History of the Kilt

[Jimmy Carbomb]

maybe it was the romans,or greeks or even the egyptions who invented the kilt.

I thought Al Gore invented the kilt?!!!

[phil h]

maybe it was the romans,or greeks or even the egyptions who invented the kilt.

I thought Al Gore invented the kilt?!!!

why did you not tell us this in the first place and save all the agro.jimmy is late as usual but better late than never.thanx jim.there you go! subject once and for all put to rest....A men

[macbubba]

Me Kilts be lovin,ly stiched by wee Banshees weaned on Hoondred year ol, Scotch an, th, Laird,s own shortbread. There guild has been around for Too, thousand years. ------------------------------------- Magnum Mallum ET Tartaum MacBubba Of The Mighty Clan MacBubba

[Kiltedmusiclover]

I love Banshees!

[T90 Tim]

Why, even the Campbells and MacDonalds get along now and the MacGregors were forgiven!

Wha??? Better ask all the McDonalds before you make a claim like that!!!!

[T90 Tim]

Graham, the who wears the pants in the family has become a standing joke with us. I usually clarify by saying I'm still the boss.....until my wife disagrees.

My Gramps loves to use that line... my wife smiles and then winks...

[Robbie]

If you’re not interested in the history of the kilt, don’t read this – you’ll find it boring as h***!! - this is for those like myself who are interested in history in general and this topic in particular. There are those who like to claim that “history is bunk”, “history is written by the winners” etc., but in this case there are no winners or losers, just an attempt to follow a line of evolution and separate fact from fiction. In any event what is history but a record of past events which help explain why you are where you are and if you’re willing to learn from history then past mistakes and consequences are less likely to recur – otherwise you’re going to spend your life constantly “reinventing the wheel” (end of lecture!).

For the benefit of those who missed the last thread on this topic, I have taken the liberty of reproducing a combined abridged version of previous posts on the history of the kilt. Whilst these were based on publications by acknowledged world authorities on the history of Scottish and Irish clothing, I am, and we all should be, aware of the dangers of using single source information (eg WMD and Iraq), and accordingly the only information used was that either where the original source was given and could therefore be verified or where there was agreement on conclusions.

There is a great deal of misinformation about the kilt out there. Unfortunately one of the chief pieces of misinformation is that the kilt is a”descendant” of the Irish leine, brought over from Ireland by the Gaels. The leine was a long shirt/tunic/smock type one piece shaped garment, generally made of linen, which reached from the neck to anywhere between mid-thigh and ankle length although widely worn at the shorter length, was put on by pulling over the head, had arm holes/short sleeves/long sleeves, could be straight, full or pleated (pleating had been known for centuries), was often padded or quilted and usually worn with a belt. The brat was simply a mantle or cloak which could be made of any material but most commonly wool, sometimes hooded, worn over the leine. Contrast this with the kilt, which is a long piece of woollen material which is firstly part-pleated and wrapped round the waist then the plaid part is wrapped over the shoulder and the whole ensemble worn as an outer garment, and it becomes difficult to see any connection. There is also unanimous agreement amongst all authoritative writers that it was around the 1500s, and in Scotland only, the woollen belted plaid aka the great kilt first appeared, and it is this garment and not the leine which was the forerunner of the kilt as we know it today.

When the Gaels first came to Scotland they wore firstly the leine and then subsequently the great kilt followed by the little kilt, and there is plenty of documentary evidence, both pictorial and old writings, dating back to pre 1600 which clearly show all three garments were worn about 2-6ins above the knee up to the time of proscription. Before Queen Victoria came to the throne (1837) the kilt and tartans were firmly re-established and pre-Victoria pictures show that the length had settled at about top of kneecap level. During Victoria's reign photographs, a much more accurate method of making pictorial records, began to appear and some of these early photos taken of the royal court, including the faithful John Brown, show kilt wearers with knees clearly on display

