Eder, D., 1980, Kaukasische Teppiche (and the English edition of the book, Bennett, I., 1982, Caucasian Carpets, have for a long time been among the cornerstones to our understanding of 19th and early 20th century Caucasian rugs. Therefore it is surprising that in the more recent book by Azadi, S.U., Kerimov, L., and Zollinger, W., 2001, Azerbaidjanisch-Kaukasische Teppiche, no reference is made to a group identified and described by Doris Eder, the so called Tachte Shirvan.



Tachte in Turko-Iranian language means ‘throne’, in a semantic as well as in a figural sense. For instance, Tacht-i-Sulayman  (throne of Salomon) is a hill in NW Iran 110 km west of Sandschan and northwest of Bidjar, carrying an excavation site of a once fortified city from the Sassanian and Mongol periods. The significance of Tachte Shirvan rugs rests in the peculiar large symbol on those rugs, for Doris Eder representing an Avar throne. The Avar were probably related to the Huns and had settled in an area between the lower Danube region in the west, and the north-eastern shores of the Black Sea. For a hundred years they appear to have been a military force, giving the early Byzantines much trouble. Those were the old Avar. There also are the younger Avar, settling in Daghestan to the present day. On grounds of their language, to some writers they are probably unrelated to the old Avar (www.wikipedia.org). The two or three rugs with an Avar label I have come across in recent years in the trade or in the internet seemed unrelated by design and left no lasting impression with me.

So, if it is not a younger Avar throne that is depicted on those rugs, might it be an old one? Probably neither. A Google based survey, following up a substantial number of entries on Avar, yielded no results that could be linked to this particular (textile) design (entries followed-up included data on a major Austrian Avar exhibition a few years ago). After this, it is not surprising, that the Avar throne attribution did not find resonance in the mentioned publication by Azadi, et al.

The Avar throne on those rugs very likely is a representation of a Torah Shrine or of the Ark of the Law (also: Ark of Covenant).

Comparing the main motive on the rug on plate 09 with the much older Torah Shrine or Ark images in part I of this salon, it becomes immediately apparent that all the significant elements are shared, i.e. the gabled roof over a pentagonal structure, the box principle, the threefold base or rest; the entrance doors appear as an arrow, expressing the principle of transcendence in a different image language (for a very interesting discussion, among other topics of the symbolic meaning of the "Sky-Door" see Cammann, S.V.R., 1972, Symbolic Meaning in Oriental Rug Patterns I-III, TMJ III/3 pp 5-54).

In the discussion of some of the rugs in the Zollinger collection Azadi, et al express their wonder on that strange and most peculiar symbol ("Das äußerst eigenartige Fünfeck", Azadi, S.U., Kerimov, L., Zollinger, W., 2001, a.a.o., p 362) in their high level technical analyses, but offer no concept. On one occasion they call it an animal-throne composition ("Tier-Thron-Komposition", a.a.o. p 332). Unlike Eder, who reserved a group-label for those rugs (Tachte Shirvan) they simply call the rugs by the name of their geographical area: i.e. Marasali, a village in the Shirvan area.

Doris Eder gives no indication as to who had introduced the term "Tachte-Shirvan", or whether she was the originator. I can quite see why "ruggies" - in the absence of a more appropriate interpretation - would have jumped on the concept of "tachte" as a throne, allowing imagination to run wild. There is another, less evocative and more technical translation of the word "tachte", that is "arch" or possibly "gable". As has been discussed, "gable" is of a particular significance here. Anyway, this "cooler" translation does not answer any questions. It is less distractive, though.

"Ark of the Law" - Rugs can be allocated to four different groups:

(1) This group features a repetition of the Ark of the Law, all else are decorative additions (plate 09). The     arrangement of the arks and the usage of space, although much less sophisticated, echoes the "Spanish Synagogue Carpet" in the Islamic Museum in Berlin. In that sense it is a "key rug" to me. If it had not been for its crisp, clean drawing that was giving me a deja-vu, perhaps the likeness to the motive in the Synagogue Carpet would have gone unnoticed.

It is not a common type, the only other one to this group I can think of passed through auction at Nagel's in Stuttgart in 1981 (lot 173, 291st auction).

(2) One of the two most common types, featuring the Ark, tablets depicting the ten commandments and figures who according to Azadi, Kerimov & Zollinger a.a.o. entertain in the group-dance, "Jally". If one has accepted that the main image is that of the Ark, the Jally-interpretation becomes unconvincing (as does an interpretation based on the assumption, those tablets were Muslim tombstones). I know a man who grew up in Baku and who spent much time in his youth with his grandparents in the Kuba area, where his grandfather was a rabbi. Now, in an official position, he is fostering the integration of Jewish immigrants from the territory of the former Soviet Union into the German ways of life - quite a delicate task in my opinion. According to him, the Jewish community does not dance Jally, it being a dance of the Muslim population only.

There is a special significance attached to those figures. If I got it right, ten men are needed for full prayer according to Jewish tradition. In most rugs of this type, especially the ones that appear to be older, ten figures are depicted. As far as Jally is concerned, no significance is attached to the figure ten.

Also, according to an entry in Encyclopaedia Britannica, once ten Jews (men) had come together forming a community, a Synagogue had to be built, a task that may have stretched the means of some - could a woven synagogue or ark have been an easy way out?

The following rug is from the Doris Eder/Ian Bennett book (plate 11). It is a splendid example of the type and illustrates the bondage of those figures to the Ark in a kind of "tilted image" (figure-ground-separation being the underlying perceptual principle). If you look carefully, you can identify the shape of the Ark between those figures. Their shape is determined by the representation of the Ark, which serves as a kind of "independent variable" in the process.


 And two more recent ones:



             

(3) This group is characterised by a very unusual integration of Muslim and Jewish  religious representations, the Ark under the gable of a prayer rug: