Indigenous Peoples and Heraldry

 
Kathy McClurg
 
Avatar
 
 
Kathy McClurg
Total Posts:  1274
Joined  13-03-2009
 
 
 
01 May 2015 12:11
 

I have admired the way the Canadian Heraldic Authority has integrated the symbols of their indigenous peoples for some time.  I started thinking about the US indigenous peoples and integrating their symbols and cultures into US heraldry where appropriate.  As I wandered about the web, I found any number of unique types of headgear used by several native peoples.  Even more interesting, it appears native peoples have their own heraldry—or not.  Does one define heraldry as the art and science of placing charges on a shield?  Then, they certainly had a form of heraldry with a different "framework" or rule set than what was developed by the Europeans.  Here are some visuals and references stolen off the internet for the purpose of education and critique/commentary.  I have thoughts on why we see little integration of the native peoples symbols (heraldry) here vs. Canada - but perhaps I’ll share that a bit later.

http://www.americanheraldry.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1421&stc=1&d=1430496341

 

http://www.americanheraldry.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1422&stc=1&d=1430496396

 

http://www.snowwowl.com/histplainsindianshields1.html

 

http://www.warpaths2peacepipes.com/native-indian-weapons-tools/shields.htm

 

http://www.snowwowl.com/naartshields.html

 

http://nmai.si.edu/exhibitions/infinityofnations/woodlands.html

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
01 May 2015 18:33
 

Given the current push by Native American groups for schools and sports teams etc. to cease and desist from using names and logos based on Indian tribes (or in some but not all cases terms like "Redskins" viewed as offensive) I think those of us with no substantial Native American ancestry should tread lightly.  We may think we are honoring them by including their cultural images in our arms, but given our history IMO it should be their call, not ours.

There are of course some images that are generic enough to be fair game - for example a seven-pointed star used by the Cherokee nation in their seal but also used in any number of other contexts with unrelated symbolism; or maybe a generic canoe, with no tribal-specific decorations, if for example 3x great-grandpa was a French-Canadian fur trader, a member of the Lewis & Clark expedition, or some other historic use.  Tribal-specific nongeneric images should IMO signify ancestry or some other real-world connection with that tribe.

 

Feather headdresses IMO should be off limits unless you or an ancestor were accepted as members of, or other mutually accepted connection to, a particular tribe; but the image should actually reflect that tribe’s style, and reflect your personal or ancestral connection; not some flashier style you like better but from a different tribe or even a higher standing in "your" tribe.  (A wild turkey with tail feathers spread, or the spread of feathers alone is of course fair game.). Same approach for emblems of a specific clan or other sub-group or rank within a tribe, unless it’s a generic image e.g. an animal, in which case without a real connection should not be drawn in the tribal style.

 

We preach that arms, in America at least, are tokens of identity and kinship; hopefully the emphasis should be real not just wannabe.

 

FWIW my maternal ancestry supposedly includes a dab of Cherokee, not enough (nor sufficiently documented) to qualify for a share of the casino profits.  I’ve also participated, both as a youth and adult leader, on church-related work projects on a few reservations, and taught several HR classes for mostly Indian administrative staff at a couple of Bureau of Indian Affairs schools.  This has given me a sense of their historical and often gut-renching struggles to retain tribal identity and culture in a world largely indifferent or hostile, or whose appreciation is at the Disneyland Frontierland level .  While the armorial concerns above are not personally a huge deal for me, I strongly do believe we (the other ~ 98% of my roots) owe the tribes control over their own heritage.

 

As usual, my rants - or in this case, maybe just cautionary homily - are my personal views, unless I’m preaching chapter and verse from the AHS Talmud - er, Guidelines - which is not the case here.

Others may as always differ, in whole or in part.

 

Kathy - no disrespect intended or implied; I’m glad you raised the topic.  Some of the same questions and concerns would be relevant to other nontraditional forms of proto-heraldry in non-European cultures, though the answers may vary.  Not my intent to stifle debate, just to start it!

 
Kathy McClurg
 
Avatar
 
 
Kathy McClurg
Total Posts:  1274
Joined  13-03-2009
 
 
 
01 May 2015 19:55
 

Actually, when I said "where appropriate" I would believe that "appropriate" would be only for one of verifiable status within a tribe or verifiable descent from an indigenous people.  I am not only discussing "the rest of us."

