Originally Posted by
figheadair
there is no evidence to support it
It's just a general principle: if two things are too closely related to be coincidence one can assume that one was derived from the other. If there is no evidence one way or the other as to which was the original and which was the derived, then the one that can be established at an earlier date has the weight of evidence, slim as it is, on its side.
A written mention of the name "MacDonald" in 1780 certainly suggests the pattern we call "MacDonald" but doesn't prove it, if I can split hairs, unless there's a sample attached. As I recall- correct me if I'm wrong- some of the designations of tartans switch about in the early Wilson pattern books.
Proud Mountaineer from the Highlands of West Virginia; son of the Revolution and Civil War; first Europeans on the Guyandotte
Bookmarks