You must log in or register to comment.

atlantis_airlines t1_jdtqqpe wrote

For no reason in whatsoever I just assumed tartans to be much older.


Kavbastyrd t1_jdtypax wrote

William Wallace was born in 1270, but Mel Gibson was covered in tartan. Braveheart lied to us, man. Also, the main theme for Braveheart was actually played on an Irish oileann pipe and not bagpipes. The primary reason for this is because bagpipes sound like they’re constructed from the larynx of a hyena.


beadebaser t1_jdud085 wrote

As a medieval historian described it, depicting William Wallace as wearing a tartan kilt and woad paint on his face in the 13th century is similar to making a film about George Washington where he leads his forces into battle wearing a modern day business suit and a native war bonnet


TiberiusClackus t1_jduty3n wrote

Yeah but if it starred Mel Gibson in his prime I’d probably still watch it and love it


daviator88 t1_jduybp0 wrote

It's a great movie, just not historical at all whatsoever


Tap_Z_or_R_Twice t1_jdv2xpm wrote

Well there definitely was someone named William Wallace before so it's slightly historical.


Ctotheg t1_jdvfd8n wrote

Braveheart was the nickname for King Robert the Bruce, not William Wallace.

And when Wallace was executed it was worse than the film: Four different horses, one per limb, dragged Wallace for miles to his execution. He was hanged almost to the point of death, before being taken down and horrifically mutilated. While still breathing, his genitals were sliced off, his entrails pulled out, and his innards burned in front of him. It was only then Wallace was decapitated and dismembered. Wallace's head was placed on London Bridge, while the four quarters of his body were placed in Stirling, Aberdeen, Berwick, and Newcastle.


[deleted] t1_jdvg1xh wrote



[deleted] t1_jdvufuj wrote



AuntieDawnsKitchen t1_jdvum5d wrote

And yet not as disturbing as the fact that Princess Isabella would have been 3 at that point.


leicanthrope t1_jdwijoz wrote

Apparently the author is a descendent, or at least claims to be. The earlier drafts of the script are much more one-sided and fanboy-esque, to the point where they're approaching "everybody clapped" territory.


DeusEx-Machinist t1_jdx9e49 wrote

Many years ago when I was in high school, my teacher told us that Wallace was castrated first, then drug by horse. I'm not sure which is worse, frankly.


Knows_all_secrets t1_jdv660z wrote

Just like it would be slightly historical if there was a film about George Washington wearing a modern day business suit and a native war bonnet sneaking his forces across the Delaware Bridge in the night.


supafluous t1_jdv9md3 wrote

Preposterous. Surely he would use the Washington Crossing Bridge.


FirstChurchOfBrutus t1_jdwt9gw wrote

They did. It was called The Patriot, and it was every bit as accurate as what was just described.


TiberiusClackus t1_jdx4k28 wrote

I’ve seen it about a dozen times and would watch it again tonight. Mel Gibson was made of solid gold from 1995-2005


FirstChurchOfBrutus t1_jdxa41i wrote

As someone who lived in Charleston when it was being filmed, and as someone who has a special place in his heart for Nathaniel Greene, I do enjoy watching it. It’s just that, like the musket balls they fired, it is not the kind of thing I expect to have any sort of accuracy. If I were a(n) Historian, I would be aghast at the liberties (pun intended) taken by this film.


Kataphractoi t1_jdy7urt wrote

> If I were a(n) Historian, I would be aghast at the liberties (pun intended) taken by this film.

Medieval historians tend to view A Knight's Tale favorably. But that could be because AKT wasn't trying to be historical and was more just telling a story in a setting. Even with the anachronisms and other inaccuracies, the film still captures the atmosphere and mood that would've been present at a historical medieval tournament.


wittor t1_jdwo5ui wrote

The problem is the widely accepted misconception that the historical moment happened as it is shown in the movie.
Like the joke, It is all fun and games untill people start to talk abou Abu Nazir as a real person.


AstrumRimor t1_jdvb0am wrote

So what would he actually have worn? Furs and leathers?


Snickims t1_jdvltt1 wrote

Armor and probably leather. Hell, just look up some art of the battle and you can get a pretty good picture.


ShieldOnTheWall t1_jdxtwv1 wrote

He would have looked to you very similar to a "templar" or "Crusader" knight.


Kataphractoi t1_jdy86n6 wrote

The real William Wallace was a minor noble, so metal armor of some kind. Probably not plate beyond what his helm would've been made of, but maille for sure.


