Non-Scottish Kilts? HUH?!?

[Chris Webb]

Colin, Thank you for your response and for taking the time to actually read my posts. Phil H, loved your post, man. Also, someone asked "what historians?" so here's my answer:

I got the idea that some historians were not so certain as to whether or not the Scots ever wholely owned the kilt from Cajonscots' post in this thread. Cajonscot said, "MacWage mentioned the blog article by our own Matt Newsome about Irish tartans; another good blog entryof Matt's deals with the kilt as a "pan-Celtic" garment." Matt said in his article, "So why the change? When did the kilt become a "pan-celtic" garment? Again, I'm not saying here that non-Scots should not wear the kilt. But when did this shift occur?"

After reading Cajonscots' post and Matt's article it is was clear to me that Matt, maybe the most respected historian here, couldn't explain why so many folks 'not of Scottish descent' so quickly took to thinking the kilt was theirs too. By Matts' article it appears the Scots were 'losing their grip' on the kilt very early on. To me it begged the question of whether or not they ever had a firm grip on the kilt to begin with.

I was further led to wonder about the 'historical certainty' of the kilt ever being wholey Scottish when reading Kizmet's post, "There are other cultures where men have worn pleated skirt garments. If you look up Greek, Bulgarian and and Albanian costumes for men, you'll find some. I don't know if Kizmet is an historian or not but I'm guessing the articles she mentioned were written by historians.

Given that some of these other cultures, such as Greece, have given us so much, it's no giant leap to wonder if the Scots didn't get the kilt from someone who came before them who wore strikingly similar garments to kilts ... given the consistent use of skirted garments for men over the rise and fall of some rather notable civilizations it just seems unlikely that any country founded within the last 2000 years can stand up and say with a straight face, "The kilt is mine!"

I tend to agree with historians that see the kilt not as beginning specifically in Scotland, but the kilt in Scotland being largely the same as a Utilikilt is now, a derivative of something older than itself, born of the wants and needs of a few and spread in use to the many. Utilikilt didn't invent the kilt, neither did Scotland ... at best they both reinvented it and gave it a new name. Cudos for the both of them and may they both enjoy their distinctiveness forever!

Two great truths regarding the past and future of kilts remain:

1. The Scottish Kilt began in Scotland.

2. The Scottish Kilt will forever be associated with Scotland.

BRILLIANT!

Kilt On.

Chris Webb











__________________
Kilted Mom

[macwilkin]

I got the idea that some historians were not so certain as to whether or not the Scots ever wholely owned the kilt from Cajonscots' post in this thread. Cajonscot said, "MacWage mentioned the blog article by our own Matt Newsome about Irish tartans; another good blog entryof Matt's deals with the kilt as a "pan-Celtic" garment." Matt said in his article, "So why the change? When did the kilt become a "pan-celtic" garment? Again, I'm not saying here that non-Scots should not wear the kilt. But when did this shift occur?"

After reading Cajonscots' post and Matt's article it is was clear to me that Matt, maybe the most respected historian here, couldn't explain why so many folks 'not of Scottish descent' so quickly took to thinking the kilt was theirs too. By Matts' article it appears the Scots were 'losing their grip' on the kilt very early on. To me it begged the question of whether or not they ever had a firm grip on the kilt to begin with.

Chris, please go back and read the article. Matt is discussing the fact that there is no historical evidence for other Celtic nations wearing the kilt, but that the kilt has been adopted by members of those nations, like the Irish, Welsh, Cornish, Bretons, etc. as a way to display their Celtic heritage and as the product of a nationalistic movement that began in the late 19th - early 20th centuries, and not as part of their "ancient past" as some have portrayed it.


And btw, it is "Cajun", not "Cajon". :mrgreen:

Regards,

Todd

[Chris Webb]

Sorry, Todd, it's that danged Texas drawl tripping up my spellin' again.

I looked back at Matts' article and see what you mean. I think I suffer from the 'American Effect' when it comes to history ... I sometimes find myself forgetting that most of the world has a much longer history than the United States ... Shoot, the history of the State of Texas doesn't go back but about 175 years. I guess my definition of the word 'ancient' is scewed by our own short history and my sense of time regarding the evolution of the Scottish kilt impacted by the rapid evolution of all things Texas, like our standard gitup, as we call it.

My timeline may be off in terms of centuries, but I'm still fascinated by Matts' observation of the kilts' drift towards being pan-celtic and even more fascinated by the question he posed at the end of his article. The pan-celtic drift is turning into a pan-world drift as more and more folks take to the kilt as we have. It's almost as if the introduction of the Scottish kilt represents a juncture in the timeline of kilts going all the way back to the first man in a pleated garment.

