Thought provoking questions

[Kevin Murphy]

I am going to say what I have to say with a few questions and a couple statements that are in my mind.

What time does the kilt come from?
When did the plantation of Ulster begin?
Is it likely or did it evidently disrupt a centuries old connection between Highlanders and Native Irish for example in even furtherly than before changed linguistics, trade routes, migrations across the channel, etc.
What do you get when two groups of people are isolated from eachother?
Did the Native Irish and Highlanders wear a similar clothing before the kilt?
Did the kilt evolve from said garment?

Really think about all that for a moment before going further.





From what I understand lowlanders once despised the Highlanders and referred to them as wild Irish. They did not wear the same clothing of the Highlanders. I believe that the location of Ulster itself along with the water between Scotland and Ireland were seen as a road as opposed to a barrier in older times. Traveling by water was often preferred to land. If lowlanders and English or border people's were indeed a large majority of the people planted in Ulster, then they created a buffer zone and disrupted a lot of trade routes between two people who shared a culture. I believe it is likely that the kilt through trade would very likely have been absorbed by the Native Irish for the practicality and similarities between itself and the garments they were already familiar with. We are talking about two groups with a common culture who traded many ideas with one another and exchanged goods for centuries.

Nations are a very modern concept and distort the reality that exists within and outside the confinements established by said borders. That being said the kilt being a Scottish garment is in many ways an inaccurate statement. While time changes things the kilt was at a point a Highland garment. Native American clothings are not something of all the United States and are different from tribe to tribe or regional basis. I think it is incredibly ignorant and shameful when people are offended by Irish wearing a kilt. It is not only an exclusive attitude, but it is in many ways like renouncing a family member because he or she didn't wear something first. Same reason I can't stand hipsters.

In any case, if someone inspires people to wear kilts, they are playing a role in keeping the tradition alive. I may get crucified for saying this, but I personally don't like utilikilts because the front apron looks like skirts made tgat adjust for pregnant women. People are free to do as they want but I am free to my thoughts. Just like when people get tattoos behind their ears... They just don't know

[OC Richard]

Yes there seems to have been at one time a shared Gaelic language and costume.

Though there seems to have been plenty of contact between Ireland and the Highlands, nevertheless there was enough separation for the speech of the two areas to diverge enough to end up being separate languages.

The fashion or habit of wrapping the mantle (brat) around the waist evidently only occurred in the Highlands, and evidently after the native Gaelic costume had been extinguished in Ireland. Otherwise one would expect the philabeg to show up in pre-Invasion Irish dress; it does not. So one would be on pretty firm ground stating that the philabeg is a specifically Highland development.

The same thing happened with musical instruments: the big pipes evolved to their modern form in Scotland long after the instrument had become extinct in Ireland. (The exact appearance, construction, and musical capabilities of the old Irish warpipe are unknown.)

So, while it's true that an earlier form of Gaelic language, and costume, and pipes, was shared between the Highlands and Ireland, the traditional Highland language, dress, and pipes which have come down to us are uniquely Scottish.

About the Highland pipes, my pet theory (the evidence for which is both technical and boring) is that the Highland pipes are a Gaelic-Scandinavian hybrid. In pictures, it's simple:

this



plus this



resulted in this

[Steve Ashton]

And you must remember that at times the language and culture and custom of the outer islands was distinctly different from the Highlands. Some histories would say that they are very different.
Some say that those on the islands were, at times, closer in language and custom to the Irish than to those across the water in the highlands.

On the topic of what was worn before the kilt may I suggest the book "Before the kilt: How the Irish and Scots dressed in the 16th century" by Gerald A. John Kelly ISBN 1466219785.

[The Q]

The plantation of Ireland began roughly About 1541 under King Henry VIII of England Wales Ireland and France. But it should be remembered that the Normans invaded Ireland in 1169 and believed it was theirs certainly since 1177. That being so any aristocrat in Ireland England or Wales, who upset the King could lose their land if not just their heads. A new Lord would be allocated the land and how much the population changed would be entirely up to him.

