A note about fabric names:<\/strong> Towns and regions specialized in not just different types of fabric, but specific variations on a type of fabric. For example, a city might be known for a particular brocade pattern. Everyone knew that pattern came from that city, so it made perfect sense to name the fabric after the city. But, because the Ottomans were bastards who existed solely to make textile researchers pull their hair out, no one wrote down the details.<\/em> The result is dozens of “ghost” fabrics whose names we know, but which we couldn’t recognize if their anthropomorphic avatars slapped us in the face.<\/p>\n To avoid the worst of the confusion, I’ve listed only ghost fabrics that appeared in the estate records I studied.<\/p>\n Alaca<\/strong> may be a cotton-silk mixture, if “alaca” isn’t a color reference. The other meaning of alaca is “brightly colored,” “multicolored,” or, by the 18th century, “striped.”\u00a0The estate records contain a few “alaca\u00a0ke\u00e7e,” alaca felt mats, one alaca kirpas (cotton cloth), and several garments made of alaca kemha (brocade), but the rest of the many, many items labeled as alaca mention neither a color nor a fabric. That suggests that alaca was both a type of fabric and a pattern or patterns that needed no further color description.<\/p>\n Astar<\/strong>\u00a0was\u00a0a type of cotton cloth. In an 1802 source, it was used for linings. [link<\/a>] Today it refers to three grades of muslin used for turbans and underwear.<\/p>\n Bez<\/strong>\u00a0was\u00a0a generic term for cloth, usually cotton but sometimes linen.\u00a0Bez panbuk<\/strong> (pamuk) is definitely cotton.<\/p>\n 19th- or 20th-century bogasi (Atlasar Atlas\u0131<\/em>, p. 73)<\/p><\/div>\n Bogasi<\/strong> (or bo\u011fas\u0131) was\u00a0a high-quality cotton twill used both as the main fabric for ordinary garments, and as a lining for grander garments. In the late 15th century,\u00a0bo\u011fas\u0131 was dyed and polished [link<\/a>]–that is, run through a press to give it a smooth, shiny finish–so it may have been affordable, but it wasn’t drab.<\/p>\n Dest\u00e2r<\/strong> was a very high-quality\u00a0t\u00fclbent (itself a very fine cotton cloth) used for turbans. It was also used for handkerchiefs, women’s headcloths, and fine g\u00f6mleks,<\/span>1<\/sup><\/a><\/span> among what were doubtless many other uses.<\/p>\n A kutni under-kaftan belonging to Sultan Ibrahim (d. 1648).<\/p><\/div>\n Kutni<\/strong>\u00a0or kutnu<\/strong> was a mixed-fiber cloth with a silk weft and a warp of cotton, linen, cotton\/silk, linen\/silk, or silk.<\/span>2<\/sup><\/a><\/span> As you can see from the photo of Sultan Ibrahim’s kaftan, kutni was a glossy, satin-weave fabric, an attractive budget alternative to atlas (satin).<\/p>\n Kutni is best known as a striped fabric, which complicates the picture of 16th-century fashion. Kutni was a popular fabric, especially for kaftans and\u00a0z\u0131b\u0131ns. Stripes were not popular. Was 16th-century kutni not striped?<\/p>\n Unfortunately, the estate records aren’t much use in answering the question. Most of the kutni garments aren’t described in detail; two are medium blue, one is green, and one is\u00a0listed as “kaftan s\u00e2de kutn\u00ee.” If this is a misspelling of “kaftan-\u0131\u00a0s\u00e2de kutn\u00ee,” it means “kaftan of plain kutni,” which suggests there were other, non-plain kutnis around. However, a patterned fabric would cost more than a plain one, especially since easy-to-weave stripes weren’t in style, and kutni was affordably priced. (Ironically, the kaftan of plain kutni was among the more expensive kutni garments.)<\/p>\n Alternatively, were stripes popular at a social level that wasn’t depicted in extant miniatures? Tempting, but questionable. Court artists didn’t shy from drawing the rags of the beggars’ guild, and neither did bazaar painters. Why would they avoid drawing the distinctive dress of people whose clothes were merely unfashionable? European artists, who weren’t constrained by local concepts of fashion, would have found striped clothes irresistible. They didn’t draw people dressed in stripes either. The unavoidable conclusion is that in the 16th century, kutni, a fabric famed for its complex striped patterns, simply wasn’t striped.<\/p>\n In the estate records, kutni is used mainly for kaftans and z\u0131b\u0131ns, ranging from 70 to 500\u00a0ak\u00e7es and averaging 293 for kaftans and 114 for\u00a0z\u0131b\u0131ns. That pushes the cost of kutni very slightly toward the nicer end of affordable.