Wrapping the Braveheart kilt

[crows4hire]

Duke,
Are you saying that this is more than just 5 yards of 60 inch plaid? In other words their is a thin strip at one end that extends a few more yards?

[Calgacus]

Duke,
Are you saying that this is more than just 5 yards of 60 inch plaid? In other words their is a thin strip at one end that extends a few more yards?

The Celtic Croft item that Duke shows is not 60 inch cloth, it is single width (~28-30").

There is a method of wearing the upper portion of the plaid that I think will give you the look you are after.

1. Put the plaid on as described in my post above, up to the point where you have just stood up.

2. Reach behind you (or get an assistant to help) and grab roughly the centre of the edge of the hanging upper part of the plaid. Take this point and lift it up and over your left shoulder. Pin it there, or get your assistant to keep hold of it.

3. Reach down and pick up the corner of the upper plaid which should be visible near your left knee. If it's not visible, you may have the aprons reversed. Take this corner and twirl it a few times to roll the fabric up a bit. Now pass the corner round your right hip and tuck it in beneath your belt at the back.

4. Reach down and pick up the corner of the upper plaid which should be visible near your right knee. Take this corner and twirl it a few times to roll the fabric up a bit. Now pass the corner round your left hip and tuck it in beneath your belt at the back.

5. Take a portion of the cloth that went round your right hip and bring it up towards your left shoulder. Use a brooch or clasp to attach this portion to the bit you brought over your left shoulder earlier.

You should now have something like this-

Plaid multi small.jpg

This is about 6 yards of double width. I was experimenting. For putting on, something like four yards would have been better. If I knew I had to sleep outside in it in all weathers in Scotland, I'd happily keep the 6 yards!

[crows4hire]

2014-09-15 11.01.09.jpg2014-09-15 11.04.33.jpg2014-09-15 11.05.55.jpg
I think I've got something workable... I had the aprons reversed so I hung it on my right shoulder.

[MacLowlife]

Aye, Calgacus,

If we are talking about conveniently putting it on, shorter works fine, but it is the sleeping part that adds length.

Crows4Hire, I do not mean to insult you, but please note all of the terminology:
The Great Kilt is the wrapped length
The Philabeg is the "little kilt"
A Plaid ("PLAYED") is a separate blanket/shawl/scarf and, depending on the wearer's inclination, can go anywhere from a big bandanna to several feet, wrapped or draped accordingly

[crows4hire]

No offense taken and duly noted. Thank you.

[Benning Boy]

TRIGGER WARNING: Benning Boy presents ideas that may not be acceptable to those who think themselves traditionalists. If you are offended by ideas at variance with your beliefs, you may want to drop out.


I'm kinda going off on a tangent here, this sorta fits the topic, but is sorta off topic, too, but here goes.

Usually when searching for answers, the simplest answer turns out to be the correct one. The way of wrapping a blanket (plaid) shown at the Wilde Weavery site it the simplest answer to the question: How to wrap a great kilt?


The nine-yard great kilt seems to be a fairly recent invention. The required length, based on what I've learned through my readings, has only been firmly established since the arrival of the Internet. And, on the Internet much of the information about the 9-yard great kilt seems to be produced by people interested more in playing dress-up. I consider these claims specious.

Just as today, the length of tartan used to make the kilt probably was more in proportion to the size of the wearer, just enough to do the job, and no more. My guess is economy and efficiency were primary concerns. At no time has a 9-yard great kilt been either economical of efficient.

Today, nine yards of tartan would make a kilt for a very large fat man. It's almost a certainty that Highlanders of McBeths day were small fit men. Why on earth would they need nine yards of tartan for their great kilts. Even allowing for the use of the thing as a blanket at night, and a double layer of blanket at that, these men could probably have gotten away with four to 4.5 yards total length.

I suspect that a Highlander of McBeth's day wore whatever length he could afford, if indeed they wore anything kilt-ish at all, and most Highlanders of that day being poor, probably only wore a short "great Kilt" more in the fashion shown at the Wilde site.

Just a speculation, but if you spend enough on proper tartan today to construct a 9-yard great kilt, you will have spent quite a lot of money. No let's consider how prices have changed over the centuries. Going back just a little way, in 1873 you could buy a new Colt Single Action Army revolver with a $20 gold piece, containing almost exactly one ounce of gold. Over the years the price of the revolver really hasn't changed. It's always been one ounce of gold. Even today were you to buy a new Colt SAA, the price would be roughly the equivalent of one ounce of gold. Or put another wya, the equivalent of a common man's monthly wages. And today there are a whold lot of common folks in the USA who are doing well to earn a monthly wage matched by the price of one ounce of gold.

So just for argument's sake, let me say that the price of tartan has pretty much paralleled that of a Colt revolver -- and the price of other things, too -- If It's expensive to make a 9-yard great kilt in today's money, it was probably equivalently expensive in "old timey" money, or barter. Which says to me the Great Kilt, was probably only about half-great.

