Clan and District tartan history

[GlassMan]

Afraid not, old boy -- remember that the idea of a "clan" tartan realy didn't develop until the turn of the 19th century -- yes, there were tartans around that later became clan tartans, but the idea of a system of tartans to represent a particular clan came later, mostly due to Lowland firms like Wilson's of Bannockburn.

Cheers,

Todd

And yet there is a fabulous court case in which a female member of a clan sued a weaver because he had taken the wool (in the colors of the tartan she requested) and then not woven it according to the thread count. So there would appear to be evidence for a cogent system of colorations and weaving for tartans in at least some portions of Scotland prior to the banning of the tartan. And there are also mentions in the chronicals of the time of forces raised by a clan all wearing the same tartan. So while the modern system of clan tartans didn't arise until the 19th century, there is plenty to suggest that there was such a system for at least some clans back before the proscription.

And there is also the question of why would the firms even come up with the idea of assigning tartans to clans if there wasn't an oral history remembrance of a time in which it was the case.

I know that all seems very tenous, but because of the paucity of sources for the lives of the common folk until well into the 18th century, that really is the kind of evidence that much of our knowledge of social history is based.

[Caradoc]

And yet there is a fabulous court case in which a female member of a clan sued a weaver because he had taken the wool (in the colors of the tartan she requested) and then not woven it according to the thread count.

I've read about this one. It's a bit fuzzy around the edges.

After all, if I were to contract a carpenter to make me a doghouse, and he stained the wood a color other than specified by the contract, I'd probably sue, too.

Is this really a case of "he didn't get the clan tartan woven right," or "he didn't weave it according to the request and contract?"

[Moosehead]

And there is also the question of why would the firms even come up with the idea of assigning tartans to clans if there wasn't an oral history remembrance of a time in which it was the case.

For the same reason that mills have come up with all of the other tartans, such as Irish county and national tartans. $$$

[GlassMan]

My reading of the case was that it was both.

And here is another little tidbit for those who don't wish to believe that there was any concept of identifying tartans before the 19th century.

'Every isle differs from each other in their fancy of making plads, as to the stripes and Breath and Colours. This Humour is as different thro the main land of the Highlands in-so-far that they who have seen those places, are able, at the first view of a man's plad, to guess the place of his residence...'. So said Martin Martin writing in 1703, making the first documented reference to tartan as a means of identification.

So while the current clan tartans were not created until the 19th century, there was something similar at the end of the 17th and the beginning of the 18th century before the Act of Proscription although it was based on region and not clan (with the caveat that the concentration of a clan in a region did tend to also give some clan connection to a regional tartan).

Personally, I see no reason to doubt the validity of the idea that there was once long ago a system of regional preference for certain weaves that was lost in time due to the proscription.

The very fact that some Chiefs chose to ask the oldest surviving members of their clans to remember back to the time before Culloden to determine what their clan tartans were suggests that there was at least some idea that a concept like that existed in the misty past and that not all designs were based on the whims of tartan makers.

And according to a MacKay historian, the MacKay Highlanders prior to their being subsumed by other regiments were clad in a tartan upon which the Modern MacKay was based and which itself was based on an even older tartan common to the entire region. The MacKays are quite proud of their independent military history, as evidenced by this quote of our accomplishments:

The best known achievements of the Clan Mackay, as distinct from the ruling house have been on the battlefield. After the medieval phase of clan warfare, they manned a series of famous regiments. The original Mackay force performed valiantly in the Thirty Years war, notably at the defence of the Pass of Oldenburg. This was the first regiment to adopt highland dress as its official uniform. Mackay units fought on the government side in the Jacobite risings of 1715 and 1745, they formed the bulk of the first Sutherland Fencibles formed in 1759 and the Reay Fencibles raised in 1793. The Sutherland Highlanders consisted largely of Mackays recruited in Strathnaver in 1800. This regiment formed the "thin red line" at Balaclava and survived to modern times by amalgamation with the Argyles. The famous lone piper at Waterloo was a Mackay. In this part of the Highlands, people are still mainly direct descendants of original clansmen.

Now of course, there are quite a few who would relegate the belief in the use of at least regional tartans prior to Culloden to the status of myth and fantasy.

However, I for one do not believe that the true answer is at all settled on this point. There is plenty of evidence to show that the modern system of clan tartans evolved in the 19th century. However, there seems to be a decent amount of evidence to show that a regional system of tartans (which tended to be quite close to a clan system for some areas because of simple numbers of a given clan in an area) was in place prior to the proscription.

The best anyone should be able to say is that more research is required. With the amount of evidence currently available, I feel it incorrect to state categorically that there was no such system at all until the 19th century.

