Talk:Bagpipes

Roman dispute

I dispute "evidence for pre-Roman era bagpipes is still uncertain" -- I argue that evidence for pre-13th Century evidence is uncertain

The way it's phrased currently implies that evidence for Roman and post-Roman bagpipes may be certain. My understanding is that there is no absolutely ironclad evidence for bagpipes is in the Cantigas, from 13th century Spain. I would like to modify the article to be more explicit that even Roman pipes are still a contested issue. Any objections? MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Contrarily, I have read in more than one place (in the 1980s to 1990s, in books I no longer have) that the bagpipe, originally of Middle Eastern origin, was spread throughout Europe by the Roman army. There's clearly more than one hypothesis, and we need to account for them, with sources.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

wicklow pipes=

no mention of this - whuich wer enmost liekly bagpuipes from 2000bc:

Bernice Molly at Greystones, Co. Wicklow. It consists of six carefully worked wooden pipe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.110.121 (talk) 10:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

That's an excellent lead, thank you! However, this research paper is very very careful to say that there is no indication what sort of instrument these pipes were part of . https://www.ancientmusicireland.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Holmes_Molloy_paper_Wicklow_Pipes.pdf unless we have a source that definitively says they were 'most likely' bagpipes, we can't include it in this article. JeffUK 10:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

What notes can it play?

It would be good if the article gave the notes that a bagpipe can play. I've seen sources that say that it goes from the G above Middle C to the A an octave higher, in Dorian Mode. I don't have a good reference. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

This article is about a fairly disparate family of instruments, thus with a variety of ranges and notes available, dealt with in the specific articles. You're referring to the nominal range of the Great Highland Bagpipe, though they tend to be about 3/4s of tone sharp relative to concert pitch. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, and that is Mixolydian, not Dorian (as I thought). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

My daughter plays chanter (I assume of this type) and she said that it can't play Happy Birthday to You in any key. But it looks it can play it in A. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Merge from Gaida

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To merge Gaida into Bagpipes to provide international context, while maintaining separate pages for specific regional gaidas. Klbrain (talk) 09:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

---

Gaida seems to be just a word for bagpipes used in several European languages. I can't find anything to show this term is differentiated by scholars (what makes gaidas different from bagpipes except region of origin?). In other words, gaida seems to be a WP:POVFORK of dubious stand-alone WP:GNG. A merge and redirect seems warranted. PS. While arguably different typs of bagpipes, culturally connected to different regions, warrant subarticles (Kaba gaida, or Great Highland bagpipe), I can't find any sources that say that "gaidas" are a specific subtype of bagpipes. It's just just a word for "bagpipe" used in the Balkan region. PS. This merge proposal is inspired by the followng discussion on pl wiki, where several users expressed the sentiment I summarized above: pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2022:07:14:Gajda_(instrument_muzyczny). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm uncertain about this. Greek WP has two separate articles for bagpipe and gaida (Άσκαυλος, Γκάιντα), as does Bulgarian (Волинка, Гайда), implying that these are considered two separate concepts in (at least those two) cultures where the gaida exists. Doremo (talk) 12:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support, Gaida does not meet the General notability guideline as it has very few reliable secondary sources, if any at all Quinnerwinner12 (talk) 12:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  Y Merge completed Klbrain (talk) 09:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Lithuanian bagpipes versus Belarusian bagpipes

The illustration currently used as an example of Lithuanian bagpipes is problematic. The bagpipe in question is preserved in the National Museum of Lithuania under inventory number LNM EM 94. On exhibition, the museum labels it as “Dūdmaisis, late 19th – early 20th c., Eastern Lithuania”. However, the instrument’s museum passport gives the correct provenance: it comes from the village of Brusy, Pastavy county, Myadel district — a part of present-day Belarus. This is therefore a Belarusian bagpipe, not a Lithuanian one. Like many other Belarusian bagpipes, it ended up in Lithuanian collections during the Soviet period, when museum inventories were reorganized and instruments from territories once under Vilnius Governorate were systematically reclassified as “Lithuanian.” Thus, using this image as an illustration of Lithuanian bagpipes is misleading. At the very least, the caption should clearly state: “Belarusian bagpipe from Brusy village, Pastavy county (late 19th – early 20th century), preserved in the National Museum of Lithuania. Exhibited by the museum under the label ‘Eastern Lithuania’.” This way, the historical reality (Belarusian origin) and the later Soviet/Lithuanian reclassification (exhibited label) are both acknowledged transparently for readers. Цімох (talk) 07:32, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

To support this, I am attaching an entry from the book by Dr. Alyaksandr Surba, Belarusian Bagpipe in the Context of the East European Bagpipe Tradition (Minsk, 2019). Surba is a recognized scholar of bagpipes. On pp. 121–123, he describes this very instrument:

“The bagpipe LNM EM 94 from the National Museum of Lithuania comes from Pastavy county, Myadel parish (village of Brusy)… The bag has a classic cut… The chanter stock has six holes on the top and one below… The drone horn is decorated with pewter inlays.” (Surba, 2019, p. 121–122)

And further:

“This bagpipe entered the Lithuanian National Museum from the Polish Museum of Folk Crafts in Vilnius.” (ibid.)

In other words, the provenance is not Lithuanian at all, but Belarusian.

The problem is that in exhibitions the museum avoids mentioning the true origin and instead uses vague labels like “Eastern Lithuania.” This practice continues the Soviet-era reclassification, when instruments from former Vilnius Governorate territories were systematically presented as Lithuanian, even when their provenance was explicitly Belarusian.

For accuracy, the caption for this instrument should read something like:

“Belarusian bagpipe from Brusy village, Pastavy county (late 19th – early 20th century), preserved in the National Museum of Lithuania. Exhibited by the museum under the label ‘Eastern Lithuania’.”

Without this clarification, Wikipedia risks perpetuating the same historical falsification. Цімох (talk) 07:40, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

This practice has not stopped with the Soviet Union. It is continued today by Lithuanian museums and exhibitions, which consistently present Belarusian instruments under vague labels like “Eastern Lithuania.”

The strategy is deliberate. For domestic audiences, especially Lithuanian speakers, such wording subtly re-frames these instruments as part of Lithuanian heritage. By avoiding clear mention of their real provenance — Brusy village, Vieracieji, or other Belarusian localities — museums create the impression that the tradition was always native to Lithuania.

This is achieved by a set of tactics:

• Silencing the place of origin — replacing the specific village and district with a general, politically convenient label.
• Conscious omissions — museum catalogues and exhibition captions leave out Belarusian references that are clearly written in the original passports.
• Understatements — provenance is sometimes marked simply as “not specified” (vetovė nenurodyta), even when the museum holds the full documentation.

The effect is twofold: for Lithuanians, these instruments appear as evidence of their own “ancient tradition,” while for the outside world, the lack of Belarusian attribution erases the connection to our culture. It is a quiet but powerful way of rewriting history — not by inventing facts, but by hiding them. Цімох (talk) 08:29, 5 September 2025 (UTC)