This question has been present since my early years. When I was starting my professional life, the fact that a carpet was older than an another one, it was considered that the older piece must be more valuable than the more recent one.
As I am moved by aesthetic, and as I was involved to European painting (antique and contemporary), I could not accept the statement that the price or even the interest of a carpet is due to its age.
A Picasso masterpiece as les Demoiselles d’Avignon is more important than a painting of a portrait of Fayoum (head of a sarcophage). Even if some portraits migth be attractive, the fact that they are much more older than Les Demoiselles d’Avignon by Pablo Picasso is not enough to make them more important.
I can say I don’t like most of floral Cairene carpets of the XVIth century.
More, I am not found of some early rugs found in Fostat and so much promoted by some persons. Their historical importance can be denied, but are they really astisticaly important. I don’t think so.