There was a story published today in the UK Telegraph that referenced a newly published book by a prominent English historian. In it he states that the kilt was invented by an Englishman, and Scottish history is riddled with "myth and falsehood".
For a link to the story go here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1982040/Kilts-invented-by-English-in-Lord-Dacre's-book.html?source=rss
The full text of the article is below:
Kilts invented by English in Lord Dacre's book
By Simon Johnson, Scottish Political Correspondent
Last Updated: 7:22PM BST 18/05/2008
Kilts were invented by an Englishman, according to an eminent historian who claims Scots history is riddled with "myth and falsehood".
Men wearing kilts
JAMES FRASER
Lord Dacre claims that the 'myth' of the ancient kilt was perpetuated by historians to provide an identifiable symbol for Scots
The last book written by the late Lord Dacre of Glanton also states that the Declaration of Arbroath, which confirmed Scotland's independence in 1320, is plagued with inaccuracies and details of "imaginary" kings.
He argues that Scotland's literary, cultural and political traditions, which are claimed to date back from Roman times, were largely invented in the 18th century.
The book, titled The Invention of Scotland: Myth and History, is to be published at the end of this month, five years after Lord Dacre died of cancer.
Article continues
advertisement
Its controversial findings debunk many of the cultural arguments for Scottish independence, and are likely to fuel the current heated political debate over the country's constitutional future.
Lord Dacre, formerly Hugh Trevor-Roper, concludes in the book: "In Scotland, it seems to me, myth has played a far more important part in history than it has in England.
"Indeed, I believe the whole history of Scotland has been coloured by myth; and that myth, in Scotland, is never driven out by reality, or by reason, but lingers on until another myth has been discovered to replace it."
He claims that the "myth" of the ancient Highland dress was perpetuated by historians to provide a symbol by which Scots could be universally identified, as well as to support the country's textile industry.
The traditional dress of the Highlanders was in fact a long Irish shirt and a cloak or plaid, he states, and only the higher classes had woven in stripes and colours creating tartan.
"The kilt's appearance can, in fact, be dated within a few years," he reveals in the book.
"For it did not evolve, it was invented. Its inventor was an English Quaker from Lancashire, Thomas Rawlinson."
He claims Mr Rawlinson decided to shorten belted plaids after workmen in the Highlands, where he was staying, said they were uncomfortable.
Scots are also accused in the book of fabricating their own literary tradition, culminating in the publication of The Works of Ossian.
These have been claimed to have been translated from ancient sources in Gaelic about the lives of Celtic heroes.
But historians have long suspected them of being a figment of the imagination of James Macpherson, the 18th-century Scottish poet who claimed to have translated them.
Lord Dacre also declares that when the Scots were looking for a writer and poet to rival Shakespeare following the Act of Union in 1707, they found nothing.
This led to ancient writings being forged and passed off as Scottish literature.
He concludes: "It was natural that Scots, seeking compensation for the end of their independent history and politics, should turn to discover and appreciate their native literature.
"Unfortunately when they looked for it, they could not find it. There was none."
Lord Dacre was one of the world's most respected historians prior to his death, and was professor of Modern History at Oxford University for 23 years.
But his reputation was damaged when he claimed that forged diaries, purportedly written by Adolf Hitler and serialised in the Sunday Times, were authentic.
Michael Fry, an eminent Scottish historian, claimed Lord Dacre was not "a very reliable guide to Scottish history", Tartan was worn in the Middle Ages and his claims about the kilt "prove absolutely nothing."
"Lots of things emerge in history and just because we can't pin down their origins it doesn't follow from that everything about it is phoney," Mr Fry said.
"There is a distinguished school of medieval Scottish literature, and poetry in something that is recognisably Scots was being written in the 14th century."
Except for the English invention claim, I'm afraid I don't see anything really new there in regard to kilts. For twenty years my old Scottish group has been teaching people that the modern kilt appears to date from the 1700's, -as opposed to the "belted plaid" sometimes called a "great kilt" which goes back to the late 1500's or early 1600's. And it's well known by scholars that tartans were not really assigned to specific clans until relatively modern times.
Just the same old hot air. Nothing new!
The English have always claimed that the only real history in the British Isles was English. They don't even like to admit that the Duke of Wellington was Irish.