<\/p>\n Muhaddem<\/strong> or mukaddem<\/strong> was similar to kutni, but for reasons unknown, was used almost entirely for belts.<\/span>3<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Penbe<\/strong> (modern pembe) was the generic term for cotton.<\/p>\n T\u00fclbent<\/strong>\u00a0was\u00a0a fine, gauzy cotton whose name is the root of the word “turban,” and which was used mainly for making, yes, turbans.<\/p>\n Yemeni<\/strong> is something of a mystery fabric at the moment. By the 18th or 19th century it was a light cotton, sometimes a chintz, but in the estate records it was used mainly for soft furnishings, wrapping cloths, hand towels, and the like, so it must have been fairly substantial.<\/p>\n Aba<\/strong>\u00a0was\u00a0a coarse, cheap wool often used for making a type of robe called an aba.<\/p>\n Yellow \u00e7uka coat, first half of the 17th century [source<\/a>]<\/p><\/div>\u00c7uka<\/strong>\u00a0or \u00e7uha<\/strong> was\u00a0a strong, high-quality woolen broadcloth, often used for outer garments. Broadcloth has been made the same way since the Middle Ages, so presumably 16th-century\u00a0\u00e7uka was identical to modern broadcloth: tightly woven, with a fine, single-direction brushed nap on the outer side that hides the weave. It’s virtually windproof and sheds water well, so it’s ideal for clothes that are going to be worn in rough weather.<\/p>\n The best\u00a0\u00e7uka was imported from Europe, with English broadcloth (“Londura\u00a0\u00e7uha”) near the top of the list. And as an imported cloth, it was costly; in the estate records, an ell of\u00a0\u00e7uka cost an average of 170 ak\u00e7es, roughly as much as kemha (silk brocade). But perhaps only the more expensive types of\u00a0\u00e7uka were inventoried by the length, because garments of\u00a0\u00e7uka ranged the gamut from\u00a0Mustafa Reis b. Yusuf’s 1,165-ak\u00e7e purple\u00a0\u00e7uka ferace, through\u00a0S\u00fcleyman Be\u015fe b. Yakub’s 500-ak\u00e7e\u00a0purple\u00a0\u00e7uka yelek, to a variety of jackets, feraces, and z\u0131b\u0131n appraised at the eminently reasonable price of 200 to 300\u00a0ak\u00e7es, to a pair of\u00a0\u015falvar worth 75\u00a0ak\u00e7es and hats valued at 21\u00a0ak\u00e7es the pair.<\/p>\n \u00c7uka was also the name of an overcoat, which was presumably made of wool broadcloth at one time or another, but by the time of the estate records could be made of other fabrics as well.<\/p>\n Karziye<\/strong>, or kersey, is a light woolen cloth that was originally imported from England, but came to be produced locally. It wasn’t beaten as heavily as English broadcloth, so unlike\u00a0\u00e7uka, the weave was visible on both sides.<\/span>4<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Ke\u00e7e<\/strong>,\u00a0kebe<\/strong>, and the rarer term nemed<\/strong> are all felt, though sources are maddeningly vague on the difference between the three. (We do know that kebe was thicker than ke\u00e7e.<\/span>5<\/sup><\/a><\/span>) Felt could be brightly colored–estate records are full of felt floor mats in red and yellow, as well as more somber green, blue, purple, and black–or left its natural color. Descriptions of escaped slaves’ felt garments are among the few references we have to people wearing gray clothes.<\/p>\n Some types of felt overcoat, like the Yanbolu kebe (see below), were sought-after, but in general, felt was considered inferior to woven cloth. Felt trousers and inner jackets were laborers’ clothing. A post-period Ottoman Turkish dictionary equates “clad in felt” with “poor.”<\/span>6<\/sup><\/a><\/span> Even in furnishings, felt was inferior: felt blankets were more commonly used for horses than for humans, and felt floor coverings made fine rug underlays, but they weren’t what you displayed in the best room unless you didn’t have a proper woven carpet.<\/p>\n Muhayyer<\/strong> is a very cheap mohair fabric. Of the 14 muhayyer garments in the estate records, there were four ferace, six benevrek (a type of men’s trousers), two fistan (a skirt or skirt-like garment worn by non-Muslims), one yelek, and one kaftan, all incredibly cheap.<\/p>\n Sof<\/strong> is also mohair, but soft, top-quality luxury mohair.<\/p>\n Tiftik<\/strong> is Angora, aka mohair. It was very sturdy, since it was used mainly for making rugs and curtains; the only tiftik garment in the records is a belt. Tiftik may be a description of fiber content rather than a textile name.