Evolving and developing throughout human history, fiber art has continued to accompany cultures, providing concrete proof of their existence. In Turkic cultures especially, tactile art making has always had an importance, particularly in the domestic environment. As humans mastered more complex tools, the intricacy and artistic capabilities of makers increased in tandem with these new inventions. A quintessential example of this can be found in the art of embroidery. Although the initial date of creation of this art form is unknown, it was practiced all around the world. For Turkic cultures, it can be traced back to the Uyghur Empire (744-840), carrying through the Seljuk Empire (1037-1194), and finally reaching the Ottoman Empire (1299-1922) where its popularity boomed[1]. It is strange, however, that this technique was mostly dormant for the first two centuries of this empire, only catching the eye of the public and the ruling class during the 16th century. From this point onwards, the art of Turkish embroidery gained its own visual language and started undergoing changes in both style and quality as a reflection of the political and socioeconomic position of the Ottoman Empire. However, the art form once again diminished when Turkey became a republic. This separation, which could presumably be attributed to the rejection of Ottoman values and traditions[2] by the democratic state and the citizens, made these delicately embroidered objects somewhat archaic and antiquated, leaving many Turkish citizens without the necessary knowledge to identify their uses in the 21st century[3]. Here, it is possible to divide the different varieties of embroidered textiles into three categories: clothing, decoration and utilitarian objects. Although these categories have relatively clear distinctions, there were still overlaps between them, especially visually. For example, stylistically, some sashes may appear similar to hand towels, making it difficult to distinguish between the two. However, there is a greater amount of confusion and generalization within the category of functional textiles, certainly with the various objects that have been grouped under the somewhat vague label of “towel”. Therefore, in this essay, greater focus will be placed on the functional objects that have been wrongfully categorized as such. 

The word towel (havlu) which is described as “an absorbent cloth or paper for wiping or drying”[4] by the Merriam-Webster dictionary does not necessarily describe the full purpose of these intricate items within a Turkish context. This term has been widely used in the online databases and catalogues of institutions such as the British Museum, the Art Institute of Chicago, Victoria & Albert Museum and the Pergamon Museum. Although similar terminology was applied uniformly throughout these collections, the items and their uses differ quite significantly. Nevertheless, here, it is important to mention that a database does not necessarily reflect the full breadth of museum collections, therefore, the aforementioned examples are purely based on what is available online.

A simple look at these collections identifies numerous variants, namely, clothing, hand towels, handkerchiefs, wrappers, bath towels and more. These items, which were all hand-embroidered on at least two edges, feature colorful needlework against a beige-colored weaved cloth made up of natural fibers such as cotton, wool, and linen. With so many examples present, the identification of Turkish “towels”, with certainty, becomes complicated. Therefore, in order to gain a better understanding of the art form and reclassify some of the terms that have been associated with these objects from the standpoint of a native Turkish speaker, a small-scale collection will be placed in the focal point. Thus, the main resource that will be analyzed in this paper will be the Textile Resource Center (TRC) at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago (Chicago, IL, USA).

This collection, which houses 500 objects, features eight items hailing from Turkey that have been grouped together as a “towel” with various additional descriptors. However, upon further examination, it becomes clear that these eight objects can be divided into three new categories instead: hand towels (peşkir), sashes (uçkur) and decorative napkins (yağlık).

It is peculiar that the function of these items, for the most part, is different from that of a towel as they deviate in both material and size. It seems that the use of this word can be traced back to the early 20th century. The breaking point for its popularity, however, may have been through Burton Yost Berry’s articles, Old Turkish Towels and Old Turkish Towels II. While they are comprehensive sources featuring anecdotes and first-hand accounts of the author interacting with various embroidered objects and their stylistic evolution, it fails to create distinctions between the objects that are being described. A similarly all-encompassing source that functions to provide context for some of these objects is the Sadberk Hanım Museum’s collection catalogue Skill of the Hand, Delight of the Eye which features numerous examples of embroidered textiles and an in-depth overview of their history. By using these two sources as a basis for approaching the items in the TRC collection, it becomes possible to suggest new terminology in both English and Turkish, putting the “towel” label to rest. 

