Irish Kilt?

[MacSpadger]

An odd choice of words which could be very easily misinterpreted.

It's apparent from the rest of your post you don't deny the existence of bagpipes - of whatever type(s) - amongst the Irish. Rather, you are questioning the use of the term 'Irish Warpipes' and the authenticity of bagpipes of the various designs developed since the revival (sorry "revival") period.

Yes, that’s absolutely correct. There is a long history of bagpiping in Ireland, and I have provided some evidence of this. No problem at all. I put revival in inverted comma’s because, as in Scotland, there was probably more reinvention than reviving in the late 1800’s.

An Firstly, I can't see how the common use of the term 'Irish Warpipes' in modern English is of any consequence.

I have no problem with the 20th century use of the term “Irish warpipes”, meaning a two droned version of the Great Highland bagpipe, (with one tenor removed). However the London based bagpipe manufacturer Henry Starck and the author WH Grattan Flood sought to establish an antiquity for the “Irish Warpipe” as the national instrument of Ireland, despite overwhelming evidence that several different types of bagpipes were played, with the term “warpipe” never once being mentioned. Grattan Flood used the term in 1911 describing the increasing number of Irish pipe bands as a "revival" of the Irish warpipe.
Flood really goes off the wall in the "Irish Pipers" chapter of Pipes of War. He begins by saying that there "is ample evidence that the bagpipe was used in Pre-Christian Ireland". He then continues without any mention at all of what this evidence might be. His dating is bizarre, with no references at all. Uillean pipes appeared "about the year 1580". Around the year 1625 keys were added to the chanter. He states that while the Uillean pipe is capable of two full octaves, the war pipe is capable of only 8 notes, same as the "Scottish or Highland" version. 8 notes. For all his writing he doesn't even know how many notes can be played on the chanter. He even contradicts himself in the same paragraph, saying that piping in Ireland died out until it was revived in 1903 by Lord Castletown.
The book was derided in it’s place of publishing but sold very well in the USA.
The Irish bagpipe historian Sean Donnelly has written a great many articles and several books. In over 30 years of research he has provided lots of information hitherto undiscovered, 26 references to piping in Ireland in all. He has said in print on several occasions he has not once come across a native Irish reference to any bagpipe being called a warpipe. He came to the conclusion it was an English term, as English visitors to both Scotland and Ireland referred to "Warpipes", while the actual Scots and Irish did not.
Captain Edmund Burt was an Englishman sent to Scotland in 1730 and he published an account of his travels in the Highlands called 'Letters from a Gentleman in the North of Scotland. He gives varied detailed reports of Highland culture and calls Highland bagpipes "warpipes".
John Derrick was an English customs official who witnessed a campaign of warfare in Ireland in the 1570’s. He refers to the bagpipe as a “warpipe” and it’s believed that’s where Flood took his idea from. Much of the idea of the two large two droned bagpipe or "warpipe" came from the illustrations that accompanied Derrick's "Images of Ireland" from the 1570s, but the illustrations were not made by Derrick, who was a customs official, but from the workshop of the engraver John Daye in London. Daye never visited Ireland. They were not made by an eyewitness, and cannot be relied upon. Many of his engravers were from the Dutch and Germanic Lowlands and it’s a strong possibility that they used a print by Durer of a German piper for the Irish illustration. However, this image from someone who had never seen an Irish bagpipe was used by Flood in his writing and by Starck, who used it as the basis for his Dungannon bagpipe. The Dungannon was a commercial failure, so Starck began producing the familiar two drone warpipe instead, in fact he secured the government contract to do so by extolling it’s “ancient” properties.
Much earlier, even the English king Edward I, "Longshanks", the Hammer of the Scots, had 5 "pipes of war" in his entourage. So, the term warpipe seems to have English rather than Irish or Scottish roots.
This has not prevented people for searching for the ancient “Irish Warpipe”. Frank Timoney of New York offered a substantial cash reward in the 1990’s for anyone who was able to produce any evidence that it had ever actually existed. Sadly he passed away recently without ever seeing any takers.
I agree with your other observations entirely.

There are several accounts and depictions of Irish pipes that indicate they had drones. I find it strange that an illustration of a 15th century siege (do you have a link to it?) showing Irish bagpipes with no drones is so much more credible to you than any of these.

