Kilts Scottish only??

[macwilkin]

I did notice that Campbell said it was "likely" but he flatly stated "which at that time was worn by both Scotch and Irish". He sees the kilt as being the popular, (though perhaps not national) dress of the Irish as well. I will try to find the reference to the kjlit in ancient Mann, but am leaving in a few hours and may not get to it for a couple of weeks. I have seen a few references to this in my Manx literature, so I personally think there is SOME evidence that the a form of the pleated kilt was worn in ancient times by the Manx and Norse. I am not, however trying to attribute the origin of the kilt to the Manx. It matters little to me, really.

Forgive me if I have misunderstood, but what I am responding to is the apparent denial that it is correct for any but the Scots to claim the kilt as part of their heritage, or even an ancient garment. Again, I am not trying to say that the Manx "invented" the kilt or any such thing. Only that it was worn by the Manx prior to recent times, at least in the form of the kjilt. My Manx ancestors were likely wearing the kilt before my American Grandpappy's wore Levi's. Though I have no photos of them doing so, I don't think many Scots would have such hard evidence of there direct ancestors wearing the kilt either. But it is OK for them to claim it as part of there heritage becasue it is "likely" that they did. If we are to apply the same logic and standard to the Irish and Manx, then what reason is there that we should not say so as well?

So, back to the original question - is it OK to claim the kilt as part of my heritage? I think so. It is recognized as the national dress of Scotland, and I am not trying to take away from that. But if my ancestors also wore the kilt am I precluded from saying so because the Scots have made claim to it and popularized it in modern times?

Again, it was put forth earlier that accuaracy was needed to arrive at an answer to the question. It was also said that no credible evidence exists that the kilt was worn in ancient times or anyone prior to the Scots.

I respect Mac's scholarship, but nobody knows everything and being an expert does not mean that one has read every word ever written on a subject. "Experts" may know a lot, but a scholar will continue to consider new data as it comes to there attention, as their motive should be to arrive at an objective conclusion, based on fact. We can all learn something. I have learned plenty from the great people who post here and from Mac. I like to think that I am teachable as well, and certainly open to correction. But I don't take what anyone says as the last word when I have seen evidence that indicates otherwise.

With humble reverence,
Kevin

Kevin,

Whilst I respect your passion for your heritage, as someone who makes his living in the history and information retrieval (library) trade, I need to see sources. Matt's research is based on sources, many of them primary or contemporary sources, which are the best kind of course.

I'm afraid you're getting on the defensive here, which you shouldn't be. Again, neither Matt or myself are saying that you cannot wear the kilt as a symbol of your pride in your heritage. Far from it -- what is being said is that the kilt's origins are in Scotland, are not that ancient tae boot. The adoption of the kilt by other Celtic nations is a relatively modern phenomena, just like the relatively modern adoption of tartans by Highland Clans and Lowland & Borders families. To those clans (and nations), the tartans are important symbols, regardless of their age. In fact, many Lowland families wear kilts & tartan today when their ancestors wouldn't have been caught dead in them, because the kilt was the garment of the "wild Highlanders" -- over time, the kilt has become a "national" garment for Scotland, and not just belonging to the Highlands.

One can speculate if their Scottish ancestors wore kilts, but one cannot say definiately that they did, if there is no evidence of it. Others may have-- family photos, letters, etc. But the key is sources -- and so far, you've only cited one source that really didn't say anything, save personal opinion by one gentleman. Matt is not perfect (and I never made that claim, btw), but he has done years of reasearch on this subject. Those of us who make our living in the historical field should always be open to learning and re-evaluating history, but only when credible sources surface, and not just speculation.

Bottom line: wear your kilt and show your pride in your Manx heritage. No one is saying you shouldn't. We're just saying that there is not enough evidence to make statements that the kilt is an ancient garment worn by the Irish, Welsh, etc. -- I can speculate all I want to about a certain historical event, but as a trained historian, I cannot, in good conscience, present a historical "fact" without some source -- and sources are never perfect or final, and historians are never totally objective -- but we should strive to be as much as possible.

Again, please do not take offence -- that is not my intention at all.

Cheers,

Todd