Just my imagination running loose here, but I can see how a great kilt might start out being fairly short, but as the wearer found the need, or acquired more tartan -- either purchased or woven at home -- he might add length to it. The early short wrap would almost certainly be wrapped as shown at the Wilde site, as it grew long the wrapping of it might become more complicated -- maybe.

Being that the great kilt is properly made of two pieces of single width cloth stitched together at the edges, I can even imagine a great kilt made of two different setts. Pieced together a great kilt might have more setts. I can think of no source who states this sort of thing did not happen, but neither are there sources that say it did happen. Conceivably, it could have happened.

It is declared at various online sites that the great kilt requires nine yard of tartan to make, no more, no less. And, it is said at these sites that is from the great kilt from which our expression "the whole nine yards" comes. Consider: linguistic authorities have said the expression comes from the world of tailoring, where nine yards of cloth are what is needed to make an average man's three-piece suit. A customer might tell a tailor he wanted the whole nine yards in his bespoke suite, meaning trousers, jacket and vest. Yet other authorities say that a nine yard long machine gun belt was all that cold be fitted into a World War One aircraft. A returning pilot, having run out of ammunition, would then say he gave them the whole nine yards.

There isn't a one good answer for the origin of the nine yard expression. It cannot conclusively be said to have originated in the Scottish Highlands, where English wasn't the first language anyway. I think a much shorter length of fabric put on as in the Wild site makes he most sense.

Consider what Calgacus says about Scottish mens clothes of McBeth's time probably being more like the Irish liene and brat. Looking at pictures of the day, it looks to me like the brat could have been worn in the style shown at the Wilde site. Just for pretend, let's say tartan is a form of camouflage, and that Scots in Brinam Wood were dressed in liene and brat. Now it is time to sneak up on Dunsinane. Would it have been helpful if they had pulled their brats about them much as shown at the Wilde site to further enhance the natural camouflage they carried before them?

[Calgacus]

TRIGGER WARNING: Benning Boy presents ideas that may not be acceptable to those who think themselves traditionalists. If you are offended by ideas at variance with your beliefs, you may want to drop out.

...or provide rebuttals to your arguments

Usually when searching for answers, the simplest answer turns out to be the correct one. The way of wrapping a blanket (plaid) shown at the Wilde Weavery site it the simplest answer to the question: How to wrap a great kilt?

True, but only if the cloth used is heavy, blanket type material. The physical evidence from the period shows that this was not what people were weaving to wear as a feileadh mòr.

The nine-yard great kilt seems to be a fairly recent invention. The required length, based on what I've learned through my readings, has only been firmly established since the arrival of the Internet. And, on the Internet much of the information about the 9-yard great kilt seems to be produced by people interested more in playing dress-up. I consider these claims specious.

Have you read this link?

http://www.scottishtartans.co.uk/The_Dunollie_Plaid.pdf

This plaid, dating from 1730, required no less than 12 yards of single width material, yet was intended to be worn as a feileadh mòr, at least according to Peter MacDonald of the STA, the premier expert in the field.

Just as today, the length of tartan used to make the kilt probably was more in proportion to the size of the wearer, just enough to do the job, and no more. My guess is economy and efficiency were primary concerns. At no time has a 9-yard great kilt been either economical of efficient.

I agree that the length of tartan used quite possibly varied in proportion to the size of the wearer (most of whom would have been slim, wiry men), and economy and efficiency were primary concerns, but one must remember that this was not just an item of dress, it was the only shelter the person had to sleep in out of doors, even in sub zero conditions. There is documentary evidence of this. I therefore suggest that 8 or 9 yards of single width cloth is if anything the minimum required.

Today, nine yards of tartan would make a kilt for a very large fat man. It's almost a certainty that Highlanders of McBeths day were small fit men. Why on earth would they need nine yards of tartan for their great kilts. Even allowing for the use of the thing as a blanket at night, and a double layer of blanket at that, these men could probably have gotten away with four to 4.5 yards total length.

The finished article was not 9 yards long, it was 4.5 yards long. This corresponds to a box pleat or budget knife pleat kilt for a slender man, but with an added upper cloak. You make my point nicely for me. They did indeed get away with 4.5 yards.

I suspect that a Highlander of McBeth's day wore whatever length he could afford, if indeed they wore anything kilt-ish at all, and most Highlanders of that day being poor, probably only wore a short "great Kilt" more in the fashion shown at the Wilde site.

Just a speculation, but if you spend enough on proper tartan today to construct a 9-yard great kilt, you will have spent quite a lot of money. No let's consider how prices have changed over the centuries. Going back just a little way, in 1873 you could buy a new Colt Single Action Army revolver with a $20 gold piece, containing almost exactly one ounce of gold. Over the years the price of the revolver really hasn't changed. It's always been one ounce of gold. Even today were you to buy a new Colt SAA, the price would be roughly the equivalent of one ounce of gold. Or put another wya, the equivalent of a common man's monthly wages. And today there are a whold lot of common folks in the USA who are doing well to earn a monthly wage matched by the price of one ounce of gold.