Throughout the reclassification process, the verification of the given tombstone information gained crucial importance due to the complicated nature of object labelling. All the items in the TRC collection suggest that they were made in the 19th or early 20th century. Although it is difficult to distinguish between those that were made in the 19th century from their successors, it is possible to confirm that they were indeed made after the 18th century by relying on various identifiers, namely, the quality of the woven cloth, the embroidery thread color, the number of colors utilized per design, iconography and the inclusion of metal thread/strips. 

What started out as a highly delicate cloth that was woven out of cotton or linen, which was then embroidered with the finest silk thread turned into a low quality, commercialized fabric made with the pure purpose of being exported to the West. This gradual change especially picked up speed during the latter half of the 18th century, reaching its height in the mid-19th century. While the European interest in these embroidered cloths increased sales, this overwhelming demand led to a decrease in the overall quality of the art form, with rougher fabric being used as the woven base cloth. Based on the microscopic photographs that were taken at 100x and 200x magnification of three items at the TRC, it is possible to suggest that these examples are indeed made up of rougher — thicker — cotton and linen, mostly disproving that they might have been made for the ruling class. 

By comparing these photos with examples from The Young Van Dyck’s Fingerprint: A Technical Approach to Assess the Authenticity of a Disputed Painting[5] by Astrid Harth et al., and Debra Whitehead’s website succinctly named Fiber Microscopy[6], the identification of the material for the weaved cloth becomes relatively easy. For 07.34, a visually similar example of the flattened ribbon-like structure of cotton can be identified in the image on the left. Likewise, the nodal, straw-like form of linen in 7.14 appears to be reminiscent of the image on the right.

The devaluation of embroidered Turkish textiles was further cemented, however, with the overconsumption and subsequent rarefication of the silk trade. However, as Berry states in Old Turkish Towels II, there were still some individuals who could afford to retain the initial luxuriousness of embroidery: 

“The art of fine embroidery might have died in Turkey simultaneously with the silk industry had it not been for two facts: the towels were made for the Turks who compromised the ruling class and had money to spend to satisfy their wants, and the amount of silk required to ornament a towel was sufficiently small that, in spite of scarcity and growing cost, embroidery continued to be practiced as a domestic art.”[7]

Based on this, it is important to distinguish the three main spaces in which women engaged in the art of light embroidery[8]: harems, workshops and the domestic environment — representing three social classes, namely, the ruling upper class, the working middle class and the lower class. While Berry’s statement is mostly accurate about the economic connotations of embroidery, it is crucial to highlight that the rising costs and inaccessibility of these materials must have surely affected the lower class severely. However, not very many examples have reached the 21st century as the “fibrous structure [of these objects became] brittle over time”[9] and decomposed, leaving only the few written accounts behind and a mystery of what they might have looked like in a domestic setting.

The 19th century brought along a change that is perhaps the most noticeable visually. With the replacement of natural dyes through the invention of aniline (chemical) dyes in 1859, the range of colors increased quite significantly, resulting in more than ten colors being used per piece which was a substantial change compared to the three to four colors that were used previously. A few key pigments that defined the 19th century can be identified as mauve, pale green and very bright, somewhat neon colors.[10] However, it is difficult to concretely identify the exact colors that were used since the passage of time may have resulted in bleaching and fading.[11]

The last identifiers of 19th century embroidery in the Ottoman Empire are iconography and the inclusion of metal thread (tel sarma) and metal strips (tel kırma)[12]. While the styles and patterns that were used before the mid-18th century mainly reflected Islamic values through the depiction of the natural world — an antinaturalistic style that prioritized the essence of the thing, not the thing itself — and geometric forms, after the European tastes gained influence over the artisans, a somewhat Rococo depiction of architectural forms and even portraits started getting made. Alongside this stylistic change, numerous items also started to get adorned with metal of various sizes. During the 18th century, metal thread made out of gold and silver gained popularity, especially in regions such as Bursa. By the 19th century, however, metal strips that were fed through the weave structure and beat down to get flattened became fashionable, marking another turning point in the visual style of Turkish embroidery. Unsurprisingly, corners were once again cut in the utilization of this material as the expensive items were decorated with pure silver or silver dipped in gold, while the more commercialized items included copper that was dipped in silver[13]. As Berry very succinctly states in Old Turkish Towels, “[t]he nineteenth century marked, in both pattern and color, a new and coarse era in the history of embroidered Turkish towels.[14]”

