Irish Kilts

[denmcdough]

As an educator, I always tell my students to question EVERYTHING! I don't care what anyone says, just because they say they're an authority, and because it's written down. Hog wash! Just because something is in a book, or on a web site, or whatever, does not make it the gospel truth. Maybe, but, again, one needs to question; look at all the facts; and then draw your own conclusion.

One man's view of history can be totally different from another man's, especially if one is on the losing end. Just look at how history in England is taught...from their perspective, as the concurring nation. The Scots and Irish sure don't agree. Ireland sure has a different take on their history as compared to England. But, hey, it's written! Even American history, during WW II, is different from what is taught in Japan. Our view vs. their view.

I don't care what anyone says, the origin of the kilt is still up for grabs. I think we can all agree on the fact that the Scots popularized the kilt, but many factions went into it....Celtic, Norse, etc. Do some fact checking, and then QUESTION. As I stated in my other post, you'll believe what you want to believe.

[dfmacliam]

I love wearing my box pleat saffron, and if historical presedence states it means I am a slave... there might be something to it... A slave to my job...lol

I am having an O'Saffron made which is also the same as the tartan worn by the only kilted Irish Regiment in the World, the Canadian Irish Regiment.

I am going through obtaining my Irish Citizenship, well me and a couple of my sisters, and hopefully the birth certificate of my grandfather will open the door to finding out more of my Irish history... I have learned of a Huguenot connection, as well as a Parnell tie, also. Might have to research the tartan ties there too.

[OC Richard]

I don't care what anyone says, the origin of the kilt is still up for grabs.

Well you're certainly right when you say that we shouldn't take something we find in a book or website somewhere for gospel, it's throwing out the baby with the bathwater to simply dismiss all evidence out of hand, and pretend that no evidence exists.

People who say that there's nothing known about the origin of the kilt probably haven't done their homework. It's funny how often I run into people who think that just because they themselves haven't done any research into something, imagine that there's nothing known about that topic, and allow themselves to come up with or embrace odd theories.

Start with

Old Irish and Highland Dress
by HF McClintock
Dundalgan Press, Dundalk, 1943

and

History of Highland Dress
by J Telfer Dunbar
Oliver and Boyd, 1962

[M. A. C. Newsome]

As an educator, I always tell my students to question EVERYTHING! I don't care what anyone says, just because they say they're an authority, and because it's written down. Hog wash! Just because something is in a book, or on a web site, or whatever, does not make it the gospel truth. Maybe, but, again, one needs to question; look at all the facts; and then draw your own conclusion.

One man's view of history can be totally different from another man's, especially if one is on the losing end. Just look at how history in England is taught...from their perspective, as the concurring nation. The Scots and Irish sure don't agree. Ireland sure has a different take on their history as compared to England. But, hey, it's written! Even American history, during WW II, is different from what is taught in Japan. Our view vs. their view.

I don't care what anyone says, the origin of the kilt is still up for grabs. I think we can all agree on the fact that the Scots popularized the kilt, but many factions went into it....Celtic, Norse, etc. Do some fact checking, and then QUESTION. As I stated in my other post, you'll believe what you want to believe.

I agree with you that one shouldn't simply take something on face value because he reads it in print, especially on the internet, where anyone with a few dollars can get his own domain name and in a matter of minutes get "published" with no peer review. Print resources get a little more scrutiny, but still one must check sources. The point is that an intelligent man will go where the evidence leads him.

And, right now, all evidence points to the kilt's origins firmly being planted in the sixteenth century Highlands of Scotland. People pretend that the origins of the kilt are a great mystery, but in reality we know a lot more than many realize.

McClintock's Old Irish & Highland Dress has been sited a few times already as a source, and it's a great one precisely because McClintock isn't asking you to believe what he says about the topic, but rather is concerned mostly with relating primary sources. What you will find in this reference are full quotes from contemporary written sources describing Highland dress (sometimes rather lengthy), reproductions of portraits, carvings, woodcuts and other sources depicting Highland dress -- in other words, he backs up what he says with evidence. And he draws his conclusions directly from the evidence.

This resource is just one example, but it's an important one.

Now, does this mean we are 100% certain we know exactly where, when and how the belted plaid first made its appearance in the Scottish Highlands? No, none of us were alive and there at the time, obviously. But when we look at the primary evidence that is currently available to us, these are the conclusions that we make.

Certainly, if you have stumbled upon some other primary source that would indicate that the kilt's origins actually lie somewhere in Ireland or Norway or anywhere else, or in an earlier or later time than generally accepted, that would merit investigation. That new data should be added to the body of evidence already accumulated and our theories would need to be reevaluated in light of that. (This doesn't mean that our view of things would necessarily have to change greatly, mind you -- it would all depend on the strength of the evidence).