With regard to the development of the little kilt, the concensus of expert opinion nowadays is that this was simply the product of gradual evolution from the mid/late 1600s onwards rather than a single “invention” in the early 1700s, brought about by changes in socio-economic conditions and developments in agricultural practices. It tends to be forgotten that the original great kilt was actually formed from 2 pieces of material joined together to make not only an item of clothing but also a blanket for sleeping rough outdoors on the hills, and as social and agricultural changes reduced the need to sleep outdoors so did the need for a portable blanket and correspondingly the need to join the pieces together, eventually resulting in the 2 pieces being worn separately as the little kilt and plaid. There do not appear to be any records indicating when the pleats first became stitched rather than simply gathered and held by a belt, but I understand that the oldest existing example of a stitched kilt, recognisably similar to that worn today, dates back to the late 1700s and is in a Canadian museum.

[Robbie]

So if the little kilt evolved over a period of years across the Highlands, where does this leave the Rawlinson story? There are actually several versions of this, amongst the most common being:-
1) Rawlinson invented the little kilt round about 1725 and compelled his workforce to wear it.
Now, if you’re willing to believe that Rawlinson could force a group of Highland lumberjacks, for that is what they were, to cut their kilts in half simply because he said so then I’m sorry, you are obviously a candidate for membership of the Flat Earth Society – they’d have been far more likely to have cut Rawlinson in half!
2) A passing army tailor noticed Rawlinson and his lumberjacks at work and suggested that separating the great kilt into a kilt/plaid combination would be less cumbersome.
This version is a bit too reliant on a coincidental meeting for my liking, but this time it would be more likely the tailor who got halved!
3) Rawlinson had seen the little kilt worn elsewhere, and persuaded his lumberjacks to adopt it.
A definite possibility, but relies heavily on Rawlinson’s powers of persuasion on getting his lumberjacks to try it on the basis that it was already worn elsewhere without chopping him up! Nevertheless, this version would rightly give Rawlinson the credit for introducing the little kilt to this particular part of the Highlands.
4) The lumberjacks wore the little kilt from the outset, having come from a part of the Highlands where it had already been introduced and were aware of its benefits.
Again a definite possibility. If this was the first instance of the little kilt being worn in this area then it would be quite natural for Ivan Baillie, the author of the letter on which the whole Rawlinson story is based, to write that this was the first instance he had seen it and erroneously ascribe the credit to the man in charge, Rawlinson. It has to be remembered that at the time of writing this letter, he must have been in his 70s (a VERY old man for that period) and writing about something he had seen some 40yrs before.

Which, of course, brings us to the letter from Ivan Baillie, the single source on which the whole Rawlinson story is based. Those who accept it at face value are almost equally divided between versions 3 and 4, the final choice really coming down to one of personal preference as there’s little further evidence one way or the other.

There is, however, a slowly growing group which is beginning to suspect an early attempt at government disinformation, the main question being WHY would a man who would be in his 70s (which was VERY old for that time) suddenly write to a newspaper about something he claims to have seen 40odd years before, and only about 3yrs after the end of Proscription?

The Act of Proscription had actually had the opposite result to that intended and immediately it was ended kilts/tartan became very popular with and widely worn by all classes of Lowlanders (the majority group), whereas before it had been confined to the Highlands and the poor. This new theory suggests that the UK government of the day became worried as it saw this as an upsurge in Scottish nationalism and a possible threat to the Union, and it came up with the plan that a good way to put the Scots off this new widespread interest in kilts would be to get a respectable Scotsman to spread the story that it had been invented by an Englishman! The supporters of this theory like to emphasise that the letter author is always described as “being of good character”, which in those days meant a supporter of the government and the Union – ie “those who are with us are the good guys and those who are against us are the bad guys” – sound familiar???

[Robbie]

I apologise about the length of the previous 2 posts, but hey, if you’re going to write a message write a big one!! In any case, those who are not interested in this subject won’t have read them, and it’ll keep everyone else quiet for a while digesting that little lot!

On the other hand, if I’d written them as a series of 1-2 liners, it would have fairly increased my total posts, although still nowhere near Graham (and now Bubba too)!!

[Alaskan Celt]