Okay...Here's one out of the blue...NON-Scottish Historical Kilts...

[Tobus]

Just because it wraps round does not make it a kilt. Just like the lava-lava and the sarong - they are not kilts.

I agree, Chas.

Wrap-around garments from other cultures, which already have their own names, should be respected for what they are. They are unique and different, and have their own history. And while they may be 'brothers' of the kilt in the unbifurcated garment category, they are not kilts. I don't really see any benefit in trying to call any unbifurcated garment a kilt. That only detracts from their original identity.

Of course, that delves back into the issue of "what defines a kilt?", upon which there is no universal agreement. In my mind, the original kilt is the Scottish one, including its historical variations in Scotland. New kilt types have been created elsewhere, and since they lack their own unique cultural name, I'm fine with calling them kilts (or at least a modified kilt term like "contemporary kilt" or "utility kilt"). But I just can't see the point in including other garments which already have their own identity.

[xdepuydt]

Here is some information that I found a while ago...
The Schenti is sometimes referred to as the “Egyptian kilt” because it is also a garment that is wrapped around the waist of men. At a certain point the schenti was pleated.
The Schenti looks different however. This is normal: a) the Egyptians didn't use tartans b) the schenti was meant to be worn in a warm climate. Other fabrics had to be used.c) the kilt, and everything around, is loaded with meaning that is specific to the Scottish heritage. The Egyptian culture is/was completely different.


Two useful URLs:
http://www.fashionencyclopedia.com/f...t/Schenti.html
http://www.garbtheworld.com/items/g0095.shtml