[GlassMan]

And yet Matt Newsome also says:

Originally, tartan designs had no names, and no symbolic meaning. All tartan cloth was hand woven, and usually supplied locally. While it may have been true that certain colors or pattern motifs were more common in some areas than others, no regulated or defined "clan tartan" system ever existed.

I'm not saying that there was a strictly regulated "clan tartan" system as there is in modern times. But there does seem to be plenty of evidence for a generally practiced system of tartans held to be customary for a particular region.

[Caradoc]

And yet Matt Newsome also says:



I'm not saying that there was a strictly regulated "clan tartan" system as there is in modern times. But there does seem to be plenty of evidence for a generally practiced system of tartans held to be customary for a particular region.

...which isn't surprising at all - even if only for the availability of specific dyes and colors per region.

You think shipping costs and times are bad now? Imagine how it was back then...

[GlassMan]

Exactly. And allow me to very plain about something. I am NOT saying that the current accepted clan tartans are the same ones our ancestors wore in the 16th & 17th centuries. 99.9999999999% of those tartans are certainly the invention of the tartan manufacturers in the 19th century. And even those that try to claim a greater antiquity (such as the attempts by some MacKay historians) have a very difficult time providing proof of such.

However, just because we lost the old regional tartan designs during the days of proscription, doesn't mean that they didn't exist. And what did exist was certainly not a tightly regulated system of tartans registered with the authorities and approved by the Chiefs. Instead it was a customary weave that tended to be worn by inhabitants of a region. And those inhabitants also tended to be related simply because in those days most people didn't not stray far from their place of birth. The modern tendency to move away from the parents is just that, a modern tendency.

Just wanting to make sure that we are both talking about the same concepts and not talking at cross purposes. I'll agree that the modern system did not exist. But I do tend to also believe what evidence shows was a different customary system in the past that lapsed during Proscription.

[macwilkin]

And yet Matt Newsome also says:

I'm not saying that there was a strictly regulated "clan tartan" system as there is in modern times. But there does seem to be plenty of evidence for a generally practiced system of tartans held to be customary for a particular region.

Apples and Oranges now, though...you're confusing a "district tartan" with a "clan tartan".

We're getting our money's worth out of Matt today; from the introduction to his District Tartans web site:

While an individual weaver may have a fondness for a particular motif, and certain tartan patterns may be more fashionable in a given region, nothing remotely like a standardized “clan tartan” system was ever in the minds of the Highland people.

www.district-tartans.com

You quoted Martin Martin's comment, which says: "at the first view of a man's plaid, to guess the place of his residence" --notice that Martin says his residence, not his clan.

Personally, I see no reason to doubt the validity of the idea that there was once long ago a system of regional preference for certain weaves that was lost in time due to the proscription.

Again, apples and oranges. The concept of a "district tartan" is much older than the "clan tartan", but as Matt points out, it was not organized and or structured, not to mention the fact that more than one clan might live in the same district, or that someone with a different surname might align themselves with a larger clan for protection, employment, etc.

The very fact that some Chiefs chose to ask the oldest surviving members of their clans to remember back to the time before Culloden to determine what their clan tartans were suggests that there was at least some idea that a concept like that existed in the misty past and that not all designs were based on the whims of tartan makers.

I believe it was the Chief of the MacDonalds who wrote the Highland Society in 1815 in response to their query about the "clan tartan" of the MacDonalds, "I have no idea what it is, but if you find it, would you please send me a sample?" (paraphrase mine) -- given the fact that the clan system had been broken for a generation, it's no wonder the chiefs had to consult with someone else -- the key is how those older members responded to the inquiry of their Chief, not that the Chief had to ask.

The best anyone should be able to say is that more research is required. With the amount of evidence currently available, I feel it incorrect to state categorically that there was no such system at all until the 19th century.

**EDIT** I agree, much more research needs to be done, and we probably haven't discovered all their is to find about the concept of tartans, but until we have verifiable and documented evidence, it's best to not make statement of fact without them. I agree that the regional or district tartan concept is older than the clan tartan, but even that wasn't uniformly regulated.

I'm a historian and librarian by profession, as well as a Missourian, so you'll have to "show me" before I believe it! :mrgreen:

Again, I'd love to see your source for the story of the "tartan lawsuit", as well as the documentation for the Clan Mackay information -- did the historian provide a bibliography and the works he cited?

Regards,

Todd

[GlassMan]

Apples and Oranges now, though...you're confusing a "district tartan" with a "clan tartan".

Considering in that in some areas at the time the population could be 3/4 or more of a given clan, there would have been a reasonable correlation between the two. The modern tendency for families to disperse was almost nonexistent outside of royal houses.

You quoted Martin Martin's comment, which says: "at the first view of a man's plaid, to guess the place of his residence" --notice that Martin says his residence, not his clan.

