Traditonal vs. Historical

[davidlpope]

But what of things like garter ties and sgians on the outside of the hose?

Can you provide an example (not from a highland outfitter catalog) of a sgian dubh being worn outside the hose?

[Sir Didymous]

Can you provide an example (not from a highland outfitter catalog) of a sgian dubh being worn outside the hose?

Though the only image on this thread is from a catalog, there are references to seeing it done in posts 14, 16, and 21 of this thread.
http://www.xmarksthescot.com/forum/f...ed-hose-79415/

I also have a weathered non-clan tartan box pleated kilt that is lined and such, but has two buttons that hold it on as opposed to buckles. The buttons are covered by the belt when it is worn, or otherwise by the waistcoat (as I always have on one or the other). So I'm not sure if it would fit the historical/ traditional blend experiment that I have been toying with, or if it would fit within the traditional.

[Roderick Powell]

One of the items which follows the current debate is the recent correspondance re the high waisted kilt. My kilt was sold to me as off the peg in Inverness thirty five years ago.
This Kiltmaker kilt has no belt loops.To wear the kilt at our agreed hem at the top of kneecap, the garment is worn as a high waisted kilt as my size is small.
It was pecieved that the photos showed WW1 regimental kilts worn as high waisted.
Current M.o.d.disposals show Nato vocabulary small kilts ident lables. The implication is that these small regimental kilts are still manufactured PROBABLY last 20 to 30 years as high waisted due to their length.
Early WW1 issue kilts were manufactured a hundred years ago and percieved as being high waisted in historical photos
I have seen photos of forum members still wearing kilts in the high waisted style.
The point I am making is:are high waisted kilts a modern style or a historical Style ? Roddy

[TheOfficialBren]

This is turning out to be one very good thread!

[OC Richard]

How far back can one go before a style turns from "traditional" into "historical"?

My definition- and it comes from music as much as from fashion- is that "traditional" is the modern, current manifestation of something that has an unbroken lineage, a continuous chain of evolutionary forms, going back to an unknown origin.

"Historical" is going back and picking out one of those earlier forms, one of the links of the chain, as if all the links between that form and the present form had never existed.

The cutoff between the two would be when the thing (be it a musical style or clothing style) is noticeably different from the current thing.

There are certain ghillies, bonnets, hose, and other things in The Highlanders of Scotland (1860s) which have a form apparently identical to their present form. So in wearing such things you aren't wearing a "historical" thing, but a "traditional" one, because the things are widely made and worn at the present time. Even if you wore a 150 year old original, it would be a traditional item, not a historical one.

Most of the jackets are cut quite differently than jackets today, and if you wore one of these you would be wearing an "historical" thing (whether you're wearing an original or a modern recreation).

Another way to look at it is that "traditional" things, being in current fashion, can be seen all around you, while "historical" things have a form not now visible without looking in a museum, vintage photos, old paintings, etc. (The exception of course being reenactors who bring things of the past into the present!)

Tomas O Canainn, in Traditional Music in Ireland, begins the Introduction as follows:

It is difficult to define the basic elements of traditional music in Ireland. The adjective 'traditional' implies that something is being passed from one generation of performers to the next. Most of them are aware of the traditional process to some extent, and of their place in it, but would find it difficult to define what exactly they mean by 'traditional'. Nevertheless, without any knowledge of the background of a piece of music they are able to describe it as either traditional or not on first hearing. This implies that the music has certain features which make it traditional. Such distinguishing features are the result of the oral process of transmission (the tradition, in other words).

Though this is about music, it seems to be more or less what Jock Scot has been telling us in regards to his approach to kiltwearing.

[Nathan]

Military boxed pleats are common in plenty of Highland Regiments and many former military folks, myself included, are influenced by the style to which they became accustomed in the ranks and continue to wear a similar style of kilt with civilian attire. When I wear my (military) box pleated kilt, people don't comment. They just see a kilt. If I wore a leine, feileadh mor, cloth hose etc... it would be different story.

So I have to agree that a tartan little kilt regardless of one strap, two straps, box, or knife would be considered traditional and the knife pleated variety the most common and current traditional style.

Sadly, it seems as though plaids of any kind are on the wane in almost all contexts. This is a pity since it's the foundation of the kilt itself.

[TheOfficialBren]

Hmm...perhaps my view has been very inaccurate. Being raised in a country without a martial kilting tradition has probably coloured that view. Thank you for sharing your insight, Nathan.

[Jock Scot]

Can you provide an example (not from a highland outfitter catalog) of a sgian dubh being worn outside the hose?

My uncles used to wear their SD on the outside of their hose, from time to time, when wearing formal attire. I cannot remember my father ever following his brothers on this though.

[M. A. C. Newsome]

In thinking about it I would say a modern day traditional kilt would have the following characteristics.
1) Made from wool, usually though not always tartan.
2) Has the pleats sewn down from waist to hip.
3) Is a "philabeg" or "small kilt," meaning it extends from waist to knee only (not a feilidh-mor).

I think that any kilt that meets these basic criteria, whether it is well made, shoddily made, machine or hand sewn, made from four or eight yards of cloth, regardless of pleating style or pattern, how many straps and buckles it may or may not have, whether it has belt loops or not, is lined or unlined, etc., would fall into the category of a traditional kilt.

Things like the feilidh-mor, or a feilidh-beag without the pleats sewn from waist to hip, would definitely fall into the category of historical garments. Things like kilts made from alternative materials, including acrylic, polyviscose, cotton canvas, hemp, etc., would fall into the category of a "contemporary kilt" style.

[adempsey10]

Anthropologically speaking, traditional does not imply that it is still being done. The traditional formal attire for ancient Romans was the toga. That does not mean modern Romans still do this. 'Traditional' is more of a cultural theme. It implies that this theme is duplicated and maintained over time. 'Historical' and 'traditional' are not necessarily opposing, nor does something become historical when it falls out of tradition or everyday use. The Prince Charlie look, which is considered traditional and still in use would also be considered historical, in the sense that it was also the prevailing kilted attire 100 years ago. It is both modern and historical because the attire has remained relatively unchanged due to tradition. From a purely anthropological standpoint. It seems there are different classifications being presented here that are more related to fashionable trends. As in, something becomes historical when it falls out of popular use. It is modern if it is still in use. etc.