MUSEUM COLLECTIONS

a
museum
of
masterpieces MICHAEL FRANSES

2: IBERIAN & EAST MEDITERRANEAN CARPETS

IN THE MUSEUM OF ISLAMIC ART, DOHA

To date, the National Council for Culture, Arts & Heritage of the Emirate of Qatar has
acquired five historical Spanish carpets and eight from Egypt and Syria for the new
Museum of Islamic Art in Doha. It is these that are the focus of the second in our series
of in-depth surveys of the MIAQ collection. An abridged version of this article, without
references or citations, appears in HALI 157, Autumn 2008.

WITH THEIR EXTRAORDINARY BEAUTY, the product of
striking juxtapositions of shimmering colour and complex but
carefully balanced designs, over the past century the classical
carpets of Spain, Egypt and Syria have been studied in great depth
and avidly sought after by museums and private collectors alike.1
The Spanish and East Mediterranean carpets acquired by the
National Council for Culture, Arts & Heritage (now the Qatar
Museums Authority) represent a substantial holding, given that
many of the earliest examples still extant – the most beautiful
and those in the finest condition – were already in European
and American museums by 1930. In the latter part of the 20th
century the MIAQ has nevertheless been able to purchase a
handful of wonderful pre-1600 carpets and fragments in good
original pile with glowing colours that had remained in private
hands, as well as other examples at auction. We should consider
this small group as a nucleus to be built upon.
The pan-Mediterranean textile trade, including carpets, dates
back to antiquity, but a strong local style can be seen in the few
surviving Spanish carpets from the 14th and early 15th centuries.
Egyptian carpets from the second half of the 15th century and
before also show relatively little outside influence.
The 15th century was a time of conquest and a period of
expansion in trade in the Mediterranean region. By the early 1 The Convent of
16th century, floral Ottoman court designs, taken from textiles Santa Ursula large
and ceramics made in western Anatolia, were beginning to octagon carpet
influence carpet making in both Spain and Islamic North Africa. (detail), Spain, 15th
In Spain such designs, in tandem with the stylistic inspiration of century. Museum of
Spanish complex woven silk patterns, came to dominate carpet Islamic Art, Qatar,
making, and they were also influential in Egypt. Carpet design no.CA24.
in Syria, however, then still part of the Mamluk Empire, took on
a so-called ‘international’ style, drawing on influences from
Egypt, eastern Anatolia and Iran, that was to continue in use
into the 17th century.
As the Ottomans looked west, expanding into the Balkans,
Egypt and North Africa, their inclusive attitude to all peoples –
provided they paid their taxes – made their Empire a centre for
trade. The Spanish Inquisition and the expulsion of Spain’s Jews
and Muslims did much to facilitate Mediterranean commerce,
with networks of trading families resettled in different ports.
From the 13th to 15th century, Spanish carpets were being
exported to France and Italy, and during the 15th and 16th Italy
became the principal importer of carpets from Anatolia and
Egypt. Many of the oldest surviving Syrian carpets can also be
traced back to Renaissance Italy.

HALI ISSUE 157 69

MUSEUM COLLECTIONS
2 The Convent of SPANISH CARPETS
Santa Ursula large Spanish carpets have been collected by some of the most sophis-
octagon carpet ticated of connoisseurs,2 often acquired through specialist dealers
(lower part) Spain, in Spain, Italy, Germany, England and America.3 My research arch-
15th century. 1.03 x ive contains images of at least 260 knotted-pile carpets made in
2.50m (3'5" x 8'2"), Spain before 1750, including fragments. Most examples are now
Museum of Islamic in museum collections.4
Art, Qatar, no.CA24. The MIAQ has five knotted-pile Spanish carpets, one perhaps
from the 15th century and four from the 16th. One is complete,
two appear to be complete but are in fact part of larger carpets,
and two are fragments. The museum has none of the later looped-
pile carpets from Alpujarra, nor any of the rare knotted-pile or
more common embroidered Arrialos carpets from Portugal.5 This
tiny group obviously cannot properly represent the history of
carpet-making in the Iberian Peninsula, but it does offer a glim-
pse of the carpet art of the region. To appreciate its significance
and merit, and to comprehend the rarity and importance of
Spanish carpet-making in general, we should briefly consider
the surviving corpus.
Most early Spanish carpets are made using a single warp with
offset knotting, a technique that may have come to Spain from
Egypt between the 8th and 10th centuries. A few pile carpet frag-
ments from this early period woven entirely in this so-called
‘Spanish’ technique have been found in Fustat (old Cairo),6
although its origin is undoubtedly much earlier, as it occurs in
combination with other techniques on some knotted-pile carpets
from the 1st century AD found in Central Asia.7 R.B. Serjeant
tells us of Arabic documents that mention carpet-making in
Spain from the 10th century, although they do not say how rugs
were constructed, and give little descriptive information.8 The
‘Spanish’ technique was also being used in central Europe by the
12th century, as can be seen from the large fragments of carpets
in Halberstadt and Quedlinburg.9
Single warp offset knotting is less robust than other methods,
so the finer and older Spanish carpets with short-cut pile tend to
be easily worn, often torn, and are now mostly fragmented.
Cutting and patching occurred quite early on, as can be seen in
two 15th century rugs depicted in 16th century European paint-
ings.10 Today different parts of one carpet may be found in a
number of different collections, and what seem to be complete
carpets may have patches from one or more other examples.11
Spanish carpets were exported to many parts of Europe, and
it is said that Eleanor of Castile introduced them to England in
1255.12 A carpet, probably Spanish, is depicted in a fresco from
the first half of the 14th century in the Palace of the Popes in
Avignon.13 Its field of rows of conjoined small octagons separated
by diamonds, each octagon containing a single six-pointed star,
resembles a number of surviving Spanish ‘Admiral’ carpets attri-
buted to the late 14th and 15th centuries. Monique King reports
that: “The property of Pope Clement V (reigned 1305–14) at
Avignon included 54 pile carpets, and Pope John XXII is said to
have had Spanish carpets with coats-of-arms in his apartments at
Avignon. The Bishop of Langres owned a pile carpet of Spanish
manufacture in 1395. The Duke of Berry had no fewer than 13
Spanish carpets, mostly white grounds… mostly 2.40 metres
wide and 8.50 metres long.”14 Ferrandis Torres also lists many
Spanish inventories that mention carpets from the 14th to 18th
centuries in his important 1933 Madrid exhibition catalogue,
Alfombras Antiguas Espanolas.15
The earliest almost complete Spanish carpet to survive, usually
attributed to the 14th century, is in the Museum of Islamic Art
in Berlin, acquired by Wilhelm Bode in Munich in 1884. Much
has been written about it, and it has been convincingly suggested
that it was ordered for a synagogue.16
Historical records exist of carpet making from the 12th cen-
tury onward in Chinchilla, Cuenca, and Murcia, and from the
15th century in Letur, Liétor, Alcaraz, Salamanca and Granada.17
They tell us that Alcaraz was where Spanish rugs were sold, and
that they were made in a number of small villages on a cottage
70 HALI ISSUE 157
industry basis in the province of Albacete in the Murcia region.
These villages were probably inhabited by Mudejar Muslim
weavers who stayed on after the Inquisition and into the second
half of the 16th century. Today the labels ‘Alcaraz’ and ‘Cuenca’
are the most widely used, the former for finer 15th and 16th
century examples, the latter for coarser late 16th to mid-18th
century carpets. All the so-called ‘Alcaraz’ carpets seem to be
remarkably similar in wool, handle, weave and dyes.
For classification purposes, I have divided Spanish carpets into
groups representing basic field compositions rather than work-
shops or places of manufacture. The same can be done with border
patterns, which can be seen associated with several different
field designs.18
Among the oldest of surviving Spanish carpets, perhaps made
from the late 14th or early 15th century until the early 16th, are
those with field patterns composed of a small polygonal lattice.19
At least 27 examples are known to survive.20 They are commonly
known as the ‘Admiral’ carpets, because the fields of some exam-
ples are overlaid with large escutcheons containing the coats-of-
arms of the 15th century ‘Admirals’ of Spain.21 Inventories from
the 14th century onward cite Spanish carpets bearing blazons.22
Several of these lattice-field carpets are up to nine metres in
length and no more than 2.5 metres wide. Their fields are sur-
rounded by between three and seven borders, including one
composed of highly stylised Kufic script. On some carpets this
kufesque border is filled with various creatures, trees and human
figures, including women in low-cut European-style dresses, and
at least two examples have a pictorial panel depicting trees and
animals at each end.23 Similar geometric lattice borders and pic-
torial end panels are also seen on Spanish carpets with ‘Turkish’
field designs.24
Armorial blazons also appear on Spanish carpets with a number
of different field designs throughout the 16th, 17th and 18th
centuries. Four examples, believed to be funeral carpets, have a
central medallion with blazon and small medallions with skulls
set against a textile pattern. At least nine others have blazons, some
on a plain field, some with a decorated background. Spanish coats-
of-arms often appear on carpets with imported field designs: two
have border and spandrel designs taken directly from early 17th
century west Anatolian originals, another copies a small Ushak
rug with a cloudband border, and at least four have field designs
taken directly from Anatolian arabesque or ‘Lotto’ design rugs.
‘TURKISH-STYLE’ SPANISH CARPETS
Turkish carpet designs, in particular those from western Anatolia,
influenced Spanish carpets most of all. The oldest surviving
Spanish carpets with Turkish designs are attributed to the second
or third quarters of the 15th century, but examples must have
reached Spain by the 13th or 14th, as many Spanish ‘copies’
present an earlier version of Turkish designs than any surviving
Anatolian rug.25
A Spanish carpet in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, has a
‘small-pattern Holbein’ field of rows of small interlaced medal-
lions, commonly found on west Anatolian rugs from the 15th
and 16th centuries. The primary medallions have perfect inter-
laced surrounds, the internal octagon within each octagon has
an interlaced pattern, and the green-ground field is enclosed
by a wide border of ‘Kufic’ motifs separated by large interlaced
knots.26 A carpet with different small interlaced medallions
is in the Textile Museum, Washington DC. Another example,
surviving as four fragments, has a tile- or ceiling-like field
composed of a rectangular interlaced grid, each compartment
of which is filled with a large interlaced medallion; the colours
and border pattern suggests that this probably dates from the
late 15th or early 16th century.27
One of the most widely published of all 15th century Spanish
carpets is in the Victoria & Albert Museum, London. With three
perfectly balanced columns of ten small octagons of the type
found on 15th and 16th century Anatolian carpets, it has an
MUSEUM COLLECTIONS
intense red colour and is in perfect condition.28
Twenty Spanish carpets have a Turkish field composition
consisting of of large octagons, usually known as the ‘large-
pattern Holbein design’ that appears on Anatolian and Syrian
rugs depicted in a number of 15th and 16th century paintings by
various artists, including Hans Holbein.29 Most of these carpets
have a single large octagon placed in the centre of a large square
or rectangular compartment or panel that is then repeated
vertically, and often horizontally as well.
Carpets with this pattern can be further sub-divided accord-
ing to the octagon design. The first sub-group comprises six car-
pets, all possibly from the second half of the 15th century, with a
complex star medallion like that seen on an Anatolian rug dep-
icted in 1486 by the Venetian artist Carlo Crivelli.30 The second, of
which two carpets survive (one split between two collections),
both probably early 16th century, has an interlaced medallion.
The third sub-group of large-octagon rugs, in which we find the
secondary field ornament from the ‘small-pattern Holbein’ inter-
laced carpets at the centre of each octagon, is represented by a
single surviving example, divided between three collections. The
fourth sub-group, consisting of one complete carpet and one
small fragment, has a field design of vertical and horizontal rows
of octagons in implied compartments with small secondary
motifs between.
There are at least nine carpets (one divided between two
collections) in the fifth and final sub-group, which have ‘wheel’-
like medallions placed in the centre of each square shaped com-
partment. The type dates from the second half of the 15th cent-
ury and an example can be seen depicted in a painting from
around 1530.31
The MIAQ owns a most beautiful example of this last sub-group
of Spanish ‘Holbein’ carpets, with three large octagons 1, 2. This
substantial section is the lower part of the original long carpet;
the upper part, with four octagons, is in the Textile Museum,
Washington DC.32 There is no firm indication that the carpet was
ever wider, but it could have been up to three columns in width.
Reportedly acquired from the Convent of Santa Ursula in Guadala-
jara, northeast of Madrid, both sections were once in Venice with
the famous antique dealer Adolf Loewi. This lower section passed
through Benadava in Paris and thence to the Wher Collection
before coming to Doha.
At both ends of the field we see an extra ivory-ground panel
with a procession of ‘lions’, each in a different colour, but per-
haps most interesting feature of the Spanish version of this pat-
tern is that the central eight-pointed star is interlaced, creating
the illusion that the wheel is rotating. Once part of the original
design concept, this refinement is seen in very few surviving
Anatolian versions, yet it appears in all known Spanish ones.
The ground of the square compartments surrounding each large
octagon has a beautiful interlaced design, reminiscent of a
woven textile, and the borders that divide the octagons and
surround the field are typically Spanish and have not been found
in Anatolian examples.
Among the best known of all historical Anatolian carpet pat-
terns is the so-called ‘arabesque’ or ‘Lotto’ design, which first
appears in a European painting in 1516 and continued in use in
Anatolian weaving until the end of the 17th century.33 Almost all
of the two hundred or so surviving Anatolian arabesque rugs
have deep red grounds with the pattern in bright yellow
outlined in black and details in blue and ivory, although a few
have blue or brown grounds, and the pattern is very
occasionally worked in blue or ivory.
Over thirty Spanish carpets with the Turkish arabesque field
design are known to survive, four of which include coats-of-arms.
Spanish arabesque carpets appear to have yellow backgrounds,
although it is likely they were originally red and the red dye has
oxidized. The pattern is usually in blue and ivory. The most
common border is a curled-leaf pattern.
The MIAQ has one Spanish arabesque carpet, with the design
HALI ISSUE 157 71
MUSEUM COLLECTIONS MUSEUM COLLECTIONS

The earliest of the carnation group is a fragmented carpet in

Madrid, with a wide Kufic border, large interlaced knots, deep
reds and strong colours. Other examples have softer tones (apart
from the blue) and yellow grounds that were originally red. It
has often been suggested that the oxidised red seen on many
carpets made from the early 16th century onwards marks the
time when Jews and Muslims left Spain; dyeing was traditionally
a Jewish craft.
Some of the carnation carpets made from the early 16th cent-
ury onwards include birds, and two have the elegant Renaissance
border pattern seen on the Qatar arabesque carpet 3. Related to
the carnation rugs are a further 23 examples with single palm-
ettes in a lattice. The flowers and lattice are clearly European in
style, but the concept can be seen in earlier Turkish models.
During the 17th century Spanish carpet weavers continued
to copy patterns from other regions. At least two carpets are known
with medallion Ushak designs, and two with the so-called
‘Smyrna’ or floral Ushak design. At least one example copies a
Cairene Ottoman design, and three more have designs copied
from small Esfahan rugs, made in central Iran in the 16th and
early 17th centuries. One of these has a cartouche border, pos-
sibly derived from a ‘Damascus’ rug. Two early Spanish carpets
survive that have a cloud pattern directly copied from a 14th
century Mongol silk.37

CARPETS WITH SPANISH SILK DESIGNS

More than 150 Spanish carpets have designs derived from Span-
ish woven silk textiles. The earliest of these have the strong red
and Kufic borders with animals attributable to the 15th century.
Four have a field pattern of lobed oval medallions either in a
lattice or in diagonal rows,38 and twelve have ascending palm-
ettes within an interlaced lattice.39 The lattice types and floral
patterns vary slightly and are used in different combinations.
Another lattice field design, which must have been popular
for some time, features compartments filled with a large ascen-
ding side-view flowers or palmettes. In 33 examples an ogival
lattice is composed of two parallel stems. Six of these have the
strong colours dateable to the late 15th and early 16th century,
but the majority are from the second and third quarters of the
16th century. One of these, with a two-plane lattice with palm-
ettes, probably from the mid- 16th century, is one of only two
known Spanish classical carpets with silk pile.40
The other known Spanish silk carpet, a corner section with
part of the field and the major and minor borders, is in the
MIAQ 4.41 It is one of seven examples known (the others are
woven in wool), with a design of palmettes in a diamond-
shaped lattice. Most of them have strong reds and Kufic borders,
and are thought to date from the late 15th or early 16th century.
The MIAQ fragment is extremely finely knotted and dates from
the very beginning of the 16th century. The wide lattice is in
yellow – possibly originally red but now oxidised – and the
background is green. The palmettes are linked diagonally by
stems that intersect the lattice; the primary border has a
meandering stem with flowers pointing alternately inward and
3
outward on a light blue ground.
Ten Spanish carpets have lattice designs that are unique
3 The Qatar arab- in brown on an ivory ground, surrounded by an elegant Renais- survivors, including two with rampant lions, a pattern directly
esque carpet. Spain, sance border of large leaves 3.34 Originally from a European private copied from Spanish woven silk textiles from the 15th century,
16th century. 2.83 x collection, it was acquired at auction in London in 1999. One of and three with different Spanish silk brocade designs.42 At least
5.49m (9'3" x 18'0"). the finest examples extant, it was probably made in the first half of twenty-three unclassifiable fragments have other types of
MIAQ, no.TE26. the 16th century, lattices, and are from the late 16th to the early 18th century; a
4 The Unger palm- The Anatolian arabesque pattern also inspired a new Spanish few of the later examples are inscribed and some are dated.
ettes in diamond- design of serrated leaves that form an oval lattice and concave
shaped lattice silk diamonds. Seven examples are known. A further seven carpets ‘WREATH’ CARPETS
carpet fragment, are known with a textile pattern of diagonal rows of large carn- The Anatolian design of rows of large octagons 2 must have
Spain, early 16th ations directly copied from Ottoman silk velvets made in Bursa.35 inspired the largest single surviving group of Spanish carpets, 4
century. 0.58 x This pattern was developed further in Spain: four rugs include those with rows of wreaths. In three of the earliest examples,
0.76m (1'10" x 2'6"). additional flowers, in a marriage between Ottoman velvet and the individual wreaths are placed within square compartments,
MIAQ, no. TE12. Spanish lampas designs.36 the corners of which have typical Anatolian patterns, while

72 HALI ISSUE 157 HALI ISSUE 157 73

 MUSEUM COLLECTIONS
5 6
5 The Paris wreaths the wreaths are distinctively European in style.
in compartments One of these three carpets, with greatly worn pile and prob-
carpet. ably reduced in size, is in the MIAQ 5. It was acquired at auction in
Spain, 16th century. London in 2007, having previously been on the art market in both
Three complete com- Paris and New York. The two others are in Berlin and Miami.43
partments with end On all other Spanish wreath carpets the columns and rows of
panels, reduced in wreaths have no containing compartments; in some of the oldest
size from a larger examples the secondary motif diagonally adjacent to the wreaths
carpet.1.02 x 2.89m resembles the secondary motif on many Anatolian carpets. The
(3'4" x 9'6") MIAQ, MIAQ has one such fragment, with four wreaths and no borders 6.
no.TE106. Once with Yves Mikaeloff in Paris, it was acquired at auction in
6 The Mikaeloff London in 1997. Another section of this carpet, also with four
wreaths carpet wreaths but with parts of the border attached, was on the New York
fragment, Spain, market some twenty years ago.44 A small number of examples
early 16th century. have different variations of the wreath pattern.
1.40 x 1.31m (4'7" x The few publications to date on Spanish carpets have tended
4'4"). MIAQ to focus on specific collections. The most important and best
7 The Milan of these is still Alfombras Antiguas Espanolas, the rare catalogue by
circular Mamluk Ferrandis Torres for the 1933 Madrid exhibition, which brought
carpet (detail), Cairo, together examples from a number of sources. Substantial
Egypt, 16th century. research has been undertaken in European inventories for
MIAQ, no.TE07 records of Spanish carpets, and some work has been done to
collate their depictions in Western paintings, but there has not,
to date, been any attempt to compile a complete catalogue of all
surviving Spanish carpets, or to analyse them,45 carry out dye
tests, and in some instances carbon-14 analyses. The time is ripe
for a major exhibition of the greatest Mudejar carpets – perhaps
the MIAQ will, in due course, accept the challenge?
74 HALI ISSUE 157
EAST MEDITERRANEAN CARPETS: EGYPT & SYRIA
The MIAQ Collection includes eight knotted-pile carpets made
in the East Mediterranean region in the 16th century. Six are
attributable to Cairo and two to Damascus. Four of the Cairene
rugs and one of the Damascus rugs (only a section of border of
the other survives) are in the ‘Mamluk style’ with designs of
geometric motifs and small floral elements in a predominantly
red, green and blue palette. The other two carpets from Cairo
are more colourful, in the more naturalistic Ottoman floral style.
Knotted-pile carpets have probably been made in the Levant
and Anatolia since the second millennium BC or before.46 Wool-
pile floor coverings were made in Egypt before 2000 BC,47
although in these earliest surviving Egyptian carpets the pile is
looped around the warps, rather than being individually tied
and knotted. It is not known when the knotted-pile technique
was first used in Egypt, but it may go back at to at least 500 BC.
The oldest, almost complete, knotted-pile carpet currently
known to have been found in Egypt has been carbon-14 dated to
580–920 AD, although the materials suggest that it may have
been made in Anatolia.48 Many tiny fragments of knotted-pile
carpets have also been found in the rubbish dumps of Fustat.
The oldest of these are from the Abbasid period (758–1258):
some may have been made in Egypt, others could be from Meso-
potamia, Anatolia and Iberia.49 There are Arabic references to
14th century carpets made in Cairo,50 but no actual examples
survive that can be conclusively linked to this period.51 Carl
Johann Lamm found two small fragments in Fustat that may
represent carpet weaving from the mid-15th century.52
MUSEUM COLLECTIONS
MAMLUK-STYLE CARPETS
The Mamluk Sultanate (1250-1517) was centred on Egypt, but also
embraced parts of south and central Anatolia, including the
Malataya region, all of present-day Syria west of the Euphrates,
the entire eastern seaboard of the Mediterranean and the Red
Sea, as well as parts of present-day Jordan, Libya and Tunisia. Its
principal cities were Cairo and Damascus. The Mamluks are
known for their beautiful glassware, extraordinary metalwork,
intricate wood-carving and kaleidoscopic ‘silk-like’ carpets.
Carpets in the ‘Mamluk-style’ (I use this term because most
surviving examples were probably made after the Ottomans
overthrew the Mamluk Sultanate in 1517), stand very much on
their own among oriental rugs, with their unique blend of
shimmering wine-red, green and light blue tones, their silky
wool and, above all, their exquisite variety of accurately drawn
ornaments, large and small, in intricate arrangements.
These carpets are now generally thought to have been made
in Cairo, having first been thus attributed by some of the earliest
carpet scholars.53 However, because their patterns do not stylis-
tically sit comfortably with the other Mamluk court arts, for
many years the traditional Cairo label was not accepted by all
experts, and some more recent writings have put forward alter-
native, less convincing, places of origin.54
The survival of a small number of carpets bearing the blazon
of the Mamluk Sultan Qait Bay strengthens the attribution of
these examples (and many others) to Cairo,55 while the redis-
covery in 1983 by Alberto Boralevi of a hitherto unknown
Mamluk-style carpet in the Medici Pitti Palace in Florence helps
to establish the argument in favour of Cairo as the centre of
production,56 as an inventory record from 1587 calls the Medici
carpet ‘Cairino’.57 In pristine condition, its virtual pair is in San
Rocco in Venice.58
Recently published research by Marco Spallanzani informs us
that “…in 1545 Iacopo Capponi went to Alexandria with instruc-
tions to buy various things for Duke Cosimo I de Medici, inc-
luding an unspecified number of rugs to be made to order”,
which were shipped to Livorno in 1547. Inventory records from
the late 14th to the late 17th century report carpets coming from
Cairo.59 These must represent only a fraction of the Mamluk-
style carpets that arrived in Italy, for there is little doubt that
the vast majority were imported via this route.
My archive contains images of 136 Mamluk-style carpets
made in Egypt during the 15th and 16th centuries, divisible into
groups by approximate age and by design detail.60 Arguably the
oldest surviving example is the Salvadori fragment in the
Victoria & Albert Museum, London.61 Four carpets from the
same period bearing the blazon of Sultan Qait Bay (r.1468-1496)
were almost certainly made in Cairo in the second half of the
15th century.62 These five, along with others in various
collections that were probably originally from larger carpets
with three central medallions, represent the so-called ‘first-
period’ of Mamluk carpet weaving, prior to 1500.63
A second group of nearly thirty Mamluk-style carpets, rugs
and fragments can attributed to the first quarter of the 16th
century. Another hundred or so were probably made during the
second and third quarters of the 16th century. Thereafter the
Cairene workshops that made the Mamluk-style carpets were
engaged in making carpets in the new Ottoman style, using
identical dyes and materials. At least eight carpets are known
that represent a transitional group with elements of both
styles.64 From the mid-14th century a parallel development was
probably occurring in the northern Mamluk capital of Damascus
in Syria, where carpet design was being influenced by or
influencing designs in Anatolia and Iran.
