The Lotus Flower - A Caucasian Cultivar.

The relation between ceramic decoration and carpets suggests a fascinating  interpretation of a unique carpet hold in the Metropolitan Museum, New York. The label says  'Iran, Azerbaijan, probably 18th century'. A sketch of the field design allows us to focus on the primary motif  - the lotus palmette - whose shape is fixed in Eastern arts long time before.

1-'Lattice' rug, Caucasus, probably 18th

2-detail of the design

3-Lotus flower, Afghanistan 11th/12th, Ashmolean Museum

Since the carpet is attributed to 18th century Azerbaijan, mainly classic Safavid works need to be examined. A large part of the historical Azerbaijan was in fact subject to the Safavid empire and to its artistic influence. Indeed, Safavid silks and carpets (the so-called Polonaise) offer convincing parallels.

4- Safavid silk, Keshan, second half of the 16th; Polonaise carpet, Isfahan, 17th

Ceramic ornamental friezes and panels follow the style.

5-Frieze detail, Jameh Mosque, Yazd, 17th.

6-Lunette, Jameh Mosque, Isfahan, early 17th.

The two ceramic panels in plate 5 and 6 properly illustrate the widespread design of interlaced arabesques. The repeat lotus silhouettes, flanked by open/reclining split leaves, are often outlined by a dominant colour to create the idea of a self generating pattern. Typical of Islamic art, it  appears throughout Eastern cultures and many periods, i.e. Seljuk, Ilkahnid,Timurid, Safavid.

It is no wonder that an Isfahan tile work of the Ilkahnid period mirrors the rug pattern as well as a Northern Anatolian Seljuk frieze (plate 7,8).

Indeed, the carpet design may originate from such classic ceramic decorations where the motif is often arranged in vertical rows. The rug, specifically, displays them in alternating directions, downward and upward.

7-Ilkhanid tile, Iran, possibly Isfahan, 13th, second half.

8-Frieze, Gok madrasa, Tokat, 1277

Two more Caucasian carpets display the same pattern in the 19th century (plate 9, 10); the first kelley format has only one central row gracing the field - the allover pattern being cut by the border. The second is characterised by a stylised lotus shape - a diamond form.

A third rug (plate 11), belonging to a small group, seems to apply a rarefied version of the design.

A last rug, finally, seems to adopt a similar arrangement where the usual elements of the design are disguised as long 'hooked' tendrils, essentially split leaves and  flaming palmettes.

All these examples are distinguished by rarity and beauty as well.

9-Eastern Caucasus, long rug, early 19th, once with Herrmann 

11-Southeastern Caucasus, Moghan (?) long rug, 19th 

10-Eastern Caucasus, Seychour (?), long run, Alexander collection, 19th ?

                     

12-Talish long rug, 19th

The Lotus and Split Leaf design is featured also in the so called Konakend rugs sourced in the Eastern Caucasus. They present a vertical setting of lotus palmette arranged in rows. In the earlier examples, dated to the early/mid 19th century, the design is still recognizable, while later on it becomes very stylised and 'misinterpreted' as an unrealistic lattice' (see below in Konakend Split Leaves).

Both types of  the lotus palmette are used - the lotus with open and closed leaves (plate 13). The second type, though, is usually preferred, and happens to be the only one featured in later carpets. Otherwise, the first type seems to indicate awareness of the original source and appears at the beginning of the row  and/or in the lattice itself in early pieces.

13-Lotus palmette with closed leaves (upper flower in turquoise), Samarkanda, 14th

14-Lattice prayer rug, Konakend, 1850 ca.

15-Lattice rug, Konakend, 1880s
(A stolen piece from the Douglass Collection)

By alternate row the lotus is embellished with two diverging split leaves stemming from the apex.

Split leaves detail

Split leaves detail

Konakend Split Leaves - Given the floral nature of the pattern, the elements sprouting from the  apex of the palmette are probably nothing more than vegetal forms, despite their subtle animal-like appearance.

The Caucasian textiles often share an altered vocabulary to reflect an 'animal style' of drawing which makes the original design difficult to trace back (for example plate 10 has been interpreted also as a 'dragon' rug).
Actually, animals and mythological beasts were important elements in  classical Safavid carpets, represented as both free-standing or filling floral devices  (plate 16). Furthermore, 19th century  Caucasian rugs happened to be imbued with a degree of 'archaism' including village as well as urban rugs, as if the Russian takeover of the area and the vanishing influence of the Safavid aesthetic could release a supposed ancient tribal lineage of the weavers. In this regard, the aficionados would underline the most appreciated stigmata of all these 'stylised' rug designs, the shamanistic steppe ancestry of many weavers. Shamanistic beliefs usually endow things with animal supernatural powers and supposedly their shapes were embedded in designs.

16- Safavid fragment, end of the 16th

By the way, four rugs testify the slow process of abstraction applied to the split leaf from the 17th century onwards - the original form definitely gone astray the end of the 19th, circa. Nevertheless, it must always be reminded how, despite of the epoch, the fantasy and creativity of weavers is king in trasmuting things and details 'into gold' (that is, in completely new 'expressive' shapes).

17-Floral rug, Eastern Caucasus, 17th

18-Floral carpet, Caucasus, 18th

Lotus palmette lattice rug, Eastern Caucasus, early 19th

19-Lattice rug, Konakend, 19th, second half

Using this methodology, even some extremely unrealistic renditions of the split leaf in the Kuba weaving district (plate 20) might be traced back.

Detail of the previous Konakend

20-Arabesque rug, Kuba, 19th

              
The same field pattern as in rug 20 has been found further north in Daghestan  framing the popular palmette field. Using the single motif to create a repeat border motif indeed makes totally obscure the possible source.

21-Palmette rug, Daghestan, mid 19th

In the whole Caucasus the palmette/lotus was a common motif featured in many arrangements and liveries. Two are the primary types, the blooming and the closed one (this can have in turn open and closed leaves, as already seen). While the first  has proper names - flaming or harshang palmette - the second has been variously interpreted, namely as open top lotus, palmette, or egg palmette due to the shape, and shield, or shield palmette. Generally speaking, the  lotus palmette could be a reasonable terminology.

Given the accuracy of the design so close to the classical models, an early to mid 18th century date could be plausible for the Metropolitan rug.

Closed lotus

21-Blooming lotus, Song dynasty (860-1279)

22-Flaming palmette, Caucasus, 17th/18th

Lotus palmette design,  mid 18th

                                                      -----------------------------------------

We like to thank for the image credits - Alberto Boralevi Collection; Alberto Levi Gallery; Azerbaijanrugs, Chris Alexander Collection; Douglass Collection; Rugtracker; The Ashmolean Museum; The David Collection; The MAK; The Metropolitan Museum; The Victoria&Albert Museum.

Bibliographic references - 'Asiatische teppich und Textilekunst 4' by E. Herrmann; 'Caucasian Prayer Rugs' by R. Kaffel, 'Caucasian Rugs' by U. Schurman;, 'Early Caucasian Carpets in Turkey' by S. Yetkin; 'Caucasian Shield carpets' by M. Franses - R. Pinner in Hali 1, 1978; 'Motflier Motifs in Turkish Decorative Arts'  by I. Birol and C. Derman; 'The Arabesque: Meaning and Transformation of an Ornament' by E. Kuhnel; 'The Lotus Symbol: Its Meaning in Buddhist Art' by E. Ward; 'On the Role of the Lotus Leaf in South Asia Cosmography' by T. Kintaert; 'Problems of Style: Foundations for a History of Ornament' (Original 'Stilfragen') by A. Riegl.