The other question this raises, IMHO, for those with a little broader viewpoint, is.. Are the shields used by the indigenous people "heraldry?"  They appear to be unique to an individual, they are charges placed on shields, and they have a framework for how they were developed.  Do the common elements of heraldry have to be expanded or contracted to place this form of identification "inside" or "outside" of heraldry?

 
snelson
 
Avatar
 
 
snelson
Total Posts:  464
Joined  03-06-2005
 
 
 
01 May 2015 23:08
 

Kathy McClurg;104216 wrote:

The other question this raises, IMHO, for those with a little broader viewpoint, is.. Are the shields used by the indigenous people "heraldry?"  They appear to be unique to an individual, they are charges placed on shields, and they have a framework for how they were developed.  Do the common elements of heraldry have to be expanded or contracted to place this form of identification "inside" or "outside" of heraldry?


The indigenous Nahua peoples of Mexico had a well developed system of shield symbols before the arrival of Europeans.  According to Professor Robert Haskett’s book Visions of Paradise: Primordial Titles and Mesoamerican History (2005):
Quote:

...the elevated Spanish regard for coats-of-arms made itself felt in the Americas from the beginning…surviving members of the Mesoamerican ruling class could not help but notice the sociopolitical importance their invaders attached to this new kind of "emblem glyphs." A culture in which graphic representations were of paramount importance in written communication would have readily understood the message of European coats-of-arms.  The Nahuas already had a tradition of marking the round shields carried by warriors and notables with emblems indicating geographic origin, ethnic affiliation, and the like… page 222


Personally I think it is the combination of European heraldic rules, customs and design with indigenous heraldic charges taken from the flora and fauna of the Western Hemisphere that define American heraldry.  It is one of the reasons that I wanted a native plant in my crest (Eschscholzia californica…even though they misspelled it in my matriculation).

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
01 May 2015 23:11
 

Kathy McClurg;104216 wrote:

Are the shields used by the indigenous people "heraldry?" They appear to be unique to an individual…


But not, I believe, hereditary.  There are systems of non-shield-based symbols that are hereditary, however, in many tribes, most notably those in the area stretching from Alaska to Oregon (Tlingit, Haida, etc.) but also in some other cultures as well.  In my opinion, these are analogous to heraldry, although not heraldry.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
01 May 2015 23:43
 

EDIT: I started typing before Seb & Joe posted, then went to the store…they warrant further thought.

Kathy - "Where appropriate" - I think we’re on the same general track.  My posting was essentially my views as to what is and isn’t; maybe a tad broader than yours, but same general idea.

 

I can see non-blood connections that might be sufficient in some circumstances.  For example, one of my in-laws spent much of his youth on a reservation where his (grand?) father ran the local store / trading post, and was apparently well regarded by the local tribe.  At some point they gave him a handwoven rug with traditional native patterns (including lots of dovetailed partition lines in red, white, grey and black) which now hangs on my in-law’s living room wall.  IMO it would be entirely appropriate to include elements of the rug design, generic reflections of the tribal terrain,and maybe any logo used at the store back when, in designing new arms for my in-law; but not to use any unique elements of the tribal seal, or of the insignia of any of the tribe’s clans or ceremonial societies, without their permission.

 

That’s of course a different set of sidebars than for tribal members or descendants who might want to design arms.  They would likely have a deeper well of tribal themes to draw from.  One might well be some or all of the designs on a shield actually carried by an ancestor or collateral relative back in the day, if their family or tribe sees that as appropriate for this purpose (e.g. if not too sacred for secular use); or some charge(s) representing their clan within the tribe (same caveat); or representing the name of a significant ancestor (Sitting Bull?) or their current surname, whether tribal or English.  Just like the rest of us, they might prefer a particular shield shape but that wouldn’t be part of the blazon - free at any time to change - though as à charge on the field they could of course specify the type and design.

 

Enough for now - gotta go to the store for She Who Must Be Obeyed smile

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
02 May 2015 01:44
 

Nonhereditary shields used by individual warriors don’t meet the usual European definition of hereditary heraldry, but then neither did the shield of Geoffrey of Anjou (hope I got the name right - Azure with gold lioncels) until his descendants used the same arms.  If an Indian ancestor’s shield was unique, or could be modified to be unique, Bingo!