DrWilhelm t1_jdu1qd9 wrote

Hey man, what did hyenas do to deserve that comparison?

And yeah, Braveheart is hilariously inaccurate in so many ways. You'd think that something called the Battle of Stirling Bridge might have taken place in the vicinity of a bridge, but ol' Mel will sure cure you of that little misconception!


McWeaksauce91 t1_jdv6gtb wrote

They actually tried to film on the bridge! There’s a fun piece of trivia where the director(?) was frustrated how difficult it was to use the bridge. The historian on scene(?) said something to the effect of: “the English thought the same”

Edit: from IMDB, “When asked by a local why the Battle of Stirling Bridge was filmed on an open plain, Gibson answered that "the bridge got in the way." "Aye," the local answered. "That's what the English found."


Bodark43 t1_jdum4ny wrote

The English would have been as likely to be playing bagpipes in the 13th century as the Scots.

But the harsh sound of Highland pipes can to some extent be blamed on relatively recent pipeband competitions. The 18th century ones, before the Victorian Scottish revival, were sweeter, pitched at A, not Bb. But when a competition is between pipe bands, includes drums and is set outside on a parade ground ( instead of listening to a lone piper in someone's house) the edgier sound wins.

The 18th c. pipes sounded more like present-day Border pipes Lively enough to play for a dance, but not maddeningly loud.


Dlo-Nainamsat t1_jdug04u wrote

There is so many historically wrong issues with Brave Heart but I still enjoyed it more than once.


Harrintino t1_jduvyti wrote

Same. Movies are for enjoyment and fun. I didn't watch gladiator to touch up on my Roman history.


vinicelii t1_jduy6ij wrote

One of my favorite things about Gladiator (looking past how the history is entirely bs of course) is that they actually toned DOWN how crazy Commodus probably was irl. The man thought he was a reincarnation of Hercules and regularly took up arms in the Colosseum instead of doing imperial duties.

He didn't kill his dad though.


yarrpirates t1_jdv5je1 wrote

He carried a huge wooden club around, and regularly had disabled people tortured to death in the Colosseum! Man was crazy as a bag of arsehair.


sojayn t1_jdwk42c wrote

Man, a bag of arsehair is a good evaluation of crazy thanks!


recycled_ideas t1_jdxnvxc wrote

> is that they actually toned DOWN how crazy Commodus probably was irl.

It's really hard to determine how much of that is true. Roman historians have a tendency to paint emperors they don't like as degenerates regardless of the actual truth and Roman imperial dynasties are so short lived that no one cares enough to stop them.

Commodus pissed off the Senators and a lot of the historians we have accounts of are of or associated with the Senatorial class. He seems to have been pretty popular with the people.


seaworthy-sieve t1_jdxza75 wrote

>The man thought he was a reincarnation of Hercules

Fun fact, Alexander the Great believed he was a descendant of both Heracles (patrilineally) and Achilles (matrilineally). He slept with a copy of the Iliad.


saudadeusurper t1_jdv3bp0 wrote

Yeah, but I think Braveheart is notorious and uniquely inaccurate for what almost amounts to a biopic.


The--Strike t1_jdvu83r wrote

I read a historian’s critique of what makes Braveheart is so horribly anachronistic. They basically said that everything was not only out of date, but worn incorrectly.

They said an equivalent would be a film about the American Revolutionary War where all the soldiers wore 20th century business suits, but wore them backwards.

This really ruined Braveheart for me.


missanthropocenex t1_jdujk9g wrote

Yeah go look at old illustrations even. They do have kilt like clothing but they were generally solid colors and I believe were yellow mostly.


AstrumRimor t1_jdvbwce wrote

I think those might be leather. The Romans often bitched about how the British tribes were barbarians still wearing animal skins lol


_Fibbles_ t1_jdvwkyu wrote

Maybe, but that was nearly a thousand years earlier. There were no Scots in Britain when the Romans were here.


AstrumRimor t1_jdvzsd7 wrote

Oh lol my bad. I just finished bingeing the Fall of Civilizations series on YouTube and all of human history is one big scrambled mess in my brain now. It all happened in the same year, way back when, basically lol.


monsantobreath t1_jdyiosj wrote

The problem with Scotland is that it's full of... Belgians? Bugger.


machon89 t1_jdw0wvr wrote

Ahhh Braveheart - where the Battle of Stirling Bridge didn't actually feature any bridge.


