Click here to return to the
archive of articles I have written for the Scottish Banner.
SHOULD KILTS BE PROTECTED?
©2007 Matthew A. C. Newsome, FSA Scot., GTS
published in the Scottish Banner, October
2007
We
have asked this question in the past in this column, but it needs to be
addressed again. What makes a kilt a kilt? The topic is a timely one, as the
news of the forthcoming National Tartan Register in Scotland has spawned
discussion of whether or not other aspects of Highland dress ought to be
regulated.
A September 7, 2007, story carried in The
Scotsman, penned by Sandra Dick, is one example. She begins her story by
noting that “the kilt is seen the globe over as having ‘Made in Scotland’
stamped right through it. Unless, perhaps, it's a £20 version made in some
far-flung sweatshop…” And just as only whisky made in Scotland can legally be
called “Scotch,” Dick reports that many are calling for “legislation to ensure
only Highland dress made in Scotland to exacting standards should dare to bear
the official title ‘kilt’.”
I sympathize with the plight of those wishing
to protect the integrity of Scottish national dress. But attempting to define
what is and is not a true kilt lands one in very sticky territory. How does
one define a kilt?
To many it is an issue of the amount of
material used in the making. I’ve heard the myth repeated that it must have
eight yards to be a “true kilt.” However, this simply is not true, neither
today nor in the past. Many know that in my own kilt making I specialize in
box pleated kilts made from four yards of cloth, which are modeled after the
original tailored kilts of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth
centuries. Some of these historical kilts had barely more than three yards!
Even modern kilts, which ostensibly contain eight yards, often contain less or
more depending upon the size of the wearer and the sett of the tartan. I’ve
personally examined regimental kilts issued by the MoD that contained only
five to six yards of cloth. Would any dare claim that these kilts are not
“true” kilts?
To some it all boils down to what the kilt is
made of. If it is not tartan, it is not a kilt! But again, this not true,
historically or today. Though never as popular as tartan kilts, people have
worn solid kilts in Scotland for centuries. The oldest portrait we have
depicting a solid kilt dates to 1635, showing Sir Duncan Campbell of Lochow in
a solid red belted plaid. In the nineteenth century John Brown made the black
kilt famous. The soldiers of the London Scottish wear the solid hodden grey.
And of course there are the saffron kilts of the Irish pipers. No, a kilt
does not have to be tartan to be a kilt.
But does it have to be made in Scotland? Dick
is correct in her statement that the kilt is known the world over as a
Scottish garment. So it follows that many people will want their kilts made
in Scotland for sentimental reasons. But does it have to be made in Scotland
to be called a “true” kilt? What would you say to Kathy Lare, who was trained
by Robert McBain, kilt maker to the Gordon Highlanders; who attended the Kilt
School in Keith, Scotland; who has attained the Scottish Qualifications
Authority Award in Traditional Handcraft and Kilt Making Skills? Are her
kilts not really kilts because she happens to be an American living in New
Mexico? What about Bob Martin, renowned expert on the history of the kilt,
who had a kilt making career of over 30 years, most of it in South Carolina?
What about the authors of The Art of Kiltmaking, Elsie Stuehmeyer, who
lives in California, and Barbara Tewksbury, who lives in New York? Are these
skilled craftsmen incapable of producing a real kilt because of where they
happen to live? It seems silly to suggest it.
To some, the definition of a kilt boils down to
construction techniques. A true kilt should be made from good quality kilt
weight wool, hand tailored and made to measure. I would argue that those are
qualities to be found in a good kilt, but are not essential to the
definition of the kilt. I’ve seen machine-stitched kilts that were very
poorly made, and I’ve seen machine-stitched kilts made with expert skill. The
same could be said for hand-stitched kilts. I’ve seen kilts made from
materials other than wool, some of which look very nice and others which look
quite horrible.
What the above boils down to is a question of
quality, not definition. “Kilt” is a term describing a type of garment, and
within that definition you will find examples of high quality and poor
quality. A cheaply made acrylic kilt imported from Asia and sold off-the-peg
at bargain basement prices is still a kilt – it’s just a poor quality kilt.
And truth be told, I think it is just this kind of kilt that has sparked the
recent debate.
Back in January of this year, the Scottish
Tartans Authority (STA) published an article in their newsletter, The
Tartan Herald, that was critical of certain shops along the Royal Mile
(though you can find them elsewhere) selling cheap kilts imported from
Pakistan as a Scottish product. They were roundly attacked in the press for
being elitists, with many people coming to the defense of the inexpensive
kilt. However, this reaction completely missed the point of the article,
which had to do with truth in advertising.
The STA article quite plainly stated their
position. “Most weavers and kiltmakers have no objection to cheap 'fun kilts'
appearing on the market, regardless of their country of origin or what they're
made of. After all, youngsters introduced to the 'kilt' through them will no
doubt graduate to the real thing one day. No... the objection is that people
are being misled into buying these cheap kilts under the impression that
they're Scottish and that the design, fabric, and workmanship are the output
of Scotland's traditional weavers and kiltmakers. That is regarded as a
travesty!”
I’ve seen these kilts myself being sold at many
of the Scottish festivals here in the US. A typical label reads, “Scottish
Highland Kilt; Authentic Woven Tartan; Designed in Scotland.” While the label
is technically true, it is designed to give the impression that this is a
thoroughly Scottish garment. Nowhere on the tag does it say where the garment
was actually made, or what it was made from. I think a simple label reading,
“100% Acrylic Cloth; Made in Pakistan,” would satisfy many people.
Meanwhile, the Scottish woolen mills and
Highland dress suppliers are fighting back with their own “truth in
advertising” campaign. One recent ad for Lochcarron of Scotland reads, “Not
just ‘designed in Scotland’ it’s also woven in Scotland.” And in
case anyone is wondering, I am proud to put labels in my kilts stating, “Hand
Tailored in America from 100% Scottish Wool.”
