Art, Berlin,

Oriental Carpets in the Museum

of Islamic Art, Berlin, text by

Friedrich Spuhler, Faber and Faber,

London, 1988.

NewYork, Metropolitan

Museum of Art, Catalogue of a

Loan Exhibition of Early Oriental

Rugs, exhibition catalogue, 1

November 1910 to 15 January

1911, text by Wilhelm Valentiner,

Metropolitan Museum of Art, New

York, 1910.

NewYork, Metropolitan Museum

of Art, Flowers Underfoot, Indian

Carpets of the Mughal Era,

exhibition catalogue, 20 November

1997 to 1 March 1998, text by

Daniel Walker, Metropolitan

Museum of Art, New York, 1997.

Ölçer, Nazan, ‘Early Seljuk and

Ottoman Carpets from the

Collection of the Museum of

Turkish-Islamic Art’, in Oriental

Carpet and Textile Studies IV,

edited by Murray L. Eiland Jr.,

Robert Pinner and Walter B.

Denny, OCTS, Berkeley, 1993.

Ölçer, Nazan, et al., Turkish

Carpets from the 13th-18th

Centuries, published in conjunction

with an exhibition of the same

name held at the Museum of

Turkish and Islamic Arts, Istanbul,

26 September to 12 November

1996, Ahmet Ertug, Istanbul, 1996.

Pagnano, Gigi, L’Arte del Tappeto

Orientale ed Europeo, dalle origini

al XVIII secolo, Bramante Editrice,

Busto Arsizio, 1983.

Philadelphia Museum of Art,

Philadelphia, Oriental Carpets in

the Philadelphia Museum of Art,

text by Charles Grant Ellis,

University of Pennsylvania Press,

Philadelphia, 1988.

Pietsch, G.U., Vom Zauber Alter

Teppiche, Freiburg, 1981.

Pinner, Robert, ‘Introduction’, in

Oriental Carpet & Textile Studies

II, Carpets of the Mediterranean

Countries 1400–1600, pp.1–11,

Hali/OCTS, London, 1986.

Pinner, Robert, with Steven

Cohen, Jacqueline Simcox and

Daniel Shaffer, ‘Work in Progress

1988-1998’, in HALI 100, pp.77-85,

September 1998.

Pinner, Robert, and Michael

Franses (ed.), Turkoman Studies

1, Oguz Press, London, 1980.

Pinner, Robert, and Michael

Franses, ‘The East Mediterranean

Carpet Collection [in the Victoria &

Albert Museum]’, in HALI 4/1,

pp.37–52, 1981.

Pinner, Robert, and Jackie

Stanger, ‘Kufic Borders on “Small

Pattern Holbein” Carpets’, in HALI

1/4, pp.335–8, 1978.

Pope, Arthur Upham (ed.), A

Survey of Persian Art, 12 vols,

Oxford University Press, London &

New York, 1938–39.

Purdon, Nicholas, ‘Gion Matsuri’,

in HALI 77, pp.88–95,

October–November 1994.

Reichel, Herbert, Berühmte

Orient-Teppiche aus historischer

Sicht, Reichel, Rheinberg, 1969.

Roccella, Valentina, ”Large-

Pattern Holbein” Carpets in Italian

Painting’, in Oriental Carpet and

Textile Studies VI, Conference

Papers Presented at the IXth

International Conference on

Oriental Carpets, Milan,

September 1999, edited by

Murray L. Eiland and Robert

Pinner, ICOC, Danville, 2001.

Ruppersberg, J., Erfahrungen

deim Teppichknüpfen, Heimtex,

1981.

Sarre, Friedrich, ‘Knüpfteppiche’,

in Erzeugnisse Islamischer Kunst,

II, Seldschukische Kunst, Leipzig,

1909.

Schlosser, Ignace, Der schöne

Teppich in Orient und Okzident,

Heidelberg, 1960.

Schlosser, Ignace, The Book of

Rugs, Oriental and European,

Crown Publishers, New York,

1963.