<\/p>\n \u015eal<\/strong>\u00a0is fine wool woven into the kinds of patterns that still adorn traditional Indian shawls. The best \u015fal was imported from India and Persia, but eventually Turkish weavers took up the challenge. According to H\u00fclya Tezcan, “Ottoman \u015fals are virtually indistinguishable from those produced elsewhere and, indeed, one of the features of \u015fal is that its fundamental patterns remain faithful to their roots regardless of the country in which the cloth is woven.”<\/span>7<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n 19th- or 20th-century \u015fal with an almond pattern (Atlasar Atlasi<\/em>, p. 60)<\/p><\/div>\n The most common pattern was the “almond” (badem<\/em>) pattern, featuring alternating rows of small paisley-like motifs. It was so characteristic of\u00a0\u015fal that even when it was woven into other fabrics, it was called “\u015fal pattern.”<\/span>8<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n There was only one piece of \u015fal in the estate records, marked as old and very cheap. However, there were also a few pieces described as badem\u00ee<\/em>, the adjectival form of “almond,” suggesting that even if most people couldn’t afford\u00a0\u015fal, they could still afford fabrics in\u00a0\u015fal pattern.<\/p>\n Yanbolu<\/strong> is a type of felt made in the Rumelian town of, yes, Yanbolu.[link<\/a>] It was used mainly to make kebe<\/em>, variously defined as carpets\u00a0or as horse blankets, but it could also be made into good-quality overcoats.<\/p>\n Dimi<\/strong> may be fustian, a heavy cloth made of cotton, linen, wool, or a mixture of fibers.<\/p>\n \u0130plik<\/strong> is either yarn\/thread, or linen. Unclear.<\/p>\n Kenevir<\/strong> is hemp.<\/p>\n Keten<\/strong> is linen, a\u00a0relatively rare fabric.<\/p>\n Early 16th-century fur-lined coat belonging to Bayezid II<\/p><\/div>\n K\u00fcrk<\/strong> is fur, used to line overcoats and, occasionally, winter kaftans. The Ottomans used an impressive range of furs:<\/p>\n The Ottomans made a distinction between different parts of a fur. For example, the throats of wolves and foxes were sought after, so much so that furs made of sewn-together wolf throats had their own name,\u00a0c\u0131lkava<\/em>. The head, neck, back, and shanks and feet of martens could be used separately; so could the shanks and feet of wolves, lynxes, and sables, and the bellies of leopards.[link<\/a>]<\/p>\n Post<\/strong> (or postin) is fur or leather.<\/p>\n Scholars have labored for centuries over the different types of silks, defining what counts as seraser, what is serenk,\u00a0and what is merely kemha, what separates \u00e7atma from lesser velvets, how to separate the avalanches of glorious fabrics into organized streams. This is valuable from the viewpoint of modern scholars, who need a precise shared vocabulary. It’s less useful in answering the question, “What did the estate-writers mean when they said Mihri Hatun’s kaftan was made of kemha?”<\/p>\n \u0130pek<\/strong> is the generic word for silk, but people usually used one of the dozens of more specific words for types of silk.<\/p>\n 16th-century kaftan of patterned atlas with ironed-in diagonal lines<\/p><\/div>\n Atlas<\/strong> is a highly prized silk or silk-and-cotton satin. One modern scholar calls it the standard fabric for aristocrats’ clothes, an observation borne out by the estate records. Well-off people may have preferred brocades or gold-shot silks, but they filled in the gaps in their wardrobes with atlas.<\/p>\n In atlas, poets found a rich source of metaphors. It was likened to the sun’s rays curtaining the sky at dawn. The sun-dappled grass of a garden was compared to green atlas embroidered with gold \u00e7intamani.\u00a0Because of its smoothness, fineness, and rich color, red atlas was compared to rose petals. The closed bud was red atlas folded away in a chest, and the opening of the bud was like taking the silk out of the chest.<\/span>9<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Ba\u011fd\u00e2d\u00ee<\/strong> is a wildly expensive fabric that appears in the estate records without explanation. Given the cost, it was definitely silk, possibly with gold or silver threads, possibly brocaded; given the name, it was made in Baghdad.<\/p>\n 16th-century underwear (not \u00e7ak\u015f\u0131r, despite the label) made of b\u00fcr\u00fcmc\u00fck.