Assigning carpets to particular periods is fairly arbitrary and
depends on a number of features. Pre-1500 Mamluk-style pieces
tend to have longer pile, natural-coloured warps, a looser con-
struction and more colours than those of later periods. Carpets
from the first and second periods tend to have between five and 7
HALI ISSUE 157 75
MUSEUM COLLECTIONS
seven colours, some have red-dyed warps, and they often have
bands of stylised Kufic script. Those from the third period gen-
erally have just three colours, yellow-dyed warps and simple
cartouche borders. A general simplification of pattern seems to
have occurred over time. Such differences probably represent
the output of different Cairene workshops in at different times,
rather than alternative places of origin.65
Other writers on the subject take a different view. Jenny
Housego has proposed a Maghrebi (northwest African) origin
for all Mamluk carpets.66 Jon Thompson has tentatively sugges-
ted that the ‘early’ examples were made in Cairo, as one was
found there, but that the main corpus was made elsewhere,
perhaps in Syria, close to the Mamluk Sultanate’s northern
frontier with Turkey, while also suggesting that the Maghrebi
possibility should be explored further for the main group.67
Carlo Suriano has also divided Mamluk carpets into two
groups, one made in the Huaran district or Shawbak in Syria,
and the other in Cairo.68 His argument refers to Charles Grant
Ellis,69 who wrote that several of the earlier Mamluk carpets
have distinctive technical differences from later ones, including
multiple wefts, unusually long pile and abnormal colouring,
although both groups share the technical features of S-spun
wool and asymmetric knotting. Ellis attributes this small group
to the Maghreb and the main group to Cairo. Suriano’s desire to
return the bulk of Mamluk carpets to Syria may have been
inspired by Thompson’s 1980 article, or by the many earlier and
contemporaneous references to Syrian carpet making, or by the
fact that S-spun wool was found in Iraq, but his discussion
omits any reference to the evidence that the Medici Mamluk
came from Cairo.
At least fifteen European paintings are known that depict
identifiable Mamluk-style carpets from Cairo,70 the earliest
being Paris Bordone’s Fisherman Presenting St Mark’s Ring to the
Doge, painted about 1540. Thompson shows that Bordone’s
carpet, with a medallion set against a plain field, is similar to
the Bardini blazon carpet in Florence, which is attributed to the
end of the 15th century.71 Bordone’s carpet may thus have been
fifty or more years old when he painted it. However, the
Mamluk carpets depicted in the famous Moretto frescos in
Brescia belong to a later generation with simpler patterns, and
may therefore have been less than twenty years old when they
were painted in 1543. Mamluk-style carpets from Cairo
continue to appear in European paintings through the 16th and
early 17th centuries.
All carpets made in Cairo from the 15th to 17th centuries
share a distinctive woven structure: the wool is mostly S-spun
and Z-plied, the opposite of almost all other ‘oriental’ rugs of
whatever age or place of origin. The knots are asymmetric,
similar to the technique used in Syria, central and eastern Iran,
India and China. In the earliest examples the warps tend to be
undyed, with red-dyed wefts, although occasionally both warps
and wefts are red. On the vast majority of examples in the third
group, the warps and wefts are dyed yellow or yellow-green, a
feature that continued in use for later 16th and early 17th
century Ottoman-style rugs. The long-staple wool used for the
warps and pile is very glossy, resembling silk. A unique example
knotted in silk on a silk foundation survives in the Österre-
ichisches Museum für angewandte Kunst in Vienna.72
Earlier Mamluk-style carpets tend to be knotted with five or
seven colours (red, green, blue, yellow, ivory, purple and
brown), while later ones use as few as three (red, green and
blue). As on Indian and Iranian carpets, the red is created from
the insect dye lac, and is often corroded, while the blue is dyed
with indigo, which tends to preserve the wool. On a rug that
8. The Arhan Mamluk has seen little wear, the blue areas are often higher than the red,
carpet. Cairo, Egypt, giving an embossed effect. Lac appears to have been used less
16th century. 2.51 x often on examples from the second half of the 16th century,
3.08m (8'3" x 10'1"). which achieve a similar colour from the related insect dye
MIAQ,no. A22 cochineal, although the latter rarely has the depth of colour
76 HALI ISSUE 157
MUSEUM COLLECTIONS
given by lac.
The unique colour spectrum and spectacular kaleidoscopic
ornamentation of Mamluk carpets is drawn from some of the
best of Islamic art and design. In 1924, Friedrich Sarre related
the general composition of the Habsburg silk Mamluk carpet in
Vienna, a large central compartment surrounded by smaller,
square ones, to the 15th-16th century mosaics on the floor of the
Mosque of Sultan Hassan in Cairo.73
The basic composition of the Mamluk carpets, based on a
centralised motif surrounded by a symmetrical arrangement of
rectangular and square compartments, is probably derived from
pavements and mosaic floors of the Roman period. Similar
compositions can also be seen on Egyptian Coptic textiles from
the 3rd to 9th centuries. The floor is a reflection of the heavens
above, and it is unsurprising that similar compositions appear
on later Islamic ceiling patterns. Many Mamluk carpets have a
single central medallion, but there are more than thirty large
format examples with either three or five medallions.74
Almost all Mamluk carpet patterns are designed to be viewed
from all directions, perhaps because they were intended to
mirror ceiling patterns. However, there are three Mamluk rugs
with directional designs indicating that they were made to hang
on a wall, in front of a cupboard, or as a doorway.75
The ornamentation of Mamluk carpets draws upon a wide
range of artistic sources and has been of intense interest to
scholars. Studying one of the Ballard Collection Mamluk rugs in
St Louis in 1925, Rudolf Riefstahl compared a motif composed
of a palm tree flanked by two cypresses, commonly found on
later Mamluk carpets, to Assyrian stone decoration from the 7th
century BC.76
Some ornaments, such as the octagons, the interlace and
various minor details, form part of an ‘international’ style seen
on rugs from Spain to India. Other minor motifs are specific to
Cairene carpets and can be traced from medieval western
Islamic decoration back to Hellenistic art. Some, such as the
‘umbrella’ and ‘lancet’ leaves, have been explained as a
conscious return to Egyptian ornament. The designs on the
earliest Mamluk carpets are extremely complex and well-
proportioned, whereas later the patterns are simplified.
Although the patterns of Mamluk carpets are mostly com-
posed of octagons, eight-pointed stars and compartments, other
designs were also used. Four surviving carpets have a two-level
diamond lattice, each compartment containing a single flower.77
Two of them have the traditional Mamluk border of a cartouche
alternating with a lobed medallion, and two have a design of
large tulips, which continued to be used on rugs with Ottoman
field designs. They were probably made in the second or third
quarters of the 16th century, after the transition from Mamluk to
Ottoman styles had begun.
The MIAQ has four Mamluk-style carpets made in Cairo in
the 16th century. They are all from the third period, and two are
major works of art, retaining much of their original pile and
colour. So many Mamluk carpets are extensively restored, so to
find two with original pile is a great bonus.
The Arhan Mamluk carpet 8, reportedly with the same Turk-
ish family for over seventy years, was acquired by the MIAQ in
1997.78 Probably made in the second quarter of the 16th century,
it has just three colours, red, green and blue. The red (lac) has
corroded, while the blue (indigo) and green pile is quite high in
places, giving a sculpted effect. The carpet had been folded for
many years: along the fold lines are some tiny holes, probably
caused by moth and now skillfully restored.79 The drawing is
remarkably good, and the serrated edge of the eight-pointed star
medallion is also found on some second period carpets. An
extra panel at each end of the field contains large circular
medallions alternating with groups of three trees: a palm
flanked by cypresses. A special feature, in the inner and outer
minor borders, is the three balls and wavy lines of the Ottoman
çintamani symbol.
HALI ISSUE 157 77
MUSEUM COLLECTIONS
Four circular carpets from Cairo are known. Three of them
have Mamluk geometric designs: the Barbieri carpet in the
Bruschettini Foundation, Genoa; the Olmutz carpet at Kremsier
Castle in the Czech Republic; and the Milan carpet in the
MIAQ.80 The fourth, a later example in the Corcoran Gallery of
Art in Washington has an Ottoman field design.81
There is good evidence that round carpets were made for royal
and imperial tents in Iran, India and China, and there is every
reason to think that round Mamluk carpets were used the same
way in Egypt. When they arrived in Europe, such carpets were
used as table covers. The 1587 Medici archives in Florence mention
a circular ‘cairino’ carpet,82 and two ‘round Mamluks’ appear in
the 1596 Innsbruck inventory of Grand Duke Ferdinand II of
Austria,83 who received one as a gift from the Medici court.84
The round carpet in the MIAQ 7, 9 was probably made early
in the second quarter of the 16th century. Its beauty lies in its
9 The Milan circular
Mamluk carpet,
Cairo, Egypt, 16th
century. 2.78 x
2.26m (9'1" x 7'1").
MIAQ, no.TE07
78 HALI ISSUE 157
rich colours (red, blue, green and yellow) and its lustrous pile,
having survived in pristine condition for almost five centuries.
The fact that all its original edges are still intact suggests that
they were once bound with a tape or silk cloth.
The other two Mamluk-style carpets in the MIAQ collection,
a rather worn rug 10 and a small fragment from a large carpet 11,
are both study pieces, acquired at auction in London in 1996 and
1998 respectively.85 The rug, with a medallion and bands of cyp-
resses and palm trees, was formerly in the Bernheimer Collect-
ion, Munich, while the fragment had appeared on the London
market a number times since the early 1980s.
It is unlikely that the MIAQ will be able to acquire a first
period Mamluk carpet, but a few second period examples
remain in private hands, and an early example would certainly
be a strong addition to the two outstanding carpets already in
the collection.
10
CAIRENE OTTOMAN CARPETS
Almost a hundred rugs and carpets with floral designs survive
from Cairene workshops. Scholars generally agree that the first
Ottoman design rugs were made there. Ernst Kühnel tells us that
“the connection with Mamluk rugs [is] undeniable, because of
the similarity of the material... More important and even con-
clusive is the frequent mention of ‘Cairene’ rugs expressly called
in French, German, Italian, and Spanish inventories of the
XVIth-XVIIth centuries. Their beauty is repeatedly emphasised
by comparison with the famous Persian carpets, and in some
instances they are classified as ‘Turkish rugs from Cairo’.”86
Despite this, some authors, including Kühnel, have conject-
ured that certain Ottoman court rugs, especially the finest niche
rugs and related examples with similar structure may have been
made somewhere closer to the court, in either Bursa or Istanbul.
This suggestion was occasioned by a single document which
refers to “...eleven rug masters of Cairo, mentioned by name,
who had been ordered to the court of Constantinople in 1585,
together with their load of wool…”.87
Citing Kurt Erdmann, Kühnel proposed that these rug masters
“most certainly had to run a manufactory working for the Turkish
Sultan”, and that this factory was most probably located in Bursa.88
This attempt to establish that Bursa was a rug producing centre
in the latter part of the 16th century is based on two further
MUSEUM COLLECTIONS
10 The Bernheimer
Mamluk rug with
medallion and bands
of cypress and palm
trees. Cairo, Egypt,
16th century. 1.37 x
2.04m (4'6" x 6'8”).
MIAQ, no.CA04.
11 Mamluk carpet
fragment. Cairo,
Egypt, 16th century.
Field section, 0.49 x
1.91m (1'7" x 6'3").
MIAQ, no.CA06.
11
documents, one of 1474, the second in 1525 (which mentions six
rug-makers and nine workmen).89 In fact, the confusion dates
back to the early 20th century when F.R. Martin described the
Imperial Austrian Ottoman floral field niche rug, without evid-
ence, as being from unspecified “Ottoman Imperial manufac-
tories in Asia Minor”.90 So when, in 1938, Erdmann published
his 1585 reference to the Egyptian weavers arriving in Turkey,
the attribution was adopted – unquestioned – by almost every
subsequent carpet scholar.91
In 1981, after a number of Ottoman carpets had been physically
analysed and the ‘evidence’ reviewed, the proposed Turkish
attribution was shown to be unsound. Examination of the twelve
Ottoman carpets in the Victoria & Albert Museum, London, as
well as a large number of other examples in European public and
private collections led Robert Pinner and me to conclude that:
“The question, which of the known Ottoman floral carpets were
produced in Turkey seemed at one time to be answered by the
identification of two major groups: one, of relatively coarsely-
woven rugs with both the foundation and the pile in wool, and
with its structure and colour closely related to Mamluk carpets,
and a second group of more finely woven carpets, with silk warps
and wefts, and with a pile consisting not only of wool but also
white, and sometimes blue, cotton. The attribution of the latter
group to ‘Istanbul’ or ‘Bursa’ appeared to be supported by the fact
HALI ISSUE 157 79
 MUSEUM COLLECTIONS
12
13
12 The Hackwood that both the silk and the cotton were Z-spun in a non-Egyptian
Park Cairene manner.92 The apparent contradiction, presented by the fact that
Ottoman medallion the wool was mainly S-spun, i.e., as in Mamluk and ‘Cairene’
carpet. Cairo, Egypt, Ottoman carpets, was explained by adherents of this theory, by
3rd quarter 16th the suggestion that the pile wool was imported [into Turkey]
century. 2.81 x 5.17m from Egypt.”93
(9'3" x 17'0"). MIAQ, Alberto Boralevi’s discovery of the two great Cairene carpets of
no.CA05. the Medici in the warehouses of the Pitti Palace is of inestimable
13 The Bernheimer importance in this discussion. Of greater significance here even
Ottoman medallion than the Medici Mamluk is the Ottoman carpet, also in excellent
rug. Cairo, Egypt, condition.94 Boralevi writes of it: “As stated in the inventory, the
16th century. 1.32 x Ottoman carpet was brought as a gift to the Grand Duke Fernando
1.91m (4'4" x 6'3"). II in the year 1623 by the Admiral Da Verrazzano, possibly a
MIAQ, no.CA63 descendant of the great navigator”,95 and concludes: “The evidence
14 The Muse East of the Archives, which defines the Ottoman as Cairene, supports
Mediterranean the theory… according to which all these carpets were manufac-
cartouche-border tured in the same Egyptian workshops during the Ottoman Empire.”
carpet (detail), The 1623 inventory date of the Medici carpet provides the only
Damascus, Syria, reliable benchmark for dating Cairene Ottoman rugs. From its
15th or 16th century. present-day appearance we may assume that it was new at the time
MIAQ, no.TE14 of acquisition, and we may further assume that the workshops
producing rugs of this type probably continued to do so throughout
the 17th century. However, stylistically the Medici carpet marks
the decline of the artistic tradition, and it is likely that several
of the finer Ottoman niche rugs pre-date it. There is also some
limited assistance to be drawn from tests of Mamluk and Ottoman
carpet dyes performed by Mark Whiting in the 1980s, which
80 HALI ISSUE 157
establish that the red dye in Mamluk rugs was mostly lac,96 while
of the two Ottoman carpets he tested, the red of one was lac, the
other cochineal, which “…allows the possibility of using dye-
analysis to separate the Ottoman carpets into an earlier and a later
group, with, of course, the usual reservations about the length
of the period during which both dyes were used, and the
uncertainty of the mid-point.”97
It is possible that some Cairene Ottoman design rugs pre-date a
few Mamluk design rugs. The Medici carpet, considered on styl-
istic grounds to be the latest known example of its type, from
between 1557 and 1571, may suggest that Ottoman designs were
being made in Cairo from at least the beginning of the third
quarter of the 16th century, if not a little before. We may also
assume that the earliest examples in the new Ottoman style were
still quite similar to Mamluk rugs.98 The very finely knotted
silk-foundation niche rugs with highly refined designs may well
have begun to be made by the latter part of the 16th century.
There are two Cairene Ottoman carpets in the MIAQ collection.
The finer of the two is a large carpet acquired at auction from
the English country house Hackwood Park in 1998 11. It is very
finely woven, with superb drawing and composition,99 but while
the wefts and warps are almost all original, there is hardly an
original knot left on the carpet. The clarity of drawing and fine
articulation of pattern strongly suggests that it pre-dates the
Medici Ottoman carpet and can be ascribed to the beginning of
the third quarter of the 16th century. Certainly the restoration
followed the original pattern faithfully, so the Hackwood carpet
MUSEUM COLLECTIONS
remains a very good document of an Ottoman carpet pattern.
The second Cairene Ottoman rug in the MIAQ 12, acquired at
auction in London in 2004, was formerly in the Bernheimer
family collection, having been acquired by Otto Bernheimer in
1919.100 It belongs to a group of small-format rugs, several of
which have exactly the same colours and dimensions as some of
the small Mamluk-style rugs, and represent a continuum from
the same workshops. While the pattern is reasonably clear, the
drawing is not quite as refined as on the more finely knotted
examples. The round green medallion and green quartered
medallions in the corners are typical. At each end of the field
are small circular half-medallions. The floral pattern in the
background appears as a section from an endless repeat that
disappears beneath the borders and medallions. The medallions
also create the illusion of an infinite repeat design, a section of
which is framed by the borders. Other workshops in Cairo
produced small rugs, some very finely knotted with much
crisper renderings of Ottoman floral designs, in particular a
group of prayer rugs, several of which are on a silk foundation.
Both Cairene Ottoman carpets in Doha should be viewed
primarily as study pieces. However, there is every possibility
that this area of the collection can be raised to the level of the
Mamluk examples in the foreseeable future.
MAMLUK-STYLE CARPETS FROM SYRIA
Carpets must have been made in present-day Syria, the Levant
and the upper reaches of the fertile valleys of the Tigris and
Euphrates Rivers since antiquity. The majority of the people
inhabiting this region were semi-nomadic pastoralists, and
wool-pile carpets must have been part of their daily furnishings.
Three thousand years ago the great cities of ancient Mesopot-
amia had stone ‘carpets’, which perhaps reflect the patterns on
pile carpets that no longer survive. Five centuries later, the land
between the Tigris and Euphrates and much of present-day Syria
was ruled by the Persians. Their great empire was then conquered
by the Greeks and later by the Romans, whose villas had mosaic
floors that were probably covered with carpets in winter.
Two thousand years ago, Syria was an important section of the
ancient Silk Road that linked China to Greece and Rome. Knotted-
pile carpets with Greek mosaic designs have been found in Central
Asia, and Chinese woven silks have been discovered in Syria,
demonstrating that textiles travelled across the entire breadth of
Asia, enabling new designs and ornaments from distant lands to be
copied along the way. It is against this background that we should
consider the origin of carpet designs in this region, some of which
may derive from the patterns of floor tiles and woven silks.
In the 7th century Syria, Iran and much of Central Asia was
conquered by the Arabs, whose spiritual influence and knowledge
of geometry continues to influence design to this day. The Mongol
invasion in the 13th century carried with it Chinese and Central
Asian patterns that are occasionally seen in Syrian carpet design.
Our interest here lies in Syrian carpet design from the 15th to
17th centuries, and in particular the early part of that period,
under Egyptian rule. In 1250, the Mamluks defeated the Ayyubid
Empire in Egypt, and in 1260 advanced along the East Mediter-
ranean coast to defeat the Mongol armies at Ayn Jalut, extending
the Mamluk Sultanate to include Syria and southern Anatolia.
They ruled this region for some 250 years until they were defeated
by the Ottoman Turks in 1516. It was the Mamluk style that most
powerfully influenced carpet making in Syria, and their influence,
in particular in colouration, continued through the 17th century.
So-called ‘Damascus’ carpets have a distinctive handle, weav-
ing technique and colouration. The wool is generally Z-spun,
while carpets made in Cairo tend to use S-spun wool. The pile is
generally quite hairy, perhaps made of goat’s wool, and unlike
Cairene carpets rarely has much sheen. The knot is for the most
part asymmetric, in common with rugs from Cairo, central and
eastern Iran, India and China. By contrast, Anatolian carpets tend
to be symmetrically-knotted (this technique spreads beyond the 14
HALI ISSUE 157 81
 MUSEUM COLLECTIONS
15
15 The Wher East borders of present-day Turkey into the Caucasus and northwest
Mediterranean Persia). The warps are generally ivory wool and are often quite
compartment rug, hairy, again perhaps from goats. The 2-ply wefts, of similar wool,
Damascus, 16th are generally dyed red. There are two weft shoots between each
century. 1.30 x row of knots, the second pulled very tight so that the upper
1.75m (4'3" x 5'9"). warp almost almost covers the one beneath, producing a heavily
MIAQ, no.CA44 depressed foundation weave and a firm handle.
Very few Damascus carpets survive in good condition – most
are damaged and many exist simply as fragments. Although they
appear to be quite thick and sturdy, the method of construction
makes them quite fragile. Fragmentation may be due to the fact
that with their stiff handle they break when folded. In most
examples as much as 10cm, sometimes more, is missing from
the ends. This may be due to the fact that the original narrow
kilim at each end was not adequately secured, so that the rows
of knots simply fell away.
Their predominant red, blue and green palette is very much
in the taste of Mamluk carpets from Egypt, although on Syrian
carpets the red dyes are almost always madder, in common with
Anatolian rugs. Thus in their colours and knotting Syrian carpets
resemble those of Egyptian, in their spinning and dyeing they
resemble Anatolian carpets, and in their patterns, they show
influences from Anatolian, Egyptian and Iranian carpets.
It is not known whether the sixty ‘Damascene’ carpets received
in 1520 by Cardinal Wolsey in exchange for allowing wine to be
traded in England were actually from Damascus, nor do we know
what they looked like.101 It is certain, however, that by the 16th
82 HALI ISSUE 157
century, Syrian or ‘Damascus’ rugs had arrived in Europe.102 At
least one is depicted in a European tapestry from that time.103
John Mills has shown that the Damascus ‘compartment’ design is
first seen in an Italian painting before 1581, and lists seven further
occurrences in Italian, English and Dutch paintings up to the third
quarter of the 17th century.104 Onno Ydema records 23
‘compartment’ carpets in 17th century Netherlandish
paintings.105 It may perhaps be assumed that not all such rugs
were new when they were depicted.
A number of Syrian carpet patterns are represented by just one
or two surviving examples, and there are two larger design groups.
The so-called ‘para-Mamluk’ carpets and the ‘chessboard’ or
‘compartment’ rugs. The ‘para-Mamluk’ carpets are the oldest
surviving examples attributable to the northern part of the Mamluk
Empire, dating from the 14th to the early 16th century. The term
was coined by Charles Grant Ellis and groups together at least
fourteen carpets and fragments with a number of common
features.106 Most have similar compositions, colouration and minor
ornaments, but there is some technical variation: some are
asymmetrically knotted, some symmetric, and others a
combination).
The oldest is the so-called ‘Domes and Squinches’ rug in the
Vakıflar Museum, Istanbul, which has been labelled as early as the
13th century, although it is more likely to have been made in the
14th.107 It was found in the Great Mosque in DivriÌi along with
another para-Mamluk with a simpler design, possibly from the 15th
century. Both were probably made in east or southeast Anatolia,
then part of the Mamluk Empire. Twelve other para-Mamluk rugs
survive: three complete, some small fragments, some larger carpets
and a unique prayer rug. These can be dated to the late 15th and
early 16th century, as examples with related patterns are depicted
in at least a dozen European paintings.108 It has been suggested
that these rugs, together with others from Spain, western Anatolia,
Syria, Iran and India, form part of an ‘international’ carpet style
that continued through the 14th to the 16th century.109
There is continuing debate concerning the source of the para-
Mamluks: some writers have attributed them to eastern Anatolia,
others to Tabriz in northwest Iran. However, the limited avail-
able evidence suggests that at least some were made in present-
day Syria or southeastern Anatolia, as they form a continuum
with the vast majority of later rugs attributed to that area. Jon
Thompson has suggested that the ‘para-Mamluks’, and the later
‘compartment’ carpets, might belong to the Turkmen tradition.110
However, while some of their border designs do relate to those
depicted in Iranian paintings of the Turkmen period, neither the
field patterns nor the palette fit comfortably into Turkmen art,
appearing closer to the Mamluk style, whether from Egypt or
southeastern Anatolia.111
The most common design on Damascus carpets is the above-
mentioned ‘compartment’ pattern, many elements of which can
be seen in ‘para-Mamluk’ rugs. The field is covered with a grid
of compartments formed on a red ground by four corner triangles,
leaving an octagon within centred on an interlaced star with eight
radial pairs of ‘cypresses’, an ornament shared with Mamluk
rugs from Cairo. Secondary banded compartments are formed by
vertical and horizontal cypress pairs, with a quartered diamond
formed by the four adjacent triangles at the centre. In the full
version of this complex interlocking design, two other substrate
patterns emerge: the diagonal pairs of cypresses form a diagonal
lattice, while the ends of the cypresses are drawn so as to create
an impression of rows of circles within the compartments.112
These ‘compartment’ rugs tend to come in three sizes: large
carpets, smaller and small rugs. It is mostly the small rugs that
have survived, and one was acquired by the MIAQ in 1998 15.