Yes, there are a great many descriptions of Irish bagpipes with drones, I do wish there was more visual evidence, I really do. As I said earlier, Sean Donnelly has uncovered 29 actual Irish references to bagpipes, including “smallpipes”, “bagpipes” "One pair of loud pipes for 20 shillings" and "One pair of Soft Pipes" for 6 shillings and and Eightpence. At least some of these would have drones, I would surmise. The illustration from Derrick’s “Image of Ireland” I admit I do have a problem with. It was not done by an eyewitness and the bagpipe looks like a very unrealistic version of a German Doodle sack. The bagpipe with no drones was done from life, or “in the quicke”. It’s the engraving taken from the contemporary scene from the oil painting at Cowdray Castle of the piper leading the Irish kerne serving under King Henry VIII at the seige of Boulougne, the bagpipe looks like a droneless bousine type, clutched to the chest rather than played under the arm, as was the European style of playing at the time. In a recent exhibition at the National Army Museum in Chelsea this image of the Kerne piper was enhanced and enlarged to many times it's original size, I have had a look at this but the detail is not clear enough to see the chanter details. I suspect it may be a double chanter. Sadly, I have no link.

If you think I'm winding up people for my own amusement, I must say I take that as a personal insult.

You haven't even proposed any alternative theory to the Irish myths and legends, much less tried to actually justify such a theory. Or perhaps you think the first Gaelic speaker crawled fully formed out of a hole in Mulngavie? Not very likely is it? (Quite apart from the fact that it is in the lowlands).

I am not necessarily saying that the population came en masse from Ireland, but it seems reasonable that the language and many aspects of the culture indeed did. Need I remind you that highlanders used to be referred to in Scotland as Erse (Irish)?

I am not a historian, and won't be writing a paper anytime soon, but you have failed to present a case that would convince me, and now you accuse me of trying to wind people up. I'd better not continue this discussion, as it cannot end well.

O’Callaghan, again, I get confused. I have nothing to propose or justify. I have been quite careful in my posts to provide references. These references are, more or less, what is being taught in Europe today. I’d say they were a viable alternative to the myths and legends, as you put it. I don’t need to provide a viable alternative, I’m simply pointing out what is taught, and what is continuing to be discovered. I’ll admit I don’t understand why you keep contradicting the output of very qualified people in the UK and Ireland, the people whose work I reference and whose decades of work you keep contradicting without reference or given reason. That’s why I can’t see if you are serious or not. I really don’t know. Your disagreements are not with me, but with people living in Ireland and Scotland who have worked very hard to delve into the commonalities in the histories of both countries. I’m merely repeating what is being aired in books, newspapers, magazines, television, etc, over here. I can’t see your point at all, is there a point?
I certainly would not comment on how people are educated in your country, but if you disagree with how people are educated over here, feel free to complain to the correct authorities, but, to be honest, I don’t think it will make much difference.
As for Gaelic, I began Gaelic studies in 1970 in Aberdeen. What we were taught was that it was an Indo European language, part of a family that had it’s roots in Greater Europe, Persia, and South Asia. It slowly developed as it spread, culturally if not with migration, across Europe over a thousand years or so. I don’t think the viewpoint has changed that much since then. No invasions, no crawling from holes. Yes, Highlanders were referred to as Erse by the English at times, as were the Cornish, Welsh, Cumbrians and other West Coast peoples. This was for political reasons and books such The Decline of the Celtic Languages by Victor Edward Durkacz go into this in greater depth than I ever could.
I make no claim for Milngavie/Muileann-Gaidh being Highland or Lowland. I live on the famous West Highland Way, seen as the start of the Highlands. I’m two minutes from Mugdock Castle and my garden is overlooked by the Kilpatrick Hills. Summers I get awfy’ bothered by midgies. That’s maybe as close as I’d like to be.

