Wrapping the Braveheart kilt

[Calgacus]

It just makes no sense to me that someone would think it more practical to use more yardage of modern kilt fabric when a single blanket works so well.

The example we have of two lengths of single width fabric joined together are fairly recent. Even Peter who wrote the articles says that they are products of the post proscription revival era.

So if you don't mind I am going to continue to promote the matchcoat as the most practical and most historically documented example. At least until someone finds documentable proof of what a Great Kilt really was.

Promote what you like, but the evidence suggests otherwise. The Dunollie plaid dates from c.1730 which is Jacobite, not revival. It was originally 6 yards long, and made from two single widths stitched together. It is made from cloth akin to modern kilt material, not 'blanket' type cloth. The Nethybridge plaid, to quote Peter, "would probably have been approximately 4 yards in length x55 inches wide", and is again made of hard tartan akin to modern kilt material. It dates from 1730-1770, so Jacobite or just after proscription ended, but pre-revival however you look at it.

Matchcoats may work just great and may be far more sensible than a 6 yard feileadh mòr, but there's solid evidence for the latter and zero for the former in 18th century Scotland.

[Calgacus]

I think that you meant to say: ' 9 yes of single width, cut in half, Lenght wise...'? ( not width wise) in other words , about 4 1/2 yes once sewn together?

No, I simply said 9 yards cut in half. Besides, "9 yards cut in half length wise" suggests to me cutting it into two pieces 9 yards long, which is the opposite of what I realise you intended.

[Calgacus]

Aye, Benning,

One wonders just how finely spun that Highland wool was. I am inclined to think it was heavy indeed.

I am not looking to start an argument, but the price of gold has not been as consistent as we might think. Granted, today's price matches nicely and it did when they first made Colt SAAs, but there have been wide ranging variations of the price of gold, even times when gold was positively cheap compared to, say Tartan or various forms of hardware. But I expect you could find some other item that has been more constant, say beer, or fuel.

I appreciate your warning about The Whole Nine Yards, which might or might not refer to anything at all. I am sure you are right about the expression having no connection to the great kilt. Charles Thompson says 4 1/2-6 yards. When I fooled around with a 9 or 10 oz version ( admittedly, to wear, not to keep warm) I found 3 or 4 yards was plenty, once you learned to work the ends...

As the links I posted show quite clearly, the cloth that was woven during the period in question and woven into cloth for wearing was very similar to the cloth used for tartan today. Certainly closer to that than to fuzzy blanket material.

Also, all this talk of cost and extrapolating the modern cost of tartan cloth over 250 years is pointless. The wool was produced, dyed, and woven locally. The only monetary costs involved were the import of some of the dyes (cochineal & indigo). Not everyone wove their own cloth, local weavers probably dyed and wove the wool supplied by the local people. Some areas were very much cattle country and probably bought or bartered for their woolen goods.

It's likely that clothing was a relatively major 'expense', either in cash terms or in terms of time & effort to produce when compared to today, but it is only in very recent times that clothing has become cheap and disposable. The average highlander probably had to save up for the dying and weaving of his wool, or the outright purchase of his feileadh mòr and it would have had to last him a good few years. When it was finally worn out it would have been cut up and used for various other things, which in turn would have been recycled until they were rags.

[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.

[IsaacW]

A quick note on the history of "matchcoats"... the matchcoat and that type of use shown in the Wilde Weavery website, is generally regarded as a bit anachronistic. Of documents listing matchcoats as well as extant American Indian matchcoats, they tend to be larger and of thinner fabric than the heavy blanketing shown by Wilde and worn by many reenactors (popularized in the 1980-90s by Mark Baker and others). Additionally, although belting the matchcoat is seen fairly often, it seems to be VERY rarely pinned at the top. Actually, historical references tend to speak against this practice, and I can only think of one image (of hundreds) that show this being done. This image (which could be artistic fancy) is below and is from the 1730s (French) and is at the Bienecke Rare Books Collection at Yale.

[IsaacW]

I should add... that although this may be historically anachronistic, I do find it to be very useful and handy. I have been known to use a blanket like this in the past (historical before I knew better and since for modern stuff).

[Benning Boy]

I find the dimension of the great kilt interesting to wonder about, but only so-so. Also, I'm firmly in the match coat cap when it comes to the wearing of one. However, what bothers me the most is the idea that something said to be made of cloth the same weight as used in modern kilts was used for both shelter and a blanket. I just can't see it. I've a lot of experience sleeping outdoors on cold wet nights, even down to 20 or 30 degrees below zero F. If all I had was a double thickness of 16 ounce tartan to wrap in I'd use it, but experience has taught me that at some point during the night I'd freeze my off. Even a double layer of wool army blankets isn't enough to keep you warm once the temps go below freezing.

As a shelter, a double width of tartan cloth might be pitched as a lean-to to block wind and partially keep the rain or drizzle off, but it's going to become soggy, and who wants to put on cold wet clothes first thing on a cold damp windy day?


I know it sounds cool, that ye olde higlanders would use there woolen wrappers for shelter and bedding. But based on my own experience, I just can't get my head around it. I just can't imagine anything used for clothing, shelter and beding being any lighter than a blanket.


By the way, Wilde Weavery was know for producing the warmest wool blankets available. They cater to the reenactor trade. And a Wild blanket was considered the ultimate piece of gear. I'f I were going to live in a great kilt world, I'd try to get a Wilde blanket for starters.


Oh! Just one more thought. Would the wool used in a great kilt have been made of wool that had the lanolin removed, like modern kilting fabric, or would it have been made of raw wool with the lanolin left in? That would make a lot of difference in its worth as outdoor shelter and bedding.

Finally, just wondering, has any off this informed the decision on how to costume the Scots in the production of McBeth.

[jhockin]

Re: the "Belted Plaid":
From: http://www.electricscotland.com/hist...dsketches5.htm

"... they love chiefly purple and blue; their predecessors used short mantles, or plaids of divers colours, sundrie ways divided, and among some the same custom is observed to this day; but, for the most part now, they are brown, most near to the colour of the hadder, to the effect when they lye among the hadders, the bright colour of their plaids shall not bewray them, with the which rather coloured than clad, they suffer the most cruel tempests that blow in the open fields, in such sort, that in a night of snow they sleep sound."

" The belted plaid, which was generally double, or in two folds, formed, when let down so as to envelop the whole person, a shelter from the storm, and a covering in which the wearer wrapt himself up in full security, when he lay down fearlessly among the heather. This, if benighted in his hunting excursions, or on a distant visit, he by no means considered it a hardship; nay, so little was he disturbed by the petty miseries which many feel from inclement weather, that, in storms of snow, frost, or wind, he would dip the plaid in water, and, wrapping himself up in it when moistened, lie down on the heath. The plaid thus swelled with moisture was supposed to resist the wind, so that the exhalation from the body."

.. Seems to me that he is saying that the cloth was folded in half (i.e.: fold the Length in half, then wrap in it. ). There is also a painting of a clan piper ( which I can't find right now) that seems to show two edges, at the edge of the over apron, which would support this idea.

(Found an image of the painting; grant piper - notice, on his right side, how a fold clearly shows the fabric doubled?)
image.jpg
.. Just saying ....