As for the non-shield-based totems etc., I think the European fixation on shields is unnecessarily narrow, especially in times and places outside the European cultural sphere.  Even in Europe, armorial flags (banners) and various literal coats of arms arguably preceded arms on shields and are still acceptable alternatives.

 

The Canadian and NZ heralds sometimes incorporate native elements in shield-based armorial areas, and as Seb notes the Spanish heralds did similarly in Mexico and Peru.  Japanese Mons have also been incorporated in shields.  No reason some Native American freestanding totems or other emblems shouldn’t be equally adaptable if desired.

 

But personally I think we could broaden our working definition of heraldry beyond the Wagnerian fixation on shields, at least for those of our pre-Columbian and non-European countrymen who would prefer their own traditions to ours.  If later on, they or their descendants could paste their ethnically traditional family badge / totem / whatever on a shield or flag of contrasting color if they want, or not; but either way I think we need to be open to non-shield-based heraldry for those whose ethnic traditions differ from our own.

 

Thoughts?  At this point my thinking is as much emotional as logical - and of course "the devil’s in the details!"

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
02 May 2015 01:51
 

Nonhereditary shields used by individual warriors don’t meet the usual European definition of hereditary heraldry, but then neither did the shield of Geoffrey of Anjou (hope I got the name right - Azure with gold lioncels) until his descendants used the same arms.  If an Indian ancestor’s shield was unique, or could be modified to be unique, Bingo!

As for the non-shield-based totems etc., I think the European fixation on shields is unnecessarily narrow, especially in times and places outside the European cultural sphere.  Even in Europe, armorial flags (banners) and various literal "coats" of arms arguably preceded arms on shields and are still acceptable alternatives.

 

The Canadian and NZ heralds sometimes incorporate native elements in shield-based armorial designs, and as Seb notes the Spanish heralds did similarly in Mexico and Peru.  Japanese Mons have also occasionally been incorporated in shields.  No reason some Native American freestanding totems or other emblems shouldn’t be equally adaptable if desired.

 

But personally I think we could broaden our working definition of heraldry beyond the Wagnerian fixation on shields, at least for those of our pre-Columbian and non-European countrymen who would prefer their own traditions to ours.  If later on, they or their descendants could choose to paste their ethnically traditional family badge / totem / whatever on a shield or flag of contrasting color if they want, or not; but either way I think we need to be open to non-shield-based heraldry for those whose ethnic traditions differ from our own.

 

Thoughts?  At this point my thinking is as much emotional as logical - and of course "the devil’s in the details!"

 
Kathy McClurg
 
Avatar
 
 
Kathy McClurg
Total Posts:  1274
Joined  13-03-2009
 
 
 
02 May 2015 04:48
 

Michael F. McCartney;104223 wrote:

Nonhereditary shields used by individual warriors don’t meet the usual European definition of hereditary heraldry, but then neither did the shield of Geoffrey of Anjou (hope I got the name right - Azure with gold lioncels) until his descendants used the same arms.  If an Indian ancestor’s shield was unique, or could be modified to be unique, Bingo!

As for the non-shield-based totems etc., I think the European fixation on shields is unnecessarily narrow, especially in times and places outside the European cultural sphere.  Even in Europe, armorial flags (banners) and various literal "coats" of arms arguably preceded arms on shields and are still acceptable alternatives.

 

The Canadian and NZ heralds sometimes incorporate native elements in shield-based armorial designs, and as Seb notes the Spanish heralds did similarly in Mexico and Peru.  Japanese Mons have also occasionally been incorporated in shields.  No reason some Native American freestanding totems or other emblems shouldn’t be equally adaptable if desired.

 

But personally I think we could broaden our working definition of heraldry beyond the Wagnerian fixation on shields, at least for those of our pre-Columbian and non-European countrymen who would prefer their own traditions to ours.  If later on, they or their descendants could choose to paste their ethnically traditional family badge / totem / whatever on a shield or flag of contrasting color if they want, or not; but either way I think we need to be open to non-shield-based heraldry for those whose ethnic traditions differ from our own.

