Interesting Irish kilt article

[tripleblessed]

For Bugbear

If one has Scottish ancestors, odds are pretty high those ancestors had Irish
ancestors, and many of those Irish ancestors had Scottish ancestors. If you enjoyed kilts, you should feel free to wear them. Kilt-like garments were worn across wide stretches of the globe, and plaid (U.S. usage, tartan-like) fabric
was known before the Celts became dominant in the Isles. Remnants found almost to China, according to press reports on archeological digs. Much unknown archeology out there. In Novosibirsk, I saw bodies dug out of the tundra frozen solid. Blonde, looked like close cousins. After 6,000 years, their clothing was good enough to put on models for a photo shoot.

[Bugbear]

Sorry, I was feeling grouchy when I posted that.
The article just rubbed me the wrong way for some reason beyond it's bunkness.

[CDNSushi]

If you enjoyed kilts, you should feel free to wear them. Kilt-like garments were worn across wide stretches of the globe, and plaid (U.S. usage, tartan-like) fabric was known before the Celts became dominant in the Isles.

Well said. If anyone is concerned about wearing only that which is "traditional," I ask: How do you define traditional? It's quite arbitrary, really. If you go far back enough, our ancestors all wore animal skins. Start moving forward from that point in time, where's the appropriate place to stop? When men started wearing robes? When they started wearing medieval armor? When they started wearing trousers? When they started wearing <article of clothing>? To be certain, the commonly accepted definitions of "tradition" (such as what we would find in dictionaries or encyclopedias) do not presume to assign such a temporal limitation to the term. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tradition)... Where does it say that "In order to be called "traditional" a period of no less than xx years must have elapsed?"

The point is, who's to tell someone who's Irish that he shouldn't wear a kilt because it's not traditional for the Irish to wear kilts? (It's just as silly and preposterous as the article-in-question's author preaching that girls involved in Irish dance shouldn't wear tights because it's not traditional). All traditions, no matter what they are, have to have started somewhere, and if the end of the 19th century isn't far enough back, that's a matter of personal judgment. But let me just say, that if MY family had been doing something since the late 19th century, I would feel more than justified in saying that it was "traditional" for us to do so.

On a slightly different (yet analogous) note, many of the "Christmas traditions" we have just finished enjoying are merely a hundred years old, yet we would feel odd if we broke with "tradition" and stopped doing them every year.

So from this (my) vantage point, the Irish need absolutely NO additional justification to wear kilts, be they tartan or solid color, and neither does anyone else for that matter. The article in question may be bunk (as I believe that it is) but it also makes no never-mind either. Is it traditional? It's traditional enough. The hair-splitting I shall leave to didactic, soporific, and turgid history professors to discuss throughout the halls of academia in their doctoral dissertations and peer-reviewed journals.

Kilt on!


(Oh, one more thing. No disrespect whatsoever aimed at any of our forum's resident historians... I know that they are neither soporific, nor turgid)...

[Bugbear]

Didn't do well in college so know very little about doctoral dissertations.

I understand where you're coming from on the traditions part, CDNSushi.

Being told you have no traditions, or are incapable of having traditions because you are outside the "main stream" of society is a slap in the face.

Having someone else's traditions forced on you is much the same.

Sorry, my nerves have been raw today.

[macwilkin]

Well said. If anyone is concerned about wearing only that which is "traditional," I ask: How do you define traditional? It's quite arbitrary, really. If you go far back enough, our ancestors all wore animal skins. Start moving forward from that point in time, where's the appropriate place to stop? When men started wearing robes? When they started wearing medieval armor? When they started wearing trousers? When they started wearing <article of clothing>? To be certain, the commonly accepted definitions of "tradition" (such as what we would find in dictionaries or encyclopedias) do not presume to assign such a temporal limitation to the term. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tradition)... Where does it say that "In order to be called "traditional" a period of no less than xx years must have elapsed?"