<\/p><\/div>\n B\u00fcr\u00fcmc\u00fck<\/strong> is a plain or self-striped white gauze that was considered particularly suitable for g\u00f6mleks and underwear. In an early 17th-century market price list,\u00a0b\u00fcr\u00fcmc\u00fck\u00a0was even listed as being sold by the g\u00f6mleklik<\/em>, “enough fabric to make a g\u00f6mlek.”<\/p>\n The best and softest b\u00fcr\u00fcmc\u00fck was made entirely of raw silk, but it could have a warp of cotton, linen, wool, or a blend of fibers. Mixed-fiber\u00a0b\u00fcr\u00fcmc\u00fck was sometimes called helal\u00ee<\/em> or\u00a0hilal\u00ee<\/em>.<\/span>10<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n \u00c7atma<\/strong>\u00a0or \u00e7atma kadife<\/strong> is the finest type of velvet: brocaded silk velvet with a raised design, sometimes woven with gold thread. Once upon a time Turkish artisans excelled at making\u00a0\u00e7atma, but by the 16th century, Italian weavers had far outstripped them.<\/p>\n Italian velvet kaftan, mid-17th century<\/p><\/div>\n D\u00e2r\u00e2y\u00ee<\/strong> is an affordable-but-not-cheap light silk. In the estate records it was used for garments that were meant to be seen–kaftans and\u00a0z\u0131b\u0131ns.<\/p>\n Dib\u00e2<\/strong>\u00a0is a heavy, glossy silk brocade of such high quality that in period, it was restricted to the palace. However, late in period and\/or shortly after period, the living standard had risen enough that wealthy commoners were starting to own modest quantities of dib\u00e2.\u00a0[link<\/a>]<\/p>\n H\u00e2re<\/strong> is an expensive “marble-like wavy fabric” that we probably know as moire silk or watered silk. It was often described as telli<\/em>, “woven with metal threads.”<\/p>\n Kadife<\/strong> is velvet. There were many types of velvet, but if a fabric is described only as kadife, it was probably single-color, single-pile velvet.<\/p>\n Kemha<\/strong> is a heavy silk brocade of a type referred to by modern scholars as lampas.<\/p>\n Kemha, 3rd quarter of the 16th century<\/p><\/div>\n Kuma\u015f<\/strong> is the modern Turkish word for fabric, but\u00a0based on the fabrics listed under the “Kuma\u015f” heading in the 1600 and 1624 official price lists (narh defterleri<\/em>) for Istanbul, kuma\u015f was a generic term for any silk or silk blend.<\/p>\n Ser\u00e2ser<\/strong> is a rich brocade with a ground of metallic threads. This was the richest type of fabric the average obscenely wealthy Istanbulite owned at the end of the 16th century.<\/p>\n Sirenk<\/strong>, more commonly spelled serenk<\/strong>, is a budget brocade in which the gold threads have been replaced by yellow silk threads.<\/span>11<\/sup><\/a><\/span> There were only two instances of serenk in the records, possibly because brocades of that type were included under one of the other terms.<\/p>\n Tafta<\/strong> is taffeta, a plain-weave silk with a crisp hand.<\/span>12<\/sup><\/a><\/span> Because of its combination of luster and durability, it was in demand not only for garments, but for cushions, quilts, and other soft furnishings.<\/p>\n Tafta (and taffeta) can be smooth, or it can be slightly ribbed,\u00a0like fine Dupioni silk. The best extant examples of 16th-century tafta are the facings of several kaftans in the Topkapi collection, some of which display this fine texturing.<\/p>\n Facing of smooth olive green tafta<\/p><\/div>\n Tafta was one of the more affordable silks in 16th-century Turkey. However, in the estate inventories, the cost of garments made of tafta varies wildly, from two\u00a0z\u0131b\u0131ns worth 46 and 43\u00a0ak\u00e7es, to a 202-akce\u00a0g\u00f6mlek of Egyptian tafta, to a 500-ak\u00e7e came of printed red tafta, to an utterly decadent\u00a0600-ak\u00e7e g\u00f6mlek of white tafta with buttons. One lady with 500\u00a0ak\u00e7e to waste even made her underwear out of tafta.<\/p>\n \u00dcmm\u00ee bt. Sinan, a lady of great wealth whose wardrobe was a wonder to behold, had two quilts of staggeringly rich ser\u00e2ser silk, and naturally the sheets that went with them were tafta. Not plain tafta, though–ugh. One sheet was red and “m\u00fcnakka\u015f,” decorated–either patterned or embroidered–and had buttons, possibly to attach it to the underside of the quilt. (Sheets were usually pinned to the underside of the quilt.) The other sheet was medium blue, and also buttoned. Each quilt-and-sheet set cost 3,000\u00a0ak\u00e7es.