Sherrill, Sarah B., ‘The Islamic

Tradition in Spanish Rug Weaving:

Twelfth through Seventeenth

Centuries’, in The Magazine

Antiques, vol. 105, no. 3,

pp.532–49, March 1974.

Sherrill, Sarah B., Carpets and

Rugs of Europe and America, New

York, 1996.

Sherrill, Sarah B., ‘East-West

Design Metamorphosis in

Sixteenth-Century Spanish Wreath

Carpets, Conservative or

Subversive?’, in Oriental Carpet

and Textile Studies, vol. VI,

pp.83–6, ICOC, Danville, 2001.

Spallanzani, Marco, Oriental

Rugs in Renaissance Florence,

Bruschettini Foundation for Islamic

and Asian Art, Textile Studies I,

SPES, Florence, 2007.

Spuhler, Friedrich, ‘Bisat’, in The

Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2d edition,

supplement, pp.136–44, E.J. Brill,

Leiden 1980.

Staatliche Museen in Berlin,

Orientteppiche, Bilderhefte der

Islamischen Abteilung, Heft 3,

text by E. Kühnel, Berlin, [1935].

Textile Museum, Washington DC,

Catalogue of Spanish Rugs, 12th

to 19th Century, Textile Museum

catalogue raisonné vol. 2, text by

Ernst Kühnel, technical analysis

by Louisa Bellinger, National

Publishing Company, Washington

DC, 1953.

Thompson, Jon, Milestones in

the History of Carpets, published

on the occasion of the exhibition

of the same name at Galleria

Moshe Tabibnia, Milan, 14 October

to 11 November 2006, Moshe

Tabibnia, Milan, 2006.

Thompson Jon, ‘Carpets in the

Fifteenth Century’, in Carpets and

Textiles in the Iranian World 1400-

1700, edited by Jon Thompson,

Daniel Shaffer and Pirjetta Mildh,

The May Beattie Archive at the

Ashmolean Museum & The

Bruschettini Foundation for Islamic

and Asian Art, Oxford & Genoa

2010.

Torres, Jose Ferrandis,

‘Alfombras Hispano-Moriscas

“Tipo Holbein”’, in Archivo

Español de Arte, L, pp.103–11,

1942.

Türkmen, Nalan, ‘Tracing Central

Asian Türkmen Carpet Designs

Through Parallels with Anatolian

Carpets’, in Oriental Carpet and

Textile Studies, vol. V, part 1,

pp.105–10, edited by Murray L.

Eiland Jr. and Robert Pinner,

ICOC, Danville, 1999.

Vakiflar Museum, Istanbul,

Carpets of the Vakiflar Museum,

Istanbul, text by Belkis Balpinar

and Udo Hirsch, Wesel, 1988.

Van de Put, V., Hispano-Moresque

Ware of the VX Century, Chapman

and Hall, London, 1904.

Vasantha, Rangachar, ‘Board

Games from the City of Vijaya-

nagara (Hampi), 1336-1565: a

Survey and a Study’, in Board

Games Studies, 6, pp.25-36, 2003.

Völker, Angela, ‘The Mamluk

Carpets, In the MAK Collection of

Oriental Knotted Carpets in

Vienna’, in Ghereh, no. 37,

pp.9–21, 2004.

Walker, Daniel, ‘Court & Export’,

in HALI 95, pp.96–101, November

1997.

Washington DC, Smithsonian

Institution, Arthur M. Sackler

Gallery, Timur and the Princely

Vision, exhibition catalogue, 16

April to 6 July 1989, text by

Thomas W. Lentz and Glenn D.

Lowry, Smithsonian Institution

Press, Washington DC, 1989.

Washington DC,TheTextile

Museum, From Persia’s Ancient

Looms, exhibition catalogue, 23

January to 30 September 1972,

text by Richard Ettinghausen, The

Textile Museum, Washington DC,

1972.

