Irish Kilt?

[MacSpadger]

OK, let's be concise here.

Next, Gaelic culture in the Scottish Highlands came from Ireland, not vicea versa.

Untrue.

Yes, the kilt originates in Scotland, but it is derived from the Irish brat (rhymes with cart, not with cat), which was a cloak.

Completely and utterly untrue.

Celts wore tartan before they ever set foot in the British Isles, and the brats (cloaks) worn by the Irish who founded the Gaelic culture in the Highlands were said to be 'striped', so probably tartan.

Untrue, and I mean, really untrue.

Irish kilts were conceived in the latter part of the 19th century, at the tail end of the celtic revival period, and were originally solid saffron or solid green, to deliberately be different from tartan kilts worn in Scotland.

Pearce's writings give a date of 1900, so, technically, that may place the concept of the Irish kilt in the 20th century.

There is some irony in this, given that firstly the Scots got tartan from the Irish, and secondly solid colour kilts were once relatively common in Scotland.

Again, untrue. The Scots did not get tartan from the Irish. There were solid color kilts in Scotland, but I would not describe them as commonplace.

IME it is not popular on a site with SCOT in the name to point out that tartan and clans (but not clan tartans nor kilts) and Gaelic came to Scotland from Ireland, and yet they did. Nor is it popular to say that the first kilts originated by wearing a belt over the top of an Irish cloak, and yet they did.

It's probably unpopular to say these things on here because they are not true.

As for whether anyone in Ireland wears a kilt in the present day, probably only for weddings and to play the pipes. So, about as much as in Scotland, really.

Again, untrue. Kilt wearers can be seen everyday in Scotland that are not connected in any way with piping or weddings. What a heap o' kak.
If you have any evidence to the contrary, please post your academic references. Most of what you say appears to be in opposition to established Irish and Scottish history, so you may well be breaking new ground.

[M. A. C. Newsome]

I'm kind of surprised no one has yet linked to this article on Irish kilts and tartans, written by Todd Wilkinson and myself. You may find it helpful, Meaghan.
http://scottishtartans.org/irish_kilts.htm

[M. A. C. Newsome]

I would not go so far as to agree with 100% with what O'Callaghan has written, but it is historically true that the Gaelic language came to Scotland by way of Ireland roughly 1500 years ago. It is also true that the earliest origins of the kilt are from the wrap/mantle which was common to both the Irish Gaels and Scottish Gaels; the transition from this garment to what we would come to know as the kilt began in the Scottish Highlands more than 400 years ago.

But neither of these facts has all that much to do with the late nineteenth century attempt by certain Irish Nationalists to adopt the kilt as Irish National dress, nor the popularity of the "Irish tartans" mostly among Americans today. I think our article which I linked to above does a good job of explaining those phenomena.

The attempt to justify modern-day Irish kilt wearing by evoking what may be a true historic fact from 500 or 1500 years ago is a little misleading because it implies a continuous tradition when there is not any.

[fcgeil]

OK, let's be concise here.
Untrue.
Completely and utterly untrue.



Untrue, and I mean, really untrue.


Pearce's writings give a date of 1900, so, technically, that may place the concept of the Irish kilt in the 20th century.
Again, untrue. The Scots did not get tartan from the Irish. There were solid color kilts in Scotland, but I would not describe them as commonplace.


It's probably unpopular to say these things on here because they are not true.

Again, untrue. Kilt wearers can be seen everyday in Scotland that are not connected in any way with piping or weddings. What a heap o' kak.
If you have any evidence to the contrary, please post your academic references. Most of what you say appears to be in opposition to established Irish and Scottish history, so you may well be breaking new ground.

I beg to differ on one point. Gaelic culture did, indeed, come from Ireland, as did the Gaelic people. I very nearly wrote off your entire post due to the argumentative nature of it, but chose to re-read it anyway before I went off half-cocked. The rest of your comments, while poorly worded and quite abrasive, were correct.

[MacSpadger]

I beg to differ on one point. Gaelic culture did, indeed, come from Ireland, as did the Gaelic people.

