A cup hilt sword for coments.

[dana_w]

You are right Fernando, the cup of this sword is 'extremely' heavy when compared to others in my collection. It is due to the thicker iron plate.

The ricasso inside the bowl is unadorned. It looks like a piece of iron split at the base to accept the actual sword blade. I will lighten one of the images so you can see it better. It is not pretty.

[Jim McDougall]

In retracing material on Fernando's sword and this exciting newly added example, I agree that the compelling similarity in style and execution of decorative motif suggests these were likely from the same workshop or location. The information suggesting the associations to the Haitian Rebellion 1791-1804 truly brings remarkable plausibility to the unique nature of these swords which seem clearly outside the typical Spanish colonial versions of the well known Spanish cuphilt.

As indicated in my research from 2011, this curious rayskin like grip material appears it may follow the Galluchat method of imitation rayskin. This being of course a French oriented process, apparently popularized in the latter 18th century, it seems likely that artisans familiar with this may well have been present in these French colonial regions.

These two examples, while crudely executed ,display the unique charm of these colonial weapons which reflect fascinating historical perspective. It seems that these are essentially 'blacksmith' grade work, but again reflecting considerable skill, and attention to details imitating the motif and forms of the period.
In your example Dana, the crudely fashioned (thus very heavy) bowl is embellished on the outside with interestingly applied fretwork, which seems intended to approximate the beautifully pierced bowls of Brescian cuphilts used by Spanish nobility of the 17th into 18th century. The scallop shell is of course well known in Spanish motif and here in rococo setting as with the smallswords of French 18th century.

It would seem that these rather ersatz appearing, roughly fabricated swords were quite likely fashioned for individuals involved in these events unfolding in Haitian regions around 1791 and probably meant for officers or those in leadership roles. While the direct association to Georges Biassou is of course interesting, though tenuous, it does seem that these two cuphilts might have been fashioned for individuals of standing in these events.

As to provenance, it does seem quite probable that the St. Augustine attribution would be likely, and Florida itself provided an outstanding source for many years for these kinds of amazingly historical arms. I well remember the Hoffman's and Norm Flayderman from the 1960s and 70s who were the primary purveyors of the times, and their catalogs still stand as key references and sources for wistful memories of those times !

I would consider that these two examples were probably fashioned by artisan (s) in Haitian regions who were probably slaves, or associated, and had acquired skills exposed to French tutelage. These swords were probably fashioned in accord with Spanish colonial influences, and around 1790-91 as discussed. It may even be considered that the interesting devices attached to the grips might be associated with the talismans and symbols associated with Vodun or West African folk religion.

[dana_w]

Thanks so much for your comments Jim!

I don't know how much credence to given to the Haitian Rebellion story, much less the association with Georges Biassou. Right now it is just an interesting anecdotal story with no supporting evidence.

I checked my notes and the gentleman who claims to have once own my sword says he purchased it from Andrew Bottomley (UK), and that it can be found in one of his mail order catalogs from the late 90s or early 2000s. I haven't manage to get my hands on the old catalogs to check. Hopefully more provenance information may be found there so I am trying.

[Jim McDougall]

You're very welcome Dana, and I appreciate the personal response.
I do remember Bottomley, and although the U.K. provenance would seem to weaken the attribution to North American regions, it does seem that these weapons were often received in trades. It was usually through this medium that many weapons such as Spanish Colonial and Civil War items ended up 'across the pond'.
It seems it was late 90s that I recall his catalogs from.

While the Haitian connection is of course entirely speculative, circumstantially it is compelling, and mostly because of the curious nature of these in comparison to the contemporary Spanish cuphilt forms attributed to the Caribbean. These can be seen in "Spanish Military Weapons of Colonial America" (Brinckerhoff & Chamberlain, 1972) and "Arms and Armour in Colonial America" , Harold Peterson.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by dana_w

... I checked my notes and the gentleman who claims to have once own my sword says he purchased it from Andrew Bottomley (UK), and that it can be found in one of his mail order catalogs from the late 90s or early 2000s. I haven't manage to get my hands on the old catalogs to check....

Don't bother looking in catalogues #7 and #8 from that period (1998 & 2000). I have both and your sword is not there.