[Laighneach]

Being a Celtic harper, of no note (pun intended), I can speak to this. The harping traditions of Ireland and Scotland are very different, as are the instruments ... although they probably were quite similar in the dimmer past. The Irish adopted gut strings for their instruments. Scottish harps are generally metal strung. While the music from the respective cultures are both pentatonic, they have a very different sound and cadence, at least to my ear. While its certainly possible that Scottish harpers traveled to Ireland for training at some point, most evidence points to Welsh training since the reestablishment of harping traditions. Of the three countries, only Wales has enjoyed an unbroken harping tradition, that Ireland and Scotland don't due to proscriptions on the instrument, and their very destruction by the English crown of as many instruments as it could get its hands on, due to its cultural significance. Harps and harping was/is a bardic tradition in Celtic culture, and thereby a transmission of cultural values, feelings and beliefs. Hence the stamping out by English authority. The more current versions of harps of Irish and Scottish styles, while have many similarities, are in fact different in many details of construction and proportion.

It is not difficult to imagine that the pipes of their respective cultures would follow a similar differentiation.

-Authentic Irish harps/cláirsigh have today, and have always had, metal strings. The Irish did not 'adopt' gut strings.
-The use of gut strings in a cláirseach-style frame is relatively modern. Such instruments are neither claimed to be nor acknowledged as traditional Irish harps. They are often referred to as 'neo-Gaelic/neo-Irish harps'.
-Such gut string harps are also used in Scotland.
-This has no bearing on the question of similarities between Irish and Scottish musical tradition in centuries past.

[Laighneach]

Yes, there are a great many descriptions of Irish bagpipes with drones, I do wish there was more visual evidence, I really do. As I said earlier, Sean Donnelly has uncovered 29 actual Irish references to bagpipes, including “smallpipes”, “bagpipes” "One pair of loud pipes for 20 shillings" and "One pair of Soft Pipes" for 6 shillings and and Eightpence. At least some of these would have drones, I would surmise. The illustration from Derrick’s “Image of Ireland” I admit I do have a problem with. It was not done by an eyewitness and the bagpipe looks like a very unrealistic version of a German Doodle sack. The bagpipe with no drones was done from life, or “in the quicke”. It’s the engraving taken from the contemporary scene from the oil painting at Cowdray Castle of the piper leading the Irish kerne serving under King Henry VIII at the seige of Boulougne, the bagpipe looks like a droneless bousine type, clutched to the chest rather than played under the arm, as was the European style of playing at the time. In a recent exhibition at the National Army Museum in Chelsea this image of the Kerne piper was enhanced and enlarged to many times it's original size, I have had a look at this but the detail is not clear enough to see the chanter details. I suspect it may be a double chanter. Sadly, I have no link.

You don't mean this, do you? -
http://source.pipers.ie/Media.aspx?mediaId=3238
I don't see how one could draw any conclusions about the nature of Irish bagpipes from this very basic image.

[seanachie]

I can't help but actually feel a bit sorry for the Irish diaspora because fantasy Ireland has taken prescendence over real Ireland and, in some ways I understand that, but fantasy Ireland seems to honestly make Ireland out to be a little worse than it really is. The celebration of St. Patricks Day, a day of a Catholic saint, has turned into one of the biggest drinking days of the year, and green beer has now become what it means to be Irish. Many Irish-Americans have no idea what being Irish is or what being Irish means. Most of us have no idea about the dark Irish history in America and, to be honest, most of us wouldnt care. Being Irish means wearing a "kilt" (or a thigh-length womens pleated skirt like I saw on one man), a bright orange wig, and getting totally and completely s*itefaced on St. Pattys Day.

I think there are a lot of generalizations and stereotypes in these comments. it might be best to speak for one self. I won only ever one academic award ever in school and I wrote my year long paper on Eamonn de Valera. So no claims on knowing but a little, but I read what I can. You should also know there are places like Boston College that have very well regarded Irish studies programs. Another question you should ponder is who the drunk hooligans are on St Patrick's day, I have seen many who come from a wide range of ethnicities looking for nothing better than a reason to get drunk. There is no membership card for stupid caricatured outfits. Look at the men who lost their lives in the after math of Easter 1916 and amongst that group are men who wore the kilt. You can have varied opinions on that but that is history and many look up to them. There are chapters of the Ancient Order of Hibernians that bear their name.

If I seem at all touchy on the issue, look at the comments in USA Today after Katie Taylor won the gold medal pretty ignorant comments to my mind.