EclipseoftheHart t1_je2gq31 wrote

Its really common when it comes to movie & entertainment costuming to more or less “adapt” period clothing using more contemporary cuts/textiles/colors etc. as both a tool to relate better to modern audiences and so they don’t look “too weird”.

Every time a period piece comes out historical costuming spaces implode with debate about historical accuracy with people coming from both “it should be as historically accurate as possible otherwise the movie is a sloppy terrible mess” and “historical accuracy is important, but costume designers often pair accuracy with deliberate anachronistic choices to accentuate the story and a character’s personality”.

Good times.


Gezz66 t1_je3fhj7 wrote

The file, The Outlaw King, goes some way to repairing the damage with not a kilt or tartan in sight. Not very good otherwise unfortunately.


Nixeris t1_jduytle wrote

Tartans weren't associated with specific clans until the 1800s. They were just basic cloths that sometimes had an interesting weave. Early tartans often didn't even have a color pattern to them.

"Plaids" just means blanket, and describes an old garment style where you drape the blanket of cloth across the body (now often called a "great kilt"). Even those didn't often have any special color variations, just a very workmanlike clothing style.


iswackynewarchdevil t1_jdyqkoy wrote

I read somewhere that the kilt's modern resurgence was because of Walter Scott's historical narratives. They caused a sort of nostalgia for bygone days which led to people resurrecting such traditional memes


RabidMortal t1_jdv2jpk wrote

I was confused too. But this clarifies the significance

>He said that because the tartan contains several colours, with multiple stripes, it corresponds to what would be considered a true tartan

So the earliest "true tartan"

As a group, "tartans" (checkered woven wool) ARE much older, with the oldest tartan associated with Scotland being the Falkirk Tartan dating to the 3rd century.

However, when most people imagine a Scottish tartan, they are envisioning the more colorful plaid patterns of the so-called "true tartan" that specifically requires the use of dyed wools


Doortofreeside t1_je0iki4 wrote

Weren't tartans or something similar found with the tarim basin mummies/tocharians?


Kelend t1_jdvklfg wrote

There are tons of things people think are culturally much older than they are.

Sushi, as we think of it, is less than 200 years old.

Potatoes weren't an Irish thing until after the New World was discovered, they aren't even native to Europe.

Many spices popular in South East Asian dishes, also aren't native to those areas (instead again the New World)


vorschact t1_jdwfbdy wrote

Tomatoes in Italian cooking as well.


gentlemandinosaur t1_jdwjqan wrote

This one is great actually. Italians didn’t even like tomatoes when they were first brought over. They thought they were poisonous.

It wasn’t until the mid 19th century before they really started to catch on.


TheDwarvenGuy t1_jdxbste wrote

A lot of depiction of Celts show them as wearing tartans, but this was more of an addition by later Celtic romantics to align with their ideals of a continuity between the old celtic civilization and their current one. There may have been similar textiles though.

This kinda stuff happened all the time in the Romantic era. It's like how Vikings having horns was done by German romanticists in order to connect the Vikings to the German Bronze age cultures and thus to Germany.


HalfMetalJacket t1_jdylp3s wrote

The Celts were know to have worn a form of plaid, but that wouldn’t be considered the same thing as clan Tartans.


demostravius2 t1_jdzwwze wrote

Interestingly, there is actually a horned helmet in one of the museums I visited in Copenhagen.


TheDwarvenGuy t1_je1i0li wrote

It's probably from the Germanic bronze age and not the vikings


don_tomlinsoni t1_jdwchlc wrote

They are, they just don't come from Scotland.

From Wikipedia:

Today tartan is mostly associated with Scotland; however, the earliest evidence of tartan is found far afield from Britain. According to the textile historian E. J. W. Barber, the Hallstatt culture of Central Europe, which is linked with ancient Celtic populations and flourished between the 8th and 6th centuries BC, produced tartan-like textiles. Some of them were discovered in 2004, remarkably preserved, in the Hallstatt salt mines near Salzburg, Austria.[6] Textile analysis of fabric from the Tarim mummies in Xinjiang, northwestern China has also shown it to be similar to that of the Iron Age Hallstatt culture.[15] Tartan-like leggings were found on the "Cherchen Man", a 3,000 year-old mummy found in the Taklamakan Desert.[16] Similar finds have been made in central Europe and Scandinavia.[7]


hungry4danish t1_jdw8cy2 wrote

This is just the oldest tartan found. Sure they could be historically much older but they haven't any scraps of them...yet.


don_tomlinsoni t1_jdwbs03 wrote

It's the oldest found in Scotland.

