Outlander tartans: Questions

[freep]

To take an example from a slightly different genre of film, since the invention of moving pictures the depiction of Native Americans has been lamented long and loud by both Indians and Whites and with very good cause. The use of non-Native actors for Native characters has been condemned, also with good cause. So a movie comes along that employs Native American actors in appropriate roles, portrays a compassionate and reasonably historically accurate view of 1860s plains Indian culture and lifestyle. It is lauded as the best movie ever depicting Native/White interaction. At first. Then a couple years down the pike the criticisms creep in--this guy wouldn't have worn that color shirt, that guy didn't have the right beadwork, the other guy doesn't have the right uniform buttons, and my favorite: the actor in the lead role is not a Lakota but an Oneida and he's Canadian, not even an American!

C'mon.

We're all humans, as such we make mistakes. It's my thought that "Dances With Wolves" was the best, most sensitive and accurate movie about Native Americans to date. Did it have problems? Yes, with history, culturally and with regard to casting. The fact remains that it was a huge leap forward in the genre and paves the way for even greater accuracy and sensitivity in making such movies in future. I see the Outlander books and films in the same light.

Yes, in the Outlander series there are errors here and there, the lead actor is not a Highlander, various things aren't historically correct, the argot is not exactly that of the time (though I wonder what sort of original sources we might have for what a Highland accent sounded like in 1743), and so on. But it would seem to me that in light of many films portraying Scottish history this one is a step forward. They tried pretty hard and did a lot of things in an attempt at authenticity that could have been done much more inexpensively had they not. Again, not perfect, but a step in the right direction. Perhaps a little forbearance is in order when considering such moves in the correct direction and gentle correction rather than outright condemnation.

As a parthian shot, I'd note that not a one of us was actually on the scene in the mid-eighteenth century, many of the original sources are of suspect authenticity and/or accuracy and we'll never truly know what it was like to be a Scotsman during the Jacobite rising of '45. The best we can do is our best scholarship and that is not always perfect.

[MacKenzie]

This thread certainly has lead to some interesting readings. One of which was (again) Matt Newsome's, The Early History of the Kilt.

http://www.albanach.org/articles.html

Two excerpts from the article (the bold is mine):

Another document from this period that is very often cited as describing a kilt is George Buchanan’s history of Scotland published in 1581. He describes the Highland dress this way:

Their ancestors wore plaids of many colours, and numbers still retain this custom but the majority now in their dress prefer a dark brown, imitating nearly the leaves of the heather, that when lying upon the heath in the day, they may not be discovered by the appearance of their clothes; in these wrapped rather than covered, they brave the severest storms in the open air, and sometimes lay themselves down to sleep even in the midst of snow.

This document attests to the rugged constitution of the Highlander, and the fact that the plaids were used as protection from the elements and a form of camouflage as well as a mode of dress.

By the 16th century, when we begin to see the earliest type of kilted garment (the belted plaid), tartan had become characteristic of Highland Dress. Gaelic speaking Highlanders wore tartan of bright and flashy shades to show off wealth and status. They also favoured darker, natural tones that would emulate the shades of the bracken and the heather so that they might wrap themselves in their plaids and be hidden. But the colors chosen had more to do with what dyes were available to them (either locally or that they could afford to import) and personal taste than any clan affiliation.

One has to wonder if these darker, natural, earthy tones persisted through the mid-18th century and beyond. And, even though the brighter colors were available, were preferred/favored by some just as the reproduction/weathered tartans are today.

[figheadair]

One has to wonder if these darker, natural, earthy tones persisted through the mid-18th century and beyond. And, even though the brighter colors were available, were preferred/favored by some just as the reproduction/weathered tartans are today.

Simple answer is we just don't know but one has to bear in mind the context in which such comments were written. The quote from the bishop could be read as being disparaging of the nasty Highlander who was always up to no good and could not be trusted.

[DWFII]

FWIW, one of my particular friends (who also happens to be one of the foremost shoe historians in the world and the head of the shoemaking faculty at Colonial Williamsburg) is fond of pointing out that without concrete fragmentary evidence or incontrovertible references in the literature and the fine arts, it's not history. It's just speculation, guessing, and/or fantasy, and more appropriate for a Ren Faire than a reenactment or even historical fiction...if it aspires to accuracy, at all.

[freep]

<snip>

One has to wonder if these darker, natural, earthy tones persisted through the mid-18th century and beyond. And, even though the brighter colors were available, were preferred/favored by some just as the reproduction/weathered tartans are today.

Two considerations come to mind:

There would have been a difference between clothing the Laird and his family wore and that of the clansmen.

Given some of the activities in which the clans were engaged in the first half of the 18th century, camouflage would seem a good idea.