Washington DC, A World of

Oriental Carpets and Textiles,

exhibition catalogue, 17 to 21 April

2003, for the Xth International

Conference on Oriental Carpets,

edited by Murray L. Eiland Jr.,

ICOC, Washington DC, 2003.

Weeks, Jeanne G., and Donald

Treganowan, Rugs and Carpets of

Europe and the Western World,

Chilton Book Co, London, 1969.

Whyld, Ken, ‘The Magic Carpet’,

in Chess Monthly, 61, no. 8,

pp.46-7, 1996.

Wilkins, Sally E.D., Sports and

Games of Medieval Cultures,

Greenwood Press, Westport,

2002.

Yetkin, Serare, Turk Hali Sanati,

Istanbul, 1974. Translated into

English by Maggie Quigley as

Historical Turkish Carpets, Türkiye

Is Bankasi Cultural Publications,

Istanbul, 1981.

Zaki, M.H., Atlas of Moslem

Decorative Arts, 1956.

22 HALI ISSUE 167

INDIAN SILK CARPETS

HALI ISSUE 167 23

INDIAN SILK CARPETS

the Museum of Islamic Art, Qatar,

exhibition catalogue, Doha Festival,

28 February to 18 March 2004,

text by Jon Thompson, National

Council for Culture, Arts and

Heritage, Doha, 2004.

Ellis, Charles Grant, ‘A Soumak

Woven Rug in a 15th Century

International Style’, in Textile

Museum Journal, vol. I, no. 2,

pp.3–20, Washington DC, 1963.

Ellis, Charles Grant, ‘Mysteries

of the Misplaced Mamluks’, in

Textile Museum Journal, vol. II,

no. 2, pp.2–20, Washington DC,

1967.

Ellis, Charles Grant, ‘Carpet

Collections of the Philadelphia

Museum of Art’, in Textile

Museum Journal, vol. 17,

pp.29–44, Washington DC, 1978.

Ellis, Charles Grant, ‘Ellis in

Holbeinland’, in Oriental Carpet &

Textile Studies I, edited by Robert

Pinner and Walter Denny, pp.55-

75, Hali/OCTS, London, 1985.

Ellis, Charles Grant, ‘On

“Holbein” and “Lotto” Rugs’, in

Oriental Carpet & Textile Studies,

Vol. II, pp.163–76, Hali/OCTS,

London, 1986.

Ellis, Charles Grant, ‘Lessing’s

Chameleon’, in HALI 93, pp.76–7,

July 1997.

Erdmann, Kurt, ‘Some Obser-

vations on the So-Called “Damas-

cus Rugs”’, in Art in America and

Elsewhere, vol. 19, no. 1, pp.3–22,

December 1930.

Erdmann, Kurt, ‘Neuerwerbungen

der Islamischen Kunstabteilung

der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin’,

in Kunstwanderer, vol. 13,

pp.95ff., 1931.

Erdmann, Kurt, Der Orientalische

Knüpfteppich, Tübingen, 1955.

Erdmann, Kurt, Oriental Carpets,

New York and London, 1960.

Erdmann, Kurt, ‘Neuere Unter-

suchungen zur Frage der Kairener

Teppiche’, in Ars Orientalis, vol. 4,

pp.65–105, 1961.

Erdmann, Kurt, ‘Neuere

Untersuchungen zur Frage der

Kairener Teppiche. Berichtungen

und Nachfräge’, [notes to

Erdmann, 1961] in Ars Orientalis,

vol. 5, p.284, 1963.

Erdmann, Kurt, ‘Türkische

Gebetsteppiche im Tschihil Sutun’,

in Nalini Kanta Bhattasali Com-

memoration Volume, pp.87–93, pls

VII–XII, Dacca Museum, 1966.

Erdmann, Kurt, Seven Hundred

Years of Oriental Carpets, Faber

and Faber, London, 1970.