[M ELEY]

Astounding!!! I really never expected to see another cuphilt so exacting as Fernando's, and here it is! Unfortunately, I have nothing to add to Jim and 'Nando's exceptional information and theories. I am truly fascinated by the details of these two swords, especially the decorations to the rayskin(?) grip. Still wonder if those puzzle-like pieces hold some clue to the origin-

Spanish colonial pieces are often 'brutally' put together, like the bowl on this sword pierced by the tang. Likewise, the side quillons, with their reinforced supports are typical provincial work. What remains interesting to me is that there is also skilled decoration on the piece, as if there had been two makers? When I look at the overall piece, I sort of see what looks like a sword hiding under all of the adornments, if you know what I mean. Could this sword have been re-worked in its life-time, with a newer bowl and supported quillons added. In any case, an excellent piece that literally exudes history! I could see it being later, ca. late 18th as well.

Jim, I have never heard of the Galluchat method for false shagreening! Thanks for that bit of information. I'll do some research on it myself for future reference-

[fernando]

Originally Posted by M ELEY

... I am truly fascinated by the details of these two swords, especially the decorations to the rayskin (?) grip....

The key to their familiarity, no doubt Mark.

Originally Posted by M ELEY

... Still wonder if those puzzle-like pieces hold some clue to the origin ...

A challenge to experts

Originally Posted by M ELEY

...What remains interesting to me is that there is also skilled decoration on the piece, as if there had been two makers? ...

Like if it had a second life ? the later not so operational and more directed to ostentation ?

Originally Posted by M ELEY

... Could this sword have been re-worked in its life-time, with a newer bowl and supported quillons added... [/B]

Or the decorations to the bowl also an addition to the original ?

[M ELEY]

Aaaaah! Fernando, you are correct with your rhetorical questioning, but what a puzzle it is!

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Mark,
Indeed these are a conundrum, and I think the rhetorically placed idea that the embellishment on the cup bowl is likely added on. I am inclined to follow my suggestion that these were probably Spanish cuphilts or their components obtained by Haitian artisans from Spaniards in the period noted. The silver devices on the faux rayskin seem likely to be 'charms'or amulet type devices likely from the items used in the native folk religion.
Naturally they may simply be aesthetic adornments, however it is tempting to think they were applied more symbolically.
It seems reasonable to think these two swords are of the period noted around the Haitian Rebellion, and compellingly suggest the same artisan or workshop completed them both .

Who knows, in a few years maybe somebody else will turn one up? It happened with the 'Berber' sabres; 'Black Sea yatagans' and the Cuban guabacoa anomalies.

All the best,
Jim

[M ELEY]

Sorry, I was out of town until today. Back to this fascinating cup-hilt form.

Jim, I had missed your earlier synopsis of this sword's Haitian connection, with its talismanic charms on the grip. Your theory makes sense! There were certainly very specific styles of espadas that we see throughout the colonies. The Cuban style swords, as pictured in Brinkerhoff's volume comes to mind (their distinctive strap-like bars with studs to the guard). All of the Indies undoubtedly had their own styles, much like the Brazilian cutlass that you helped identify on this forum. I do hope you are right that we might see others in the future to pin this form down.

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Mark,
I missed your response, thank you so much for the kind words as always. I do recall those espadas we identified as Brazilian, and were of course probably much wider used throughout the 'Spanish Main' of the 19th c.
That was really quite a breakthrough as we had little knowledge on Spanish colonial edged weapons outside those in Mexico and the Southwest.

Interesting on these cuphilts and reading some discussion on another forum, how incredibly little these are known at large. Aside from one writer based in Spain and a brilliant arms scholar, other notes were pretty void .

I like the fact that here we are able to stay with a topic and pursue more data and examples with the goal of actually learning the history of these arms. It seems others just want a label, or wording to sell things.

I always hope more will come in on these, I really do believe these were of the same location and perhaps even workshop.

[M ELEY]

Absolutely agree to generic labeling of pieces these days, Jim. The importance of pinpointing not only adds to our knowledge, but for those that enjoy the fine details, helps us appreciate the history behind it. I have found this fact particularly with naval weapons. Many weapons that went to sea were not documented and must be labeled 'associated'. That being said, some collectors shy away from anything but weapons with absolute exacting proof of such (anchor designs, rack numbers, axe patterns used by naval) while ignoring other pieces that very likely were nautical examples, but need more research to pin them down. Sorry to divert from the sword at hand, but I think the point is this form of sword differs from its cousins for a reason and hopefully, we'll crack its code someday!

[fernando]

Originally Posted by M ELEY

... That being said, some collectors shy away from anything but weapons with absolute exacting proof ...

