kilt history question

[sathor]

I've seen on here reference to kilts only coming about in the last few hundred years, and other mentions of kilt like things far earlier. I am left to wonder, is the kilt really just an end product far older? I almost want to log into my old college database and go study hunting, but...

I ask this because as I was doing laundry yesterday, I realized on our Egyptian wall carvings it shows the Pharaoh's wearing simple skirts. I know that would be contemporary to early greeco-roman culture. I know the Romans had robes, but their armor is a metallic skirt, which I'm sure has a fancy name to it, but I digress. Could early kilts be an attempt to replicate the armor of the invaders, not necessarily by seeing and mimicking, but from the stories that spread? Especially the box pleats, I would think, would behave in a similar way to the armored skirts. Of course, it has evolved traits of it's own, but I wonder about it's early forms. Might have to hit the museum on the way south if I ever get around to visiting my grandparents in SC.

[beloitpiper]

I don't think Highlanders would have been too fixated on mimicking the Roman soldiers -- they had too much to worry about just trying to stay alive...

[Ian.MacAllan]

It seems to me certainly true that legless male garments in many cultures predate recorded history, though I know of no extant proof of what we now call kilts before the late 16th century.

The WWW is a rich source of information, some of which is even plausible. If you are really interested in this subject I'm sure you will enjoy the research.

Happy hunting!

.

[Bugbear]

The Roman skirt armor was called pteruges and was worn over a heavy wool tunic along with some kind of chest plate. Don't think these wer in use for too long.

However, they were not metal plates. They were stiffened leather strips all held together with bronze rings at the top, and They were not in use at the time of the Roman occupation of the Isles.

I guess they might look a tiny bit like box pleats, but they are just leather strips over a wool tunic that hang freely from a belt, so no pleating involved.

You might want to go check Matt's web site. You should be able to get to it or at least the history of the early kilt at the Scottish Tartans Museum link here on the forum.

[haukehaien]

... but their armor is a metallic skirt, which I'm sure has a fancy name to it, but I digress. Could early kilts be an attempt to replicate the armor of the invaders, not necessarily by seeing and mimicking, but from the stories that spread? Especially the box pleats, I would think, would behave in a similar way to the armored skirts.

It seems unlikely that the first kilt wearers (c. 1600 AD) were mimicking armor worn by Romans c. 100 BC, or even were influenced by stories of Roman armor.

It seems to me certainly true that legless male garments in many cultures predate recorded history, though I know of no extant proof of what we now call kilts before the late 16th century.

If you think about it, wrapped cloth is probably the simplest garment to make, so it shouldn't be too surprising that so many cultures independently arrived at the skirt-like garment. Some of these may be derived from each other, but I suspect there's plenty of evidence for independent choice of the unbifurcated garment.

I still think the kilt was invented by a man who was trying to figure out a good way to start the campfire without getting out of his blankets on a cold wet morning.

[Bugbear]

Blanket wearing... It probably happened all the time all over the world for all kind of reasons.

[sathor]

almost make you wonder about those tribe people in Africa that wear only gourds...

I'm sure that would get one arrested in developed countries.

[Bugbear]

Well, um ya... You see, um... Well maybe not.

Um, a sporran?

[Chas]

Hello All,

An acquaintance of mine is doing her PhD on this very subject. That is to say the history of garments and dress and why men wear trousers and women wear skirts and dresses. Her argument is that the anatomy of men and women is different and as such we are (in general) all wearing the wrong garments - men have dangly bits and should be in a wrap around garment; women do not and should be in trousers.

She believes that there was some cataclysmic event which caused a domino effect and forced men into long hose and then trousers. She tells me that she has eliminated war and warfare and is now looking at religion or some form of pandemic to be the cause. It seems that the heart of the matter comes down to western education, which in turn points to religion.

When she next comes down to eat me out of house and home I will pump her for more information.

Regards

Chas

[M. A. C. Newsome]

Hello All,

An acquaintance of mine is doing her PhD on this very subject. That is to say the history of garments and dress and why men wear trousers and women wear skirts and dresses. Her argument is that the anatomy of men and women is different and as such we are (in general) all wearing the wrong garments - men have dangly bits and should be in a wrap around garment; women do not and should be in trousers.

She believes that there was some cataclysmic event which caused a domino effect and forced men into long hose and then trousers. She tells me that she has eliminated war and warfare and is now looking at religion or some form of pandemic to be the cause. It seems that the heart of the matter comes down to western education, which in turn points to religion.

When she next comes down to eat me out of house and home I will pump her for more information.

Regards

Chas

One thoery that I think has a lot of merit traces the fashion of men's bifurcated garments to the rise of equestrianism in Europe. Simply put, trousers make life easier for men who spend a lot of time on horseback.

This was first brought to my attention in school when studying ancient Roman culture. The male slaves wore pants, while the upper class wore tunics and togas. Why? While the upper class rode in chariots, their servants actually rode their horses.

When the Romans first encountered the British Celts, one of their signs of "barbarism" was the fact that they wore pants. In the Roman mind, that fashion was assosiated with the lower classes. But it had no such stigma in Celtic society.

Later on, as Europe entered the age of the chevelier and equestrian skill became an important aspect of life for all levels of nobility, wearing pants became the fashion norm for even the upper classes.

Some remote or isolated parts of Europe, where horsemanship never became such a vital part of the social order (such as the Highland and Island regions Scotland), had their male fashion evolve along different lines. Hence we see the kilt rise out of that society, and not in France or England.