This article is filled with quite a bit of sensationalism and falsehood, but there are some grains of truth in it. Rawlinson did introduce the tailored kilt to his factory workers. However we don't know if this was anything more than just the phillabeag that Scottish were already wearing or if it was truly a sewn garment. It was part of a natural progression, however, and not a completely new garment. The earliest visual evidence of a great kilt we have is a 1635 portrait of Sir Duncan Campbell of Lochow. Prior to that there are descriptions by visitors to the region of a garment that could be a great kilt but is most likely a simple plaid. These great kilts increased in popularity up until Scottish culture was outlawed.
I would highly recommend anyone interested in the subject pick up a copy of Matt Newsome's excellent book/pamphlet on early highland dress (http://albanach.org/ehd.htm).
Following the logic in the agrument about kilts then it can equal be said that pants were invented in the late 19th century by the American Elias Howe. After all we know pants have zippers and it wasn't till 1851 that Howe invented the first zipper so no one worn pants before the late 19th century. All clothing evolves and can be traced back centures kilts, pants, shirts dress they all started out different. Socks were at one time just tubes open at both ends very different from what we think of socks today. But people still worn socks all the same.
If I was more into conspiracy theory I'd say this is just one more example of the English trying to wip out all traces of Welsh, Scottish, and Irish culture from the Islands, like they have been doing for a 1000 years.
http://albanach.org/generations.html
I was always under the impression that after Queen Victoria & Prince Albert lifted the Act of Proscription 1747 ban, English tailors were responsible for the "renovations" to highland dress which resulted in today's modern kilts.
As I said, that's just my interpretation. I don't know how accurate or true it is.
He argues that Scotland's literary, cultural and political traditions, which are claimed to date back from Roman times, were largely invented in the 18th century
So basically he is saying that kilts are actually invented by the Italians. Being half Italian I might find that helpful when my full blooded italian mother says "Italians don't wear kilts!"
That's bull, if anyone besides the Celts or Scots should be credited with inventing the kilt it's the Romans. I mean for the most part they wore tunics, and leather skirts, I can't remember the technical term for this type of armor/garb, but it's like a kilt but made up of several tassets of leather that hang down from a belt. And one day they decided let's wear something lighter and more comfortable not just for battle. And I think that's where they came up with the idea for the kilt. That guy is wrong.
I mean if I sounded mad on the last post, Well, sort of. I have nothing against the English, but this guy just thought he could rewrite history without looking at the facts. And trying to leave out the fact that The Scots and Celts were the most oppressed people by the Romans because they didn't readily convert to the Roman pagan religions/cults nor Christianity right away when Rome had converted, but the English did right away. And so it was with their clothing they wore the kilt based on Roman skirts which basically was forced upon them. In actuality, I think the Celts and Scots wore leggings/pants before kilts because even the Gauls and Germanic tribes wore pants. At a time when the Romans and Greeks still wore the long robes and skirts with tunics. So the kilt became a garment which conformed to the Roman style, when they conqured England and Scotland and parts of Ireland. but had it's own style be having a tartan dyed into it.
Quote from: Rakish Rogue on May 27, 2008, 08:35:19 AM
I was always under the impression that after Queen Victoria & Prince Albert lifted the Act of Proscription 1747 ban, English tailors were responsible for the "renovations" to highland dress which resulted in today's modern kilts.
As I said, that's just my interpretation. I don't know how accurate or true it is.
The English recruited many highlanders to fight in North American in the six year war better known in America as the French-Indian wars. One of the reason so many Highlanders signed up to fight was that it was the one way they legally could wear kilts and carry highland weapons. Many Letters from Highlanders and in many of their diaries they talk about cutting down their kilts into small kilts. These were very close to our modern kilts lacking only the sewing of the pleats in and buckles. In fact in 1758 the 77th Foot allowed all soldiers to wear the short plaid for day to day wear and that the full plaid was only worn for Parade and other dress functions only.
So there is at least very strong evidence that the modern Kilt was created by Highlanders and it was done in North American by Highland private soldiers serving in the British Army.
Which makes the modern Kilt as much American as Scottish.
I recommend reading Highlander in the French-Indian War 1756–67 from Osprey Publishing. Osprey also have several other books which give good information on Scotland and the wars with the English as well as a very good set of books cover the Tudor age and Henry VIII in particular.
