Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [albanach] Re: arasaid

Expand Messages
  • Jason Gasper
    ... But there exsists no hard proof that they did not belt it, either. ;) A might could easily be a did as a did not . That s why its a might ! =D
    Message 1 of 17 , Jul 11, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      --- "Matthew A. C. Newsome" <eogan@...> wrote:
      > There really is no debate here. There exists no hard proof that men
      > wore their plaids belted (the belted plaid, feilidh-mhor, or "great
      > kilt") prior to 1594. *Might* it have been worn prior to that?
      > Sure.
      > But that's a "might" not a "did."

      But there exsists no hard proof that they did not belt it, either. ;)
      A "might" could easily be a "did" as a "did not". That's why its a
      "might"! =D

      <friendly snip>
      > Many people push to have these quotes read as a belted plaid because
      > 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.

      And some people push to have these quotes read as _not_ being belted
      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.

      >
      > And, I would point out that you don't even have circumstantial
      > evidence
      > for it until later in the 16th century. So all those who want to
      > claim
      > a 14th, 13th, or 11th century date are far off the mark (Braveheart
      > be
      > damned!).

      I would agree completely. Even the circumstantial evidence only moves
      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
      too!

      =====
      "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
      http://sbc.yahoo.com
    • Sharon L. Krossa
      ... Those who interpret these earlier references as being to a plaid belted are, in my opinion, doing so only because they are overly influenced by trying to
      Message 2 of 17 , Jul 11, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        At 7:21 AM -0700 7/11/02, Jason Gasper wrote:
        >--- Scott Cross <cross@...> wrote:
        > > 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.

        Those who interpret these earlier references as being to a plaid
        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 check
        >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

        No evidence pre-1594. It is a different question speculating how much
        earlier a plaid was worn belted before it was recorded.

        >weight of opinion has been wrong before. Oscam's Razor would seem to
        >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? =)

        I'm not aware of any true experts who consider there to be any
        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
        anything else.

        Sharon
        --
        Sharon L. Krossa, krossa@...
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.