Touché Capitão ... naval or not naval. Within such concept you have 'restricted' or 'vague' labels, like a sword of the Peninsular War or a spontoon of the American Revolution.
But you will have to recognize that a weapon full of marks and dates scores a better position in the rank of preferences; not including those which are so undoubtedly identifiable that one looks 'instead' for their perservation condition.
These two swords bear symptoms of having being in the same location (colony) and potentialy made (read hilted or even rehilted) by the same guild or even the same artisan. Their life path may (read must) have however been a different one.
My sword was in Spain when i acquired it; Dana's example was in Great Britain.
My sword has a traditional Spaniosh blade with the inscription; Dana's example is a plain rapier type one.
With these ingredients, missing precise data and giving wings to imagination,
one could design here two rather different stories.
My sword could have gone from Spain to the Colonies, be rehilted by a local smith as an added (or souvenir) value to its (Spanish) owner and return to the main land, later ending in the hands of a familiar who later sold it or gave it way.
Danas's example could have been hilted or re-hilted in the same spot but remained there, as a local field/ornament weapon, later brought to Britain for whatever reason, including commercial purposes.
Now ... how's that for an approach ?
Let me tell you guys that, nobody in the world is more zealous enthusiast of a piece's precise provenance than me ... for one

[Jim McDougall]

Nando, I should have more carefully worded my comment to note 'we' meaning most of us here on these forums, it sounded like I meant just Mark and myself oops! Quite true.......you're a super sleuth when it comes to provenance and studying developed history on these arms!!
I know...you and I have been at it for how many years now!!! ???

It is true, an item that has established pedigree in provenance, or that is well marked and referenced certainly does excel in historic value .

Thank you for reiterating the comparative differences between these two examples, which clearly were taken on different courses after leaving their original point of fabrication. Nicely summarized!!

Mark, you're spot on with your notes on the variations and undocumented instances of arms 'probably' used in maritime circumstances. We well know that to be the case on 'pirate' vessels, and do you recall our push to discover how likely it was that Scottish (and other) basket hilts were used at sea? I believe years ago Dr. Mazansky did an x-ray study on a basket hilt of late 16th century from an English shipwreck off Bermuda (part of the source material for Shakespeare's "The Tempest" if I recall) .

All the best,
Jim

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

......you're a super sleuth when it comes to provenance and studying developed history on these arms!!...

Ah ... sleuth, a term i would never dreamed of .
Nothing like being here to improve one's english ... like stalwart and so .
But ... let's hear what the Capitão has to say about my fantasies

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by fernando

Ah ... sleuth, a term i would never dreamed of .
Nothing like being here to improve one's english ... like stalwart and so .
But ... let's hear what the Capitão has to say about my fantasies

kinky!!!

[M ELEY]

Fernando- I see your point, my friend, and certainly don't deny that a piece with provenance or a well-documented artifact always wins out. My point was simply that today's questioned piece, that might be either overlooked or even scoffed at by purists, might very well prove to be tomorrow's treasures! The story lies in the details, no doubt, and that is also where the excitement (or eternal frustration!) lies. Ultimately, one will either like the piece for what it is or not. Purists might shy away from anything but the classic Spanish/Portuguese/Italian cuphilt. Others may revel in the fascination with colonial pieces, such as the Caribbean cup-hilts. I tend to judge pieces these days based on whether I like them or not. If they don't feel right, I part with them-
Anyway, still fascinated with both swords and their possible connection.

Jim, you have peaked my interests again in baskethilts. I've always wanted one for my collection, but could never justify such a piece in a naval collection. Your lead (which I hope to follow up on, once I get a day off!!) gives me hope again! I think Annis mentions at least one basket in his book with an association with the sea. Got to look over my notes again!

[Jim McDougall]

Absolutely Mark....collectors or any kind of enthusiasts on history and weapons will have their preferences and chosen fields of study, often very selective and 'purist' , but I think the most fascinating are the anomalies and variations . There's where the real historical detection come in!

As we know on the baskethilts, the instance with the Highlander who killed Blackbeard in 1715 using his broadsword in the melee on the decks of the pirate's vessel, he was probably one of the regular troops locally who joined Maynard's naval group in this ambush.
I have found however, a couple of instances where Highland basket hilts were included among noted arms used on pirate vessels. The National Maritime Museum could not specify nor confirm such use of these on ships, but if I recall such instances could not be categorically excluded . I think you're right, Annis might have mentioned one, now Im fired up too!!
Off to the notes.

All the best
Jim

[M ELEY]

Hi, Jim! Here's what I found. In Annis' monumental work on sea swords (think 'officer's sword' mostly, as the National Maritime Museum was what he was referencing mostly), he mentions several broadswords with nautical connections. Only two of them from the Greenwich collection were of the Scottish/English baskethilt pattern. They were-

James Robertson-Walker's (entered naval service 1801, died 1858). His was a steel baskethilt broadsword double edged (not a backsword), with flattened bars, heart shapes, hemispherical pommel, fishskin grip. The blade marked with the Passau running wolf and orb/cross marking. The attribution wasn't rock-solid, but better than most.

