SALTILLO SARAPE

Viceroyalty of New Spain of the Spanish Empire in North America (1535-1821)

99 inches (250 cm), in center 96 inches (240.5 cm) x 48 inches (120 cm) in center 49 inches (125 cm)

Two separately woven panels joined in the center 

Stitched-closed head opening (Bocamanga))

Warp: Indigo (dyed) cotton 

Weft: Spanish imported Churro wool 

Natural dye colors 

White, red, blue, green, pink, yellow, brown  

Overcast selvedge and end fringe

TECHNIQUE AND DESIGN

The present exemplar is made up of two long rectangular strips, woven separately due to the narrow horizontal form of the loom of European provenance, which became large enough to work such articles as single pieces only at the end of the nineteenth century. The weave structure is the one most common in the sarapes, made using wool weft threads and a cotton warp thread. These threads are interwoven perpendicularly at regular intervals, one to one, using the kilim technique that permits continual changes of color. The warp thread, which is sometimes linen – although later silk too can be found – is recorded in most exemplars as white cotton, whereas in the present case it is of a dyed indigo blue shade. This is a rare feature, only occasionally found, but is nevertheless emblematic of this first phase in which the weavers made extensive use of naturally dyed yarns, prior to the introduction of synthetic fibers in the third quarter of the nineteenth century. The colors are characteristic of the surviving examples from the Classical period. The uncommon use of brown as a field color can be observed all over the surface of the sarape except for the borders, and could derive from various vegetable sources (brazilwood or logwood, arbol de campeche). Cochineal red is used here in the border, the central diamond, and the geometrical motifs of the mosaic. This dye was made from the dried bodies of an insect commonly found on Mexican cacti (Coccus cacti), from which different shades could be obtained depending on the mordant used. It was very widespread and already known to the natives, and was second only to silver in the exports to Spain in the period following the conquest.

All the other dyes are of vegetable origin. Indigo, extracted from a plant (Indigofera Anil), was already known to the indigenous populations and is present here in the brilliant blue of the small lozenges of the border and the central diamond. Mixed with yellow (derived from various plant sources) it yielded green, a color that is frequent in the sarapes of this period, albeit in small quantities. Here it can be seen in the zigzag fret of the central diamond. The pink color – a gradation of the cochineal – is visible in the small background motifs, in the fret of the central diamond and in another area of the diamond bordered by blue-green zigzags with decorations in red. In this area the pink color is of different shades of intensity, commonly referred to as color patina or abrash, an effect achieved through variations in the dyeing process due to different dye baths or lots. In this area the pink color is of different shades of intensity, commonly referred to as color patina or abrash, an effect achieved through variations in the dyeing process due to different dye baths or lots. Here the weaver has decided to progress the weave with the use of dyed threads of different intensity. This, without any striving towards a possibly more pleasing esthetic result. The progression of areas of weaving casually interrupted by the intensity of a specific color tone is also ubiquitous in the flat woven kilims of Anatolia, to which the Mexican Sarapes de Saltillo have often been compared. It is an indication that dye baths are utilized more than once thus producing shades of different intensity, referred to as abrash, and thus demonstrating the localized and handmade aspect of these celebrated preindustrial artworks. 

The present exemplar shows the intricate geometrical design of a transversal mosaic on the brown field made up of small-scale, four-pointed motifs in alternate shades of white, pink, and yellow, identical front and rear, and repeated lengthwise all over the brown surface. In the center is the diamond, a large lozenge bordered by thin white, pink, and blue/green zigzags. Inside the diamond – as is the norm in contemporary sarapes – are different areas of color that set off the various colored geometrical motifs. In the additional cochineal-red sub-diamond, blue-green zigzags and four-pointed motifs are encompassed within a secondary abrash-pink sub-diamond. Finally, a small central diamond is flanked by two small sub-diamonds right in the center.  In contemporary sarapes the border generally varies from 2 to 4 inches (5 to 10 cm); here too it is of two different heights, with the top and bottom being narrower than the side sections (2.5 inches (7 cm) and 3.5 inches (9 cm) respectively). In the cochineal-red borders, the central motifs in blue, pink, and brown are repeated within diagonal yellow stripes. 