 

Thoughts?  At this point my thinking is as much emotional as logical - and of course "the devil’s in the details!"


Michael, I think we have to acknowledge that heraldry was something that developed over time and some "line in the sand" has to be drawn between the forms of identification that went before and continue on to this day and "heraldry" - Many cultures had systems of identification in battle (whether that of who they followed or that shared by the army - which may or may not identify a "lord" vs. a family unit)

 

Personally, I draw that line at heraldry involving the placement of charges on shields and it includes a "framework" or "system" for placing the charges which is striven for within the framework of that heraldic (generally geo-political) area.  The framework is generally defined within a context of time and place because heraldry, like many customs based in society or art, is not fixed as one thing internationally.  The pattern so placed must be a form of identification, IMHO.  I have not yet resolved that there is a requirement for the shield pattern to have within the framework where it is developed, the requirement of passing the identification down from one generation to another.  Although I do lean toward some "familial bond" associated with heraldry… yet in Poland… <shrug - different discussion>

 

So, although there are other forms of identification in battle such as flags, unless their root is in heraldry (a derivative of the placement of charges on shields), I consider it a "larger" field of identification of armies - but not heraldry - that bit of vexillology that is "outside" of heraldry (and doesn’t have required "rules" similar to those we see in most heraldic frameworks).  Similar to considering the Mons system and identifications of say, samurai armies, being outside of what we define as "heraldry" but a larger study of the identification of armies over the centuries.

 

I have had it pointed out to me that the flags of armies are merely badges in heraldry.  Agree, they serve the same function of heraldic badges (they are currently placed on modern uniforms to show who the soldier fights for), they are not always derivative of "heraldry" meaning the placement of charges on shields… so.. there may be subsets of these flags based in heraldry.. but.. that’s one of the ways I place the "chicken and the egg" argument..

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
02 May 2015 11:32
 

Kathy McClurg;104224 wrote:

I have had it pointed out to me that the flags of armies are merely badges in heraldry. ..


I’m not sure what this is supposed to mean.  These are clearly not badges:

 

http://semperfimac.net/auctionpics3/US_ARMY_BATTLE_COLORS_FLAG 9.jpg

 

Nor these:

 

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/48059000/jpg/_48059260_009513265-1.jpg

 

http://www.defense.gouv.fr/var/dicod/storage/images/base-de-medias/images/terre/futur-site-terre-images/breves/remise-lh-au-drapeau-de-l-emia/1215637-1-fre-FR/remise-lh-au-drapeau-de-l-emia.jpg

 

 

 

you talking about the little flag patches worn on the uniform?

 
Kathy McClurg
 
Avatar
 
 
Kathy McClurg
Total Posts:  1274
Joined  13-03-2009
 
 
 
03 May 2015 19:00
 

Joseph McMillan;104226 wrote:

you talking about the little flag patches worn on the uniform?


That was the argument pointed out to me, yes.  and - if you look at some of the historical banners, say in the war of the roses, the badges existed on the flags as well as the troops.

 

Today, the flags exist on, well, the flags and the troops… so, the viewpoint is that they are being used in the same way badges were in the past and are, in essence, badges as well as flags.. however, it’s a chicken before the egg or egg before the chicken kind of discussion.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
03 May 2015 20:17
 

Kathy McClurg;104229 wrote:

That was the argument pointed out to me, yes. and - if you look at some of the historical banners, say in the war of the roses, the badges existed on the flags as well as the troops.

Today, the flags exist on, well, the flags and the troops… so, the viewpoint is that they are being used in the same way badges were in the past and are, in essence, badges as well as flags.. however, it’s a chicken before the egg or egg before the chicken kind of discussion.


Sorry, you’ve lost me entirely.

 

I get it that sticking a small cloth replica of a flag onto a uniform with velcro makes it a badge.  (I’ve used this to counter people who say that putting the flag patch on the army uniform is illegal because the flag code says not to use the flag as an article of clothing.)

 

But that doesn’t mean the ensign flying at the gaff of a warship or a national/queen’s color carried by troops on parade into a badge.  Sure, badges were depicted on heraldic standards.  Contending that that somehow makes the standard the equivalent of a badge is like saying that putting a picture of a lion on a flag turns the flag into a lion.