The early settlers were catholic as was everyone at the time, and the early plantations were mostly in what is now southern ireland and not entirely successful. Note the The Catholic Queen Mary continued those plantations it was seen as a method to stop trouble makers.
It was not until King James VI / I, who took the English, Welsh and Irish throne in 1603, that lowland Scots Presbyterians (to the exclusion of the Gaels) were moved in numbers to the Six Counties that now form Ulster from 1606.

As for the despising of the Gaels, even today there is micky taking between the two populations of Scotland. It is only in the last 100 years that has reduced from despising and mostly in the last 50.
When the Gaels only spoke Gaelic, both the Scots and English were seen as Sassanach (Saxons) there are few Gaelic only speakers left. Many Gaels still do refer to Scots as Sassanach but this is greatly reducing with the rise of Scottish (not Scots) nationalism.

[Kevin Murphy]

Yes there seems to have been at one time a shared Gaelic language and costume.

Though there seems to have been plenty of contact between Ireland and the Highlands, nevertheless there was enough separation for the speech of the two areas to diverge enough to end up being separate languages.

The fashion or habit of wrapping the mantle (brat) around the waist evidently only occurred in the Highlands, and evidently after the native Gaelic costume had been extinguished in Ireland. Otherwise one would expect the philabeg to show up in pre-Invasion Irish dress; it does not. So one would be on pretty firm ground stating that the philabeg is a specifically Highland development.

The same thing happened with musical instruments: the big pipes evolved to their modern form in Scotland long after the instrument had become extinct in Ireland. (The exact appearance, construction, and musical capabilities of the old Irish warpipe are unknown.)

So, while it's true that an earlier form of Gaelic language, and costume, and pipes, was shared between the Highlands and Ireland, the traditional Highland language, dress, and pipes which have come down to us are uniquely Scottish.

Unless we are assuming that there is absolutely no possibility that such evidence could have been destroyed over the centuries of cultual conflict
Languages don't take very long to separate near or far. Even Gaelic itself separates by the province, sometimes by County.

[The Q]

Unless we are assuming that there is absolutely no possibility that such evidence could have been destroyed over the centuries of cultual conflict
Languages don't take very long to separate near or far. Even Gaelic itself separates by the province, sometimes by County.

or in the Hebridies Island to Island, though this is greatly reducing with Standardised Gaelic teaching is schools and the Standard Gaelic radio and TV. Just like English in the UK is gradually becoming one, due to School, radio and TV different accents are slowly reducing and modifying what the children hear.

[OC Richard]

Unless we are assuming that there is absolutely no possibility that such evidence could have been destroyed

There are two sides to this:

1) "The absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence."

2) the "space aliens" analogy: there's the same amount of evidence for pre-modern Irish kilts as there is for Space Aliens living in pre-modern Ireland (that is, zero).

There are a number of old images showing the traditional dress in pre-modern Ireland and pre-modern Gaelic Scotland; they consistently show a different sort of dress in each place. People are free to create theories which go against this evidence but such theories won't be taken seriously by the vast majority of sober historians and researchers.

About the varieties of Gaelic, yes in pre-modern times people tended to communicate less with outsiders than they do today, and all languages varied greatly from place to place. This is exactly the sort of observation that supports the notion that customs of dress, too, would vary from place to place.

[freep]

Yes there seems to have been at one time a shared Gaelic language and costume.

Though there seems to have been plenty of contact between Ireland and the Highlands, nevertheless there was enough separation for the speech of the two areas to diverge enough to end up being separate languages.

The fashion or habit of wrapping the mantle (brat) around the waist evidently only occurred in the Highlands, and evidently after the native Gaelic costume had been extinguished in Ireland. Otherwise one would expect the philabeg to show up in pre-Invasion Irish dress; it does not. So one would be on pretty firm ground stating that the philabeg is a specifically Highland development.