The second was a doozy! Again, the attribution wasn't definite, but I'm told other works possibily support its nature. It was a baskethilt worn by John Scott, Lord Nelson's Secretary on the Victory when it sailed at Trafalgar! It was also a steel basket, larger and more ornate than the previous example, with steel bars, heart shapes, cross-shaped designs in the bars, leather-bound grip with wire, conical pommel. This sword bore the Arms of Mechlenberg, marking '165' and an unidentified cutler's proof. Annis goes on to say that this sword is 'meagerly supported' to be Scott's sea sword.

The author goes on to say the obvious. In rare circumstances, these sword types and quite a few others went to sea based on the taste, whims and style of the officers that carried them. Prior to true naval patterning, with no rules came eclectic tastes. Such swords would be 'one-off' affairs, as their general practicality could be questioned (steel baskets rusted easily, their titanic blades made them of limited use on crowded ships, etc). Annis does bring up the important point, however, of troop trnasports. Soldiers (read 'armies!') on board a ship probably carried such. It was just such an epiphany that I had when struggling over the whole 'were Span/Portuguese cuphilt swords really worn by sailors', as depicted in so many movies and books? The answer, surprisingly, was 'yes'. The Treasure Fleets had contingents of soldiers aboard every ship, thus, they wore bilbos and cuthilts. Such an argument could be used to say that any military branch riding aboard a naval transport would have been so armed. Even in the British Navy, post 1790, we see branches of the Royal Marines on the ship for disciplinary purposes, discouragement of mutiny, land raids, etc. That branch of the military carried their own swords, guns, etc.

Finally (!), we must never forget the privateers, merchant class and pirates ( ), whose fleets dwarfed even the British fleet. The men of these typle vessels carried just about anything they d#mned well pleased! So, as far as I'm concerned, when it comes to Scottish baskethilts at sea, it's a 'maybe yes or maybe no', but proving that a sword wasn't naval is just as hard as proving that it was!

[M ELEY]

Deleted...

Sorry, tried to post pic.

[dana_w]

Is there a definitive list of characteristic which separate Colonial Cup Hilts from those made in Europe. Sometimes it seems to be a “I know it when I see it” situation

Peterson's "Arms and Armour in Colonial America. 1526-1783" is not much help, and I don’t own a copy of Brinckerhoff and Chamberlain’s “Spanish Military Weapons in Colonial America 1700-1821”, …. yet.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by dana_w

Is there a definitive list of characteristic which separate Colonial Cup Hilts from those made in Europe. Sometimes it seems to be a “I know it when I see it” situation

Peterson's "Arms and Armour in Colonial America. 1526-1783" is not much help, and I don’t own a copy of Brinckerhoff and Chamberlain’s “Spanish Military Weapons in Colonial America 1700-1821”, …. yet.

That is a very reasonably placed question Dana, and of course as far as I know, there are no definitive or categorized descriptions which would comprise a guide on cuphilts. The Continental European forms are well described in a number of references, probably one of the best would be book by A.V.B.Norman "The Rapier and Smallsword 1460-1820" (1980).While these are typically expensive there is I believe a reprint and interlibrary loan is another option.

The colonial examples are far less defined as they are typically roughly fashioned and rather than being the elegant, pierced steel examples or even the simpler forms on the Continent, they are often workmanlike and rugged arming swords. Instead of the thin, swift rapier blades they carry heavier arming broadsword blades.

The Continental examples will usually have a 'rompepuntas' (a folded over ridge around the rim of the cup), worked or writhen quillons and more artistically fashioned elements than the simple cups and guards of the colonials. Also inside the cup a fixture known as the 'guardopolvo' (ostensibly =dust guard) is at the aperture for the blade and surrounding it...these are not on colonial examples. The Colonial forms usually had the heavier broadsword blades, however it is known that shipments of the narrow rapier blades made in Solingen with Spanish makers names and marks did go to New Spain in some degree in the 18th century. It would seem that the traditional Spaniard gentry may have still kept the older form swords there, but I have never seen examples of them with these blades.

