Re-enactment / historical question

[Tetley]

By the way, I hear it said all the time that "just because the first documented evidence of the great kilt was 1594 doesn't mean it wasn't worn before that date." Which is perfectly true, of course. However, usually it is being said in order to justify wearing the great kilt for reenactments from 100 or 200 years prior to the date in question. While I would accept someone wearing the great kilt for a period of a decade or two before 1594, for the reason stated, there really is absolutely no reason to assume anything like the great kilt was worn in the fourteenth or fifteenth centuries.

True, but I wonder just what the progression to the Great Kilt was and how long it took. In all honesty I cannot see that the Highland Gaelic Scot would progress from wearing something like contemporary English dress to wearing something like a kilt. Not that it could not happen that way, it is just a huge (impossible?) stretch of the imagination to see how it could have happened.

A much easier thing to see would be a progression from the léine and brat, something that was known to be worn by the Irish in earlier times as you yourself write, to a kilt. Still, I guess we will never really know.

As for asking a local group, well, it seems that this sort of question can be a bit of a religious issue, if you know what I mean when I say that, and I am reluctant to bring it up for that reason.

Oh well, may be I will just visit and not partake...

Mark

[Dall_Piobaire]

Sure, I know what you mean, but there are groups doing it!

If you were to join the SCA here, they are hugely strict about authentic attire!

Go first, enjoy, get to talk to the guys doing it. Express an intrest and they will bend your ear all day!

[macwilkin]

As for asking a local group, well, it seems that this sort of question can be a bit of a religious issue, if you know what I mean when I say that, and I am reluctant to bring it up for that reason.

Actually, I'm a bit confused by this statement; reenactment units/groups generally are not "religious groups", they are more like clubs and societies centered around a particular hobby.

For example, the Society of the Sealed Knot in the UK is for English Civil War (ECW) reenactors.

Todd

[Tetley]

Actually, I'm a bit confused by this statement; reenactment units/groups generally are not "religious groups", they are more like clubs and societies centered around a particular hobby.

For example, the Society of the Sealed Knot in the UK is for English Civil War (ECW) reenactors.

Todd

Perhaps that is just a British expression. To describe something as a "religious issue" means that it is a contentious topic which causes disagreements, mostly heated, and schisms, possibly violent, in the members of an group that purport to represent the same thing.

It stems from the way in which most religions purport to represent God but insist that theirs is the only way and that the others are wrong often causing wars and feuds in the process.

An example would be the Society of the Sealed Knot and the English Civil War Society in Britain. Both are re-enactment groups but disagree on the way to do things.

Another possible example would be the topic of whether or not you have to be a clan member to wear a clan tartan.

Does that clarify the saying?

Mark

[macwilkin]

Perhaps that is just a British expression. To describe something as a "religious issue" means that it is a contentious topic which causes disagreements, mostly heated, and schisms, possibly violent, in the members of an group that purport to represent the same thing.

It stems from the way in which most religions purport to represent God but insist that theirs is the only way and that the others are wrong often causing wars and feuds in the process.

An example would be the Society of the Sealed Knot and the English Civil War Society in Britain. Both are re-enactment groups but disagree on the way to do things.

Another possible example would be the topic of whether or not you have to be a clan member to wear a clan tartan.

Does that clarify the saying?

Mark

Oh, yes...and I would add that here in the States, reenactment groups tend to form like some churches...over disagreements in theology, etc.

However, you'll find all sorts of reenactors...from the "hardcore authentics" to the casual folks in "the hobby".

T.

[M. A. C. Newsome]

True, but I wonder just what the progression to the Great Kilt was and how long it took. In all honesty I cannot see that the Highland Gaelic Scot would progress from wearing something like contemporary English dress to wearing something like a kilt. Not that it could not happen that way, it is just a huge (impossible?) stretch of the imagination to see how it could have happened.

A much easier thing to see would be a progression from the léine and brat, something that was known to be worn by the Irish in earlier times as you yourself write, to a kilt. Still, I guess we will never really know.

I never said that Highland Scots went from wearing English-style clothing to wearing the feilidh-mor. What I said was that in the period you are looking at (14th and 15th centuries), Lowland (English speaking) scots would have dressed like their English contemporaries, while Highland (Gaelic speaking) Scots would have dressed like their Irish contemporaries, which is where we find the leine and brat. It is this fashion that would later give rise to the feilidh-mor, and the first evidence we have of that is in 1594.

