Irish Kilts

[Morris at Heathfield]

Oh, and let's not forget that the Norsemen might have had something to do with the kilt. The word 'kilt' comes from middle English, but is of Scandinavian origin.....Old Norse...Kjalta.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first recorded use of the word "kilt" (or rather "Quelt") to indicate the characteristic garment of the Scottish Highlander was about 1730. If the first wearers of the kilt were Gaelic-speaking Scottish Highlanders (which I see no reason to doubt), they wouldn't have had much use for an English word to refer to what they were wearing. As far as I know, the word "kilt" has never entered the Gaelic lexicon, but the Gaelic word plaide was used in English well before the English (and the Lowlanders) were recorded referring to the same thing as a "kilt".

what makes no sense to me is the color schemes for some of these tartans.

Historically speaking, tartans are not livery. Otherwise, you would expect the Campbell tartan to be largely black and yellow, or the Fraser tartan to be largely blue and white. A chief of the Grants once decided to have his men wear red-and-green tartans. This has been described as a "livery", but the Grant arms are red and gold, so it isn't really.

As far as I have been able to ascertain, the idea that the colors in a tartan are supposed to mean or represent anything beyond mere esthetic (or possibly practical: e.g. "hunting" tartans) considerations is very recent—about 2005 in the case of the tartans designed using the colors of the Irish counties' arms. Other recent examples of livery tartans are some tartans designed for corporations, or for sports teams.

[OC Richard]

Historically speaking, tartans are not livery.

As far as I have been able to ascertain, the idea that the colors in a tartan are supposed to mean or represent anything beyond mere esthetic considerations is very recent—about 2005 in the case of the tartans designed using the colors of the Irish counties' arms. Other recent examples of livery tartans are some tartans designed for corporations, or for sports teams.

Hear, hear!

The "tartans as livery" idea seems to have been invented by the self-styled Sobieski Brothers in their absurd psuedo-ancient hoax of a book.

This whole thing that the colours used in a tartan ought to "mean something" seems to be a modern idea.

Anyhow, about Irish kilts, sure enough the Irish and Highland Scots are fellow-Celts, and the Celts have been using plaid/varigated/tartan cloth for a very long time, cf the North African Roman villa painting of a Gaulish slave wearing "trews" (plaid trousers).
Plaid/tartan cloth has been found in Irish bogs.

So it's odd that somebody during the late 19th /early 20th century Irish Revival decided to take a modern Scottish kilt but make it of solid/self-coloured cloth and call it "Irish". I wonder where such an idea ever came from. I can imagine that it was people seeing images of the ancient, traditional Irish brat and leine costume, and wrongly thinking that the portion of the leine hanging down to the knees was a saffron kilt.

Just as fitting, actually more fitting, would be to adopt tartan trousers, as Gauls, Irish, and Highland Scots have always worn trews. The kilt seems to have developed in the Highlands from the ancient brat but never seems to have crossed over to Ireland to influence the traditional Irish costume. Then of course the English incursions put an end to the wearing of the traditional Irish brat and leine costume, which became extinct.

That ancient traditional genuine mode of Irish dress, the brat, leine, crois, and ionnar, has been revived in the late 20th century and I see people so dressed at our local Renaissance Faire all the time.

[macwilkin]

So it's odd that somebody during the late 19th /early 20th century Irish Revival decided to take a modern Scottish kilt but make it of solid/self-coloured cloth and call it "Irish". I wonder where such an idea ever came from. I can imagine that it was people seeing images of the ancient, traditional Irish brat and leine costume, and wrongly thinking that the portion of the leine hanging down to the knees was a saffron kilt.

That's exactly what happened:

https://www.reconstructinghistory.co...=&g=&a=201&w=2

But the Irish weren't the only ones doing it; I have also found reference to Cornish nationalists in the early 20th century adopting solid-colour kilts.

T.

[beloitpiper]

So it's odd that somebody during the late 19th /early 20th century Irish Revival decided to take a modern Scottish kilt but make it of solid/self-coloured cloth and call it "Irish". I wonder where such an idea ever came from. I can imagine that it was people seeing images of the ancient, traditional Irish brat and leine costume, and wrongly thinking that the portion of the leine hanging down to the knees was a saffron kilt.