Based on all these factors, it is possible to suggest that all the examples in the TRC were made either during or after the 19th century. Although this information seems correct, the labeling still poses a big question. According to the initial categories, it might be relatively accurate to reclassify four items as hand towels (peşkir), two items as decorative napkins (yağlık) and one item as a sash (uçkur), leaving one unknown item.[15] However, it is important to mention that these classifications might be ambiguous and open to change in the future.[16]

When analyzed visually, it becomes clear that the hand towels bear many similarities such as having alternating weft thicknesses that create a striped visual, repeating patterns, a fringe of some sort and a width that is around 40 inches. All of these elements point to the function of these textiles as a cloth that was spread across the laps of diners, then used to dry hands after a meal[17]. The thin border running across the bottom of the item is another similar characteristic that might suggest a similar use. As key characteristic of 19th century weaved textiles, the striped pattern has stood the test of time and may have evolved into a modern-day peştemal, albeit smaller.

Although they have a similar width and look relatively similar, decorative napkins differ significantly from hand towels. Unlike the latter, these items were not meant to get wet and, for the most part, they lack utilitarian function. Nevertheless, they are quite eye catching with their repetitive patterning and delicate border. This label is perhaps the vaguest and will require further research to describe its definitive use. 

The last category that has been identified in the TRC collection is sashes. Unlike the other two, this item does not have a utilitarian function but rather is a piece of clothing. During the Ottoman Empire, sashes were very commonly used as “belts” — fabric that held undergarments and pants in place. They are characterized by their longer length and smaller width — around 12 inches — in comparison to the other items. They also frequently include a single, detailed pattern instead of a simplified, repetitive one. Therefore, it would not be strange to suggest that this item stands out amongst the others in the TRC collection. 

It is clear to see that these elusive embroidered textiles have caused confusion across numerous institutions due to a language barrier and a lack of information on the subject, further perpetuating the use of the word “towel” as a substitute. Nevertheless, it is certain that the more research is done, the clearer these definitions will become. Therefore, the information that has been presented in this paper might change in the future as a result of a more accurate understanding of the art of Turkish embroidery. In the meantime, the suggested terminology and categorization will hopefully create a bridge between languages and cultures, allowing the textiles to exist as they were meant to be used. 

Image Index

Fig. 1: Marianne Ellis and Jennifer Wearden. Ottoman Embroidery. London: V&A Publications, 2001. Plate 114

Fig. 2:  Sash. 19th Century. Linen, plain weave, 74 1/4 × 13 1/8 in., Turkey, Art Institute of Chicago, https://www.artic.edu/artworks/65466/%E5%8D%A1%E7%8D%A8

Fig. 3: Bilgi, Hülya, and İdil Zanbak. Skill of the Hand, Delight of the Eye. Istanbul: Sadberk Hanim Muzesi, 2012: 192

Fig. 6: Whitehead, Debra. “Fiber Microscopy.” Alpine Meadows Weavers and Spinners, 2020. https://www.alpinemeadowsguild.org/fiber_microscopy.html.

Fig. 7: Harth, Astrid, Geert Van der Snickt, Olivier Schalm, Koen Janssens, and Griet Blanckaert. “The Young Van Dyck’s Fingerprint: A Technical Approach to Assess the Authenticity of a Disputed Painting.” Heritage Science 5, no. 1 (June 9, 2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40494-017-0136-3.

Fig. 8: Towel. 17th century. Cotton, plain weave, Crete, Victoria & Albert Museum,  https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O367175/towel/

Fig. 9: Napkin. 19th century. Plain weave, Turkey, Victoria & Albert Museum, https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O62754/napkin/

Fig. 10: Towel/Napkin. 1601-1700. Linen, plain weave, 36 3/8 × 19 1/4 in., Turkey, Art Institute of Chicago, https://www.artic.edu/artworks/64984/towel-napkin

Fig. 11: Marianne Ellis and Jennifer Wearden. Ottoman Embroidery. London: V&A Publications, 2001. Plate 150

Bibliography

Barışta, Örcün. “XVI. Yüzyıl Türk İşleme Sanatı.” Sanat Tarihi Dergisi 1, no. 1 (January 1, 1982): 21–33.