[Phil]

This article in today's press sheds some interesting light on the origins of Scots people from DNA evidence obtained. It sounds like Ireland might not have been the origin some here are claiming after all - http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman...tory-1-2465715 . Of course it would be interesting to see a similar study for Ireland as the theory seems to be that successive migrations from east to west pushed right to the Atlantic coast until they could go no further. This would seem to imply that mainland Britain was populated first in this way after the last Ice Age before spilling over into Ireland. Interesting too that Scottish women's DNA is older indicating that they didn't move around much while many men arrived later.

[MacSpadger]

You don't mean this, do you? -
http://source.pipers.ie/Media.aspx?mediaId=3238
I don't see how one could draw any conclusions about the nature of Irish bagpipes from this very basic image.

Yes, I do, but the image was much enlarged and enhanced. The conclusion, that I, and many others, have drawn from the enhancement is that, like the rest of Europe, there were several types of bagpipe in Ireland. That's all, and it shouldn't surprise anyone. It's also interesting in that we have not only have Holinshed's account, but much more hard evidence. These men were Irish pipers who served with the English army at the Siege of Boulogne, France in 1544. Much more was written about them in articles such as Viscount Dillon's Irish Troops at Boulogne, etc, but the original muster roll for Henry VIII's invasion army still exists. 1000 troops left Ireland to serve under Henry VIII and landed at Chester, England in May 1544. The muster includes marshalls, surgeons and bagpipers among others. 400 of these Irish troops were sent north to fight the Scots, 600 went to London then on to France.

The Irish troops outraged the English by their manner of dress, which consisted of only a shirt and short jacket. Dean Gunter White called them, "naked men but only their shirts and smallcoats, and many times when it comes to the bicker but barenaked, saving their shirts to hide their privities". They also outraged both allies and enemies by their habit of collecting heads.

However, back to the piping: The muster roll from the Dublin authorites lists 11 pipers/pypers, and all of these are allocated to a nobleman, much in the same way that we would expect Highland pipers to be allocated to a clan chief. The names are translated into rough English from the Irish language.
To the Earl of Ormonde we have Gilpatric piper Giolla-Phadraig
To the Baron of Delvin we have Brene McGuntyre, (Brian MacIntyre by today's spelling). The list goes on and gets better but I get fed up seeing other people's work nicked and passed off as someone else's research, so I'm going to stop there. You get the point, these were not wandering pipers or minstrels, these were Irish pipers allocated rank and in some case "boys" or servants. This establishes without doubt that there was a firmly established Irish bagpiping tradition by the mid 1500's. The illustration clearly shows it was not a 20th century style "warpipe", or even close to Starck's Dungannon pipe, although indeed it is a bagpipe being used in war. I believe it is the only eyewitness illustration of a pre 20th century Irish bagpipe being used in a warzone.
I think that the true history of Irish piping has been obscured, suffered even, under this 20th century, non-Irish, non-Gaelic, non-Celtic, "Irish Warpipe" name and the attempt to establish it as a national instrument. I believe that there were several different types of bagpipe in Ireland, (as per Scotland, France, Spain, etc) and receipts from 1551 and 1553 for Irish themed events in London such as Masque of Irishmen, Masque of Irishwomen, Irish Play of the State of Ireland, and The Masque of Almains, Pilgrims and Irishmen seem to bear this out, as pipemakers based in London with Irish names like "Bridget the bagpiper's wife" and "Bennet bagpiper" supplied instruments for these masques such as "One pair of loud pipes for 20 shillings" and "One pair of Soft Pipes" for 6 shillings and and Eightpence and even cloth for "A garment of russet damask" for the "Lord of Misrule's minstrel - the Irish bagpiper". This is a clear reference to an Irish bagpiper, although it is important to note that in these lists, fife and flute players are referred to on occasion as "pipers", but bagpipers are always just that, "bagpipers". There is no doubt these are Irish bagpipers playing different types of bagpipe. As with all pre revival Irish texts, the term "warpipes" simply does not occur.

[MacSpadger]

This article in today's press sheds some interesting light on the origins of Scots people from DNA evidence obtained. It sounds like Ireland might not have been the origin some here are claiming after all - http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman...tory-1-2465715 . Of course it would be interesting to see a similar study for Ireland as the theory seems to be that successive migrations from east to west pushed right to the Atlantic coast until they could go no further. This would seem to imply that mainland Britain was populated first in this way after the last Ice Age before spilling over into Ireland. Interesting too that Scottish women's DNA is older indicating that they didn't move around much while many men arrived later.

