![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I updated my profile with some new info.
Here's a chance for more people to get pissed off at me, and decide I'm not worth their time.
Here's a chance for more people to get pissed off at me, and decide I'm not worth their time.
Nov. 9th, 2008
No True Kilt.
Nov. 9th, 2008 03:30 amI like kilts. All sorts of kilts. So I thought I'd take a moment to blog about kilts. I'm posting this strictly because I know there are several people on my friends list who are very opinionated with regard to the kilt, and its "proper" wear. They're usually the ones who ridicule or dismiss modern kilts, such as the increasingly popular "Utilikilt", deriding them as not "real" kilts.
Well they're wrong. Completely and totally wrong. It's all a bunch of modern mythology. There is no "proper" or "right" kilt. There are far too many myths around the kilt. Many of the more skeptical sorts on my friends list might recognize the title of this post as a paraphrase of the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy. That particular fallacy isn't one of the many surrounding the "true kilt" argument; but it sounded funnier than any of the others (yes, I know it's not actually all that funny; but it's the best I could come up with).
Myth: Only traditional Scottish kilts are true kilts.
Truth: Well, first, that depends on what you mean by "traditional". The Scottish tartan kilt that is the most common and well-known example of the kilt; but it doesn't really have the "tradition" that most people think it does. Most people see a medieval northern Celt dressed in a kilt, defying the Saxon and Norman invaders, possibly painted blue with woad as in Braveheart. In fact, the vast majority of what we know as the modern Scottish kilt isn't based on a long-enduring tradition; but on pseudo-traditions manufactured by romantic writers in the 18th and 19th centuries; and later promulgated by commercial garment manufacturers. (And the Scots owe at least as much to the Norse as the Celts for their genetics). And Braveheart contained at least 4 serious historical errors regarding costuming alone (I won't even start on the even more glaring historical errors in the film).
The idea of clan tartans didn't exist until similarly recently; and are equally artificial in origin. The association of a particular pattern of lines, widths, and colours known as a "sett", with a particular extended-tribal family unit known as a clan is purely a modern invention, based on an accidental coorelation. Weavers of the time had access to a limited range of dyes; and due to complexity of the average tartan sett, used a single, or very limited number of patterns and styles. So the range of colours and patterns were very limited, regionally. Similarly, with a sparse population, anyone in a particular region would likely be related to some degree; increasingly closely as the region narrowed. This situation made writers of romances imagine the patterns as signifying membership to a particular clan. A few even went so far as to insist that the spacing and widths of the different colours in a tartan indicated clan rank; something which has no historical support at all. There is no recognized formal organization for allocation and recognization of tartans, as there is with heraldry. There are three informal bodies which currently, or have in the past, maintained a sort of quasi-official status in tartan recognition; but they have no legal authority, and there have been disagreements between them.
The Scottish kilt developed from a crude, all-purpose garment that was commonly worn throughout the northern UK and Ireland in the late Medieval period. It was essentially a long, wide piece of woven wool cloth which served as a cloak during the day, and a blanket at night; and was typically worn over a long linen tunic. After a time, the Scots in particular began wearing it gathered secured with a cord knotted around the waist, and later with a belt. In Scotland, the woven fabric was originally solid, but soon sported checked or simple plaid patterns, eventually devloping the more complex tartan plaid. The sett varied by region, not family, as noted in the paragraph above; and tartan gradually became more popular, due to increasing prosperity allowing more people to afford high quality wool fabrics instead of the more common linen. In Ireland, by contrast, the cloak was typically a solid colour, most commonly brown or saffron.
The crude gathers of the "belted tartan" were refined into regular pleats, and eventually became the the "Great kilt". The wearing of the kilt in Braveheart is anachronistic, since at that point, it hadn't gotten yet beyond the "belted tartan" stage, and was not worn in battle, but was set aside prior to combat. The typical battle dress was the "battle shirt", a short, stiff, tunic made from heavy linen, wool, or leather, and sometimes waterproofed with goose grease.
Myth: Only Scottish kilts are true kilts.
