Transylvanian Carpets
The question of origin
Facts supporting the Anatolian origin of the carpets
1, There were trade treaties and agreements between the Ottoman Empire and Hungary/Transylvania, trading routes can be identified through/inside Transylvania.
2, In 1503 the customs account of Brasov (from the account book of Brasov 1503-1526) recorded some 500 pieces of carpets that had passed through the customs of Brasov, coming from Wallachia.
Facts supporting the Transylvanian/Hungarian origin of the carpets
1, The carpets have survived in a unique way and in uniquely large numbers in churches of Transylvania and Hungary, in many cases in active use for more than 200 years.
2, The deliberate use of carpets in a Christian religious context is evidenced by the use of carpets in the churches even in the second half of the 19th century, by surviving carpet inscriptions, by the scuff marks and holes in carpets, and by contemporary church records of carpets.
3, The pattern, composition and size of the carpets were consistent with the functions they performed in the Christian churches where they were used.
4, Factual evidence proves that carpets were made in Transylvania and Hungary during the making-period of the surviving carpets (17th and 18th centuries). Only the documented quantity of imported carpets from Anatolia during the period of production of the surviving carpets (17th and 18th centuries) cannot justify the number of surviving carpets known today.
5, Transylvanian and Hungarian settlements and towns, including the Saxons, continuously supplied the Turks with carpets as tribute.
6, There is a direct link between the surviving carpets and Hungarian-language church sources, suggesting that knotted carpets in Transylvania had their own Hungarian names. The Hungarian name may be linked to knowledge of local carpet-making.
7, In 16th and 17th century Hungarian and Latin sources the terms “Hungarian carpet”, “Transylvanian tapestry” and “Transylvanian carpet” were used, and the Turkish traveller Evliyā Çelebi mentioned “Hungarian carpets” in Transylvania in 1661.
8, Turkish sources mention carpet makers of Hungarian origin.
9, The use of carpets, including home-made and locally made carpets, was widespread in the Hungarian and Transylvanian noble courts. Few carpets of verifiable Turkish origin have been found in their inventories.
Conclusion
After weighing all available clues, evidence and facts from historical sources and surviving carpets, there is a stronger argument for the Transylvanian/Hungarian origin of these carpets, and less argument for their Turkish origin.
In carpet literature there is a tendency of circular reasoning: the surviving carpets themselves are used as an argument to prove the missing 17th and 18th century trade data that should prove the very origin of the carpets – in such a way that the Turkish origin of the carpets is taken as already proven, despite the fact that it should be the trade data that proves it. In addition to arguments based on circular reasoning, many mistranslated and misinterpreted historical records prove-seemingly-the Turkish origin.
The trade treaties, agreements and trade records, including the customs account of Brasov from 1503, alone, are NOT suitable to prove the Anatolian commercial origin of the specific surviving carpets because: 1, the general records of the trade documents are not suitable for identifying the specific surviving carpets; 2, the trading agreements and routes, as well as the data in the customs account of Brasov, date back 100-200 years before the manufacture of the surviving carpets, the data from Brasov even belonged to pre-Reformation times. In contrast, the majority of the surviving carpets date from the 17th and 18th centuries and were used in Saxon Lutheran and Hungarian Lutheran, Reformed, and Unitarian churches. The carpet stock of Transylvanian churches increased significantly in the second half of the 17th century. Sources from the period of production of the surviving carpets recorded very low carpet imports, and it was typical that for several years, or even decades, there was no carpet import data at all.
In contrast to the predominant concept of Turkish origin of carpets, my research on the use of carpets in Transylvania and Hungary not only confirms the role of carpets in Transylvanian society, but also points beyond the use of carpets to their Transylvanian and Hungarian origins.
After 1541, the Kingdom of Hungary was divided into three parts: a territory independent of the Ottoman Empire (Habsburg-ruled Royal Hungary), an occupied territory under Turkish rule (Ottoman Hungary) and a semi-independent vassal state of the Ottoman Empire (Principality of Transylvania). This unique historical context, with the help of the surviving Transylvanian carpets, offers a unique opportunity to explore the relationship between the carpets used in Europe in Christian churches (including the role of the carpets in the religious paintings) and the Anatolian trade carpets.
The surviving Transylvanian carpets, their use in a Christian context and the related historical records can help to investigate whether European, and more specifically Transylvanian carpets, may have inspired certain groups of commercial carpets made in Anatolia. An examination of this might lead to the conclusion that, in addition to the dates mentioned until now as the cornerstone of Ottoman carpet making: 1514: Battle of Chaldiran – the Ottoman Empire’s victory over the Safavid Empire, 1517: Battle of Cairo – the Ottoman Empire’s victory over the Mamluk Sultanate, two other dates can be added: 1526: Battle of Mohács – the Ottoman Empire’s victory over the Kingdom of Hungary and 1541: Capture of Buda.