The field depicts almost six complete hexagonal compartments.
These abut vertically, but conjoining the hexagons diagonally
are large blue diamonds divided through the centre, so that in
part they can be seen as quartered triangles, and the compart-
ment or tile is in fact a large square where the triangles form the
MUSEUM COLLECTIONS
corner pieces. In the centre of each compartment is the ‘Damas- 16 The Muse East
cus’ star and radiating from this are cypress-like forms. All these Mediterranean car-
patterns can be found on the earlier ‘para-Mamluk’ carpets. touche-border carpet
A number of border patterns are known for these rugs, of (border section),
which the one seen in the MIAQ rug is the most common. Four Damascus, Syria,
leaves extend from large lobed medallions, with small cartouches 15th or 16th century.
between. In Mamluk carpets the cartouche is generally consid- 0.15 x 0.46m (6" x
erably larger than the lobed medallion. The rug has much of its 1'6"). MIAQ, no.TE14
original pile and remarkably fresh colours. As with so many
Damascus rugs, parts of the end borders have been lost and have
been replaced.
Undoubtedly the most beautiful cartouche border known on
a Damascus carpet can be seen on a spectacular fragment in the
MIAQ 14, 16. Sadly, nothing of the field survives. Much of the
patterning is on two levels, with elegantly drawn leaves and tiny
interlaces. A complex design is used for the minor borders,
demonstrating that it came from a very refined workshop. The
corners are well resolved and a small part of the cartouche from
the upper border remains. This tantalising fragment is from the
very best Damascus carpet known.
A deeper understanding of Syrian carpet design can be gained
from the patterns of the twelve known examples that have neither
‘para-Mamluk’ nor ‘compartment’ designs, at least two of which
might have been made in southeast Anatolia.113 The largest (some
7.70m long) and most spectacular are two almost identical
medallion carpets in the Museum of Turkish and Islamic Art
(TIEM) in Istanbul. These have two onion-shaped medallions
with pendants in dark blue with rumi split-leaves that form a
diamond-shaped inner medallion. Secondary round medallions
along the sides of the field are only partially visible, as they are
cut off by the border. The medallion, reminiscent of Ushak
carpets, more likely draws its inspiration from Iranian patterns
and Ottoman book covers. The field is surrounded by a cartouche
and medallion border, like so many Mamluk carpets, but with a
very different pattern. Both carpets, although almost complete,
are composed of many reassembled fragments.
A beautiful early Damascus carpet in the Museum of Islamic
Art in Berlin, in outstanding condition, has a field entirely covered
with cloudbands, a pattern that originated in China and reached
Syria via Iran. In Istanbul there is a very small single-niche fragment
from a multiple-niche saf prayer carpet, another part of which is
in the Wher Collection. Two fragments in the Keir Collection,
acquired from Salvadori in Florence, add to the picture of Damascus
carpet design. One has small palmettes covering the field in the
Iranian manner. The other has a field of lobed medallions altering
with ‘Damascus’-style stars; in the centre is a large eight-
pointed star medallion. The field is surrounded by a border of
cartouches with cloudbands and eight-lobed medallions.
A fragment from a large carpet with a field of scrolling vines
and large palmettes in the Iranian manner and a border some-
what resembling the wavy lines and balls of the çintamani design
was given in 1991 to the Metropolitan Museum of Art by the
Marshall & Marilyn R. Wolf Foundation. Four other Damascus
carpets were found in the Great Mosque at DirviÌi, along with
the two ‘para-Mamluks’. Two of these are probably from Syria
and the other two are attributed to southeast Anatolia when it
was still part of the Mamluk Empire. One of the Syrian rugs has
diagonal rows of diamond-shaped medallions separated by a 16
diamond-shaped lattice composed of small leaves, with a small
tree-like form in each medallion. The other has rows of palm-
ettes alternating with cloudbands. One of the southeast Anatolian Ottoman rug woven on silk, a ‘para-Mamluk’, a large ‘compart-
rugs has an eight-pointed star medallion with four wheel-like ment’ carpet or indeed a ‘Damascus’ with an unusual design
octagons. The other has a large leaf pattern that forms a would all be significant additions. Some examples still survive
diagonal lattice with small rosettes in each compartment. in private collections, although great items rarely come onto
If we compare the few rugs from Egypt and the East Mediter- the market, and to find rugs with original pile, pristine colours
ranean region currently in collections in Berlin, London, New and excellent drawing is an even greater challenge. However, it
York and in particular The Textile Museum in Washington DC, is to be hoped that this small but very good group of rugs from
the MIAQ has some way to go to build a truly exciting and inter- this region will continue to be expanded to create something
esting collection in this area. An earlier Mamluk carpet, a Cairene really special in the Muslim world.
HALI ISSUE 157 83
MUSEUM COLLECTIONS
NOTES
1 George Hewitt Myers, founder of the
Textile Museum, Washington DC, was
one of several collectors and connois-
seurs in the first half of the 20th century
who greatly admired Spanish and East
Mediterranean carpets. He acquired 22
Spanish carpets from the classical period
as well as 31 East Mediterranean carpets
(16 Mamluk-style Egyptian rugs, ten Otto-
man-style Egyptian rugs and five ‘Damas-
cus’ rugs), published in two separate mon-
ographs (Textile Museum 1953, 1957).
2 Those with important large collections
have included: Count Johannes von Wel-
czeck, George Hewitt Meyers, Don José
de Weissberger, Charles Deering, Wendy
and Emery Reves. Other collectors have
had a number of examples, including:
Archer Milton Huntington, John D.
McIlhenny, Joseph Lees Williams,
George Blumenthal, the Marquis de
Valverde, James F. Ballard, John Emery,
Baron & Baroness Thyssen-Bornemisza,
the Marquesa de Bermejillo del Rey,
Sidney A. Charlat, Marino & Clara
Dall’Oglio and Frederick Pratt.
3 To name but a few: Vitall Benguiat and
Mayorcas in New York; Böhler, Munich;
Adolfo Loewi, Venice; Stefano Bardini,
Florence; Michel Campana and Elio Cittone
in Milan; Lionel Harris, Jekyll’s and C. John
in London; and Sammy Tarica, Yves Mikael-
off, Masson, Benadava and Catan in Paris.
Interestingly, most of the examples were
acquired by dealers of Spanish Sephardic
origins and few by Armenian dealers.
4 These illustrations of classical Spanish
knotted-pile carpets have been taken
from museum inventories and archives,
the carpet literature, sale catalogues and
examples that have come to the market.
I am sure that these records are by no
means complete and it is possible that as
many as 150 further items are not recor-
ded, but it is unlikely that any important
early example would not have been
published and come to my attention. The
major museums with Spanish carpets
are in Madrid, Berlin, London, New York,
Miami, Dallas and Washington, with indi-
vidual notable examples in Paris, St Louis,
Cleveland and Detroit. Over the past
thirty years, 29 examples have passed
through my studio in London.
5 The latter coming from Arraiolos, where
workshops were certainly started in the
16th century; many of the oldest exam-
ples copy Safavid Iranian carpets, others
copy Anatolian rugs and Arraiolos carpets.
6 Examples can be found in: Museum of
Islamic Art, Cairo; Textile Museum, Wash-
ington DC; Metropolitan Museum of Art,
New York; National Museum, Stockholm;
Röhss Museum, Gothenburg; Keir Collec-
tion, Ham; Museum of Islamic Art, Doha
(MIAQ), Benaki Museum, Athens.
7 E.g., Crouching lion rug. Incomplete,
possibly originally 178 x 312cm. 1st to
84 HALI ISSUE 157
3rd century AD. Xinjiang Institute of Arch-
aeology, Urumqi, no.M15:1. Excavated at
Yingpan, tomb no.15. Published: König
1999, p.87; Li 2002, pp.7, 11 (detail and
reconstruction, with technical description);
Li 2006, pp.254–5, figs.198, 199 (with
diagram of structure showing single warp
offset knotting).
8 Serjeant 1972, p.175 (referring to
Al-Himyari 1938, p.112, trans., p.138):
“They used to make fine and valuable
carpets (busut) at Murcia. The people of
Murcia have unequalled skill in manufac-
turing and decorating these carpets.”
9 (1) Sages and Virtues carpet. Mid-12th
century. 64 x 182cm, section. Halberstadt
Cathedral Treasury. Published: Wilckens
1992, pp.103, 105, figs.10, 12.
(2) Border fragment with palmettes. 12th
century. 20 x 400cm. Halberstadt Cath-
edral Treasury. Published: Wilckens 1992,
pp.103, 105, fig.13.
(3) Wedding of Mercury and Philologia
carpet. (a–e) Five fragments (originally
590 x 740cm). 1186–1203. Quedlinburg
Cathedral Treasury. Published: Kurth 1926,
I, pp.53–67, fig.26,II, pls.12–21, 22b;
Nickel 1976; Wilckens 1992. (f) One frag-
ment. Whereabouts unknown. Formerly:
Welczek Collection, Austria (to 1945).
Published: Kurth 1926, II, pl.21a; Wilck-
ens 1992, p.100 (cited).
10 Two paintings depicting early Spanish
carpets that have been cut and reduced
in size: (1) Presentation in the Temple.
Francisco Henriques, ca. 1508–1511. Oil
on wood, 88 x 15cm. Museu de Alpiarça,
Alpiarça. From the altarpiece of the main
chapel of the church in the Convento de
São Francisco, Évora. Published: Lisbon
2007, p.59. Carpet with octagons and
lozenge pattern. (2) Mass of Saint Greg-
ory. Francisco Henriques, c. 1508–1511.
Oil on wood, 88 x 121.5cm. Museu
Nacional de Arte Antiga, Lisbon. From
the altarpiece of the main chapel of the
church in the Convento de São Francisco,
Évora. Published: Lisbon 2007, p.60;
Mills 2007, p.134, fig.2. Carpet with
design of stars in octagons and lozenges,
‘Kufic’ border.
11 May Beattie (1986, p.273), in her
study of the ‘Admiral’ carpets, pointed
out that it is impossible to estimate the
number of surviving examples: “Without
considering border fragments, two or
more pieces may be from a single rug,
and conversely, the skilful joining and
patching of carpets carried out in Spanish
convents points to the possibility of
several parts of different rugs being
combined into what, in a photograph,
appears to be a complete carpet.”
12 I have yet to find a document to
confirm this. Eleanor of Castile was
married in October 1254 at the age of
ten to King Edward I of England, then
fifteen, at Las Huelgas .
13 By Matteo di Giovanetti da Viterbo. It
is not certain that the Popes’ carpets are
Spanish – it is possible that they were
made in France in the Spanish style. For
more than 300 years from the early 13th
century in Paris, two separate guilds of
carpet-makers existed side by side, the
Tapiciers sarrazinois and the Tapiciers
nostres. As the name implies, the Sara-
cenic carpet weavers were engaged in
manufacturing carpets based upon East-
ern originals, while the other guild pro-
duced carpets in a local style. [Pinner]
1978, taken from Boileau 1897.
14 King 1986, pp.131–7.
15 Madrid 1933.
16 It is known from paintings and doc-
uments that both Spanish and oriental
carpets were used in European churches
and synagogues from the Middle Ages
onwards; some were made specifically
for altars or as ark curtains, probably
ordered by wealthy patrons. The Von
Bode synagogue rug. 14th century. 95 x
385cm. Museum of Islamic Art, Berlin,
no.I.27, acquired 1906. Formerly: Repor-
tedly from a church in the Tyrol district,
1880s; art market, Munich, 1884; Wilhelm
Bode. Published: Bode, 1892, p.49 (cited);
Bode 1901, p.115, fig.79 (drawing); Sarre
1907; Thomson 1910, pl.IIc; Kendrick and
Tattersall 1922, vol.II, pl.77A (drawing);
Neugebauer and Orendi 1923, p.8, fig.2
(drawing); Faraday 1927(1), p.9, fig.6
(detail); Faraday 1929, 1990, p.35, fig.5
(detail); Sarre, 1930 (detail); Erdmann
1970, p.143, fig.181 (detail); Sherrill 1974,
p.532, fig.1 (detail); Curatola 1981, no.141;
London 1983, pp.33, 50–51, no.3; Wear-
den 1985, p.205, fig.a; Sánchez Ferrer
1986, pp.290–1, pl.V (detail, with struc-
ture analysis); Day 1989, p.316, fig.313;
Berlin 1995, pp.23, 28, no.8; Sherrill
1996, p.31, pl.20; Felton 1997, pl.1;
Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection 1998,
p.239, fig.1.
17 Pinner 1986, p.295.
18 The field and border patterns on one
carpet were clealry changed as the rug
was being made. The Myers palmettes in
interlaced lattice carpet. Mid- to second
half 15th century. 184 x 219cm, incomp-
lete in length. Textile Museum, Washing-
ton DC, no.R44.4.2 (R84.10). Formerly:
George Hewitt Myers Collection, acquired
1927. Published: American Art Associa-
tion, New York, 30 April 1927, lot 1040,
p.335; Textile Museum 1953, p.11, pls.IX
–XI (with structure analysis); Weeks and
Treganowan 1969, p.13, top (detail); Wash-
ington DC 1972, no.35 (cited); Mackie
1977, p.25, fig.13; Sánchez Ferrer 1986,
pp.394–5, pl.LVII (with structure analysis);
Sherrill 1996, p 41, pl.36; Isaacson 1998,
p.79, fig.2; Bier 2003(1), p.42, fig.3; Wash-
ington DC 2003, pp.28, 284, fig.26 (with
structure analysis). Exhibited: Washington
DC 1972; Washington DC 2003, ‘Carpets
of Andalusia’. Blue ground; lower part
has a different design, similar to borders
of armorial carpets.
19 After the Popes’ fresco in Avignon,
dating from the first half of the 14th
century, a number of other carpets with
small lattice field designs are depicted in
paintings from the early 16th century
(see note 10 above, and Lisbon 2007).
20 Seven have identifiable coats-of-arms;
three of these may be complete, and
the others are shortened in length. Two
shortened carpets have unidentified
blazons. Five shortened carpets, mostly
still with their borders, are without
blazons. Fragments survive from at
least thirteen other such carpets.
21 Beattie 1986.
22 May 1945; Beattie 1986.
23 One example depicts a wild boar, not
an appropriate subject for an Islamic rug.
It may well be that the Admiral carpets
were woven by Muslim weavers to
patterns supplied by their clients.
24 The so-called ‘Kufic’ border also res-
embles the elem on Salor Turkmen door
rugs or ensi. These unusual patterns were
surely part of a tradition that drew upon
both local textile designs and imported
carpets and textiles for inspiration.
25 Pinner 1986 lists some forty docu-
ments between 1527–1622 that refer to
Turkish carpets in Spanish inventories,
some with ‘Kufic’ borders with interlace.
26 Two Spanish carpets with the inter-
laced medallion ‘small-pattern’ Holbein
design: (1) The Boston interlaced medal-
lion carpet. 106 x 462cm. Museum of
Fine Arts, Boston, no.39.614. Published:
Erdmann 1960, fig.175 (detail); Schlosser
1963, p.174, fig.100 (detail); Erdmann
1970, p.210, fig.271; Washington DC
1972, no.28 (cited); Sherrill 1974, p.541,
pl.III; Mackie 1979, p.92, fig.20; Denny
1978, p.157, fig.1; Denny 1982, p.332,
fig.5 (detail); London 1983, pp.36, 53,
no.7; Ellis 1986, p.172, fig.10; Day 1989,
p.320, fig.316; HALI 52, 1990, p.131
(detail); Gantzhorn 1991, p.233, fig.344;
Sherrill 1996, p.36, pl.26; HALI 99, 1998,
p.84 (detail). Exhibited: Washington DC
1972; London 1983; Boston, Museum
of Fine Arts, ‘Ten Great Carpets’, 1977;
Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, ‘Oriental
Carpets and Kilims’, 23 July 1990 to early
January 1991; Boston, Museum of Fine
Arts, ‘Ambassadors from the East: Oriental
Carpets in the Museum of Fine Arts, Bos-
ton’, 29 September 1998 to 24 January
1999. (2) The Loewi interlaced medallion
carpet. 155 x 290cm. Textile Museum,
Washington DC, no.R44.3.1 (R84.6),
acquired 1926. Formerly: Adolfo Loewi
Collection, Venice; George Hewitt Myers
Collection. Published: Textile Museum
1953, p.27, pls XXIV–XXV (with structure
analysis); Mackie 1979, p.93, fig.22;
Mackie and Thompson 1980, p.21, fig.8
(detail); Bier 2003(1), p.42, fig.2 (detail);
Washington DC 2003, pp.22, 283 (with
structure analysis); Bier 2004, p.13.
27 The Welczeck endless knot design
carpet. Late 15th or early 16th century.
Formerly: Count Welczeck Collection.
(a) 75 x 250cm, section of field and border.
Wher Collection. Formerly: The Textile
Gallery, London. Published: Gantzhorn
1991, p.222, fig.334; Enderlein 1993,
p.91, fig.12; HALI 108, 2000, p.75 (detail);
Milan 1999, p.185, no.166 (with structure
analysis). Exhibited: Milan 1999. (b) 62 x
250cm, section of field and border. Chris
Alexander Collection, Berkeley. Formerly:
The Textile Gallery, London; Wher Collec-
tion. Published: Lefevre, London, 18 June
1982, lot 24; HALI 4/3, 1982, p.52; Gantz-
horn 1991, p.222, fig.334; Alexander Col-
lection 1993, pp.114–15; Bennett 1994,
p.89, fig.7); Milan 1999, p.185, no.166
(cited). (c) 186 x 297cm, section of field
and border. Museum für angewandte
Kunst, Frankfurt, no.12975/3889. Pub-
lished: Museum für angewandte Kunst,
Frankfurt, Neuerwerbungen, 1956–1974,
pl.53; Hubel 1971, p.295, fig.154 (detail,
with structure analysis); Milan 1999, p.185,
no.166 (cited). (d) Incomplete, bottom half,
reduced in width? Whereabouts unknown.
Published: Torres 1942, fig.20; Gamal 1963;
Alexander Collection 1993, pp.114–19
(“Although current dating has tended to
ascribe this carpet a 15th century date, I
am certain in my own mind that this
dating is not correct…This carpet was
probably woven in the 10th or 11th
century and certainly no later than the
12th” [sic].) John Mills has mentioned in
conversation the relationship of the field
design of this carpet to certain ceiling
designs in southern Spain.
28 Two Spanish carpets with rows of
small octagons: (1) The Lionel Harris
thirty octagons carpet. 214 x 460cm.
Victoria & Albert Museum, London,
no.T.104-1912. Formerly: Reportedly
from a convent in Spain; Lionel Harris
& Co., London. Published: Victoria and
Albert Museum 1915, no.345, pl.XXXIX
(detail); Réal [1925], pl.XXI (detail); Kend-
rick and Tattersall 1922, vol.II, pl.77B
(detail); Ferrandis Torres 1942, fig.19;
Gamal 1963; Sherrill 1974, p.540, fig.9;
Mackie 1979, p.93, fig.25; Pagnano 1983,
pl 235; Wearden 1985, p.207, fig.b; Sán-
chez Ferrer 1986, pp.354–5, pl.XXXVII
(with structure analysis); Gantzhorn 1991,
p.232, fig.343; Bennett 2004, p.268.
(2) The Welczeck small octagons carpet.
38 x 70cm, fragment. Whereabouts
unknown. Formely: Count Welczeck
Collection. Published: Madrid 1933,
p.108, no.13, pl.X (detail). Exhibited:
Madrid 1933.
29 E.g., Stories from the Life of St Ursula.
Vittore Carpaccio (Venice 1472 – Capodis-
tria 1526), (1490–96), tempera on canvas.
Gallerie dell’Accademia, Venice.
30 Annunciation with Saint Emidius. Carlo
Crivelli (Venice – about 1430/5 – about
1494), 1486. Egg tempera and oil on
canvas transferred from wood, 207 x
146.7cm. National Gallery, London,
no.NG739.
31 Pentecost. Anonymous [possibly
Garcia Fernandes, Portuguese Royal
painter, died 1565], ca. 1530. Oil on wood,
132.5 x 165cm. Ermida de Nossa Senhora
dos Remédios, Lisbon. Published: Lisbon
2007, p.62, no 6. The carpet has at least
two columns and four rows; at each end
is an extra panel with bird-like creatures
separated by ‘Kufic’-style uprights.
32 The Convent of Santa Ursula large
octagon carpet. (a) Lower part, 103 x
250cm, three octagons. MIAQ, no.CA24.
Formerly: Reportedly from the Convent
of Santa Ursula, Guadalajara; Adolfo Loewi
Collection, Venice, no.7.419b; Benedava,
Paris; Wher Collection. Published: Ferr-
andis Torres 1942, fig.15; Gamal 1963;
Milan, Palazzo Reale, 1974; Ellis 1986,
p.168, fig.6. (b) Upper part, 97 x 390cm,
four octagons. Textile Museum, Washing-
ton DC, 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, Washington
DC. Published: Textile Museum 1953,
p.17, pls. XVI–XVII (with structure analy-
sis); Bunt 1966, fig.46; Weeks and Tre-
ganowan 1969, p.19, right (detail); Wash-
ington DC 1972, no.30 (cited); Sherrill
1974, p.535, fig.5; Mackie 1977, p 26,
fig.15; Mackie 1979, p.91, fig.12; Collins
1988, p.42; Gantzhorn 1991, p.229,
fig.340; Sherrill 1996, p 37, pl.28; Wash-
ington DC 2003, pp.25, 283, fig 23 (with
structure analysis); Bier 2004, pp.12–13.
Exhibited: Washington DC 1972; Wash-
ington DC, 2003, ‘Carpets of Andalusia’.
33 Although the Venetian painter Lorenzo
Lotto depicted carpets of this type only
twice in approximately 250 known works
– both fairly late in his career, in 1542 and
1547 – his name has become irrevocably
linked with them: Sant’ Antonio Elemo-
sinario Giving Alms, 1542, church of SS.
Giovanni e Paolo, Venice (Mills 1981,
p.283, no.11); Family Portrait Group, 1547,
National Gallery, London (Mills 1981,
pp.280–1, no.12). The earliest verifiable
depiction in a European painting of an
Anatolian arabesque rug is in fact in a
painting by the Venetian artist Sebastiano
del Piombo (ca. 1486, Venice – 1547,
Rome), dated 1516, in the National Gal-
lery, Washington DC: Cardinal Bandinello
Sauli, His Secretary and Two Geograph-
ers (Mills 1981, p.281, no.1).
34 The Qatar arabesque carpet. 16th
century. 283 x 549cm. MIAQ, no.TE26.
Formerly: Private collection, Switzerland.
Published: Christie’s, London, 14 October
1999, lot 100; HALI 106, 1999, p.132;
HALI 108, 2000, p.131 (detail).
35 Some Spanish carnation carpets:
(1) The Madrid carnation carpet. (a) 128 x
199cm. Museo del Instituto Valencia de
Don Juan, Madrid. Published: Sánchez
Ferrer 1986, pp.356–7, pl.XXXVIII (with
structure analysis). (b) 50 x 65cm, section.
Whereabouts unknown. Formerly: Livinio
Stuyck Collection, Madrid. Published:
Madrid 1933, p.107, no.9, pl.VIII (detail).
Exhibited: Madrid 1933. (2) The Valverde
carnation carpet. 52 x 62cm, section.
Museo del Instituto Valencia de Don Juan,
Madrid. Formerly: Marquis de Valverde
Collection. Published: Faraday 1927(1),
p.12, fig.12 (detail); Faraday 1929/1990,
p.37, fig.11 (detail); Sánchez Ferrer 1986,
pp 360–1, pl.XL (detail, with structure
analysis). (3) The Ballard carnation carpet.