Truth: A kilt is a belted and gathered, wrapped skirt consisting of a single, unjoined piece of fabric. That's it. The Scottish kilt is only one of many different types of kilts (more on that later).
Although originating in Scotland, many other British Isles peoples adopted it. The Irish and Welsh kilts did not evolve as did the Scottish, but were adapted directly from the Scottish kilt. Each region modified it to a greater or lesser degree. The earliest Irish kilts were, like their belted cloaks, solid colours. The oldest Irish army regiment still wears a solid-coloured saffron kilt.
I've even heard some people claim that the Scottish Great kilt is the only true kilt, and the sewn "Wee kilt" or "Little kilt" is not a "true" kilt. Again; that's nonsense. The Little kilt developed very soon after the Great kilt became the common garment in the Highlands. It's original production is thought by many to be of commercial origin; but that is refuted by the fact that handmade wee kilts predate the known origin of the commercial wee kilt by at least a half a century. The sewing together of the pleats that created the Little kilt was most likely the result of army troops needing a quicker way to don their garments.
Myth: The Scots invented the kilt.
Truth: The Scots did invent the tartan kilt. That is fairly well established.
But the Scottish kilt was not the first kilt ever worn. The kilt is, in fact, one of the oldest known garments in world culture. Only the loincloth predates it. There are examples of neolithic art that depict what appear to be kilt-like garments. The oldest known depictions of garments that are clearly kilts go back as far as the third millenium B.C. There are numerous renditions of kilts in art of Egypt, and other parts of North Africa, extending back to Egypt's 18th Dynasty. The Mycenaean Greeks also were depicted wearing kilts; and the primary male garment of the Minoan civilization of Crete was a simple woolen kilt, usually worn alone, with no other clothing except maybe a codpiece or penis sheath (which is often depicted in artwork as protruding through the open front of the kilt). Interestingly, common female garments of the civilizations never included a kilt, even over a tunic, and were sometimes far more elaborate.
There are artistic depictions of garments in other areas which appear to resemble kilts; but which in most cases are probably closer to loincloths.
Myth: There is only one proper way to wear a kilt.
Truth:
I've heard a number of people say that the only "proper" way to wear a kilt is with a full formal "Prince Charlie" coat, shirt, shoes, etd. This is one of my biggest pet peeves regarding kilts. The kilt is not a formal garment. Ahem, let me say that again: The kilt is not a formal garment. It was, and through most of it's history has continued to be, an "everyday", utilitarian, working garment. The Great kilt doubled as a blanket or sleeping bag; and functioned as a cloak as well. The Little kilt was worn in battle more often than in parades prior to World War I. The concept of the formal kilt wasn't even invented until the 19th century.
The various strictures about the length of the cloth used to make a particular kilt, the proper distance above the knee, and various other standard practices are also bunk. The length of cloth used depended on the wealth of the wearer (how much fine wool could he afford?), the size of the wearer, and/or the length of fabric available at the time. Once the Little kilt supplanted the Great kilt in popularity, and mechanically-woven tartan fabrich became more commonly available, kiltmaking became much more standardized. Even so, there was still a lot of variation in style. So much so that modern assertions about the specific features necessary to a "proper" kilt are ahistorical nonsense. Artistic depictions of Great kilts show almost as many different styles of wearing the kilt as there were wearers of it. Lengths varied from well above the knee, to well below it; often changing with the seasons. Extant examples of antique Little kilts vary nearly as widely in construction styles and lengths.
There is also no "proper" material for a kilt, either. In various times and places, various materials have been used, including linen and cotton. Wool has been the most commonly used, and arguably the best, material for a kilt due to it's durability, versatility, ease of production, and, much later, it's ability to hold pleats. Modern cotton duck and twill, as well as several synthetic fabric, are nearly as useful as wool; and in more specialized kilt variants, some fabrics work better than wool.
And that whole "nae trews" hogwash is laughable. Although many of the ancient peoples who wore them did without underwear, they lived much closer to the tropics than the Scots did. The early form of the Great kilt was originally worn over a long tunic, as noted earlier; and under the later forms and the Little kilt, whatever underwear was common for the time was worn. The tradition of wearing the kilt without underwear originated in a few, specific military units, as a demonstration of their hardiness, and later adopted by other wearers who wished to similarly demonstrate their fortitude; which is where the term "going regimental" originates.
