Sgian Dubhs are not weapons ... It's official!

[Tiny]

Hi Tiny,
I am basing my "opinion" on fact; the fact that there is not one shred of verifiable proof that the sgian dubh was ever used, or intended to be used, as a weapon of last resort.

As far as the sgian dubh being a "weapon of last resort", unlike a derringer which was designed for that purpose, I suppose it might be, but in the same way a beer bottle or a screwdriver might be pressed into that defensive role.

The problem with trying to ascribe to the sgian dubh a use for which it clearly was not intended, is that there is virtually no evidence to show the wearing of the sgian dubh before 1700, and very little to suggest that it was worn in the period 1700-1750. Conservative historians of arms and armour actually place the sgian dubh in the late 18th century. With the literally hundreds, if not thousands, of illustrations that have come down to us of Highlanders, the sgian dubh is conspicuous by its absence until about 1790-- a time when the Highlands were "at peace". And even then, it is not widely seen. Why is that, do you suppose? Now there is a good reason for this, and that is that the sgian dubh was, in all likelihood, only used when hunting. When not in use in the field the sgain dubh was most probably pressed into service as a household utility knife, peeling spuds, chopping turnips and the like.

So, based on facts drawn from reliable sources and from the examination of contemporary paintings, drawings, and etchings, any reputable historian would not hesitate to label the romantic fantasy published by the Scottish Tartans Authority (or anyone else) as pure hog wash.

Ok just so I'm clear... your theory is based on the lack of evidence. Your evidence that they weren't intended for use as a weapon is that they didn't start showing up in paintings till after the Scot's were at peace. I would suppose that a hidden weapon wouldn't make it into many paintings. The theory contrary to yours is that they were a concealed weapon and were only placed in plain sight as a sign of good faith. your own argument that they weren't seen in paintings can be used to build a reputable case for both theories.

Reputable historians should know well enough that theories are opinions subscribed to based on facts.

So next time you feel like calling someones theory "hog wash" maybe you could take a closer look from the other side. Just because you don't prescribe to a specific theory doesn't make those that do fools.

Personally I don't really care which theory is right both have their place and both are interesting to recount for those who ask. In fact not knowing the real origin of the Sgian Dubh probably makes it more appealing of a conversation piece.

[Stratherrick]

Like many, I wear my sgian as part of a whole ensemble. But, I'm much more keen on wearing my kilt as a sign that us blessed Highlanders are once again to be seen and identified as such.

Hundreds of my ancestors died at Culloden and their way of life was trashed in the years that followed. Tartanry, of a sort, and kilting were just part of their daily lives, stupendously overblown by the 19th Century romancers, but my carrying a sgian still signifies to anyone who might ask that there was, and still is, a divide in Scotland.

None more than me would like to see a coming together of the whole of Scotland. Unfortunately, there exists differences that are palpable on the ground once you cross the Highland Line. Maybe, if we can all sing together off the same hymn sheet, my sgian can rest in its drawer.

Sgians are jewellery for some, and that's what it is for me, mostly, but there is also a greater imagery going on. Don't get me wrong, I'm never gonna draw my sgian on someone, unless in self defence, but I sure ain't going to push it in my sock just so's not to offend either!

Slainte

Bruce

[Strings]

Thinking about it, I wonder if it isn't something of a combination of the two theories...

There seems to be some grounds for a "weapon of last resort", which was carried tucked into the armpit. However, the evidence seems to point away from this actually being the sgian dubh (etymology being one piece). Instead, I'd guess the "original" sgians dubh WERE just skinning/utility knives...

At a guess (and given what I know of human nature), I'd think that the two were different weapons, but are both symbolized by the modern sgian dubh.

One thing I WOULD like to point out: the concept that you would have it in your stocking "to show you weren't hiding a weapon" seems a little naive. After all, not that hard to have a second (or third, or...) knife someplace else...

[Phil]

An interesting variety of theories about sgians dubh and now here is mine. Victorian gentlemen liked to dress up in Highland dress and scoured their castles and stately homes for any sort of weaponry to accessorise with. It was even laid down in instructions from the Lord Chamberlain when attending levees that acceptable dress included, and I quote -
"Highland basket hilted sword, black leather (or metal mounted) Scabbard .....Dress Dirk.........Dress Sgiandubh worn in hose" with the footnote "Highland pistols and Powder Horn may be worn".
All this just to go to a dance party. With the coming of more enlightened times most of this weaponry has returned to its rightful place - hanging on the wall - apart from the sgian dubh which remains as the sole survivor of all of this Victorian "bling". No doubt Scots of yesteryear possessed knives for their daily use and they may well have stuck them down the top of their hose (for the lack of any pockets) but I am sure that the tradition we follow today has more to do with the Lord Chamberlain and his ilk than any other romantic notions.

