Frontier cuirass c. 1720 believed Pueblo Indian in Spanish Style

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Ian

Hi Jim,

Maybe not a total impasse. With regard to leather on Moro weapons or armor, this would have been from local water buffalo. I very much doubt that the Pueblo tribes in America had access to water buffalo for leather. If you can establish what type of leather your example is, then you may have a simple way of confirming or disproving its origin vis-a-vis Moro armor.

You mention ox in your latest post. I don't think ox exist in the Philippines. Are they found in the SW arid regions of what is today the USA? Imported by Spaniards perhaps?

Regards,

Ian.

Thank you so much Ian! Actually that is the very point which has become clouded in this dilemma.

This cuirass I began researching in 2009 for individuals in Arizona and New Mexico during a search for a Spanish colonial leather jacket (cuera) which were made from layers of buckskin, often deer, sewn together.

After some time I was both stunned and dismayed that NONE were to be found, anywhere! Eventually ONE turned up at the Smithsonian (in storage) and later another in Madrid (in storage). While countless items from Spanish colonial contexts have circulated for centuries, these apparently have not survived.

This RARE example turned up in Tucson with a dealer who acquired it (with other Spanish items, morion etc.) out of an obscure estate sale.
This was always referred to as an old Spanish leather cuirass, but what is remarkable is that it is actually BOILED OX HIDE, which is hardened rawhide not leather which is processed differently. This is at least what I have understood from these dealers in Indian and old Spanish antiquities.

I found records of a Spanish governor during the Pueblo rebellion in Santa Fe (1680-1696) who near what is now El Paso was planning his attack to retake the city in late 1680 was preparing his forces. These included loyal Pueblo allies, and needed armor, his specifically ordered making this 'in the old way with boiled ox hide' (Curtis, 1927).

This style cuirass was apparently copied from Spanish doublets and brigandines which had of course been well known as previously described.
This style of armor is not known in the realm of Spanish colonial armor because it seems to have been exclusive to Santa Fe and to the Pueblo allies who made it at Spanish direction. It seems that it is represented only in the esoteric hide paintings (on buffalo hide) by Indian artists in Santa Fe depicting a battle in 1720.
These paintings went to Switzerland c. 1758 to the family of a Jesuit priest and were not seen in America until 1988.
It was these two art dealers I am working with astutely recognized the character of the armor, as well as the similarity of the devices (insignia?) seen occasionally on the armor in the painting, which resembled the border decoration on the hides. These devices are seen in kind on the example of cuir boulli armor they hold.

It seems that recently, an apparently anonymous detractor has claimed this leathern armor is Filipino (I only have this second hand) without the benefit of contrary evidence. In a manner familiar in these times, someone can be accused without evidence apparently, much as in this case, where my 16 years of research is contested without alternate proof, just contrary claims.

This is why I have appealed to those here who know Filipino cultural character and I presumed the armors as well, to prove this is NOT Filipino.
The only Filipino armors I have seen represented are 19th century, and as you note, of water buffalo (carabou) typically plates, connected by brass mail.

Their construction as far as seen is not like this example and obviously not over three hundred years old. When found in the auction some years ago, the armor was dried out and collapsed after decades in storage, and was painstakingly restored by these antiquarian dealers.

The idea for radiocentric analysis has been suggested for the material to establish date, type of hide and processing method...however valuable items are often not favorable to these procedures, mostly costs.
The very character of the armor externally is in stark contrast to the more typical layered leathers used more ubiquitously in these times.

Metal armor was hot, heavy, and not often readily available over time in these remote colonial circumstances, and mail was virtually useless against arrows which would penetrate by opening the rings. This was worse in wounding as the mail itself became shrapnel carried into the wound.
Even layered hide was only nominally effective which is why these armors were oftren up to as many as 13 layers.
Obviously this was prohibitive in the movement of the wearer.

This ox hide is two ply, but molded and hardened.

Again, my objective is to prove this centuries old cuirass in Spanish form by Pueblo artisans is NOT Filipino.

Thank you Ian as always for your courtesy and giving me the opportunity to present again my case, and for kindly sensing my frustration

[Battara]

My limited knowledge of Hopi culture, religion, and warfare has not shown any usage of armour like this in the old days. Again, though I could be proven wrong.

That being said, I recently saw a Hopi kilt made of leather sold at auction.

[Ian]

Jim, I have searched further online concerning the presence of oxen in the Philippines. There are no native oxen found there, although a somewhat similar animal is found on the island of Mindoro (in the Tagalog region) and not at all in Mindanao or the Sulu Archipelago.

If your example is, indeed, made from ox hide then it is almost certainly not from the Philippines (unless imported there by Spain).

Personally, I think the evidence that you present here is very persuasive that the item in question is not Filipino in origin. IMHO, the burden of proof for a contrary view should rest with the anonymous detractor.

There is little doubt that the origin of your piece and the Moro examples have a common model in older versions of Spanish armor, but that seems to be the extent of the commonality.

With regard to expertise in Moro armor, the problem is that there are very few examples. There are likely several pieces in the Smithsonian, which I believe holds some of the items collected by Pershing during his Moro campaigns. You mention a Spanish Museum, but there are several that have holdings of Moro weapons and they have been discussed on these pages a few times—not only national museums but also military museums. Part of the problem that I have with museums is that there inventory record keeping is not very good. Even curators have incomplete knowledge of what they hold. For perishable items, such as those made from leather, inventory may have been lost and there is no longer any record of it havng been collected.