140 x 275cm. Metropolitan Museum of
Art, New York, no.22.100.124. Formerly:
James F. Ballard Collection. Published:
New York 1923, no.127; Metropolitan
Museum of Art 1973, pp.259, 263, no.155,
fig.224 (with structure analysis). Exhibited:
New York 1923. (4) The Krauth carnation
carpet. 94 x 132cm, section. Museum of
Islamic Art, Berlin, no.KGM 81.382. For-
merly: Consul Krauth, Krefeld, in 1888;
Kunstgewerbemuseum, Berlin. Published:
Museum of Islamic Art 1988, pp.122 and
283, no.144 (with structure analysis). (5)
The Toledo carnation carpet. Private col-
lection, New York. Formerly: Said to be
from a convent chapel, Toledo; Lenygon
& Co., London; Vojtech Blau, New York;
The Textile Gallery, London. (a) 270 x
288cm, bottom half. Published: Thomson
1910, p.109 (detail); Sánchez Ferrer 1986,
pp.364–5, pl.XLII (detail, with structure
analysis); Lefevre, London, 2 April 1976,
lot 7 (with detail on front cover); Sotheby’s,
New York, 7 April 1992, lot 74 (with
structure analysis). (b) 298 x 286cm, top
half. Published: Lefevre, London, 2 April
1976, lot 7 (with detail on front cover);
Sotheby’s, New York, 13 April 1995, lot
139 (with structure analysis). (6) The
Emery carnation carpet. 287 x 620cm.
Cincinnati Museum of Art, no.1966.638.
Formerly: John Emery Collection. Pub-
lished: Adams 1971, p.273 (detail); Cincin-
nati Art Museum Bulletin, vol.9, nos.1–2,
p.55, June 1971; The Art Quarterly,
vol.XXIX, nos 3–4, p.298, 1966; Lefevre,
London, 2 April 1976, lot 7 (cited); Master-
pieces from the Cincinnati Art Museum,
1984, p.42. Almost the pair to the Toledo
carpet. (7) The Spier carnation carpet. 56 x
48cm, section. Victoria & Albert Museum,
London, no.T.335-1920, gift of J. Spier.
Published: Sánchez Ferrer 1986, pp.362–3,
pl.XLI (with structure analysis); Day 1989,
p.324, fig.320.
36 Some Spanish carpets with the ‘Eur-
opean’ carnation pattern: (1) The Marquesa
de Bermejillo del Rey carnation carpet.
MUSEUM COLLECTIONS
435 x 220cm. Museo Nacional de Artes
Decorativas, Madrid, no.19.222. Formerly:
Marquesa de Bermejillo del Rey. Published:
Madrid 1933, p.114, no.47, pl.XXXVIII (det-
ail); Museo Nacional de Artes Decorativas
2002, pp.100–101, pl.27. Exhibited: Madrid
1933. (2) The Welczeck carnation carpet.
153 x 28cm. Whereabouts unknown.
Formerly: Count de Welczeck Collection.
Published: Madrid 1933, p.109, no.18,
pl.XIII (detail); Sánchez Ferrer 1986,
pp.366–7, pl.XLIII (detail, with structure
analysis). Exhibited: Madrid 1933. (3) The
Victoria & Albert Museum carnation carpet.
150 x 292cm. Victoria and Albert Museum,
London, no.T.604-1893. Published: Martin
1908, p.137, fig.350 (detail). (4) The
Welczeck medallion and carnation carpet.
105 x 182cm. Whereabouts unknown.
Formerly: Count de Welczeck Collection.
Published: Madrid 1933, p.109, no.17,
pl.XII. Exhibited: Madrid 1933.
37 Two Spanish carpets with a cloud
design from Chinese Mongol silks:
(1) The Dumbarton Oaks clouds carpet.
152 x 373cm. Textile Museum, Washing-
ton DC, no.1976.10.3. Formerly: Dumbar-
ton Oaks Collection. Published: Washing-
ton DC 1972, no.37 (cited); Mackie 1977,
p.28, 31, fig.17 (with structure analysis);
HALI 1/2, 1978, p.166 (detail); Mackie
1979, p.94, fig.29; New York 1992,
pp.344–5, no.102; Sherrill 1996, p.34,
pl.23 (detail); Bier 1996(1), p.69, fig.32;
Bier 2003(1), p.43, fig.6 (detail); Wash-
ington DC 2003, pp.27, 283, fig.25 (with
structure analysis). Exhibited: Washington
DC 1972; Washington DC 2003. (2) The
Madrid clouds carpet. Section. Museo
Nacional de Artes Decorativas, Madrid,
no.1.742. Published: Museo Nacional de
Artes Decorativas 2002, p.96, pl.24.
Two Turkish rugs with a cloud pattern
from Chinese Mongol silks: (1) The Ala-
eddin Mongol silk pattern rug. Central
Anatolia, 14th century. 121 x 240cm.
Museum of Turkish and Islamic Arts,
Istanbul, no.688. Formerly: Alaeddin
Mosque, Konya. Published: Aslanapa
1961, pl.V (detail); Erdmann 1970, p.96,
fig.26; Aslanapa 1971, pl.XIV; Mackie
1977, fig.18; Yetkin 1981, pl.6 (detail);
[Anon] 1988, pattern code 0108; Aslan-
apa 1988, p.21, pl.7; Day 1989, p.45, top
left; Museum of Turkish and Islamic Arts
1993, p.206, pl.115 (detail); Ölçer et al.
1996, p.7, pl.4. (2) The Bardini Mongol
silk pattern rug. Ushak, late 15th century.
Possibly originally 75 x 350cm. (a) 57.5 x
156cm, section. Museum of Islamic Art,
Berlin, no.1885. 985. Formerly: Wilhelm
Bode; Kunstgewerbemuseum, Berlin.
Published: Enderlein 1979, fig.1; Florence
1999, p.74 (cited); Beselin 2005, p.66,
pl.50 (with structure analysis). (b) 61 x
165cm, section. Bardini Museum, Florence.
Published: Florence 1999, pp.74–5, no.22.
Two Mongol cloud pattern silks, 13th–14th
HALI ISSUE 157 85
MUSEUM COLLECTIONS
century: (1) Metropolitan Museum of Art,
New York, no.46. 156.20. Published:
Mackie 1977, p.1532, fig.19. Mackie
refers to others published by Agnes
Geijer (1963, p.83, figs.1, 2). (2) State
Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg,
no.LT-449. Discovered by V.G. Bock at Al-
Azam, Egypt. Published: Edinburgh 2006,
pp.96–7, no.96.
38 Some Spanish carpets with rows of
lobed medallions: (1) The Costikyan-Pope
lobed-medallion carpet. 81 x 72cm, section
of central field and borders. Textile Mus-
eum, Washington DC, no.R84.3, acquired
1915. Formerly: Kent Costikyan and A.U.
Pope, New York; George Hewitt Myers
Collection, Washington DC. Published:
Textile Museum 1953, p.23, pl.XXI (with
structure analysis); Weeks and Treganowan
1969, p.14, top (detail); Sánchez Ferrer
1986, pp.380–1, pl.L (with structure ana-
lysis); Bier 1992, p.62, fig.12; Washington
DC 2003, pp.21, 283, fig.19 (with structure
analysis). Exhibited: Washington DC 2003,
‘Carpets of Andalusia’. (2) The Loewi lobed-
medallion carpet. 86 x 190cm, section. Tex-
tile Museum, Washington DC, no.R44.2.3
(R84.14), acquired 1931. Formerly: Adolfo
Loewi Collection, Venice; George Hewitt
Myers Collection, Washington DC. Pub-
lished: Textile Museum 1953, p.21, pl.XX
(with structure analysis); Mackie 1979,
p.90, fig.11; Bier 1992, p.63, fig.13; Bier
1996(1), p.69, fig.30; Bier 2003(1), p 42,
fig.1; Washington DC 2003, pp.20, 283,
fig.18 (with structure analysis). Exhibited:
Washington DC, 2003, ‘Carpets of Anda-
lusia’. (3) The Madrid lobed-medallion
carpet. (a) 28 x 70cm, section of field
and border. Instituto de Valencia de
Don Juan, Madrid. Published: Gamal
1963; Sánchez Ferrer 1986, pp.384–5,
pl.LII (detail, with structure analysis).
(b) 87 x 126cm, incomplete. Whereabouts
unknown. Formerly: Count Welczeck
Collection. Published: Madrid 1933, p.107,
no.11, pl.IX. Exhibited: Madrid 1933.
A Spanish carpet with offset rows of
lobed medallions: The Madrid offset
lobed medallion carpet. (a) 22.5 x 80cm,
section of field and border. Instituto de
Valencia de Don Juan, Madrid. Published:
Sánchez Ferrer 1986, pp.382–3, pl.LI
(detail, with structure analysis). (b) 30 x
60cm, section of border and field. Museo
Arquelógico Nacional, Madrid. Published:
Madrid 1933, p.108, no.12, pl.IX. Exhib-
ited: Madrid 1933. (c) Section of field and
border. Whereabouts unknown. Published:
Faraday 1929, p.43, fig.25, top; Faraday
1990, p.49, fig.25, 20 x 25cm, 19 x 15cm,
20 x 9cm. Private collection, Los Angeles.
Formerly: Alcala Subastas, Madrid; The
Textile Gallery, London.
39 Some Spanish carpets with palmettes
in an interlaced lattice: (1) The Charleston
interlaced lattice carpet. 75 x 142cm,
fragmentary, incomplete in length.
Wher Collection. Formerly: Charleston
86 HALI ISSUE 157
Museum, Charleston; The Textile Gallery,
London. Published: Sotheby’s, New
York, 24 September 1991, lot 1 (with
structure analysis); HALI 60, 1991, p.154.
(2) The Benguiat interlaced lattice carpet.
165 x 234cm. Textile Museum, Washing-
ton DC, no.R44.2.1 (R84.8). Formerly:
Vital Benguiat Collection, George Hewitt
Myers Collection, Washington DC, 1920.
Published: Amercian Art Association 1920,
no.317; Textile Museum 1953, p.19,
pls.XVIII–XIX (with structure analysis);
Weeks and Treganowan 1969, p.17;
Washington DC 1972, no.31; Mackie
1979, p.90, fig.9; London 1983, pp.36,
52, no.5; Wearden 1985, p.208, fig.a;
Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th edition;
Ellis 1985, p.63, fig.4; Sánchez Ferrer
1986, pp.388–9, pl.LIV (with structure
analysis); Collins 1988, p.44; Faraday
1990, p 42, pl.VI (detail); Sherrill 1996,
pp.28, 40, pl.34; Bier 1996(1), p.69, fig.31;
Bier 1996(2); HALI 92, 1997, p.102, fig.11;
Sherrill 1999, p.216, figs.1, 2 (detail);
Washington DC 2003, pp.29, 284, fig.27
(with structure analysis). Exhibited: Wash-
ington DC 1972; London 1983; Washing-
ton DC, 2003, ‘Carpets of Andalusia’.
(3) The Weissberger interlaced lattice
carpet. 125 x 215cm. Museo Nacional
de Artes Decorativas, Madrid, no.3.407.
Formerly: Don José A. de Weissberger
Collection, Madrid, no.3. Published: Mad-
rid 1933, p.108, no.14, pl.XI; Campana
1969, p.30, fig.12 (detail); Sánchez Ferrer
1986, pp.386–7, pl.LIII (with structure
analysis); Museo Nacional de Artes
Decorativas 1996, pp.36–7, no.1 (with
structure analysis); Museo Nacional
de Artes Decorativas 2002, pp.82–3.
Exhibited: Madrid 1933. (4) The Charlat
interlaced lattice carpet. 239 x 521cm.
Metroplitan Museum of Art, New York,
Cloisters Collection, no.61.49. Formerly:
Sidney A. Charlat Collection. Published:
Faraday 1927(2), p.88, fig 3 (detail); Fara-
day 1929, p.38, fig.13 (detail); Metropoli-
tan Museum of Art 1958, fig.13; Dimand
1964, fig.13; Weeks and Treganowan 1969,
p.13, bottom (detail); Metropolitan Mus-
eum of Art 1973, pp.160–1, 262–3, no.153,
fig.222 (with structure analysis); Sherrill
1974, p.539, pl.II (detail); Pagnano 1983,
pl.233; Sánchez Ferrer 1986, pp.392–3,
pl.LVI (with structure analysis); Faraday
1990, p.40, fig.13 (detail). (5) The Pratt
interlaced lattice carpet. 150 x 241cm.
Brooklyn Museum, New York, no.43.24.6.
Formerly: Mr & Mrs Frederick Pratt. Pub-
lished: Bennett 1987, p.34, left; HALI 92,
1997, p.98, fig.1. (6) The Victoria & Albert
Museum interlaced lattice carpet. 162 x
228cm, reduced in length. Victoria & Albert
Museum, London, no.T.131-1905. Pub-
lished: Réal, [1925], pl.VII (detail); Kendrick
and Tattersall 1922, vol.II, pl.79; Victoria
and Albert Museum 1924, p.25, pl.XIX
(with structure analysis); Thomson 1925,
p.232; Faraday 1929, p.38, fig.15; Schlos-
ser 1963, p.175, fig.101; Sánchez Ferrer
1986, pp.390–1, pl.LV (with structure ana-
lysis); Faraday 1990, p.40, fig.15. (7) The
Kalebdjian interlaced lattice carpet. 152 x
254cm, reconstituted from pieces of the
original. Musée Historique des Tissus,
Lyons, no.27.658, acquired 1905. Form-
erly: Kalebdjian, Paris. Published: Bennett
1987, p.32, fig.XIX (with structure analy-
sis); Day 1989, p.325, fig.322; Faraday
1990, p.39, pl.V. (8) The Myers-Bernheimer
interlaced lattice carpet. (a) 184 x 219cm,
incomplete in length. Textile Museum,
Washington DC, no.R44.4.2 (R84.10).
Formerly: George Hewitt Myers Collect-
ion, acquired 1927. Published: American
Art Association, New York, 30 April 1927,
lot 1040, p.335; Textile Museum 1953,
p.11, pls.IX–XI (with structure analysis);
Weeks and Treganowan 1969, p.13, top
(detail); Washington DC 1972, no.35 (cited);
Mackie 1977, p.25, fig.13; Sánchez Ferrer
1986, pp.394–5, pl.LVII (with structure
analysis); Sherrill 1996, p.41, pl.36; Isaac-
son 1998, p.79, fig.2; Bier 2003(1), p.42,
fig.3; Washington DC 2003, pp.28, 284,
fig.26 (with structure analysis). Exhibited:
Washington DC 1972; Washington DC,
2003, ‘Carpets of Andalusia’. Blue ground.
Lower part has a different design, similar
to borders of armorial carpets. (b) 104 x
108cm, section. Wher Collection. Form-
erly: Bernheimer Collection, Munich,
acquired 1951; The Textile Gallery,
London. Published: Bernheimer 1959,
pl.121; Christie’s, London, 14 February
1996, lot 75 (with structure analysis);
HALI 86, 1996, p.133; Milan 1999, p.192,
no.165. Exhibited: Milan 1999. (9) The
Perez interlaced lattice carpet. Where-
abouts unknown. Formerly: Perez,
Amsterdam. Published: Faraday 1927(2),
p.89, fig.4; Bunt 1966, fig 47. (10) The
Welczeck interlaced lattice carpet 1. 157
x 90cm, section of field and border. Where-
abouts unknown. Formerly: Count Welc-
zeck Collection. Published: Madrid 1933,
pp.108–9, no.16, pl.VII. Exhibited: Madrid
1933. (11) The McMullan interlaced lattice
carpet. Section. Metropolitan Museum of
Art, New York, no.57.150.90. Formerly:
Joseph V. McMullan Collection. Published:
Metropolitan Museum of Art 1973, p.258
(cited); Bennett 1987, p.33 (cited). (12) The
Welczeck interlaced lattice carpet 2. 115 x
218cm. Whereabouts unknown. Formerly:
Count Welczeck Collection. Published:
Madrid 1933, p.108, no.15 (cited). Exhib-
ited: Madrid 1933.
40 The Reves palmettes in ogival lattice
silk carpet. 197 x 118cm. Wendy & Emery
Reves Collection, Dallas Museum of Art,
no.1985.R.87. Published: Philadelphia
Museum of Art 1988, p.256 (cited). The
Dallas museum has ten Spanish carpets
acquired by the Reves from Tarica in Paris.
41 The Unger palmettes in diamond-
shaped lattice silk carpet. 58 x 76cm,
fragment. MIAQ, no.TE12. Formerly:
Unger Collection, Mexico; The Textile
Gallery, London; Wher Collection.
Published: Sotheby’s, London, 10
December 1992, lot 4.
42 The Sasson confronting lions brocade
design carpet. 15th to 16th century. 226
x 442cm, incomplete in length. Victoria &
Albert Museum, London, no.T.39-1896.
Formerly: J. Sasson & Co., London.
Published: Martin 1908, p.135, fig.345
(detail); Thomson 1910, p.IIA (detail);
Victoria and Albert Museum 1915/1920,
no.336, pl.XXXVIII (detail); Réal [1925],
pl.IX (detail); Kendrick and Tattersall 1922,
vol.I, p.70 (cited); Faraday 1927(2), p.89,
fig.5 (detail); Faraday 1929, p.39, fig.16
(detail); Victoria and Albert Museum 1931,
no.336, pl.XLIV (detail); Sánchez Ferrer
1986, pp.418–9, pl.LXIX (detail, with
structure analysis); Faraday 1990, p.41,
fig.16 (detail); Woolley 1995, p.72, fig.7
(detail); Sherrill 1996, p.45, pl.41 (detail).
43 Three early Spanish carpets with
wreaths: (1) The Paris wreaths in com-
partments carpet. (a) 102 x 289cm, three
complete compartments with end panels,
reduced in size from a larger carpet. MIAQ,
no.TE106. Formerly: Paris art market; New
York art market. Published: Christie’s, Lon-
don, 16 April 2007, lot 46; Ghereh, 42,
2007, p.79. (b) Approx. 100 x 300cm, three
wreaths. Whereabouts unknown. Form-
erly: Paris art market. (2) The Böhler
wreaths in compartments carpet. 212
x 100cm, section with two complete
wreaths. Museum of Islamic Art, Berlin,
no.KGM 94.413. Formerly: Böhler, Munich;
Kunstgewerbemuseum, Berlin. Published:
Museum of Islamic Art 1988, pp.121,
280, no.140 (with structure anlaysis);
Taylor 1990, p.105, fig.11. (3) The Deering
wreaths in compartments carpet. 198 x
457cm, ten complete and two partial
wreaths. Villa Vizcaya, Dade County Art
Museum, Miami, no.DC2014/ DR33. For-
merly: James Deering Collection, Miami,
bought at auction in New York, 7 January
1914. Published: Taylor 1990, p.104, fig.8.
44 The Mikaeloff wreaths carpet. 16th
century. (a) Central section, 140 x 131cm,
four complete wreaths. MIAQ. Formerly:
Galerie Yves Mikaeloff, Paris. Published:
Christie’s, London, 16 October 1997, lot
101. (b) Central section with borders, 173
x 208cm, four wreaths. Whereabouts
unknown. Published: Sotheby’s, New York,
5 December 1987, lot 55 (with structure
analysis); HALI 38, 1988, p.92; Christie’s,
London, 10 April 2008, lot 94. Formerly:
New England art dealer, 1987; private
collection, Texas.
45 Louisa Bellinger analysed the Textile
Museum collection in 1953. Structure
analysis can now be much more detailed.
46 Wall paintings are said to show that
weaving with coloured wools to make
covers and tapestries may well have
been practised in one of the oldest urban
settlements at Çatal Hüyük in Anatolia,
almost 9,000 years ago (Mellaart 1967;
Maréchal 1985; Mellaart et al. 1989).
47 Looped pile fragments discovered at
Deir el-Bahri. See Petzel 1987.
48 The Fustat lion rug. 165 x 91cm. Fine
Arts Museums of San Francisco. Formerly:
reportedly excavated at Fustat (old Cairo)
in the 1920s; private collection, Paris;
Soustiel, Paris; The Textile Gallery and
Bashir Mohammed, London. Published:
HALI 32, 1986, p.6; Norris 1987, p.54;
Wilkinson 1987, p.63. C-14 dated bet-
ween the second half of the 7th and
the end of the 9th century AD.
49 Examples survive in several major
museum collections. The largest single
group is in Sweden (Lamm 1937; Stock-
holm 1985). The Benaki Museum in Athens
has thirty fragments, many with knotted-
pile but some in looped-pile technique
(Theologou 2008). Other fragments: Mus-
eum of Islamic Art, Cairo; Textile Museum,
Washington DC; Metropolitan Museum of
Art, New York; Keir Collection, Ham; Lloyd
Cotsen Collection, Los Angeles.
50 Thompson (2006, p.123), citing Robert
Irwin and Donald Little’s research on Arabic
references during this period (Irwin 1986;
Little 1984; Little 1986; Little 1998).
51 Thompson (2006, pp.126–7, fig.108
and note 107) illustrates a small border
fragment from Fustat with a Kufic-style
border and asymmetrical knotting and
attributes it to the Mamluk period, prob-
ably 14th century Egypt. The attribution
appears to be based on its structure,
even though Thompson expresses doubts
about certain aspects of the analysis by
Hoskins (2002) on which he relies. From
the illustration the warps look like Z2S
wool, not S-spun linen as recorded. It is
hard to see the spin of the pile yarn, and
the spin of the wefts is not discernable in
the illustration. The carpet should be re-
examined before attempting to make a
serious attribution as to its origin.
52 Two mid-15th century fragments
found at Fustat: (1) 22 x 17.5cm. National
Museum, Stockholm, no.231/1939. Exca-
vated in Fustat, Old Cairo. Published:
Lamm 1937, pp.110–11, no.19; Stock-
holm 1985, p 49, no.19 (with structure
analysis); Suriano 1998, p.81, fig.22;
Suriano 2004, p.104, fig.16. (2) 18.5 x
21.5cm. National Museum, Stockholm,
no.232/1939. Excavated in Fustat, Old
Cairo. Published: Lamm 1937, pp.110–11,
no.18; Ellis 1967, p.15, fig.22; Stockholm
1985, p.48, no.18 (with structure analy-
sis); Suriano 2004, p.104, fig.16.
53 Sarre (1921) and Erdmann (1930, 1931)
attributed them with confidence to Egypt.
54 E.g. Housego 1986; Suriano 2004.
55 See note 62 below.
56 The Medici Mamluk carpet with three
medallions. 409 x 1088cm. Argenti Mus-
eum, Pitti Palace, Florence, no.5279. For-
merly: Grand Duke Cosimo I de’ Medici;
Medici Grand Dukes, Florence. Published:
Boralevi 1983, p.282, fig.1 (with structure
analysis); London 1983, pp.41, 61–2, no.21;
Black 1985, p.62, fig.b; Housego 1986,
p.231 (cited, with structure analysis);
Boralevi 1986, pp 206–7, fig.1; Bösch 1991,
p.348, no.3 (cited, with structure analysis);
Venice 1993, pp.326–7, no.191; HALI
108, 2000, p.4 and front cover (detail);
Museum für Angewandte Kunst 2001,
p.42 (cited); Florence 2002, p.142, no.115;
HALI 146, 2006, p.51 (detail); Prato 2006,
p.51; Okumura 2007, pp.254–7, no.74 (with
details and structure analysis); Spallanzani
2007, p.55 (cited); Spallanzani [i.p.], fig.2.
Exhibited: Venice 1993; Florence 2002;
Prato 2006. One of the largest antique
oriental carpets known; entered the Medici
archives between 1561 and 1571.
57 Boralevi 1986: “Un tappeto Cairino
lungo b.19 et largo b.7 mandato o Firenze
a quella Guardaroba a di 29 di Dicembre
1587.” The carpet is identified not only
by its dimensions but also by the invent-
ory number painted on the back. Spallan-
zani 2007, p.55: The Medici carpet was
taken from Florence to Rome in the 16th
century and then returned to Florence. It
“is not mentioned in the inventories of
1553–4 or of 1560, but can be identified
in some documents dated 1571–2”. This
does not prove that it was made in Cairo,
but it shows that in the latter part of the
16th century it was thought to have come
from there. Thompson (2006, p.165, note
150) expands on this and rightly questions
the supposition it was without doubt made
in Cairo: two other carpets listed in the
inventory are almost certainly mislabelled,
one as ‘Cairene’, the other as ‘Turkish’.
Both would appear to be Iranian. Perhaps
one was described as Cairene because it
reached Italy via Alexandria, and the other
had passed through Istanbul (many
carpets described as ‘Iranian’ passed
through Istanbul at that time).
58 The San Rocco Mamluk carpet with
three medallions. 375 x 970cm. Arcicon-
fraternita di San Rocco, Venice. Published:
Curatola 1986, p.124 (detail); Bösch 1991,
p.354, no 21 (cited); Okumura 2007,
pp.236–7, no.66; Paris 2006, p.178, no.81;
Venice 2007, p.190, no.64; Denny 2007,
pp.178, 323, cat.81. Probably purchased
after 1541.
