Why is a kilt the way it is.

[Makeitstop]

Call it a kilt or just a manskirt. I don't really care. So far as I know, there has never been a single, comprehensive set of rules to determine exactly what is or isn't a kilt. What we have is more of a vague set of guidelines.

As far as I'm concerned if it's a MUG, pleated and/or has overlapping aprons, and the maker calls it a kilt, that's good enough for me.

I have also noticed that the term kilt is being used more and more as a general term for manskirts. Not too long ago I was watching a special on the discovery channel called the true story of noah's ark, which concluded with their dramatization of a Mesopotamian flood and mentioned that this noah wouldn't have worn the familiar robes, but actually would have worn a kilt. And I found this odd, because the actor on the screen was wearing a long skirt made out of overlapping leaves.

I think it's just easier for those who are unfamiliar with the term "MUG" to call any manskirt a kilt.

[Pleater]

In a damp climate and natural surroundings you would not want to have the wet hem of a kilt dragging in the vegetation and getting caught in the back of your knee when climbing a slope or stepping over some obstacle.

Most basic male clothing tends to be knee length - trousers are a relatively recent concept. Even when there were two tubes joined together and some fairly sophisticated tailoring, they tended to finish at or about the knee.

An alternative derevation of the small kilt might be that it is imitating a doublet without the sleeves and yoke. The lower portion of a doublet was gathered or pleated or smocked onto the yoke. The length of the yoke varies, from just under the arms to halfway to the waist from what I can see in my books on costume.

In some drawings and paintings it can be difficult to tell a doublet from a kilt as the yoke might be a different colour from the skirts and sleeves, with perhaps cuffs and a hem to match, or the skirt could be made of strips of yoke and sleeve material alternating.

[Chef]

I think it's just easier for those who are unfamiliar with the term "MUG" to call any manskirt a kilt.

Respectfully I think you are wrong on this point. I think the reason kilt gets used as often is to try and make a MUG or Manskirt more acceptable. Few know what a MUG is and anything called a skirt somehow raises the idea of cross dressing. Also because skirts for men are not that common their is a general lack of categories. If you describe a woman's skirt as a hostess skirt, most people will know what you are talking about but there isn't a man's equivalent ...yet.

I think ones definition of what can be considered a kilt depends on whether you consider a kilt to be a general category term (in the same line as trousers/pants) or a more specific term (in the same line as jeans, capris, plus-fours etc.).

I would argue the kilt is not a general category but a more specific term. The general term for this kind of garment is a skirt. Granted society thinks of a skirt as being worn mainly by the female sex but a kilt is a skirt, as is a sarong and several other garments worn by men (remember at one time the definition of pants would have included the phrase "mainly worn by men"). Different in certain design points and style than those worn by females but a skirt none-the-less. So, I believe skirt is the generic category term just as pants/trousers is the generic term.

Ok so a skirt worn by a man is a kilt...not so fast! As already mentioned there are several different types of skirts for men so a kilt already isn't the generic term for a man's skirt. It is a style or type of skirt worn mostly by men. So what is that style? Well like any style it can have certain variations but if you go too far your garment becomes something else and of course that style somewhat depends on the majority of observers agreeing. The idea that "I can't define it but I know it when I see it" does mean something.

So what is a kilt? Well I would say that the generally accepted (meaning if you properly polled enough people and compiled the results) would be something along the lines of:

Kilt: A skirt worn by Scottish men, the length at or slightly above the knee. It has flat overlapping aprons in the front (the outer apron ending on the wearers right side) and pleats in the back. It is most often made of wool, which is usually woven in a tartan pattern. The top of the kilt is generally worn at the natural waist (or slightly above) and the garment is secured by two or three leather buckles.

Is this completely accurate, probably not but I think it would be a generally accepted definition. If you notice I used terms like usually and most often...and I did that on purpose. Garment styles almost always have variations, however if you stray too far in any one area, or in too many areas at once you start drifting away from the definition and people no longer consider the garment to be of that style. There are also more specific traits that might be part individual definitions (i.e. how far the pleats come around the garment etc. but I think those are harder to be accepted as a general definition.

In the case of the floor length skirt, it's length is much to far from what most people's definition of a kilt. Secondarily it is made of leather, however if it was the right length the leather would not be enough to knock it out of the kilt category for many observers. It certainly does for me.

My tupence