<\/p>\n And yet, tafta by the ell wasn’t expensive.\u00a0F\u00e2t\u0131ma bt. S\u00fcleyman owned three ells of green tafta that cost 50\u00a0ak\u00e7e, or 16.67 per ell;\u00a0Mahmud Bey b. Perviz Bey’s four ells of tafta cost only 40\u00a0ak\u00e7e, or 10 per ell. A bale or loom-length of tafta owned by\u00a0S\u00e2liha bt. Mehmed cost 290\u00a0ak\u00e7e. We don’t know how long the loom-length was, but three loom-lengths of cotton cloth elsewhere in the records were 10 ells, 10 ells, and 8 ells long. If the tafta loom-length is comparable, it cost only 29 to 36\u00a0ak\u00e7es per ell–not much more expensive than the cotton loom-lengths. If the estate records aren’t misleading, tafta may have been valued less on its own merits and more as a base for embroidery and other forms of decoration.<\/p>\n Vale<\/strong>\u00a0or val\u00e2<\/strong> is a type of light plain-weave silk. According to one source, vale is identical to tafta, except that vale “was put through a kiln after being woven.”<\/span>13<\/sup><\/a><\/span> I’ve had no luck in finding any references to putting silks through a kiln, and I’m not committed enough to bake my own silks, but I suspect kilning softened the tafta, possibly weakening the silk but making it more pleasant to wear against the skin.<\/p>\n Vale, like tafta, was an affordable silk. And like all affordable silks, it got made into underclothes.\u00a0All four of the vale garments in the estate records are luxurious, rather expensive underpants (don).<\/p>\n \u0130bri\u015fim <\/strong>is pure silk thread that was used for weaving belts.<\/p>\n Beled\u00ee<\/strong> is a sturdy cotton fabric, often locally made and\/or homespun, that was used for furnishings. Its natural color was beige, but it could be colored. Post-period it was often mentioned as being red, white, black, or patterned in those colors.<\/p>\n Havlu<\/strong> is the napped cotton cloth now known as Turkish toweling. Then as now, it was used mainly for towels and washcloths.<\/p>\n Hind\u00ee<\/strong>, imported Indian cloth, is something of a mystery at the moment. It was inexpensive, and was used for pillows and quilts.<\/p>\n Kirpas<\/strong>\u00a0(also kirbas, kirbaz) is\u00a0a heavy canvas of cotton, linen, or hemp. One source refers to it as sailcloth. In the estate records, it appears only in unsewn lengths.<\/p>\n Velense<\/strong>\u00a0is a thick wool with a nap on one side that was used for blankets. It was also the word for\u00a0blankets made of velense.<\/p>\n
\nCotton and Cotton Blends<\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.issendai.com\/16thcenturyistanbul\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/Bogasi-300x153.png\")
<\/a>![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.issendai.com\/16thcenturyistanbul\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/TSM-13-501-191x300.jpg\")
<\/a>
\nWool and Wool-Like Fibers<\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.issendai.com\/16thcenturyistanbul\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/Aziz-Mahmud-Hudai-yellow-hirka-300x250.png\")
<\/a>![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.issendai.com\/16thcenturyistanbul\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/Sal-with-almond-pattern-300x157.png\")
<\/a>
\nMiscellaneous Fibers<\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.issendai.com\/16thcenturyistanbul\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/fur-lined-caftan-of-Bayezit-II.jpg\")
<\/a>\n
\nWhat You’ve Been Waiting For: Silk<\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.issendai.com\/16thcenturyistanbul\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/atlas-kaftan-16th-century.jpg\")
<\/a>![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.issendai.com\/16thcenturyistanbul\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/10\/dizlik-228x300.jpg\")
<\/a>![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.issendai.com\/16thcenturyistanbul\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/Italian-velvet.png\")
<\/a>![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.issendai.com\/16thcenturyistanbul\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/kemha-1024x690.png\")
<\/a>![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.issendai.com\/16thcenturyistanbul\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/Olive-green-tafta-facing.png\")
<\/a>
\nFabrics Used for Furnishings but Not Clothes<\/h3>\n
\nSources<\/h3>\n