Re: [albanach] Re: arasaid
- --- "Matthew A. C. Newsome" <eogan@...> wrote:
> There really is no debate here. There exists no hard proof that menBut there exsists no hard proof that they did not belt it, either. ;)
> wore their plaids belted (the belted plaid, feilidh-mhor, or "great
> kilt") prior to 1594. *Might* it have been worn prior to that?
> But that's a "might" not a "did."
A "might" could easily be a "did" as a "did not". That's why its a
> Many people push to have these quotes read as a belted plaid becauseAnd some people push to have these quotes read as _not_ being belted
> they are motivated to establish an earlier date for the kilt than we
> know it was worn. If you look at the available evidence objectively,
> however, you are left with the simple fact that the earliest hard
> evidence for it is in 1594.
plaid because they _don't_ want the date moved back. <G>
I've never disputed that there is no _hard_ evidence for before 1594,
but there is definitely circumstantial evidence. You say that
circumstantial evidence goes one way, the "experts" in my research
(which I'm desperately searching for - my wife rearranged the library)
say it goes the other. Who's right? We don't know. Sociological
tendencies is for a group to overlook mentioning something they take
for granted when writing to one another. Therefore the fact that the
Scottish don't mention it to one another is not conclusive. The fact
that it is not mentioned by outsiders is more credible, but still not
conclusive simply by the lack of accounts from objective outside
observers during the earlier time frame.
Even the interpretation of the evidence must be objectively re-examined
with an open mind from time to time. Look at all the assumptions about
the Norse (read: vikings) that were taken to be gospel that now are
disproven. Could the same be true with what we "know" about the early
period Scottish & Irish? It's possible, especially as new discoveries
eventually are uncovered. Having one's mind locked on the idea that a
society did _not_ do something can be as blinding to the studious as
having it locked on the idea that they _did_ do something.
>I would agree completely. Even the circumstantial evidence only moves
> And, I would point out that you don't even have circumstantial
> for it until later in the 16th century. So all those who want to
> a 14th, 13th, or 11th century date are far off the mark (Braveheart
it from late 16th century to early 16th century, at best.
Humbly, if arguementitively, I remain
Yours in service,
Robert "Rob" McKynnon
- Professional trouble-maker... and it says so on _my_ business card
"Outside of a dog a book is a man's best friend.
Inside a dog it's too dark to read."
- Groucho Marx
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
- At 7:21 AM -0700 7/11/02, Jason Gasper wrote:
>--- Scott Cross <cross@...> wrote:Those who interpret these earlier references as being to a plaid
> > Rowen,
> > The "Belted Rug" may be a reference to the Irish "Brat". This garment
> > is a
> > woolen cape which has a "Shag" weave to it and may is rug like in
> > appearence. Women as well as men wore these.
>Yes, but the brat is not often worn belted, is it?
> > Also, what is the "circumstancial evidence" that you refer to in
> > connection
> > to a pre 1590 date for belted plaids for Highland men?
>I'll pull some of my sources tonite and get them posted. Its primarily
>letter and supply references, again with the majority of it from just a
>generation or two before 1590. Say aproximately 1520-1560ish. I say
>that is circumstantial in that different experts have interpreted it
>different ways. The experts in my books interpret the words as proof
>of the belted plaid. Eogan, Sharon, and the experts they cite tend to
>favor a different interpretation.
belted are, in my opinion, doing so only because they are overly
influenced by trying to show how "ancient" the kilt is. They are
working backwards in their interpretations rather than working
forwards. So they interpret descriptions that are descriptions of
leine, brat, and/or ionar as being descriptions of plaids worn belted
rather than taking them as yet more descriptions of leine, brat,
and/or ionar. Interpretations need to go forward in time, not work
backwards. You don't conclude something has changed unless you have
evidence of change.
>We've gone 'round and around with this topic in the past. If you checkNo evidence pre-1594. It is a different question speculating how much
>the archives you can probably find both sides from the last spate
>without too much trouble before I'm able to pull the sources tonite.
>The weight of opinion seems to favor the "no pre-1590" side, but the
earlier a plaid was worn belted before it was recorded.
>weight of opinion has been wrong before. Oscam's Razor would seem toI'm not aware of any true experts who consider there to be any
>support a "pre-1590, but just barely" side, but that also has been
>wrong before. My personal opinion is that if the professional experts
>can't agree, who am I to fight over it? =)
evidence prior to 1594 -- McClintock gives that as the first evidence
of the plaid worn belted, as does Dunbar. (Again, speculation about
how much earlier it was worn belted is another question.)
The earlier descriptions simply describe leine (shirt) and brat
(mantle/plaid), with or without an ionar (jacket). I'm not aware of
any real experts (Dunbar, McClintock, etc.) who interpret them as
Sharon L. Krossa, krossa@...