Irish Kilt?

[McElmurry]

As a historian by vocation & avocation, I frequently hear people dismiss my work as meaningless and irrelevant.
T.

Your work is very relevant and of consistently high reliability. I appreciate your efforts and the work of other historians and genealogists.

My comments were meant to highlight one source of some of the frustration some folks seem to express not as an attack on the messengers.

[MacSpadger]

I beg to differ on one point. Gaelic culture did, indeed, come from Ireland, as did the Gaelic people.

This was a popular view from the 1760's to the 1960's where the main source of this was Bede retelling Geoffrey of Monmouth. There was no real evidence to support this. Even as far back as 1845 historians such as J. M. Lappenberg were publishing books saying it was all nonsense. Even if you refer to where Geoffrey took his info from, the Irish Annals of Tigernach, it states Feargus Mor mac Earca cum gente Dal Riada partem Britaniae tenuit, et ibi mortuus est, (Fergus Mór mac Eirc, with the people of Dál Riata, held part of Britain, and he died there.) This section of the Annals appears to have been written about 500 to 600 years after this supposed event, it's not part of the original document and it's been made doubtful that such names existed in their written forms at that earlier time.
But, regardless of it being a forgery or not, note it doesn't mention Scotland, only Britain.
A more modern view of what is being taught in Scotland today can be found summarised fairly well here. http://www.electricscotland.com/hist...scotsirish.htm
No invasion from the Gaelic Irish, no Irish settlers, just a group of different peoples living in the extreme North West of Europe but with similar languages, customs and cultures.

There are also many clans of Viking origin. The mighty Somerled, Lord of the Isles, progenitor of the Macdonalds, MacAlisters, etc, was 50% viking. Other clans with viking roots include Gunn, MacAuley, MacDougall, and MacLeod, among others.

[fcgeil]

This was a popular view from the 1760's to the 1960's where the main source of this was Bede retelling Geoffrey of Monmouth. There was no real evidence to support this. Even as far back as 1845 historians such as J. M. Lappenberg were publishing books saying it was all nonsense. Even if you refer to where Geoffrey took hin info from, the Irish Annals of Tigernach, it states Feargus Mor mac Earca cum gente Dal Riada partem Britaniae tenuit, et ibi mortuus est, (Fergus Mór mac Eirc, with the people of Dál Riata, held part of Britain, and he died there.) This section of the Annals appears to have been written about 500 to 600 years after this supposed event, it's not part of the original document and it's been made doubtful that such names existed in their written forms at that earlier time.
But, regardless of it being a forgery or not, note it doesn't mention Scotland, only Britain.
A more modern view of what is being taught in Scotland today can be found summarised fairly well here. http://www.electricscotland.com/hist...scotsirish.htm
No invasion from the Gaelic Irish, no Irish settlers, just a group of different peoples living in the extreme North West of Europe but with similar languages, customs and cultures.

Among other texts I've read recently, Magnus Magnusson, in Scotland, the Story of a Nation pub. 2003 states categorically that the Gaels came from Ireland. I am not an historian (other than a love for it), so I cannot claim that he's correct or not. I simply mention it to show that (a) I didn't make it up whole cloth, and (b)it is a theory that has not been thoroughly debunked, and is still a currently viable one. The problem with history is that it is mostly opinions, and they vary. Unfortunately, I wasn't there when Scotland was peopled (I doubt you were either, but can't say for certain), so I can only go on what I've read from others who are better read than I.

Thanks for the link, though, I'll look through it.

[macwilkin]

Among other texts I've read recently, Magnus Magnusson, in Scotland, the Story of a Nation pub. 2003 states categorically that the Gaels came from Ireland. I am not an historian (other than a love for it), so I cannot claim that he's correct or not. I simply mention it to show that (a) I didn't make it up whole cloth, and (b)it is a theory that has not been thoroughly debunked, and is still a currently viable one. The problem with history is that it is mostly opinions, and they vary. Unfortunately, I wasn't there when Scotland was peopled (I doubt you were either, but can't say for certain), so I can only go on what I've read from others who are better read than I.

Thanks for the link, though, I'll look through it.