Keep in mind that the cuphilt form came into use at some time in the first half of the 17th century in Italy, Spain and in some degree in Germany. Often these are referred to broadly as 'Spanish cuphilts' but many, especially the piercework types, were Brescian or northern Italian. I believe much of the confusion was because many of these areas in Italy were actually Spanish provincial.
By the end of the 17th century, the cuphilt was essentially obsolete everywhere except in deeply traditional Spain . While it gradually went out of fashion even there into the 18th century, these were still favored in New Spain and there they continued to fashion the cup guards for heavy arming blades through the 18th and into the early 19th.

I think the examples shown here by Fernando and Mark are excellent in illustrating the somewhat rough, but superbly charming work seen in these remotely fashioned versions of these revered and traditional swords.

I hope this might be of some help, and to better follow the peculiarities of these colonial swords, Brinckerhoff & Chamberlain is essential.
As it has been some time since researching these, and I am relying on memory in writing this, I hope others might also add more reliable input.

[dana_w]

A friend who read my recent post offered to give/loan me a copy of of Brinckerhoff and Chamberlain’s “Spanish Military Weapons in Colonial America 1700-1821”. WOW, Thanks "Anonymous"!

***

To summarize Jim's comments, Colonial Cup Hilts (cuphilts) are:

(A) "Typically" more roughly made & less decorative
(B) "Usually" more rugged arming swords rather than slender rapiers

You've mention elsewhere that Colonial Cup Hilts are

(C) "Normally" missing the arms in the hilt which hold the cup.

I'm off to find a copy of "The Rapier and Smallsword 1460-1820".

[Jim McDougall]

That's fantastic Dana!!! It is an excellent reference, and effectively the only reference standing on Spanish colonial arms with other references quite esoteric and hard to find.
The guardopolvo is a plate at the base of the cup inside which surrounds the entry point of the blade and is ostensibly considered a 'dust cover', though that purpose seems tenuous and it seems more decorative. The quillons extend across the rim of the cup circumference the same as Continental types, but they are more rudimentary.
You have a PM .
Jim

[dana_w]

Sorry, I should have attributed condition (C) to "Juan J. Perez at swordforum.com . This is an exact quote:

"This sort of swords differs mainly from the peninsular civilian cup-hilts not only for their cruder manufacture and broader blades, but in the absence of the arms of the hilt that hold the cup in the original form of this sword.

However, this is not only a feature of swords from the Spanish colonies in America, but from Portuguese ones, and even from Portugal mainland itself, where this sort of cup-hilt was made regulation for cavalry units. This is always an option that should not be discarded."

I hesitate to say anything about Portugal

So Jim, to the list, should I add:

(D) They seldom have 'guardopolvo' (ostensibly = dust guard)

[Jim McDougall]

Thanks Dana, I had forgotten Juan's remarkable studies on Spanish arms, and to be honest I did not recall the interim part of the crossguard across the inner part of the cup being absent (I need to find pics again but it seems the bar extends across in the ones I've seen. As far as I have known, the straight quillon guard essentially sits atop or in the top of the cup.

I do know that the continuation of the cuphilt phenomenon continued as noted into the 19th century in the colonial regions, and I have even seen 'court' type cuphilts with the traditional bowl and a vestigial crossguard across its base as a straight bar! obviously entirely redundant.

[M ELEY]

Excellent followup questions and answers. Just wanted to add the grip materials and shape can also be defining factors of the colonial types (I.e. Carribean or New World). In particular, horn grips with crisscross patterning is often seen, as are 'bulging' grips as seen on colonial espada and cuphilts.

Does anyone want to argue the 'mushroom-shaped' pommel styles as being colonial? Peterson used this one as a tip of the hat towards Spanish Main and I tend to believe him-

[dana_w]

This is the only Spanish Colonial Cup Hilt I own that has a horn grip. As you can see the line patterns on this one run in parallel. I guess this grip could also be described at "bulging".

I'll add a "mushroom-shaped" pommel style example when I have a chance to photograph one.

The photos that I have posted here are copyright (c) 2014 by Dana K. Williams. All Rights Are Reserved.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by dana_w

[I]"This sort of swords differs mainly from the peninsular civilian cup-hilts not only for their cruder manufacture and broader blades, but in the absence of the arms of the hilt that hold the cup in the original form of this sword.

However, this is not only a feature of swords from the Spanish colonies in America, but from Portuguese ones, and even from Portugal mainland itself, where this sort of cup-hilt was made regulation for cavalry units. This is always an option that should not be discarded....

Absolutely right !!! One way to differentiate Portuguese from Spanish cuphilt swords when present, other than consider them genericaly Peninsular

[fernando]

Originally Posted by dana_w

...This is the only Spanish Colonial Cup Hilt I own that has a horn grip...

Why not Portuguese ?