59 Pinner 1986, pp.293–4.
60 I have examined 92 of the 136 Mamluk-
style carpets for which I have images
(another 17 are recorded in the literature
but not illustrated). I have sorted them in
the first instance by period and then by
pattern schemes. They comprise: two
Fustat fragments (excluding the symmet-
rically knotted example in Alexandria pro-
posed by W.G. Thomson); nine ‘First
period’, probably before 1500; 28 ‘Second
period’, probably first quarter of the 16th
century; 98 ‘Third period’, probably second
and third quarter of the 16th century; eight
‘Transitional’, with Mamluk and Ottoman
designs, probably second half of the 16th
century. Kurt Erdmann, whose work on
these carpets remains the most detailed
to date, sorted Mamluk carpets into groups
by their compositions in order to identify
them more easily. His classification has
been followed and adapted by other
authors. Following Erdmann and Bösch, I
have arranged the Mamluk carpets in my
archive as follows. A, Multiple medallions:
A1 Five medallions (1); A2 Three medal-
lions (24). B, Single central medallion: B1
Bands with two sections (1); B2 Bands
with three or more sections (21); B3 Bands
with three or more sections and palms/
cypresses (18); B4 Undivided bands with
palms/cypresses (7); B5 Undivided bands
other (21). C, Single central medallion (no
bands): C1 Corner motifs (10); C2 No cor-
ner motifs (4). D, Plain field: D1 Plain field
with blazon (3); D2 Related examples with-
out blazon (2). E, Directional designs (3).
F, Circular (3). G, Unclassifiable fragments
(8). H, Unsorted, no images on file (17).
I, Mamluk-Ottoman transitional (7). J, Frag-
ments from 15th century carpets (2).
61 The Salvadori three-medallion Mamluk
carpet. 153 x 218cm, about half the original
width of an end section. Victoria & Albert
Museum, London, no.T.150-1908. Form-
erly: Giuseppe Salvadori, Florence (acq-
uired in Italy). Published: Ellis 1967, p.8,
fig.12 (with structure analysis); Thomp-
son 1980, p.14, fig.2; King 1981, p.36
(cited); Pinner and Franses 1981, p.38,
fig.1 (detail), p.42, fig.1 (with structure
analysis); London 1983, p.59, no.17;
Housego 1986, p.232, fig.19 (with struc-
ture analysis); Gantzhorn 1991, pp.203–4,
figs.311–13; Suriano 2004, p.103, fig.14.
Exhibited: London 1983.
62 Three Mamluk carpets with blazons:
(1) The Bardini Mamluk carpet with
blazons. (a) 209–23 x 221–6cm, part of
field and border from left hand side of a
very large carpet. Textile Museum, Wash-
ington DC, no.1965.49.1. Formerly: Stefano
Bardini, Florence; Heidi Vollmöller, Switz-
erland, 1965. Published: Ellis 1967, p.2,
fig.1, p.5, and front cover and fig.10 (detail,
with structure analysis; Ellis suggests the
carpet was once about 450 x 1100cm);
Camman 1972, p.48 (cited); Washington
DC 1980, pp.84–5, no.6 (with structure
analysis); Washington DC 1981, p.228
(cited); Pinner and Franses 1981, p.42
(cited); Ellis 1981, p.67, fig.3; London
1983, p.60, no.18; Ellis 1985, p.62, fig.1;
Housego 1986, p.232, fig.17 (with struct-
ure analysis); Boralevi 1986, p.209 (cited);
Curatola 1989, p.253; Bösch 1991, pp.378
–9, no.88; Isaacson 1991, p.44; Gantzhorn
1991, p.369, fig.504; Bösch 1996, p.92,
fig.10; Suriano 1996, no.13; Suriano 1998,
pp.74, 76, figs.3, 5; Museum für Ange-
wandte Kunst 2001, p 38 (cited); Farnham
2001, p.84, fig.23; HALI 129, 2003, p.65,
fig.2 (detail); Bier 2003(2), pp.3, 282, fig.2
(with structure analysis); Istanbul 2007(2),
MUSEUM COLLECTIONS
p.83, fig.1 (detail). Exhibited: Washington
DC, Textile Museum, ‘Mamluk and Otto-
man Carpets’, 1970; Washington DC 1980;
Washington DC 1981; London 1983; Wash-
ington DC 1991–92; Washington DC, Tex-
tile Museum, ‘Oriental Carpet Classics: A
Tribute to Charles Grant Ellis’, 1997; Wash-
ington DC, Textile Museum, ‘Mamluk Rugs
from Egypt’, March to September 2003.
(b-r) 17 fragments, approximately two-
thirds of the original carpet, 456 x 945cm.
Bardini Museum, Florence, nos.526–542.
Published: Florence 1996, pp.9, 11, 19
and front cover (fragment); Suriano 1996;
Suriano 1998, p.74, fig.3 (all 17 fragments
with TM fragment, reconstruction), p.76,
fig.5 (one fragment, no.12/526, 228 x
219cm, with TM fragment), p.78, fig.13
(two fragments, nos.3/528, 215 x 269cm,
and 2/527, 228 x 267cm), p.79, fig.14
(detail); Florence 1999, front cover (detail),
pp.24–7, no.1 (with structure analysis);
Boralevi 1999, p.79 (details of one frag-
ment); Grube, 2000, p.82, figs.1, 2 (detail);
Museum für Angewandte Kunst 2001,
p.38 (cited); Florence, 2002, p.139, no.112;
Istanbul 2003, pp.86–7, no.10 (with struc-
ture analysis); Suriano 2004, p.103, fig.15
(one fragment, no.3/358, 215 x 269cm);
Thompson 2006, pp.128, 130 (details);
Spallanzani 2007, p.231, pl.94. Exhibited:
Florence 1996; Florence 1999; Florence
2002; Istanbul 2003. (2) The Barbieri Mam-
luk carpet with blazons. 341 x 415cm,
probably reduced in length. Metropolitan
Museum of Art, New York, no.1970.135.
Formerly: Piero Barbieri Collection, Genoa;
Joseph Pulitzer Collection, 1970. Published:
Mayer 1933, pl.LXII, pp.29ff., nos.1, 4, 9,
14; Ellis 1967, p.6, no.9, fig.11 (with struc-
ture analysis); Housego 1986, p.236 (cited,
with structure analysis); Bösch 1991,
p.380, no.90; Suriano 1998, p.75, figs.4
and 16 (detail); Suriano 2004, p.96, fig.4;
Thompson 2006, p.127 (cited); Okumura
2007, pp.214–7, no.59 (with details and
structure analysis). (3) The Bruschettini
Mamluk carpet with blazons. Three frag-
ments, 130 x 190cm, 195 x 358cm, 252
x 358cm. Bruschettini Foundation, Genoa,
no.T9. Formerly: Garry Muse, Tucson, and
The Textile Gallery, London. Published:
Suriano 1998, p.75 and note 9 (cited).
Some related Mamluk carpets without
blazons:( 1) The Kelekian six-colour
Mamluk carpet with large star medallion.
36 x 160cm, section of field and small
piece of border. Textile Museum, Washing-
ton DC, no.R16.2.9 (R7.18), acquired 1952.
Formerly: Kelekian Collection; K. Beshir.
Published: Erdmann 1940, p.67 (cited);
Textile Museum 1957, p.29, and pl.XVI
(with structure analysis); Housego 1986,
p.239 (cited, with structure analysis); Bösch
1991, p.377, no.84 (cited, with structure
analysis); Bier 1991, p.123, fig.2; Bier
2003(2), pp.13, 282, fig.12 (with structure
analysis). Exhibited: Washington DC 1991
–92; Washington DC, Textile Museum,
HALI ISSUE 157 87
MUSEUM COLLECTIONS
‘Mamluk Rugs from Egypt’, March to
September 2003. (2) The London Mamluk
carpet with plain field and star. D. Katz,
USA. Formerly: The Textile Gallery, London.
63 Two other first-period Mamluk carpets:
(1) The Vienna Mamluk carpet with three
medallions. Twelve fragments, represent-
ing over three-quarters of the carpet (app-
roximately 223 x 550cm). Österreichisches
Museum für angewandte Kunst, Vienna,
no.T8348, acquired in 1922. Formerly:
Habsburg Imperial Collection, Vienna. Pub-
lished: Sarre and Trenkwald 1926, vol.I,
pls.49, 51 (two sections, shown as two
separate carpets); Museum für Kunst und
Industrie 1929, p.110, no.33; Schuette
1935, fig.12; Troll 1937(1), pp.221ff.
(design reconstituted); Troll 1937(2), fig.2
(with structure analysis); Bode and Kühnel
1955, p.65, fig.45; Erdmann 1961, pp.85,
103 (cited); Ellis 1967, p.10, fig.15 (with
structure analysis); Völker 1979, p.13,
fig.1; Housego 1986, p.236 (cited, with
structure analysis); Bösch 1991, p.349,
no.5 (cited, with structure analysis); Gan-
tzhorn 1991, pp.198–201, figs.298–304;
Museum für Angewandte Kunst 2001,
pp.36–41, no.1 (with details and structure
analysis); HALI 125, 2002, p.43 (detail,
with structure analysis); Suriano 2004,
p.102, fig.11; Okumura 2007, pp.246–7,
no.70 (with structure analysis). Exhibited:
Vienna, Museum für angewandte Kunst,
‘Symmetric and Asymmetric Knots:
Oriental Knotted Carpets from the MAK
Collection’, 11 December 2002 to 23
March 2003. (2) The Salvadori three-
medallion Mamluk carpet. 153 x 218cm,
about half the original width of an end
section. Victoria & Albert Museum, Lon-
don, no.150-1908. Formerly: Giuseppe
Salvadori, Florence (acquired in Italy). Pub-
lished: Ellis 1967, p.8, fig.12 (with struct-
ure analysis); Thompson 1980, p.14,
fig.2; King 1981, p 36 (cited); Pinner and
Franses 1981, p.38, fig.1 (detail), p.42,
fig.1 (with structure analysis); London
1983, p.59, no.17; Housego 1986, p.232,
fig.19 (with structure analysis); Bösch
1991, p.349, no.6 (cited, with structure
analysis); Gantzhorn 1991, p.203–4,
figs.311–13; Murray 2000, p.91, fig.11;
Museum für Angewandte Kunst 2001,
p.38 (cited); Suriano 2004, p.103, fig.14;
Paris 2004, pp.106–7, no.12 (with struc-
ture analysis); Gilles and Franses 2005,
p.93, fig.7; Okumura 2007, pp.222–3,
no.61 (with structure analysis). Exhibited:
London 1983; Paris 2004.
64 Transitional Mamluk-Ottoman carpets:
(1) The Berlin lattice carpet. 128 x 185cm.
Museum of Islamic Art, Berlin, no.KGM
1884.899. Published: Erdmann 1940,
fig.18; Textile Museum 1957, p.39 (cited);
Essen 1961, no.393; Berlin 1967, no.85;
Museum of Islamic Art 1988, pp.65, 213,
no.70 (with structure analysis); Sotheby’s,
New York, 27 September 2000, p.26
(cited). Exhibited: Essen 1961; Berlin 1967.
88 HALI ISSUE 157
(2) The Munich lattice carpet. 194 x 230cm.
Bayerisches Nationalmuseum, Munich.
Published: Erdmann 1940, fig.19; Textile
Museum 1957, p.39 (cited); Hubel 1971,
p.287, fig.150 (with structure analysis).
(3) The Mercer lattice carpet. 239 x 338cm.
Franz Bausback, Mannheim. Formerly:
Mercer Trust. Published: HALI 111, 2000,
p.124; Sotheby’s, New York, 27 Septem-
ber 2000, lot 48 (with structure analysis);
Maastricht 2002, pp.178–9; HALI 120,
2002, p 69; HALI 151, 2007, p.48. Exhib-
ited: Maastricht 2002. (4) The Edirne floral
lattice carpet. 384 x 317cm. Museum of
Turkish and Islamic Arts, Istanbul, no.172.
Formerly: Hazinedar Sinan Bey Mosque,
Edirne. Published: Museum of Turkish and
Islamic Arts 1999, vol.1, p.30, pl.47 (with
structure analysis). (5) The Benguiat floral
medallion on lattice carpet. 138 x 188cm.
Textile Museum, Washington DC,
no.R16.3.2 (R.7.6), acquired 1932. Form-
erly: Vitall & Leopold Benguiat Collection.
Published: American Art Association 1932,
lot 7(?); Textile Museum 1957, p.39, and
pls.I, bottom right, and XXII (with struct-
ure analysis); Erdmann 1961, pl.3, ill.7;
Thompson 1980, p.12 (cited); Ellis 1981,
p.68, fig.4; Yetkin 1981, p.106, ill.65;
Sothebys, New York, 27 September 2000,
p.26 (cited); Bier 2003(2), pp.9, 282, fig.8
(with structure analysis); Okumura 2007,
pp.218–21, no 60 (with details and struct-
ure analysis). Exhibited: Washington DC,
Textile Museum, ‘Mamluk and Ottoman
Carpets’, May to September 1970; Wash-
ington DC 1991–92; Washington DC, Tex-
tile Museum, ‘Mamluk Rugs from Egypt’,
March to September 2003. (6) The Munich
Ottoman carpet in Mamluk format. 131 x
192cm. Private collection, Munich. Form-
erly: Ostler, Munich. Published: Denny
1979, p.6. (7) The Bernheimer medallion
ringed by palmettes carpet. 150 x 266cm.
Whereabouts unknown. Formerly: Bern-
heimer Collection, Munich, acquired 1921.
Published: Christie’s, London, 14 February
1996, p.103, lot 99 (with structure analy-
sis). (8) The Bernheimer rows of flowers
carpet. 171 x 109cm, section. Private col-
lection, Germany. Formerly: Otto Bern-
heimer Collection, Munich (until 1961).
Published: Munich 1985, pp.20–21, no.3.
65 Thompson 2006, p.164, note 148.
Some authors have erroneously reversed
the order of the groups (Mackie 1983,
p.259; Thompson 2006, p.164, note 149),
suggesting that the more simplified ver-
sions are the earliest. This does not make
sense, because several of the rugs with
simpler designs and only three colours
relate through their border patterns and
colours to the rugs with Ottoman designs
that continued to be made in the same
workshops as the Mamluk-style rugs in
the second half of the 16th century.
66 Housego 1986.
67 Thompson 1980.
68 Suriano 2004, p.96.
69 Ellis 1967, pp.2–20.
70 The oldest illustration of what may be
a Mamluk rug is in Vittore Carpaccio’s
Betrothal of the Virgin, ca. 1504–1507,
but firm identification is not possible.
Pinacoteca di Brera, Milan, no.169.
Published: Erdmann 1930, p.14 (cited).
The field design appears somewhat
Mamluk in style, but the borders are
unlike those on any surviving carpet.
Mamluk-style carpets from Cairo depic-
ted in European paintings: (1) The Fish-
erman Presenting St Mark’s Ring to the
Doge. Paris Bordone (1495–1570), pain-
ted circa 1540 (not 1534, as stated con-
tinuously in the carpet literature and else-
where). Galleria dell’Accademia, Venice.
Published: Thompson 2006, p.130, fig.110
(detail). (2a-e) Portraits of Five Young Ladies
of the House of Martinegro. Moretto da
Brescia (or school of), before 1543.
Frescos, Palazzo Martinegro-Salvadego,
Brescia. Published: Erdmann 1940, fig.9;
Erdmann 1962, p.18, fig.3; Cavallo 1962,
p.66, fig.3; Mills 1981, p.53, fig.A2; London
1983, back endpaper; Thompson 2006,
pp.132–3, figs.112a–e; Denny 2007, p.178,
fig.4. (3) Portrait of a Lady. Titian (Tiziano
Vecelli, ca. 1485–1576). Kunsthistorisches
Museum, Vienna, no.33. Published: Erd-
mann 1957, p.582 (cited). (4) Portrait of a
Man. Attributed to G.B. Moroni, mid-16th
century. Whereabouts unknown. Published:
Hôtel Drouot, Paris, 18 December 1920;
Mills 1981, p.53–4, fig.A3. (5) Family Por-
trait. Sofonisba Anguissola (1532–1625),
1560. Formerly: Galerie Raczynski, Berlin.
Published: Lessing 1877, pl.21 (detail).
(6) The Last Supper. Ambrosius Franken
the Elder (Flanders, 1544–1618). Koninklijk
Museum voor Schone Kunsten, Antwerp,
no.136. Published: Philadelphia Museum
of Art 1988, p.123 (cited).(7) The Doge
Pietro Loredan Praying for the End of
Famine. Jacopo and/or Domenico Tintor-
etto, probably 1581–84. Palazzo Ducale,
Venice. Published: Erdmann 1930, p.14
(cited); Mills 1981, pp.53–4, fig.A4.(8) The
Doge Mocenigo Praying (Giving Thanks
to the Redeemer/Adoring the Saviour).
Jacopo and/or Domenico Tintoretto, prob-
ably 1581–84. Palazzo Ducale, Venice.
Published: Erdmann 1930, p.14 (cited).
(9) Painting by Tintoretto at the Palazzo
Ducale, Venice [information from Dr A.
Bruschettini, January 2008]. (10) Painting
by Palma Il Giovane. [information from Dr
A. Bruschettini, January 2008]. (11) Portrait
of a Lady. Leandro Bassano (Leandro
da Ponte, 1557–1622). Whereabouts
unknown. Published: Sotheby’s, London,
13 December 1978, lot 37; Mills 1981,
pp.53–4, fig.A5. (12) Portrait of Daniel
Hopfer II. Leandro Bassano, ca. 1595.
Whereabouts unknown. Formerly: Fairfax
Murray collection. Published: Murray auc-
tion, Berlin, November 1929; Erdmann
1930, p.14 (cited); Mills 1981, pp.53–4,
no.A6 (cited). (13) Portrait of Alvisi Cor-
radini. Leandro Bassano.Museo Civico,
Padua. Published: Mills 1981, pp.53–4,
no.A7 (cited).(14) The Duff Family. 16th/
17th century? Duke of Fife. Published:
Beattie 1964, p.7, fig.3; Philadelphia Mus-
eum of Art 1988, p.123 (cited). (15) Portrait
of the Family of Grand Duke Leopold I of
Tuscany. Johann Zoffany, dated 1777.
Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna,
no.3771. Published: Sarre 1924, p.25.
71 Thompson 2006, p.130, figs.110, 111.
72 The Vienna three-medallion silk Mamluk
carpet. 290 x 540cm. Österreichisches
Museum für angewandte Kunst, Vienna,
no.T8332. Formerly: Habsburg Imperial
collection, Vienna. Published: Riegl 1891,
no.360; Vienna 1892, p.12 (cited); Riegl
1892, p.324, pl.XXIX; Sarre 1910, p.479,
fig.16; Munich 1910, no.166, pl.77; Munich
1912, no.166, pl.77; Sarre 1921, p.77, fig.5;
Kühnel 1913/14, p.452; Bode and Kühnel
1914, p.142, fig.82; Sarre 1920, p.445,
fig.3; Vienna 1920, p.14, no.14; Sarre 1921,
p 77, fig.5; Bode and Kühnel 1922, p 48
(cited) and fig 88 (detail); Sarre 1924, p.19,
fig.1; Glück and Diez 1925, p.385; Rief-
stahl 1925, p.159; Sarre and Trenkwald
1926, vol.I, pl.44, and pls.45, 46 (details);
Migeon 1927, p.398 (cited); Museum für
Kunst und Industrie 1929, p.109, no.29;
Troll 1930, p.253 (cited); Neugebauer and
Troll 1930, pl.25 (detail); Erdmann 1930,
figs.2, 3; Troll 1937(2), fig.6 (detail, with
structure analysis); Erdmann 1940, p.66
(cited); Museum für Angewandte Kunst
1951, pls.40–41; Mazzini 1952, p.333
(detail); Bode and Kühnel 1955, 1958, 1970,
1984, fig.48 (detail); Erdmann 1955, fig.11
(detail); Heinz 1956, fig.7; Textile Museum
1957, pp.31, 33, 35, 37 (cited); Erdmann
1960, pl.II (detail); Heinz 1962, p.42, fig.4;
Schlosser 1963, pp.170–1, pl.96; Reichel
1969, pp.218–9, no.61 (detail); Metropolitan
Museum of Art 1973, p.194 (cited); Ellis
1974, p.36 (cited); Erdmann 1975, pl.II;
Hein 1977, fig.2; Keir Collection 1978, p.66
(cited); Tolomeo 1979, pl.XIV (detail); Cur-
atola 1981, no.32 (detail); Denny 1982,
p.334, figs.15, 18; Zipper 1982, p.43; Field
1983, pp.40ff. (cited); Pagnano 1983, pl.26;
Black 1985, p.62, fig.a; ICOC 1986, p.26;
Housego 1986, p.239 (cited, with struct-
ure analysis); De Unger 1986 (with struct-
ure analysis); Gantzhorn 1991, pp.155,
fig.224; Bösch 1991, p.348, no.2 (cited,
with structure analysis); Venice 1991, p.35
(cited); Milanese 1992, p.68; Scott 1993,
p.124–5; Denny and Black 1994, p.62, fig.a;
Noever 1995, p.122, fig.123; Curatola 1996,
p.472 (cited); Stone 1997, p.140 (cited);
Franses 1997, p.86, note 4 (cited); Little
1998, p.69; Milanese 1999, p.50; Museum
für Angewandte Kunst 2001, pp.42–5,
figs.43, 45 (with structure analysis); Mallary
2003, p.105, fig.2 (detail); Suriano 2004,
p.95, fig.2; Okumura 2007, pp.228–9 (with
structure analysis). Exhibited: Munich 1910;
Vienna, Museum für angewandte Kunst,
‘Symmetric and Asymmetric Knots: Orien-
tal Knotted Carpets from the MAK Collect-
ion’, 11 December 2002 to 23 March
2003.
73 Sarre 1924, pl.12, fig.2.
74 Seven first-period, ten-second period
and 14 third-period. The exact number is
difficult to determine because several
are incomplete. To date only one surviv-
ing Mamluk with five large medallions is
known, the Faenza-Simonetti carpet in
the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New
York. It is possible that some of the sur-
viving fragments, including many of the
first-period examples, may have come
from carpets with three or even five large
medallions. Almost half of the three- and
five-medallion carpets can be traced
back to Italian collections.
75 Three Mamluk-style rugs with direct-
ional designs: (1) The Bernheimer trees
carpet. 163 x 226cm. Bruschettini Foun-
dation, Genoa, no.T36. Formerly: Bern-
heimer Collection, Munich, no.56180 158/
225; Elio Cittone, Milan. Published: Bern-
heimer 1959, pl 4; Schürmann [1960],
pl.20; Ellis 1967, p.11, fig.16 (with struct-
ure analysis); Suriano 2004, p.97, figs.5, 5a.
(2) The Bode keyhole niche rug with
cloudbands. 120 x 162cm, wool pile on a
wool foundation. Museum of Islamic Art,
Berlin, inv. no.KGM 1888.30. Formerly:
Wilhelm Bode; Kunstgewerbemuseum,
Berlin. Published: Erdmann 1940, p.75,
fig.21; Zick 1961(1), pp.7–8, fig.1 and
note 7 (with structure analysis); Ellis
1969, p.8, fig.5 and p. 20, note 6 (with
structure analysis); Washington DC
1974, p.130, fig.19; Thompson 1980,
p.9, fig.2; Enderlein 1971 (cited); Milan
1981, p.24, fig.7; London 1983, p.60,
no.19 (detail); Boralevi 1986, p.216, fig.12;
Philadelphia Museum of Art 1988, p.78
(cited); Enderlein 1988, p.34, fig.22; Mills
1991, p.88, fig.3; Enderlein 1993, p.92,
fig.15; Berlin 1995, pp.25, 36. no.16; Ölçer
et al. 1996, p.181, pl.128; Suriano 2004,
p.94; Istanbul 2007(1), p.119, fig.70, p.161,
no.E1. Exhibited: London 1983; Berlin
1995; Istanbul 2007(1). (3) The Padua
Ark curtain. 109 x 138cm, wool pile on a
wool foundation. Padua Synagogue,
Padua. Published: Mitteilungen 1900,
p.24, fig.15; Landsberger 1945–6, p.368,
fig.4; Kendrick and Barnett 1951, p.53,
note 66 (cited); Gutmann 1970, p.144
(cited); Goodenough 1960, vol.4, p.138,
fig.103; Boralevi 1984, figs.1, 2; Boralevi
1986, pp.211–3, fig.5; Yaniv 1989; Ferrara
1990, no.119, pp.208–9; Venice 1993,
pp.327–9, no.192; Papotti 1993, p.69;
HALI 73, 1994, p.101 (cited); Felton
1997, p.19; Washington DC 2002, p.54,
fig.20; Prato 2006, p.44 (detail), pp.94–5,
no.21; Paris 2006, pp.182, 323–4, cat.82;
Venice 2007, p.194, no.65; Denny 2007,
pp.182, 323–4, cat. 82; Pordenone 2007,
p.71. Inscribed with Verse 20 of Psalm
118: “This is the Gate of the Lord through
which the righteous shall enter”.
