Why is a kilt the way it is.

[ccga3359]

In another recent poll a question was raised about if you'd wear this:



The overwelming response was "No, this is not a kilt" It got me to thinking.

What is a kilt and why? How did it evolve. The traditional wool kilt is wool for warmth, pehaps the length is to prevent is from getting wet whilst prancing through the heather as one stalks his supper. Why the pleats, if it was for warmth (minimum three thicknesses of wool) then why not the front where it's only two thicknesses. Why not two thicknesses all the way around it would use less material. Why knife pleats and not box pleats? And why counter-clockwise?

[McGurk]

Why the kilt is as it is today, I do not for certain know, I imagine it is a standardised, formalised garment developed from the belted plaid.
These images show several examples of how the plaid could be worn, with all of it hanging from the belt, near the floor, with it up around the shoulders for warmth, or gathered and over one shoulder to keep it out of the way. Also, the second fellow in the second picture has the plaid bound around his legs from the knee down, turning them into something like pants.





The plaid was essentialy a large rectangle of cloth, simple and utilitarian. it was an item for every occation. Remeber that in those days, travel was normaly done by foot, and would take several days. Often, this would mean sleeping under the stars, with the the huge amount of blanket to keep you warm. This (I think) is the reason for it being wool, as wool will keep you warm even when it is wet, thats why sheep dont die of hypothermia when it rains.
The reasons for the pleats are several fold, yes, they do add more layers and more insulation, but also, they keep the large amount of fabric well ordered, neat and easy to wear, rather then being all bundled up somewhere. The pleats also alow fantastic freedom of movement, alowing the bottom apature of the kilt to open just as far as you like.
Aprons, (again, i'm making assumptions, so feel free to correct me if you know differantly) as the plaid was a sheet of cloth, rather then a tube, it was important to have some overlap to protect your modesty, perhaps having pleats all the way around the front would be just too much fabric there to be comfortable.

When worn was one normaly imagines the plaid was worn (belted at the waist, hanging to the knees with the rest over a shoulder) it is easy to see where the modern kilt comes from. Simply remove the fabric above the belt, and sew the remainder to keep the pleats where they are, making a more practical and easier to don, garment.


PS this report is pure assumtion, based upon knowlege gathered here and there.

Sources;
Here, mcgurk 2007,
There, mcgurk, 1983-2007

[slohairt]

One of the worst things about this picture is that the man's frumpy outfit is emphasized by the sleek silhouette of the lady opposite him. I rather like her outfit!

As for the practical origins of the kilt/belted plaid, I would agree with points already made. Keeping it above the knee allows it to remain dry when walking through damp underbrush (it's easier to dry out/put on a new pair of socks once indoors), and the pleats create an accordion-like effect which allows the greatest freedom of movement of any garment. The aprons need to be flat because it would have been too difficult to maintain front pleats while belting on the plaid.

[McMurdo]

Here is a link to Matt's article on the history of the kilt, it may help to answer these questions far better than I could

[Wompet]

Pleating counter-clockwise makes for easier sewing if you're right-handed. I believe Matt mentioned in one of his articles that there is evidence of clockwise-pleated kilts prior to sewn-down pleats.
One of these days I'm going to make a left-handed kilt. It will be easier for me to handsew, and the pleats will take to driving better.

[M. A. C. Newsome]

Also, the second fellow in the second picture has the plaid bound around his legs from the knee down, turning them into something like pants.

Actually, he is wearing pants, that's not a belted plaid. The other three soldiers there are wearing belted plaids.

I think the basic question here is "why does the fact that this garment is ful-length mean that it is not a kilt?" Which brings us to the perennial question of "what defines a kilt?" And this is a tough nut to crack.

Here is an article I have written on that topic:
http://albanach.org/define_kilt.htm

I think in this case one can point to historical precidence of the kilt always been knee length, plus or minus, for men. This is one constant part of tradition. So making the kilt so obviously outside of the norm in this case is going to cause many to question it being a kilt at all.

The length of the garment seems as essential to its being classified as a "kilt" as the fact that it is pleated. How many of us would call a staight A-line skirt, knee length and even made from tartan, a "kilt" if there were no pleats?

Aye,
Matt

[Makeitstop]

Call it a kilt or just a manskirt. I don't really care. So far as I know, there has never been a single, comprehensive set of rules to determine exactly what is or isn't a kilt. What we have is more of a vague set of guidelines.