As the post I made prior to your clearly stated, I wanted to make sure that we were talking about apples and apples and not apples and oranges. And it does indeed seem that we are talking about apples and oranges. Since blood and residence was very closely allied in times prior to the 18th century, residence and clan would still have been close.

The problem with this statement is that you have provided no hard and fast facts that there was a regulated, uniform system of clan tartans before the early 19th century. I agree, much more research needs to be done, and we probably haven't discovered all their is to find about the concept of tartans, but until we have verifiable and documented evidence, it's best to not make statement of fact without them. I agree that the regional or district tartan concept is older than the clan tartan, but even that wasn't uniformly regulated.

I never claimed a hard and fast regulated system prior to Culloden. Only those who seek to dismiss the idea that there was any idea of tartan identification prior to the 19th century insiste on an exact analog to the modern tartan system.

I'm a historian and librarian by profession, as well as a Missourian, so you'll have to "show me" before I believe it! :mrgreen:

I agree with you on that. Which is why I've asked for further research before making definitive pronouncements. You may not have read my prior posts but with my undergraduate degree from Yale University, my graduate work at Harvard and a research fellowship at Princeton (all in Medieval European history) I am well acquainted with the concept of historical proof and my credentials are sterling. However, I must point out that records that are commonly available for one time period (19th century) are completely non-existent for others (early Medieval period). Hence the incredibly difficult time we have giving a precise date for the first known use of the kilt. While we know by what date it absolutely must have been worn by, that does not definitively state that it could not have been worn before then. Only that we do not yet have any proof of its prior existence. There is a difference between the two. Those of us who concentrated on Medieval History constantly come up against the problem of a paucity of sources. We must draw many inferences from only a few sources and also see what information can be gleaned from other fields of inquiry (such as art history, archeology, geology, etc.) to help explain occurances and practices. I will admit that the enforced creativity of Medievalists does lead us to question negative statements (such as a blanket insistence that there was no system of tartans prior to the 19th century) instinctively. Yet none of that is meant to question your own credentials. I respect you as both a historian and a librarian.

Again, I'd love to see your source for the story of the "tartan lawsuit", as well as the documentation for the Clan Mackay information -- did the historian provide a bibliography and the works he cited?

As soon as I am finished with my move to my new Handicapped Accessible home on the 19th I'll be happy to have my library unpacked and I'll search out the references for you. But sadly, they've already been packed as we are trying to pack the house ourselves to save money instead of having the movers do it for us. Unless you are willing to give me that time, I cannot give you the exact references. However, once I am unpacked I will happily give you the citations.

I for one am willing to let this drop until I've had a chance to move an unpack. That way we can diffuse a discussion before it mounts into an argument and someone says something we regret later. Cajunscot, I like you personally and have always respected your posts. So I hope you'll indulge me with the time to unpack.

--Phil

[macwilkin]

And yet there is a fabulous court case in which a female member of a clan sued a weaver because he had taken the wool (in the colors of the tartan she requested) and then not woven it according to the thread count. So there would appear to be evidence for a cogent system of colorations and weaving for tartans in at least some portions of Scotland prior to the banning of the tartan. And there are also mentions in the chronicals of the time of forces raised by a clan all wearing the same tartan. So while the modern system of clan tartans didn't arise until the 19th century, there is plenty to suggest that there was such a system for at least some clans back before the proscription.

And there is also the question of why would the firms even come up with the idea of assigning tartans to clans if there wasn't an oral history remembrance of a time in which it was the case.

Interesting...what's your source on the story? Did she identify the thread count as being peculiar to "Clan MacX", or was she just upset because the weaver had simply not followed her instructions?

I agree with Matt Newsome on his point about weavers assigning names to various tartans:

Wilson at first assigned his tartans numbers, not names. One would place an order for twenty yards of pattern number 12 because one liked that pattern, much like one would order a style of shirt from a catalog today simply because one favors that style.

But by the end of the eighteenth century Wilsons began to identify their tartans by names, as well. But this was not an attempt to claim that the tartan belonged to, or was in any way restricted to, the family whose name it now bore. It was simply another way of identifying the tartan.[emphasis mine] We do the same thing in modern American society. The helicopter is not called “Apache,” nor the Jeep called “Cherokee,” because we believe these Native American tribes actually developed or originally operated these vehicles. They are simply fancy (by which I mean “fanciful”) names.

-- http://www.albanach.org/sources.htm

And there are also mentions in the chronicals of the time of forces raised by a clan all wearing the same tartan.

Ah, but is technically a military uniform, not necessarily a command for all members of the clan to dress alike for everday civilian wear.

Another quote from Matt is appropriate:

In 1704 the Laird of Grant commanded that all of his tenants were to be prepared to report to battle dressed in red and green tartan of broad stripes (no specific pattern is mentioned).

--http://www.albanach.org/oldtartans.html

Cheers,

Todd