From Wikipedia:

Today tartan is mostly associated with Scotland; however, the earliest evidence of tartan is found far afield from Britain. According to the textile historian E. J. W. Barber, the Hallstatt culture of Central Europe, which is linked with ancient Celtic populations and flourished between the 8th and 6th centuries BC, produced tartan-like textiles. Some of them were discovered in 2004, remarkably preserved, in the Hallstatt salt mines near Salzburg, Austria.[6] Textile analysis of fabric from the Tarim mummies in Xinjiang, northwestern China has also shown it to be similar to that of the Iron Age Hallstatt culture.[15] Tartan-like leggings were found on the "Cherchen Man", a 3,000 year-old mummy found in the Taklamakan Desert.[16] Similar finds have been made in central Europe and Scandinavia.[7]


Mein_Bergkamp t1_jdyhvha wrote

The effective ethnic cleansing of the Highlands after the Jacobite rebellion included banning tartan and destroying the pattern sticks.

When tartan became cool again and lowlanders reimagined a romantic scottish national identity without the highland divide they basically had to remake the whole thing from scratch.

It's why kilts today are military designs rather than anyone swanning around in the great plaid and why all tartans are modern recreations


brycebgood t1_jduvvjc wrote

I actually thought they were younger. They're basically a tourist item.


carolathome t1_jdvvj7s wrote

Probably are. This one seems very detailed. They don't just appear like this overnight. It had to have been developed over many decades.


Ieatsushiraw t1_jdxy1zw wrote

I thought this was talking about an ancient ethnic group of people but I’m dumb and very high right now


BasicLuxury t1_jduxtg5 wrote

Caribbean rum has a longer history than Scotch whiskey.


Taylo t1_jdv6q55 wrote

Wait, what? I don't think this is true, rum was being made in the Caribbean in the mid 1600's, but whisky was being made in Scotland in the late 1400's/early 1500's. Do you have a source for this?


-Gabe t1_jdv9c4y wrote

Yeah, /u/BasicLuxury is wrong...

Earliest known rum was 1628.
Earliest known scotch was 1496.


BasicLuxury t1_jdvao1k wrote

Oldest known aquavitae of brasii (malt/beer) 1495, does that mean Scotch? Some people have chosen to belive it does.


-Gabe t1_jdvejqg wrote

It might've tasted a bit different than modern day Scotches, but aqua vitae is a distilled drink; and we known malted barley was used. So a distilled drink made from malted barley in Scotland first appeared in 1496.

It might not be aged and as potent as required by modern-day standards, but it is going to be fairly close to what you'd most closely identify as Scotch.


don_tomlinsoni t1_je47xgo wrote

Whisky is an anglicised version of the Gaelic uisge beathe which - just like the Latin aqua vitae - means "water of life".


BasicLuxury t1_jdv8mnv wrote

It was some interview with Matt Pietrek. I can't remember the specific one. I might have been more about the specific product we call Scotch, than a general statement on distilling in Scotland.


Taylo t1_jdv9owv wrote

Ah, perhaps it's some technicality or legal thing cementing Scotch whisky vs the various rums. But yeah they were definitely making whisky in Scotland before rum in the Caribbean.


Blabulus t1_jdufa1c wrote

Really tartan was a late arrival to Scottish culture! Only a few hundred years ago!


InGenAche t1_jduit14 wrote

Most tartans are far newer than that, it was more or less an invention in Victorian times to sell in the new industry, tourism.


Kurta_711 t1_jdupmp9 wrote

A great amount of "traditional" Scottish culture is a rather recent invention


HopliteOracle t1_jdviutw wrote

A great amount of “traditional” culture is a rather recent invention. Think about chillies used in asian cuisine etc.


Kelend t1_jdvl1za wrote

>think about chillies used in asian cuisine etc.

That was a mind blowing moment for me recently. I've been doing a lot of Asian cooking, particularly Thai.

My favorite chili has been Thai chilis, but I thought they were hard to find, and could only find them in Asian Groceries.

Then I found out they are just bird eye chilis, which are a lot easier to find.


Darth_Scotsman t1_jduyz61 wrote

Tartan was used by the Unionists in the central belt to Scottify themselves and try and bring the Highlanders onside after the Act of Union. Sir Walter Scott promoted tartan and Highlanders as being Scottish culture when 50-100 years previous if you were caught wearing tartan you would probably have been lashed and been seen as thief or worse.


thefrostmakesaflower t1_jdv8saj wrote

I will just be happy when Americans and Canadians realise kilts are Scottish and not Irish.


trundlinggrundle t1_jdvgj3w wrote

No, we definitely know they're a Scottish thing. Most of us picture the Irish with suspenders and little bowler hats.