Focusing on the beginning stages of Turkish embroidery art, Barışta’s article, which is one of the first scholarly explorations of this art form by a Turkish academic, gives a detailed overview of 16th century Turkish embroidery. This further illustrates the changes that the art form has undergone while also providing a considerable glossary of techniques and terminology. 

Berry, Burton Yost. “Old Turkish Towels.” The Art Bulletin 14, no. 4 (1932): 344–58. https://doi.org/10.2307/3050836.

Berry, Burton Yost. “Old Turkish Towels-II.” The Art Bulletin 20, no. 3 (1938): 251–65. https://doi.org/10.2307/3046586.

Bilgi, Hülya, and İdil Zanbak. Skill of the Hand, Delight of the Eye. Istanbul: Sadberk Hanim Muzesi, 2012. 

Denel, Serim. "Statements From The Loom And The Needle: Woven And Embroidered Anatolian Textiles In The Home Environment.", 1992.

Denel’s article provides a unique perspective to Turkish towels by giving a detailed overview of the sociopolitical, domestic and political contexts. Great emphasis is placed on the outside factors that resulted in the diminishing of this art form. While Turkish towels are not the focus of this article, the detailed explanation of the 20th century view of textiles in a home environment certainly makes it a valuable source. 

Er, Harun, and Davut Gürel. “Metallic Embroidery and Masters of Thread-Breaking as an Example of Cultural Heritage in Turkish Handicrafts.” Journal of History, Culture & Art Research / Tarih Kültür ve Sanat Araştırmaları Dergisi 9, no. 2 (June 1, 2020): 451–66. doi:10.7596/taksad.v9i2.2493.

Göksel, Nevbahar, and Nurcan Kutlu. “Decorative Elements in Turkish Garment Culture From Past to Future: Art of Embroidery”. Tekstil Ve Mühendis 23, no. 103 (October 2016): 231-36. https://doi.org/10.7216/1300759920162310309.

This article focuses on embroidery in relation to garments and fashion. It gives an overview of garments from the 18th and 19th centuries, then focuses on modern (late 20th century) designs. While less relevant to the subject of Turkish towels, Göksel and Kutlu’s research includes a few key phrases that relate to the history and discovery of embroidery in Turkic cultures.  

Gönül, Macide. “Some Turkish Embroideries in the Collection of the Topkapı Sarayı Museum in Istanbul”. Kunst Des Orients 6, no. 1 (1969): 43–76. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20752377.

Johnstone, Pauline. Turkish Embroidery. London: Victoria & Albert Museum, 1985. 

This book provides a detailed description and overview of Turkish embroidery utilizing items from the Victoria and Albert Museum collection. The focus on the materials of the weaved cloth and embroideries, and their evolution throughout time is especially valuable for the assessment and dating of different examples from other collections. 

Harth, Astrid, Geert Van der Snickt, Olivier Schalm, Koen Janssens, and Griet Blanckaert. “The Young Van Dyck’s Fingerprint: A Technical Approach to Assess the Authenticity of a Disputed Painting.” Heritage Science 5, no. 1 (June 9, 2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40494-017-0136-3. 

Krody, Sumru Belger, and Textile Museum. Flowers of Silk and Gold: Four Centuries of Ottoman Embroidery. London: Merrel, 2000.

Landi , Sheila. The Textile Conservator’s Manual. 2nd ed. Woburn, Massachusetts: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1998. 

Powell, Brent A. Collection Care: An Illustrated Handbook for the Care and Handling of Cultural Objects. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield, 2016.

Powell’s guide to collection care is a valuable source for defining appropriate terminology related to the general field of museum studies and conservation methods. While the section on textile conservation/care was not extensive, it provided a general overview of methods that museum staff employ to extend the lifespan of their collection. 

Ramazanoğlu, Gülseren. Turkish Embroidery. Istanbul: Ramazanoglu Publications, 1987. 

