R.R. MacIan prints

[Joshua]

Still, why are these things being worn by so few today?

Thanks again

Comes down to cost and practicality. I personally wouldn't want to futz with a hair sporran unless the occasion warrants "gilding the lily". Diced hose, on the other hand, I would like to see make a comeback but at $100+ per pair (even NorCalPiper's fantastic prices) are still a bit too 'spensive for daywear unless the event is a wedding.

[Downunder Kilt]

There are two great goat hair sporran makers right here on this forum. one is Josh from Skye Highland Outfitters, the other Artificer. below is a pic of the one that Josh made for me

[Jock Scot]

Why are horse and goat hair sporrans not so common today? Well I suppose, mainly, it is just that fashions change, but there is more to it than that,I think.

If we ignore the cost factor the main problem is that frankly hair sporrans are high maintenance and there is nothing worse than a moth eaten hair sporran, particularly when combined with the look of the sporran's owner who knows he is wearing a disaster.

Secondly(talking Scotland here)these days there are not the number of horses, goats etc about to provide materials (we will ignore the more exotic and scarce furs). In the "olden days" goats were far more common in Scotland as were crofters. Here I think we have the nub of the supply problem, cattle, sheep, ponies were not the fare of a crofter they were generally the property of others further up the social scale, but goats were, I am reliably informed, a common crofters beast.During the clearances the goats were often just left to wander and we still have their ancestors wandering the hills, in places, to this day.

Lastly we come back to the old chestnut, did the common Highlander wear the kilt and a sporran in the first place. Well some(a very few) might have done and some might have had a goat hair sporran but neither would have looked anything like the attire portrayed in those fanciful pictures. The common highlander of yesteryear(the majority of the highland population) who were not even on the bottom rung of the social ladder------sheep were more important, far more important, than humans----- wore whatever he could get his hands on and rags were the result and I am yet to be convinced that these poor souls ever wore the kilt or sporrans as a matter of course, if ever.

[OC Richard]

Josh from Skye Highland Outfitters... below is a pic of the one that Josh made for me

WOW that is fantastic!! Great work Josh!

I wear this one every time I'm kilted. It's a modern goathair sporran with a 100-year-old cantle. (I like the fact that it's contemporaneous with my pipes.)

[M. A. C. Newsome]

Lastly we come back to the old chestnut, did the common Highlander wear the kilt and a sporran in the first place. Well some(a very few) might have done and some might have had a goat hair sporran but neither would have looked anything like the attire portrayed in those fanciful pictures. The common highlander of yesteryear(the majority of the highland population) who were not even on the bottom rung of the social ladder------sheep were more important, far more important, than humans----- wore whatever he could get his hands on and rags were the result and I am yet to be convinced that these poor souls ever wore the kilt or sporrans as a matter of course, if ever.

Jock,

Blanket statements such as this really need to be put into some kind of historical context. Is your claim that the "common Highlander" never wore the kilt as a matter of course meant to apply to the 1840s? Or to the 1760s? Or to the 1640s? Or to history in general?

I would say, from an historical standpoint, there were definitely times in the Highlands when kilt wearing was more or less the norm. So for the purpose of this type of discussion, we need to more clearly define what we mean by "yesteryear."

[OC Richard]

I think there might be some confusion between the McIan prints and "Highlanders of Scotland" watercolors by MacLeay.

I shudder thinking about anyone confusing the two. I'm even shuddering a bit hearing them used in the same sentence!

The two are utterly different. McIan's are fanciful generalised images, MacLeay's astonishingly accurate and painstakingly detailed portraits drawn from life from flesh-and-blood men dressed exactly as you see them. Every button, buckle, etc was drawn exactly as it was- we can even see a threadbare ribbon here, a bit of worn and weathered leather there.

[Jock Scot]

Jock,

Blanket statements such as this really need to be put into some kind of historical context. Is your claim that the "common Highlander" never wore the kilt as a matter of course meant to apply to the 1840s? Or to the 1760s? Or to the 1640s? Or to history in general?

I would say, from an historical standpoint, there were definitely times in the Highlands when kilt wearing was more or less the norm. So for the purpose of this type of discussion, we need to more clearly define what we mean by "yesteryear."

Well I certainly have first hand evidence from those that lived in the latter half of the Victorian era that the kilt was not the common attire of the Common Highlander and their first hand view was that for most of the rest of the Victorian period, so for at least a generation further back from the mid Victorian era it was, apparently, also the case.So that covers the period back to about say, the early 1800's.

Before that, we have a third of the 1700's lost to the kilt with proscription, so for a significant chunk of that century the kilt was hardly common attire for anyone! Though, as we know, certain rather better off and well connected Highlanders did "adjust" the rules a tad!

Before that(1746)? Well I have not seen one jot of reliable evidence that the kilt was common attire for the common Highland Scot.

I don't doubt for one second that the kilt(in whatever form) was worn in the Highlands of Scotland, by some people before, during and after, the periods you mention, but common attire? For the common man? I am not convinced on either question.

[Jock Scot]

I shudder thinking about anyone confusing the two.

It is quite easily done, it seems, particularly after just driving 450 miles, followed by a large "reviver" before looking at a computer!

[figheadair]

Before that, we have most of the previous(1746 plus a bit of 1800's) with proscription, so most definitely the kilt was hardly common attire for anyone! Though, as we know, certain rather better off and well connected Highlanders did "adjust" the rules a tad!

I'll not enter into the did they didn't they debate but just want to point out that the Act of Proscription covered the period 1747-82 - so only 35 years in fact and there is evidence that by the mid-1760s it was being widely flouted and the enforcement of the Act largely ignored.

[Jock Scot]

I'll not enter into the did they didn't they debate but just want to point out that the Act of Proscription covered the period 1747-82 - so only 35 years in fact and there is evidence that by the mid-1760s it was being widely flouted and the enforcement of the Act largely ignored.

Of course! I stand corrected(again), nevertheless , the common Highlander was not in a position to flout the Act and he was hardly likely to have money burning a hole in his, er, pocket, to pop out to the nearest tweed/tartan(?) store----well alright, the local weaver----- to equip himself with a length of cloth for his newly allowed kilt. So I stand by my doubts.