I'll only point out that we do have several different references describing what the Highland Gaels wore from the first half of the sixteenth century and none of them mention anything that might be considered an early feilidh-mor. So, going by the evidence we have (which is all we can go by, really), I'd feel fairly confidant saying that the feilidh-mor was not worn in the first half of the 1500s.

So if one is doing reenactment, I can see how wearing the feilidh-mor for, say, a 1580s impression or even 1570s might be justified. But not 1540s. And certainly not 1400's. This was the point I was trying to make.

As for asking a local group, well, it seems that this sort of question can be a bit of a religious issue, if you know what I mean when I say that, and I am reluctant to bring it up for that reason.

Oh well, may be I will just visit and not partake...

Mark

You haven't really posted that many details about the group that you would be reenacting with, so maybe there is something I'm not seeing. But it seems to me that if one of the members has invited you to participate and you don't want or are not able to invest in the proper clothing, they should not be offended if you ask if there might be anything they could loan you for the occasion. I know a lot of reenactment groups keep a loaner stock on hand for folks coming out the first time.

[gilmore]

...What I said was that in the period you are looking at (14th and 15th centuries), Lowland (English speaking) scots would have dressed like their English contemporaries, while Highland (Gaelic speaking) Scots would have dressed like their Irish contemporaries, which is where we find the leine and brat. ...

I would think that those living in the Lowlands at that time would be quick to tell you that they spoke Scots (or Lallans), not English.

[BoldHighlander]

...has already been given. Talk to the group that your going to reenact with and find out their criteria & level of authenticity. Then beg, borrow, or steal from them before jumping in whole hog

As a living historian myself, I would highly recommend this article on authenticity & documentation: http://www.re-enactmentevents.com/re-enact/Proposal.php
when I first got involved in ACW (American Civil War or War Between the States) out here on the left coast, it was still somewhat of a farb fest, but there were those of us (myself included) who researched our units, & I gathered reams of 1st person documentation of what our unit (2nd Kentucky Cavalry - Morgan's Raiders) wore, utilized as weapons, & behaved generally.

Any way, read the article & follow that great advice on contacting the host group.....and have fun with it!

[Salvianus]

As a living historian myself, I would highly recommend this article on authenticity & documentation: http://www.re-enactmentevents.com/re-enact/Proposal.php[/B][/COLOR][/FONT]

I like that article a lot, Alan Gutchess summarises the research approach to living history very effectively. I particularly like his advice to minimize the effect of any speculation you have to make.

For me, re-enactment is about giving as acccurate a portrayal as current research allows, with room for reasoned inference and variety in interpretation: thats part of the fun for me, but plenty of folk prefer to focus on craft or weapon skills, or just immersion in the campfire life without spending all their time in the library, so just go for a simpler, low status impression and there's not much to argue with.

So my advice is to aim to achieve the humblest outfit - a simple tunic (a big poofy shirt down to kilt length might do it ) and a plain brown thin leather belt with a D buckle. If you aren't happy with the belt hoik the tunic up to overhang and obscure it. If you want a mantle, I'd avoid a proper tartan plaid, but you might be able to drape a rough weave plain or simple check blanket over your shoulder, cutting off any modern zig zag machine stitching and maybe pin it on the right shoulder or so it goes in a loop under the opposite armpit with a thin stick sharpened to make a big thorn shape. With some rough string and a bit of care folding it that can replace a bag/pocket. Shoes are always the hardest, but you might be able to pick up something basic enough: to me they look a bit like leather slippers - low with flat external soles. I've done an event in bare feet, but only the once...

You might find William E. Wilson's page on the subject useful:
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~wew/celt-clothing/

Have a good time

[Morris at Heathfield]

I would think that those living in the Lowlands at that time would be quick to tell you that they spoke Scots (or Lallans), not English.

I doubt they would it find it a matter of controversy, considering they themselves normally called their language "Inglis" at the time. They only referred to their speech as "Scottis" occasionally, when it was necessary to distinguish it from the speech of those who spoke Southern.