Eskenazi, John, ‘Connoisseur’s

Choice: The Vakıflar Domes and

Squinches Carpet’, in HALI 32,

pp.8–9, October/November/

December 1986.

Finkel, Irving L., ‘Pachisi in Arab

Garb’, in Board Game Studies, 5,

pp.65-78, 2002.

Frankfurt, Museum für

Kunsthandwerk, etc., Werner

Brüggemann & Harald Böhmer,

Teppiche der Bauern und Nomaden

in Anatolien, exhibition catalogue,

Frankfurt-am-Main, November

1980 to January 1981, Munich,

Staaliches Museum für Völker-

kunde, March to May 1981,

Krefeld, Textilmuseum, July to

September 1981, Lübeck, Museum

für Kunst und Kulturgeschichte,

October 1981 to January 1982,

Verlag Kunst & Antiquitäten,

Hannover, 1980.

Franses, Michael, ‘The “Historical”

Carpets from Anatolia’, in Orient

Stars, A Carpet Collection, E.

Heinrich Kirchheim, Stuttgart and

Hali Publications Ltd, London,

pp.262–72, 1993.

Franses, Michael, ‘Some Wool

Pile Persian-Design Niche Rugs’, in

Oriental Carpet and Textile Studies,

Vol. V, Part 2, pp.36–136, edited by

Murray L. Eiland Jr. and Robert

Pinner, ICOC, Danville, 1999.

Franses, Michael, ‘A Museum of

Masterpieces. 2: Iberian and East

Mediterranean Carpets in the

Museum of Islamic Art, Doha’, in

HALI 157, pp.68–77, Autumn 2008.

Franses, Michael, and Ian

Bennett, ‘The Vakiflar Carpet

Collection’, in HALI 38, pp.32–41,

March/April 1988.

Gans-Rueden, Erwin, Iranian

Carpets, Art, Craft and History,

Office du Livre, Fribourg, 1978.

Gantzhorn, Volkmar, Der christlich

orientalische Teppich, Eine Darstel-

lung der ikonographischen und

ikonologischen Entwicklung von

den Anfängen bis zum 18.

Jahrhundert, Benedikt Taschen,

Cologne, 1990.

Gantzhorn, Volkmar, The Christian

Oriental Carpet, Bendikt Taschen,

Cologne, 1991.

Gion Festival, Gion Matsuri

Senshoku Meiken-Shu (Selected

Textiles from the Gion Festival),

[five authors], Unso-do, Kyoto,

1970.

Gion Survey, Kajitani, Nobuko,

Kojiro Yoshida and Daniel Walker,

Gion Matsuri Yama-Hoko Kesohin

Chosa Hokokusho:Torai Sensho-

kuhin no Bu [The Survey Report

on the Float-Coverings in the Gion

Festival: Imported Textiles and

Carpets], Kyoto, 1992.

Grube, Ernst J., ‘The World is a

Garden. The Decorative Arts of the

Timurid Period’, in Hali Annual 4,

pp.8-25, Hali Publications, London,

1997.

Heinz, Dora, Alte Orientteppiche,

Wohnkunst und Hausrat/Einst und

Jetzt, vol. 24, Darmstadt, 1956.

Istanbul, International

Conference on Oriental Carpets,

Weaving Heritage of Anatolia,

catalogue of exhibitions for the

11th ICOC, 19 to 22 April 2007,

edited by Hülya Tezcan and

Sumiyo Okumura, 2 vols, ICOC,

Istanbul, 2007.

Keir Collection, Ham, Islamic

Carpets and Textiles in the Keir

Collection, text by Friedrich

Spuhler, Faber and Faber, London,

1978.

Kirchheim Collection, Orient

Stars, A Carpet Collection, text by

E. Heinrich Kirchheim, Michael

Franses, et. al., E. Heinrich

Kirchheim, Stuttgart, and Hali

Publications Ltd, London, 1993.

Klose, Christine, ‘Changing

Patterns in Anatolian Carpets,

From Two Paintings in France and

China Around 1400’, in HALI 6/1,

pp.21–3, 1983.

