Irish Kilt?

[OC Richard]

The possible early distribution of the Goidelic and Brythonic speaking peoples is an interesting subject. I have read that the earliest Irish writings have internal hints of a Brythonic substructure. Also interesting are the hybrid place-names in Eastern Scotland with the first part being Brythonic and the second part being Goidelic. Let's face it, we really don't know much about all that stuff.

Also extremely interesting is how the aboriginal British share certain genetic traits with Basques.

[seanachie]

Also, unlike many of the other countries you mention, the kilt actually does have place in Irish history, although a somewhat smaller one than many people assume.

Well, that depends on what you consider small or large. Trying to stay within the boundaries here, nationalist kilt wearers played a significant role in events of modern Irish history. I learned this at a young age.

[macwilkin]

Well, that depends on what you consider small or large. Trying to stay within the boundaries here, nationalist kilt wearers played a significant role in events of modern Irish history. I learned this at a young age.

I don't believe Matt was talking about the role of the kilt wearers themselves, but rather the adoption of the kilt (and elements of Highland attire) by said Irish nationalists, or for that matter, the pipers of the Irish regiments in the First & Second World Wars.

T.

[MacSpadger]

The position as stated by MacSpadger is somewhat extreme.

Not to beat a dead horse, but just to show my position is not extremist but in fact commonplace, here is a link to the official government History of Scotland website. This is what is taught in the UK/Scotland and, as far as I know, Ireland.
No invasions or settlements, just North West Europeans sharing a common language.
http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/...iata/index.asp

The Romans – who always referred to the Irish as Scotti

I don't believe that the Romans did. As far as I know the term Scotti first appears in a 4th century Latin text, (and maybe the only time it does appear in actual Roman text), not long before the Romans pulled out of Britain, and the phrase was copied over into other languages and cultures, such as the Anglo Saxon Chronicles of Abingdon, Worcester and Laud, and even 7th century Spain. Debate continues as to who The Scotti/Scoti referred to actually were. It's possible it was a generic term for pirates/raiders, but more likely either Gaelic raiders from both Scotland and Ireland or just Irish raiders. It's only when we reach the Middle Ages that the idea of the Scotti as an invasive force led by Irish kings takes shape. They then go on to fight giants, dragons and witches and in some cases team up with King Arthur, but this seems to get omitted form the history books as nonsense, while the actual invasion is given credence, despite no evidence whatsoever. Surely questioning this can't be seen as extremist? Especially when two nations are doing so?

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.

I'd suggest that two of the languages present in the British Isles at that time were the ‘Q-Celtic’ or ‘Goidelic’ languages and ‘P-Celtic’ or ‘Brythonic’ languages. At no point would I feel comfortable at using the name "Gaelic" although the Q-Celtic Dál Riatan Gaels would have spoken an ancestoral version, as did the Irish and Manx.

[Really a McQueen]

Here is the still from The Quiet Man with John Wayne's sons wearing kilts:

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).

And, please remember, these outfits (with their white hose), came from the same costume designer who thought of having the Duke wear a silk shirt, which became near transparent when wet.

[Mike_Oettle]

Well, MacSpadger, it is interesting that you refer me to a website that states quite plainly that the people of Dál Riata “lived in Argyll on the West Coast of what is now Scotland from around AD 400” – a far more recent date than I conceded as being likely.
As to whether one should talk of P-Celtic and Q-Celtic as opposed to Brythonic and Gaelic/Goidelic, this would seem to be a matter of definition.
While my studies in history have been focused on my own country and on the broader European scene (from before the Roman Empire to the modern era), I have made strenuous efforts to read material dealing specifically with Scotland, again from ancient times to the present.
I do not have the advantage of having studied in your country, or access to the most up-to-date research, but I have noticed shifts in opinion from a tradition going back to Bede to a more evidence-based approach, and have attempted to keep up to speed on the latter trend.
But perhaps I have an advantage in my distance, in that I am not swept along with trendy shifts in academic opinion.
I have also noticed a trend that discounts the influence of Northumbria, but if that kingdom had not made conquests in what is now Scotland, how else would it have come about that the Argyll Scots, having conquered all or most of the lands north of the English border, were forced to admit “Inglis” (later called Scots) as its court language, rather than Gaelic?
The role of the Vikings also intrigues me, because while I am aware that Norwegian attacks disrupted Scottish life in the Hebrides during the 8th century AD, am unsure whether the Norsemen had made themselves at home in the regions further north (Orkney, Shetland and Sutherland) only at that stage or even earlier.
Certainly it was the Gaelic-speaking monks who pioneered the exploration (in their coracles) of the route to the north-east, reaching both the Faeroes and Iceland before the Norse, and the first non-religious settlers in Iceland were part-Norse, part-Scottish descendants of the Viking invaders who followed the route first explored by the monks.
Regards,
Mike