The point is, who's to tell someone who's Irish that he shouldn't wear a kilt because it's not traditional for the Irish to wear kilts? (It's just as silly and preposterous as the article-in-question's author preaching that girls involved in Irish dance shouldn't wear tights because it's not traditional). All traditions, no matter what they are, have to have started somewhere, and if the end of the 19th century isn't far enough back, that's a matter of personal judgment. But let me just say, that if MY family had been doing something since the late 19th century, I would feel more than justified in saying that it was "traditional" for us to do so.

On a slightly different (yet analogous) note, many of the "Christmas traditions" we have just finished enjoying are merely a hundred years old, yet we would feel odd if we broke with "tradition" and stopped doing them every year.

So from this (my) vantage point, the Irish need absolutely NO additional justification to wear kilts, be they tartan or solid color, and neither does anyone else for that matter. The article in question may be bunk (as I believe that it is) but it also makes no never-mind either. Is it traditional? It's traditional enough. The hair-splitting I shall leave to didactic, soporific, and turgid history professors to discuss throughout the halls of academia in their doctoral dissertations and peer-reviewed journals.

Kilt on!


(Oh, one more thing. No disrespect whatsoever aimed at any of our forum's resident historians... I know that they are neither soporific, nor turgid)...

No, but we are didactic and pedantic...



When Matt & I wrote our article last year about the origins of Irish kilts & tartans, one thing we were very specific about was that we were not attempting to suggest that those of Irish heritage should not wear kilts; our intent was to dispel the myth that the kilt was an "ancient" irish garment. As with you, I would tend to agree that something with a late 19th century origin has all the hallmarks of being "traditional", especially in "young" countries such as the US and the Commonwealth. It was more of a response to articles such as the one in the OP that may be found all over the Internet promoting a mythical pedigree for Irish "national costume".

T.

[O'Callaghan]

The first article is almost pure invention, although it got one thing right, merely that early Irish kilts were solid colours.

However, they were mostly saffron or green, the former to represent dye often used in the Irish leine (tunic) and the latter to represent Irish nationalism, with which the colour green was associated since the rebellion of the United Irishmen in the late 18th century.

The other articles are mostly right where they stick to the bare facts, but completely out of wack where they express an opinion.

Irish kilts are over a century old. If that's not traditional/historic then I'm a Chinaman (which, BTW, is a type of throw, or a type of pitch if you're an American, in the game of cricket).

Moreover, the kilt is derived from the Irish cloak (brat), which was reportedly striped wool and most probably often tartan, as tartan remnants have been found that predate the influx of the Irish gaels into the highlands by thousands of years (I know that's already been posted). Yes, the picts were there first, but the kilt isn't derived from pictish clothing, and neither is pictish spoken there anymore.

So Irish kilts are old (enough for me) and Scots kilts are derived from Irish clothing, although not in the way the article says.

[macwilkin]

The other articles are mostly right where they stick to the bare facts, but completely out of wack where they express an opinion.

Care to elaborate on this statement, sir?

T.

[Dale Seago]

.. .and plaid (U.S. usage, tartan-like) fabric
was known before the Celts became dominant in the Isles. Remnants found almost to China, according to press reports on archeological digs. Much unknown archeology out there. In Novosibirsk, I saw bodies dug out of the tundra frozen solid. Blonde, looked like close cousins. After 6,000 years, their clothing was good enough to put on models for a photo shoot.

http://www.weirdasianews.com/2009/05...-secrets-hold/

[BoldHighlander]

http://www.weirdasianews.com/2009/05...-secrets-hold/

Oh yeah! I remember seeing a tv documentary about these mummies about 5 or 6 years ago.

[MacSpadger]

Moreover, the kilt is derived from the Irish cloak (brat), which was reportedly striped wool and most probably often tartan, as tartan remnants have been found that predate the influx of the Irish gaels into the highlands by thousands of years (I know that's already been posted). Yes, the picts were there first, but the kilt isn't derived from pictish clothing, and neither is pictish spoken there anymore.

So Irish kilts are old (enough for me) and Scots kilts are derived from Irish clothing, although not in the way the article says.

