18th century hunting?

[Jock Scot]

I am not convinced that many in the Highlands, at the time you are talking about, wore the kilt whilst out shooting and almost certainly none would have worn the kilt whilst hunting(UK definition------ (often with horses) and pack of hounds). Very few highlanders would have owned a firearm of any description at that time so, we are talking of a minority within a minority here. The deer at that time were mainly taken by deer hounds and it was not until later when firearms became more accurate and reliable that deer stalking became a sensible possibility. Indeed a few Highlanders did pursue game with their flintlocks-----I read somewhere that B.P.C. amused himself and no doubt fed himself when out on the hill and on the run, by shooting "muircock"(black grouse) so it did happen. From what I read he was a good shot. Did those, that partook of this sport of shooting, at that time in the Highlands go about kilted as a general practice? I am just not convinced.

[Woodsheal]

Brian, I'll answer your question with two questions of my own. Perhaps your answers can answer your own that way.

1) What does your period painting have to do with Historically made kilts?
2) Is this a Period Hunting Forum?

I'll be glad to answer...

1.) The period painting illustrates a style of 18th C. hunting garb the OP is not asking about, but towards which some responses were steering him.

2.) Of course this is not a "Period Hunting Forum." No one here is that dense. If the topic of the thread is so offensive, say so and lock it. The OP was looking for information regarding historic Highland Dress worn in a certain context, and for a certain outdoor activity - in this case hunting.

No one had mentioned weaponry of any kind in this discussion, Steve, until you brought it up - and I doubt any XMarker is such a delicate shrinking violet as to have been distressed by what has been presented thus far....

[Woodsheal]

I am not convinced that many in the Highlands, at the time you are talking about, wore the kilt whilst out shooting and almost certainly none would have worn the kilt whilst hunting(UK definition------ (often with horses) and pack of hounds). Very few highlanders would have owned a firearm of any description at that time....

In the pre-Proscription (pre-1746) highlands, no clansman would've worn a kilt or plaid while hunting? I find that statement difficult to agree with! Also, research - and the composition of clan regiments of the period - indicates that about a quarter of a clan's strength of fighting men were able to afford the full panoply of highland weaponry, including long arms. These pieces would've been personal hunting arms, not military muskets.

[Jock Scot]

In the pre-Proscription (pre-1746) highlands, no clansman would've worn a kilt or plaid while hunting? I find that statement difficult to agree with! Also, research - and the composition of clan regiments of the period - indicates that about a quarter of a clan's strength of fighting men were able to afford the full panoply of highland weaponry, including long arms. These pieces would've been personal hunting arms, not military muskets.

If you care to read my post again, you will clearly see that I took care to differentiate between shooting and hunting . As we are talking about UK aspects, I thought it right to talk in UK terms.

[Woodsheal]

For what it's worth, all of the long arms shown in these period images are hunting pieces - clearly owned by the sort of affluent clansman at the "top of the heap." Would these same gents have gone out "shooting", in the finery depicted, swords, targes, and all? It seems doubtful, but who can say what a chiefly hunting entourage looked like? Probably quite impressive! For the OP's purposes, these are depictions of highland dress with a hunting aspect to them. In Scotland, of course.

Highland dress worn for hunting in N. America during the same period is a whole other ball game! Probably never happened, except perhaps by the odd highland soldier out with a ranging party....

[ThistleDown]

A few other things must be understood here, too. The population of all of Scotland in the mid-18C is estimated at 1.25 million, with something like 75 percent in the Lowlands. Highland land was owned land and the owners were not the common man, but the aristocracy, a relatively thin layer and fairly jealous of their game. Brian has shown these chaps in all their finery and made the point that what they wore day after day after day, posing for these paintings, was not what they otherwise wore. And certainly not whilst on the hill.

We really have no idea what the common man wore at the beginning the the century; just that by the end he was wearing trousers. However, if you have ever walked through or stretched prone in the heather you will know that cloth and knitted stuff is quickly shredded. Bare legs or leather wrapping such as Woodsheal showed in his first pics was most likely to have been below the knee.