This was a popular view from the 1760's to the 1960's where the main source of this was Bede retelling Geoffrey of Monmouth. There was no real evidence to support this. Even as far back as 1845 historians such as J. M. Lappenberg were publishing books saying it was all nonsense. Even if you refer to where Geoffrey took his info from, the Irish Annals of Tigernach, it states Feargus Mor mac Earca cum gente Dal Riada partem Britaniae tenuit, et ibi mortuus est, (Fergus Mór mac Eirc, with the people of Dál Riata, held part of Britain, and he died there.) This section of the Annals appears to have been written about 500 to 600 years after this supposed event, it's not part of the original document and it's been made doubtful that such names existed in their written forms at that earlier time.
But, regardless of it being a forgery or not, note it doesn't mention Scotland, only Britain.
A more modern view of what is being taught in Scotland today can be found summarised fairly well here. http://www.electricscotland.com/hist...scotsirish.htm
No invasion from the Gaelic Irish, no Irish settlers, just a group of different peoples living in the extreme North West of Europe but with similar languages, customs and cultures.

There are also many clans of Viking origin. The mighty Somerled, Lord of the Isles, progenitor of the Macdonalds, MacAlisters, etc, was 50% viking. Other clans with viking roots include Gunn, MacAuley, MacDougall, and MacLeod, among others.

[fcgeil]

This was a popular view from the 1760's to the 1960's where the main source of this was Bede retelling Geoffrey of Monmouth. There was no real evidence to support this. Even as far back as 1845 historians such as J. M. Lappenberg were publishing books saying it was all nonsense. Even if you refer to where Geoffrey took hin info from, the Irish Annals of Tigernach, it states Feargus Mor mac Earca cum gente Dal Riada partem Britaniae tenuit, et ibi mortuus est, (Fergus Mór mac Eirc, with the people of Dál Riata, held part of Britain, and he died there.) This section of the Annals appears to have been written about 500 to 600 years after this supposed event, it's not part of the original document and it's been made doubtful that such names existed in their written forms at that earlier time.
But, regardless of it being a forgery or not, note it doesn't mention Scotland, only Britain.
A more modern view of what is being taught in Scotland today can be found summarised fairly well here. http://www.electricscotland.com/hist...scotsirish.htm
No invasion from the Gaelic Irish, no Irish settlers, just a group of different peoples living in the extreme North West of Europe but with similar languages, customs and cultures.

Among other texts I've read recently, Magnus Magnusson, in Scotland, the Story of a Nation pub. 2003 states categorically that the Gaels came from Ireland. I am not an historian (other than a love for it), so I cannot claim that he's correct or not. I simply mention it to show that (a) I didn't make it up whole cloth, and (b)it is a theory that has not been thoroughly debunked, and is still a currently viable one. The problem with history is that it is mostly opinions, and they vary. Unfortunately, I wasn't there when Scotland was peopled (I doubt you were either, but can't say for certain), so I can only go on what I've read from others who are better read than I.

Thanks for the link, though, I'll look through it.

[macwilkin]

Among other texts I've read recently, Magnus Magnusson, in Scotland, the Story of a Nation pub. 2003 states categorically that the Gaels came from Ireland. I am not an historian (other than a love for it), so I cannot claim that he's correct or not. I simply mention it to show that (a) I didn't make it up whole cloth, and (b)it is a theory that has not been thoroughly debunked, and is still a currently viable one. The problem with history is that it is mostly opinions, and they vary. Unfortunately, I wasn't there when Scotland was peopled (I doubt you were either, but can't say for certain), so I can only go on what I've read from others who are better read than I.

Thanks for the link, though, I'll look through it.

Magnusson was a journalist by trade, but I can't say I've ever seen any major criticism of his research skills or citations. Yes, opinion is always present in history, but any historian worth their salt would say that opinions should always be based on primary sources.

T.

[Peter Crowe]

Magnusson was a journalist by trade, but I can't say I've ever seen any major criticism of his research skills or citations. Yes, opinion is always present in history, but any historian worth their salt would say that opinions should always be based on primary sources.

T.

Indeed Todd, that is my take on the subject (regarding both Magnus Magnusson and the primacy of primary source evidence). Although I am a graduate in Scottish History, I was interested in early modern Scotland and mostly studied the period from 1500-1800. I am not knowledgeable enough about the ethnic make up and/or the migratory patterns of Scotland in the first thousand years of the Common Era to contradict what has been stated by either MacSpadger or fcgeil.

What I briefly remember about that period from the survey course 'Scottish History 1' (c. 800 CE to 1707 CE) at Glasgow University was that the evidence pointed to two way traffic in trade, human migration and cultural cross-pollination between the north-east of Ireland (primarily Antrim, but even as far west as Donegal) and the western sea board of Scotland especially from Galloway to Argyll, and from much earlier than the formation of Dal Riata.

