Tartan, 1572

[Morris at Heathfield]

My only question here is why everybody is bashing poor Prof. Tolkien??!!

Perhaps because his "Red Book of Westmarch" has turned out to be a proven forgery!!

[DWFII]

History is the study of the past, not a mere listing of past events. The historian theorizes and interprets, or he is simply a chronicler.
A chronology of when various shoe-making techniques first appeared is just that - a list of dates. It is not history. Now, when someone delves into the "whys and wherefores" of the appearance of these techniques - for example, did technique Y or shoe style X come into practice due to technological innovation or the whims of fashion? - now we're talking history...!

You're absolutely correct. But, as stated, you only prove my point.

What historians do...what their legitimate role is...is bring the past to life by exploring the possible motivations of the human beings that lived the events in question. Motivations...not the events themselves. Motivations that are ultimately unknowable but may contribute to understanding how a series of events played out. The motivations are open to interpretation and speculation, the facts and events themselves, not so much.

[DWFII]

DWF, if you truly believe that historians should not engage in speculation and interpretation, all I can say is that you have an odd notion of the profession. There is a vast difference between "chronologies" and "histories." You apparently are confusing the two....

Whatever confusion I have, I have from historians...professional historians. I'm just parroting what I've been told and, additionally, what I have seen here in the very informative posts of people like yourself and Todd.

Your own posts over in the Jacobite thread, for example, are remarkably full of historical facts and details and similarly free of speculation. Which begs the questions, doesn't it?

But hey...like I said, I'm not an historian. So, taking my cue and if you'll bear with me, I'd like to indulge in a little historical speculation, too.

We know for a fact that linen fiber was common from at least the Middle Ages forward (I'm sure that is very late but I'm just speculating here...). We know it was used for fabric and for cordage. We know that men's shirts were often made of it.

We further know that a common form of fastening ,for both men's and women's clothing, was to lace it with some form of cordage. In fact, from my own area of expertise we know that by the mid 18th century, it was common practice to lace up shoes that were originally made as buckle shoes but which had worn out on the straps or had lost the relatively expensive buckle. And thus save the shoe from complete loss.

We further know that most cloth was homespun and most clothing homemade. Which would have meant that there was a great deal of variation in cut, styling, fullness of sleeves, etc.

Let's see what a little logical interpolation--speculation--can reveal. If we take all these facts and weave them together it is not unreasonable to postulate more than a few men's shirts which, either through necessity or whimsy on the part of the maker (some dutiful wife, no doubt), were laced together at the throat of the shirt, in lieu of a button or no fastening at all.

So...now, being as how I'm admittedly no historian, I'm desperately in need of one of the real historians on this forum to tell me why I cannot...or should not...wear a a "ghillie" shirt at a reenactment of The Battle of Culloden.

[Woodsheal]

Regarding the shirt question: as we move from antiquity to the modern era, the amount of historic evidence increases, be it in the form of surviving artifacts, documents, photographs, videotapes, what-have-you. Therefore, the amount of guesswork and speculation decreases the more recent, or well documented, the event in question is.
We know pretty much everything about men's shirts of the 1940s, a lot regarding those of the 1840s, a little bit less about those of the 1740s. But, we have some surviving examples, many clear images, numerous written descriptions. We can safely say that men's shirts in northern Britain in the 1740s did not lace together across the throat, or if any did they must have been extremely rare, as we have no evidence of them. (Remember, never say "never!")
Now, as we continue on back in time we will begin to know less and less about men's shirts - and most everything else. The further back the historian's studies go - with ever decreasing primary evidence available - it's only obvious that the level of speculation and interpretation will increase. Witness historians' struggles with the question of "the historic Arthur" for example. Very little evidence, LOTS of speculation...!

[Woodsheal]

You're absolutely correct. But, as stated, you only prove my point.

What historians do...what their legitimate role is...is bring the past to life by exploring the possible motivations of the human beings that lived the events in question. Motivations...not the events themselves. Motivations that are ultimately unknowable but may contribute to understanding how a series of events played out. The motivations are open to interpretation and speculation, the facts and events themselves, not so much.

I entirely agree with you re: the human aspect of history. But, there are other areas of history, of course. We are discussing the history of Highland Dress; basically the history of a "technology."
Historians presently can't know to a certainty when highlanders first belted their plaids, or when Scandanavians first put masts and sails on their ships. They can only draw conclusions based upon their individual interpretation of the scanty evidence. Those conclusions can be as many and varied as the historians engaged (as we see in this thread!). But, they are still historians using the accepted methodology, which must include a level of interpretation, not simply a recapitulation of known facts....

[Alan H]

Interesting thread...thanks, gentlemen.

BTW, Cajunscot, I remember in high school, American History class, that even after a unit on the period, most of my class could not place Dwight Eisenhower "in history".

As a senior in high school I seriously ticked off a mess of my classmates. You see, the teacher went around the room, and asked a bunch of my classmates to tell him something about Dwight Eisenhower. Nobody could do it.

I was so shocked that I blurted out in the middle of class..."He's been president while we've been ALIVE".

Oh, I got dirty looks for that.

On the other hand, once in a miasma of confusion during a pop quiz, I asked the teacher, as he walked around the room, if the question I was working on was referencing Theodore Roosevelt, or Teddy Roosevelt.

About two minutes later, I realized what I'd said.

[Alan H]

Perhaps we should all take a lesson from J. Telfer Dunbar, the preeminent historian of Highland dress (the emphasis is mine):

"The emergence of Scottish Highland dress as a recognisable entity took place several centuries ago in that happy hunting ground for antiquarians known as the 'Mists of Antiquity.' Any attempt to fix its obscure origins precisely is undoubtedly foolish; nevertheless many students of the subject have attempted to do so. Their resulting arguments have usually generated more heat than light."

-from Highland Costume, Edinburgh, 1977.

Wonderful quote.

OK, so for myself, if I join the Guild, this is what I'm going to wear. Now, the Guild is a story-line mess. I mean, the "story" behind the characters is nuts, completely nuts, so I have to treat it more as entertainment than actual striving for real historical accuracy. I'm OK with that, within limits. They're lovely people, I like them, they'll let me come out and play whenever it's convenient for me, and that's important. However, at least the men are not dressing in a manner consistent with nobility in the late Tudor period. I can't speak as to what the women are wearing, as I don't know the details.

Unless I'm going to try to play the part of a Highland Scot, "tartan" has little place in all this, and certainly a tartan in modern colors makes no sense. However, many of the men in the other Guilds with which I'll be interacting wear great kilts, so I suppose I will do the belted full plaid in earth tones, saffron shirt, jerkin, light boots and floppy hat routine. I will just wince and know that I'm "consistantly inconsistant" along with the rest of the Guild, and will live with it.

[Woodsheal]

Alan,
All OK... except for the floppy hat! Go with an early type knitted bonnet. Lowland Scots wore them, too. Before the Highlanders adopted them, actually...!

[LANCER1562]

Alan,

If you have trouble finding a knitted bonnet, PM me and I will give you the contct information of the person who makes the tams for the men in my guild.

[Alan H]

Don't get too excited here. It's not happening any time soon...I still gotta make the jerkin!