76 Riefstahl 1925, pp.159–62.
77 See note 64, nos.1–4.
78 The Arhan Mamluk carpet. 251 x
308cm. MIAQ, no.CA22. Formerly: Yaya
Arhan, Istanbul; Arhan family collection,
Stockholm; Wher Collection; The Textile
Gallery, London. Published: Whiting 1981,
p.55.
79 Whiting 1981, p.55.
80 Three circular Mamluk carpets:
(1) The Barbieri circular Mamluk carpet.
284 x 292cm. Bruschettini Foundation,
Genoa, no.T48. Formerly: Piero Barbieri
Collection, Genoa. Published: Erdmann
1966, p.220, fig.271; Erdmann 1970,
p.198, fig.252; Sotheby’s, London, 12
October 1982, lot 38; HALI 5/2, 1982,
p.203, fig.37; London 1983, p.63, no.24;
HALI 42, 1988, p.99; Bösch 1991, p.382,
no.94; Okumura 2007, pp.166–7, no.40;
Spallanzani [i.p.], fig.3. Exhibited: London
1983. (2) The Olmutz circular Mamluk
carpet. Diameter 270cm. Kremsier Castle,
Czech Republic. Formerly: Collection of
the Archbishops of Olmutz. Published:
Erdmann 1970, p.199 (cited); Stulc 2006,
pp.413–15, figs.1–4. (3) The Milan circular
Mamluk carpet. 278 x 226cm. MIAQ,
no.TE07. Formerly: Louise Michael,
Milan; The Textile Gallery, London.
81 The Clark circular Cairene Ottoman
carpet. 262 x 224cm. Corcoran Gallery of
Art, Washington DC, W.A Clark Collect-
ion, no.26.294. Published: Troll 1937(2);
Erdmann 1970, p.198 (cited); Bennett
1978, p.117; Yetkin 1981, p.105, ill. 63;
HALI 127, 2003, p.41, fig.3; Thompson
2006, p.172, fig.157 (detail). Exhibited:
Washington DC, Arthur M. Sackler Gallery,
‘The World at Our Feet. A Selection of
Carpets from the Corcoran Gallery of
Art’, 4 April to 6 July 2003.
82 Diameter 291cm. Boralevi’s lecture at
the HALI Fair 2006 and private communi-
cation. The inventory is to be published
in Spallanzani [i.p.].
83 Erdmann 1938, vol.V, pt.2, p.189.
Erdmann took the reference from
‘Urkunden und Regesten aus der K.K.
Hofbibliothek’, in Jahrbuch der Kunst-
histonschen Sammlungen des Aller-
hochsten, Kaiserhauses 7 (1888), p.264,
entry no.288: “Two beautiful Algerian
carpets, that [an important military man,
equivalent to a general] from Genova
‘handed over’, with several colours and
yellow woollen fringe, for a round table.”
84 There is a slight chance that the
Barbieri carpet is the one mentioned in
the 1587 Medici archive, and that the
carpet in Kremsier may be one of Ferdi-
nand’s, also originally from the Medici.
Marco Spallanzani’s article ‘Carpets at
the Medici Court in the second half of
the sixteenth century’, to be published in
the forthcoming Islamic Art (Bruschettini
Foundation, Genoa). Spallanzani notes
that: “Francesco I …inventory of 1587…
passed to the Grand Duke Ferdinand,
refers to ‘Un tappeto tondo, cairino, di
diametro di br.5’ [290cm].”
85 Two ‘study piece’ Mamluk carpets in
the MIAQ: (1) The Bernheimer Mamluk
carpet with medallion and bands of cyp-
ress and palm trees. 137 x 204cm.
MIAQ, no.CA04. Formerly: Bernheimer
Collection, Munich, acquired 1911. Pub-
lished: Christie’s, London, 14 February
1996, p.109, lot 103 (with structure
analysis). (2) Mamluk carpet fragment.
49 x 191cm, field section. MIAQ, no.CA06.
Published: Lefevre, London, 31 October
1980, lot 1 (cited); Sotheby’s, London, 29
April 1981, lot 100; Christie’s, London,
30 April 1998, lot 24a.
86 Textile Museum 1957, p.41. The inv-
entories Kühnel refers to are quoted by
Erdmann 1938. For the information on
the 1688 Commercial Register, Kühnel
refers to Erdmann 1938, p.198. The
statements relating to the mosques are
from 1573 and about 1650 – Kühnel here
refers to Erdmann 1938, p.193.
87 Kühnel (Textile Museum 1957, p.57,
note 1), quoting Erdmann 1938, p.187,
no.5.
88 Kühnel (Textile Museum 1957, p.57,
note 2), quoting Erdmann 1938, p.194,
no.17.
89 By 1585, Cairo had been part of the
Ottoman Empire for more than sixty
years. The Sultan in Istanbul controlled
the activities of the crafts guilds of his
Empire wherever they were based, and
would have had no need to bring weav-
ers to Istanbul. However, in 1582, on the
occasion of the circumcision of his son,
a grand festival was organised for Sultan
Murad III at the Hippodrome in Istanbul.
The festival included musicians, dancers,
tightrope walkers and all the guilds of
the Empire. Floats passed before the
Sultan, while the guilds demonstrated
their skills before dignitaries from all
over the world and many thousands of
spectators. There is no specific record of
carpet weavers at this festival, but I refer
to it to demonstrate that the Sultan was
interested in the work of the craftsmen
of his Empire. It is quite possible that
the finest carpet weavers in the Empire,
those in Cairo, were brought to the cap-
ital to present their work to the Sultan at
a later date, and that the document citing
the eleven rug masters refers to such a
visit – there seems to be no evidence
that they stayed in Istanbul or anywhere
else in the region for any length of time.
90 Martin 1908. Yet, when discussing
the very fine blue-ground Cairene Otto-
man carpet in the Musée des Arts Déco-
ratifs, Paris, he states that: ‘not only large
carpets were made, but also prayer car-
pets, of which some fine examples are
in different collections...some have simple
uncoloured prayer niches, others are richly
decorated. As these carpets form of them-
selves a separate group in design and
MUSEUM COLLECTIONS
technique widely different from all other
carpets made at the same time in Asia
Minor...’ (p.333). He goes on to write that
Sarre believed that these carpets were
made in Damascus. This only adds to
the confusion in the first writings on the
early history of carpets.
91 Erdmann 1960/1962, figs.138, 139
and pl.VII; Bennett 1978, pp.117–20;
Denny 1986, pp.245–9; Spuhler, in Mus-
eum of Islamic Art 1988, p.112. Adher-
ents of the Bursa/Istanbul theory also
seem to have overlooked other pertinent
evidence. For example, although Kühnel
points out Erdmann’s interesting discov-
ery that “an inventory of the Saray in
Istanbul, dated 1680, mentions twenty
silk prayer carpets from Egypt” (Textile
Museum 1957, p.42, quoting from Erd-
mann 1938, p.197, no.24), he does not
examine it more closely. The shininess
of Egyptian wool is deceptive: it looks
very different to Turkish wool and is often
mistaken for silk. Furthermore, rugs with
silk fringes were often called ‘silk rugs’.
It is possible, therefore, that the Ottoman
niche rugs in the Topkapı Saray Museum
and the Museum of Turkish and Islamic
Arts, Istanbul, are the last two survivors
of the twenty.
92 As far as I know, both silk and cotton
can be spun in either direction. S-spun
silk tends to pre-date Z-spun in European
silks; the cotton used on Egyptian carpets
was presumably produced locally, and
the reels of spun silk were imported,
generally from Iran.
93 Pinner and Franses 1981. The fact
that some Cairene Ottoman rugs have
silk warps, wool wefts and some cotton
pile was not addressed.
94 The Medici Ottoman carpet. 330 x
995cm. Pitti Palace, Florence, no.5278.
Published: Boralevi 1983, pp.282–3 (with
structure analysis); London 1983, p.41
and pp.83–5, no.56; Boralevi 1986,
pp.205–11, figs.2, 4. The carpet is in an
unused condition and appears as new,
with bright and gaudy colours.
95 Boralevi 1983, p.282: ‘Tappeto grande
Cairno buono lungo b17 et largo b.5 e
2/3, avuto dal Gen. Cav Da Verrazzano
Commissario delle Galere addi 31 luglio’.
The cited size exactly matches that of
the actual carpet.
96 Whiting 1981, p.55, found that the
red of all five Mamluks in the Victoria
and Albert Museum, London, had been
dyed with lac. The red of a Mamluk
carpet in the Wher Collection had been
dyed with cochineal. The Wher carpet
has a minor guard border with the
çintamani design normally associated
with the Ottoman period. Whiting (p.56)
tells us that: “all three of the main
species of insect dye were theoretically
available for use in these carpets:
kermes from Spain, lac from India and
genuine ‘cochineal’ from Mexico’. ...
HALI ISSUE 157 89
MUSEUM COLLECTIONS
Cochineal, even when it had become
familiar in Europe, was a very valuable
commodity, and the earliest shipments
beginning in 1530, would have aroused
extreme interest in Spain... Böhmer has
reported that little or no use of cochineal
or other insect dyes occurred in Turkish
villages before 1850 when cultivation
began in the Mediterranean region.”
97 Whiting 1981, pp.55–6.
98 See note 64, no.6.
99 The Hackwood Park Cairene Ottoman
medallion carpet. 281 x 517cm. MIAQ,
no.CA05. Formerly: Lord Camrose Col-
lection, Hackwood House, Hampshire.
Published: Christie’s, Hackwood House,
21 April 1998, lot 1118; HALI 99, 1998,
p.123.
100 The Bernheimer Cairene Ottoman
medallion rug. 132 x 191cm. MIAQ,
no.CA63. Formerly: Consul Otto Bern-
heimer, Munich, acquired 1919; Bern-
heimer family collection, Munich; private
collection. Published: Hamburg 1950,
no.9, pp.22–3, pl.8; Erdmann 1955,
no.130; Bernheimer 1959, pl.5; Yetkin
1981, p.116, no.73; Christie’s, London,
14 February 1996, lot 83; Christie’s,
London, 29 April 2004, lot 101.
101 King 1985, pp.49–52.
102 See Pinner 1986, pp.302–3. At least
fourteen compartment design carpets can
be identified in the inventories of Cardinal
Wolsey, Margaret of Austria, Archduchess
Margarethe of Mechelen, King Henry VIII
of England, Anna von Ungarn and Arch-
duke Ferdinand II, as well as in Haram
and Florentine documents.
103 Milan 1981, p.25, fig.8.
104 See: Mills 1981, pp.53–5; Thompson
2006, p.152, fig.146.
105 Twelve of these appear in paintings
by just two artists and may represent
only two examples: (1) Simon Kick, Self
Portait, 1645–1650. National Gallery of
Ireland, Dublin, no.164550. (2) Pietro Pao-
lini (1603–1681), Self Portrait. Published:
Thompson 2006, pp.152–3, figs.146, 147,
see also p.155, note 138.
106 Para-Mamluk carpets: (1) The Divriği
domes and squinches carpet. 185 x
195cm, incomplete. Vakıflar Museum,
Istanbul, no.A-217. Formerly: Ulu Mosque,
Divriği. Published: Ellis 1967; Vakıflar
Museum 1988, pp.40–45, 9, 180–1, pl.2
(with structure analysis); Philadelphia
Museum of Art 1988, p.9, fig.2a; Eskenazi
1986; Franses and Bennett 1988, p.37;
Thompson 2006, p.39, fig.2, pp.146–7,
figs.137–9. (2) The Divriği multiple lattice
carpet. 230 x 380cm, incomplete. Vakıflar
Museum, Istanbul, no.A-344. Formerly:
Ulu Mosque, Divriği. Published: Ellis 1967,
p.19, note 33 (cited); Vakıflar Museum
1988, pp.34–9, 178–9, pl.1 (with struct-
ure analysis); Thompson 2006, p.146,
fig.133.(3) The Williams four-and-one
octagons rug. 125 x 178cm. Philadelphia
Museum of Art, no.55-65-2. Joseph Lees
90 HALI ISSUE 157
Williams Memorial Collection, 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 Fran-
ses 1981, p.41 (cited); London 1983, p.66,
no.28; Black 1985, p.52, fig.6b; Pinner
1986, p.6, fig.9; Philadelphia Museum of
Art 1988, pp.4–7, pl.1 (with structure
analysis); Thompson 2006, p.138, fig.117.
Exhibited: New York 1910; London 1983.
(4) The Paris four-and-one medallions rug.
141 x 207cm. Tabibnia Collection, Milan.
Formerly: Private collection, Paris; Vigo
Art Galleries, London; Charles Grant Ellis
Collection, Kingston, NY; Wher Collection.
Published: Washington DC 1973, fig.24;
Foster 1979, pl.V; Pinner and Franses
1981, p.41, fig.g; Pinner 1986, p.6, fig.8;
Philadelphia Museum of Art 1988, p.6,
fig.1c; Paris 1989, pp.40–41 (with struct-
ure analysis); Thompson 2006, pp.124–5,
pl.12 (with structure analysis). Exhibited:
Washington DC 1973; Paris, Institut du
Monde Arabe, 1989–1994; Milan 2006.
Carbon-14 dated 1460–1640 (95% confi-
dence). (5) The Bernheimer four-and-one
octagons carpet. 112 x 116cm, incomp-
lete. Museum of Islamic Art, Berlin,
no.I.33/60. Formerly: Bernheimer Collec-
tion, 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 (with
structure analysis); Pinner and Franses
1980, fig.209, p.110; HALI 71, 1993,
p.119; Thompson 2006, p.136, fig.115.
(6) The Blum medallions and lattice carpet.
255 x 285cm. Bruschettini Foundation,
Genoa. Formerly: Mrs Harry Blum, USA;
The Textile Gallery, London. Published:
Sotheby’s, New York, 1 May 1982, lot
295; HALI 4/4, 1982, p.400; Thompson
2006, p.157, fig.153. (7) The Myers med-
allions carpet. 98 x 45cm, fragment. Tex-
tile Museum, Washington DC, no.R7.21
(R34.32.1). Formerly: Rhode Island School
of Design (1953, by exchange); George
Hewitt Myers, Washington DC. Published:
Textile Museum 1957, p.77, pl.XLV; Ellis
1967, p.12 (cited); Pinner and Franses
1981, p.41 (cited); HALI 94, 1997,
p.61; Thompson 2006, p.139, fig.118.
(8) The Campana twelve-and-one medal-
lions carpet. 232 x 302cm, incomplete.
Bruschettini Foundation, Genoa, no.T38.
Formerly: Michele Campana, Milan. Pub-
lished: Erdmann 1961, fig.31; Ellis 1967,
p.12 (cited); Viale and Viale 1969, fig.147;
Pinner and Franses 1981, p.52, fig.n; HALI
93, 1997, p.75, fig.7 (detail); HALI 94,
1997, p.61 (cited); Thompson 2006, p.140,
fig.121. (9) The Dresden octagons rug.
44.5 x 40.5cm, oval fragment. Kunst-
gewerbe Museum, Dresden, no.343.
Published: Lessing, 1887; HALI 71, 1993,
p.106, fig.1; Thompson 2006, p.139,
fig.120. Exhibited: Hamburg, 7th ICOC,
1993. (10) The Konya rug. Small fragment,
framed with a Beyshehir fragment and
several others. Ethnographic Museum,
Konya. Published: Ellis 1967, p.19, note
33 (cited); Thompson 2006, p.139, fig.119
(‘symmetrically knotted’).(11) The Dussel-
dorf medallion lattice rug. Whereabouts
unknown. Formerly: City art collection,
Dusseldorf. Published: Thompson 2006,
p.156, fig.151. (12) The Cairo two-octagon
carpet. Museum of Islamic Art, Cairo.
Published: Moustapha 1949; Thompson
2006, pp.146, 148, figs.136, 142.
(13) The Cairo compartment design carpet.
Museum of Islamic Art, Cairo. Published:
Bode and Kühnel 1955, p.76, fig.55.
(14) The Chihil Sultun niche rug with Kufic
inscription. 105 x 141cm. Carpet Museum,
Tehran. Formerly: Chihil Sutun Kiosk,
Esfahan. Published: Erdmann 1966,
pp.87–93 (‘Turkey, late 19th century’);
Ellis 1967, pp.2–20 (‘Turkey, late 19th
century’); Gans-Ruedin 1978, pp.144–5;
Mills 1997, p.72, fig.1; Franses 1999,
p.50, fig.31; Thompson 2006, p.137,
fig.116. Inscription reads “Hasten to
repent before death”.
107 Eskenazi 1986 wrote that the Domes
and Squinches rug could have been made
for the opening of the Divriği Mosque
(1228–9) or that it could be a 15th century
carpet copying earlier architectural orna-
ment. I find it unlikely that a rug with such
a pattern would have been made for the
mosque. We know of the Safavid Shah
Tahmasp’s gift to the congregation of the
Süleyman Mosque in Istanbul of a multi-
niche prayer carpet (saf), and of the saf
carpets made in Ushak by order of Sultan
Selim II in the early 1570s for the Edirne
Mosque. But a two-octagon rug is a less
likely gift or commission. Most of the rugs
preserved in mosques were given by the
congregation, occasionally from the estate
and in memory of a deceased parent. This
suggests that many of the rugs found in
mosques may have been at least a gen-
eration old at the time of their bequest.
108 Para-Mamluk carpets depicted in
European paintings (in date order):
(1) Mark Enthroned with Saints. Giovanni
Martini da Udine, 1501. The Cathedral,
Udine. Published: Mills 1997, p.73 (detail).
(2) Altarpiece. Lorenzo Lotto, 1505. Church
of Santa Christina al Tivarone, Treviso.
(3) The Doge Loredan and Four Advisors.
Giovanni Bellini (ca. 1430–1516), dated
1507. Gemäldegalerie, Berlin. Published:
Nemes, Munich, 16 June 1931; Mills
1981, p.53, fig.A1; HALI 56, 1991, p.133
(detail); Thompson 2006, p.141, fig.122;
Arcangeli 2006, p.124. (4) The Story of
the Amazons. Vittore Carpaccio, 1517.
Musée Jacquemart André, Paris. Pub-
lished: Mills 1981, p.54, no.B2 (cited).
(5) The Prothonotary Apostolic, Giovanni
Giuliano. Lorenzo Lotto, 1519–20 or after
1530(?). National Gallery, London, no.1105.
Published: Erdmann 1940, fig.8; Mills
1981, p.54, no.B3 (detail). (6) The Rich
Man’s Feast, or Dives Feasting. Bonifazio
Veronese (Bonifazio di Pitati, 1487– 1553),
first half 16th century. Galleria dell’Acc-
ademia, Venice, cat. 326, no.291. Pub-
lished: Mills 1981, p.54, no.B6; Mills 1997,
p.73, fig.2. (7) The Presentation in the
Temple. Bonifazio Veronese, first half 16th
century. National Museum, Stockholm.
Published: Mills 1981, p.55, fig.B6 (cited).
(8) Portrait of a Man. Francesco Beccar-
uzzi, first half 16th century. Galleria degli
Uffizi, Florence, no.908. Published: Mills
1981, p.54, no.B5 (detail); Thompson 2006,
p.135, fig.114. (9) Saint Antoninus Giving
Alms. Lotto Lorenzo, 1542. Church of
Santi Giovanni e Paolo, Venice. Published:
Mills 1981, p.54, no.B4 (cited); Thomp-
son 2006, p.142, fig.125.(10) Venetian
Senator. Sofonisba Anguissola (ca. 1535
–1626). Burghley House Collection, Stam-
ford. Published: HALI 94, 1997, p.61;
Thompson 2006, p.134, fig.113. (11)
Lucia, Minerva and Europa Anguissola
Playing Chess. Sofonisba Anguissola,
1555. Muzeum Narodowe, Poznan.
Published: Ellis 1997, p.77, fig.9.
(12) The Virgin with Angelic Musicians.
Unknown Flemish artist, probably mid-
16th century. Museo Arqueológico
Nacional, Madrid, no.51967. Published:
Thompson 2006, p.143, fig.127.
109 Thompson (2006, p.149) mentions
the ‘Munich’ and ‘Wind’ carpets as
examples of the ‘international’ style.
They have some similarities in design to
the para-Mamluks, but their technique
and colours seem to place them with
rugs attributed to west Anatolia.
110 Thompson has spent many years
studying Turkmen rugs from west
Turkestan and has written possibly the
finest book on this subject (Mackie and
Thompson 1980).
111 I am very uncomfortable with the
idea that these rugs were ever part of
the Turkmen design tradition from Iran.
However, it is easy to see a connection
between the ivory-ground ‘Seljuk’ car-
pets possibly from Konya and the Turk-
men tradition, and there is a clear link
between Iranian paintings of the 15th
century and the so-called ‘small-pattern
Holbein’ carpets of western Anatolia. To
connect para-Mamluk rugs to Iran through
the use of an open ‘Kufesque’ and inter-
lace border is problematic when the pat-
tern was part of an international style
that stretched from west Anatolia to India
in the late 14th and early 15th centuries.
112 The term ‘compartment’ (and the
earlier ‘chequerboard’) was coined by
Ernst Kühnel.
113 Some carpets with other Syrian
designs: (1) The Istanbul three-medallion
carpet 1. 293 x 770cm. Museum of Turk-
ish and Islamic Arts, Istanbul, nos 844-
846-850-869 (four pieces). Published:
Ölçer et al. 1996, pp.118–21, pl.86;
Thompson 2006, p.155, fig.149; Istanbul
2007(2), p.53, no.31. (2) The Istanbul
three-medallion carpet 2. 292 x 765cm.
Museum of Turkish and Islamic Arts,
Istanbul, nos 845-847-848-849-851-868
(six pieces). Published: Museum of
Turkish and Islamic Arts 1999, pl.1;
Thompson 2006, p.155, fig.150; Istanbul
2007(2), p.54, no.32. (3) The Berlin
cloudband carpet. 163 x 411cm.
Museum of Islamic Art, Berlin,
no.86.601. Published: Zick-Nissen 1966,
p.111, fig.9; Museum für Islamische
Kunst 1971/1979, no.583; Museum of
Islamic Art 1988, pp.66 and 216, pl.73.
(4) Single-niche fragments from a saf.
(a) 69 x 60cm. Wher Collection.
Formerly: Garry Muse, Tucson; The
Textile Gallery, London. Published: HALI
4/1, 1981, p.56. (b) Museum of Turkish
and Islamic Arts, Istanbul. (5) The Salva-
dore palmettes carpet. 82 x 74cm and
83 x 54cm, two fragments. Keir Collect-
ion, Ham. Formerly: Salvadore, Florence.
Published: Keir Collection 1978, pp.77–8,
pl.39 (‘Z-spun, asymmetrically knotted’).
(6) The Salvadore eight-pointed star med-
allion carpet. 180 x 150cm, incomplete.
Keir Collection, Ham. Formerly: Salvadore,
Florence. Published: Keir Collection 1978,
pp.78–9, pl.40 (‘Z-spun, symmetrically
knotted’). (7) The Wolf palmette and
blossom carpet. 126 x 343cm. Metro-
politan Museum of Art, New York,
no.1990.169. Formerly: Marshall &
Marilyn R. Wolf, New York. Published:
Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum,
New York, Fall 1991, p.12. (8) The Divriği
palmettes in lattice carpet. 228 x 383cm.
Vakıflar Museum, Istanbul, no.A-172. For-
merly: Ulu Mosque, Divriği. Published:
Vakıflar Museum 1998, pp.124–31, 292–3,
pl.58 (with structure analysis).(9) The
Divriği palmettes and cloudbands rug.
200 x 293cm. Vakıflar Museum, Istanbul,
no.A-216. Formerly: Ulu Mosque, Divriği.
Published: Vakıflar Museum 1998,
pp.124–31, 294–5, pl.59 (with structure
analysis). (10) The Muse cartouche border
carpet. 15 x 46cm, border section. MIAQ,
no TE14. Formerly: Garry Muse, Tuscson;
The Textile Gallery, London; Wher Col-
lection. Published: HALI 4/1, 1981, p.56;
Thompson 2006, p.156, fig.152.
(11) The New York palmette and
blossom carpet. 198 x 310cm. Eberhart
Herrmann, Emmetten. Published: HALI
69, 1993, p.68; Sotheby’s, New York, 15
December 1994, lot 92; Munich 1997,
pl.28 (with structure analysis).