Magnusson was a journalist by trade, but I can't say I've ever seen any major criticism of his research skills or citations. Yes, opinion is always present in history, but any historian worth their salt would say that opinions should always be based on primary sources.

T.

[Peter Crowe]

Magnusson was a journalist by trade, but I can't say I've ever seen any major criticism of his research skills or citations. Yes, opinion is always present in history, but any historian worth their salt would say that opinions should always be based on primary sources.

T.

Indeed Todd, that is my take on the subject (regarding both Magnus Magnusson and the primacy of primary source evidence). Although I am a graduate in Scottish History, I was interested in early modern Scotland and mostly studied the period from 1500-1800. I am not knowledgeable enough about the ethnic make up and/or the migratory patterns of Scotland in the first thousand years of the Common Era to contradict what has been stated by either MacSpadger or fcgeil.

What I briefly remember about that period from the survey course 'Scottish History 1' (c. 800 CE to 1707 CE) at Glasgow University was that the evidence pointed to two way traffic in trade, human migration and cultural cross-pollination between the north-east of Ireland (primarily Antrim, but even as far west as Donegal) and the western sea board of Scotland especially from Galloway to Argyll, and from much earlier than the formation of Dal Riata.

[kiltbook]

The clothing worn by the two boys in this picture isn't as far off the mark as some may assume.
Young boys traditionally wore a skirt-like garment, called a "cóta cabhlach" if I recall correctly. This custom lasted longest in places like the Aran Islands.
Caps of the type shown were very common too (still made I think).

Yes the caps are still made, they are sold in the U.S. as Aran knit tams. They are no longer worn with the kilt. The tweed flat cap and the Irish military caubeen are worn with the kilt today.

Here is a photo of Irish school boys in the Aran Isles taken in 1935:

[MacSpadger]

What I briefly remember about that period from the survey course 'Scottish History 1' (C. 800 CE to 1707 CE) at Glasgow University was that the evidence pointed to two way traffic in trade, human migration and cultural cross-pollination between the north-east of Ireland (primarily Antrim, but even as far west as Donegal) and the western sea board of Scotland especially from Galloway to Argyll from the earliest times.

Hi Peter, that's perhaps the most firmly accepted contemporary view. I thought I'd link to Ewan Campbell's piece I thought it was fairly amiable in it's conclusions, although it does touch on the touchy topic of medieval Irish "reverse engineering".
There's fairly persuasive evidence being unearthed by the Strathclyde archaeological teams since 1997 to strongly suggest that there was a much larger flow from Scotland into Ireland in the Iron Age than vice versa, with Argyllshire in particular being the jumping off point for Highland settlers who took their culture, including their architecture, into Iron Age Ireland. There were two Dal Riatas, with the Scottish one being the original and the Irish one a colony.
I don't have the insight to comment on that, except I'd like to see and read more of the findings as they develop.
Campbell's piece points to a flow of trade and ideas, rather than people. And, as he points out, if you replace "Scots" or "Irish" with the phrase "Gaelic speakers", all controversy simply vanishes.

If I was cranky earlier, I just get fed up with the same untrue guff being repeated over and over without any explanation, evidence or reference. I am happy to pursue any avenue of history that comes with an ample supply of evidence.

[CMcG]

...
What I briefly remember about that period from the survey course 'Scottish History 1' (C. 800 CE to 1707 CE) at Glasgow University was that the evidence pointed to two way traffic in trade, human migration and cultural cross-pollination between the north-east of Ireland (primarily Antrim, but even as far west as Donegal) and the western sea board of Scotland especially from Galloway to Argyll from the earliest times.

In the Ewan Campbell article that MacSpadger linked to earlier, he says basically the same thing; Gaelic peoples inhabited what is now Ireland, Northern Ireland, and the Scottish Highlands/Western Islands since at least the Iron Age (i.e. prehistoric times). He finds no solid archaeological, historical, or linguistic evidence to support an "Irish" invasion of the Highlands and Islands form out the Picts and form the ancient kingdom of Dal Riada, rather that there were Gaels there the whole time. Furthermore, he suggests that modern geopolitical boundaries skew our perception of that region and that the sea connected northern Ireland with the Highlands/Islands rather than separating them, as per this diagram from that article:


In his conclusion he says:

"Surely the question that is of interest here is not 'where did people come from?', but 'how did people establish and change their personal and group identity by manipulating oral, literary and material culture?'. Indeed, merely by re-labelling the supposed 'Irish settlers' as 'Gaelic speakers', following the practice of contemporary writers such as Adomnan, the whole issue can be studied in an atmosphere free from the colonialist implications which have distorted the study of early medieval western Britain."

