Garrus / Bijar Shahsevan Rugs
Persian Garrus/Bijar Area Shahsevan Kilim Saddlebag Bag
Persian Garrus/Bijar Area Shahsevan Kilim Saddlebag Bag PRICE On Request
Size: 119cm x 53cm / 3’11” x 1’9″
Region: West Asia Persia West Persia Bijar Garrus
Item Type: Rugs and Carpets Bags and Trappings Saddle bag
Period / Date: 19th century mid (1834 – 1866)
Materials : Wool
Structure / Technique: Face: slit tapestry weave; bridge: slit tapestry weave back: weft-faced plain weave with paired warps in red wool.
Comments On Condition: Good overall; back intact, closure loops largely intact, overcasting missing; please note: slight discoloration in the upper right hand corner of the face of one pouch.
Full Description: A small number of kilim saddlebags and bedding bags were woven in slit tapestry weave in the Garrus/Bijar District of NW Persia by Shahsevan nomads, who largely employed sumak/extra-weft wrapping (see J. T. Wertime, Sumak Bags, London, 1998). One of the favored designs used in slit tapestry weave was the large stylized blossoms seen here and in two bedding bags also published in Shahsavan (pls. 121, 123) by an old friend and colleague, Parviz Tanavoli, the source of this bag. Published: P. Tanavoli: “Iranian Rugs and Textiles” pl.236 SIZE: 3’11” x 1’9″
2nd half Mianeh or Bijar Shahsavan Chanteh 
Cute small bag in Sumakh technique, probably made in the Mianeh region or around Bidjar.
2nd half Minah Khani w/Bijar border Shahsavan Khordjin
Half of a khordjin in sumakh technique. The style of the border zone is typically Kurdish (with regard to colours, motifs, proportion) and well known from antique Bidjar carpets; the same is true for the Minah Khani design of the field. – Regardless of little moth damage, the bag is in very good condition.
Shahsavan Bijar Sumac
I was reading The Sotheby’s Catalog Fine Oriental and European Carpets, April 7, 1992. New York and I saw: Senneh_Kilim_Prayer_Kilim_Circa_1875_Sotheby’s New York Lot_120. The “hook” for me was that the Senneh_Kilim made me think of Possibly Unique Garrus Sumak by R. John Howe on www.Turkotek.com. God love that John Howe, he is always worth reading so from Sotheby’s catalog to Howe on Turkotek I called Harold Keshishian to let me see his Shahsavan Bijar Sumac.
Everybody else calls it a Garrus Sumac but I call it a Bijar. I do this because Garrus is a Kurdish tribe and Shahsavan is separate ethno-linguistic group. I solve this by using Bijar as a place name rather than an ethnic identity. Gerrus as a place does not exist except on rug maps.
(N.B. This calls to mind a visit to see a curator at the Sackler Gallery of the Smithsonian many years ago. I was disagreeing with the opinion of one of her predecessors in the attribution of an early Safavid painting. She looked at me with exasperation and said, “Mr. O’Connell you have every right to think so… But no one else agrees. )
Harold Keshishian is a blunt and direct man so when I told him that I had been looking at the Sennah Kilim and wanted to see his sumac he asked “what’s your point?”. Nothing I explained except interest. Obviously Sennah kilims have an entirely different structure than this sumac which is analogous in structure to other Shahsavan pieces attributed to the Bijar area. I do find it interesting that both groups have used virtually identical designs.
This border is one that is identified with both the Bijar area and with old Caucasian pieces.