Quote from: Rakish Rogue on May 27, 2008, 08:35:19 AM
I was always under the impression that after Queen Victoria & Prince Albert lifted the Act of Proscription 1747 ban, English tailors were responsible for the "renovations" to highland dress which resulted in today's modern kilts.
As I said, that's just my interpretation. I don't know how accurate or true it is.
The Proscription Act banning the wearing of "<i>Highland clothes (that is to say) the Plaid, Philabeg, or little kilt, Trowes, Shoulder-Belts,</i>" was repealed in 1782 well before Victoria's time
http://www.highlandnet.com/info/culture/prosact.html
Quote from: SirRichardBear on June 13, 2008, 09:26:32 AM
Quote from: Rakish Rogue on May 27, 2008, 08:35:19 AM
I was always under the impression that after Queen Victoria & Prince Albert lifted the Act of Proscription 1747 ban, English tailors were responsible for the "renovations" to highland dress which resulted in today's modern kilts.
As I said, that's just my interpretation. I don't know how accurate or true it is.
Many Letters from
So there is at least very strong evidence that the modern Kilt was created by Highlanders and it was done in North American by Highland private soldiers serving in the British Army.
Which makes the modern Kilt as much American as Scottish.
I am all for non scots like yourselves wearing the kilt. But my patience is really starting to wear thin.
First of all the short kilt has been depicted in many paintings and the works of lowland historians well before the highland regiments venture into the americas. Seond of all if there is evidence of cutting down kilts in america by scottish highlanders that does NOT make it american, it was the scots who modified there OWN form of dress, where they did it is irrelevant.altering their own equipment in a foreing land. If an american solider altered his uniform in iraq would that make his uniform iraqi, of course not.
I get angry when I read of ridiculous claims to the kilt by the welsh, cornish, and even the austrians. The kilts is scottish and you are welcome to wear it. But do not try and extend ridiculous claims like it belongs to america beause it certainly does not.
If you want to wear the kilt do so, stop making claims to the kilt in order to justify yourselfs wearing it, because you do not need to. Anyone should wear the kilt, wether they are american, german, english, french etc.
....On another note, may I please add that the celts never wore kilts, they did not invent kilts, and there is absolutely no historical evidence that they ever wore kilts. The celts were widely doumented as wearing trousers, which was unusual at the time given even the romans wore tunics. The kilt which is unique and very seperate from tunics et. was developed in the 16th century by the scottish highlanders.
the short kilt was developed by the british army, and not thomas rawlison (which itself was a rumour based on hearsay).
Thank you
Quote from: Seanfromscotland on June 16, 2008, 06:16:58 AM
....On another note, may I please add that the celts never wore kilts, they did not invent kilts, and there is absolutely no historical evidence that they ever wore kilts. The celts were widely doumented as wearing trousers, which was unusual at the time given even the romans wore tunics.
That's a whole 'nuther discussion that unfortunately got lost when this forum was rebuilt after the recent cyber attack Although today most people think of "Celts" as the Irish and Scottish, they forget that the true Celts were an ancient people who at one time controlled much of northern Europe.
Yes, the celts were a language and cultural group that originated in what is now modern day germany/austria/switzerland.
People regard the scots and irish as modern celts, which is made up fantasy. The scot and irish are NOT celtic and they have not been celtic for nearly 1200 years. The elts for some reaosn are considered as a racial group which is so far wrong that it flabbergasts me. The scots are not even a racial group themselves. I have never described my self as celtic and I would not describe scotland or ireland or any other nation for that matter as a celtic nation. A lot of people would have you believe that the ancient celts listened to fiddle music, drank guiness and wore kiss me im irsh badges.
Clling the scots or irish celts in the 21st century is like calling the germans goths or the itlaians romans.
Please keep this discussion on topic.
Thank you.
Quote from: Seanfromscotland on June 16, 2008, 06:16:58 AM
If you want to wear the kilt do so, stop making claims to the kilt in order to justify yourselfs wearing it, because you do not need to. Anyone should wear the kilt, wether they are american, german, english, french etc. Thank you
Seanfromscotland Sorry you are so thin skin. I wear the kilt because I want to and because I have ancestors from Scotland. I don't need to justify it to you or anyone else and never do.
My point was that the kilt and the small kilt were worn by Scotish Highlanders and not invented by the English. That while serving in America they were known to wear both and made a point in orders, letters, and diaries that they often cut down thier kilts into small kilt. Given the old history of Scot's serving in America since the early colonial period and many of the founding bothers being from Scotland the kilt is very American. After all Scotish lowlanders didn't wear the kilt yet you still say the kilt is Scottish.