The same thing happened with musical instruments: the big pipes evolved to their modern form in Scotland long after the instrument had become extinct in Ireland. (The exact appearance, construction, and musical capabilities of the old Irish warpipe are unknown.)

So, while it's true that an earlier form of Gaelic language, and costume, and pipes, was shared between the Highlands and Ireland, the traditional Highland language, dress, and pipes which have come down to us are uniquely Scottish.

About the Highland pipes, my pet theory (the evidence for which is both technical and boring) is that the Highland pipes are a Gaelic-Scandinavian hybrid. In pictures, it's simple:

this



plus this



resulted in this

Out of curiosity, where do hornpipes (pibgorn) and Welsh pipes fit into this theory?

[OC Richard]

They don't, really, having a somewhat separate history it seems.

Hornpipes or stock-in-horns or what have you exist in the Balkans and the Near East and are closely related to the primitive bagpipes found in those areas. You could use the same instrument and mouth-blow it (using circular breathing) or tie it into a bag; it would sound the same either way.

They usually have two lengths of cane with holes burnt in them stuck into a "yoke" which is a U-shaped carved wood holder which supports and protects the fragile cane tubes. Each cane tube has a single reed at the top (like a Highland drone reed).

They usually have a big cow-horn at the bottom which seems to be as much about look as function, and oftentimes a horn at the top too.

Somehow these things travelled to the West and were played in England and Scotland as "hornpipes". The Western ones have a turned-wood chanter part but still have a single reed and horns at top and bottom, so it seems clear that they are related to the Eastern ones. I've heard it said that Scottish practice chanters are more closely related to hornpipes than to bagpipes. Hmmm.

There's one of these Eastern hornpipes/bagpipes in a Welsh museum. It's identical to those and seems to having nothing to do with Welsh, Celtic, or Western instruments AFAIK.

About my theory that the Highland pipes are a Danish-Gaelic hybrid, beyond the fact that half the Highland Clans have Norse heritage (or so I'e read) there's the fact that the Highland pipes are an outlier in British Isles pipes in two ways:

1) they have drones in separate stocks

2) they have a redundant drone

Neither of which occurs in any other British Isles bagpipes that we know of.

Many early Highland pipes had only two tenors, like the Danish pipes. Redundant drones are extremely uncommon, perhaps unique only to Danish and Highland pipes. Note that early Highland pipes often had the tenors in a common stock.

The ancient Gaelic bagpipe (so-called Irish Warpipe) seems to be one of a large family of fairly similar Western pipes found in France, Belgium, the Netherlands, etc many of which have a bass and baritone drone in a common stock like the Irish Warpipe appears to have.

[Mike_Oettle]

Richard, I have a question for you: since at least the 19th century, the Great Highland Pipes have been made of blackwood and ivory. The Great War Pipes used by Irish bands since the late 19th century are virtually indistinguishable.
Since both blackwood and ivory are products of West Africa, what were the Highland pipes made of in earlier times?

Now two more points not necessarily aimed at Richard:
And reflecting on Scottish national costume (as opposed to Highland/Island costume) it is interesting to me that the Lowland regiments first wore tartan in the form of trews (seen as an innovation, yet as incorporating tartan as a national dress), yet now seem to have completely accepted wearing kilts (sometimes as an alternative to trews).
So in that respect the Lowlanders have adopted a custom of Gaelic origin. Yet the traditional Lowland bonnet (or at least that worn in Robbie Burns’s day) is not too different from the bonnets worn by Highlanders.

Lastly, while the Ulster settlements under James VI and I were mostly of Lowland Presbyterians, it is interesting that the Ulster tartan that was dug out of a bog a few decades back originated in Scotland. Would it have been taken to Ulster by a Lowlander, or perhaps by an earlier Highlander?