In the course of many years of laboratory research with rug dyes and related substances, I have not found it particularly easy or useful to attempt any precise specification of time intervals or lower bounds to rug age (i.e., how recent can the rug be?), using the presence or absence of what could be called "marker" dyes in oriental rugs, trappings and textiles. Reasons for this include (1) temporal benchmarks or sharp transitions for marker dye use are generally unsubstantiated by solid field information for chemically specific dyes, (2) there are often clusters of dyes that provide an identical or near-identical appearance and behavior to the eye, but each of which has its own distinct commercial and technical history, (3) the temporal distribution of dye use appears to be very broad rather than crisp and narrow, i. e., dye abandonment in widely-decentralized rug making would typically be a slow decay process rather than an abrupt, quantal one, especially for village or tribal pieces (4) different areas of rug production adopted, persisted in the use of, or abandoned use of, certain synthetic dyes at different time periods, so that cross-group conclusions cannot be easily made, and (5) more recent changes in dye use have occurred in such a cramped time span that even reliable information probably doesn't translate retrospectively to historically useful conclusions.

Regarding points 1-3 above, Prof. Price refers to Hali's contributing editor Anthony Hazledine as an authoritative source for the view that "fuchsin" (whatever that is chemically and technologically perceived to mean by various dealers and collectors) was phased out of oriental rug use by 1900 (Hali 78, p. 95). Whatever Hazledine's specific qualifications to comment or not to comment on this issue, there are no conclusive archival records, to my knowledge, for precise periods of use or abandonment of chemically-specific "fuchsin" dyes in oriental rug yarns, either for local or Western export markets. I don't know the basis for Hazledine's passing reference to when "fuchsin" as an oriental rug yarn dye was abandoned, since he did not indicate such. I assume the reference is to earlier statements of academic chemist Prof. Mark Whiting to this effect in his various writings. For example, Prof. Whiting has stated (Hali, v. 1/3, Autumn, 1978, p. 281) that "Use of Fuchsine, invented in 1858 and rare in Turkoman rugs, suggests a date before its succession by better dyes between 1890-1900."

In my opinion and to my knowledge, Whiting's basis for this statement is not hard evidence from commercial archives or field research, but an assumption that the mere commercial appearance of "better" dyes automatically compelled their use. A priori plausibility is not fact, however. There is no actual evidence that this sequence occurred within some precise time frame for dyes in oriental rugs over the time period at issue. In fact, the opposite is often true. For example, and as I note below, cheap acid azo dyes from decades ago and with all sorts of problems with washing fastness and dyeing characteristics were being used in the 1960s and 1970s in Afghan Turkoman commercial market carpets.

In any event, Hazledine's and Whiting's statements as proffered in print are, at best, unsubstantiated.

What Specific "Fuchsin" Dye Are We Talking About?
The statements about the "fuchsin" era are speculative for various reasons, not the least of which is the fact that there are at least six chemically distinct synthetic dyes that qualify under the blue-red or red-violet rubric of "fuchsin," all of which would have been used in yarn dyeing over the period of interest. In particular, my various technical articles published in Oriental Rug Review over the years indicate quite clearly that there are various dyes loosely called "fuchsin" by non-dye experts that look and behave quite similarly but bridge different spans of time. Prior to discovery of the above-noted dyes, the historical "fuchsin" of mid-19th century English sociocultural and industrial legend (see ORR III/7, 10/83, pp. 2-4) was the first synthetic dye, "mauve," discovered accidently by William Perkin in 1856 from oxidation reactions with coal tar products (Colour Index [C.I.] # 50245). The cost of this material from 1856 through its relatively brief commercial lifetime for yarn dyeing (late 1860s) would have been too prohibitive to have been used on wool yarn for oriental rug dyes. It was principally a dye for expensive silk fabrics. What's more, its commercial lifetime predated production of the huge bulk of oriental rugs of current collector/market interest, i.e., 1880-1920. This "mauve" was a photoactive, cationic/basic dye that faded with time and light to a gray-lavender.

The potential market for synthetic dyes for wool and other yarn coupled with the popularity of Perkin's pricey mauve led to intense dye research in the last half of the 19th century on cost-competitive substitutes with similar dyeing properties and appearance to the market eye. This shortly led to the introduction of five dyes in the relevant color range that could broadly be termed "fuchsin" dyes, all being of the triphenylmethane class: (1) fuchsine or magenta (Verguin, 1858, Fischer, 1878; C.I. Basic Violet 14, # 42510), (2) pararosaniline (paramagenta; Rosenstiel, 1869; Fischer, 1880, C.I. Basic Red 9, #42500), (3) fuchsine acid (C.I. Acid Violet 19, # 42685, a trisulfonated analog of fuchsine, (4) Hoffmann's Violet (Red Violet 5R, Hoffmann and Geyger, 1863; C.I. 42530), (5) Red Violet 5RS (Caro, 1877; C.I. 42690). All of these dyes are quite light-sensitive and will fade to gray shades rather rapidly (for a general, minimally technical discussion on light-sensitive dyes of this class and what light sensitivity levels are measured in these dyes, see "Triphenylmethane and Related Dyes", v. 23, 3rd edition, Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, 1983, pp. 399-412).