BG6769 t1_jdwra3u wrote

I see a lot of servers wearing kilts in "Irish" pubs here. It's weird.


demostravius2 t1_jdzxzmh wrote

Kilts historically have been worn in Ireland as well...


thefrostmakesaflower t1_je00619 wrote

I already know the answer to this question…are you Irish? Ask any Irish person and they will tell you kilts are scotttish. Yes there’s times people wore it, hell even the new English king wears kilts. They are an important clothing for the Scottish people and we do not have any traditional or cultural ties with them.


demostravius2 t1_je020hz wrote

I'm not pretending they are as integral as to Scotland, but why also pretend they don't play any role? The Saffron Kilt is still part of some dress uniforms, and there was a period in Ireland where they gained popularity as pro-Gaelic symbolism.

Sure, Americans like to blow things wildy out of proportion, but don't let plastic paddies dull your own history.


thefrostmakesaflower t1_je04exd wrote

I’m not denying it, we Irish people do not consider it part of our traditional dress. Why are people trying to tell us about our own culture? The English have worn kilts but you wouldn’t tell them it’s part of their culture. Military uniforms which the saffron kilt is, is not part of our culture as it was introduced by the English and invented by the Scottish. Plus if you have to consider that many Scottish people settled in ulster (ulster plantation) so yes those in ultster of Scottish descent will also sometimes wear it but again linked back to Scotland


demostravius2 t1_je04xv3 wrote

Culture can come from external sources. English the language is part of Irish culture, for example. Most cultures are heavily influenced by external sources.


thefrostmakesaflower t1_je068g2 wrote

Yes the language that was forced on us. Can you not step back and see what you are doing right now? You’re not Irish, you’re English correct? So please, respect what we consider our culture. Fly over to Ireland and ask us, go to our museums and learn. We have lost so much of our culture so it’s insulting to try tell us about it. Have a great life, im too busy to debate if im honest. My fault from a joke I made that people read the tone of wrong, was not my intention so apologies, I was just trying to have a laugh.


demostravius2 t1_je084w3 wrote

Well, I don't want to push an argument, so enjoy the rest of your day!


ThrowAway593659 t1_jdu30u6 wrote

What about the Falkirk Tartan? Thought that one was from something like 200 CE.


Javaddict t1_jdu5cc6 wrote

this is what I thought as well, my rough understanding after reading the article is that this discovery is considered the first "true" tartan as it has multiple colours weaved together vs the one found in Falkirk which is a border tartan and looks more like what we would view as a dark and light check pattern


AnaphoricReference t1_jdujoe8 wrote

If mere dark-light checkered textiles count, the oldest dyed tartan in the Netherlands is from 800 BC. Checkered textiles are hardly an original idea. Most traditional "ethnic" dress is a lot younger than most people like to believe.


Wombbread69 t1_jdv8oa1 wrote

You can get dark and light patterns by using different colors of wool. They don't necessarily have to be dyed. They could have used wool from different colored sheep. I think the "true" tartans had reds, greens and blues in them, definitely dyed.


AnaphoricReference t1_jdve8kt wrote

Both basketweave and dyeing are obviously millenia old, and sometimes occur together from about 1000BC onwards. But looms, widespread trade in dyes, and textile industry are a lot younger.

The idea of all people in the clan wearing the same complex pattern in a number of different colours kind of presupposes a local textile industry using looms that could repetitively and inexpensively produce the exact same pattern. No way poorer clan members would have managed to do that at home.


Wombbread69 t1_jdvm3dl wrote

I think you underestimate the ability of local (individual) spinners and weavers of the time. A group of a dozen women could spin, dye and weave a surprising number of textiles in a surprisingly short period of time.

Source: see my wife's spinners guild, those old ladies can throw down some weaves. The technology is largely unchanged.


Expresslane_ t1_jdvuqch wrote

He also underestimates the amount of time spent weaving. In many cultures even right up to the industrial revolution, weaving would have been the single biggest use of time for women.


darklyshining t1_jdvym56 wrote

It was also a traditionally male occupation, from what I gather.


Wombbread69 t1_jdw4k8s wrote

I don't think it became a predominantly male occupation until it started to become industrialized. That probably also depends on location. I could be wrong though, haven't looked into it that much.

