17th Century Style Sporrans

[Luke MacGillie]

Ive had both versions of the knapsacks. The Mk2 with the round bottom is much better and is what I use if/when I do enlisted. (Got Promoted back into the officer ranks last month after taking a couple decades off) It took a bit of back and forth, but I think showing that even a skinny 18th Century sized persons equipment taken from the 60th Regiments Packing list would not fit, the size was upped a couple inches in diameter and the round bottom added, that only shows on one Morier painting was made the standard.

[Guthrumironhead]

I received my sporran today. It is a quality piece of work. As expected materials and craftsmanship are excellent and the attention to detail is unbelievable. It is quite small, and barely holds my admittedly overstuffed wallet, car keys and a jack knife, but it’ll do the job nicely. I’ll just find a money clip to carry with this one and ditch the bulky wallet on those days. I am very happy with the sporran and will provide positive feedback to the shop as soon as Etsy lets me. I went ahead and ordered the larger knapsack and a hammer stall this afternoon, so I’m obviously liking these folks’ wares. I have no stake in the success or failure of the vendor so my opinions are my own.

[Luke MacGillie]

Pretty much all I carry in my sporran is a flint and steel kit, a copy of the knit purse from one of the bog men with a few coins, and the keys to my tea caddy and traveling liquor cabinet and a folding knife. Ive got 4 pockets in my upper body garments for all the the other things I carry.

[Tobus]

Pretty much all I carry in my sporran is a flint and steel kit, a copy of the knit purse from one of the bog men with a few coins, and the keys to my tea caddy and traveling liquor cabinet and a folding knife. Ive got 4 pockets in my upper body garments for all the the other things I carry.

I've no opinion on 17th century sporrans, but I just had to chime in and tip my hat to anyone who has a traveling liquor cabinet.

[OC Richard]

I do wonder what evidence there is for what sporrans in the 17th century looked like.

Museum artifacts have been shown to be next to worthless, because while they often have attached mythology, they almost never have air-tight provenance.

So we are left with iconography. There are loads of 18th century portraits but AFAIK very few 17th century ones.

I don't see any sporran here, unfortunately (1660)



This painting is said to date to 1700, close enough! Hard to tell exactly how the sporran is made. It does resemble the ones shown in the OP.

[The Q]

I do wonder what evidence there is for what sporrans in the 17th century looked like.

Museum artifacts have been shown to be next to worthless, because while they often have attached mythology, they almost never have air-tight provenance.

So we are left with iconography. There are loads of 18th century portraits but AFAIK very few 17th century ones.

I don't see any sporran here, unfortunately (1660)

From the admittedly small picture I'm looking at he appears to be wearing on his left hip, this is where a saxon clothed person would wear his scrip or purse prior to the invention of pockets.

[Luke MacGillie]

Here is Lord Duffus's Sporran.



As to what is on Sir Mungo's waistline...



But we can really see that drawstring quite well.

[figheadair]

From the admittedly small picture I'm looking at he appears to be wearing on his left hip, this is where a saxon clothed person would wear his scrip or purse prior to the invention of pockets.

I think you are confusing the sporran (there isn't one) with his sword hilt.

[figheadair]

I do wonder what evidence there is for what sporrans in the 17th century looked like.

Museum artifacts have been shown to be next to worthless, because while they often have attached mythology, they almost never have air-tight provenance.

So we are left with iconography. There are loads of 18th century portraits but AFAIK very few 17th century ones.

I don't see any sporran here, unfortunately (1660)

This painting is said to date to 1700, close enough! Hard to tell exactly how the sporran is made. It does resemble the ones shown in the OP.

Richard, you make a good point. The Wright portrait, which is actually slightly later, about 1683, is the only 17th century portrait (in fact, there are three versions, I can think of that shows Highland Dress. I don’t include Wright’s portrait of about the same date showing the actor John Lacy (d.1681) in a theatrical pseudo-Highland outfit.

As Wright’s portrait don’t show a sporran then in iconography terms we are looking at the early 18th century. The portrait of Lord Duffus c1712 shows a similar type draw-string sporran to the reconstruction, so to does those of John Campbell, 3rd Earl of Breadalbane c1712-15 and Alister Mohr Grant, Champion to the Laird of Grant 1714.

[OC Richard]

Too bad we can't see the top of John Campbell's sporran.

But the other images show us remarkable consistency of sporran design in the early 18th century. They appear to be deerskin.

We can only go back as early as the evidence we have allows, and past that we really don't know, though it's a fairly safe guess that the earliest things we see can be used as a guide to yet-earlier forms.

It's like that with bagpipes. The earliest clear image he have of the Great Highland pipe is The Piper To The Laird Grant in 1714.

We have a number of early-looking sets of pipes in museums but none have much in the way of provenance. The only early-looking set that has a date on it was shown to be a fake in the spirit of the Vestiarium Scoticum.

The style of turnery seen in The Piper To The Laird Grant's pipes and in other presumably early sets is remarkably similar to that seen with old Spanish and Breton pipes, giving us a fair idea of what Highland pipes prior to 1714 might have looked like.