Cornish and Welsh wore kilts.

[Roan Carter]

The Picts were most certainly not Germanic. That's a new one I'd not heard until now.

I'm telling you man, it's always been about selling an idea to the people. Lol : p

[Martin S]

Nobody wore a kilt (as we know it) anywhere in the world (even in the Highlands). It is a modern invention, a way of making something elegant out of the shapeless all-enveloping garments worn all around the world to protect mankind from the cold.

Through the eons, how many people could afford yards/metres/ells of expensive cloth? How many people had the leisure to sit sewing carefully measure pleats -- or the wealth to pay someone else to do it? (Have you ever tried sewing by candle-light?)

Once mankind had learnt how to weave, then most peoples wrapped themselves in unsewn cloth to keep warm. In some areas, they later developed sewn-up sleeves and leg wrappings, in others they did not.

In more recent historic times, it was mainly the wealthy Chinese, Moghuls and Persians that wore sewn garments -- leggings for men & women (we have illustrations, whereas the Germanic hoards, for example left little visual evidence of their apparel), and the prestige of their civilizations led other people to borrow their style of clothing.

Likewise in the 20th century, when the Europeans colonized much of the world, the most ambitious locals imitated their clothing, while the poorer peasants continued wearing whatever they had always worn.

Flowing garments (ie: skirted rather than bifurcated) are still worn all around the world, now side by side with western-style leg-tubes, and the two styles tend to be a social status markers.

Nowhere but in Scotland did anyone decide to sew down the pleats into a tailor-made -- and handsome -- garment. So, if sewn-down pleats are the defining mark of a kilt, there is no evidence that any other Celts wore the kilt, but they certainly wore long tunics and cloaks -- like everyone else.

Martin

[Bryan]

I'm telling you man, it's always been about selling an idea to the people. Lol : p

Quite true!!! LOL

[Pleater]

I have been scouring my book of costume, and did think that I had found something at least kilt like.

There are Egyptian kilts of 4500BC, which do seem to have pleats, and flaps, but that was rather a long time back.

There is no further mention of kilts for several thousand years.

There is the waffenrock, German, 1525, which is a quilted gold brocade item, with shaped pleats basted in in two lines of thread, and two straight bits at the sides, forming just over a semicircle when laid out. Very kiltlike, but alas, the pleats were worn at the front.

There is a quote which mentions the cloth worn by the Scots, which is from Chamberlayne 'The present state of England' 38th edition 1755, saying basically that the English wool was so good in the time of Phillip the Good Duke of Burgundy that all the Scots wore it, from the highest to the lowest, and it brought in so much gold that the Duke established the miitary Order of the Golden Fleece in 1429 when he married Isabel of Portugal. The Staple of English wool was kept in Burgundy - doesn't say why. Perhaps it was not all processed 'at home' but sent out for spinning and weaving in the local fashion whereever it was wanted.

The Duke of Burgundy is depicted in a natty doublet which looks rather like pleats attached to a yoke and set of sleeves - with the shoulders padded and the sleeve tops gathered like something out of Dynasty. It is proper kilt length. The style of the times is for cartridge pleats.

I will need time to study the whole two volumes, but I suspect that kilts and Britain other than England are not going to get much mention.

[Galician]

Personally, I do consider the kilt as a pan-Celtic garment, not because everyone wore it, but because it is the evolution of the way Celts were noted to have dressed in ancient times. Once upon a time saffron was noted as their most common color (see Julius Caesar), but the Scots certainly helped to expand that, for which I thank you.

[beloitpiper]

Personally, I do consider the kilt as a pan-Celtic garment, not because everyone wore it, but because it is the evolution of the way Celts were noted to have dressed in ancient times.

How ancient do you mean?

This whole thing about kilts being so ancient/being from Vikings/shared by Irish (or Welsh, or Cornish, or even lowlanders)/a universal style of dress is a bit far-fetched. Have their roots in highland Scotland. In the 20th C. it was adopted as a "pan-Celtic" style of dress, but what does that even mean anymore? There are now people without ties to Scotland/Ireland/Wales that wear kilts, and I applaud them. Why shouldn't they?