I'd like to frame the origins of the Irish kilt in his terms of establishing and changing identity, because I agree that it is more interesting and especially because it is more germane to the OP's questions.

...
Basically, all rambling aside, I was wondering if the Irish wear kilts at all. Is wearing a kilt on St. Patricks Day misrepresenting Ireland by wearing a garment predominantly Scottish?...

The late 19th/early 20th century Gaelic revivalists in pre-republic Ireland looked to the nearest Gaelic people for ideas of what could have been. Traditional Irish attire had long been Anglicized and they were romantically re-imagining themselves in an effort to reestablish a sovereign Irish nation, so they chose the kilt as their attire.

The kilt never gained widespread support among people in Ireland as everyday wear but did get picked up by Irish bagpipers, dancers, and even sometime as boys school uniforms. Some of our Irish members, in Ireland, have told us that kilts have gained some popularity as wedding attire. It appears, however, that Irish kilts have gained more currency in the Irish diaspora than at home.

It is a misrepresentation to suggest a historical, ancient origin for Irish kilts. The kilt comes from the Scottish Highlands. It is also incorrect to suggest that the kilt is Ireland's national attire, because it has never been officially accepted, nor been widely used as such. The kilt is Scotland's national attire.

I don't think wearing a kilt on St. Pat's, in North America is somehow "misrepresenting" Ireland. The Irish kilt has now logged over a hundred years of history, despite the modern origin. Personally, I accept the premise of the Gaelic revivalists in pre-republic Ireland, if only as a romantic elision of history to imagine an ethnic attire. I think it is grand!

Enjoy your Irish kilt, but just don't represent it as something other than a modern phenomenon -- and one that is fraught with nationalistic and historical problems that provide endless amounts of discussion on Xmarks

[Mike_Oettle]

The position as stated by MacSpadger is somewhat extreme.
Certainly the once-popular theory that the Gaels entered Scotland not long before St Columba’s settlement on Iona has been exploded.
But there was nonetheless a movement of Gaelic settlers from Ireland to both Argyll and Galloway some centuries earlier – perhaps in the 1st century AD, or possibly even before that.
The Romans – who always referred to the Irish as Scotti – constantly had to deal with Irish attacks on the western shores of Britannia, and it is known that Irish folk settled in small numbers at various points. As late as the Anglo-Saxon conquest of Devon and Cornwall there was a “Scottish” settlement at Glastonbury.
There may well have been a time, millennia ago, when Gaelic was widely spoken in Britain, but when the Romans arrived on the island, it was primarily a language of Ireland, perhaps with outlying settlements in Galloway and Argyll.
The language of Britain was Brythonic, not only in what is now England and Wales, but also in the north.
It disappeared from what we now call Scotland because of the conquests in that region by the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Northumbria (which saw Brythonic-speaking regions turn to English speech) and by the emigration of the Brythonic nobility of Strathclyde and areas to the south to the northern parts of Wales, where they were entrusted with defending that region against attacks from elsewhere.
Similarly extreme positions are taken concerning the Picts of what is now Scotland, with some contending that they were pre-Celtic, while others insist that they were indeed Celts.
It would be interesting to see how that debate develops in the 21st century.
Regards,
Mike

[MacSpadger]

The position as stated by MacSpadger is somewhat extreme.

I wouldn't say so. It's not really my position anyway, I'm only repeating what is being taught and discussed over here today. It's not just the Strathclyde University that are delving into this and presenting evidence, but also the University of Dublin. I am a qualified teacher and lecturer, (although that's not my profession anymore), and do tend to lend an ear to careful long term investigation with evidence of some kind, rather than accepting something without any solid basis. That cuts both ways. If there was nothing to refer to, I wouldn't be referring to it. Thanks.