Two Anatolian rugs in a Damascus style:
(1) The Divrigi eight-pointed star medal-
lion and four octagons carpet. 236 x
362cm. Vakıflar Museum, Istanbul,
no.A-107. Formerly: Ulu Mosque, Divriği.
Published: Vakıflar Museum 1998,
pp.124–31, 296–7, pl.60 (with structure
analysis). (2) The Divriği leaf lattice rug.
150 x 290cm. Vakıflar Museum, Istanbul,
no.A-134. Formerly: Ulu Mosque, Divriği.
Published: Vakıflar Museum 1998,
pp.124–31, 298–9, pl.61 (with structure
analysis).
WORKS CITED
Adams, Philip R., ‘A Panorama of Spanish
Art’, in Apollo, vol.XCIII, pp.268–79,
April 1971.
Alexander Collection, Berkeley, A Fore-
shadowing of 21st Century Art, text
by Christopher Alexander, OUP, New
York/London, 1993.
Al-Himyari, Ibn ‘Abd al-Mun’im, Kitab al-
Rawd al-Mitar: La Péninsule Ibérique
au Moyen-Âge, edited and translated
by E. Lévi-Provencal, Leyden, 1938.
American Art Association, New York, Cata-
logue of the Celebrated Collection of...
M. E. Eymonaud...Mr Vital Benguiat...,
auction catalogue, 8 to 10 April 1920.
American Art Association/Anderson
Galleries, New York, Rare Ancient
Rugs, The V. & L. Benguiat Collection,
auction catalogue, 23 April 1932.
[Anon], Turkish Handwoven Carpets,
Catalogue No: 2, selected by Doğan
Yilmazkaya, Sahika Ünal and Güran
Erbek, Turkish Republic, Ministry of
State & Ministry of Culture and
Tourism, Ankara, January 1988.
Arcangeli, Catherina Schmidt,
‘“Orientalist” Painting in Venice,
15th–17th Centuries’, in Venice and
the Islamic World, 828–1797,
pp.121–39, edited by Stefano Carboni,
New York, 2006.
Aslanapa, Oktay, Turkish Arts, translated
by Herman Kreider, Dogan Kardes,
Istanbul, 1961.
Aslanapa, Oktay, Turkish Art and Archi-
tecture, Faber and Faber, London,
1971.
Aslanapa, Oktay, One Thousand Years of
Turkish Carpets, Eren, Istanbul, 1988.
Atıl, Esin (ed), Turkish Art, Washington
DC, 1980.
Beattie, May H., ‘Britain and the Oriental
Carpet’, in Leeds Art Calendar,
no.55, pp.4–15, 1964.
Beattie, May H., ‘The “Admiral” Rugs of
Spain. An Analysis and Classification
of Their Field Designs’, in Oriental Car-
pet & Textile Studies II: Carpets of
the Mediterranean Countries 1400–
1600, pp.271–89, dited by Robert
Pinner and Walter B. Denny, HALI/
OCTS, London, 1986.
Bennett, Ian (ed.), Rugs and Carpets of
the World, Ferndale Editions,
London, 1978.
Bennett, Ian, ‘Splendours in the City of
Silk, part 4’, in HALI 35, pp.32–43 and
pp.124–7, with additional captions by
Kurt Erdmann, 1987.
Bennett, Ian, ‘A Carpet is a Picture of God.
The Alexander Collection: Part II’, in
HALI 74, pp.86–95, April/May 1994.
Bennett, Ian (ed.), Rugs and Carpets of
the World, Greenwich Editions,
London, 2004.
Berlin, Museum für Islamische Kunst,
Islamische Kunst, exhibition cata-
logue, 1967, Staaliche Museen
Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin,
1967.
Berlin, Museum für Islamische Kunst,
Wilhelm von Bode und die Berliner
Teppichsammlung, exhibition cata-
logue, 18 October 1995, text by
Volkmar Enderlein, Bildheft der
Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin –
Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Heft 84,
Gebr. Mann Verlag, Berlin, 1995.
Beselin, Annette, ‘Bode auf den zweiten
Blick’, in Islamische Kunst in Berliner
Sammlungen – 100 Jahre Museum
für Islamische Kunst in Berlin,
pp.66–71, edited by Jens Kröger and
D. Heiden, Berlin, 2005.
Bernheimer, Otto, Alte Teppiche des 16.
bis 18. Jahrhunderts der Firma L.
Bernheimer, Munich, 1959.
Bier, Carol, ‘Beyond the Pyramids’,
review of the exhibition ‘Beyond the
Pyramids: Geometry & Design in
Mamluk & Ottoman Carpets’, at The
Textile Museum, Washington DC, 1
June 1991 to February 1992, in HALI
57, pp.123–5, June 1991.
Bier, Carol, ‘Elements of Plane Symmetry
in Oriental Carpets’, in Textile Museum
Journal, vol.31, pp.53–70, 1992.
Bier, Carol, ‘Approaches to Understanding
Oriental Carpets’, in Arts of Asia,
vol.26, no.1, pp.66–81, 1996(1).
Bier, Carol, ‘Symmetry and Pattern: Art
of Oriental Carpets’, in Arts & The
Islamic World, no.29, pp 37–40,
Autumn 1996(2).
Bier, Carol, ‘Andalusian Harmony’, in
HALI, 127, pp.42–3, 2003(1).
Bier, Carol, ‘Jewels of the Textile Mus-
eum’s Collection. I. Mamluk Rugs
from Egypt’, in A World of Oriental
Carpets & Textiles, edited by Murray
L. Eiland, Jr., catalogue of exhibitions
at the Xth International Conference on
Oriental Carpets, 17–21 April 2003,
pp.1–16, 282, 10th ICOC, Washing-
ton DC, 2003(2).
Bier, Carol, ‘Spanish and Mamluk Carpets.
Comparisons of Decoration and
Structure’, in Ghereh, 36, pp.9–17,
2004.
Black, David (ed.), World Rugs and Car-
pets, Feltham, Middlesex, 1985.
Bode, Wilhelm, ‘Ein Altpersischer
Teppich im Besitz der Königlichen
Museen zu Berlin, Studien zur
Geschichte der Westasiatischen
Knüpfteppiche’ in Jahrbuch der Kgl.
Preuszischen Kunstsammlunger, XIII,
pp.26–49, 108–37, Berlin, 1892.
Bode, Wilhelm, Vorderasiatische Knüpf-
teppiche aus Älterer Zeit, Seemann,
MUSEUM COLLECTIONS
Leipzig, 1901.
Bode, Wilhelm von, and Ernst Kühnel,
Vorderasiatische Knüpfteppiche aus
Älterer Zeit, 2nd edition, Leipzig,
1914.
Bode, Wilhelm von and Ernst Kühnel,
Vorderasiatische Knüpfteppiche aus
Älterer Zeit, 3rd edition, Klinkhardt &
Biermann, Leipzig, 1922.
Bode, Wilhelm von and Ernst Kühnel,
Vorderasiatische Knüpfteppiche aus
Älterer Zeit, 4th ed., revised, Klink-
hardt & Biermann, Braunschweig,
1955.
Bode, Wilhelm von and Ernst Kühnel,
Antique Rugs from the Near East,
4th ed., translated by Charles Grant
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.
Bode, Wilhem von, and Ernst Kühnel,
Antique Rugs from the Near East,
4th edition with revisions, translated
by Charles Grant Ellis, London, 1984.
Boileau, Etienne, Le Livre des Métiers
de la ville de Paris, Paris, 1897.
Boralevi , Alberto, ‘The Discovery of Two
Great Carpets, The Cairene Carpets
of the Medici’, in HALI 5/3, pp.282–3,
1983.
Boralevi, Alberto, ‘Un tappeto ebraico
italo-egizano’, in Critica d’Arte, XLIX,
no.2, July to September 1984.
Boralevi, Alberto, ‘Three Egyptian Carpets
in Italy’, in Oriental Carpet & Textile
Studies II: Carpets of the Mediter-
ranean Countries 1400– 1600,
pp.205–20, edited by Robert Pinner
and Walter B. Denny, HALI/OCTS,
London, 1986.
Boralevi, Alberto, ‘Two of a Kind’, in
HALI, 103, p.79, March/April 1999.
Bösch, Marion, Mamlukenteppiche.
Probleme der Teppichforschung am
Beispiel einer Gruppe des 15. bis 16.
Jahrhunderts aus dem östlichen
Mittelmeerraum, Karl-Franzens
Universität Graz, Institut für Kunst-
geschichte, 1991 (Doctoral thesis).
Bösch, Marion, ‘Mamluk Carpets – Typ-
ology and Dating’, in 7th International
Conference on Oriental Carpets,
Papers, Presentations, pp.79–92,
Academic Committee of the 7th
ICOC, Düsseldorf, 1996.
Bunt, Cyril G.E., Hispano-Moresque
Fabrics, F. Lewis, Leigh-on-Sea,
1966.
Camman, Schuyler, V.R., ‘Symbolic Meani-
ngs in Oriental Rug Patterns: Parts
I–III’, in Textile Museum Journal, vol.III,
no.3, pp.5–55, December 1972.
Campana, P. Michele, European Carpets,
Paul Hamlyn, London, 1969.
Cavallo, Adolph, ‘The Splendour Falls on
Castle Walls’, in Museum of Fine
HALI ISSUE 157 91
MUSEUM COLLECTIONS
Arts, Boston, Bulletin, vol.LX, no.321,
pp.63–82, Boston, 1962.
Collins, Sheridan Pressey, ‘The Spanish
Connection’, in HALI, 38, pp.42–4,
1988.
Curatola, Giovanni, Tappeti, Milan, 1981.
Curatola, Giovanni, ‘Four Carpets in
Venice’, in Oriental Carpet & Textile
Studies II: Carpets of the Mediter-
ranean Countries 1400–1600,
pp.123–30, edited by Robert Pinner
and Walter B. Denny, HALI/OCTS,
London, 1986.
Curatola, Giovanni, ‘Il commercio dei tap-
peti a Firenze nell’Ottocento: appunti
sugli antiquari Bardini’, in La Cono-
scenza dell’Asia e dell’Africa in Italia
nei Secoli XVIII e XIX, vol.III, t.I,
pp.248–60, Naples, 1989.
Curatola, Giovanni, ‘Islamic Art, (b) Medi-
terranean Lands’, in The Dictionary of
Art, edited by Jane Turner, vol.16,
pp.472–4, London, 1996.
Day, Susan, ‘“Chinoiserie” in Islamic
Carpet Design’, in HALI, 48, pp.38–45,
December 1989.
De Unger, Edmund, ‘Connoisseurs
Choice: The Silk Mamluk’, in HALI,
31, pp.8–9, 1986.
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, II/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., ‘The Origin and
Development of Ottoman Court
Carpets’, in Oriental Carpet and
Textile Studies, II, Carpets of the
Mediterranean Countries 1400–1600,
chapter 20, pp.243–59, HALI/OCTS,
London, 1986.
Denny, Walter B., ‘Oriental Carpets and
Textiles in Venice’, in Venice and the
Islamic World, 828–1797, exhibition
catalogue, 27 March to 8 July 2007,
edited by Stefano Carboni, pp.174–91,
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New
York, and Yale University Press, New
Haven, 2007.
Denny, Walter, and David Black,
‘Mamluk and Ottoman Carpets’, in
The Atlas of Rugs and Carpets,
London, 1994.
Dimand, Maurice, ‘Two Fifteenth
Century Hispano-Moresque Rugs’, in
Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin,
vol.22, no 10, pp.341–52, June 1964.
Edinburgh, National Museums of Scotland,
Beyond the Palace Walls, Islamic Art
from the State Hermitage Museum,
exhibition catalogue, 14 July to 5
November 2006, edited by Mikhail B.
92 HALI ISSUE 157
Piotrovsky and Anton D. Pritula,
NMS, Edinburgh, 2006.
Ellis, Charles Grant, ‘A Soumak Woven
Rug in a 15th Century International
Style’, in Textile Museum Journal,
vol.1, no.2, Washington DC, 1963.
Ellis, Charles Grant, ‘Mysteries of the
Misplaced Mamluks’, in Textile
Museum Journal, vol.2, no.2,
Washington DC, 1967.
Ellis, Charles Grant, ‘The Ottoman Prayer
Rugs’, in Textile Museum Journal,
vol.I, no.4, pp.5–22, Washington DC,
December 1969.
Ellis, Charles Grant, ‘Is the Mamluk
Carpet a Mandala?’, in Textile
Museum Journal, vol.IV, no.1,
pp.30–50, Washington DC, 1974.
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, ‘Mamluk Rug Exhib-
ition’, review of an exhibition at The
Textile Museum, Washington DC, 17
March to 26 June 1981, in HALI, 4/1,
pp.67–8, 1981.
Ellis, Charles Grant, ‘The Strengths of
the Textile Museum’s Oriental Carpet
Collection’, in Textile Museum Journal,
24, pp.61–73, 1985.
Ellis, Charles Grant, ‘On “Holbein” and
“Lotto” Rugs’, in Oriental Carpet and
Textile Studies, Volume II, Carpets of
the Mediterranean Countries
1400–1600, pp.163–87, edited by
Robert Pinner and Walter B. Denny,
HALI/OCTS, London, 1986.
Enderlein, Volkmar, ‘Zwei Ägyptische
Gebetsteppiche im Islamischen
Museum’, in Forschungen und
Berichte, Staatliche Museen zu
Berlin, vol.XIII, pp.7–15, 1971.
Enderlein, Volkmar, ‘Zwei Kleinasiatische
Teppiche mit Rankenmusterung’, in
Forschungen und Berichte, Staatliche
Museen zu Berlin, Band 19, 1979.
Enderlein, Volkmar, Wegleitung Islam-
isches Museum, Staatliche Museen
zu Berlin, 1988.
Enderlein, Volkmar, ‘Bode’s Legacy:
Wilhelm von Bode & The Berlin
Carpet Collection’, in HALI, 69,
pp.84–95, June–July 1993.
Erdmann, Kurt, ‘Some Observations on
the So-Called “Damascus Rugs”’, in
Art in America, vol.XIX, pp.3–22, 1930.
Erdmann, Kurt, ‘Kairener Teppiche I.
Europäische und Islamische Quellen
des 15. bis 18. Jahrhunderts’, in Ars
Islamica, vol.V, pp.179–206, 1938(1).
Erdmann, Kurt, ‘Kairener Teppiche II.
Mamluken- und Osmanenteppiche’, in
Ars Islamica, vol.VII, pp.55–81, 1940.
Erdmann, Kurt, Der Orientalische Knüpf-
teppich, Tübingen, 1955.
Erdmann, Kurt, review of ‘Arazzi e
Tappeti Antichi. Mercedes e Vittorio
Viale... Rezension’, in Ars Orientalis,
II, pp.571–89, 1957.
Erdmann, Kurt, Oriental Carpets, New
York and London, 1960.
Erdmann, Kurt, ‘Neuere Untersuchungen
zur Frage der Kairener Teppiche’, in
Ars Orientalis, vol.4, pp.65–105,
1961.
Erdmann, Kurt, Europa und der Orienttep-
pich, Florian Kupferberg, Mainz, 1962.
Erdmann, Kurt, Siebenhundert Jahre
Orientteppiche, Herford, 1966.
Erdmann, Kurt, Seven Hundred Years of
Oriental Carpets, Faber and Faber,
London, 1970.
Erdmann, Kurt, Oriental Carpets, An
Account of their History, translated
by Charles Grant Ellis, Zwemmer,
London, 1975.
Eskenazi, John, L’Arte del Tappeto
Orientale, Milan, 1983.
Essen, Villa Hügel, 5000 Jähre
ägyptische Kunst, exhibition
catalogue, Essen, 1961.
Faraday, Cornelia Bateman, ‘Early
Spanish Rugs’, in Good Furniture
Magazine, vol.XXVIII, pp.7–12,
1927(1).
Faraday, Cornelia Bateman, ‘Spanish
Rugs of the XVI and XVII Centuries’,
in Good Furniture Magazine,
vol.XXVIII, pp.87–92, 1927(2).
Faraday, Cornelia Bateman, European
and American Carpets and Rugs,
Dean-Hicks Co., Grand Rapids, 1929.
Faraday, Cornelia Bateman, European
and American Carpets and Rugs,
Antique Collectors’ Club, Wood-
bridge, 1990.
Farnham, Thomas J., ‘Bardini, Classical
Carpets, and America’, in HALI, 119,
pp.74–85, November–December 2001.
Felton, Anton, ‘Jewish Carpets, A Brief
History’, in Ghereh, no.12, pp.7–19,
1997.
Ferrandis Torres, José, ‘Alfombras
hispano-moriscas “tipo Holbein”’, in
Archivo Espanol de Arte, L,
pp.103–11, March–April 1942.
Ferrara, Italya, Arte ebraica in Italia,
exhibition catalogue, edited by V.B.
Mann, Mondadori, Milano, 1990.
Field, D.M., Les Plus Beaux Tapis du
Monde, Geneva, 1983.
Florence, The Carpet Studio, The Carpet
Studio di Alberto Boralevi, exhibition
catalogue, October to November
1996, text by Maurizio Cohen and
Alberto Boralevi, Il Tappeto Parlante,
Rome, 1996.
Florence, Fortezza da Basso, Oriental
Geometries, Stefano Bardini and the
Antique Carpet, exhibition catalogue,
edited by Alberto Boralevi, Sillabe,
Livorno, 1999.
Florence, Pitti Palace, Islam, Specchio
d’Oriente, exhibition catalogue, 23
April to 1 September 2002, edited by
G. Damiani and M. Scalini, Livorno,
2002.
Foster, Olive Bumstead, ‘Rug Society
News: A History of the Hajji Baba
Club’, in HALI, 2/1, pp.54–8, 1979.
Franses, Michael, ‘Fengruan Rutan, Silk
Pile Covers from Western China’, in
First Under Heaven, The Art of Asia,
HALI Annual 4, pp.84–107, Hali
Publications, 1997.
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, and Ian Bennett, ‘The
Vakıflar Carpet Collection’, in HALI,
38, pp.32–41, March/April 1988.
Gamal, Mehrez, ‘As syad al Islami wa
Mushtaqah fi Isbarya [The Islamic
Carpet and its Derivations in Spain]’,
in Majallat al Tari Khiyat al Misriyah,
XI, pp.182–93, Societé Egyptienne
D’Etudes Historiques, 1963.
Gans-Reuden, Erwin, Iranian Carpets,
Art, Craft and History, Office du Livre,
Fribourg, 1978.
Gantzhorn, Volkmar, The Christian Oriental
Carpet, Bendikt Taschen, Cologne,
1991.
Geijer, Agnes, ‘Some Thoughts on the
Problems of Early Oriental Carpets’,
in Ars Orientalis V, 1963.
Gilles, Roland, and Michael Franses,
‘Constellations in the Heavenly
Firmament’, in HALI, 138, pp.89–93,
January–February 2005.
Glück, Heinrich, and Ernst Diez, Die Kunst
des Islam, Propyläen Kunstgeschichte,
vol.5, Berlin, 1925.
Goodenough, E., Jewish Symbols in the
Greco-Roman Period, New York,
1960.
Grube, Ernst, ‘Infinity Made Visible’, in
HALI, 108, pp.82–9,
January/February 2000.
Gutmann, J. (ed.), Beauty in Holiness:
Studies on Jewish Customs and
Ceremonial Art, New York, 1970.
HALI, The International Magazine of
Antique Carpet and Textile Art/Carpet
Textile and Islamic Art, London,
from 1978.
Hamburg, Museum für Kunst und
Gewerbe, Orientalische Teppiche aus
Vier Jahrhunderten, exhibition cata-
logue, 22 August to 22 October 1950,
text by Kurt Erdmann, Hamburg, 1950.
Hein, Wilhelm, ‘Der Seidene Sternteppich
aus Ägypten, seine Ornamente und
Perspektive’, in Alte und Moderne
Kunst, XXII, 151, pp.14–21, 1977.
Heinz, Dora, Alte Orientteppiche, Wohn-
kunst und Hausrat/Einst und Jetzt,
vol.24, Darmstadt, 1956.
Heinz, Dora, ‘Die Sammlung Oriental-
ische Teppiche im Österreichischen
Museum für Angewandte Kunst in
Wien’, in Bustan, 3, pp.41–8, 1962.
Hoskins, Nancy Arthur, ‘Textiles’, in
Fustat Finds, Beads, Coins, Medical
Instruments, Textiles and Other Arte-
facts from the Awad Collection,
American University in Cairo Press,
Cairo and New York, 2002.
Housego, Jenny, ‘“Mamluk” Carpets
and North Africa’, in Oriental Carpet
and Textile Studies, Volume II,
Carpets of the Mediterranean
Countries 1400– 1600, pp.221–42,
HALI/OCTS, London, 1986.
Hubel, Reinhard, The Book of Carpets,
Barrie & Jenkins, London, 1971.
ICOC, Programme of the 5th International
Conference on Oriental Carpets,
Vienna and Budapest, 17 to 21
September 1986.
Isaacson, Richard, ‘Mamlukes, Ottomans
and All That’, in Oriental Rug Review,
vol.12, no.1, pp.42–5, October/Nov-
ember 1991.
Isaacson, Richard, ‘The Admiral & The
Wild Man’, in HALI, 98, pp.78–83,
1998.
Istanbul, Sakip Sabanci Museum, Otto-
man Splendour in Florentine Collect-
ions, From the Medicis to the Savoias,
exhibition catalogue, 21 December
2003 to 21 March 2004, Sakip
Sabanci Museum, Istanbul, 2003.
Istanbul, Sakip Sabanci Museum, In
Praise of God, Anatolian Rugs in
Transylvanian Churches 1500–1750,
exhibition catalogue, 19 April to 19
August 2007, Sakip Sabanci
Museum, Istanbul, 2007(1).
Istanbul, International Conference on
Oriental Carpets, Weaving Heritage
of Anatolia, catalogue of exhibtions
for the 11th ICOC, 19 to 22 April
2007, edited by Hülya Tezcan and
Sumiyo Okumura, 2 vols,, ICOC,
Istanbul, 2007(2).
Keir Collection, Ham, Islamic Carpets
and Textiles in the Keir Collection,
text by Friedrich Spuhler, Faber and
Faber, London, 1978.
Kendrick, A.F., and R. Barnett, in Treasures
of a London Temple, edited by A.G.
Grimwade, London, 1951.
Kendrick, A.F., and C.E.C. Tattersall,
Hand-Woven Carpets, Oriental and
European, 2 vols., Benn Brothers,
London, 1922.
King, Donald, ‘[East Mediterranean Car-
pets in the Victoria & Albert Museum]
The History of the Collection’, in
HALI, 4/1, pp.36–7, 1981.
King, Donald, ‘The Carpet Collection of
Cardinal Wolsey’, in Oriental Carpet
& Textile Studies, I, pp.41–54,
HALI/OCTS, London, 1985.
King, Monique, ‘French Documents
Relating to Oriental Carpets,
15th–16th Century’, in Oriental
Carpet and Textile Studies, Volume II,
Carpets of the Mediterranean Count-
ries 1400– 1600, pp.131–8, edited by
Robert Pinner and Walter B. Denny.
HALI/OCTS, London, 1986.
Kühnel, Ernst, ‘Die Entwicklung des
Orient-Teppichs’, in Die Kunstwelt,
III, pp.441–60, 1913/14.
Lamm, Carl Johann, ‘The Marby Rug and
Some Fragments of Carpets Found
in Egypt’, in Svenska
Orientsällskapets, Årsbok 1937,
pp.51–130, Bokförlags Aktiebolaget
Thule, Stockholm, 1937.
Landsberger, Franz, ‘Old-Time Torah
Curtains’, in Hebrew Union College
Annual, XIX, 1945–6, p.368, fig.4.
Lessing, Julius, Alt Orientalische Teppich-
muster nach Bildern und Originalen
des XV.-XVI. Jahrhunderts, Wasmuth,
Berlin, 1877.
Li Wenying, ‘Treasures from Xinjiang,
Two Carpets from New Excavations’,
in Ghereh, no.29, pp.7–15, 2002.
Li Wenying, ‘Textile of the Second to
Fifth Century Unearthed from
Yingpan Cemetery’, in Riggisberger
Berichte, 9, pp.243–64, 2006.
Lisbon, Museu Nacional de Arte Antigua,
The Oriental Carpet in Portugal,
Carpets and Paintings, 15th–18th
Centuries, exhibition catalogue, 31
July to 18 November 2007, curated
by Teresa Pacheco Pereira and
Jessica Hallett, MNAA, Lisbon, 2007.
Little, Donald, ‘The Haram Documents
as Sources for the Arts and
Architecture of the Mamluk Period’,
in Muqarnas, 2, pp.61–72, 1984.
