society--but he proceeds from a framework that is familiar from other studies of material culture. Occasionally Helfgott lacks sufficient data, especially regarding early modern times, to support his general idea that the carpet industry developed in direct response to interactions among the primary economic groups of Iranian culture and the disposition of capital in Iran. When he makes assumptions that he cannot verify, however, Helfgott is careful to point out that he is doing so and presents ordered arguments in support of his conclusions. To take one example, Helfgott remarks that "patronage- and market-driven carpet production probably coexisted during fifteenth-century Timurid rule of Iran" (46). He then goes on to argue that a general system of urban workshops, and perhaps guilds, developed under the Timurids for many types of art objects. "More than likely," he argues, such workshops would have received commissions from wealthier patrons while producing for the general market as well (46). These workshops would also have responded to the
...