Wrapping the Braveheart kilt

[figheadair]

Although not that interested in the OP, I've been watching this thread for a while and feel the need to comment on a couple of issues:

Yarn Weight - I have examined many 18th century pieces and the quality of the yarn spinning never ceases to amaze me. The yarn was generally 'singles' i.e. not plied. The woven weight of the extant specimens equates roughly to a range from 12-16oz. The Dunollie plaid for example is extremely fine and definitely at the lighter end. Such a fine plaid was undoubtedly the preserve of the gentry and so may be considered 'best clothes' and was not something intended to sleep out in.

Joined Plaids - joining two lengths of single width cloth was the only way to get a double width tartan before the mid-1800s. Therefore all old plaids were joined.

Finished Quality - All the old pieces I've examined have been in-the-grease to some degree; that is, the yarn still contained a lot of lanolin. I've even read references to plaids in the Western Isles being smeared with Fulmer oil to 'proof' them.

I`m fascinated by the discussion. It occurs to me that these ancient highlanders had homes, and I doubt they sought out opportunities to wrap themselves in their great kilts and sleep on the ground in sub freezing conditions. I believe cattle, for the most part, were worked from spring through fall. They were hardy souls, no doubt, but even hardy souls will die of exposure at some point. I`m sure they new the limits of their gear, and I would think that the great kilt would be, at most, the equivalent of a modern three season sleeping bag. I have slept in such at about -20F, and it wasn`t a very good sleep.

The point is well made. People generally live in houses so the only time that there would have been a need to sleep rough would have been if one was caught out on the hill or was away on campaign or stealing cattle etc. Even today under such circumstances (camping/on campaign not cattle thieving) one puts up with a level of discomfort that is not normal.

Double Plaids - I have some difficulty with the practical application of doubling cloth and to my mind it seems impractical and illogical. One has to be careful in interpreting the historical accuracy of portraits. Firstly one needs to remember that the artist was painting a form of dress that was completely foreign to them and the frequently get elements wrong, especially the tartan bits. Secondly, most of the portraits were produced as a form of social statement and so the 'costume' was sometimes arranged to reference an ancient style, often classical, so as to suggest a level of education and/or social standing. I know of no contemporary description of cloth being doubled and in the case of a draw-string plaid, I can't see how it would work.

[Calgacus]

Double Plaids - I have some difficulty with the practical application of doubling cloth and to my mind it seems impractical and illogical. One has to be careful in interpreting the historical accuracy of portraits. Firstly one needs to remember that the artist was painting a form of dress that was completely foreign to them and the frequently get elements wrong, especially the tartan bits. Secondly, most of the portraits were produced as a form of social statement and so the 'costume' was sometimes arranged to reference an ancient style, often classical, so as to suggest a level of education and/or social standing. I know of no contemporary description of cloth being doubled and in the case of a draw-string plaid, I can't see how it would work.

Thank you for taking the time to give input to this thread, Peter.

As for the practical application, to my mind doubling the cloth could be considered both practical and logical. Doubling the cloth makes it much easier to lay out and pleat on the ground. For a 6 yard plaid, assuming you are not pleating the aprons, you have to pleat about 5 yards of it. If you first double the cloth, you only need to pleat two yards of it, or about 6 pleats. When doubled, the cloth provides better weather protection than when in a single layer. The aprons are four layers thick, and when the upper portion is drawn up as a cloak, it is two layers thick instead of one.

I'm not saying all belted plaids were doubled, I suspect not, but I do think there is the intriguing possibility that at least some were.

I rather wish I had not sold my 6 yards of double width. I would happily have done a bit of 'living archaeology' experimentation to try out which configuration works best 'in the field'. As for the Macgregor plaid, I'd love to find the time to recreate it with cheap dust sheets to show you exactly how it would work. I think if you saw it you'd 'get it'.

As for the portrait of William Cunning, Piper to Lord Grant, 1715, yes it's a portrait and could be factually incorrect, but it shows the material to be apparently doubled in two areas as shown below-

Grant piper big highlight.jpg

As for descriptions, the best we have is " The belted plaid, which was generally double, or in two folds..." as posted above. This description seems to come from 'The Character, Manners and present State of the Highlanders of Scotland; With Details of The Military Service of The Highland Regiments', by Major-General David Stewart, dated 1822. Page 79. He appears to be recounting tales from the second half of the 18th century. He states that his grandfather always "wore the highland garb".

[IsaacW]

As for the portrait of William Cunning, Piper to Lord Grant, 1715, yes it's a portrait and could be factually incorrect, but it shows the material to be apparently doubled in two areas as shown below-

Grant piper big highlight.jpg

.

Maybe I am misunderstanding your point, but isn't that "doubling" simply the upper half of the plaid, drooping down over the belt before being pulled up to the shoulder??

