Aethelred
Sergeant Knight at Arms
Well, if the attitude of their supporters is anything to go by, archaelogists and 'scientists' argue more savagely than any historian. It's a wonder they've not all killed each other.
So archaelogy is an exact science? Yes, you can scientifically date an object, but... that's about it, and that doesn't always get you very far. It's not even 100% accurate, although it's normally good enough. Everything else is quite obviously down to interpretation. Let's say I found the Sutton Hoo helmet; scientifically I can date it, and then I can decree that because this helmet exists and I've found it, and dated it to the 7th century, that means everyone in England at that time was wearing helmets like this, because that's all I might have to go on. I also claim that English people were wearing this kind of helmet 1000 years later, since I can also prove with DNA that the basic genetic makeup of the population wasn't that different. Of course, everyone will accept this because archaelogists never argue and everyone agrees this is the only scientifically valid conclusion. Right? It's not down to subjective interpretation at all, right?
Yeah.
Or maybe they'd realise I was an idiot, because they know from the huge amount of other sources that they and historians have analysed that my conclusions are bull****. Nobody ever mentioned or depicted anyone wearing this kind of helmet at any time, and there's absolutely nothing to suggest anything like it persisted in England. Of course, the Sutton Hoo helmet is clearly ceremonial and doesn't look like it was ever intended to be worn, but it's just an example. Archaelogical finds mean very little unless you can contextualise them, and you can't do that properly unless you have some of the kind of things historians use, such as written and pictorial records.
Now, as for what you're saying about tartan and kilts... Here's an image of this Galician 'tartan kilt' from no less than 2400 years ago. For one thing, it looks more like a mini-skirt than a kilt - I guess the mini-skirt was invented in the 20th century by someone with Galician ancestry, then. If anything it reminds me more of the kind of short skirt you see on many images of Greek and Roman warriors. It's a practical garment for a Southern European climate. For another thing, it doesn't bear much resemblance to tartan as we understand it. It's just a multi-coloured fabric. I've a woolen blanket knitted by my gran that has a pattern like that, the only difference is it doesn't have those diagonal black lines. There's another statue picture, again with wide alternating colour diagonal stripes. Slightly more like tartan, but more like generic multi-coloured fabric, assuming the colours aren't actually put there by the artist to give contrast. I can't find any pictures of the actual statues.
Look at this though. That's from mummies buried along the silk route in Tarim Basin about 1500 BC. Also this, from the Austrian alps around 1200 BC. True enough, these are both much more like modern style tartans than I thought existed at this time. At least the second one has its origins in a Celtic culture, although the Celtic connections of the Tarim mummies are fairly questionable. Genetic evidence, which you seem to like so much, only points to various ethnic origins which are predominatly 'Indo-European' like most European peoples. Some of the stuff around the grave is supposedly vaguely Celtic in appearance, but that's not conclusive. Some of the other 'tartans' don't seem much like tartan in appearance (and yes, I'm aware that tartan is strictly speaking a word for a type of weave rather than a pattern, but I stick with the modern definition). There is actual archaeolgocial evidence of a Scottish 'tartan' from the 3rd/4th century AD, which is just a simple chequered design creating by using different types of wool. That's about it for pre-16th century evidence in Scotland. Check this article for a summary of Scottish medieval textiles (starts about p. 17), none of them have any tartan pattern.
There is some evidence linking 'tartan' style cloth to Celtic culture, but it's far from solid, especially since tartan styles can be seen all over the world even in Africa and East Asia.
There's even less evidence for a kilt in Scotland at any time before the 16th, or perhaps even the 17th, centuries. Try reading the links in my previous post instead of just dismissing them because you don't like them; another good page on this is here. Everything suggests that the Gaelic Scots were wearing a large shirt (léine) and a kind of mantle (a brat, later called a plaid in Scotland). This was the style in Gaelic Ireland at the time also. The only direct evidence we have for the 14th century is the Rogart shirt, which was uncovered in Sutherland (far north of Scotland). It's a fairly simple tunic thing, about 1.15m long when worn (on me that would reach down to knee level). Seems rather like a léine. It has some random horizontal stripes, but only on one side of the garment and they don't even stretch halfway around (check the article I linked above). The kilt seems to have evolved out of the 'brat' or 'plaid', the mantle worn over the shoulders, and the 'belted plaid', or early great kilt, seems to combine the functions of both the léine and the brat. It certainly wasn't some kind of a continuation from the Galician mini-skirt tribe. It's idiotic to think the Gaelic Scots of Wallace and Bruce's day were wearing anything like the kilts and ****e they wear in Braveheart (I guess that's what you meant by 'the movie' - and by the way, the kilts in it look nothing like the Galician ones, they're meant to look vaguely like the 'belted plaid' kilts of the 17th century or thereabouts).
