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