In the mid-1890s there would have appeared in rug yarns the most recent of the triphenylmethane "fuchsin" dyes, New Fuchsine (New Magenta, Homolka, 1889; C.I. Basic Violet 2, # 42520). This particular "fuchsin" was still in use as a wool yarn dye well into the 20th century. I have identified it in a number of pieces from the first half of the 20th century. In an Oriental Rug Review article (V/2, 5/85: pp. 7-10) on early synthetic dyes that I had identified in oriental rugs, I noted that it would be impossible to tell New Fuchsine from other "fuchsin" dyes without laboratory analysis using sophisticated equipment. I also noted that New Fuchsine would, on chemical grounds, be somewhat more stable than the others. However, it is not likely that this dye would resist light significantly beyond the other dyes and not fade to the gray appearance as well. What "Fuchsin" Disappeared When?

Perkin's mauve was never used in oriental rug yarn during the so-called early commercial period. Despite any suggestions by Prof. Whiting to the contrary, all six of the above "fuchsin" dyes were apparently used beyond 1900, although how far beyond remains at this point indeterminate from the available textile industry literature. All of these dyes were variably used as wool yarn dyes for many years after their introduction, and this continued into the 20th century. For example, in the first edition of the Colour Index, published in 1924, all five of the earlier "fuchsin" dyes were noted as being employed by being directly applied to silk and wool. This compendium is the authoritative reference for all natural and synthetic dyes and their applications with yarns and textiles. It is, of course, the case that the basic triphenylmethane dyes were never nearly as heavily used for wool in oriental rugs as were the acid azo or chrome dyes. However, the above compendium reference does not suggest there was no use in wool at the time of its publication, 1924. In brief, the 1924 edition of the Colour Index indicates use for all likely candidates beyond 1900. In my own studies, New Fuchsine appears in relatively recent pieces, often with a somewhat faded, grayish pile tip or flat-weave yarn surface. In the second ORR article noted above, a number of Caucasian pieces that can be assigned on stylistic grounds to the first or first-to-second quarters of the 20th century turned out to have New Fuchsine, but not the other potential "fuchsins." Based on these findings, one can probably assume that New Fuchsine in a Caucasian rug means a likely younger piece than one with either of the other five "fuchsins" but one cannot pinpoint a specific year of making. As a practical matter, furthermore, one cannot determine this dye's presence by eye and must differentiate among dyes by laboratory spectrophotometric or high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) testing (see my ORR article).

Marker Dyes Versus Inscribed Dates In De-Minimis Dating
I certainly agree with Prof. Price that, given a judgment call between a rug with sole use of "fuchsin" as the synthetic dye and an inscribed date more recent than Hazledine's magical 1900, one would be just as justified in going with the inscribed date as the dye marker. While it is certainly true that dates were copied from older rugs and produced erroneous chronology for that reason, it is arguably much less true that copied inscriptions from older rug models would have been endemic for the vast production of more recent, commercial-period rugs, from ca. 1880 to 1920-5. Why would it be true, since the mercantile rationale for the bulk of the export market and local purchase was as much to show "new" as "old?" (I am not aware that weavers took this issue the other, but extremely unlikely way, i.e., they made rugs with future dates and then stored them away). It is true, given what I noted above, that a faded "fuchsin" in the absence of laboratory testing does not allow any determination as to how recent a rug, especially a Caucasian rug, was produced. Supposing, for the sake of argument, that Hazledine encountered a Caucasian rug that had only a faded New Fuchsine as the synthetic dye. He presumably would identify the piece as being made in 1870-1900 instead of in some more correct post-1900 time frame.

Cross-Applicability of Data on Dye Use and Abandonment
Based on my own analyses in this area, I have found that the notion of "early synthetic rug dyes" has to be tempered with hard information about the time span of use in specific rug-producing regions. For example, in late 19th-20th century Turkoman rugs from the traditional tribal areas of Central Asia, e.g., in pieces of the Tekke and the Yomud, one often finds persistence in use of early acid azo synthetic dyes, but particularly Amaranth and Ponceau 2R. Early on, some natural dye use in reds was retained but eventually almost total use of early acid azo synthetics occurred. In the 1940s and 1950s, many Afghan "Ersaris" had as their principal red a very loose, acid azo red dye that had been around since the late 19th century. Then, in the 1970s, the finely-made pieces from Afghanistan known as the Sarooq (distinct from the Persian Sarouks) or Mauri rugs, resembling in all their design features old but cramped Tekke and Salor work, presented themselves with very loose, acid azo synthetic dyes that were a throw-back to earlier decades. I specifically refer to these pieces having a number of the German/Swiss acid azo dyes marketed first in the late 19th century. As a cautionary aside, readers should not attempt to wash these rugs under any circumstances; they shouldn't even be permitted to get damp!

