Frontier cuirass c. 1720 believed Pueblo Indian in Spanish Style

[David]

Wrong forum for this Jim. I'm moving it to Ethno.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by David

Wrong forum for this Jim. I'm moving it to Ethno.

Thank you David, maybe with title specifying Moro someone with knowledge on these armors might come in here.

[Ian]

David, Jim already has a post on this subject in the Ethno Forum, so I'll combine the two just so we don't miss any important comments.

Ian.

[Jim McDougall]

This topic has become quite a learning experience for me, as though I have never been much involved in the arms and armor of these regions in the Philippine archipelago and Malaysian, Indonesian etc. I have always admired the posts, discussions of the complexities of the culture and weaponry, as well as the incredible expertise of members here in these fields.

What I have discovered is that there is apparently little knowledge or interest overall in the associated arms items such as the armor or helmets specifically. In searching through archives there are one of two incidental mentions, but seems these refer to late 19th, early 20th century and not of particular interest.
The actual period armors seem 19th century, almost invariably of plates and mail (brass) and can run into high values.

While I am very grateful for the hints and suggestions added here, I am surprised at the fact that so little information exists on the subject of these armors.

In my query my goal was to dispel the wildly placed rebuke by a thus far anonymous party that this rawhide (cuir boulli) armor of Spanish colonial association (Pueblo Indian, c. 1700, Santa Fe N.M.) is in fact Filipino (Moro).

As there seemed little interest (despite over 10,000 views in a week) in response, I thought perhaps the title was not piquing interest, as Spanish colonial topics tend not to draw much attention. Then thinking perhaps if I used the Moro term, and posted it on the keris forum where the interest in these areas is of course prevalent. That of course did not work out.

Sardonically, I began to think, if I had posted this as an extremely rare Moro armor, perhaps there would be a notable rebuttal against such a notion!

As it stands, the only references to Filipino armor I have found in it seems endless searches online and in our archives have only found mostly Moro examples, invariably 19th c. though other classifications such as Bagobo, Bugis etc. seem represented. The ONLY example of rawhide is the one shown by Jose, which belonged to Mabagani (who has long been gone from here, so no particulars are available).
Here I thank Jose again for that valuable example, and Rick and Ian for your insights on the elements and okir decoration, which are compelling.

The fact remains, my example is over 300 years old and of cuir boulli oxhide, the decoration seems to correspond with baroque style decoration carved into the leather. The style is taken from much earlier Spanish brigandine armor and tasseted cuirass' .
The pages showing similar from "Arms and Armor of the Conquistador 1492-1600), Walter Karcheski Jr.., Higgins Armory, 1990, p.3-4. Note the tassets seem to have been attached to the hip at bottom of cuirass. This was apparently Italian as was notable volume of arms and armor used by Spanish forces and expeditionaries.

Added are 'okir' decoration from Moro arms, and there does seem a notable similarity, however in my armor example the elements of decoration are also notable like various Pueblo symbols used in decoration of their material culture. It seems that Indian artist(s) who painted the Segesser paintings (c1726)depicting the stylized armor worn in the tragic battle of 1720 saw fit to specifically include the detail of the device (insignia?) on the tassets of the subject example. Naturally they are not exact, however these types of artworks often carry certain key details, while other detail might be foregone. That is why the inclusion of these devices in the armor seems to indicate a symbolic importance to the Pueblo that exceeded other overall details not included such as the triangular breastplate element and defined tasseting.

[Jim McDougall]

Impasse

[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.

[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