You might find thee two books of some value to you, although they are largely limited to Lowland dress and customs: Scottish Costume 1550-1850 by Stuart Maxwell & Robin Hutchison, and Social Life of Scotland in the Eighteenth Century by Henry Grey Graham.

[georgeetta]

If it's not strictly kilt wear or associated it's out ?
th
d

[georgeetta]

Pardon,
I thought this was interesting .
th
d

[Woodsheal]

A few other things must be understood here, too. The population of all of Scotland in the mid-18C is estimated at 1.25 million, with something like 75 percent in the Lowlands. Highland land was owned land and the owners were not the common man, but the aristocracy, a relatively thin layer and fairly jealous of their game. Brian has shown these chaps in all their finery and made the point that what they wore day after day after day, posing for these paintings, was not what they otherwise wore. And certainly not whilst on the hill.

We really have no idea what the common man wore at the beginning the the century; just that by the end he was wearing trousers. However, if you have ever walked through or stretched prone in the heather you will know that cloth and knitted stuff is quickly shredded. Bare legs or leather wrapping such as Woodsheal showed in his first pics was most likely to have been below the knee.

You might find thee two books of some value to you, although they are largely limited to Lowland dress and customs: Scottish Costume 1550-1850 by Stuart Maxwell & Robin Hutchison, and Social Life of Scotland in the Eighteenth Century by Henry Grey Graham.

Period accounts ca. mid-1600s to just prior to the '45 (see Martin Martin, Burt's Letters, etc.) describe the "common man's" main article of garb as the belted plaid - but with no lack of knee-breeches and trews as well. The plaid is exhorted as a most versatile outdoors garment: clothing by day, blanket by night, a natural camouflage, integral pockets when worn, and so on. (Burt is also quite descriptive of the nasty odors emanating from a well-worn plaid!) The belted plaid was the garment of choice for clansmen "in the field", whether on peaceful or warlike pursuit, and even among the well-to-do clan "gents."

So, I don't quite get this seeming insistance from some quarters that kilts/plaids were never worn for anything in the pre-Proscription highlands! Period images and documents tell us otherwise....

[Steve Ashton]

georgeeta,

I would like to answer your question as directly and as straight forward as possible. The decision of what is suitable for topics and discussion on this forum have nothing to do personalities, personal morals or, has been suggested, personal sensibilities being bruised. It is only about staying within a simple set of published rules.

One of the guiding principals of this forum is:

""We understand that as a kilt specific forum our chosen subject of discussion is not the complete spectrum of life." Over the years we have found certain subjects always seem to result in discord. Therefore, we respectfully ask our members to remember that this is a kilt forum and to leave their Politics, Religion and Weapons at the door.

We also have two rules which could be applicable here. Here is our published Rule #11:

"Rule #11
- Whenever someone brings up the subject of weapons, the discussion has always gone downhill rapidly. Because of this, we must insist that there will be no discussion, posting or photos of, weapons.
(We define 'weapon' as anything that is used to inflict damage or harm to living beings. Weapons as components of traditional or historic kilt attire, or as components of a prescribed uniform, may be exempt as long as the discussion does not become about the weapon itself or its use.)"

The other is Rule #12.

"Rule #12
– The topic of discussion on this forum is the kilt. Discussions veering off the topic or discussions or photos which stress topics other than the kilt will be subject to removal."

I think you can see that our Guiding Principal states it very well. We know that the kilt is not the end-all, be-all of the world. But it is why our members come here.

If the staff are asked to make a determination on the suitability of a thread, post or topic under discussion, they are guided by these principals, policies and rules only. Frankly it would be an insult to the intelligence and dedication of the 7 members of our staff to even suggest that they would let one persons' personality or someone's bruised sensibilities to hold more weight or value than our published rules.

All we have ever asked of our members is to stay within the boundaries of our published rules. Pretty simple really.