I always thought the Irish adopted it because, as they were looking for a national costume--one that would set them apart from their neighbors to the east--they wanted something definitively Celtic. Their cousins in Scotland had been wearing kilts for centuries. Because it was such a unique and instantly recognizable garment, the Irish adopted it but made them in solid colors to differentiate themselves from the Scots.

Sure, one could argue that they should've decided Aran jumpers and flat caps were going to represent the Irish costume, but a) those weren't being worn all across Ireland, and b) it wasn't ancient or unique enough to provoke a Romantic notion of being different and independent.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

I always thought the Irish adopted it because, as they were looking for a national costume--one that would set them apart from their neighbors to the east--they wanted something definitively Celtic. Their cousins in Scotland had been wearing kilts for centuries. Because it was such a unique and instantly recognizable garment, the Irish adopted it but made them in solid colors to differentiate themselves from the Scots.

Sure, one could argue that they should've decided Aran jumpers and flat caps were going to represent the Irish costume, but a) those weren't being worn all across Ireland, and b) it wasn't ancient or unique enough to provoke a Romantic notion of being different and independent.

Well, basically that's what happened. A tiny minority of "Celtic Dawn" types donned the kilt in the late 19th century in the hopes that it would become the national dress of Ireland. It didn't. Outside of pipe bands (both civilian and military) the kilt has been a flop as far as Irish national dress is concerned. The reason? It's really Scottish and the Irish, who are quite capable of forging their own destiny and unique identity, can see no reason to masquerade in kilts, kimonos, or any other foreign costume.

[Skipper1]

Well this has been a fascinating discussion so far. I assume that a certain amount of it has been gone over before but still, I have learned a few things. As for myself, I continue to wear tartan kilts that celebrate the scottish side of my heritage, and solid colour kilts to celebrate my irish side. In this I support Francis and the irish kilt society aims. But I also wear Freedom Kilts, Utilikilts, USA Kilts, SWKs and other makes because I prefer kilts to p**ts. (Though I didn't wear one on the plane from Canada to Las Vagas the other day because I didn't want to draw the attention of the security folks - they were spun up enough as it was.) Interestingly, one of the kilts I most prefer wearing is my Ulster ancient - based on a tartan discovered in County Londonderry that has been dated back to the late 1500 to early 1600 period (I understand it is likely of scottish orgin or possibly locally manufactured for sale to Scotland. Anyway, it is a registered irish tartan.) In a way it symbolizes and encapsulates my own celtic irish/scottish breeding, and, as a warrior and a pagan, it is important to me to acknowledge my ancestors.

[O'Callaghan]

MacMillan of Rathdown MacMillan of Rathdown is offline
Kilted Legend

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Staunton, Va
Posts: 2,459
With all due respect-- for history

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.

You're right about one thing - I don't live in Virginia, I live in Maryland. Or isn't that what you meant when you said "who don't live here"?

[O'Callaghan]

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?

Dates are sparse, but there are a few of interest. There is an Irish written account of Scots wearing kilts in 1594, although these would have been great kilts, i.e. a blanket (plaid in Gaelic) wrapped to cover upper as well as lower parts of the body and secured with a belt. There is no doubt that this was generally worn over a leine (linen tunic, or used to mean a shirt in modern Gaelic). There is no record of anyone dressing like this before the Scots.

The highland Scots came from Ireland, and were of a single Irish tribe, the Dal Riada. They brought the leine (leinte in the plural) with them, and they brought the tartan plaid, which, when they weren't sleeping wrapped in it, they wore as a brat (cloak). Hence, the great kilt was invented by Scots who had the earth-shattering idea of wearing their belts on the outside of their cloaks. As a man of science, you will have already realised that this entails the Scots wearing the exact same garments as an Irishman of the period, and merely putting them on in a slightly different way.

As for the pleats, the great kilt had only gathers, which were formed by wearing the belt over the top. OTOH, there are pictures (engravings, I think) that show Irishmen wearing pleated leinte back to at least 1551, pre-dating the kilt, and Irish stone carvings that go back well before that and seem to show something similar. Some once asserted that the stone carvings show the Irish wearing the little kilt before the Scots, but this is unlikely.

As to the little kilt, that covers only the lower torso, some say that this was invented by an Englishman in 1725, which may or may not be true, but it certainly gets the Scots stirred up.