The Scottish kilt is somehow special ... I suppose kilts, despite their almost universal existence in ancient civilizations, had given way to trousers by the time the Scottish kilt arrived. But once it arrived it began to spread and has continued until this day. Imagine an hour-glass filled with kilts ... that smallest point where the kilts fall from the past into the present is Scotland. I know this analogy is a stretch, please be kind.

Anyway, Todd, thanks for the forgiveness!

Chris Webb

[davedove]

I looked back at Matts' article and see what you mean. I think I suffer from the 'American Effect' when it comes to history ... I sometimes find myself forgetting that most of the world has a much longer history than the United States ... Shoot, the history of the State of Texas doesn't go back but about 175 years. I guess my definition of the word 'ancient' is scewed by our own short history and my sense of time regarding the evolution of the Scottish kilt impacted by the rapid evolution of all things Texas, like our standard gitup, as we call it.

As I've heard several times, in the United States a hundred years is a long time, but in England a hundred miles is a long way.

The Scottish kilt is somehow special ... I suppose kilts, despite their almost universal existence in ancient civilizations, had given way to trousers by the time the Scottish kilt arrived. But once it arrived it began to spread and has continued until this day. Imagine an hour-glass filled with kilts ... that smallest point where the kilts fall from the past into the present is Scotland. I know this analogy is a stretch, please be kind.

The unbifurcated garments that most men wore were replaced by trousers when horse riding became widespread. Trousers are much better for long hours in the saddle. Now that we no longer need to ride horses to get around, kilts and the like may again be worn.

[slohairt]

Dia Dhuit, fellow kilties

There are many interesting points to address in these replies.

Most historians agree that the Highland Scots wore clothing much like the Irish (Saffron Leine and brat, etc.) until the 15th Century or so. Thus in a sense the kilt is loosely derived from Irish clothing as the Scots began to belt their plaid instead of wearing it loose over their clothing. It seems somewhat fitting and complimentary that modern Irish "traditional" dress should mimic Scottish Highland traditional dress. The Gaelic circle comes back around.
The Kilt was not even thought of as quintessentially Scottish until Sir Walter Scott. Previously it was regarded with some degree of scorn by the Lowlanders. It was only with the Highland revival of the 19th century that the kilt became a pan-Scottish garment.
Like the Irish saffron kilt (mistakenly derived from the saffron leine) the modern Scottish kilt is also based on a certain amount of historical fallacy. Most "family" tartans were simply designed by textile manufacturers of the 18th century and were assigned names instead of numbers. It could be argued, I suppose, that many of these samples were gathered from existing sources. Maybe so, but they would likely have been regional tartans at best.
The saffron kilt was believed to have been adopted in the late 19th Century as a sign of Irish nationalism. The Highland kilt was adopted in the early part of the 19th Century by many Highlanders and Lowlanders alike as a sign of Scottish nationalism (or cultural identity, if you prefer). This puts the Irish tradition as only a handful of decades younger than the modern Scottish tradition.
As the Highland Scots are partly descended from the Irish, they kept a close cultural and political connection with each other for many centuries. Gael Albanach (Scottish Gael = Highlander), Gael Eireannach (Irish Gael), and even Gael Mheiriceanach (Irish American) are all Irish words which emphasize this connection. Unifying the traditional dresses could be seen by some as bridging the gap that was sundered long ago.
I'm not saying the kilt isn't Scottish, far from it! But it should be noted that Historically the Highlanders indentified with the Irish far more than with the Lowlanders. Companies, however, should not concoct false histories to loosen the claim from Scotland, nor should they validate Scottish fables such as tartan ogham and other nonsense!
In all, the Scots should be proud that they are really the only Celtic people to have retained their traditional form of Celtic dress into modern times. The other Celtic cultures look to them for inspiration. It can be used as a powerful symbol for Celtic pride everywhere but should never be used to further anti-English sentiment. One may be angered by the history of the past and by certain political policies, but one should never downtrod another ethnic group. The English are a fine people with a fine culture.

Éire agus Albann go brath!

is mise le meas,

Seán Liosliath Ó hAirt

[mudd]

Dia Dhuit, fellow kilties

There are many interesting points to address in these replies.
...

Very well written. I think you sum it up nicely. Are you a history teacher, perhaps?

[slohairt]

Go raibh maith agat, A Mhudd!

I'm actually just a kiltmaker with a Degree in Celtic Studies! How frightening! I thought briefly about becoming a teacher when I was younger but didn't follow through for a number of reasons. The occupation of teacher is a bit overpopulated in Canada right now anyway.