Irish Kilts

[M. A. C. Newsome]

As an educator, I always tell my students to question EVERYTHING! I don't care what anyone says, just because they say they're an authority, and because it's written down. Hog wash! Just because something is in a book, or on a web site, or whatever, does not make it the gospel truth. Maybe, but, again, one needs to question; look at all the facts; and then draw your own conclusion.

One man's view of history can be totally different from another man's, especially if one is on the losing end. Just look at how history in England is taught...from their perspective, as the concurring nation. The Scots and Irish sure don't agree. Ireland sure has a different take on their history as compared to England. But, hey, it's written! Even American history, during WW II, is different from what is taught in Japan. Our view vs. their view.

I don't care what anyone says, the origin of the kilt is still up for grabs. I think we can all agree on the fact that the Scots popularized the kilt, but many factions went into it....Celtic, Norse, etc. Do some fact checking, and then QUESTION. As I stated in my other post, you'll believe what you want to believe.

I agree with you that one shouldn't simply take something on face value because he reads it in print, especially on the internet, where anyone with a few dollars can get his own domain name and in a matter of minutes get "published" with no peer review. Print resources get a little more scrutiny, but still one must check sources. The point is that an intelligent man will go where the evidence leads him.

And, right now, all evidence points to the kilt's origins firmly being planted in the sixteenth century Highlands of Scotland. People pretend that the origins of the kilt are a great mystery, but in reality we know a lot more than many realize.

McClintock's Old Irish & Highland Dress has been sited a few times already as a source, and it's a great one precisely because McClintock isn't asking you to believe what he says about the topic, but rather is concerned mostly with relating primary sources. What you will find in this reference are full quotes from contemporary written sources describing Highland dress (sometimes rather lengthy), reproductions of portraits, carvings, woodcuts and other sources depicting Highland dress -- in other words, he backs up what he says with evidence. And he draws his conclusions directly from the evidence.

This resource is just one example, but it's an important one.

Now, does this mean we are 100% certain we know exactly where, when and how the belted plaid first made its appearance in the Scottish Highlands? No, none of us were alive and there at the time, obviously. But when we look at the primary evidence that is currently available to us, these are the conclusions that we make.

Certainly, if you have stumbled upon some other primary source that would indicate that the kilt's origins actually lie somewhere in Ireland or Norway or anywhere else, or in an earlier or later time than generally accepted, that would merit investigation. That new data should be added to the body of evidence already accumulated and our theories would need to be reevaluated in light of that. (This doesn't mean that our view of things would necessarily have to change greatly, mind you -- it would all depend on the strength of the evidence).

But until such evidence arises, I see no reason to broadly question the received wisdom of those who have spent many years studying the subject of the kilt's history and origin, simply for the sake of questioning. The rational mind does not question simply for the sake of questioning; rather it questions as a means of finding the truth, it seeks for evidence and it follows where the evidence leads.

And the body of evidence we have concerning the kilt shows a pretty straightforward evolution from the belted plaid, first appearing in the Scottish Highlands in the late sixteenth century.