 

All these, in modern military use, are emblems of national identity.  So are the national arms, the military aircraft insignia, the jack and commission pennant on a warship, and, for that matter, the N prefix on an American civil aircraft’s registration number.  Being used as an indicator of national character doesn’t make any of these into badges.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
04 May 2015 00:19
 

Recall: chickens and eggs -

Part of Kathy’s posting a couple of bumps back, if I read it right, was that heraldic flags are derivative of the arms on shields.  That may in many or even most cases be accurate, but not always.  For example, the American flag predated our coat of arms, and the Hawaiian flag predated the arms designed for that kingdom by the English heralds.  While in both cases the earlier flag and the later arms were not identical, major charges in the arms (the US paly field and one of the Hawaiian quarterings) were clearly derived or borrowed from the stripes of the flags.

 

IIRC at one point the English raj designed arms for the native Indian princes for a ceremonial event, drawing in some cases from existing flags of the ruling houses.

 

And I’ve read that some scholars believe that some of the oldest European arms were derived from earlier flags.

 

Not arguing that this was or should be "the" way to design arms, only that it was and is "a" legitimate option.

 
Kathy McClurg
 
Avatar
 
 
Kathy McClurg
Total Posts:  1274
Joined  13-03-2009
 
 
 
04 May 2015 08:30
 

Correct, Michael.

My point being, Joe, that the "pattern" or essence of the flag is perhaps the modern day badge for many armies/institutions.  I’m not referring the the specific physical thing one flies on a pole, but the pattern/symbols of it.

 
Kathy McClurg
 
Avatar
 
 
Kathy McClurg
Total Posts:  1274
Joined  13-03-2009
 
 
 
04 May 2015 08:35
 

However - The wandering to badges vs. whether or not indegeinous people’s use of shields can/would constitute "heraldry" was kind of where I was going with the original thread.

Reading back, I see Joe doesn’t think so because they are not "inherited."  Michael thinks we need to expand the definition/concept of heraldry beyond "shields."  Seb has provided reference to shields having reference to tribe, location, etc.

 

So do we have to expand the "concept" of heraldry to include patterns that are inherited only?

Do we need to remove the "requirement" for shields to be part of the concept of heraldry?

Is this heraldry?

 

(just a bit of an attempt for move back to the original discussion.)

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
04 May 2015 09:21
 

In my view, the term "heraldry" (or "armory") has to be bounded more or less clearly, or it becomes about every system of symbols on earth.  If it’s not Wagner’s "systematic use of hereditary emblems centered on the shield," then where is the boundary?

I think that, in practice, even the purest of purists thinks of "heraldry" at least a bit more broadly than Wagner defines it, but if we get too far afield, the term becomes synonymous with semiotics (the study of symbols).  I think of Wagner’s definition as describing the core of heraldry with an increasingly vague periphery extending out in all directions.  In one direction we wander into purely decorative motifs displayed on shields, not used consistently even by one individual (e.g., on the Bayeux tapestry, where you can’t reliably identify the players by their armorial emblems from one portion of the tapestry to the next), let alone across generations.

 

In another direction, we wander off into emblems that are hereditary, but never displayed on shields—Tlingit totems, Mongol tamghas, Japanese mons, and what not.

 

In a third, we wander into seals, whether armorial or not, and end up (foolishly, in my opinion) decrying the state seal of, say, Georgia, as bad heraldry.  We might as well decry the chrysanthemum mon of the Japanese imperial family as bad heraldry.  In a fourth, we stray into flags, where once again we misapply heraldic rules to non-heraldic forms (cue laments over the tincture violations in any number of national flags).

 

It’s not that I don’t find most of these fascinating subjects, but we need to know where we are at any given time.  Personally, I think Wagner’s definition needs to be both:

 

a.  broadened to admit the study of heraldic badges, cyphers, standards, and non-hereditary corporate arms, and

 

b.  narrowed to place it in the historic context of having grown out of medieval European civilization.

 

This doesn’t limit heraldry to Europe, but it helps sort out why the coats of arms devised for (Eastern) Indian rulers by a civil servant of the British Raj are heraldry, but the flags, seals, and other emblems previously used by these rulers are not.