[MacSpadger]

What I briefly remember about that period from the survey course 'Scottish History 1' (C. 800 CE to 1707 CE) at Glasgow University was that the evidence pointed to two way traffic in trade, human migration and cultural cross-pollination between the north-east of Ireland (primarily Antrim, but even as far west as Donegal) and the western sea board of Scotland especially from Galloway to Argyll from the earliest times.

Hi Peter, that's perhaps the most firmly accepted contemporary view. I thought I'd link to Ewan Campbell's piece I thought it was fairly amiable in it's conclusions, although it does touch on the touchy topic of medieval Irish "reverse engineering".
There's fairly persuasive evidence being unearthed by the Strathclyde archaeological teams since 1997 to strongly suggest that there was a much larger flow from Scotland into Ireland in the Iron Age than vice versa, with Argyllshire in particular being the jumping off point for Highland settlers who took their culture, including their architecture, into Iron Age Ireland. There were two Dal Riatas, with the Scottish one being the original and the Irish one a colony.
I don't have the insight to comment on that, except I'd like to see and read more of the findings as they develop.
Campbell's piece points to a flow of trade and ideas, rather than people. And, as he points out, if you replace "Scots" or "Irish" with the phrase "Gaelic speakers", all controversy simply vanishes.

If I was cranky earlier, I just get fed up with the same untrue guff being repeated over and over without any explanation, evidence or reference. I am happy to pursue any avenue of history that comes with an ample supply of evidence.

[CMcG]

...
What I briefly remember about that period from the survey course 'Scottish History 1' (C. 800 CE to 1707 CE) at Glasgow University was that the evidence pointed to two way traffic in trade, human migration and cultural cross-pollination between the north-east of Ireland (primarily Antrim, but even as far west as Donegal) and the western sea board of Scotland especially from Galloway to Argyll from the earliest times.

In the Ewan Campbell article that MacSpadger linked to earlier, he says basically the same thing; Gaelic peoples inhabited what is now Ireland, Northern Ireland, and the Scottish Highlands/Western Islands since at least the Iron Age (i.e. prehistoric times). He finds no solid archaeological, historical, or linguistic evidence to support an "Irish" invasion of the Highlands and Islands form out the Picts and form the ancient kingdom of Dal Riada, rather that there were Gaels there the whole time. Furthermore, he suggests that modern geopolitical boundaries skew our perception of that region and that the sea connected northern Ireland with the Highlands/Islands rather than separating them, as per this diagram from that article:


In his conclusion he says:

"Surely the question that is of interest here is not 'where did people come from?', but 'how did people establish and change their personal and group identity by manipulating oral, literary and material culture?'. Indeed, merely by re-labelling the supposed 'Irish settlers' as 'Gaelic speakers', following the practice of contemporary writers such as Adomnan, the whole issue can be studied in an atmosphere free from the colonialist implications which have distorted the study of early medieval western Britain."

I'd like to frame the origins of the Irish kilt in his terms of establishing and changing identity, because I agree that it is more interesting and especially because it is more germane to the OP's questions.

...
Basically, all rambling aside, I was wondering if the Irish wear kilts at all. Is wearing a kilt on St. Patricks Day misrepresenting Ireland by wearing a garment predominantly Scottish?...

The late 19th/early 20th century Gaelic revivalists in pre-republic Ireland looked to the nearest Gaelic people for ideas of what could have been. Traditional Irish attire had long been Anglicized and they were romantically re-imagining themselves in an effort to reestablish a sovereign Irish nation, so they chose the kilt as their attire.

The kilt never gained widespread support among people in Ireland as everyday wear but did get picked up by Irish bagpipers, dancers, and even sometime as boys school uniforms. Some of our Irish members, in Ireland, have told us that kilts have gained some popularity as wedding attire. It appears, however, that Irish kilts have gained more currency in the Irish diaspora than at home.

It is a misrepresentation to suggest a historical, ancient origin for Irish kilts. The kilt comes from the Scottish Highlands. It is also incorrect to suggest that the kilt is Ireland's national attire, because it has never been officially accepted, nor been widely used as such. The kilt is Scotland's national attire.

I don't think wearing a kilt on St. Pat's, in North America is somehow "misrepresenting" Ireland. The Irish kilt has now logged over a hundred years of history, despite the modern origin. Personally, I accept the premise of the Gaelic revivalists in pre-republic Ireland, if only as a romantic elision of history to imagine an ethnic attire. I think it is grand!

Enjoy your Irish kilt, but just don't represent it as something other than a modern phenomenon -- and one that is fraught with nationalistic and historical problems that provide endless amounts of discussion on Xmarks