Was Tartan ever actually banned?

[macwilkin]

I am not sure what reliable evidence you would need or accept. A hand written note from somebody dated 1790, A church entry that talked about it. Neither of which you will find since Folklore talks about it happening when the tartan was banned and paper was not as available as it is today.

As too a decade of study - it took Howard carter 31 years to find King Tut.. keep looking - i would like to know the truth

I stand by my statement that it may not have happened but it it is impossible to prove that it did not happen.

I'm not sure what folklore you're referring to -- folklore has been documented & researched since the late 1700s. In my article I mentioned Alexander Carmichael, a noted folklorist who collected prayers, hymns and incantations from the Highlands. If the Kirkin existed in folklore, he would have found it. He lists a prayer for the weaver's cloth, but nothing like a kirkin service.

I'm just not willing to stake my professional reputation as a historian & librarian on your assumptions. My stock & trade is primary & secondary sources.

T.

[Kilted-Marine]

Untestable Hypothesis and Falsifiability - The Scientific Method has some five key steps to it...
1. Observation/Question
2. Hypothesis
3. Prediction
4. Experiment
5. Conclusion

One of the toughest parts of the Scientific Method is simply determining whether it's possible to design an experiment to test your hypothesis. If it IS possible to test it, and there are clear conditions for what counts as refuting your hypothesis, the hypothesis is called falsifiable, and this is a good thing in science. "Falsifiable" means the same thing as "testable," it doesn't mean "proven false." Yeah, it's confusing. So some examples may help.

Hypothesis: There are NO black swans.
Test: Look for a black swan.
Falsifiable? Yes
Potential Falsification: Finding a black swan.
Truth Status: False (there are black swans).

Hypothesis: There are pink elephants.
Test: Look for a pink elephant.
Falsifiable? No
Potential Falsification: None. If you looked around the whole world, maybe it was hiding in Japan while you were in New Zealand. If you saw the whole world simultaneously, maybe it's on Mars. Or another solar system. It's impossible to actually carry out the test.

Hypothesis: The First Kirkin of the tartan was done in the USA.
Test: Look for evidence that there was never one done before
Falsifiable? No
Potential Falsification: None. If you look at every possible source there is still a chance it happened but was not recorded

Truth Status: So far it appears false, but we're not sure. The statment "there is no such thing as a pink elephant" is a good example of something that a non-scientist would call a fact but scientists would say is unproven.

[xman]

Yes, and until there is a possibility of obtaining sufficient evidence we adopt the position that, "there are no pink elephants".

[Bugbear]

Untestable Hypothesis and Falsifiability - The Scientific Method has some five key steps to it...
1. Observation/Question
2. Hypothesis
3. Prediction
4. Experiment
5. Conclusion

One of the toughest parts of the Scientific Method is simply determining whether it's possible to design an experiment to test your hypothesis. If it IS possible to test it, and there are clear conditions for what counts as refuting your hypothesis, the hypothesis is called falsifiable, and this is a good thing in science. "Falsifiable" means the same thing as "testable," it doesn't mean "proven false." Yeah, it's confusing. So some examples may help.

Hypothesis: There are NO black swans.
Test: Look for a black swan.
Falsifiable? Yes
Potential Falsification: Finding a black swan.
Truth Status: False (there are black swans).

Hypothesis: There are pink elephants.
Test: Look for a pink elephant.
Falsifiable? No
Potential Falsification: None. If you looked around the whole world, maybe it was hiding in Japan while you were in New Zealand. If you saw the whole world simultaneously, maybe it's on Mars. Or another solar system. It's impossible to actually carry out the test.

Hypothesis: The First Kirkin of the tartan was done in the USA.
Test: Look for evidence that there was never one done before
Falsifiable? No
Potential Falsification: None. If you look at every possible source there is still a chance it happened but was not recorded

Truth Status: So far it appears false, but we're not sure. The statment "there is no such thing as a pink elephant" is a good example of something that a non-scientist would call a fact but scientists would say is unproven.

Kilted-Marine, that copied text should have been cited or a link provided.

http://modern-science.blogspot.com/2...hesis-and.html

No one is disputing that, Mark. The issue is that many groups, games, etc. are promoting a history of the Kirkin' service that simply has no basis in the historical record. As I mentioned earlier, the real history of the service, which was first held at the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church during the Second World War, is far more moving than the legend that has grown-up in the Diaspora communities in Canada, the USA and Australia. The Rev. Dr. Peter Marshall ("A Man Called Peter"), a Presbyterian minister from Coatbridge, is credited with being the originator of the service. I have of sermons from the original Kirkin', and no where does Dr. Marshall mention "the legend".

I have organized our society's Kirkin' for over a decade now, and I try to make it as close to Dr. Marshall's original intent as possible.

T.

cajunscot is saying that there is no known, peer reviewed evidence that it happened. It is, in that case, unlikely that the tradition came from the Proscription era. He also cited other evidence that made it even more unlikely.

He asked for credible evidence. If it were provided, and it was credible, I am sure he would reverse his position.

That's my take on this discussion. Hope I haven't made anyone angry. I'll bow out of the thread now.

[figheadair]

I am not sure what reliable evidence you would need or accept. A hand written note from somebody dated 1790, A church entry that talked about it. Neither of which you will find since Folklore talks about it happening when the tartan was banned and paper was not as available as it is today.

But the whole point of my original post was to point out that it 'appears' from reading copies of the Act that tartan per se was not banned.

I see I've started a hare running that's disappeared off down a different rabbit hole (to mix my game metaphores). All very interesting but perhaps the Kirkin should be discussed in a separate thread as it rather detracts for discussing one of the fundamental myths (if I'm right) surrounding tartan.