And if a soldier majorly changed his uninform it would be known as xy version. For example the China Marine uninform was different than the standard Marine uniform of the period and was known as such.
Indeed.
Scottish Americans are very proud of their ancestral heritage.
Doning the kilt or arisaidh is our way of identifying with that most American and Scottish proclomation, "I'm Freeeeeee"
And it certainly is a great display of American love of Scotland and it's peoples worldwide.
:-*
A rose by any name would not smell as sweet eh?
My, I don't recognise the name, Seanfromscotland, but indeed I do recognise the tone ...
Shame we can't keep our comments on subject lest we take others to task. Your concerns about your heritage may be well founded cousin, but you lack of concern for the heritage of others in insulting. If I may, please exercise tact for you have not walked a mile in their shoes.
Quote from: Seanfromscotland on June 16, 2008, 06:16:58 AM
I get angry when I read of ridiculous claims to the kilt by the welsh, cornish, and even the austrians.
That's right! I forgot there was someone recently claiming an
Austrian >:( origin for the kilt. ( http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1069623/posts )
The silly claim was just based on the fact that they found some tartan-patterned fabric in Austria that was older than any previously found in Europe. Sorry, but there's more to a kilt than checquered cloth.
Tartan is a combination of weave and plaid you need both. After all a Italian table cloth is plaid but isn't tartan.
Many culture used the tartan weave and had plaid cloth, many used the material in clothing. Just as many cultures from the middle east to the Pacific Island men wear single clothing. But it was in the Highland of Scotland that they were put togeather in a certain fashion to make the kilt. Just as today Americans are adding back pockets and cargo pockets etc making a distinctive American version of the kilt.
Quote from: SirRichardBear on June 16, 2008, 09:18:36 AM
Quote from: Seanfromscotland on June 16, 2008, 06:16:58 AM
If you want to wear the kilt do so, stop making claims to the kilt in order to justify yourselfs wearing it, because you do not need to. Anyone should wear the kilt, wether they are american, german, english, french etc. Thank you
Seanfromscotland Sorry you are so thin skin. I wear the kilt because I want to and because I have ancestors from Scotland. I don't need to justify it to you or anyone else and never do.
My point was that the kilt and the small kilt were worn by Scotish Highlanders and not invented by the English. That while serving in America they were known to wear both and made a point in orders, letters, and diaries that they often cut down thier kilts into small kilt. Given the old history of Scot's serving in America since the early colonial period and many of the founding bothers being from Scotland the kilt is very American. After all Scotish lowlanders didn't wear the kilt yet you still say the kilt is Scottish.
And if a soldier majorly changed his uninform it would be known as xy version. For example the China Marine uninform was different than the standard Marine uniform of the period and was known as such.
I never asked for you to justify yourself wearing the kilt. I am open to anyone wearing scotlands national dress.
The kilt is NOT american, the kilt has nothing to do with america. The kilted regiments fought with the british army extensivly all over the world. By your logic that would make it the kilt belgian (waterloo), indian (colonial india), african (colonial africa: south africa etc.).
How can you say that the kilt is american just because some of the founding fathers had scots ancestry, or that the kilt is amerian merely because the scots fought in america. Your statement is absurd and ridiculous. And frankly it is these obnoxious kinds of statements that make scots loathe some of the american contingant with scots ancestry.
and for the record I have never registered to this forum, you may check my i.p address.
amerians are welcome to learn about scottish culture, however it is scottish culture that is what I live in and breathe in everday. It is not american culture it is scottish culture.
Seanfromscotland, please do not take this discussion off topic again. You have been warned twice. Please read the Forum Guidelines concerning Trolling and Arguing.
Well, let me say this. SeanfromScotland is correct in his statement that the kilt is a truly Scottish garment. And just because the type of garment was worn by American and British troops around the world during their campaigns, it doesn't make it an American,Indian,African, or Middle Eastern garment.
I for instance am of Polish, Dutch, and Hungarian descent. So I could wear a kilt, but I can't claim. Yeah, I'm wearing a Polish kilt." That'd make me an idiot because evryone knows kilts are and were invented by the Scots, and no matter where you are in the world it doesn't make it that nation's kilt. To sum things up there are no American kilts. Kilts were invented by the Scots after long rule by the Romans whom liked the functionality of the kilt, and the English always tried to outlaw the wearing of the kilt, until they started to bend the rules a bit, then kilts were popular again and the rest is history.