But until such evidence arises, I see no reason to broadly question the received wisdom of those who have spent many years studying the subject of the kilt's history and origin, simply for the sake of questioning. The rational mind does not question simply for the sake of questioning; rather it questions as a means of finding the truth, it seeks for evidence and it follows where the evidence leads.

And the body of evidence we have concerning the kilt shows a pretty straightforward evolution from the belted plaid, first appearing in the Scottish Highlands in the late sixteenth century.

[macwilkin]

Matt and Richard are spot on in their posts; as a educator myself, I always encourage my students to use a variety of sources. But my original post was that, as Matt stated, the primary sources available today do not show an ancient, non-Scottish pedigree for the kilt. That's all.

Certainly, if you have stumbled upon some other primary source that would indicate that the kilt's origins actually lie somewhere in Ireland or Norway or anywhere else, or in an earlier or later time than generally accepted, that would merit investigation. That new data should be added to the body of evidence already accumulated and our theories would need to be reevaluated in light of that. (This doesn't mean that our view of things would necessarily have to change greatly, mind you -- it would all depend on the strength of the evidence).

But until such evidence arises, I see no reason to broadly question the received wisdom of those who have spent many years studying the question of the kilt's history and origin, simply for the sake of questioning. The rational mind does not question simply for the sake of questioning; rather it questions as a means of finding the truth, it seeks for evidence and it follows where the evidence leads.

These two paragraphs are a good summary of my arguement. Until a "smoking gun" emerges that proves otherwise, the primary sources tend to support a 16th century Scottish origin for kilts. Also, the research of dedicated scholars such as McClintock shouldn't be dismissed so readily, just because they do not support our own beliefs and notions -- part of being a good historian is to try to examine the past as objectively as possible (easier said than done, I know) -- theories are fine,but as Matt says, evidence is needed to make those theories credible.

Regards,

Todd

[jkane]

Hmmm ... been following this as I am of Irish heritage. I am a scientist and analytical person at heart, and always look for evidence beyond what someone else says is true!

I am having a hard time following all of this! Are there two arguments here? One that says because the Irish did not "invent" the kilt, that it can't be Irish, and another that says that says that because the tartan was only Scottish that a kilt can't be Irish? I don't understand all of this banter.

Is there an accepted date when the Irish wore kilts? If it was before ... let's say 1850 when the exodus began, would that not be historical enough for those of us who are decedents of those who left Ireland to consider it part of our heritage?

If it was a plain color, and not a tartan, does that make it any less of a kilt?

Who gets to decide when a tradition gets started and has continued long enough to be "officially accepted"?

I would agree that if the Irish tartans were made up during the 20th century as a marketing ploy, I would be embarrassed to wear one after I found out! At least for another 20-50 years. I did not know about what I read in this thread that insinuates that. However, I am reading rebukes that say not all tartans are made up by this place of business. So how does an average person determine which represents their heritage, and which is not?

I guess that goes back to clans and septs. Unless you know your clan/sept and let them be the official voice of what is and isn't traditional, you would be wrong. What if I am not a joiner, but very individualistic and yet proud of my family name? Can I then be the single person "clan" leader and decide for myself what is "official" and what is not?

I guess in the end, it's all about why you wear a kilt. I'd like to wear one for multiple reasons, and that means multiple kilts! One plain canvas to be modern and for comfort. One Wisconsin tartan, knowing it is not traditional, but official and modern to show pride in my birthplace and home of choice. One leather kilt for riding my bike and making the hot biker babes seek me out for photographs. But ... finally, I really would like a kilt that has some kind of traditional certainness to it to show respect to my ancestors and my heritage of being descended from people living in Co Clare Ireland.

So, how do I ensure that I am not showing disrespect by getting a modern "made up" tartan versus one that actually represents the tartan of Co Clare? If there is no written proof of it, then is there proof of a solid color worn by Irish people that I could be proud to wear instead?

[Jock Scot]

jkane.

I would not get too worried about 20th century marketing ploys.Many, most probably, Scottish clan tartans are less than two hundred years old and again many of those could be, loosely, considered as marketing ploys too. Don't forget traditions had to start somewhere.

[M. A. C. Newsome]

But ... finally, I really would like a kilt that has some kind of traditional certainness to it to show respect to my ancestors and my heritage of being descended from people living in Co Clare Ireland.

So, how do I ensure that I am not showing disrespect by getting a modern "made up" tartan versus one that actually represents the tartan of Co Clare? If there is no written proof of it, then is there proof of a solid color worn by Irish people that I could be proud to wear instead?

Jeff,

Yes, it can certainly all be confusing! Irish people have certainly worn kilts in the past, though not in the "ancient past" as many have erroneously assumed to be the case. The idea of an "ancient Irish kilt" actually originated in Scotland among people trying to establish an ancient pedigree for the Scottish National Dress, by suggesting the Irish Scoti brought it with them when they emigrated 1500 years ago to Dal Riada!

