An Ersari rug fragment, Middle Amu Darya, Central Asia,

Pile ranges from approximately 1/8in. to low to knotheads and spot foundation. Some scattered minor moth damage, most in lower end. Small, penny-size, hole in around center on right side. Scattered minor foldwear. One side possibly missing one band of design. Small, 1in. by 2in., reweave in upper right corner. Ends complete with original striped kilim finish with a 2in. by 2in. low to finish at upper end. Similar size loss to lower end with some loss to border - recommend securing. Sides reselvaged with brown wool. Flexible handle, very good condition for age, unusual design.
In response to your inquiry, we are pleased to provide you with a general report of the condition of the property described above. Since we are not professional conservators or restorers, we urge you to consult with a restorer or conservator of your choice who will be better able to provide a detailed, professional report. Prospective buyers should inspect each lot to satisfy themselves as to condition and must understand that any statement made by Sotheby's is merely a subjective qualified opinion.
NOTWITHSTANDING THIS REPORT OR ANY DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING CONDITION OF A LOT, ALL LOTS ARE OFFERED AND SOLD "AS IS" IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS OF SALE PRINTED IN THE CATALOGUE.

The present example is similar in design to lot 51 in this catalogue and to an Ersari prayer rug in the Museum of Ethnography, Saint Petersburg, dated to before the early 19th century, see Tzareva, Rugs and Carpets from Central Asia, Leningrad, 1984, p. 147, pl. 98.  Unlike the piece in Saint Petersburg, however, which features a pointed mihrab whose corners terminate in horn scrolls, in this example, there is no suggestion of an arch. This indicates that the rug offered here may not have been used either as a prayer rug or a door covering. Another Ersari prayer rug dated to the early 19th century again features an overall design of polychrome leafy vines set against an ivory ground, see Eiland, Oriental Rugs from Pacific Collections, San Francisco, 1990, p. 158, pl. 154. In that example, while the vinery is more static and stylised than the vinery of either the Saint Petersburg piece and the rug illustrated here, the prayer arch is much less pronounced than that of the Saint Petersburg example, and suggests how the architectural elements of the mihrab may have evolved into the decorated stems form which the leaves of the present lot grow.