Was Tartan ever actually banned?

[MacMillans son]

Perhaps there would be less debate today if it had originally been called "Kirkin' of the Wallet" ?

By calling it "Kirkin' of the Tartan" it allows for the romantic revisionist focus to be put on the tartan, and appears to fuel the belief that the tartan was the item of reverence, and not the money.

It sounds to me like the current practice has value for those who participate in it, but it unfortunately shares the same name with a historic event(s) having nothing to do with the current practice.

So, much like wearing the kilt with hiking boots and tee shirt is just fine and dandy as long as I don't claim it to be traditional Highland attire, bringing your tartan to the church for blessing can be called Kirkin' of the Tartan as long as a person doesn't perpetuate the myth that that was the nature of the original event ?

Well, that's all I got!

[Kilted-Marine]

I agree. All I was saying is that there APPEARS to be some evidence (no matter how slim) for a tartan blessing prior to the one in the USA.
No Historian would say there was never a Tartan kirkin prior because it is impossible to prove there was not

[macwilkin]

I agree. All I was saying is that there APPEARS to be some evidence (no matter how slim) for a tartan blessing prior to the one in the USA.
No Historian would say there was never a Tartan kirkin prior because it is impossible to prove there was not

And again, in over a decade of researching the Kirkin' service, I have not found any reliable evidence that there was one before 1941. If someone has one, I would love to see it.

As a historian, I wouldn't say there was one before 1941 until a reliable source turns up. If it does, I'll gladly update my article.


T.

[Kilted-Marine]

And again, in over a decade of researching the Kirkin' service, I have not found any reliable evidence that there was one before 1941. If someone has one, I would love to see it.

T.

I am not sure what reliable evidence you would need or accept. A hand written note from somebody dated 1790, A church entry that talked about it. Neither of which you will find since Folklore talks about it happening when the tartan was banned and paper was not as available as it is today.

As too a decade of study - it took Howard carter 31 years to find King Tut.. keep looking - i would like to know the truth

I stand by my statement that it may not have happened but it it is impossible to prove that it did not happen.

[macwilkin]

I am not sure what reliable evidence you would need or accept. A hand written note from somebody dated 1790, A church entry that talked about it. Neither of which you will find since Folklore talks about it happening when the tartan was banned and paper was not as available as it is today.

As too a decade of study - it took Howard carter 31 years to find King Tut.. keep looking - i would like to know the truth

I stand by my statement that it may not have happened but it it is impossible to prove that it did not happen.

I'm not sure what folklore you're referring to -- folklore has been documented & researched since the late 1700s. In my article I mentioned Alexander Carmichael, a noted folklorist who collected prayers, hymns and incantations from the Highlands. If the Kirkin existed in folklore, he would have found it. He lists a prayer for the weaver's cloth, but nothing like a kirkin service.

I'm just not willing to stake my professional reputation as a historian & librarian on your assumptions. My stock & trade is primary & secondary sources.

T.

[figheadair]

I am not sure what reliable evidence you would need or accept. A hand written note from somebody dated 1790, A church entry that talked about it. Neither of which you will find since Folklore talks about it happening when the tartan was banned and paper was not as available as it is today.

But the whole point of my original post was to point out that it 'appears' from reading copies of the Act that tartan per se was not banned.

I see I've started a hare running that's disappeared off down a different rabbit hole (to mix my game metaphores). All very interesting but perhaps the Kirkin should be discussed in a separate thread as it rather detracts for discussing one of the fundamental myths (if I'm right) surrounding tartan.

[Bugbear]

Untestable hypothesis? Use probability...

[Downunder Kilt]

Having read through the thread and searching on the internet, I see that all of the articles referring to the legend of kirkin of the tartan in 18th century Scotland are written by Canadians Australians or Americans (including the 2 cited in a post.) Those that do eminate from Great Britain appear to be virtual reprints of aforementioned ones. I can find no reference cited and written by highlanders or a cited source with some historical factual reference. There is however ample evidence of it being an American invention in 1941. Please don't get me wrong, I think the idea of it is a good thing, but lets not confuse a good idea with a tradition that did not exist in the old country

As for proof one way or the other, in the criminal code, beyond reasonable doubt, it is possible there was a form of kirkin the tartan in Scotland, in the
civil code, on the balance of probabilities, it's probable that it was invented in 1941

[Mike_Oettle]

Speaking as a historian by training, I am afraid I must side with Cajunscot here.
He has evidence of the institution of the ceremony of Kirkin the Tartan from the man who introduced it.
All we seem to have on the other side of the argument is unsubstantiated folklore.
Now it may be that there is substantiation somewhere, but so far it has not cropped up. Reference has been made to articles in publications far from where the ceremony was instituted, but the sources of those articles have not (so far) been examined.
The abstract discussions of scientific proof are all very well, but need to be refined by historians’ definitions, not silly extrapolations about pink elephants.

With regard to the proscription of tartan, I will concede that the wording of the Act is tortuous, but it does clearly outlaw a) the kilt and b) the wearing of tartan, albeit in separate parts of the same long sentence.
Although tartan was specifically forbidden solely when worn as upper clothing (plaid or coat), its proscription in that sense went hand in hand with a ban on the kilt, which was at least frequently, and probably usually, made of tartan.
The word plaid is not more precisely defined, and could be applicable to either the belted plaid (breacan feile) or the plaid as worn with the philabeg (pinned to the shoulder).
The reference to “trowse” may be solely to trews in the sense of hose made of tartan on the bias, fitted to the leg, or could apply to all tartan trousers. It nonetheless bars leg-coverings deemed to be “Highland Clothes”.
The region in which the Act was (theoretically) effective seems to be the lands north of the Forth and Clyde, but since the Act specifically refers to “that part of Great Britain called Scotland”, with the rider “other than shall be employed as officers and soldiers in his Majesty's forces”, in a legal sense it should have applied everywhere north of the English border.
It does appear that the Act was only applied with rigour in the areas closest to the Great Glen, but we are (I believe) focusing on the wording of a piece of legislation.
While the wording “man or boy” does seem to exempt women, the question must be asked whether, when the law was enforced by His Majesty’s forces, women were permitted to retain their tartan garments, and whether thorough searches were made to discover and destroy all tartan remnants.
Regards,
Mike

[macwilkin]

Bro:. Aaron: I'll ignore your confrontational attitude and just say again that if someone can show-me a reliable source that documents a kirkin service from 18th century Scotland, I'll be the first to shout it from the rooftops. While it certainly is possible, I'm not convinced until we have the documentation. I'm always open to new sources and ways of looking at history when those sources are discovered.

But in the spirit of compromise, I will mention the discussion here recently about dirks & "The Holy Iron", which is documented -- if there was a blessing of a tartan, it would most likely take that form, instead of a formal liturgy. We know that Carmichael documents a Highland prayer for the weaver's cloth, for example. How's that for admitting it? :mrgreen:

And thanks for the leccture on John Ford. I teach Western/Frontier history, and I discuss Ford's symbolism in his Westerns. That was my attempt a humor, which obviously failed. I can't say I've never taught anyone at gunpoint, except for living history talks, but I'm not going to simply give people what they want to hear -- I'm not in politics.

And we use Turabian/Chicago. I'll accept your work in MLA, though, as Turbian tends to intimidate non-history types. (and that was meant in jest, btw)