[O'Callaghan]

I stand by what I said. Much of it is not strictly to do with kilts.

I disagree with McSpadger on just about everything. I won't tire everyone by repeating myself, but I would like to point out that the Dal Riada are one of the five Gaelic tribes of Ireland, and that traditionally they are all descended from Milesius (Milidh) who is supposed to have come to Ireland from Spain. Of course, the old genealogies spoil their own likelihood of being believed when they trace Milesius back to Adam and Eve, but if you ignore that part, I have never seen anything to disprove the rest of it, including in this thread.

The source McSpadger cites does not say that Gaelic speakers in Ireland got there because they came from Scotland, only that there was movement in both directions, which I never doubted, but in fact it says nothing about origin. Moreover, there seems to be growing evidence that the Gaels did come to Ireland from the Iberian peninsula, not from Scotland, so the traditional view looks pretty good to me.

As for the relatively trivial point about Pierce having written on the subject of Irish kilts in 1900, may I just say that the Gaelic League was founded in 1893, and they started kilted pipe bands before 1900. Irish (British Army) pipe bands are believed to go back as far as 1857, although some claim that they did not initially wear kilts? I hate to mention bagpipes for fear of starting more trouble, but those of course originated in the Middle East, not Scotland. The Scots merely added a third drone, the second drone having appeared somewhere in central Europe.

Why did I labour the point that this is XMarks the SCOT - because those who support the Scottish view of things outnumber everyone else here. The irony is that most of them are not actually from Scotland, and those most stridently Scottish probably come for the furthest away.

[O'Callaghan]

Not to beat a dead horse, but just to show my position is not extremist but in fact commonplace, here is a link to the official government History of Scotland website. This is what is taught in the UK/Scotland and, as far as I know, Ireland.
No invasions or settlements, just North West Europeans sharing a common language.
http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/...iata/index.asp


I don't believe that the Romans did. As far as I know the term Scotti first appears in a 4th century Latin text, (and maybe the only time it does appear in actual Roman text), not long before the Romans pulled out of Britain, and the phrase was copied over into other languages and cultures, such as the Anglo Saxon Chronicles of Abingdon, Worcester and Laud, and even 7th century Spain. Debate continues as to who The Scotti/Scoti referred to actually were. It's possible it was a generic term for pirates/raiders, but more likely either Gaelic raiders from both Scotland and Ireland or just Irish raiders. It's only when we reach the Middle Ages that the idea of the Scotti as an invasive force led by Irish kings takes shape. They then go on to fight giants, dragons and witches and in some cases team up with King Arthur, but this seems to get omitted form the history books as nonsense, while the actual invasion is given credence, despite no evidence whatsoever. Surely questioning this can't be seen as extremist? Especially when two nations are doing so?

I'd suggest that two of the languages present in the British Isles at that time were the ‘Q-Celtic’ or ‘Goidelic’ languages and ‘P-Celtic’ or ‘Brythonic’ languages. At no point would I feel comfortable at using the name "Gaelic" although the Q-Celtic Dál Riatan Gaels would have spoken an ancestoral version, as did the Irish and Manx.