Good stuff. I have been waiting for the results while following the items in the news as the announcement got nearer. Interesting that a third of Scotsmen have Germanic, Teutonic, Alpine and Saxon Y chromosome DNA. Scots history has always had a number of immigrants coming in from Eastern Europe, not just workers and artisans but also significant additions to the Stewart royalty.

[Tobus]

I can't help but actually feel a bit sorry for the Irish diaspora because fantasy Ireland has taken prescendence over real Ireland and, in some ways I understand that, but fantasy Ireland seems to honestly make Ireland out to be a little worse than it really is. The celebration of St. Patricks Day, a day of a Catholic saint, has turned into one of the biggest drinking days of the year, and green beer has now become what it means to be Irish. Many Irish-Americans have no idea what being Irish is or what being Irish means. Most of us have no idea about the dark Irish history in America and, to be honest, most of us wouldnt care. Being Irish means wearing a "kilt" (or a thigh-length womens pleated skirt like I saw on one man), a bright orange wig, and getting totally and completely s*itefaced on St. Pattys Day.

Yes, sadly, the popular culture of American Irishness is far from anything the Irish themselves would claim as their culture or traditions. However, it is a very interesting phenomenon when studied against the backdrop of immigration from Ireland. Especially when you consider that much of the American sense of Irishness came from the Ulster Scots (aka Scots-Irish).

Two books I recommend on the subject are The Scotch-Irish: A Social History by James G. Leyburn, and Chasing the Frontier: Scots-Irish in Early America by Larry Hoefling. These books go a long way in explaining the unique aspects of how America's culture was shaped by Ulster Scots. Keep in mind that the large influx of Ulster Scots happened just prior to the large influx of Irish, although there was plenty of overlap in immigration between the two groups. The Ulster Scots immigration pattern had its most significant numbers in the early 1700s, while the Irish immigration pattern was around mid-century and later. Their cultures and histories were vastly different, but when they came to America they were simply seen as "Irish", and these two groups (despite their differences and even their mutual animosity) faced the same sort of prejudice from those who had already settled here. They were stereotyped, mocked, and culturally oppressed in a lot of areas. This stereotyping of Irish immigrants played an important part in our (later) perceptions of Irish culture. Especially with regards to such things as eating potatoes, alcoholism, being poor, etc.

So a curious thing happened. As American culture started getting blended with all these different groups (including all the other nationalities that had settled here), a new sense of "Irishness" came about. A lot of the Irish and Ulster Scot immigrants let go of their previous cultural attachments and attempted to embrace a new identity, or their cultural traditions changed over time (as they tend to do when separated from the motherland). Unfortunately, this means that they lost their original traditions and ties to the Old World. It was several generations later before people became interested in reviving it, and by that time, the cultures had been so mixed and distorted that it was difficult to find anything that remotely resembled the truth. That, coupled with the new Irish nationalist movement going on in Ireland, further distorted the American perception of the truth. And it has morphed into what we know today as the American sense of "Irishness". The Irish can't make any sense of it; nor can the Ulster Scots, or Northern Ireland inhabitants, regardless of where they came from originally.

This new perception of Irish culture quickly became a stereotype. It was a blend of the original negative stereotypes I mentioned earlier and the new fragments of Irish culture we were getting from the Irish nationalist movement. In my mind, this is how the non-educated people of America got to the point of thinking that the Irish wear kilts, drink a lot, and talk to leprechauns. It's a mish-mash of insulting stereotypes and incorrect cultural history that has taken firm root in popular American culture and been mercilessly promoted by Hollywood and other 'entertainment' venues. Unfortunate though it may be, it's actually a pretty interesting phenomenon for studying.

[macwilkin]

Yes, sadly, the popular culture of American Irishness is far from anything the Irish themselves would claim as their culture or traditions. However, it is a very interesting phenomenon when studied against the backdrop of immigration from Ireland. Especially when you consider that much of the American sense of Irishness came from the Ulster Scots (aka Scots-Irish).