In summary, then, there's no argument to support the view that anyone in Scotland in the 14th century or earlier wore a kilt, and there's only the possibility that tartan patterns were present.
Some of your other claims are even more preposterous. This is the worst:
You're right that Scottish people of this period were split between the lowlanders and the highlanders, but you overlook the fact that the lowlanders' main influence was not French, but English. Why do you think they spoke a dialect of English? The French influence was strong also, as it was in England, but you can't ignore the importance of shared cultural ties with England, which predated the Norman invasion - lowland Scotland was influenced by Anglo-Saxon culture and settlers. You also speak as if the Norman-Scots aristocracy that began to dominate Scotland from the 12th century came straight from France. That's not true, many of them were significant landholders in England first, and even some of the Norman-Scots kings owned lands in England before the 14th century. It's likely they were virtually indistinguishable from Anglo-Norman lords, at least when first settling. The Wars of Independence are the time when the difference between Anglo-Norman and Scoto-Norman nobility becomes much sharper, as they were no longer allowed to own lands in both countries. As for the Gaelic Scots wearing less armour, it's probably true but I don't know what evidence there is of this for the ordinary soldiers. Tomb slab depictions of knights in the Western Isles and highlands almost always show them wearing an aketon in the 14th/15th centuries, possibly over a mail hauberk, and wearing a conical bascinet. If we assume it's just an aketon they're wearing, It's similar to how lower status lowland warriors are often represented in modern re-enactments, and not quite the gear you'd expect from high-status nobility in the high middle ages. There's some evidence from warriors shown on seals in the 13th and 14th centuries that lowlanders were at least familiar with knights wearing modern equipment of the day (there's even progression from flat-top helms with face masks in the 13th century and great helms in the 14th century - search the archives of the National Museum of Scotland website if you're interested). That tends to agree with the impression of a disparity in quality between lowland noble equipment and that of the highland nobility.
If you plan on replying, I hope you'll be more rational.
So archaelogy is an exact science? Yes, you can scientifically date an object, but... that's about it, and that doesn't always get you very far. It's not even 100% accurate, although it's normally good enough. Everything else is quite obviously down to interpretation. Let's say I found the Sutton Hoo helmet; scientifically I can date it, and then I can decree that because this helmet exists and I've found it, and dated it to the 7th century, that means everyone in England at that time was wearing helmets like this, because that's all I might have to go on. I also claim that English people were wearing this kind of helmet 1000 years later, since I can also prove with DNA that the basic genetic makeup of the population wasn't that different. Of course, everyone will accept this because archaelogists never argue and everyone agrees this is the only scientifically valid conclusion. Right? It's not down to subjective interpretation at all, right?
Yeah.
Or maybe they'd realise I was an idiot, because they know from the huge amount of other sources that they and historians have analysed that my conclusions are bull****. Nobody ever mentioned or depicted anyone wearing this kind of helmet at any time, and there's absolutely nothing to suggest anything like it persisted in England. Of course, the Sutton Hoo helmet is clearly ceremonial and doesn't look like it was ever intended to be worn, but it's just an example. Archaelogical finds mean very little unless you can contextualise them, and you can't do that properly unless you have some of the kind of things historians use, such as written and pictorial records.
Now, as for what you're saying about tartan and kilts... Here's an image of this Galician 'tartan kilt' from no less than 2400 years ago. For one thing, it looks more like a mini-skirt than a kilt - I guess the mini-skirt was invented in the 20th century by someone with Galician ancestry, then. If anything it reminds me more of the kind of short skirt you see on many images of Greek and Roman warriors. It's a practical garment for a Southern European climate. For another thing, it doesn't bear much resemblance to tartan as we understand it. It's just a multi-coloured fabric. I've a woolen blanket knitted by my gran that has a pattern like that, the only difference is it doesn't have those diagonal black lines. There's another statue picture, again with wide alternating colour diagonal stripes. Slightly more like tartan, but more like generic multi-coloured fabric, assuming the colours aren't actually put there by the artist to give contrast. I can't find any pictures of the actual statues.