As far as I'm concerned if it's a MUG, pleated and/or has overlapping aprons, and the maker calls it a kilt, that's good enough for me.

I have also noticed that the term kilt is being used more and more as a general term for manskirts. Not too long ago I was watching a special on the discovery channel called the true story of noah's ark, which concluded with their dramatization of a Mesopotamian flood and mentioned that this noah wouldn't have worn the familiar robes, but actually would have worn a kilt. And I found this odd, because the actor on the screen was wearing a long skirt made out of overlapping leaves.

I think it's just easier for those who are unfamiliar with the term "MUG" to call any manskirt a kilt.

[Pleater]

In a damp climate and natural surroundings you would not want to have the wet hem of a kilt dragging in the vegetation and getting caught in the back of your knee when climbing a slope or stepping over some obstacle.

Most basic male clothing tends to be knee length - trousers are a relatively recent concept. Even when there were two tubes joined together and some fairly sophisticated tailoring, they tended to finish at or about the knee.

An alternative derevation of the small kilt might be that it is imitating a doublet without the sleeves and yoke. The lower portion of a doublet was gathered or pleated or smocked onto the yoke. The length of the yoke varies, from just under the arms to halfway to the waist from what I can see in my books on costume.

In some drawings and paintings it can be difficult to tell a doublet from a kilt as the yoke might be a different colour from the skirts and sleeves, with perhaps cuffs and a hem to match, or the skirt could be made of strips of yoke and sleeve material alternating.

[Chef]

I think it's just easier for those who are unfamiliar with the term "MUG" to call any manskirt a kilt.

Respectfully I think you are wrong on this point. I think the reason kilt gets used as often is to try and make a MUG or Manskirt more acceptable. Few know what a MUG is and anything called a skirt somehow raises the idea of cross dressing. Also because skirts for men are not that common their is a general lack of categories. If you describe a woman's skirt as a hostess skirt, most people will know what you are talking about but there isn't a man's equivalent ...yet.

I think ones definition of what can be considered a kilt depends on whether you consider a kilt to be a general category term (in the same line as trousers/pants) or a more specific term (in the same line as jeans, capris, plus-fours etc.).

I would argue the kilt is not a general category but a more specific term. The general term for this kind of garment is a skirt. Granted society thinks of a skirt as being worn mainly by the female sex but a kilt is a skirt, as is a sarong and several other garments worn by men (remember at one time the definition of pants would have included the phrase "mainly worn by men"). Different in certain design points and style than those worn by females but a skirt none-the-less. So, I believe skirt is the generic category term just as pants/trousers is the generic term.

Ok so a skirt worn by a man is a kilt...not so fast! As already mentioned there are several different types of skirts for men so a kilt already isn't the generic term for a man's skirt. It is a style or type of skirt worn mostly by men. So what is that style? Well like any style it can have certain variations but if you go too far your garment becomes something else and of course that style somewhat depends on the majority of observers agreeing. The idea that "I can't define it but I know it when I see it" does mean something.

So what is a kilt? Well I would say that the generally accepted (meaning if you properly polled enough people and compiled the results) would be something along the lines of:

Kilt: A skirt worn by Scottish men, the length at or slightly above the knee. It has flat overlapping aprons in the front (the outer apron ending on the wearers right side) and pleats in the back. It is most often made of wool, which is usually woven in a tartan pattern. The top of the kilt is generally worn at the natural waist (or slightly above) and the garment is secured by two or three leather buckles.

Is this completely accurate, probably not but I think it would be a generally accepted definition. If you notice I used terms like usually and most often...and I did that on purpose. Garment styles almost always have variations, however if you stray too far in any one area, or in too many areas at once you start drifting away from the definition and people no longer consider the garment to be of that style. There are also more specific traits that might be part individual definitions (i.e. how far the pleats come around the garment etc. but I think those are harder to be accepted as a general definition.

In the case of the floor length skirt, it's length is much to far from what most people's definition of a kilt. Secondarily it is made of leather, however if it was the right length the leather would not be enough to knock it out of the kilt category for many observers. It certainly does for me.

My tupence

[cessna152towser]

I always consider the kilt as a knee length skirt which needs to have overlapping front aprons and pleats at the back. Though in my experience, outside of kilt experts, the public perception of a knee length skirt on a man is that they see it as a kilt so long as the skirt does not have any embellishments which are regarded as female wear, for example frills, flowers or embroidered patterns.