I mean, "celtic" is such a broad term anyway! The celtic peoples were spread all over Europe, mostly in Germany. It seems that just because certain parts of the British Isles held on to the La Têne art style, they are now considered celtic, which eveybody else is left to whatever heritage they can scrap up. And with modern DNA tracking, it's been shown that there is just as much "celtic blood" in England as there is in Ireland or Scotland.

Oh, and I've decided to back up my arguments here, so here's my sources:
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Nordic-Celtic/
http://www.anglo-celtic.org.uk/Genes/index.htm
http://blog.albanach.org/2005/04/kil...c-garment.html
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MA/CELTS.HTM

[creativeaccents]

It would seem that there are inevitably several different factors when kilt history comes up. What IS a kilt? The evolution of plaids versus tartans associated with clans. The style of that which is a kilt. Which style do most today recognize as a kilt?

Clearly, the skirt like outfit such as those in many points of the world have long existed:
http://www.neheleniapatterns.com/english/rhs503.html

But, is a skirt synonymous even with early kilts?

Plaids have long existed as well, but is a plaid a tartan?

Even simple wraps such as the early kilts have long existed and been seen in culture since the earliest times, i.e., a wrap of fabric around the waist and over the shoulder.
For my own understanding, it would seem that the far more elaborate woolen tartan, stitched and pinned, that took on some definite military styling back in the Victorian era.
The growth of the wool industry itself played a major role in the events in the history of Scotland, England, Ireland and probably elsewhere, not to mention the look of the pastures and fields we see today.
Wherever the English went, so too did the Scottish Regiments, to points around the globe.

THAT kilt, the formal uniform style complete with regalia and accoutrement that came from the Victorian era is unquestionably Scottish with a healthy dose of English and other miltary appointments.
Whether THAT understanding of what is a kilt ever evolved or was worn by other countries other than as being borrowed from the Scots I haven't a clue, but the many other styles, and components had been around in a lot of places and for a very long time, and probably often in many materials other than wool.

But again, a plaid is not a tartan, and those who view the kilt exclusively as the formal kilt "outfit" will likely not be moved to think that previous variants or today's casual kilt styles are the same.

[Riverkilt]

The Hopi Kachinas wear what would be described as a skirt if it were on a woman. Since it is woven and worn by men, the Hopi word for it is always translated into English as "kilt."

There are no pleats in the garment. Linguistic choice for whatever reason. Makes me think that perhaps linguists choose the word skirt for the garment if worn by a female and kilt if worn by a male.

Ron

[Chef]

[rant]

The one idea that seems to get lost in these made up, ancient pan-celtic ideas of the kilt is the reason there is a modern kilt. That is very simply Scottish nationalism. The Highland kilt was adopted by lowlanders as a sign of Scottish nationalism. Sir Walter Scott romanticised an independent Scotland and the highland culture (and with it the kilt) as a form of Scottish nationalism, the Highland regiments got the kilt so they would feel Scottish. There would have been no kilt for the Victorians to take an interest in if it were not for Scottish nationalism. The likelihood is it would have gone the way of other forms of dress (yes, like the Irish liene) if it had not been held on to as a symbol.

So arguments about ancient pan celtic cultures sharing the kilt is meaningless, even if it were true, which it isn't. There was no pan-celtic culture the way we like to romanticise in today. They were clans and families mostly working on survival. Clothes were functional rather than cultural. Even today, ask an Irishman what his background is and he will tell you Irish. He's no more likely to say celtic than a Frenchman will tell you European.

In many ways trying to rewrite the history of the kilt would be the equivalent of rewriting the history of the shamrock in Ireland. It stands for something very important in history. This does not mean that someone cannot use the symbol (shamrock or kilt) to symbolise something new (anti-English for example) based on what it already symbolises, but you cannot hijack a history to suit your needs.

When it comes to the kilt, if you want to wear it to symbolise your culture or nationalism, Scottish or otherwise, just don't forget where it came from, why it's here and what it stands for. On the other hand wear it as a comfortable garment...period!


[/end rant]

[Big Homestead]

Perhaps this century will go down in history as the one where wise men throughout the Earth realized the comforts and freedom of kiltwearing.

Perhaps teachers in the year 2107 will challenge their students and ask if men ever wore pants like women do.

Brilliantly said!