Pants

Again, like the shirt, there are many names for the pants worn by women in 16th century Persia, but pants are pants, right? Much to the delight of modern women who are accustomed to wearing pants, a proper Persian noblewoman in the 16th century did just that.

Many pictures show a glimpse of these brightly-patterned (usually with a floral motif) loose pants worn underneath the layered tunics. The pants are loose fitting with a tapered ankle. The tighter 17th century pants shown in this picture from Canby have a definite drawstring waist. I suspect the 16th century ladies pants would likewise have a drawstring. Note also the wrinkling in the crotch area which implies more fabric there than is on the legs of the pants.

There is a progression in manuscript illuminations from looser pants early in the century to tighter legs later on. We can clearly see the earlier pants in the minature from the Bibliotheque National Paris pictured left are loose and full, tapering in just at the ankle. Do note also that this pair of pants very clearly comes up to the natural waist rather than hips.

All of the clear images of ankles show a smooth cuff that just loosely fits around the ankle. Sometimes the cuff appears to be at an angle; this could be because of the cut of the pant leg or pulling of the fabric against over-garments.

There are two known extant male pants, one belonging to a Turkish child pictured in The Age of Sultan Sullyman the Magnificient which, while Turkish, not Persian, is probably similar to the Persian pants of the time and another found on-line (must find them again so I can link here!).

The legs pictured right not appear to be very gathered, I’m intrigued by the change in the decorative pattern, is the artist representing a seam line running diagonally down the leg or just a decorative motif?

This image of two pairs of pants is very interesting; likely the white pair are under-pants as by all appearances the image is of one man’s clothing spread out. Note the drawstrings hanging from the waist and the very generous center gore and tapered legs. I’m intrigued in particular by the stripped pants as the gore stripes follow the lines of the one leg; is the gore one piece with that leg? As these are men’s pants pictured, they can only give a little speculation on the cut of women’s pants. Should ladies have under-pants under their pants as well?

So what does all of this tell us about the pattern for women's pants? Here is my rough pattern. Working off of a rectangle, I cut a triangular gore and inverted it, re-attaching to the leg. How wide the leg fabric is depends on how full you want the final pants to be (narrower for a later style, wider for earlier). Be careful not to cut the rise too large as it will stretch and droop some resulting in a larger drop than you might think.

I gather the top of the legs by pulling taught on a loose running stitch through the fabric, then pulling the gathered fabric out again to the size of the waistband. I pinned the waistband to the gathered waist and sewed the gather into it. This pattern can be done without any waste fabric at all (depending on how you cut the waistband and how long.) The waistband can be a simple drawstring, or I like mine with a hook-and-eye closure (for easier handling in porta potties at outdoor summer events!)