The technical and stylistic features of this exemplar place it in the Classical period, the phase in which the exemplars of best quality in terms of technical perfection and quality of color and design were produced. Specialists place this period variously between the end of the eighteenth century or the first decade of the nineteenth and 1850-55. However, although it is documented in the haciendas, the production of sarapes in the last quarter of the eighteenth century is discontinuous and rare, and was largely destined to the daily use of the less affluent classes. Even in 1799 the term sarape was little used, and it was in any case considered a vulgar garment of little importance. This is documented by the edict of the viceroy Azanza requesting workers to wear more appropriate garments than the “chispas or zarapes”. The shape of the sarape, derived from the combination of the tilmatli of the indigenous societies of the Mexican plateau and the Spanish cloak with Arab influences, made it a garment that allowed freedom of movement even at work. A better-defined production did not emerge until somewhat later, in the early years of the nineteenth century, when small weaving workshops opened in Saltillo, Coahula, San Luis Potosi and, between 1804 and 1805, in the provinces of Zacatecas, Sonora and Sinaloa, expanding then into other production areas of the country in the following decades. It was in this later phase that the design – the origin of which is still obscure – became consolidated, evolving an enhanced symmetry and diversity of color and metamorphosing into the ubiquitous vertical geometric mosaic, thus blending influences from Spain and China, as well as an indigenous inspiration in the square and rectangular motifs. This design remained constant up to the mid-nineteenth century, after which it became more articulated and animated in the decades that followed, suggesting that the present specific artefact is very probably an earlier example. With the stabilization and refinement of production, the significance of the sarape also changed, from an item of popular dress worn by Indians and half-castes to a garment that was in great demand in the upper echelons of Mexican society. It was favored by landowners and by caballeros, which both boosted demand and stimulated a variety in manufacture. This process of transformation, that began in the first decade of the nineteenth century and was practically completed around the 1840s, continued in the following decades to give rise to a highly varied production of sarapes of excellent quality in terms of design, technique and colors right up to the Late Classical period when a number of variants were introduced, albeit maintaining the overall layout. This production is easily distinguished from that which came afterwards, defined as the “Maximilian period”, dating to around 1855-75 and characterized by sarapes influenced in their decorative motifs by French and North European culture and by the use of synthetic colors. The name derives from the brief reign of the Emperor Maximilian I of Mexico (1864-1867), whose influence continued after his death. The decline of the sarape came with the final production phase – defined as the “Porfiriano Period” after the President of the Republic Porfirio Diaz (1884-1911) – the stylistic and technical characteristics of which were by then very remote from the production of the Classical period sarapes.   

The refined technique, the less ubiquitous design variant, the uncommon transversal mosaic composition, the dimensions – the Saltillo Sarapes range from 70 to 99 inches (180 to 250 cm) and the length is one and a half or two times the width, which ranges from 39 to 59 inches (100 to 150 cm) – as well as the natural-dyed colors and the relatively rare blue-dyed cotton warp, all place this exemplar in the Saltillo Sarape production of the early Classical Period, in a timeframe between 1800 and 1825. 

NOTES

[1] J. Gomez Poncet, colaboradora Maria De Lourdes Firas, Sarapes, Catalogo de las Colecciones Etnograficas del Museo Nacional de Antropologia, Mexico, 1992, p. 3.

[1] J. Jeter, P.M. Julke, The Saltillo Sarape, Santa Barbara Museum of Art, June 1978, p. 15, and K. Colburn, ‘Saltillo Sarapes – History & Conservation’, in Hali, Issue 79, February-March 1995, p. 82.

[1] M. Winter, ‘An Historic overview’, in Saltillo Sarape A Survey: 1850-1920, McCormick Gallery, Chicago, 2011, p. 9, dates their introduction to 1860:  K. Drew Jenkins, An Analysis of the Saltillo Style in Mexican Sarape, McCormick Gallery, Chicago, 2019, pp. 58-64.

[1] Drew Jenkins, An Analysis of the Saltillo Style, p. 17, drawing, p.

[1] W. Wroth The Mexican sarape: A history, The Saint Louis Art Museum, 1999, pp. 11-12.

[1]  Gomez Poncet, Catalogo, pp. 12-13.

[1]  Wroth, The Mexican sarape, pp. 17- 18.

[1] Drew Jenkins, An Analysis of the Saltillo Style, pp. 114-157.

REFERENCES

K. Colburn, op. cit., 1992, p. 82, fig. 3; M. Winter, op. cit., 2011, p. 22, fig. 14; J. Jeter-P. Juelke, op. cit., 1978, p. 41, II; W. Wrote, op. cit., 1999, pp. 40-41, figs. 1-2; K. Drew Jenkins, op. cit., 2019 pls 1-2-3.

Hali. The International Magazine of Antique Carpet and Textile Art, February 1991, Issue 55, p. 171 (dated 1750-1850); February-March, 1995, Issue 79, pp. 80-85: August-September 1995, Issue 82, p. 146 (1800); November 1998, Issue 101 (1800-1850).