That reference does not address the origin of Gaels in the UK. It just kind of says they existed. The Irish tradition, as given in the Milesian genealogies, is that Milesius came from Spain to Ireland, and the leaders of the five tribes descended from him, including the Dal Riada. No-one seriously disputes that the Dal Riada had a kingdom that included Argyll in Scotland and part of Northern Ireland. Of course, the genealogies also trace Milesius back to Adam and Eve, but the part from Milesius downwards is not contradicted by available evidence, and there is some evidence that Ireland and Britain were populated from the Iberian peninsula.

[MacSpadger]

Mike, your post is good and has valid points. In my previous post I was merely pointing out what is accepted and being taught in our country today. The research has been conducted on both sides of the Irish Sea. There are many viewpoints about both Scotland & Ireland expressed on this forum that are not accepted in their homelands, and I don't see that changing very easily.

O'Callaghan, you are not so much disagreeing with me on just about everything as disagreeing with what is accepted and taught in Scotland and Ireland, as per my reply to Mike. If you disagree that much, why not write a paper and send it to the universities of Dublin and Strathclyde.
I can't help but notice that your only reference, although you don't name it, appears to be the 11th century Lebor Gabála Érenn which contains the 5 tribes history. Again, this is the stuff of myth and legend, a jumble by several different authors and not accepted as true nowadays. For anyone interested in the traditional history of Ireland, the story of the book and a good summary of it’s contents can be found here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebor_G...1la_%C3%89renn

I get really bored with the whole bagpipe biz. Yes, the bagpipe probably did begin in the Middle East, but there are many, many different kinds of bagpipes. The Great Highland Bagpipe as we know it went through a continuous process of development finally reaching a recognisable shape and identity round about 1810 after developments by Hugh Robertson of Edinburgh and Adam Barclay in the 1740’s. Two drone pipes were common around in Scotland for a few hundred years before that, both double tenor and bass/tenor configurations, as well as various types of smallpipes, border pipes, etc. No one in Scotland claims that the bagpipe was ever invented in Scotland, far from it, but important developments in both the instrument and the music that is played on it happened here.

My own research into the use of the bagpipe in Ireland is expansive and goes back more than 30 years. It is certainly enough to fill a book and has been enough to make a one hour BBC documentary aired in the 1990’s. There are a number of solid references to bagpipes in use in Ireland in history, just as there are for the majority of other European countries. Bagpipes have never been exclusive to Scotland or Ireland, any country may lay claim. One of the most solid, and perhaps well known, references to Irish bagpipes is from Holinshed’s Chronicles, written in 1577, describing an incident in May 1544: “In the same moneth also passed through the citie of London in warlike manner, to the number of seaven hundred Irishmen, having for their weapons darts and handguns with bagpipes before them: and in St. James Park besides Westminster they mustered before the king".

Unfortunately this info gets cut and pasted from internet site to internet site without any further thought of research. There are three much more detailed contemporary references to this event, which refers to the muster of Irish soldiers in the service of the English King, Henry the 8th,in London. Not only do we know which Irish Earls the pipers served, we know the exact names of who the pipers were, where they were from and where they ended up. We also know from a contemporary and very clear engraving of one of these regiments being led by it's Earl and it's piper, what kind of bagpipe was being used, and it didn't look anything like the Highland Bagpipe, in fact it has no drones, which is why I feel I can say there were several different types of bagpipe in use in Ireland, as per anywhere else in Europe at that time. The large mouthblown bagpipe fell out of fashion in Ireland, as it did everywhere else in Europe except the Highlands of Scotland.