And thanks to SirRichardBear for clearing up the whole Tartan/Plaid relation. I always wondered what the difference was.
So go on and wear a kilt remember it was invented by the Scots, and many men wore them around the world during their adventures.
Quote from: Poldugarian Warrior on July 03, 2008, 08:08:13 AMThat'd make me an idiot because evryone knows kilts are and were invented by the Scots, and no matter where you are in the world it doesn't make it that nation's kilt. To sum things up there are no American kilts.
To muddy the waters and play Devil's Advocate however... ::)
I would call the Utilitkilt (and some of it's copiers) an "American Kilt", but then again, it is a non-traditional, non-tartan "neo-kilt." ;D
-there are also some official "American" tartans.
Several U.S. states have adopted their own official tartans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_tartans.
http://www.scottish-wedding-dreams.com/american-state-setts.html
Minnesota's was approved by our state senate in 2002. There was even a (rather homely) red white and blue American Bicentennial tartan.
One nice thing about these is that they are relatively new option for people who want a kilt, but don't want to wear a tartan that's not connected with their family. (-Not that anyone actually regulates that)
Don't forget than the US military have their own Tartans.
Oh that's right... practically everyone has a tartan these days.
I tend to think of kilts somewhat like jeans. Blue Jeans were invented in America and in the 1950's and 1960's something of an American cultural uniform. Now days they are worn around the world and other cultures have made major changes to them. So while they were invented in America they are no longer just American garments. I think of the Kilt as the same invented in Scotland but they are not longer just Scottish garments.
I think that's a very good way to put it!
Speaking of Tartans and sur names being connected to them. Do any of you remember when Mike Meyers of Saturday Night Live fame would play a Scotsman running a store that sold nothing but Scottish made items, and a woman came in asking to purchase a Tartan for a Polish sur name/last name. That was quite funny. "And if it ain't Scottish it's crap." was his tag line. I just find it sort of silly to hi-jack another cultures customs to fit your own. I mean another cultures customs are great, sometimes, but they should be left as an identifier to that culture when too many customs in different cultures are assimilated the pure true originality of that custom gets lost in translation. So bottom line kilt is a great garment, but always remember the culture it came from.
America has been hi-jacking other cultures for two centuries. Hi-jacking other cultures is American culture. Think pizza, Tex-Mex, country and western music, Anime, You name it Ameirca has taken to changed some things around and made it part of our own.
True, right on. Alot of things we think as American are modified versions of things from other cultures. And again there are some things truly American.
Remember, when you get right down to it, America is nothing but the melting pot of other cultures. Other cultures are it's culture. :)
Come to think of it our nation is actually named after an Italian cartographer. And it's this melding of all cultures that make it great. But, let us never forget the origin of our greatest that is due in the large part to the diverse cultures we have in this land. Huzzah! To all nationalities that have built this country and continue to contribute to its greatness.
some of these arguments I'm seeing here are on quite a stretch and I swear, some of the oposing veiws might be right but some of the reasoning is wrong. <heres where teh rant kicks in> l ike the argument of "just because it was made by a nationality group that happened to be in a diffrent location, dosn't mean that the item belongs to that location" bunk I tell you, atleast where an imigrant society is concerned atleast. if that argument was true, then there would be no American inventions. Lets face it, just about every major creation that happened in the US was made by an imigrant who brought something from their homeland and modified it to work over here, or by their kids.
Yes, the kilt existed before the Scotsmen had come over here. and I'm not going to claim that modern kilts were 1st made hhere, BUT, if they had created a new garment, then that new garment would distinctively be an American style. same as the modern axe. Axes that ballence the weight over the handle were first created in New England. No one would ever claim the axe is an American invention, but we left our mark on it and turned it a compleatly diffent item.
/end rant
oh, that anime thing, yeah, not an American creation, American inspired yes, but not created. when western comics started showing up in Japan, the Illistrators took the layouts and styles adn filled it in with the traditional ilistration styles.
back on topic though... Really folks, why do people get so bent out of shape trying to figure out who created what and who does it belong to when you can look at a wider range of cultures over a long range of time and find that people moved around ALOT and NOTHING belonged to any one group of people?