A kilt is, again, any gathered, wrapped, open skirt belted about the waist. It's an "everyday" utilitarian garment made from whatever material, and in whatever style, is most available and desired.
Well they're wrong. Completely and totally wrong. It's all a bunch of modern mythology. There is no "proper" or "right" kilt. There are far too many myths around the kilt. Many of the more skeptical sorts on my friends list might recognize the title of this post as a paraphrase of the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy. That particular fallacy isn't one of the many surrounding the "true kilt" argument; but it sounded funnier than any of the others (yes, I know it's not actually all that funny; but it's the best I could come up with).
Myth: Only traditional Scottish kilts are true kilts.
Truth: Well, first, that depends on what you mean by "traditional". The Scottish tartan kilt that is the most common and well-known example of the kilt; but it doesn't really have the "tradition" that most people think it does. Most people see a medieval northern Celt dressed in a kilt, defying the Saxon and Norman invaders, possibly painted blue with woad as in Braveheart. In fact, the vast majority of what we know as the modern Scottish kilt isn't based on a long-enduring tradition; but on pseudo-traditions manufactured by romantic writers in the 18th and 19th centuries; and later promulgated by commercial garment manufacturers. (And the Scots owe at least as much to the Norse as the Celts for their genetics). And Braveheart contained at least 4 serious historical errors regarding costuming alone (I won't even start on the even more glaring historical errors in the film).
The idea of clan tartans didn't exist until similarly recently; and are equally artificial in origin. The association of a particular pattern of lines, widths, and colours known as a "sett", with a particular extended-tribal family unit known as a clan is purely a modern invention, based on an accidental coorelation. Weavers of the time had access to a limited range of dyes; and due to complexity of the average tartan sett, used a single, or very limited number of patterns and styles. So the range of colours and patterns were very limited, regionally. Similarly, with a sparse population, anyone in a particular region would likely be related to some degree; increasingly closely as the region narrowed. This situation made writers of romances imagine the patterns as signifying membership to a particular clan. A few even went so far as to insist that the spacing and widths of the different colours in a tartan indicated clan rank; something which has no historical support at all. There is no recognized formal organization for allocation and recognization of tartans, as there is with heraldry. There are three informal bodies which currently, or have in the past, maintained a sort of quasi-official status in tartan recognition; but they have no legal authority, and there have been disagreements between them.
The Scottish kilt developed from a crude, all-purpose garment that was commonly worn throughout the northern UK and Ireland in the late Medieval period. It was essentially a long, wide piece of woven wool cloth which served as a cloak during the day, and a blanket at night; and was typically worn over a long linen tunic. After a time, the Scots in particular began wearing it gathered secured with a cord knotted around the waist, and later with a belt. In Scotland, the woven fabric was originally solid, but soon sported checked or simple plaid patterns, eventually devloping the more complex tartan plaid. The sett varied by region, not family, as noted in the paragraph above; and tartan gradually became more popular, due to increasing prosperity allowing more people to afford high quality wool fabrics instead of the more common linen. In Ireland, by contrast, the cloak was typically a solid colour, most commonly brown or saffron.
The crude gathers of the "belted tartan" were refined into regular pleats, and eventually became the the "Great kilt". The wearing of the kilt in Braveheart is anachronistic, since at that point, it hadn't gotten yet beyond the "belted tartan" stage, and was not worn in battle, but was set aside prior to combat. The typical battle dress was the "battle shirt", a short, stiff, tunic made from heavy linen, wool, or leather, and sometimes waterproofed with goose grease.
Myth: Only Scottish kilts are true kilts.
Truth: A kilt is a belted and gathered, wrapped skirt consisting of a single, unjoined piece of fabric. That's it. The Scottish kilt is only one of many different types of kilts (more on that later).
Although originating in Scotland, many other British Isles peoples adopted it. The Irish and Welsh kilts did not evolve as did the Scottish, but were adapted directly from the Scottish kilt. Each region modified it to a greater or lesser degree. The earliest Irish kilts were, like their belted cloaks, solid colours. The oldest Irish army regiment still wears a solid-coloured saffron kilt.