I have no idea where this idea comes from. A brat is just a cloak type blanket, and was known by many names and worn throughout Europe, it's not specifically Irish. In fact in The Life of Red Hugh O'Donnell we can read a description of a group of hired mercenaries from the Scottish Hebrides employed by O'Donnell in 1594, where use of a cloak marks them out as visually different from the Irish.....these were recognized among the Irish by the difference of their arms and clothing their habits and languages for their exterior dress was mottled cloaks to the calf of the leg with ties and fastenings. Their girdles were over the loins outside the cloaks

This sounds like a description of a large/great plaid type garment to me, and wearing one made the Scots look markedly different from the Irish to the author of the piece.

As for the influx of Irish Gaels into Scotland, leading to the founding of Dalradia, this seems to be taken as historical fact when in fact it comes from Geoffrey of Monmouth repeating legends which also include giants and King Arthur. A lot of archaeological and DNA research has been done by the Universities of Strathclyde and Dublin which shows evidence of trade and going back and forth over the Irish Sea, (as there was throughout all Europe at that time), but no influx or imposition of culture whatsoever. In fact, Peter Lawrie writes "There is almost no archaeological evidence to support the traditional view of migration from Ireland and some evidence to support the view that there was considerable influence in the opposite direction, from Scotland to Ireland. Some early genealogies were evidently re-written in the 10th century to bolster contemporary claimants to the Scottish throne. These practices continued in the 15th and 16th centuries when the mythically ancient origins of the Scots kingdom were extended back in time by Boece and Major to include the pharaohs of Egypt and Kings of Troy. Late medieval Highland clans similarly used myths of descent from ancient Irish kings to bolster their seniority".

Click here for full article.
As for the Picts, there are many examples of stone carvings in my native North East of Scotland. Several show men wearing "brat" type cloaks and/or long tunic type garments. Publishers such as Osprey have used these images to extrapolate on what a Pict may have looked like. He wasn't wearing trousers.



In Volume 1/09 of History of Scotland, a Mr Donald Buchanan Robertson QC, of Edinburgh, has made available part of a report by the English spy, John Aston, on the Scots army on the eve of the Battle of Newburn, 1640.

It’s interesting in that it not only has what you’d expect to hear, but also references to what may be a proto kilt, and an emphasis on archers. I repeat it, unedited;

"Most guessed them (the Scots army) to be about 10 or 12,000 at the most, accounting the highlanders, whose fantastique habits caused much gazing by such as have not scene them heretofore. They were all or most part of them well timbred men, tall and active, apparelled in blew woollen wascotts and blew bonnets. A padre of bases of pled, and stockings of the same, and a padre of pumpes on their feete: a mantle of pled cast over the left shoulder, and under the right arm, a pocquett before for their knapsack, and a pair of durgs on either side the pocquett.

They are left to their own election for their weapons; some carry onely a sword and targe, others musquetts, and the greater part bow and arrows, with a quiver to hould about 6 shafts, made of the maine of a goat or colt, with the hair hanging on, and fastened by some belt of such like, soe it appears almost a taile to them.

These were about 1000, and had bagg-pipes (for the most part) for their warlick instruments. The Laird Buchanan was their leader. Their ensigns had strange devices and strange words, in a language unknown to mee, whether their own or not I know not".


What’s interesting to me is the use of the words “bases” in conjunction with “bases of pled”.

Bases were a type of male pleated skirt that seems to have been use in Italy in the 1400’s but the use of them spread throughout Europe as far north as Holland and France, and there are illustrative examples of them from the 1500’s in Britain, (including Scotland) and Ireland. Unfortunately they are sometimes reported as being kilts. I suppose they are, in a way, inasmuch as a kilt is a pleated skirt. There is nothing particularly “Celtic” about them, being an Italian import that was found to be useful when wearing armour.

There are a great many examples from England and continental Europe.

The use of the term here seems to maybe imply that the highlanders were not wearing only the Great Plaid in 1640, as we might have been led to expect by some reports, but a separate pleated garment. The reference to “pled” I can only assume to mean tartan, therefore the stockings, pleated skirt and shoulder plaids were all tartan.

In short, with so many variants and European influences, I can't see how anyone can say that Scots kilts are derived from Irish clothing.