As part of the “Gaelic revival” in Ireland, the issue of bagpipes to Irish regiments began in 1903, instigated by Lord Castletown of the Gaelic League. The pipes were made by the David Glen company of Edinburgh and instruction was given by the P/M of the Kings Own Scottish Borderers. Early civilian Irish bands followed in the same decade, with tuition from Scottish instructors and playing Glen pipes. Scotsman Alex Meikle was one of many Scots who did a great deal of teaching in the Dublin area, for example, and some of his pupils went on to form the Fintan Lalor Pipe Band, among others. The Glen company did well out of the revival, well enough to open a branch in Dublin and a branch in Belfast.
In 1906 the year that the wonderfully named Hercules Pakenham was appointed the Commanding Officer of the London Irish Rifles, and decided he wanted a pipe band along the lines of the London Scottish Regiment. He then enrolled Albert Starck, (of German stock) as tutor and bagpipe supplier, to the raw rank and file.
In 1916 the Irish Guards C.O. wanted a pipe band similar to the Scots Guards, and lessons were given by members of the London Irish, under Starck, (who also supplied the instuments).
The Irish Pipers club was started by the Gaelic league in 1909, under the tuition of the Highlander Donald MacKay. His most famous pupil was the son of wealthy London socialites, Louis Noble. Ironically Louis became the face of Irish piping for many. Read more on Louis here: http://www.cuffenet.com/bpipe/noble.html
The Gaelic League made the decision to make the instrument different from the Scottish one simply by removing one tenor drone. Noble objected to this and played a set of Scottish Lawries with two drones, bass and 2 tenors. These had previously belonged to his tutor, Donald MacKay. Noble then crossed the Irish Sea to found the Tralee Pipe band, but then went on to become the teacher of the Dublin Tramway Pipe Band before being recruited by Michael Collins early in 1914 and coming back to London to train the No. 1 Co. of the London Irish Volunteers in St Pancras Road, (in drilling and instruction, not piping). Louis Noble taught in Mackay’s style and trained many pipers in Ireland, before becoming the Instructor of Pipe Bands in the Irish National Army in 1924. Noble moved to the United States in 1947 and helped found the Celtic Pipe Band of Rochester and continued playing and teaching in the USA where he was a massive influence on American-Irish pipe bands. He continued to teach in MacKay's style.

So, “The Scots merely added a third drone”; It goes quite a bit deeper than that, to say the very least, and I’ve only just summarised the influence of Highland piping on the Irish and American-Irish scene here.
O'Callaghan, I don’t know your point is unless it’s solely to wind people up for your own amusement, in which case I’m probably wasting my time here.

[Phil]

This has been an interesting thread with a great deal of erudite historical comment and the fascination for me has been the significance that the kilt seems to have achieved as a symbol of Irish culture among north Americans when celebrating what they believe to be their ancestry. That it should be associated with green-coloured beer and other strange manifestations of an imaginary created culture does not lend a great deal of credence to the legitimacy of this however. This strong belief in the kilt as an Irish icon is one that comes up regularly in this forum and does fly in the face of everything in my experience to date. I do wonder perhaps if a certain confusion has arisen in the past about specific ancestry as I do know that many non-British people overseas, including most Americans I have met, have great difficulty in differentiating the separate nations within the British Isles and tend to lump them all together as from England. In a similar vein I have seen comment here and elsewhere that some people with a “Mc” surname have believed that they had Irish ancestry so this confusion may be further confounded. No doubt the current fashion for genealogy will help to dispel some of these myths among the genuine seekers after the truth but there will undoubtedly remain many more left with their own versions of their ancestry and to quote another Irish relation – “He would argue a black crow was white” – it seems to be in the genes.
With many Irish relations from one side of my family I believe that I can claim to know a little of Irish life from first-hand experience, although I would not for a minute consider myself competent to pronounce on any historical matters beyond my lifetime. Having spent much time in Ireland over many years I can only say that I have never encountered any cultural or philosophical rationale towards kilt-wearing in anyone I have met. While there is a generally favourable attitude towards Scottish people, Scottish culture and dress is most definitely regarded as a tiny bit foreign, great for pipe bands, but to wear a kilt themselves would never even enter their heads. “Now what would I be doing something like that for?” would be the response you would get if you asked if they would wear a kilt.
As to the legitimacy of the kilt as an historic Irish garment, well this can be the subject of endless argument to prove or disprove, and I do detect a scintilla of entrenched views opening up in the discussion, but I just wonder what historians will argue about in a few hundred years’ time when discovering in sites like this that Americans actually wore kilts many hundreds of years earlier and this must prove that it was their national dress at the time!