I'm sure you have encountered these difficulties. While it is always good to nail down an item conclusively, I think you have done darn well to get this far. As for the detractor, ask him to show his evidence or shut up!

[Jim McDougall]

Ian and Jose!! I cannot thank you guys enough for your incredible help on this. Yourpoints are well made, and I think we have enough to submit rebuttal and our evidence I thinks stands well......as noted, the burden of proof goes to this unidentified individual.
Good note on the Hopi kilt Jose! Id like to see that.

[RSWORD]

Jim,

I am adding an example to continue the conversation. It is similar to the example you posted but also has noted differences. The differences I note is that the triangle decoration is an additional piece attached to the collar versus carved into the leather, the bindings are rattan, and it is layered leather. The similarities are that it opens at the side, it is a hardened leather and it has leather plates for the skirt. I can see the argument both ways. Is my example Spanish Colonial or an early Filipino armor based on the Spanish example?

[Jim McDougall]

Rick, its always good to hear from ya!!! Instant images of the 'Highlander' scenes!

This is phenomenal, and adds new dimension to this perplexing dilemma of these leather armors. This newly found example is incredibly exciting, though truly throwing a curve into the conclusions earlier drawn toward the example that I presented in beginning this thread.

The problem here is with the character of these armors both having these key decorative elements, however the fact that this example has cataphract or lamellar scales layered. Our original example posted is of cuir boulli (boiled leather) with designs tooled into the leather.

The designs using the skirted tassets are similar, the triangular element in the position of a gorget at the chest is compellingly the same.

Most importantly, as with the armor of the original post, this example is side vented, opening at the side rather than frontally opened as typically seen on Filipino examples.

Our strongest evidence for this type of cuirass comes from the remarkable Seggeser paintings, held in the Museum of the Governors in Santa Fe, which record the obscure 'Villasur massacre' in Nebraska in 1720. These are three panels on buffalo fide painted by a Pueblo artist shortly after the event, and had been unknown until 1980s, when they were returned to the US from Switzerland. As they are the single reference which depicts this type of armor, the had not been included in any of the few published materials on Spanish colonial arms and armor.

In these paintings, the Pueblo allies who were with Villasurs forces, are wearing this unusual style of tasseted armor in contrast to the Spanish men who are wearing 'cuera' (a long rawhide coat). Importantly, the artist deemed it important to detail the 'triskela' like device which seems to have been a symbol, which is present on these leather cuirasses worn by the Pueblo's.

The remarkable detail including these kinds of features suggests that the unknown artist was either a survivor of the event, or worked under the guidance of one. In any case, these features of the armor were clearly known in the Santa Fe context by the 1720s.

Another telling feature on the original example is that it is constructed of cuir boulli, which was the boiled leather method which had long been used in Europe and back to ancient times. Typically, the 'cuera' type coats or jackets were of layered rawhide sewn together.

When Santa Fe fell in the Pueblo uprisings in the 1690s, the governor and many citizens fled to regions near El Paso. Later, as the governor assembled forces to retake Santa Fe, including many loyal Pueblos, he ordered them to fashion leather armor, but 'in the old way' (thus cuir boulli). This process had of course long been known to Indian tribes with their fashioning of various items requiring that durability.
It would appear the production of this type armor had become inherently unique to Santa Fe and the Pueblo loyal to the Spaniards. These men were taught and converted to the Catholic Faith, but were familiar with the baroque styling and features in the art. In this manner, clearly these themes were carried into these traditionally styled armors.

Having established these things, and with the illustrations with provenance set in Santa Fe of post 1720, we are compelled to note the originally posted cuir boulli cuirass as of that context in that period, and while of Pueblo workmanship, under effectively Spanish origin.

Now, coming to this newly found example, it is of the same fashion as our original, and with compelling elements of design and decoration, including the important side venting, the single contrary element would be the RATTAN bindings. This is clearly not a material which would have been available, nor used in the contexts of the Spanish southwest.

At this point the only explanation which might accommodate the comparison of these two examples would be that examples of these early 18th century cuirasses from the Santa Fe contexts, may have traveled via the trade networks into other colonial areas.
In fact, our original example is now known to have been found in California years ago, suggesting the presence of these there. This was of course the key location for the 'Manila galleons' commerce, and naturally, the movement of goods was reciprocal . It would seem likely that these armors would be copied by Filipino craftsmen in the Spanish regions of the Philippines, and these would follow Spanish design. While the Moros did of course follow Spanish design nominally (even to combed morions) they followed also the more commonly known frontal opening armor with mail.

So I guess, as I have done briefly (LOL! NOT!) I would say this is likely a Filipino version of the Spanish (Pueblo) design, secured by the fact that the rattan is not a material available nor used in the Spanish southwest. It would likely be of 19th century, possibly early, but these things are better determined hands on.

Thank you so much Rick!!!!

All very best
Jim

[Ian]

Hi Rick.

Great to see that example of leather armor. I'm struggling to place it as Moro because all the Moro armor that I have seen has been plate and mail. Those plates have been made from a variety of materials, including various metals, carabao horn, and carabao leather. Your multilayered example, with thick over-lapping antique leather strips is unlike any Moro arrangement that I have seen. It does, however, have other Spanish/European elements and its materials fit with a Philippines origin (although both carabao and rattan are widespread in the Philippines, and indeed throughout SE Asia as a whole).

Provenance of this piece is key. Do you know where it came from? How firm is the Moro attribution, or a Philippines origin in general?

Regards, Ian.