Kühnel, Ernst, ‘Ein neuerworbener

Holbeinteppich’, in Berliner

Museen, 51/6, pp.140–45, 1930.

Kühnel, Ernst, ‘Die Baysonghur

Handschrit der Islamischen

Kunstabteilung’, in Jahrbuch des

Preussisches Kunstsammlungen,

52, pp.133–52, 1931.

Lessing, Julius, Alt Orientalische

Teppichmuster nach Bildern und

Originalen des XV.–XVI. Jahr-

hunderts, Wasmuth, Berlin, 1877.

London, Hayward Gallery, The

Eastern Carpet in the Western

World, exhibition catalogue, 20

May to 10 July 1983, text by

Donald King, with essays by John

Mills and David Sylvester, The Arts

Council of Great Britain, London,

1983.

Mackie, Louise W., ‘Two Remark-

able Fifteenth Century Carpets

from Spain’, in Textile Museum

Journal, vol. IV, no. 4, pp.15–27,

1977.

Mackie, Louise, ‘Native and

Foreign Influences in Carpets

Woven in Spain during the 15th

Century’, in HALI 2/ 2, pp.88–95,

Summer 1979.

May, Florence Lewis, ‘Hispano-

Moresque Rugs’, in Notes Hispanic

V, The Hispanic Society of America,

New York, 1945.

Metropolitan Museum of Art,

NewYork, Oriental Rugs in the

Metropolitan Museum of Art, text

by Maurice Dimand and Jean

Mailey, Metropolitan Museum of

Art, New York, 1973.

Milhofer, S.A., Das Goldene Buch

des Orientteppichs, Schmidt-

Küster, Hannover, 1962.

Mills, John, ‘The Chihil Sutun

“Para-Mamluk” Prayer Rug’, in

HALI 93, pp.72–6, July 1997.

Moustapha, Mohamed, Le

Musée de l’Art Arabe au Caire,

Cairo, 1949.

Munich, Stadt-Museum,

Türkische Kunst, Historische

Teppiche und Keramik, exhibition

catalogue of the Kunstrat, text by

Ernst Kühnel, 8 July to 22 August

1965, Munich, 1965.

Museum für Islamische Kunst,

Berlin, Katalog 1967, Staatliche

Museen Preussischer Kulturbesitz,

Berlin, 1967.

Museum für Islamische Kunst,

Berlin, Katalog 1971, Staatliche

Museen Preussischer Kulturbesitz,

Berlin, 1971.

Museum für Islamische Kunst,

Berlin, Katalog 1979, Staatliche

Museen Preussischer Kulturbesitz,

Berlin, 1979.

Museum für Islamische Kunst,

Berlin Wegleitung Islamisches

Museum, text by Volkmar Ender-

lein, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin,

Berlin, 1980.

Museum of Islamic Art, Berlin,

Oriental Carpets in the Museum

of Islamic Art, Berlin, text by

Friedrich Spuhler, Faber and Faber,

London, 1988.

NewYork, Metropolitan

Museum of Art, Catalogue of a

Loan Exhibition of Early Oriental

Rugs, exhibition catalogue, 1

November 1910 to 15 January

1911, text by Wilhelm Valentiner,

Metropolitan Museum of Art, New

York, 1910.

NewYork, Metropolitan Museum

of Art, Flowers Underfoot, Indian

Carpets of the Mughal Era,

exhibition catalogue, 20 November

1997 to 1 March 1998, text by

Daniel Walker, Metropolitan

Museum of Art, New York, 1997.

Ölçer, Nazan, ‘Early Seljuk and

Ottoman Carpets from the

Collection of the Museum of

Turkish-Islamic Art’, in Oriental

Carpet and Textile Studies IV,

edited by Murray L. Eiland Jr.,

Robert Pinner and Walter B.

Denny, OCTS, Berkeley, 1993.

