Bryan,

I'll answer you here, rather than in PM, so all can read. The first thing to realize is that there are many different levels to this question. And no, it has nothing at all to do with heraldry.

So, to get the basics out of the way, what is a "sept." Sept is just another word for "family." Period. They are more or less synonymous. So if the word "sept" is confusing you, just substitute the word "family" and you'll be fine.

In fact, more and more you are seeintg people use the term "associated family" rather than sept. I know I frequently use this phrase when I'm talking with people at the museum. I favor it because I find that a lot of people today are not familiar with the term "sept" and tend to get confused by, or hung up on, that term when I use it.

I find a common misconception is that a "sept" was a "sub-clan" or smaller clan that was "absorbed by" the larger clan for protection, or a variety of other reasons. This is hardly ever the case, but for whatever reason people tend to see this term "sept" (wrongly) as a term of subjugation. I'll hear people boast "my family is a clan, yours is just a sept." It's silly, really.

I find by using the phrase "associated family" or just "family of the clan," I avoid some of that misconception, and it gives me the opportunity to explain that a clan was made up of a vairety of families, not all of which bore the same surname. It is really the surname of the cheif of the clan which gives us the clan name. Other families within the clan may not necessarily bear the same name, yet all are just as much a part of the clan.

So, the basic answer to your question about tartan is that it is perfectly acceptible for any associated family (sept) of the clan to wear the clan tartans.

Now, this is all the "recieved wisdom" of today. If you go back and examine the history of all of this, it gets a bit more complex. You ask about the reason some family names are associated with clans. Someone here said marrieage, and that is correct in some cases, but certainly not all. More often than not, it is a matter of location.

Historically, what clan you belonged to had nothing whatsoever to do with bloodline. It had to do with where you lived and who you were loyal to. If you lived in a particular clan's territory, it behooved you to pledge loyalty to the cheif of that clan. If the clan accepted your loyalty, you are a member of the clan, regardless of your bloodline. Most non-nobility didn't really know or care to keep up with their pedigree beyond living memory anyway. What did it matter?

So many of these "sept lists" were compiled just by looking at the regions in which certain surnames were found in Scotland, and making a connection between the clan and the region.

In some other cases a name is affiliated with a clan because of an alliance of some sort. For instance, if you look up the name 'Bryce" in The Surnames of Scotland by Goeorge Black, you will read that in the seventeenth century the Bryce family supported the MacFarlanes in their fued against the Buchanans (I beleive it was -- I don't have the reference in front of me). It is for that reason today that if you look up "Bryce" in a sept list, it says "MacFarlane."

So there is no pat answer as to why a family may be associated with a clan. If you want to know in your particular case, you need to do some research into the name. It looks like you have already done this in your case. The Butters held land in Atholl and were followers of Murray of Atholl. Therefore they were part of the clan, and it would be perfectly fine of you to wear the Murray of Atholl tartan.

Some of the historical links between family names and clans are somewhat dubious, to be sure. Prior to the nineteenth century, there were no "sept lists." And as time progressess, these sept lists seem to be getting longer and longer. Most clan chiefs at the time had no more knowledge of their clan's history than anyone else, so they tended to accept these things blindly. This means that some names may have been considered as part of the clan for 200 years even though the historical connection may not be that sound.

Of course, one could say that if the chief accepts you as a part of the clan, and you want to be part of the clan, then you are in fact a part of the clan! It matters not who your anscestors 400 years ago gave their allegiance to. (That allegiance may have been to someone else 500 years ago, or 300).

To others, the actual history is more important, and unfortunately in this regard there is no substitute for personal geneaological research, and you really cannot go by any "name list" out there. And the fact is that even the most extensive geneaological data is not going to reveal what "clan" a family belonged to.

To complicate matters even further, surnames are a relatively recent thing in Scotland, especially in the Gaelic world. Surnames in general were introduced to Scotland largely around the twelfth century, and then among English (Scots) speakers for the most part. The Gaels took much longer to adopt them, with many Gaelic families not adopting surnames until the early 20th century. (By surname here I mean an inherited last name, the same name passed on from one generation to the next).

Prior to this, your byname was individual and descriptive. If you were called John Smith, it was because you were a blacksmith. If you baked bread for a living, you were John Baker. Or perhaps there were two Johns in your villiage. You were John, son of Donald (MacDonald), and the other was John, son of Lawrence (MacLaren). You get the idea. But you can see how these names had nothing to do with what clan people belonged to.

If you look up certain occupational names in the sept lists it gets a little ridiculous. Taylors are Camerons. Smiths are MacPhersons. Weavers are MacFarlanes. Are we to beleive that all weavers were part of the Clan MacFarlane? I suppose this means you have to buy all your cloth from the MacFarlanes and take it to the Camerons to be tailored, no? :-)

The ones that adopted inherited surnames first were those who owned land and titles and could pass them on to the next generation -- the nobility. Here an inherited surname was more important because it showed the family connection that entitled you to the estates, titles, etc. But for the rest of us? Surnames were unimportant.

So you could therefore have a Donald from Argyll who was a loyal man of the Clan Campbell. His son Robert is called Robert MacDonald, because his father's name is Donald. He moves to Glasgow to find work, and there he is known as Robert MacDonald. When he has a son, William, his son takes his father's surname, because inherited surnames are in use in English speaking Glasgow. So now he is William MacDonald. William MacDonald migrates to Nova Scotia and begins a family there, all of which continue to use the MacDonald name.

Now his great-great grandson is a man named Ronald Donald MacDonald. He's into his Scottish heritage and attends all the Highland Games he can find. He wants to buy a kilt. If he walks into any tartan shop and says, "My name is Ronald Donald MacDonald, what tartan do I wear?" what do you think they are going to tell him?

So now he's a card-carrying member of the Clan Donald Society, has his MacDonald tartan kilt, all the accessories, is well read on this history of the Clan Donald, and considers himself a loyal son of the Clan. Even though in reality his anscestors were from Argyll and loyal members of the Clan Campbell.

So, this is just a cautionary tale to take all of this with a grain of salt. Do your research, trying to be as particular as you can to your family. Pick out a tartan that you feel some connection with, some justification in wearing. Don't put all your enthusiasm behind the idea that your anscestors 400 or 500 years ago were in fact loyal members of this particular clan. The reality is that in most cases you just don't know. But rejoice in that you are partaking in a modern tradition and are continuing to be involved in your heritage.