AUCTION PRICE GUIDE

Safavid period carpets set near record prices at Christie’s in London and Sotheby’s in New York, while an Ottoman classical carpet also stars under the new regime at Nagel in Stuttgart.

| ‘Topkapı’ Prayer Rug 17th-18th (?) century 1.04 x 1.65m (3'5" x5'5") Christie’s London 13 October 2005, lot 50 Est: £80-120,000 Sold for: £254,400 ($444,435) The robust price made by the Perez ‘Topkapı’ silk and metal thread niche rug shows how far we have come in recent years. There is now a general consensus that rugs of the ‘Salting Medallion’ and ‘Topkapı Niche’ type are products of Safavid looms. When in 1941 Kurt Erdmann proposed that the group be assigned to 19th century Turkey, science was not at hand to resolve the matter. It was only in the 1990s that dye and metal thread analyses, and translation of the inscriptions on the ‘Topkapı’ rugs, established beyond reasonable doubt that the rugs, apart from some obvious late copies, belong to pre19th century Persia. Narrowing this attribution has proved more difficult. At present the tendency is to assign the rugs to the the 16th or early 17th century – the Safavid Golden Age – but this continues to be contested by some scholars and connoisseurs. It is thus helpful that the present lot was C-14 tested by ETH in Zurich in June 2005. The results, as Christie’s record, show a weighted mean age of 255 ±40 years BP (the present is taken to be 1950), that is between 1655 and 1735. A summary of the more detailed analysis of thecalibrated age shows a 30% probability of a 16th century origin; 46% for the 17th century; and 20% for the 18th. Christie’s dated the rug to the 16th-17th century, following the normal practice of interpreting C-14 results together with other criteria – including of course personal conviction. The same applies to

datings proposed in the published record of the Salting Group special session at the 1996 Philadelphia ICOC (OCTS V/2, Danville 1999). The aim of this session was to clarify the hitherto murky situation, using new scientific and art historical evidence to mediate C-14 probability ranges. In the event the niche rugs (including the Perez and its probable pair the Injoudjian-Paris) are dated almost exclusively to the 16th century, in spite of the fact that reliable evidence failed to emerge to support this interpretation. Important contributions included John Mills’ discovery of a 1623 archival entry possibly relating to a Salting group carpet once in the treasury of Palencia Cathedral (OCTS V/2, p.9). But this is doubly problematic. Not only, as Mills pointsout, is the description too imprecise to permit a definite identification of the rug, but the date obviously falls short of placing the Palencia carpet in the 16th century. Similarly Hulye Tezcan’s research into the Topkapı Palace archives uncovered no clear reference to the rugs before the Treasury Ledger of 1680 (OCTS V/2, pp.33-35). Interestingly however, the 1680 description “Persian prayer rugs” with “embroidered inscriptions in metal thread” is so detailed that it might suggest the recent receipt of a diplomatic gift from the Shah of Iran to the Ottoman court. While evidence is lacking to place the group positively within the 16th century, there is good stylistic evidence for attributing them to the later 17th or even early 18th century, a dating supported by the 2005 ETH test. The treatment and rendition of decorative elements in these rugs is quite dissimilar from 16th century court style. They feature specific

arrangements of arabesques juxtaposed with flora that correspond to Safavid court taste during the second half of the 17th century, as seen in other artistic media. There is no doubt, given their exceptionally high quality, that the carpets can only have been made for the court, and as such they would express stylistic norms approved by the Imperial house. For art historians there have always been difficulties in aligning the group with

the artistic language of the 16th century Persian court. Erdmann’s solution of assigning them to a 19th century non-Persian limbo may have been a very poor one, but it is worth remembering that in his day late 17th century Safavid art was far less well known or studied. Late Safavid carpet production has largely disappeared, leaving little for the scholar or collector, so these carpets are arguably even more important as examples of later 17th cent

ury Safavid carpet weaving than if they belonged to the 16th century. The Perez rug last appeared on the market almost forty years ago when, as part of the George Farrow Collection of silk rugs, it was stolen from SLO’s rooms on 18 May 1967, but was apparently recovered later. The only comparable rug to appear at auction since then was sold at Cornette de St Cyr in Paris in 1993, making FF468,700 ($80,300; HALI 74, p.140).

For more auction results see www.hali.com/apg.aspx I HALI 144 I 115