Look at this though. That's from mummies buried along the silk route in Tarim Basin about 1500 BC. Also this, from the Austrian alps around 1200 BC. True enough, these are both much more like modern style tartans than I thought existed at this time. At least the second one has its origins in a Celtic culture, although the Celtic connections of the Tarim mummies are fairly questionable. Genetic evidence, which you seem to like so much, only points to various ethnic origins which are predominatly 'Indo-European' like most European peoples. Some of the stuff around the grave is supposedly vaguely Celtic in appearance, but that's not conclusive. Some of the other 'tartans' don't seem much like tartan in appearance (and yes, I'm aware that tartan is strictly speaking a word for a type of weave rather than a pattern, but I stick with the modern definition). There is actual archaeolgocial evidence of a Scottish 'tartan' from the 3rd/4th century AD, which is just a simple chequered design creating by using different types of wool. That's about it for pre-16th century evidence in Scotland. Check this article for a summary of Scottish medieval textiles (starts about p. 17), none of them have any tartan pattern.
There is some evidence linking 'tartan' style cloth to Celtic culture, but it's far from solid, especially since tartan styles can be seen all over the world even in Africa and East Asia.
There's even less evidence for a kilt in Scotland at any time before the 16th, or perhaps even the 17th, centuries. Try reading the links in my previous post instead of just dismissing them because you don't like them; another good page on this is here. Everything suggests that the Gaelic Scots were wearing a large shirt (léine) and a kind of mantle (a brat, later called a plaid in Scotland). This was the style in Gaelic Ireland at the time also. The only direct evidence we have for the 14th century is the Rogart shirt, which was uncovered in Sutherland (far north of Scotland). It's a fairly simple tunic thing, about 1.15m long when worn (on me that would reach down to knee level). Seems rather like a léine. It has some random horizontal stripes, but only on one side of the garment and they don't even stretch halfway around (check the article I linked above). The kilt seems to have evolved out of the 'brat' or 'plaid', the mantle worn over the shoulders, and the 'belted plaid', or early great kilt, seems to combine the functions of both the léine and the brat. It certainly wasn't some kind of a continuation from the Galician mini-skirt tribe. It's idiotic to think the Gaelic Scots of Wallace and Bruce's day were wearing anything like the kilts and ****e they wear in Braveheart (I guess that's what you meant by 'the movie' - and by the way, the kilts in it look nothing like the Galician ones, they're meant to look vaguely like the 'belted plaid' kilts of the 17th century or thereabouts).
In summary, then, there's no argument to support the view that anyone in Scotland in the 14th century or earlier wore a kilt, and there's only the possibility that tartan patterns were present.
Some of your other claims are even more preposterous. This is the worst:
What are you basing this on? You're using 'clans' for lowland Scotland, which is misleading, and you apparently have knowledge of Wallace's lineage, despite the fact that nobody else really does. The name Wallace is an Anglicised form of the French word for Welshman, and William is obviously a French forename. He wasn't even a highlander - he was most likely from Ayrshire in the lowlands (not actually that far from Robert the Bruce's family holdings in Annandale). As far as the evidence suggests, he was a member of an Anglo-Norman family just as much as Robert the Bruce and many of the other major landholders in Scotland. Gaellic nobility? Show some proof.the clans like Bruce are traced back to that norman nobility
the clans like Wallace are traced back to gaellic nobility
two completly different lines
You're right that Scottish people of this period were split between the lowlanders and the highlanders, but you overlook the fact that the lowlanders' main influence was not French, but English. Why do you think they spoke a dialect of English? The French influence was strong also, as it was in England, but you can't ignore the importance of shared cultural ties with England, which predated the Norman invasion - lowland Scotland was influenced by Anglo-Saxon culture and settlers. You also speak as if the Norman-Scots aristocracy that began to dominate Scotland from the 12th century came straight from France. That's not true, many of them were significant landholders in England first, and even some of the Norman-Scots kings owned lands in England before the 14th century. It's likely they were virtually indistinguishable from Anglo-Norman lords, at least when first settling. The Wars of Independence are the time when the difference between Anglo-Norman and Scoto-Norman nobility becomes much sharper, as they were no longer allowed to own lands in both countries. As for the Gaelic Scots wearing less armour, it's probably true but I don't know what evidence there is of this for the ordinary soldiers. Tomb slab depictions of knights in the Western Isles and highlands almost always show them wearing an aketon in the 14th/15th centuries, possibly over a mail hauberk, and wearing a conical bascinet. If we assume it's just an aketon they're wearing, It's similar to how lower status lowland warriors are often represented in modern re-enactments, and not quite the gear you'd expect from high-status nobility in the high middle ages. There's some evidence from warriors shown on seals in the 13th and 14th centuries that lowlanders were at least familiar with knights wearing modern equipment of the day (there's even progression from flat-top helms with face masks in the 13th century and great helms in the 14th century - search the archives of the National Museum of Scotland website if you're interested). That tends to agree with the impression of a disparity in quality between lowland noble equipment and that of the highland nobility.
If you plan on replying, I hope you'll be more rational.