Earliest sporrans (circa 1710)

[OC Richard]

The Glen Affric tartan becoming famous as the "earliest known tartan" brings to mind the question "what is the equivalent sporran"?

First we should be aware that it was stated from the get-go that Glen Affric was chosen over other possible candidates such as the 3rd century "Falkirk tartan" (a basic two-colour check) and the "Hami fragment" a twill-weave 3-colour fairly complex tartan dated to 1,000 BC, of the Indo-European-speaking Kusinne people of the Tarim Basin.

Thus the sporran equivalent won't be a non-sporran, that is, some pouch from a culture other than Highland Scots, but rather a true sporran worn as part of Highland Dress.

Second, the fact that we're looking for the "earliest" sporran requires any candidate be firmly dated. This rules out any of the presumably old sporrans in museums or private collections, none of which, as far as I know, have been scientifically dated.

Which leads us to iconography, in this case oil portraits of subjects wealthy enough to purchase them.

Oftentimes we don't have exact dates of the paintings, but since we know the dates of the subjects and we can see their approximate age we can get pretty close.

How reliable are the paintings? We should keep in mind a couple things

1) The subject was the one paying for the painting. A full-length portrait from a known artist in the 18th century, if I'm doing my maths correctly, would be around $150,000 in today's money. I'm assuming that if I paid a large sum for my sporran, and a far larger sum for a painting, I would require the artist to paint it accurately.

2) Something that just dawned on me today, having worked my whole career in the art field: artists draw what they see because that's the path of least resistance. It's the easiest way, and the fastest way. It might seem strange to a non-artist, but when you're drawing from life you're not thinking, you're just seeing and drawing. There are no decisions to be made; all the decisions are there in the subject. It's simply hand-eye coordination.

An artist, if pressed for time, might well simplify what they see. But they'll never create something new, because that entails stopping drawing and pondering a course of action. Time is money, and there's no money in sitting around thinking up something to do when the solution is right there in front of you waiting to be seen and drawn.

In any case here are two candidates, both from around 1710.

Why not earlier? Because there isn't anything earlier. These are our earliest clear views of sporrans. What did earlier sporrans look like? We don't know. Oh, we can guess! But as a university professor told us "Never guess. Guesses are always wrong."

Top:
Kenneth Sutherland, 3rd Lord Duffus c1712 (I've seen date estimates from as early as 1700, evidently the artist didn't date the portrait.)

Bottom:
John Campbell, 3rd Earl of Breadalbane 1708



I took the sporran closeup photo of the Kenneth Sutherland painting in Edinburgh last August.

The sporran closeup photo of the John Campbell painting is courtesy of Peter MacDonald.

The drawings are mine.

It's fascinating, there are about as many differences as similarities between the two sporrans.

Kenneth's appears to be deer. The flap has some sort of red trim, it reminds me of Soutache or Russia braid (used on Scottish military uniforms to this day).

There are red braided cords, ornate brass bells, and metallic twist cord loops where we might expect tassels.

John's is a darker brown. It looks like the same metallic twist cord is used to edge the flap, then doubled for the cords, then single to attach the metallic tassels.

Both sporrans have brass button fasteners, but neither has a visible buttonhole.

We can't see the top of either sporran. I borrowed the straight-across top and single wide belt loop from the NMS sporran which appears fairly similar and could date to around the same period.

[MacKenzie]

Interesting. I like the look of the longer cords, especially w/o the tassels.

The drawings are mine.

And very good!

[OC Richard]

Thanks! I've not done any drawing since I retired, it was kind of fun.

I see that this shop has inexpensive reproductions of the NMS sporran, they look sturdy and well-made from nice hide.

https://www.southunionmills.com/scot...-rounded-flap/

It's tempting to get one and dress it up according to those historical paintings, with elaborate cords and bells and decorative edging to the flap.

[figheadair]

We can't see the top of either sporran. I borrowed the straight-across top and single wide belt loop from the NMS sporran which appears fairly similar and could date to around the same period.

This sporran is said by the NMS to be 17th century but I don't know what that dating is based on beyond the simple pouch style when compared with many C18th ones, several of the surviving examples include a brass cantle.

However, this style, is clearly shown in the portrait of Dr. Sir James Threipland, surgeon to Prince Charles Edward during the '45. In fact, it is so similar it is tempting to wonderm if it is the same sporran.

[OC Richard]

Thanks! Yes there are many similarities. (I don't suppose the angel was painted from life!)

I was just thinking about the number of old sporrans in museums that have what I suppose we think of as the classic "Culloden" or 18th century look, leather body with curved or angular brass hinged opening top.

It's been ages but as I recall I saw these at multiple museums in Scotland.

Does a sporran like that show up in the iconography? I just went through the paintings I have and I don't see one quite like that.

There are a couple of similar shape but with fur fronts and silver tops.

[figheadair]

Thanks! Yes there are many similarities. (I don't suppose the angel was painted from life!)

I was just thinking about the number of old sporrans in museums that have what I suppose we think of as the classic "Culloden" or 18th century look, leather body with curved or angular brass hinged opening top.

It's been ages but as I recall I saw these at multiple museums in Scotland.

Does a sporran like that show up in the iconography? I just went through the paintings I have and I don't see one quite like that.

There are a couple of similar shape but with fur fronts and silver tops.

Richard,

That's a very interesting observation. Bear in mind that there are relatively few pre-1750 portraits of men in Highland Dress. Several show pouch sporrans but in a number of others the sitter is wearing trews and no obvious sporran and/or is wearing a plaid is a toga-like style - a nod to Greco-Roman status which was fashionable during the Enlightenment period. Thus, a lack of evidence is not in itself evidence of a lack.

There are a couple of pre-1750 portraits I can think of the show brass cantles.

Firstly, Gregor MacGregor of Glengyle 1689-1777 which, given his dates and the style of clothing I'd have said is c.1740-50.



Sir James Macdonald, 1750. Only a part of the cantle can be seen but there is enough to suggest that was is a brass one.

[blackwatch70]

one more sporran, Alastair Grant Mor, the Castle Grant Champion (c.1714)

[figheadair]

one more sporran, Alastair Grant Mor, the Castle Grant Champion (c.1714)

Yes, we'll known and one of several of the time.