African cuirass?

[Jim McDougall]

This is an incredibly interesting item, and in my view is likely an armor from Benin, in West Africa. These kinds of armor were worn by warriors of a kind of society known as a leopard hunting guild (in western perception). The leopard is highly feared in these regions, and typically the armor worn is a kind of cataphract style (overlapping scales) of the scaly anteater (pangolin).

However, the helmets accompanying these were often of crocodile hide, so it would seem possible that material would be used as well. It is noted that occasionally the materials might vary, and these are depicted iconographically in many figurines and art .While noted as a 'hunting' society these warriors were soldiers as well and these 'totemic ' identities of animals and reptiles seem prevalent in other West African 'societies' .

There was a 'crocodile society', whose activities like some of the other societies were pretty nefarious.

It could be this armor might have been from such a group as the 'crocodile society' as the members were believed to become crocodiles during the duration of activity.

Most armor of hides etc. in earlier times were strictly of animal material, along with magic talismans and imbuements which were foremost apotropaics.
It seems quite likely that with the advent of firearms, the addition of an iron under covering would be deemed reasonable in the latter 19th c.

So I would say, West African warriors cuirass, probably Benin, late 19th c.
The cross is a common holdover in West Africa from the Portuguese who deeply influenced the tribes. Rather than religious affectation, it was seen more in a talismanic or magic sense.

[Panoleon]

Thanks Jim, I am verry happy with your reaction.

[Kubur]

So you'll hate me, but please remember, that our forum is open to discussions. And we never know what we will get when we post an item.

This armour looks like a 1950ties or 1970ties film prop.

The forging technique doesn't look African, from the inside. The rivets don't look Africans. The leather on iron plate doesn't make any sense to me.

The bad condition is another thing, may be it was stored in a basement with a lot of humidity.

The only thing that I can see as African is the crocodile skin, or maybe an alligator's skin from Florida...

[Panoleon]

Thanks Kubur, ups and dows, thats how it goes.

[Panoleon]

Some more detail on the rivets. They look like leather rivets.
It's a well made piece for a film prop. The cuirass does show hammer marks.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Kubur

So you'll hate me, but please remember, that our forum is open to discussions. And we never know what we will get when we post an item.

This armour looks like a 1950ties or 1970ties film prop.

The forging technique doesn't look African, from the inside. The rivets don't look Africans. The leather on iron plate doesn't make any sense to me.

The bad condition is another thing, may be it was stored in a basement with a lot of humidity.

The only thing that I can see as African is the crocodile skin, or maybe an alligator's skin from Florida...

Not at all Kubur! You have always made most astute and valuable observations here, and your suggestion is of course a viable consideration.
In looking at this most unusual item, it does not correspond in many ways to the West African armor I have described, however, as Christopher Spring notes in "African Arms & Armor", there seems to have been of course a degree of variations in styles and materials.

I think it is worthwhile to think of what sort of a movie or theatrical subject this would apply to. This sort of armor does not look 'Roman' or other classical types and surely would not be regarded as 'medieval' as the mail armor further east in Nigeria, Bornu into Chad which was actually often authentic European product.

When considering reproductions or 'props', there are certain 'nuances' which really would not be regarded as necessary to carry off the kind of allusion which such staged elements were intended for.
This pertains of course to the cross emplaced among the ornamental studding. A prop would require only normal linear studding.

Then the case of the actual 'iron' material. The use of such iron 'armor' to repel bullets was well known in a kind of 'experimental' stage in the last quarter of the 19th century. In clearly distant cases (to this African context) in Australia for example was the notorious outlaw Ned Kelly, who fashioned an elaborate suit of armor which looked almost like a theatrical robot for this very purpose. In the Civil War, there were instances of steel plates worn under clothing (usually quickly discarded for weight and discomfort).

As I had mentioned, in West Africa there were groups of warrior men (there was at least one womans as well) which were considered 'secret societies'. Much as with the Masonic situation and Freemasonry, there were often elaborate rituals, regalia and other such elements of organized protocol.

These groups were often engaged in subversive activity given the colonial occupations, as well as certain intertribal warfare. The traditions of these groups called for magically imbued armor (such as the pangolin hide or crocodile/cayman) as had been used for almost centuries.