By contrast, use of these early acid azo wool dyes in Persian and Caucasian rugs appears to have had a relatively more narrow time frame of use.

Any effort at ascertaining time of abandonment of even natural dyes, e.g., Prof. Price's model example of iron-mordanted root/bark/rind browns and blacks in wool yarn, faces equally treacherous unknowns. For one thing, synthetic blacks and dark browns are not without their own corrosion potential for wool. The presence of corrosion is therefore not necessarily diagnostic, per se, in the absence of laboratory testing. In my last article in ORR on identifying synthetic dyes in Istanbuli pieces ca. 1900 (15/1, pp. 27-33), I noted blue-black and black areas that were all comprised of acid dyes on brown wool. These areas in the main rug under discussion (Rug 1) showed obvious and selective wearing away due to the combinations of harsh synthetic dyes and acid treatment of yarn prior to dyeing. Purely on the basis of differential pile loss, one might erroneously conclude that these black areas had natural iron-mordanted tannin dyes.

Secondly, I have observed that across various rug groups the use of corrosive brown-black natural dyeing was often the last component of traditional natural dyeing practice to be discarded within a group, but its relative persistence was variable across groups. The super-fine Persian shop rugs of 1900-1925/1930, e.g., the Fereghan or Mishan Malayer so-called "Zili Sultan" rugs appeared to have used black synthetics at the same time they were used in the Istanbuli copies I described in the last Oriental Rug Review article. However, they invariably had other synthetics as well. I refer to Jacobsen's comments, in his 1962 book, on "Zeli Sultans" as often having a red that had badly run, indicating an early synthetic red. I have observed this runny red in several Fereghans of the type. By contrast, many tribal and semi-nomadic categories of Turkish, Turkoman, Persian, and Caucasian rugs used natural corrosive brown/black dyeing well into the 20th century.

The abandonment of natural, corrodible dyeing practices for browns and blacks was generally compressed into fairly recent times, such that synthetic black substitutes were often co-employed with other synthetics that were more obvious to the general eye. These other, often more discernible synthetics would, obviously, be more chronologically diagnostic than would a potentially synthetic black. Black areas, and some dark brown or brown-black areas as well, would be hard to discern as natural versus synthetic without laboratory testing.

Building a Data Base for Marker Dyes in Dated Rugs
Readers will recognize one major group of Caucasian production in which "fuchsin" and inscribed dates seemingly co-occur with considerable frequency. I refer to the room-size and relatively late triple-medallion Soumaks, where the dominant color on the top side is a faded gray due to presence of an aged "fuchsin." Some of these pieces are so aggressively hideous that they actually become abstractly attractive with certain decors. I have encountered a number of these over the years, and the inscribed dates in these pieces were all post-1900, including pieces with other synthetics as well. A number of these are 9'x 12' in size, a generally American market dimension. They probably would have been produced at the latter, American market phase of the early commercial period, i.e., 1900-World War I or thereabouts.

While we can certainly log groups of Caucasian or other rugs with "fuchsin" and inscribed dates, what does this do for the overall record? It seems to me that this sort of effort would principally be useful for answering very specific hypothesis-testing partly in the negative, i.e., establishing that "fuchsin" was present in rugs with inscribed dates that are post-1900 but not establishing actual time of making of an undated rug that had "fuchsin" present. In that case, where is the matter really headed? At present, it is the burden of Hazledine and his sources of information to show that all light-unstable "fuchsin" dyes ceased being used by 1900, something he/they cannot do, rather than anyone having to show that one or more of such dyes persisted past 1900, something which I have already shown in this commentary and earlier research articles to be the case.

Parting Comments
So what's the big deal about fine-tuning rug age by a few years? The point of this commentary has less to do with whether it really is that important to shave a decade or two off a rug's age than it does about how one approaches and practices scholarship in the oriental rug world. Granted that there is much that is not known and perhaps unknowable in the area of rug studies. This does not negate the need for critical and questioning analysis of what may be true; quite the opposite. Our current level of ignorance is still high enough that it actually requires a very high degree of skepticism and objective analysis before investing time and effort in some project. It has been my experience that students of oriental rugs need to be very cautious about ready acceptance of information that actually requires further analysis, regardless of the surface plausibility of statements and whether such information reinforces pre-existing biases. In the area of acceptance via apparent bias, I would include the rather narrow view of Hali that there is an Anglocentric monopoly or near-monopoly on any utterances of consequence in rug scholarship.

The essence of scholarship is the pursuit of objective information and reasoned, defensible conclusions to be drawn therefrom.