[Downunder Kilt]

Having read through the thread and searching on the internet, I see that all of the articles referring to the legend of kirkin of the tartan in 18th century Scotland are written by Canadians Australians or Americans (including the 2 cited in a post.) Those that do eminate from Great Britain appear to be virtual reprints of aforementioned ones. I can find no reference cited and written by highlanders or a cited source with some historical factual reference. There is however ample evidence of it being an American invention in 1941. Please don't get me wrong, I think the idea of it is a good thing, but lets not confuse a good idea with a tradition that did not exist in the old country

As for proof one way or the other, in the criminal code, beyond reasonable doubt, it is possible there was a form of kirkin the tartan in Scotland, in the
civil code, on the balance of probabilities, it's probable that it was invented in 1941

[Slag101]

I know a lot folks subscribe to the John Ford School of history -- "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend" -- while I love John Ford, as a historian, I fight against that way of thinking everyday.

T.

That statement wasn't meant to teach a way of thinking, it was an artistic reflection of the reality of the world. John Ford used that line to represent that people want "legends" and what they symbolize. The average person doesn't want the real history behind William Wallace, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, etc. To quote yet another great movie that made the same point (My Favorite Year, starring Peter O'Toole), "People don't want the real Alan Swan, they want their Alan Swan larger than life, they want him as big as he comes."

This explains the reason why you have encountered resistance to the truth behind the Kirkin O the Tartans. I bet most people, if you really sit down with them, will admit that the legend is BS, but they like the story, and if you tell them the true story, they will say it is nice that "we" helped people out, but after all that, talk to them the next time and they will still be talking about the legend. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. I love history too, but I don't believe in teaching it to people, who don't want to learn it, at gun point.

[Slag101]

I would like to say, for all of us out there that like to keep an open mind, KiltedMarine is my hero today.

CajunScot, and everyone else, what part of, "Cannot prove or disprove" do you not get?

While I will agree it to be unlikely to have occurred before the first service in the US, you cannot disprove it either. Just admit to it.

To take logic one step further, there is no knowable truth. The truth is intangible by its very nature, as its interpretation is skewed by the observers morals, beliefs, understanding, knowledge, and physical ability. You name one historical "fact" and there are probably hundreds of versions of information about the same fact, and all of them will be slightly different.

Oh, and My reference for the above statement about logic is as follows:

Siegel, A.J. (2010). The Weakness of Act Utilitarianism.

Should I post all my responses on here in APA or MLA? What do you non-science types with degrees in history use?

[Mike_Oettle]

Speaking as a historian by training, I am afraid I must side with Cajunscot here.
He has evidence of the institution of the ceremony of Kirkin the Tartan from the man who introduced it.
All we seem to have on the other side of the argument is unsubstantiated folklore.
Now it may be that there is substantiation somewhere, but so far it has not cropped up. Reference has been made to articles in publications far from where the ceremony was instituted, but the sources of those articles have not (so far) been examined.
The abstract discussions of scientific proof are all very well, but need to be refined by historians’ definitions, not silly extrapolations about pink elephants.

With regard to the proscription of tartan, I will concede that the wording of the Act is tortuous, but it does clearly outlaw a) the kilt and b) the wearing of tartan, albeit in separate parts of the same long sentence.
Although tartan was specifically forbidden solely when worn as upper clothing (plaid or coat), its proscription in that sense went hand in hand with a ban on the kilt, which was at least frequently, and probably usually, made of tartan.
The word plaid is not more precisely defined, and could be applicable to either the belted plaid (breacan feile) or the plaid as worn with the philabeg (pinned to the shoulder).
The reference to “trowse” may be solely to trews in the sense of hose made of tartan on the bias, fitted to the leg, or could apply to all tartan trousers. It nonetheless bars leg-coverings deemed to be “Highland Clothes”.
The region in which the Act was (theoretically) effective seems to be the lands north of the Forth and Clyde, but since the Act specifically refers to “that part of Great Britain called Scotland”, with the rider “other than shall be employed as officers and soldiers in his Majesty's forces”, in a legal sense it should have applied everywhere north of the English border.
It does appear that the Act was only applied with rigour in the areas closest to the Great Glen, but we are (I believe) focusing on the wording of a piece of legislation.
While the wording “man or boy” does seem to exempt women, the question must be asked whether, when the law was enforced by His Majesty’s forces, women were permitted to retain their tartan garments, and whether thorough searches were made to discover and destroy all tartan remnants.
Regards,
Mike

[macwilkin]

Bro:. Aaron: I'll ignore your confrontational attitude and just say again that if someone can show-me a reliable source that documents a kirkin service from 18th century Scotland, I'll be the first to shout it from the rooftops. While it certainly is possible, I'm not convinced until we have the documentation. I'm always open to new sources and ways of looking at history when those sources are discovered.

But in the spirit of compromise, I will mention the discussion here recently about dirks & "The Holy Iron", which is documented -- if there was a blessing of a tartan, it would most likely take that form, instead of a formal liturgy. We know that Carmichael documents a Highland prayer for the weaver's cloth, for example. How's that for admitting it? :mrgreen:

And thanks for the leccture on John Ford. I teach Western/Frontier history, and I discuss Ford's symbolism in his Westerns. That was my attempt a humor, which obviously failed. I can't say I've never taught anyone at gunpoint, except for living history talks, but I'm not going to simply give people what they want to hear -- I'm not in politics.

And we use Turabian/Chicago. I'll accept your work in MLA, though, as Turbian tends to intimidate non-history types. (and that was meant in jest, btw)