So just for argument's sake, let me say that the price of tartan has pretty much paralleled that of a Colt revolver -- and the price of other things, too -- If It's expensive to make a 9-yard great kilt in today's money, it was probably equivalently expensive in "old timey" money, or barter. Which says to me the Great Kilt, was probably only about half-great.

See my argument posted previously. The amount of cloth required would indeed have been relatively expensive, either in cash or time & labour terms, but it was a necessity for survival, and would have been made to last for years.

Just my imagination running loose here, but I can see how a great kilt might start out being fairly short, but as the wearer found the need, or acquired more tartan -- either purchased or woven at home -- he might add length to it. The early short wrap would almost certainly be wrapped as shown at the Wilde site, as it grew long the wrapping of it might become more complicated -- maybe.

I think you have a valid point here. The origins of the garment appear to lie in the Irish 'brat', a short cloak or mantle. There is no physical evidence surviving from that period, but presumably the brat grew in size until it became large enough that it made sense to fasten it around the waist with a belt. it is entirely possible and in my view quite likely that at some point in its development, the garment resembled a match coat. Sadly there is no physical or documentary evidence of this evolution.

Being that the great kilt is properly made of two pieces of single width cloth stitched together at the edges, I can even imagine a great kilt made of two different setts. Pieced together a great kilt might have more setts. I can think of no source who states this sort of thing did not happen, but neither are there sources that say it did happen. Conceivably, it could have happened.

Conceivably, yes, however there is no evidence that this was ever done. On the contrary, the evidence suggests that cloth woven for garments was produced in such a way that when stitched together, the sett matched. This strongly suggests that the same tartan was always used for both sides. An interesting concept none the less.

It is declared at various online sites that the great kilt requires nine yard of tartan to make, no more, no less. And, it is said at these sites that is from the great kilt from which our expression "the whole nine yards" comes. Consider: linguistic authorities have said the expression comes from the world of tailoring, where nine yards of cloth are what is needed to make an average man's three-piece suit. A customer might tell a tailor he wanted the whole nine yards in his bespoke suite, meaning trousers, jacket and vest. Yet other authorities say that a nine yard long machine gun belt was all that cold be fitted into a World War One aircraft. A returning pilot, having run out of ammunition, would then say he gave them the whole nine yards.

There isn't a one good answer for the origin of the nine yard expression. It cannot conclusively be said to have originated in the Scottish Highlands, where English wasn't the first language anyway. I think a much shorter length of fabric put on as in the Wild site makes he most sense.

I agree that '9 yards, no more, no less' is incorrect. Sometimes it was more, sometimes less. See the links I posted earlier. I too doubt the link between the saying and the garment. I do not however think the shorter length makes more sense as stated above.

Consider what Calgacus says about Scottish mens clothes of McBeth's time probably being more like the Irish liene and brat. Looking at pictures of the day, it looks to me like the brat could have been worn in the style shown at the Wilde site. Just for pretend, let's say tartan is a form of camouflage, and that Scots in Brinam Wood were dressed in liene and brat. Now it is time to sneak up on Dunsinane. Would it have been helpful if they had pulled their brats about them much as shown at the Wilde site to further enhance the natural camouflage they carried before them?

As already stated, I think at the time of Macbeth and for several hundred years after, highlanders wore something much like the Irish leine & brat. At some point, the brat grew in size, possibly or even probably going through a 'matchcoat' phase, before ending up by the late 16th century as a piece of hard tartan cloth approximately 4-6 yards by 2 yards in size.

[OC Richard]

Calgacus, about that 1577 depiction, which according to Old Irish And Highland Dress is one of only two depictions of 17th century Highland Dress known to exist at time of writing, OIHD says

"by Lucas de Heere, a native of the Low Countries who lived in exile in England from 1567 to 1577. During that time he wrote two books descriptive of the British Islands, copiously illustrated with excellently drawn water colour pictures of various types of their people... It is not clear how de Heere got his model, nor even whether he ever visited Scotland... He may have taken it from some contemporary print or drawing, as he certainly did with some of this Irish subjects."

In any case the dress is interesting as it shows what one would expect, a dress somewhere between the ancient Irish leine/brat/ionar costume and our earliest clear depictions of Highland Dress which date from the 17th century.

What I find interesting is that at least one early depiction shows what appears to be fur edging on the mantle/philamore/feileadh giving a clear link to the brat of Ireland.

Back many years ago during my brief Ren Faire period I made such an early garment, earth-tone wool tartanlike pattern, heavy coarse woven, which I edged all around in fur. This I could wear on the shoulder as a brat or wrapped round the waist as an early feileadh. This obviously was far more period-authentic than the goofy hybrid kilt-thing in Braveheart.

[Calgacus]

Thanks Richard, I didn't know the text that went with that depiction, that's very interesting.

I'd also be happy to see any depictions you have gathered of highland or more generally Scottish dress from these early periods.