The wearing of Sgian Dughs

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

That doesn't really stack up. The first known example of a sgian dubh is in the c1820 portrait of Alasdair MacDonnel of Glengarry. The origins of the sgian dubh may have its roots during the Proscription period when weapons were forbidden. In this case dubh has nothing to do with being black in colour as often translated but rather the fact that the knife was secreted or hidden. Similarly, a poit dhubh was the term for an illegal still.

In the portrait of Glengarry (by Sir Henry Raeburn) he's holding a hunting rifle, so presumably the sgian dubh is worn as a hunting accessory. The term "dubh" doesn't refer to the colour of the handle-- in most early pieces the handles are ordinary wood, or bits of antler. Rather "dubh" refers to the staining on the blade-- the result of the rather indifferent care to which these "tools of the trade" were subjected.

If one were to base their supposition on pictorial evidence that the sgian dubh was carried by soldiers then they would have to look long and hard for a picture or photograph of soldiers-- other than bandsmen or officers-- with sgians dubh tucked into their hose tops to support that theory.

On the other hand, if one looks at the literally hundreds of pictures and photographs of deer stalking in the Highlands, the sgian dubh becomes instantly ubiquitous as it it seen in almost every hose top, ghillie and gentleman alike.

Romantic notions about the armed Highlander are just that-- romantic notions-- when it comes to the role of the sgian dubh in Scottish history.

[Lallans]

It is one of those topics that keeps popping up regularly. I never quite know how to look at it when that happens. On the one hand there are "newbies" who weren't around for the previous discussions and who legitimately need to ask or express their opinions...on the other there is the possibility that the "newbies" could use the SEARCH function to see if the topic has been discussed before. I just figger that it's an inevitability that the sghian dhub thing, the underwear thing, the white hose thing and several others will just keep popping up from time to time. Don't forget that threads that were many months old have been closed with the recent overhaul of the forum due to new management...and so it goes.

Best

AA

So Lads, the fact that this got bashed around before settled the matter? Could any of you point out to me the exact point in the old string at which that occurred?

[auld argonian]

So Lads, the fact that this got bashed around before settled the matter? Could any of you point out to me the exact point in the old string at which that occurred?

Well, I guess that it will always be - and should remain - an open ended discussion. I think that there will always be new people coming to the discussion with different perspectives and that they should have the opportunity to express their opinions. I was thinking that when I posted but I guess that I didn't express it well enough.

Best

AA

[Lallans]

Peace out Auld Argonian!

[OC Richard]

I'd say that the second contradicts the first. What matters, music or appearance?

(Just an observation, not a personal criticism.)

Perhaps... appearance certainly matters, and top pipe bands are very finicky about getting all their kit sorted out, especially now that the Grade One at the World Pipe Band Championships are filmed every year and there are loads of closeup shots that reveal any irregularities.

But being concerned about appearance doesn't mean that these bands favour a load of extra ornamental accessories, just the reverse, the current aesthetic being simplicity.

In other words, the fact that they want their kit to be uniform doesn't mean that they want extra kit. The less kit there is, the less there is to worry about getting sorted out.

If they're only interested in the music, why bother? Because competition bands are all about the competition, and it's widely felt that a bands appearance has an effect on how the judges perceive a band's overall professionalism and currency.