Wrapping the Braveheart kilt

[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.