To Black Watch or not to Black Watch?

[macwilkin]

Yes I think this is true in general.

But about Black Watch, surely a pre-1715 fragment of tartan showing a similar structure must argue against the Black Watch tartan being a purely new invention at the time of the regiment's raising.

But that doesn't necessarily confirm the theory that it was a tartan specific to the Campbells. Scarlett was refuting the claim that military tartans originated from clan tartans, when in reality, the idea of tartans associated with a specific clan didn't come about until Wilson's of Bannockburn began to name tartans in the late 1700s.

T.

[OC Richard]

Yes indeed.

When I re-read the quote I posted I realised that someboby might think that I was making the argument that the Black Watch tartan was originally a Campbell tartan. That's the reverse of my own thinking: I think that the Campbells, at a later date, claimed the Government Sett as their own.

Stewart seems to be merely saying that there are a number of fragments which might predate the raising of the Black Watch which show similar structural elements. (Of course the dating of such fragments is usually open to question.)

In any case it's a common thing for two top scholars to look at the same corpus of evidence and come to diametrically opposed conclusions. (Renfrew v Gimbutas and Greenberg v Smithsonian are examples that come to mind.)

On the other hand, new evidence usually comes to light on a fairly regular basis, so that even the same scholar can come to different conclusions at different points in time.

I was wondering if differences between Scarlett and Stewart stemmed from the former, or the latter. If the latter it would be interesting to know exactly what new evidence has been discovered since Stewart wrote.

[longhuntr74]

This has been a thoroughly interesting discussion...totally OT, but interesting still. As an amateur historical re-enactor that is more involved with rendezvous encampments than historical military reenactments, I see the same issues at events. The events that I typically attend are "period" events which span the timeline of 1640-1840. Even with that broad range of time, there are many that don't fit into any category of accuracy. Participants span the whole range of fully researched, documented, and accurate portrayals of 18th century Americans to the old buckskinner who's wearing plain denim pants with an elastic waist, suede slippers with a rubber sole, and a shirt made of cheap muslin with metal grommets and a rawhide lace (add a cheaply made coonskin cap with a polyester satin lining if it helps complete your visual image). Some people do it for the camping and social aspects, some do it because of their love of history, some for the shooting sports. I think, in general, that the loose interpretation of the rules in favor of inclusion, rather than exclusion, at these events is good from the standpoint that it brings people in for long enough that hopefully they may learn more about history and develop their persona. I, like Todd and other reenactors, get my feathers ruffled...or at least the hairs stand up on the back of my neck...when I hear one of the very inaccurate people selling a bunch of bogus "this is how it was done" to the unsuspecting public.

As far as the question from the OP...decide who you want to be when you go to Ren-faire. Are you going for a good time, or are you going to portray a historical persona. If for a good time, wear your Black Watch...and have fun. If historical...find a less well known tartan...or an unnamed one...and seriously look at wearing the leine and brat ensemble vs. a kilt of any sort...and research, research, research...then buy or make!