[Jock Scot]

An interesting variety of theories about sgians dubh and now here is mine. Victorian gentlemen liked to dress up in Highland dress and scoured their castles and stately homes for any sort of weaponry to accessorise with. It was even laid down in instructions from the Lord Chamberlain when attending levees that acceptable dress included, and I quote -
"Highland basket hilted sword, black leather (or metal mounted) Scabbard .....Dress Dirk.........Dress Sgiandubh worn in hose" with the footnote "Highland pistols and Powder Horn may be worn".
All this just to go to a dance party. With the coming of more enlightened times most of this weaponry has returned to its rightful place - hanging on the wall - apart from the sgian dubh which remains as the sole survivor of all of this Victorian "bling". No doubt Scots of yesteryear possessed knives for their daily use and they may well have stuck them down the top of their hose (for the lack of any pockets) but I am sure that the tradition we follow today has more to do with the Lord Chamberlain and his ilk than any other romantic notions.

I am with you there Phil.

[Stratherrick]

Chas

So as not to have this thread locked, all I'd say is I'm sorta with you, though I'd cut our US cousins some slack on this. We all know that over the pond is a gun culture so far from our own that folks over there might not appreciate things can be different elsewhere.

When wearing my sgian, I'm well aware that I could harm someone if I used it inappropriately. I trust X Markers are reasonable folk who wouldn't dream of lashing out.

Suffice it to say, sgians and kirpans are the only things you CAN carry on the street in the UK without a license. I, for one, am grateful for that.

Slainte

Bruce

[andyfg]

An interesting variety of theories about sgians dubh and now here is mine. Victorian gentlemen liked to dress up in Highland dress and scoured their castles and stately homes for any sort of weaponry to accessorise with. It was even laid down in instructions from the Lord Chamberlain when attending levees that acceptable dress included, and I quote -
"Highland basket hilted sword, black leather (or metal mounted) Scabbard .....Dress Dirk.........Dress Sgiandubh worn in hose" with the footnote "Highland pistols and Powder Horn may be worn".
All this just to go to a dance party. With the coming of more enlightened times most of this weaponry has returned to its rightful place - hanging on the wall - apart from the sgian dubh which remains as the sole survivor of all of this Victorian "bling". No doubt Scots of yesteryear possessed knives for their daily use and they may well have stuck them down the top of their hose (for the lack of any pockets) but I am sure that the tradition we follow today has more to do with the Lord Chamberlain and his ilk than any other romantic notions.

That seems quite plausible Phil. For myself, I have never carried a weapon nor would want to. But I have often carried a pocket knife (a habit I picked up from my father). To be honest, it was the stories of sgians as weapons that put me off them! So, I was quite delighted when I discovered the British Army do not consider sgians weapons! Pocket knife in the hose suits me fine!:ootd:

[Chas]

Bruce,

Maybe I didn't explain myself fully. It is not about the weapons. It is never about the weapons. I was issued, at birth, with five weapons on each hand and was taught how to use them by the RAF in 1970. I am older and fatter and slower today, but I am damned sure that I could temporarily blind someone long before they could draw a gun or knife to shoot or stab me. I would then have all the time in the world to call the police.

No, it is not about the weapons, it is about the attitude. It matters not who they are or where they come from, but if a man believes that the only way to stay safe is to arm himself to the teeth, then I want him nowhere near me. He might think he is safe, but the rest of us are not. It is the attitude that is the poison. The wanting to have the weapon. There are those that say "I will never use it" - then why have it? Is it some way to define manhood? A man is not a real man till he has a big gun or knife?

Yes I agree that there are different cultures throughout the world, some vastly different to our own. We have these discussions and they always come down to the weapons. The thread peters out or gets closed rather than coming to a proper conclusion. But the thread is closed for the wrong reason. It is never about the weapon - it is about the attitude and that is what I find frightening and more than a little sad.

Regards

Chas

[Stratherrick]

Chas

Okay, I see where you're coming from now. I agree, an 'unarmed' man can be as lethal, if not more so, than a guy bristling with hardware. It is the attitude that is pertinent, that's for sure and, as you say, the guy with the sgian who thinks it's a weapon first is a danger to us all.

It may be a peculiarly British way of looking at things, though I don't think so, though we haven't grown up in a country where the right to bear arms is enshrined in our law.

This thread, after all, started with an OP about the law.

Slainte

Bruce

[Galician]

As regards this topic, I notice that the Regulations quoted seem to indicate that only Officers and W.O.'s(?) are to wear siagns dubh. Am I reading that correctly? If so, why?