[Calgacus]

Maybe I am misunderstanding your point, but isn't that "doubling" simply the upper half of the plaid, drooping down over the belt before being pulled up to the shoulder??

No, if you look very closely, you can see two parallel edges of the cloth depicted. This indicates a fold of cloth that is two layers thick.

*Edit* Here's the image highlighted in a different way. I have highlighted all the edges in the cloth in BLUE for the outer layer of cloth, and RED for the under layer of cloth.

Grant piper big edges.jpg

You'll have to click on the image to enlarge it and see the highlights. Anything not highlighted is folds, not actual edges of the cloth.

[IsaacW]

No, if you look very closely, you can see two parallel edges of the cloth depicted. This indicates a fold of cloth that is two layers thick.

Okay, I see what you are saying!

[Calgacus]

An image with the two layers shaded. BLUE is the outer layer, RED is the under layer.

Grant piper big panels.jpg

[figheadair]

I understand the argument but am not convinced. The same visual 'effect' can be achieved simply by folding one side of the upper portion back towards the opposite shoulder: the cloth is then effectively doubled on the fastening side but single if undone and worn as a cloak.





i understand the argument but the same

Grant piper big panels.jpg[/QUOTE]

[OC Richard]

As for the portrait of William Cunning, Piper to Lord Grant, 1715, yes it's a portrait and could be factually incorrect, but it shows the material to be apparently doubled in two areas as shown below

I have a fairly large print of that portrait in front of me now, and it appears to me that the plaid has a plain red binding around the entire edge, and that it's quite clearly doubled. (The accompanying portrait shows pale green binding, used on Army kilts till the present day.)

I would accept the portrait as accurate. How on earth could an artist invent such a specific minor detail? The artist is obviously trying his best to depict what's in front of his eyes.

Lest we forget, different periods of art place importance on different things, and portraits of that period put great stress on rendering clothing in minute detail. And that portrait has a wealth of such, from each lace rosette on the jacket being meticulously rendered, to even showing with great accuracy bagpipe's sheepskin bag! An artist couldn't make up a bag that is the precise colour of sheepskin and even has the seam (where the leather is sewn) accurately rendered; once again it's obvious that the artist is doing everything in his power to paint exactly what he sees. (There are exceptions! It was the style of the period to minimise anything in the face, and thus the bagpipe's blowpipe's mouthpiece is made impossibly thin. Also it was the style of the period to depict the fingers as being thin and delicate; I doubt if the piper actually used his fingertips on the chanter.)

I've drawn careful diagrams of the pipes, which are very important in piping history, being the earliest clear depiction of the Great Highland Bagpipe. My dream is to one day have a set made that looks like that.

[IsaacW]

I've drawn careful diagrams of the pipes, which are very important in piping history, being the earliest clear depiction of the Great Highland Bagpipe. My dream is to one day have a set made that looks like that.

If you ever do, I would love to seen them. I have a piper friend that worked with me at the same historic site that did a lot of piping and research on piping and dress at that site. He would also love seeing them!! His current pipes are based off a set that were early 1800ish played by a MacKay that was at Waterloo (IIRC) and may have been the same piper (if not a relative) as played for the fur company here in North America that was HQ'd were we worked.

IW

[Calgacus]

I have a fairly large print of that portrait in front of me now, and it appears to me that the plaid has a plain red binding around the entire edge, and that it's quite clearly doubled. (The accompanying portrait shows pale green binding, used on Army kilts till the present day.)

I would accept the portrait as accurate. How on earth could an artist invent such a specific minor detail? The artist is obviously trying his best to depict what's in front of his eyes.

Lest we forget, different periods of art place importance on different things, and portraits of that period put great stress on rendering clothing in minute detail. And that portrait has a wealth of such, from each lace rosette on the jacket being meticulously rendered, to even showing with great accuracy bagpipe's sheepskin bag! An artist couldn't make up a bag that is the precise colour of sheepskin and even has the seam (where the leather is sewn) accurately rendered; once again it's obvious that the artist is doing everything in his power to paint exactly what he sees. (There are exceptions! It was the style of the period to minimise anything in the face, and thus the bagpipe's blowpipe's mouthpiece is made impossibly thin. Also it was the style of the period to depict the fingers as being thin and delicate; I doubt if the piper actually used his fingertips on the chanter.)

I've drawn careful diagrams of the pipes, which are very important in piping history, being the earliest clear depiction of the Great Highland Bagpipe. My dream is to one day have a set made that looks like that.

Just to be clear, I conceded that the portrait could be inaccurate, but I believe it to be accurate.

As for the chalice-topped pipes, I remember Barnaby Brown playing a set made by Julian Goodacre, if I remember correctly.