Little, Donald, ‘Data from the Haram
Documents on Rugs in Late 14th
Century Jerusalem’, in Oriental
Carpet and Textile Studies, Volume II,
Carpets of the Mediterranean
Countries 1400– 1600, pp.83–94,
edited by Robert Pinner and Wlater
B. Denny. HALI/OCTS, London, 1986.
Little, Donald, ‘In Search of Mamluk
Carpets’, in HALI, 101, pp.68–9,
November 1998.
London, Hayward Gallery, The Eastern
Carpet in the Western World, exhib-
ition catalogue, 20 May to 10 July
1983, text by Donald King, with
essays by John Mills and David
Sylvester, Arts Council of Great
Britain, London, 1983.
Maastricht, MECC, The European Fine
Art Fair, fair handbook, 2002.
Mackie, Louise W., ‘Two Remarkable
Fifteenth Century Carpets from
Spain’, in Textile Museum Journal,
vol.IV, no. 4, pp.15–27, 1977.
Mackie, Louise W., ‘Native and Foreign
Influences in Carpets Woven in Spain
during the 15th Century’, in HALI,
II/2, pp.88–95, Summer 1979.
Mackie, Louise, ‘Woven Status: Mamluk
Silks and Carpets’, in The Muslim
World, vol.LXXIII, nos 3–4, pp.253–61,
July/October 1983.
Mackie, Louise W., and Jon Thompson
(eds.), Turkmen, Tribal Carpets and
Traditions, Textile Museum, Washing-
ton DC, 1980.
Madrid, Sociedad Española de Amigos
del Arte, Exposición de Alfombras
Antiguas Españolas, exhibition cata-
logue, May to June 1933, text by
José Ferrandis Torres, Sociedad
Española de Amigos del Arte,
Madrid, 1933.
Mallary, DeWitt, ‘Assaults on the Noble
Mind’, in HALI, 128, pp.105–7,
May–June 2003.
Maréchal, Andrea, ‘The Riddle of Çatal
Hüyük’, in HALI, 26, pp.6–11, 1985.
Martin, Fredrik R., The History of Oriental
Carpets before 1800, Printing Office
of the Imperial Austrian Court,
Vienna, 1908.
May, Florence Lewis, ‘Hispano-Moresque
Rugs’, in Notes Hispanic V, The
Hispanic Society of America, New
York, 1945.
Mayer, Leo, Saracenic Heraldry, Oxford,
1933.
Mazzini, Ferdinando, Tappeti Orientali,
Tirrenna, Livorno, 1952.
Mellaart, James, Çatal Hüyük, A Neolithic
Town in Anatolia, Thames and
Hudson, 1967.
Mellaart, James, Udo Hirsch, and Belkis
Balpinar, The Goddess from Anatolia,
Eskenazi, Milan, 1989.
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York,
Handbook of Mohammedan Art, text
by Maurice Dimand, Metropolitan
Museum of Art, New York, 1958.
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York,
Oriental Rugs in the Metropolitan
Museum of Art, text by Maurice
Dimand and Jean Mailey, Metro-
politan Museum of Art, New York,
1973.
Migeon, Gaston, Manuel d’Art Musulman,
vol. 2, Arts Plastiques et Industriels,
Paris, 1927.
Milan, Eskenazi Gallery, Il Tappeto Orien-
tale dal XV al XVII secolo, exhibition
catalogue, 21 January to 20 February
1982, text by Michael Franses and
Ian Bennett, Eskenazi, Milan, 1981.
Milan, Galleria Moshe Tabibnia, Tappeti
Classici d’Oriente del XVI e XVII
Secolo, exhibition catalogue, 21
September to 20 November 1999,
Moshe Tabibnia, Milan, 1999.
Milan, Galleria Moshe Tabibnia, Mile-
stones in the History of Carpets,
exhibition catalogue, 14 October to
11 November 2006, text by Jon
Thompson, Moshe Tabibnia, Milan,
2006.
Milanese, Enza, Tappeti, Milan, 1992.
Milanese, Enza, The Carpet. An Illus-
trated Guide to the Rugs and Kilims
of the World, London, 1999.
Mills, John, ‘Eastern Mediterranean
Carpets in Western Paintings’, in
HALI, 4/1, pp.53–5, 1981.
Mills, John, ‘Carpets in Paintings. The
MUSEUM COLLECTIONS
“Bellini”, “Keyhole”, or “Re-Entrant”
Rugs’, in HALI, 58, pp.86–103,
August 1991.
Mills, John, ‘The Chihil Sutun “Para-
Mamluk” Prayer Rug’, in HALI, 93,
pp.72–6, July 1997.
Mills, John, ‘Portugal and the Oriental
Carpet’, in HALI, 154, pp.133–4,
2007.
Mitteilungen des Gesellschaft zur
Erforschung Jüdisches Kunstdenk-
mäler, I, Frankfurt, 1900.
Moustapha, Mohamed, Le Musée de
l’Art Arabe au Caire, Cairo, 1949.
Munich, Herrmann, Asiatische Teppich-
und Textilkunst, Band 5, exhibition
catalogue, text by Eberhart Herr-
mann, Herrmann, Munich, 1997.
Munich, Staatlichen Museums für Völk-
erkunde, Old Eastern Carpets,
Masterpieces in German Private
Collections/Alte Orientteppiche,
Ausgewähte Stücke deutscher
Privatsammlungen, catalogue of an
exhibition, 23 March to 12 May, text
by Martin Volkmann et al., Callwey,
Munich, 1985.
Munich, Stadt-Museum, Exposition of
Mussulman Art, exhibition catalogue,
text by Drs Sarre and Martin, Bruck-
mann, Munich, 1910.
Munich, Stadt-Museum, Ausstellung von
Meisterwerken Muhammedanischer
Kunst in München 1910, exhibition
catalogue, edited by Friedrich Sarre
and F.R. Martin, with contributions
from M. van Berchem, M. Dreger,
E. Kühnel, C. List and S. Schröder,
[carpet section entries by Friedrich
Sarre], F. Bruckmann A.G., Munich,
1912.
Murray, Thomas, ‘In Pursuit of a Proto-
type’, in HALI, 112, pp.89–91, Sept-
ember–October 2000.
Museo Nacional de Artes Decorativas,
Madrid, Alfombras Españolas del
Museo Nacional de Artes Decorativas,
text by Alberto Bartolomé Arraiza,
Cristina Partearroyo and Ana Schoebel
Orbea, Thyssen-Bornemisza Found-
ation, Madrid, 1996.
Museo Nacional de Artes Decorativas,
Madrid, Alfombras Españolas de
Alcaraz y Cuenca, Siglos XV–XVI, text
by Alberto Bartolomé Arraiza, Museo
Nacional de Artes Decorativas, Madrid,
2002.
Museum für Angewandte Kunst, Vienna,
Altorientalische Teppiche, exhibition
catalogue, text by Siegfried Troll,
Vienna, 1951.
Museum für Angewandte Kunst, Vienna,
Die Orientalischen Knüpfteppiche im
MAK, text by Angela Völker, MAK,
Vienna, 2001.
Museum für Islamische Kunst, Berlin,
Katalog 1971, Staatliche Museen
Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin,
1971.
HALI ISSUE 157 93
MUSEUM COLLECTIONS
Museum für Islamische Kunst, Berlin,
Katalog 1979, Staatliche Museen
Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin, 1979.
Museum für Kunst und Industrie, Vienna,
Führer durch das Österreichische
Museum für Kunst und Industrie,
edited by Richard Ernst, et al.,
Vienna, 1929.
Museum of Islamic Art, Berlin, Oriental
Carpets in the Museum of Islamic
Art, Berlin, text by Friedrich Spuhler,
Faber and Faber, London, 1988.
Museum of Turkish and Islamic Arts,
Istanbul, In Pursuit of Excellence.
Works of Art from the Museum of
Turkish and Islamic Arts, Ahmet
Ertuğ, Istanbul, 1993.
Museum of Turkish and Islamic Arts,
Istanbul, Anatolian Carpets, Master-
pieces from the Museum of Turkish
and Islamic Arts, text by Nazan Ölçer
and Walter B. Denny, 2 vols, Ertug
and Kocabiyik, Bern, 1999.
Neugebauer, Rudolf, and Julius Orendi,
Handbuch der Orientalische Teppich-
kunde, Hiersmanns Handbucher,
vol.IV, Hiersmann, Leipzig, 1923.
Neugebauer, Rudolf, and Siegfried Troll,
Handbuch der Orientalischen Teppich-
kunde, Hiersmann, Leipzig, 1930.
New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art,
Catalogue of a Loan Exhibition of
Early Oriental Rugs, exhibition cata-
logue, 1 November 1910 to 15 Jan-
uary 1911, text by Wilhelm Valentiner,
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New
York, 1910.
New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art,
The James F. Ballard Collection of
Oriental Rugs, exhibition catalogue, 1
October to 31 December 1923, text
by Joseph Breck and Frances Morris,
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New
York, 1923.
New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art,
Al-Andalus, The Art of Islamic Spain,
exhibition catalogue, 1 July to 27
September 1992, Metropolitan
Museum of Art, New York, 1992.
Noever, Peter, MAK. Österreichisches
Museum für angewandte Kunst
Wien, Vienna, 1995.
Norris, Nancy, ‘Fostat Seminar’, in HALI,
34, p.54, 1987.
Okumura, Sumiyo, The Influence of
Turkic Culture on Mamluk Carpets,
Research Centre for Islamic History,
Art and Culture, Istanbul, 2007.
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 Ertuğ, Istanbul, 1996.
Pagnano, Gigi, L’Arte del Tappeto Orientale
ed Europeo, dalle origini al XVIII
secolo, Bramante Editrice, Busto
Arsizio, 1983.
94 HALI ISSUE 157
Papotti, Luisa, ‘Eredità dell’Islam, Arte
Islamica a Venezia’, in Ghereh, 1/2,
pp.67–73, 1993.
Paris, Institut du Monde Arabe, Tapis,
Present de L’Orient a l’Occident,
exhibition catalogue, text by Roland
Gilles, et al., Institut du Monde Arabe,
Paris, 1989.
Paris, Institut du Monde Arabe, Heaven
in a Carpet, exhibition catalogue, 7
December 2004 to 27 March 2005,
text by Roland Gilles, et al., Institut
du Monde Arabe, Paris, 2004.
Paris, Institut du Monde Arabe, Venise et
l'Orient 828–1797, exhibition cata-
logue, 3 October 2006 to 18 February
2007, Gallimard, Paris, 2006.
Petzel, Florence Eloise, Textiles of
Ancient Mesopotamia, Persia and
Egypt, Florence Petzel, USA, 1987.
Philadelphia Museum of Art, Oriental
Carpets in the Philadelphia Museum
of Art, text by Charles Grant Ellis,
University of Pennsylvania Press,
Philadelphia, 1988.
[Pinner, Robert], ‘The Saracenic carpets
of France’, in HALI, 1/2, pp.208–9,
1978.
Pinner, Robert, ‘Introduction’, in Oriental
Carpet & Textile Studies II, Carpets of
the Mediterranean Countries 1400-
1600, pp.1–11, edited by Robert
Pinner and Walter B. Denny.
HALI/OCTS, London, 1986.
Pinner, Robert, and Michael Franses,
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.
Pordenone, Convent of Saint Francis, De
Mirabilibus Mundi, Viaggio nel Mondo
del tappeto Orientale, exhibition cata-
logue, 1 December 2007 to 27 Jan-
uary 2008, text by Carlo Scaramuzza,
esaExpomostre, Pordenone, 2007.
Prato, Museo del Tessuto, Intrecci Medi-
terranei, exhibition catalogue, 5 May
to 30 September 2006, text by Giam-
piero Nigro, Marco Spallanzani, Anna
Contadini, Alberto Boralevi, et al.,
Museo del Tessuto Edizioni, Prato,
2006.
Réal, Daniel, Tissus Espagnols et Portu-
gais, Libraire des Arts Décoratifs,
Paris, [1925].
Reichel, Herbert, Berühmte Orient-
Teppiche aus historischer Sicht,
Reichel, Rheinberg, 1969.
Riefstahl, Rudolf Meyer, ‘Das Palmeten-
motiv auf einem Ägyptischen Teppich
der Ballerd-Sammlung’, in Jahrbuch
des Asiatischen Kunst, vol.II, pp.159–
62, 1925.
Riegl, Alois, ‘Die Ausstellung oriental-
ischer Teppiche im K.K. Österr.
Handelsmuseum’, in Mitteilungen des
K.K. Österreichischen Museums für
Kunst und Industrie, 2 parts, N.F. VI.
Jahrgang, no.66, pp.383–91, no.67,
pp.405–14, Vienna, 1891.
Riegl, Alois, ‘Altere orientalische Teppiche’,
in Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen
Sammlungen des Allerhochasten
Kaiserhauses, vol.XIII, pp.311–13,
1892.
Sánchez Ferrer, José, Alfombras Antiguas
de la Provincia de Albacete, Instituto
de Estudios Albacetenses, Albacete,
1986.
Sarre, Friedrich, ‘Mittelalterliche Knüpf-
teppiche kleinasiatischer und
spanischer Herkunft’, in Kunst und
Kunsthandwerk, vol.X, pp.503ff.,
Vienna, 1907.
Sarre, Friedrich, ‘Die Teppiche auf der
Mohammedanischen Ausstellung in
München 1910’, in Kunst und Kunst-
handwerk, XIII, pp.469–86, 1910.
Sarre, Friedrich, ‘Die Orientalischen
Teppiche aus dem ehemaligen
Wiener Hofbesitz’, in Der
Kunstwanderer, pp.444–7, 1920.
Sarre, Friedrich, ‘Die Ägyptische Herkunft
der Sogennanten Damakus-Teppiche’,
in Zeitschrift für Bildende Kunst,
vol.XXXII, pp.75ff., 1921.
Sarre, Friedrich, ‘Die Ägyptischen
Teppiche’, in Jahrbuch des
Asiatischen Kunst, vol.I, pp.19–25,
1924.
Sarre, Friedrich, ‘A Fourteenth-Century
Spanish Synagogue Carpet’, in Bur-
lington Magazine, LVI, pp.89–95, 1930.
Sarre, Friedrich, and Hermann Trenkwald,
Old Oriental Carpets, Leipzig,
1926–29.
Schlosser, Ignace, The Book of Rugs,
Oriental and European, Bonanza, New
York, 1963.
Schuette, Marie, Perser-Teppiche,
Leipzig, 1935.
Schürmann, Ulrich, Bilderbuch für Tep-
pichsammler, with a foreword by Kurt
Erdmann, Kunst und Technik Verlags,
Munich, [1960].
Scott, Philippa, The Book of Silk, Thames
and Hudson, London, 1993.
Serjeant, R.B., Islamic Textiles, Material
for a History up to the Mongol Con-
quest, Beirut, 1972.
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, Abbeville Press,
New York, 1996.
Spallanzani, Marco, Oriental Rugs in
Renaissance Florence, Bruschettini
Foundation for Islamic and Asian Art,
Textile Studies I, SPES, Florence 2007.
Spallanzani, Marco, ‘Carpets at the Medici
Court in the Second Half of the Six-
teenth Century’, in Bruschettini Foun-
dation for Islamic and Asian Art,
Islamic Art, [i.p.].
Stockholm, National Museum, Carpet
Fragments, The Marby Rug and
Some Fragments of Carpets Found in
Egypt, exhibition catalogue, text by
Carl Johann Lamm, Nationalmuseums
skriftserie NS 7, Stockholm, 1985.
Stone, Peter, The Oriental Rug Lexicon,
London, 1997.
Stulc, Josef, ‘Mamlúcky koberec v
Kromerízi – neznámá perla textilního
umení v ceskych sbírkách’, in Mater-
ialie, Studie, pp.413–17, 2006.
Suriano, Carlo Maria, ‘Talking Rugs’, in
Ghereh, no.10, p.55, December 1996.
Suriano, Carlo Maria, ‘Mamluk Blazon Car-
pets’, in HALI, 97, pp.72–81, March
1998.
Suriano, Carlo Maria, ‘A Mamluk Land-
scape, Carpet Weaving in Egypt and
Syria under Sultan Qaitbay’, in HALI,
134, pp.94–105, May–June 2004.
Taylor, Roderick, ‘Spanish Rugs at Vizcaya’,
in HALI, 52, pp.100–7, August 1990.
Textile Museum, Washington DC, Cata-
logue 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, Wash-
ington DC, 1953.
Textile Museum, Washington DC,
Cairene Rugs and Others Technically
Related, Textile Museum catalogue
raisonné, text by Ernst Kühnel,
technical analysis by Louisa Bellinger,
National Publishing Company,
Washington DC, 1957.
Theologou, Julia, ‘Fustat Carpet Frag-
ments’, in HALI, 156, pp.65–71, 2008.
Thompson, Jon, ‘Medallion Carpets,
Their Elusive Origin’, in The Sarre
Mamluk and 12 other Classical Rugs,
pp.8–15, auction catalogue, Lefevre,
London, 23 May 1980.
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.
Thomson, W.G., ‘Hispano-Moresque Car-
pets’, in Burlington Magazine, vol.XVIII,
no.92, pp.100–11, London, 1910.
Thomson, W.G., ‘Spanish Carpets’, in
Apollo, II, pp.229–35, 1925.
Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection, Lugano,
The Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection,
Carpets and Textiles, text by Friedrich
Spuhler, Philip Wilson, London, 1998.
Tolomeo, U., Il Tappeto Orientale, Novara,
1979.
Torres Balbás, L., in Ars Hispaniae, vol.IV,
Madrid, 1942.
Troll, Siegfried, ‘Die Wiener Sammlung
orientalischer Teppiche’, in Zeitschrift
für bildende Kunst, LXIII, p. 247–56,
1930.
Troll, Siegfried, ‘Ein Orientalischer
Teppich aus Kaiserlichem Besitz’, in
Jahrbuch des Kunsthistorischen
Sammlungen, Sonderheft 112,
Vienna, 1937(1).
Troll, Siegfried, ‘Damaskus-Teppiche,
Probleme der Teppichforschung’, in
Ars Islamica, vol.IV, pp.201–31,
1937(2).
Turkish and Islamic Arts Museum, Istan-
bul, Anatolian Carpets, Masterpieces
from the Museum of Turkish and
Islamic Arts, text by Nazan Ölçer and
Walter B. Denny, 2 vols, Ertuğ and
Kocabiyik, Bern, 1999.
Vakıflar Museum, Istanbul, Carpets of the
Vakıflar Museum, Istanbul, text by
Belkıs Balpinar and Udo Hirsch,
Wesel, 1988.
Venice, Palazzo Ducale, Arabeschi, exhib-
ition catalogue, 19 July to 31 October
1991, edited by Giovanni Curatola,
Marsilio, Venice, 1991.
Venice, Palazzo Ducale, Eredità
dell’Islam- Arte Islamica in Italia,
exhibition catalogue, organised by the
Comune di Venezia, 30 October 1993
to 30 April 1994, edited by Giovanni
Curatola, Silvana Editoriale, Milan,
1993.
Venice, Palazzo Ducale, Venezia e l'Islam
828–1797, exhibition catalogue, 28 July
to 25 November 2007, edited by
Stefano Carboni, Marsilio, Venice,
2007.
Viale, Mercedes, and Vittorio Viale, Arazzi
e Tappeti Antichi, Novara, 1969.
Victoria and Albert Museum, London,
Guide to the Collection of Carpets,
text by A.F. Kendrick, Victoria and
Albert Museum, London, 1915.
Victoria and Albert Museum, London,
Guide to the Collection of Carpets,
text by A.F. Kendrick, Victoria and
Albert Museum, London, 1920.
Victoria and Albert Museum, London, Fine
Carpets in the Victoria & Albert Mus-
eum, text by A.F. Kendrick and C.E.C.
Tattersall, E. Benn, London, 1924.
Victoria and Albert Museum, London,
Guide to the Collection of Carpets,
text by C.E.C. Tattersall, Victoria and
Albert Museum, London, 1931.
Vienna, Orientalische Teppiche, introduct-
ion by A. von Scala, text by J.M.
Stöckel, et al., 2 vols, Österreich-
ischen Handels-Museum, Vienna,
1892.
Vienna, Österreichisches Museum für
Kunst und Industrie, Ausstellung Ori-
entalischer Teppiche aus ehemals
Kaiserlichem Besitz, exhibition cata-
logue, text by H. Trenkwald, Vienna,
1920.
Völker, Angela, ‘Überlegungen zur Neu-
aufstellung der Orientteppich-sam-
mlung des Österreichischen Museums
für angewandte Kunst in Wien’ in
HALI, 2/1, pp.12–15, Spring 1979.
MUSEUM COLLECTIONS
Washington DC, Textile Museum, Weav- HALI, 81, pp.66–75, June/July 1995.
ing Through Spanish History, 13th– Yaniv, B., ‘The Origin of the “Two-Column
17th Centuries, exhibition handsheet, Motif” in European Parokhot’, in
22 October 1972 to 24 March 1973, Jewish Art, vol.15, pp.26–43, Center
text by Louise Mackie, Textile for Jewish Art, Jerusalem, 1989.
Museum, Washington DC, 1972. Yetkin, Şerare, Historical Turkish Carpets,
Washington DC, The Textile Museum, Istanbul, 1981.
The Splendor of Turkish Weaving, Zick, Johanna, ‘Eine Gruppe von Gebets-
exhibition catalogue, 9 November teppichen und ihre Datierung’, in
1973 to 24 March 1974, text by Louise Berliner Museen, Berichte aus der
Mackie, The Textile Museum, ehem. Preussiuscher Kunstsamm-
Washington DC, 1973. lung, Jg. 11, pp.6–14, Berlin, 1961(1).
Washington DC, The Textile Museum, Zick, Johanna, Die Berliner Kunstsamm-
Prayer Rugs, exhibition catalogue, 21 ungen und unser Bild von der islam-
September to 28 December 1974, ischen Kunstentwicklung, Berlin,
text by Richard Ettinghausen, 1961(2).
Maurice Dimand, Louise Mackie and Zick, Johanna, ‘Koptische Musterelem-
Charles Grant Ellis, The Textile ente und mamlukische Knüpfteppiche’,
Museum, Washington DC, 1974. in Jahrbuch der hamburger Kunst-
Washington DC, The Textile Museum, sammlungen, vol.VII, pp.93ff., 1962.
From the Far West: Carpets and Tex- Zick-Nissen, Johanna, ‘Das Wolkenband-
iles of Morocco, exhibition catalogue, motiv als Kompositionselement auf
1980, edited by Patricia Fiske, Russell osmanischen Teppichen’, in Berliner
Pickering and Ralph Yohe, The Textile Museen, Berichte aus den Preuss-
Museum, Washington, DC, 1980. ischen Kunstsammlungen, Berlin,
Washington DC, The Textile Museum, 1966.
Mamluk Rug Exhibition, 17 March to Zipper, Kurt, Orientteppiche. Vom Ursprung
26 June 1981, arranged by Patricia bis zur Gegenwart, Keysers Sammler-
Fiske, The Textile Museum, Wash- Bibliothek, Munich, 1982.
ington DC, 1981.
Washington DC, The Textile Museum,
The Classical Tradition in Anatolian
Carpets, exhibition catalogue, 13
September 2002 to 16 February
2003, text by Walter B. Denny and
Sumru Belger Krody, Scala, London,
2002.
Washington DC, A World of Oriental Car-
pets and Textiles, exhibition catalogue,
17 to 21 April 2003, for the Xth Inter-
national Conference on Oriental Car-
pets, edited by Murray L. Eiland Jr.,
ICOC, Washington DC, 2003.
Wearden, Jennifer, ‘Europe’, in World
Rugs and Carpets, edited by David
Black, pp.204–21, Country Life
Books, London, 1985.
Weeks, Jeanne G., and Donald Tregan-
owan, Rugs and Carpets of Europe
and the Western World, Chilton Book
Co, London, 1969.
Whiting, Mark, ‘The Red Dyes of Some
East Mediterranean Carpets’, in HALI,
4/1, p. 55, 1981.
Wilckens, Leonie von, ‘Oriental Carpets
in the German Speaking Countries
and the Netherlands’, in Oriental Car-
pet and Textile Studies II. Carpets of
the `Mediterranean Countries 1400-
1600, pp.139–50, edited by Robert
Pinner and Walter B. Denny. HALI/
OCTS, London 1986.
Wilkinson, James, ‘Scientific Dating’, in
High Life, British Airways in-flight
magazine, pp.60–4, November, 1987.
Wilckens, Leonie von, ‘The Quedlinburg
Carpet’, in HALI, 65, pp.96–105,
October 1992.
Woolley, Linda, ‘Hispanic Synthesis’, in
HALI ISSUE 157 95