Two books I recommend on the subject are The Scotch-Irish: A Social History by James G. Leyburn, and Chasing the Frontier: Scots-Irish in Early America by Larry Hoefling. These books go a long way in explaining the unique aspects of how America's culture was shaped by Ulster Scots. Keep in mind that the large influx of Ulster Scots happened just prior to the large influx of Irish, although there was plenty of overlap in immigration between the two groups. The Ulster Scots immigration pattern had its most significant numbers in the early 1700s, while the Irish immigration pattern was around mid-century and later. Their cultures and histories were vastly different, but when they came to America they were simply seen as "Irish", and these two groups (despite their differences and even their mutual animosity) faced the same sort of prejudice from those who had already settled here. They were stereotyped, mocked, and culturally oppressed in a lot of areas. This stereotyping of Irish immigrants played an important part in our (later) perceptions of Irish culture. Especially with regards to such things as eating potatoes, alcoholism, being poor, etc.

Close, but no cigar. The "Scots-Irish" assimilated to American society long before the arrival of the "famine" or "Green" Irish in the mid-1840s, when the potato blight and political tensions as a result of the 1848 Revolutions drove many Southern Irish from Ireland across the sea. In fact, many of those "native" Americans who stereotyped, mocked and culturally oppressed the Irish were most likely of Ulster-Scots blood themsselves. Before the arrival of the "Green" Irish, those Scots-Irish that did maintain some semblance of ethnic identity did refer to themselves as "Irish", although as you mentioned, the Ulster Scots were only Irish in geographic residence, not necessarily in culture.

As I tell my classes, the Scots-Irish dropped their ethnicity very quickly, intermarrying with Germans and French Protestants (David Crockett is the most famous example of that mixture) to become a distinctly American culture. Ironically, it was the Scots-Irish who persecuted the Loyalist Highlanders & members of the British Army's Highland regiments during the Revolution.

So a curious thing happened. As American culture started getting blended with all these different groups (including all the other nationalities that had settled here), a new sense of "Irishness" came about. A lot of the Irish and Ulster Scot immigrants let go of their previous cultural attachments and attempted to embrace a new identity, or their cultural traditions changed over time (as they tend to do when separated from the motherland). Unfortunately, this means that they lost their original traditions and ties to the Old World. It was several generations later before people became interested in reviving it, and by that time, the cultures had been so mixed and distorted that it was difficult to find anything that remotely resembled the truth. That, coupled with the new Irish nationalist movement going on in Ireland, further distorted the American perception of the truth. And it has morphed into what we know today as the American sense of "Irishness". The Irish can't make any sense of it; nor can the Ulster Scots, or Northern Ireland inhabitants, regardless of where they came from originally.

Actually, Northern Ireland has embraced the revived interest in Scots-Irish heritage; numerous cultural organizations are quick to point out the Ulster origins of American culture, particularly in the American South, as well as the Scots-Irish devotion to the American Revolution, their impact on traditional folk music and folk lore, etc. As early as 1902, the noted writer Owen Wister stated that it was the "Orange Irish" and not the "Green Irish" who helped win the Revolution. No doubt Wister read his friend Theodore Roosevelt's history of the American frontier, which also discussed the Scots-Irish.

Regards,

T.

[kiltbook]

Kiltbook’s response to my remarks about the sporran come across as angry, and at the same time they are entirely misdirected, since the practicality I referred to has nothing whatever to do with the use (or non-use) of pockets.
I do use the sporran as a pocket, and while I have pockets on the inner aprons of both my kilts (and will have one on the new one I hope to order soon), the proper function of the kilt pocket (at least on the inner apron) is to hold a handkerchief or two.
The sporran holds more bulky objects.
But my concern about a man’s wearing a kilt without a sporran has to do with his physique, not the things he chooses to carry about with him.
Since I now no longer have a prostate, I do not run the risk of an embarrassing bulge at my crotch, but as a young man I was on more than one occasion grateful that I had a sporran with which to conceal the phenomenon.
I wonder what the Irish do in such instances?
I still have no idea why it is said that wearing a sporran is an offence to Irish cloth, and even less idea why this attitude is not applied to Irish tartan garments.
Regards,
Mike

A true Scotsman does not breech. However, most Irish who wear the kilt without a sporran are taught to always have solid black knit boxer briefs on underneath the kilt. Most Irish kilties who have not adopted the Scottish style of dress, wear underwear. Sorry about the confusion. I was not angry, I am a really bad writer.

To your health, slainte'.