DESIGN FILE

FEATURE

124 I HALI 144

‘Ziegler’ carpet, Iran, 21st century. 2.82 x 3.71m (9'3" x 12' 2"). Courtesy Renaissance Carpet and Tapestries, New York

deep red ground and floral sprays.”Pak Persian Oriental Rugs has a ‘Ziegler Mahal’collection “based on old designs that came out of that region,” an honest explanation. At leastone manufacturer of machine-made rugs also uses the name: Rugs Direct offers a “Ziegler Wilton collection of runners machine woven in Egypt with an antiqued finish.” Almost without fail, the new rugs that are called Zieglers are in lattice repeat patterns of floral figures. Their design elements often are large in relation to their borders, and motifs have been simplified from their late 19th century prototypes. The overall effect is of rather simple rugs that are not too busy for today’s market. The majority have been woven in Pakistan by Afghan refugees, made from what appears to be naturally-dyed handspun wool. Most are good quality carpets, far more interesting and varied than the ‘Indo-Bijars’ and ‘Indo-Heratis’ that for many years ruled the low and middle sectors of the market. Most of the new ‘Zieglers’ are inexpensive, retailing for as little as $35 per square foot, about the same as the mechanical-looking Indo-Kashans of the 1970s and 1980s. So are the carpets based on old Mahals woven by Afghans in the Pakistani refugee camps as good as the old Persian Mahals they were fashioned after? Evidently, both productions have been made from handspun wool and use a combination of natural and synthetic dyes (Edwards wrote that Ziegler’s rugs were made with “both native and European dyes”, suggesting that both natural and synthetic dyes were used). The weaves of both are usually about a hundred knots per square inch. Both antique and modern productions are strictly

commercial in nature, made without apology for export to the West. Both productions have been bargains in their times and have been commercially very successful. Both productions are alikein being made with sufficient body to wear well. Neither product has been clipped low and distressed so as to have the look of an antique carpet as some rugs are today. While native weavers from Pakistan, India, China and some other countries tend to weave rugs that are technically good but artistically stiff and mechanical, Persian and Afghan weavers have the knack of weaving rugs that are graceful and fluid (as do Turkish weavers). This rug-weaving skill I value above most others. It may be said that that Persian Mahals were the prototypes and Afghan Mahals are the copies, but one rarely sees a new immigrant-camp rug that is a literal copy of its prototype. Both productions have been cobbled together to produce something that will sell. Both have borrowed heavily from classical Safavid designs and have used a Mughal design here and perhaps some Arts & Crafts elements there. They are commercial products, so I find no harm in that. However, the real difference in the quality of the two productions is the wool. The Persian stuff is better. In my experience, even Gahzni wool, which seems to be the best and most expensive wool in wide use in the refugee camps, is not as lustrous as good Persian wool. I believe that in this one important respect, antique Persian Mahals sometimes beat their modern cousins. Except for this one difference, though, a very good case can be made that the best new Afghan/Pakistani Mahal-type carpets are every bit as good as the old Mahals, including the pieces many people would call Zieglers. Which are more attractive, the old carpets or the new? Examine the photographs on these pages and decide for yourself.