CAUCASIAN RUGS, DAGHESTAN AND RUSSIAN TYPES
The Daghestan rugs of Caucasia are only second in importance to those from
Persian looms. An opinion is reserved, nevertheless, regarding antique
Turkish weaves, which are hereinafter considered.
If history does not satisfactorily prove that the Caucasus was originally
the northern part of Persia (as may have been, under Cyrus), Persian
dominance and influence may be demonstrated, in textile art, by rug
borders, patterns, and designs. The Shirvans, Kabistans, Chichis,
Darbends, Karabaghs, all exhibit pronounced Persian characteristics, and
show the educational power of the mother country of this handicraft.
Fineness of weave, delicacy of hue, and chaste simplicity of design are
distinguishing features of this group. But, as contrasted with the Persian
patterns, the Persians use for their detail roses, flowers, palm leaves,
etc., while the Caucasians gain similar effects from geometrical figures,
angles, stars, squares, and hexagons, with small tilings, mosaics, and
trellisings. The true and the beautiful was never better demonstrated by
Euclid through angle, square, or hypothenuse. An old Chichi rug, like a
drawing of Tenniel's, will prove what grace may come without a curve and
by angles only.
It is unfortunate that the best rugs of the Caucasus come from the large
province of Daghestan, and that that general term is applied to them
indiscriminately. Twenty or more years ago most of the Oriental rugs which
were sold here to an uneducated and unappreciative public came by way of
Tiflis, and for lack of knowledge were all branded with the common name of
Daghestan. Thousands of beautiful Kabistans, Shirvans, Bakus, etc.,
were then sold for a song under the one arbitrary title. They would be
priceless to-day, and yet the former commercial, vulgar use of the name
leaves it in undeserved disrepute. As used in this chapter, it is intended
to mark a distinction between certain of the Caucasian types, which it
properly represents, and the Russian types from the same region, which are
illustrated in the Kazaks and Yourucks.
[Illustration:
PLATE VI.
KABISTAN
_Thirty or forty years old_
FROM THE COLLECTION OF THE AUTHOR
Size: 4.5 x 5.6]
What may have become of all the fine Kabistans, which were forced upon the
market years ago, is a question. Are they all worn to rags and lost to the
world? Or do they still turn up at chance household auctions? Many fine
specimens may be so discovered, dirty, disguised, and disreputable, but
easily reclaimable and made anew by washing. There is a theory, also, that
many choice pieces came to San Francisco in the 'seventies and 'eighties,
and are lost to sight and memory somewhere in California. A collector
might well explore this home field.
Too great praise cannot be given to the old Shirvans, with their "palace"
or "sunburst" pattern; to the Chichis, with their mosaic work, worthy of
Saint Mark's Cathedral; to the Karabaghs, with their flaming reds; or to
the Kabistans, with their soft, light tones of colour, made softer still
in contrast with ivory and creamy white. These are the despised Daghestans
which _were_, and for which the collector may now vainly search abroad.
It is not always easy to distinguish between an old--or middle-aged, may
we say?--Shirvan or Kabistan. Many of their designs are common property,
and it is the cleverer weaver who executes them the better. This broad
statement may be made by way of a test: the best of the Shirvans are
rather loosely woven and thin. The Kabistans are of finer weave, are
firmer and heavier, and lie truer on the floor.
Two classes of rugs from the Caucasus have been referred to as Russian,
the Yourucks and Kazaks. There is no authority for the distinction except
in the rugs themselves. They prove their case from their thickness and
iron durability, from their sombre or strong red colouring, and from their
daring crude and simple designs. In their utility they bespeak an article
of warmth and weight, and in their art they represent a barbaric
simplicity like a Navajo blanket. Kazak and Cossack are almost synonymous
terms; and the Cossacks, the Kurds, and the Indians have something of
kinship in weaving, at least. But the Kazak rugs are not all crude, by any
manner of means. If strength is their first characteristic and strong
primitive pigments in rare greens, reds, and blues; and if their patterns
are simple and angular;--none the less, in antique specimens, much
originality was shown in the drawing of their borders, and soft browns and
yellows with ivory white appeared in their colouring.
Of the Shirvans, Chichis, etc., ordinarily offered, there is nothing to be
said. They are cheaply and roughly woven, and made only to sell. They are
disposed of by the thousands at auctions, and piles and piles of them fill
the carpet and department stores. Be it said to their credit that they
will outwear any machine-made floor covering; that they are good to hide a
hole in an old carpet; that they help to furnish the bedrooms of a summer
cottage; that they are most useful in the back hall; and, in fine, that
they are better than no rugs at all. Yet, on the other hand, be it well
understood that they are not, as frequently advertised, "exquisite
examples of textile art," and that fine Oriental rugs are not to be bought
at "$6.98" apiece.