I also wouldn't go as far to say it was "traditionally" a male occupation... I'd say it became a male dominated occupation in "modern" history. It traditionally was a female occupation. From my understanding.

Good point nonetheless.


Javaddict t1_jdwm00j wrote

that is interesting but the post was about tartan found in Scotland specifically


[deleted] t1_jdtq6v6 wrote



PunchieCWG t1_jdur02p wrote

So does the tartan pattern correspond to any particular clan or was that a thing that came later?

Edit: nvm the article says it was found on what was then Chisholm lands but they can't say for certain


AngelMCastillo t1_jdw5lfo wrote

Amazing how much history owes to peat bogs


barbecue_invader t1_jdvpky4 wrote

Scots have been tartan themselves up for a night out since the 16th century.


Parabellim t1_jdvfyxt wrote

Do you reckon the sheep that made that tartan are still alive today?


dodgystyle t1_jdwkhmi wrote

Speaking of peat bogs, any other Millenials remember an unusually large part of the high school curriculum being devoted to bog bodies? Or just my school/country (Australia)?


Aranthos-Faroth t1_jdzek73 wrote

What was the traditional clothing pre the kilt? I’ve always wondered why Ireland never really adopted the kilt.


wanaBdragonborn t1_je0k38x wrote

The Irish just like the Scot’s wore the Leine croich, a saffron tunic that is often mistaken for the kilt. It was the type of clothing that evolved into the great kilt. Considering Gaelic culture came to Western Scotland from Ulster it’s no surprise the Irish and Scots once wore similar garments. The Irish do tend to wear kilts but only at weddings or pipe bands. Speaking as a Scot who has travelled to Ireland many times, I love the place.


minarima t1_jdw4dv1 wrote

For an artifact this important it appears they've cut out squares from it for testing. Shame.


finchslanding t1_jdwdpbk wrote

From when the third castle burned down, fell over and sank into the swamp?


hereforstories8 t1_jdysdvc wrote

I was just looking for some new throws yesterday and happened on this same article


AmazingOnion t1_je2tlgq wrote

There's a thousand 23 and me Karen's about to claim that it's a family heirloom


Gezz66 t1_je3g3s1 wrote

What is tartan if nothing other than cloth with a woven pattern ? What I have read about it is that during the Jacobite rebellions, chiefs liked to look as unworldly as possible with the patterns they wore - and the usually wore multiple different patterns too. These same chiefs were often European educated and perhaps had to work on their street cred with their warrior clansmen.

Weaving a complex pattern is time consuming and expensive, so why would they take such time before the invention of proper looms or without a chief with the money to pay for it ?

Clans had emblems and heraldic arms anyway, so they would have sufficed for identification purposes.


Nelisamerit t1_je982m9 wrote

It’s the oldest tartan ever found in Scotland.


IRMacGuyver t1_jdxt6x2 wrote

"oldest discovered in Scotland" but weren't tartans invented in Ireland?


Critical_Cockroach62 t1_je8vhmv wrote

This is just the oldest tartan found. Sure they could be historically much older but they haven't any scraps of them...yet.


FunStuff446 t1_jdw0xbj wrote

Pringle here. Our tartan goes back to the 12th century.


[deleted] t1_jdvq65x wrote



peasngravy85 t1_jdxa6vz wrote

Turns out Scottish people have been wrong all this time! Thank you, american.


[deleted] t1_jduckkz wrote



ContentsMayVary t1_jdugyrc wrote

But that's a "Border Tartan" (two colours, undyed) rather than a "Scottish Tartan" (multiple colours, dyed) which is the distinction they are making.


barkfoot t1_jduj7xp wrote

So Tartans were much older and widespread and more recently became distinctly Scottish and multicoloured?


CoffeeshopWithACause t1_jduk360 wrote

Pretty much. 'Whereas tartan - that is, cloth woven in a geometrical pattern of colours - was known in Scotland in the sixteenth century [...] the philibeg - name and thing - is unknown before the eighteenth century. So far from being a traditional Highland dress, it was invented by an Englishman after the Union of 1707; and the differentiated 'clan tartans' are an even later invention.'

From The Invention of Tradition, eds. Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger, contribution by Hugh Trevor-Roper.


IslandDoggo t1_jduyou5 wrote

I'm a Canadian who's lineage traces back to Rob Roy and the MacGregors. This is crazy and all yalls comments are hysterical.