With the modern threat of firearms becoming a key factor, why wouldnt a tribesman wear the traditional armor cleverly cloaking the bullet proof iron?
As mention, this is why I suggest late 19th century, in the period when these kinds of bullet deterrents were being tried.

In analogy, I was once researching an unusual Spanish leather armor (cuera), which defied any possible resemblance to the known rawhide jackets of the 18th century soldados. It looked more like a Roman toga with tassets and more strangely, was boiled bull hide (cuir boulli as had been used in earlier centuries in Europe for such armor).
The museum authorities insisted this had nothing to do with such armor, and was actually a 'santo' costume, figures used in Catholic churches.
This however did not explain the pragmatic process of the cuir boulli.

What I discovered was that this was a type of cuera indiginous to Santa Fe, New Mexico, and had been produced there during the Pueblo uprisings of 1690s. It had been found in a storage unit in Arizona after having been in it for decades. It was described as 'old Spanish leather armor', which of course was a stretch as it did not correspond to any such form known.

However, the break through was when an old painting (known as the Segesser) was discovered in Switzerland. The painting was by Indian artists (many Peublo were loyal to the Spaniards) from c. 1715. It was of an obscure and little known battle in Nebraska of Spaniards vs. French and Pawnee. In this, the Indian guides with the Spaniards were wearing THESE UNUSUAL CUERA!
The form had never been included in material on Spanish colonial arms as this painting, the only visual reference to it, had been sent to Switzerland by a Jesuit priest during their expulsion in 1770s. The painting was not found and recovered to New Mexico until 1980s. long after the references on Spanish arms had been produced.

Here I would submit, variations and curiosities cannot always be relegated to lesser context by absence of inclusion in references. The 'secret societies'of Africa, like these kinds of groups in many cultures etc. are often a kind of 'X factor' in studying certain types of anomalies in various fields.

[drac2k]

I am not knowledgeable in this area of collecting however I would like to make a couple of observations based on past experience.
First, the piece is well made and somewhat complex, and manufactured out of expensive materials. This armor would not be conducive for mass production for a movie prop(s), both in regards to the cost and assembly time. I have seen modern armor movie props and they are quite cheaply made.
Next, if this armor had been procured in the 1950s through the 1970s, it would have been much cheaper to obtain these pieces from a firm such as the now-defunct Bannermans which had these items en masse. I personally procured at auction several very fine authentic pieces in the 1980s(or 1990s), when a major motion picture studio deaccessioned hundreds of items.
I am only speaking from a layman's point of view and not from a scholarly knowledge of this field; plus I really like the item!

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by drac2k

I am not knowledgeable in this area of collecting however I would like to make a couple of observations based on past experience.
First, the piece is well made and somewhat complex, and manufactured out of expensive materials. This armor would not be conducive for mass production for a movie prop(s), both in regards to the cost and assembly time. I have seen modern armor movie props and they are quite cheaply made.
Next, if this armor had been procured in the 1950s through the 1970s, it would have been much cheaper to obtain these pieces from a firm such as the now-defunct Bannermans which had these items en masse. I personally procured at auction several very fine authentic pieces in the 1980s(or 1990s), when a major motion picture studio deaccessioned hundreds of items.
I am only speaking from a layman's point of view and not from a scholarly knowledge of this field; plus I really like the item!

Well noted!!! I had not thought of the expense factor !!
A few years back I had a pair of 'gator' boots made,......eeeaaughh! and I got a good deal. This stuff is expensive!

Bannerman's stuff flooded the markets and in my opinion literally fueled the arms collecting phenomenon. The movie studio decaccession's, I knew guys who really cleaned up on this stuff back in the 80s.
Hollywood in the golden years did indeed use many authentic items of arms and armor. Actually the famed Rudolf Valentino ('The Sheik') became so intrigued by the swords he experienced in the sets,he became a bonified sword collector with the ones he admired most.

[fernando]

Can we take for certain that the 'nobility' of the outer part, croc hide and elaborated rosettes, has nothing to do with the inner iron lining? I have a problem in digesting that the original owner of this hide cuirass was the one who had the inside addition made. The time span between the two parts appears to be significant. Or could it be that someone else, in the greatest of fantasies, had the iron part made in order to prop up the historic hide and keep the cuirass upright and 'alive' ?.
Panoleon, how come that you can't be sure that the rivets are leather ? Can you take a closer look ?