Sgian Dubhs are not weapons ... It's official!

[Tiny]

Hi Tiny,
I am basing my "opinion" on fact; the fact that there is not one shred of verifiable proof that the sgian dubh was ever used, or intended to be used, as a weapon of last resort.

As far as the sgian dubh being a "weapon of last resort", unlike a derringer which was designed for that purpose, I suppose it might be, but in the same way a beer bottle or a screwdriver might be pressed into that defensive role.

The problem with trying to ascribe to the sgian dubh a use for which it clearly was not intended, is that there is virtually no evidence to show the wearing of the sgian dubh before 1700, and very little to suggest that it was worn in the period 1700-1750. Conservative historians of arms and armour actually place the sgian dubh in the late 18th century. With the literally hundreds, if not thousands, of illustrations that have come down to us of Highlanders, the sgian dubh is conspicuous by its absence until about 1790-- a time when the Highlands were "at peace". And even then, it is not widely seen. Why is that, do you suppose? Now there is a good reason for this, and that is that the sgian dubh was, in all likelihood, only used when hunting. When not in use in the field the sgain dubh was most probably pressed into service as a household utility knife, peeling spuds, chopping turnips and the like.

So, based on facts drawn from reliable sources and from the examination of contemporary paintings, drawings, and etchings, any reputable historian would not hesitate to label the romantic fantasy published by the Scottish Tartans Authority (or anyone else) as pure hog wash.

Ok just so I'm clear... your theory is based on the lack of evidence. Your evidence that they weren't intended for use as a weapon is that they didn't start showing up in paintings till after the Scot's were at peace. I would suppose that a hidden weapon wouldn't make it into many paintings. The theory contrary to yours is that they were a concealed weapon and were only placed in plain sight as a sign of good faith. your own argument that they weren't seen in paintings can be used to build a reputable case for both theories.

Reputable historians should know well enough that theories are opinions subscribed to based on facts.

So next time you feel like calling someones theory "hog wash" maybe you could take a closer look from the other side. Just because you don't prescribe to a specific theory doesn't make those that do fools.

Personally I don't really care which theory is right both have their place and both are interesting to recount for those who ask. In fact not knowing the real origin of the Sgian Dubh probably makes it more appealing of a conversation piece.