Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-mwx4w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-19T13:54:58.342Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Corrections to Arthur Upham Pope's “The Myth of the Armenian Dragon Carpets”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2011

H. Kurdian
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Miscellaneous Communications
Information
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , Volume 72 , Issue 1 , January 1940 , pp. 65 - 67
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1940

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Page 65 note 1 See Alf. v. Kremer, Kulturgeschichte, i, p. 358.

Page 66 note 1 Mr. Pope has taken the translation of the inscription from Hand Woven Carpets, by Kendrick and Tattersall, p. 15, and naturally we cannot blame him for the errors in the translation and date. The inscription in Armenian reads :—

The writing is in Armenian “polorkir”. Although legible, it is not neatly and nicely written, perhaps the fault of the weaver who could not copy the scribe's writing neatly. There also is an error committed during weaving, the underlined should be corrected (“me”).

By other readers of this inscription the date has been read (1129), instead of (1149), because the weaver has made a but not complete, forgetting the up-turning line of the . At the same time this particular letter cannot be because all other 'a are perfectly executed in this inscription.

In Armenian dates the letter is equal to twenty, and is equal to forty.

Thus can be explained the difference in the reading of the date.