I have seen posts saying that the leine is not a kilt because it covers the upper torso, but by that argument the great kilt isn't a kilt either. Each one is what it is. I don't suggest that the leine is a kilt, only that the Irish wore the pleated leine before the kilt existed.

The earliest date I have come across for the Irish kilt is 1857, and that is for saffron kilts worn only by pipers in the Tyrone Fusiliers, a defunct regiment of the British Army. However, that is well before the 20th century began, and saffron kilts continue to be worn to this day by all the pipers not only in the Irish regiments of the British Army, but also in the Irish Army and in the Irish Air Corps. Green kilts as a symbol of Ireland, OTOH, probably date only to the 1890s. Irish tartan kilts are much more recent, of which more to follow.

Many tartans are more or less frauds, in a manner of speaking, not only Irish ones, but also Scots ones. Many of the modern Scots tartans were invented by a pair of con men from Surrey, England, brothers whose real surname was Allen but went by Sobieski-Stuart, claiming a bogus link to Scottish royalty via the late Polish Count Sobieski. Many other Scots clan tartans were chosen by the chiefs from the Wilson's of Bannockburn catalogue so that they could show "their clan tartan" to King George V when he summoned them to the palace in 1822, and before that date only had catalogue numbers. It was Wilson's practice, in fact, to assign the surnames of customers to the tartans they had purchased, and this is how many tartans became associated with clans. Others are just modern inventions, so that only about a dozen Scots clan tartans were actually used by the same clans before the '45 (The Battle of Culloden in 1745). In fact, at that time Scots clans were identified only by 'plant badges' worn in their hats.

Irish tartans are fewer, but not immune from fraud. Of the few Irish family name tartans, many were allegedly listed in something called Clans Originaux, but to cut a long story short, none of them can be found in that work. Callaghan* is not one of this group, as it goes back only to 2007, LOL! Irish county tartans date back only to the 1990s! However, some of the generic Irish tartans (of which there are many) are a little older than that, but not all of them are still made, and conversely some of them are just as new as the county tartans. Probably the oldest one of these that is still readily available is the St. Patrick's tartan, which was registered in 1971. Not very old, but it pre-dates county tartans by a couple of decades.

Given that so few tartans are truly ancient, it is just as well to choose something that represents something of meaning to you, whether it is old or not.

As for letting clans or septs decide, that may work for the Scots, but if you are Irish you will have to decide for yourself, as you will find a yawning gulf of authority on the subject. Irish clan chiefs do exist, but are unlikely to care what you wear atall.

*Of course, I meant that the tartan only goes back to 2007, the clan is about a thousand years old

[denmcdough]

Oh, so much information floating about. Good to get everyone involved in this discussion.

I'm open to all suggestions as to the origin of the kilt. Many learned persons on this forum, with a wealth of information. But, I think that, in a court of law, if this was to be a case of differences, I'd be confused. There's still a bit of doubt in my mind, and, still so much that has to be questioned. Have an open mind?!

As stated before, you'll believe what you want to believe. It seems to me that there's a bit of bravado going on here. In reality, I could give a rat's behind where the kilt originated. I just like wearing it, and I just happen to be Irish. But, if I were of Japanese descent, I'd still wear a kilt. And, isn't that the purpose of this site, to foster the wearin' of the kilt? If the kilt truly came from Scotland, and it probably did, as my son would say, "Cool beans!" Celts, other than Scots, and other nationalities who decide to wear a kilt, well, that has to be the best form of flattery to the Scots.

And, this Celtic Nationalism that seems to be taking place, where people are using the kilt to show pride...GREAT! The kilt, no matter its origin, has now become a 'Celtic Garment.' 'Nuff said!

[macwilkin]

The earliest date I have come across for the Irish kilt is 1857, and that is for saffron kilts worn only by pipers in the Tyrone Fusiliers, a defunct regiment of the British Army.

If memory serves me correctly, the Royal Tyrone Fusiliers were a militia battalion of the Inskillings, not a separate regiment. Do you have the source handy for the claim they were wearing kilts in 1857? I can't say I've run across that one before. While a number of Irish regiments unofficially added pipers to the rolls before the First World War, until the Irish Guards equipped their pipe band in saffron kilts in 1916, most Irish pipers wore standard bandsmens' uniforms, according to Harris' The Irish Regiments 1683-1999.

Regards,

T.