In the past 100 ~ 150 years or so, certain Irish groups have adopted the kilt, either as a uniform for a pipe band, or as a symbol of the Celtic Revival movement. But the kilt never was a part of the day-to-day native indiginous dress of the Irish Gaels as it was with the Scottish Gaels. And the Irish never developed a native tradition of wearing tartans in a representative (symbolic) manner, as developed in the Scottish tradition.

More recently, there has been an attempt to superimpose the Scottish tradition of named, symbolic tartans on the Irish. Some of this has some merit, some does not. There are certain Irish tartans that do have official recognition by the head of the family -- for example, the Cian tartan. These would be viewed with the same legitimacy as a Scottish clan tartan that is recognized by the cheif, although perhaps with not as much pedigree behind it.

On the other hand, most of the "Irish tartans" people are familiar with today are, strictly speaking, "fashion tartans." By that I mean that they are designed and given a name, and sold under that name, but they have no actual recognition by any kind of governing authority for that name. (Note, this is the case for a lot of Scottish tartans, as well).

The prime example of this would be the popular Irish county tartans (either the original ones designed by the House of Edgar in the mid 1990s or the more recent ones designed by Marton Mills). Absolutely none of these have any recognition by anyone within the Irish government or anyone else who would otherwise have the authority to speak on behalf of the counties whose names these tartans bear.

Now that does not stop people from wearing them in a representative fashion. Ultimately, the meaning behind a tartan -- as with any symbol -- is the meaning we give it. If your family comes from Co. Clare, and you choose one of the Co. Clare tartans to wear as a kilt, and by doing so honor and remember your ancestors from that county, then that's just fine.

But if you are looking for a tartan that has actually been recognized by the county, so that it can accurately be called the tartan for County Clare, then no such tartan exists.

As for solid kilts, certainly no one is suggesting a kilt must be a tartan to be a "true" kilt. Most of the kilts that have been worn by those Irish who have chosen to adopt the kilt have in fact been solid -- saffron and green being popular colors. For that reason many have associated a solid kilt with the Irish, but the fact of the matter is that solid kilts have always been worn in Scotland, as well. They just never have been as popular or as common as tartan kilts. But no one would suggest that they are not "true" kilts.

So if you wish to honor your Irish heritage by wearing a solid saffron or emereld green kilt, that would certianly be fine to do.

[seanachie]

I used to own a flat in the Banner County (Clare) and what makes no sense to me is the color schemes for some of these tartans. I have been in Ennis during the All Ireland Hurling Final and you see Blue and Gold everywhere. These are not reflected in the Tartan at all. Someone pointed out in another post that the colors do not follow the GAA colors. My family is from Galway and I have been there may times, how the Galway tartan is derived I do not know, I don't see the maroon. Someone with more knowledge than myself might be able to explain this, but until then I won't be very interested. As pointed out as well in this thread there is no official recognition for the Irish National tartan either. I remain open minded but it does seem like a marketing ploy to me.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

So you would have me believe that you can't in any way tell if it were written by a loyalist or a republican? I can. More to the point, is there not any neutral way in which it could have been written? This was clearly not attempted.

The most remarkable thing is that the history was written from a loyalist perspective when it is located in the Republic! This is easily explicable, though, as it is written from the perspective of the family that owned it. You would think that they might want to be more diplomatic, though, otherwise the tricolour flying outside won't fool anyone.

You have said that you can tell by the way the history of Charleville Forest is presented on their website that it was written by a Loyalist (whatever that is). Actually Mr. O'Callaghan, the bumf on the website was written by a local who lives just down the road from Charleville Forest. Someone who was born and educated in the Republic, and who, like 99% of the people living in the Republic, has no axe to grind. It's our history, and we're comfortable with it, even if some folks from overseas, and who don't live here, aren't. The plain fact of the matter is that the Bury's (who have owned it since 1875 or thereabouts) haven't lived at Charleville Forest since long before the Hitler War; Michael McMullen (Irish, Catholic, and born in the Republic) leased it and restored it as his private residence back in the early 1970s. About ten years ago Michael became concerned about the increased costs of maintaining the place and, along with several locals, set up the trust which now maintains the building. Yes, they fly the Tricolour-- why shouldn't they? They're Irish, Charleville Forest is in Ireland, and there is no deception involved. Nor is there a hidden agenda, or some sort of crypto-West Brit plot hatching under the fan vaulted ceilings of the long gallery. No one is attempting to fool anyone.

Now in the face of the facts, I don't see how, by any stretch of the imagination, one could say that the history of the property was written from a loyalist perspective-- unless of course one brought to the discussion a predisposition that would colour their opinion-- or, perhaps, is endowed with some sort of omniscient ability to ferret out closet "loyalists" in the heart of County Offaly by looking at their websites.

We both know where we stand.

I would say that is self-evident.