Eagle feather thread

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

I don't mean to sound stupid, ill-informed, insensitive, or inflammatory but why must eagle feathers be the symbol of status?

One has to remember that, for the Highland Scots, the wearing of eagle feathers reaches back to pre-Christian times when certain animals (Stag, Salmon, Eagle, Boar, etc.) were objects of religious veneration. This animal "worship" came to be codified, with restrictions on who could kill them, and who could eat their flesh, or wear their skins. (Most of this is spelled out in the Brehon Laws for anyone interested in knowing more.)

With the passage of time, and the introduction of Christianity, most of the old pagan prohibitions fell by the wayside, only to be replaced by the Roman concept of laws-- who could kill a deer, hunt a boar, kill a salmon, or capture an eagle. To rob an eagle's nest was considered a feat of real bravery in ancient Scotland, involving as it did climbing to some craggy precipice and fending off a powerful bird ferociously defending the nest. Proof of that deed was a feather, worn in the cap.

Now, as only the bravest wore the eagle feather they became marked out as warrior-leaders, the feather becoming the symbol of the warrior who led others into battle. In time, long after the original significance of the eagle feather had faded from memory, it still remained the badge of a leader of men.

As the clan system developed with Chiefs, Chieftains, and what I will call "Gentlemen" to simplify things, the right to wear feathers became based on one's ability to call out armed men in time of need. In other words, the feathers indicated military command, and a structure that emanated from the Chief with three feathers, the Chieftains and Barons with two feathers, and the Gentlemen with one feather, all of whom were followed by the clan "army" called out to defend their glen. The feathers, being tall, enabled the leaders to be singled out on the field of battle.

By the time the military aspect of the clan had waned in the 18th century, the wearing of feathers was an ingrained part of Highland society. One could tell at a glance who the natural, ancient leaders were by the feathers in their bonnet. The king could make a rich man a lord, but unless that man was "of the blood and of the land" he had no "tribal" standing in the neighborhood.

In modern times (like right now) feathers are worn as an heraldic right-- in the same way that displaying one's coat of arms on a flag is an heraldic right-- and to identify, in a crowd (which isn't necessarily that far removed from a battlefield) the leaders of a clan.

In simple terms the eagle feathers, which have been worn in the Highlands for more than a thousand years, merely identify who's in charge. And beyond a familial or clan context they have no real meaning, although they are certainly recognized and understood by those who care about such things.

[The Guy in the Kilt at UC]

...As the clan system developed with Chiefs, Chieftains, and what I will call "Gentlemen" to simplify things, the right to wear feathers became based on one's ability to call out armed men in time of need...

Does US law allow the possession of Eagle Feathers by Chiefs, Chieftains, and "Gentlemen" like it does Native Americans?

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Does US law allow the possession of Eagle Feathers by Chiefs, Chieftains, and "Gentlemen" like it does Native Americans?

It seems unlikely that there would be a Federal Law that would favour one race or ethnic group over any other. That being the case one would presume that there would be no difference between Native Americans and Scottish armigers-- or any one else for that matter-- as regards possession of Eagle Feathers.

[beloitpiper]

It seems unlikely that there would be a Federal Law that would favour one race or ethnic group over any other. That being the case one would presume that there would be no difference between Native Americans and Scottish armigers-- or any one else for that matter-- as regards possession of Eagle Feathers.

Well, there is. In Wisconsin, at least, American Indians have access to hunting and fishing grounds at times the rest of us don't. Because of their cultural affiliations, they don't have to obey certain hunting laws. Also, in archaeology, we're required to report Indian remains to the government, as dictated in NAGPRA

[The Guy in the Kilt at UC]

It seems unlikely that there would be a Federal Law that would favour one race or ethnic group over any other. That being the case one would presume that there would be no difference between Native Americans and Scottish armigers-- or any one else for that matter-- as regards possession of Eagle Feathers.

Right, but federal law tends to be bulky & inefficient. Does anyone out there know for sure if those Scots are protected?

[Phil]

The laws regarding possession of such parts of birds seem much more draconian in America than here in the UK. Since reading these posts I looked up here - http://www.fws.gov/faq/featherfaq.html - and it seems that nobody whatsoever may possess them. Even native Americans are prohibited from collecting feathers in the wild and may only obtain them from a central repository if authorised to do so. It also mentions the import and export of such feathers and limits this to "Enrolled members of federally recognized tribes" which tends to exclude any of the chiefs, chieftans or armigers mentioned in this post. Perhaps some public-spirited citizen might consider his duty next time there is a forthcoming clan gathering in America?

[ForresterModern]

As an aside, I am pleased to see this thread re-opened and for those members who have been able to keep the discussion historical and factual with regards to the legalities and history of eagle feathers in the US, Scotland and our heritage. I would like to thank you all, especially the ever vigilant mods, for allowing this discussion to continue, even after a couple slip ups.

I agree with Sandy that this eagle feather topic has little actual effect on the vast majority of those of us who wear the kilt, especially those on this side of the pond. But understanding the history and background of a specific tradition, and its current ability to be practiced under modern legal and social structures both here and abroad, is interesting and valuable information for all interested in such topics, allowing us to understand and hopefully abide by the historical and social guidelines and give them their due respect.

Thanks again to all for your knowledge and civility, and especially to the mods for helping us all toe the line (a line by which we all agreed to abide when we signed onto this forum for the first time).


jeff

[budd4766]

There's an alternative for those who'd like to try it. Leather feathers like this one, made by Jim Linnell of Tandy, can be made to look realistic enough that he's had Native Americans buy his to use in ceremonies rather than risk damaging their real feathers.
http://leatherworker.net/Linnell/pag...ndy%20(24).htm

[hospitaller]

Does US law allow the possession of Eagle Feathers by Chiefs, Chieftains, and "Gentlemen" like it does Native Americans?

No, it does not allow for scottish chiefs, chieftains or gentlemen to bypass laws that the US Citizens have to abide by.

Does anyone out there know for sure if those Scots are protected?

They are not. The law is there in all its glory and there are no exemptions for Scots.

.

[Wompet]

One has to remember that, for the Highland Scots, the wearing of eagle feathers reaches back to ...

MacMillan, thank you for the explanation. I had wondered about the origins of the practice.
Now to go skim through the Brehon Laws - they sound like they may be interesting.