I've even heard some people claim that the Scottish Great kilt is the only true kilt, and the sewn "Wee kilt" or "Little kilt" is not a "true" kilt. Again; that's nonsense. The Little kilt developed very soon after the Great kilt became the common garment in the Highlands. It's original production is thought by many to be of commercial origin; but that is refuted by the fact that handmade wee kilts predate the known origin of the commercial wee kilt by at least a half a century. The sewing together of the pleats that created the Little kilt was most likely the result of army troops needing a quicker way to don their garments.
Myth: The Scots invented the kilt.
Truth: The Scots did invent the tartan kilt. That is fairly well established.
But the Scottish kilt was not the first kilt ever worn. The kilt is, in fact, one of the oldest known garments in world culture. Only the loincloth predates it. There are examples of neolithic art that depict what appear to be kilt-like garments. The oldest known depictions of garments that are clearly kilts go back as far as the third millenium B.C. There are numerous renditions of kilts in art of Egypt, and other parts of North Africa, extending back to Egypt's 18th Dynasty. The Mycenaean Greeks also were depicted wearing kilts; and the primary male garment of the Minoan civilization of Crete was a simple woolen kilt, usually worn alone, with no other clothing except maybe a codpiece or penis sheath (which is often depicted in artwork as protruding through the open front of the kilt). Interestingly, common female garments of the civilizations never included a kilt, even over a tunic, and were sometimes far more elaborate.
There are artistic depictions of garments in other areas which appear to resemble kilts; but which in most cases are probably closer to loincloths.
Myth: There is only one proper way to wear a kilt.
Truth:
I've heard a number of people say that the only "proper" way to wear a kilt is with a full formal "Prince Charlie" coat, shirt, shoes, etd. This is one of my biggest pet peeves regarding kilts. The kilt is not a formal garment. Ahem, let me say that again: The kilt is not a formal garment. It was, and through most of it's history has continued to be, an "everyday", utilitarian, working garment. The Great kilt doubled as a blanket or sleeping bag; and functioned as a cloak as well. The Little kilt was worn in battle more often than in parades prior to World War I. The concept of the formal kilt wasn't even invented until the 19th century.
The various strictures about the length of the cloth used to make a particular kilt, the proper distance above the knee, and various other standard practices are also bunk. The length of cloth used depended on the wealth of the wearer (how much fine wool could he afford?), the size of the wearer, and/or the length of fabric available at the time. Once the Little kilt supplanted the Great kilt in popularity, and mechanically-woven tartan fabrich became more commonly available, kiltmaking became much more standardized. Even so, there was still a lot of variation in style. So much so that modern assertions about the specific features necessary to a "proper" kilt are ahistorical nonsense. Artistic depictions of Great kilts show almost as many different styles of wearing the kilt as there were wearers of it. Lengths varied from well above the knee, to well below it; often changing with the seasons. Extant examples of antique Little kilts vary nearly as widely in construction styles and lengths.
There is also no "proper" material for a kilt, either. In various times and places, various materials have been used, including linen and cotton. Wool has been the most commonly used, and arguably the best, material for a kilt due to it's durability, versatility, ease of production, and, much later, it's ability to hold pleats. Modern cotton duck and twill, as well as several synthetic fabric, are nearly as useful as wool; and in more specialized kilt variants, some fabrics work better than wool.
And that whole "nae trews" hogwash is laughable. Although many of the ancient peoples who wore them did without underwear, they lived much closer to the tropics than the Scots did. The early form of the Great kilt was originally worn over a long tunic, as noted earlier; and under the later forms and the Little kilt, whatever underwear was common for the time was worn. The tradition of wearing the kilt without underwear originated in a few, specific military units, as a demonstration of their hardiness, and later adopted by other wearers who wished to similarly demonstrate their fortitude; which is where the term "going regimental" originates.
A kilt is, again, any gathered, wrapped, open skirt belted about the waist. It's an "everyday" utilitarian garment made from whatever material, and in whatever style, is most available and desired.