The Lady of Susa: Reconstructing the clothing of Achaemenid Persia (Part 2)

Our project starts with humble beginnings.

The foundation wear.

There's little historical sources on the undergarments of women of the era, but then again, there's few depictions of women. However, the one mention on the subject from the Encyclopaedia Iranica stated that, like their outerwear, it was very similar to their male counterparts,  and by my own assumption possibly with a few adjustments to accommodate female support.

Men, it should be noted, are recorded to have worn a tight, usually white, short or no-sleeved undershirt that was belted. It was called a chiton by the Greeks, and a sarapish Old Persian. The king would wear a white shot purple one. I might point out that this belted "white, short sleeved undershirt" might actually be a predecessor, if not an actual Sudreh and Kushti, which us Zoroastrians still wear to this day.

Oh, and sarapish an awful lot like the word "sedreh pooshi" which is the term we use in Iran to describe our version of a "confirmation" where you don the religious garments of sudreh and kushti for the first time. (This is a huge over simplification, but it'll have to make do). So it's not a great leap to tie the two together.

However, it's unlikely that our Lady of Susa would have worn this religious garment, as Susa, like Babylon and the other lands conquered by Cyrus the Great were still pantheists.

So what to do?

Well, the garment can still be white, tight-fitting, and even possibly belted, but I'm going to have to construct it from scratch, instead of cheating and using my own sudreh kushti (which truthfully, is not a very supportive garment at all, though that's probably a more recent adaptation due to the drastic clothing changes that occurred over the millenniums)

So the garment, unlike the sudreh and kushti, will be sleeveless (which works well historically for Persians, Medians, Susians, and Elamites - the latter who wore one-sleeved garments). It will also be tighter fitting, and have as few seams as possible (the sudreh in it's modern form must have exactly 9 "seams"). It will have a "V" neck, as is documented on the men's garments instead of the rounder neckline of the modern sudreh, and will likely have a much thicker belt made of silk or linen that will tie under the bust to help support it.

 It's not quite clear but you might get the idea

So onto the sarapish!

Since I've sewn at least a dozen sudrehs lately (my husband needed new ones before he left for his school, so naturally I delivered... I couldn't send him off with his ratty old ones that he's worn to near ruin) I'm going to construct this garment similarly.

We start off with plain, white, hot-washed plain-weave cotton. The high heat for prewash is simply my personal preference. I don't like to be surprised with shrinkage later on!

Anyhow, the reason why I'm using plain-weave cotton for this is threefold

1. I have a LOT of it. Yards and yards and yards of it. So it's probably a better I go ahead and do the underwear in it rather than linen, which I have notably less of, and silk, which is extraordinarily pricey for undergarments I'm not intending to wear that often or be seen in.
2. Sudrehs are made of plain-weave cotton. This is because, as a religious garment, it must adhere to certain guidelines. So I'm already well familiar and definitely in-practice to be hand sewing on this stuff.
3. Plain-weave cotton is surprisingly accurate for the era. Locally, cotton has been grown in the Median Rhagae and Pars since at least the 5th century, and probably before. It was also grown in Balochistan (the part that's in Pakistan now though) and India. It would have been a luxury item at the time, which is even better for us, as this is the undergarment for a royal lady.

So once we have our cotton we must decide on a length. My cotton was, prior to the shrinking, 36 inches from selvage to selvage. I think this is probably the length I'm going to use, just because it's easier that way given my height and bust measurements.

We start off with two rectangles, the same width. 

 Two rectangles... hastily basted together. What? I just needed to get them stuck together for the time being

After basting the two pieces together I had to give a finish to the seams. I opted to use a cased seam. so I cut down the excess on the the seam allowance....
 

And then I basted the shoulder seams together, leaving some space for the neckline to be cut out later.

 Making use of the selvage since I can.

And to finish the armholes so that nothing falls apart.

Little rolled hem on the armholes.

Now there's that v-neck to contend with. I might use it to my advantage and incorporating a set of ties to it. Actually, that sounds like a good idea...

Now I'm not sure how accurate this is. I do know that because it's not lacing, it is more likely true to form, and that this type of cross-tying was not unusual to the era, but what I'm not sure about is the fact that this additional little "belt" is attached to the garment rather than its own piece like our larger belt will be.

But I have a large bust, much too large to gamble with flimsy garments, and I'm willing to sacrifice a bit of accuracy and what not on a garment that won't be really visible to ensure that there's no wardrobe malfunction.

So we're going with these cross-ties that mimic the cross banding sometimes seen on Greek women's Ionic style chitons because this type of securing method is more likely to hold everything in place than just a shirt with a v-neck and a plain belt.

 Not quite exactly what we're doing, but you can see the resemblance. Image via

As for the main belt, well, here's what we have. 

Pretty simple linen strip sewn in a tube and finished on the ends.

There's also supposed to be a loincloth for this. I'm not sure if I'm going to make and wear that though. Already this outfit is going to have a lot of belted things with only ties as security, and I'm not sure I want to add one more tie that could cause embarrassment into the mix.

And in case you were wondering, here's the sarapish and the belt compared to the sudreh and kushti (which is cut in a style that works for Persians of the Sassanian era to the Qajar era - and can still be worn today, but it's considered a bit dowdy for a woman). Please keep in mind that the kushti is not tied right at all. Like, seriously, I just wrapped the thing on there so you could get a look at the two side-by-side (I'm not even sure if I'm really allowed to do that, but I did... So I guess we'll see if I get a backlash from it).

Please ignore the needle in the sarapish neckline... I accidentally left it there

I was going to save this as just a part of the HSF Challenge #12 for "Pretty Pretty Princesses" but I actually think this might qualify for Challenge #11 "Squares, Rectangles, and Triangles" as... well, it's just two rectangles sewn together with a triangle cut out of the center....

Best get another challenge accomplished while I'm at it, no? 

The Challenge: #11 Squares, Rectangles, and Triangles

Fabric: Cotton and linen

Pattern: None... There's not much to this, just some rectangles.

Year: 6th century BCE 

Notions: Cotton thread

How historically accurate is it?  I'm not too sure. Materials and method are accurate, but the lack of detailed documentation for the garments of women are few, even less for their undergarments. It's likely that the sarapish is very close to something they would have worn, but without an extant drawing, garment, or detailed description I can't be certain.

Hours to complete: Maybe three for both the sarapish and the linen belt

First worn: The sarapish and belt will be worn underneath the Achaemenid robe at the viewing of the Cyrus Cylinder when it comes to Los Angeles.

Total cost: $5.... maybe.... The linen would have been the most expensive thing, but it's only a strip ten centimeters wide cut from selvage to selvage and folded in half lengthwise. The cotton was barely a dollar a yard, if that. I don't recall, I bought a huge roll of it for a flat price just because I didn't want to be bothered having not enough of it later on.