Ölçer, Nazan, et al., Turkish

Carpets from the 13th-18th

Centuries, published in conjunction

with an exhibition of the same

name held at the Museum of

Turkish and Islamic Arts, Istanbul,

26 September to 12 November

1996, Ahmet Ertug, Istanbul, 1996.

Pagnano, Gigi, L’Arte del Tappeto

Orientale ed Europeo, dalle origini

al XVIII secolo, Bramante Editrice,

Busto Arsizio, 1983.

Philadelphia Museum of Art,

Philadelphia, Oriental Carpets in

the Philadelphia Museum of Art,

text by Charles Grant Ellis,

University of Pennsylvania Press,

Philadelphia, 1988.

Pietsch, G.U., Vom Zauber Alter

Teppiche, Freiburg, 1981.

Pinner, Robert, ‘Introduction’, in

Oriental Carpet & Textile Studies

II, Carpets of the Mediterranean

Countries 1400–1600, pp.1–11,

Hali/OCTS, London, 1986.

Pinner, Robert, with Steven

Cohen, Jacqueline Simcox and

Daniel Shaffer, ‘Work in Progress

1988-1998’, in HALI 100, pp.77-85,

September 1998.

Pinner, Robert, and Michael

Franses (ed.), Turkoman Studies

1, Oguz Press, London, 1980.

Pinner, Robert, and Michael

Franses, ‘The East Mediterranean

Carpet Collection [in the Victoria &

Albert Museum]’, in HALI 4/1,

pp.37–52, 1981.

Pinner, Robert, and Jackie

Stanger, ‘Kufic Borders on “Small

Pattern Holbein” Carpets’, in HALI

1/4, pp.335–8, 1978.

Pope, Arthur Upham (ed.), A

Survey of Persian Art, 12 vols,

Oxford University Press, London &

New York, 1938–39.

Purdon, Nicholas, ‘Gion Matsuri’,

in HALI 77, pp.88–95,

October–November 1994.

Reichel, Herbert, Berühmte

Orient-Teppiche aus historischer

Sicht, Reichel, Rheinberg, 1969.

Roccella, Valentina, ”Large-

Pattern Holbein” Carpets in Italian

Painting’, in Oriental Carpet and

Textile Studies VI, Conference

Papers Presented at the IXth

International Conference on

Oriental Carpets, Milan,

September 1999, edited by

Murray L. Eiland and Robert

Pinner, ICOC, Danville, 2001.

Ruppersberg, J., Erfahrungen

deim Teppichknüpfen, Heimtex,

1981.

Sarre, Friedrich, ‘Knüpfteppiche’,

in Erzeugnisse Islamischer Kunst,

II, Seldschukische Kunst, Leipzig,

1909.

Schlosser, Ignace, Der schöne

Teppich in Orient und Okzident,

Heidelberg, 1960.

Schlosser, Ignace, The Book of

Rugs, Oriental and European,

Crown Publishers, New York,

1963.

Sherrill, Sarah B., ‘The Islamic

Tradition in Spanish Rug Weaving:

Twelfth through Seventeenth

Centuries’, in The Magazine

Antiques, vol. 105, no. 3,

pp.532–49, March 1974.

Sherrill, Sarah B., Carpets and

Rugs of Europe and America, New

York, 1996.

Sherrill, Sarah B., ‘East-West

Design Metamorphosis in

Sixteenth-Century Spanish Wreath

Carpets, Conservative or

Subversive?’, in Oriental Carpet

and Textile Studies, vol. VI,

pp.83–6, ICOC, Danville, 2001.

Spallanzani, Marco, Oriental

Rugs in Renaissance Florence,

Bruschettini Foundation for Islamic

and Asian Art, Textile Studies I,

SPES, Florence, 2007.

Spuhler, Friedrich, ‘Bisat’, in The

Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2d edition,

supplement, pp.136–44, E.J. Brill,

Leiden 1980.