Ramazanoğlu succeeds in compiling a comprehensive guide for replicating Turkish embroidery at home. This instructional manual extends beyond the original era in which these objects were made and gives tips for the modern substitutions of these materials and techniques. While it provides limited academic information, it is certainly helpful in contributing to the understanding of how these embroidered objects were made. 

Taylor, Roderick. Ottoman Embroidery. New York, New York: Interlink Books, 1993. 

Taylor’s book features perhaps one of the most detailed research about embroidered Turkish items. Starting with an overview of Turkish embroidery, history, culture and tradition in relation to textiles, an intricate view is established. Contrary to some of the other sources, this book features samples from a big sum of collections and locations, providing a more holistic view of these items from all over the world. 

“Towel Definition & Meaning.” Towel. Accessed May 14, 2025. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/towel.

Whitehead, Debra. “Fiber Microscopy.” Alpine Meadows Weavers and Spinners, 2020. https://www.alpinemeadowsguild.org/fiber_microscopy.html.

[1]  Göksel, Nevbahar, and Nurcan Kutlu. “Decorative Elements in Turkish Garment Culture From Past to Future: Art of Embroidery”. Tekstil Ve Mühendis 23, no. 103 (October 2016): Pg. 234. https://doi.org/10.7216/1300759920162310309.

[2] Denel, Serim. "Statements From The Loom And The Needle: Woven And Embroidered Anatolian Textiles In The Home Environment.", 1992:  Pg. 253

[3] Taylor, Roderick. Ottoman Embroidery. New York, New York: Interlink Books, 1993: Pg. 9

[4] “Towel Definition & Meaning.” Towel. Accessed May 14, 2025. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/towel.

[5] Harth, Astrid, Geert Van der Snickt, Olivier Schalm, Koen Janssens, and Griet Blanckaert. “The Young Van Dyck’s Fingerprint: A Technical Approach to Assess the Authenticity of a Disputed Painting.” Heritage Science 5, no. 1 (June 9, 2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40494-017-0136-3.

[6] Whitehead, Debra. “Fiber Microscopy.” Alpine Meadows Weavers and Spinners, 2020. https://www.alpinemeadowsguild.org/fiber_microscopy.html.

[7] Berry, Burton Yost. “Old Turkish Towels-II.” The Art Bulletin 20, no. 3 (1938): Pg. 257. https://doi.org/10.2307/3046586.

[8] Described as such by Bilgi and Zanbak in Skill of the Hand, Delight of the Eye, light embroidery encompasses all the delicate fine embroideries. Differing quite significantly from heavy embroidery, which was mainly done on leather, shoes, pillow covers etc., it was practiced by women and was seen as an essential skill for them to possess. Whereas men could mostly be found working in workshops devoted to heavy embroidery. In the same sense, light embroidery was able to keep its domesticity through this division.

[9] Powell, Brent A. Collection Care: An Illustrated Handbook for the Care and Handling of Cultural Objects. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield, 2016: Pg. 10

[10] Johnstone, Pauline. Turkish Embroidery. London: Victoria & Albert Museum, 1985: Pg. 20-21

[11] Bilgi, Hülya, and İdil Zanbak. Skill of the Hand, Delight of the Eye. Istanbul: Sadberk Hanim Muzesi, 2012. 

[12] Bilgi, Hülya, and İdil Zanbak. Skill of the Hand, Delight of the Eye. Istanbul: Sadberk Hanim Muzesi, 2012: 50

[13] Due to the roughness of the textile itself, it might be possible to assume that the TRC collection does not include the fine specimens of this art form, as the metal has weathering spots that is found on copper.

[14] Berry, Burton Yost. “Old Turkish Towels.” The Art Bulletin 14, no. 4 (1932): Pg. 350. https://doi.org/10.2307/3050836.

[15] Based on its size, it is possible to suggest that it might have been used as a wrapper or a handkerchief.

[16] As a lot of institutions have stated in their databases, the distinctions between hand towels and napkins are relatively little, making it difficult to identify exactly what they are with complete accuracy.

[17] The width, which has been cross-referenced with the items in Skill of the Hand, Delight of the Eye, further establishes this.