Staatliche Museen in Berlin,

Orientteppiche, Bilderhefte der

Islamischen Abteilung, Heft 3,

text by E. Kühnel, Berlin, [1935].

Textile Museum, Washington DC,

Catalogue of Spanish Rugs, 12th

to 19th Century, Textile Museum

catalogue raisonné vol. 2, text by

Ernst Kühnel, technical analysis

by Louisa Bellinger, National

Publishing Company, Washington

DC, 1953.

Thompson, Jon, Milestones in

the History of Carpets, published

on the occasion of the exhibition

of the same name at Galleria

Moshe Tabibnia, Milan, 14 October

to 11 November 2006, Moshe

Tabibnia, Milan, 2006.

Thompson Jon, ‘Carpets in the

Fifteenth Century’, in Carpets and

Textiles in the Iranian World 1400-

1700, edited by Jon Thompson,

Daniel Shaffer and Pirjetta Mildh,

The May Beattie Archive at the

Ashmolean Museum & The

Bruschettini Foundation for Islamic

and Asian Art, Oxford & Genoa

2010.

Torres, Jose Ferrandis,

‘Alfombras Hispano-Moriscas

“Tipo Holbein”’, in Archivo

Español de Arte, L, pp.103–11,

1942.

Türkmen, Nalan, ‘Tracing Central

Asian Türkmen Carpet Designs

Through Parallels with Anatolian

Carpets’, in Oriental Carpet and

Textile Studies, vol. V, part 1,

pp.105–10, edited by Murray L.

Eiland Jr. and Robert Pinner,

ICOC, Danville, 1999.

Vakiflar Museum, Istanbul,

Carpets of the Vakiflar Museum,

Istanbul, text by Belkis Balpinar

and Udo Hirsch, Wesel, 1988.

Van de Put, V., Hispano-Moresque

Ware of the VX Century, Chapman

and Hall, London, 1904.

Vasantha, Rangachar, ‘Board

Games from the City of Vijaya-

nagara (Hampi), 1336-1565: a

Survey and a Study’, in Board

Games Studies, 6, pp.25-36, 2003.

Völker, Angela, ‘The Mamluk

Carpets, In the MAK Collection of

Oriental Knotted Carpets in

Vienna’, in Ghereh, no. 37,

pp.9–21, 2004.

Walker, Daniel, ‘Court & Export’,

in HALI 95, pp.96–101, November

1997.

Washington DC, Smithsonian

Institution, Arthur M. Sackler

Gallery, Timur and the Princely

Vision, exhibition catalogue, 16

April to 6 July 1989, text by

Thomas W. Lentz and Glenn D.

Lowry, Smithsonian Institution

Press, Washington DC, 1989.

Washington DC,TheTextile

Museum, From Persia’s Ancient

Looms, exhibition catalogue, 23

January to 30 September 1972,

text by Richard Ettinghausen, The

Textile Museum, Washington DC,

1972.

Washington DC, A World of

Oriental Carpets and Textiles,

exhibition catalogue, 17 to 21 April

2003, for the Xth International

Conference on Oriental Carpets,

edited by Murray L. Eiland Jr.,

ICOC, Washington DC, 2003.

Weeks, Jeanne G., and Donald

Treganowan, Rugs and Carpets of

Europe and the Western World,

Chilton Book Co, London, 1969.

Whyld, Ken, ‘The Magic Carpet’,

in Chess Monthly, 61, no. 8,

pp.46-7, 1996.

Wilkins, Sally E.D., Sports and

Games of Medieval Cultures,

Greenwood Press, Westport,

2002.

Yetkin, Serare, Turk Hali Sanati,

Istanbul, 1974. Translated into

English by Maggie Quigley as

Historical Turkish Carpets, Türkiye

Is Bankasi Cultural Publications,

Istanbul, 1981.

Zaki, M.H., Atlas of Moslem

Decorative Arts, 1956.

22 HALI ISSUE 167

INDIAN SILK CARPETS

HALI ISSUE 167 23

INDIAN SILK CARPETS