Trent wrote:

...Is ok to use a helm from a non-European country?  For example, could one use a Japanese samurai helment…

On this point I would like to interject my thoughts and expand on the answers provided by Joe McMillan and PBlanton, who rightly say it is not proscribed.  However, just because using a Japanese helmet is not proscribed should not give carte blanche to all and sundry.

I would think depicting a kabuto (helmet) could be acceptable only if you are Japanese or of Japanese descent.  I have a strong relation with Japan and Japanese swordsmanship (over 30 years), but I would never think of incorporating a kabuto in my Armorial Achievements simply because I have absolutely no Japanese blood in my body.

If someone of Japanese descent wishes to use a kabuto, the style of helmet (maedate front plate/horns, etc.) should depend on rank of his ancestor (either samurai or Imperial Japanese military), or himself if he is serving, or has served, in the military.  I would suggest the following selection criteria:

a.  a basic helm for ashigaru / lower enlisted troops after 1868

b.  a more elaborate helm for hereditary retainers/company grade officers

c.  a better quality helms for field grade officers;

d.  and the whole shebang for daimyo/feudal lords/flag grade officers.

So US Army private George Nakamura might use (a):

http://www.by-the-sword.com/acatalog/images/dc-681.jpg

whereas General Erik K. Shinseki (image below) could conceiveably incorporate (d):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Eric_Shinseki_official_portrait.jpg/200px-Eric_Shinseki_official_portrait.jpg http://www.gallerykanaya.com/img/yoroi-kabuto-kuwagata.JPG

Not all Japanese descend from samurai, as is often claimed by Americans of Japanese descent (who mostly descend from the farming class).  In reality, only about 2% of modern Japanese are direct descendants of samurai—and I speak of samurai families, not ashigaru—who were often peasant-cum-spearman.

By the way, as samurai didn’t use shields (not counting their version of a pavaise for field fortification and/or arquebusiers)—so what to use?  I could see either a basic circle, as depicted in most kamon ("coat of arms"), or a European shield with the kamon incorporated.

Interesting exercise.

—Guy

RE: GP’s post re: samurai helmets etc.—I would generalize the question and apply the same general principles we’ve discussed elsewhere re: "noble" helmets & other additaments.  A depiction of the arms of one’s pre-immigrant ancestor in (pick your "old country" of choice) could quite properly include whatever helmet & other additaments he was entitled to use, under the laws or customs of that country.  His American dscendants, however, should avoid using particular types of helmets or other additaments (if that’s a new term to you, substitute "brick-a-brack outside the shield itself, other than the crest & wreath") that suggest a claim to any special status other than that of a simple gentleman.  IMO that holds as true for Japanese as for Scottish or French or Polish or Russian etc. ancestry.  A generally accepted exception would be for display strictly within the family or ethnic societies or festivals (e.g. Scottish Games or other equivalent ethnic excesses), but not for general public use outside of those limited circumstances.  Even in the family/ethnic context, some would prefer not, so as to emphasize "we’re Americans now—[old country of choice] was my family’s past but is not our present or future.  Grandpa may have been a [baron? samurai? freiherr? etc.] back in [old country] but I am an American and gave all that up when I/he became a citizen."

As to using any particular ethnic styles of helmet—Guy is more racially restrictive than I might be, though I can see & respect his reasons and would likely honor them in personal practice (though a bit of artistic "what-iffery" wouldn’t seem out of line, just as an experiment…).  The only real "no-no" IMO would be mixing incompatible styles—e.g. a Japanese helmet and a Polish shield shape, or even within the same tradition, mixing widely different time frames. That sort of careless or anachronistic mix-&-match can be jarring to the eye & to one’s historic sensibilities.

Mike and Guy,

Let me know if I have this straight.

One SHOULD only use helments, shield shapes, etc. to which one has a racial and or ethnic tie.

Is this guideline based on some idea of racial/ethnic purity, authenticity, or continuity?  Is the "one drop" blood rule enough to make a claim of racial/ethnic authenticity?

I have noticed the arms of some Asian Canadians that I think use European style helments.  Do those arms violate the racial/ethnic blood heritage guideline?

What about people whose nationality does not match the racial or ethnic make up of the country their parents and grandparents were born in.  For example, black Africans or white Europeans born in Japan.  These people are culturally Japanese, but not ethnically or racially so.  Should they not use adornments (helments, shield shapes, etc.) that reflect their Japanese identity?

What is the lowest ranking helment?  Who would have worn it?

What about Americans who assume arms with helments but can’t prove that they are related to anyone who would have worn one?

Trent wrote:

Mike and Guy,

Let me know if I have this straight.

 

One SHOULD only use helments, shield shapes, etc. to which one has a racial and or ethnic tie.

 

Is this guideline based on some idea of racial/ethnic purity, authenticity, or continuity? Is the "one drop" blood rule enough to make a claim of racial/ethnic authenticity?

 

I have noticed the arms of some Asian Canadians that I think use European style helments. Do those arms violate the racial/ethnic blood heritage guideline?

 

What about people whose nationality does not match the racial or ethnic make up of the country their parents and grandparents were born in. For example, black Africans or white Europeans born in Japan. These people are culturally Japanese, but not ethnically or racially so. Should they not use adornments (helments, shield shapes, etc.) that reflect their Japanese identity?

I’m not going to try to explain what Mike and Guy had in mind, as they can do so quite well for themselves. Let me explain why I don’t like the concept of a samurai helmet, for example, with a heraldic coat of arms.  It has nothing to do with either the genetic makeup of the user or the country in which he lives.  It has to do with operating within the artistic conventions of a particular art form.

Heraldry as we know it is a European art form. I’m not saying that only people of European ethnic origin should indulge in it, any more than I would say that people of non-Asian origin should be prohibited from studying Asian martial arts or flower-arranging. But the idea of using a design painted on a shield in accordance with a set of fairly fixed stylistic rules, and using it as a hereditary emblem that was intended to remain relatively constant over a number of generations, is originally a European idea.  It has been taken up in modified forms in some non-European societies, true, but always under European influence.  (The fact that some charges in European heraldry seem to have been taken over from Arab or Persian origins doesn’t affect this argument.)

There is a Japanese equivalent system of hereditary symbols, called the mon. I see nothing whatsoever wrong with someone of non-Japanese extraction designing and adopting a mon (provided, as always, that it doesn’t duplicate someone else’s) and using it the same way that Japanese use mons.

But to me, putting a samurai helmet on top of a Western heraldic coat of arms—whatever shape you make the shield—would be like taking a mon and topping it with a tilting helm and mantling.  They’re two different symbolic genres and, to me, mixing and matching them seems odd.  Or like setting out to write a sonnet but deciding that 15th line is just too good to leave out, but insisting that the result is a sonnet anyway.

I agree with Joe on this one.  Any artist that you would take this to, unless otherwise directly specified by you, would associate a tilting helm with your arms and have them drawn in the Western fashion.

I agree too… to the extend of the blazon, but I suppose that if you wanted to instruct an artist to use any particular helm it would be up to you… but then, Mr McMillian is much more knowledgeable that I and I would tend to defer to him.

Joseph McMillan wrote:

But to me, putting a samurai helmet on top of a Western heraldic coat of arms—whatever shape you make the shield—would be like taking a mon and topping it with a tilting helm and mantling. ...

Like this?

http://www.heraldicsculptor.com/w-cres~1.jpg

Third banner from the left

http://www.heraldicsculptor.com/emp1.jpg

http://www.sculptor-iangb.com/the-emp-.jpg

—Guy

Interesting arguments.  Only time for a couple of quick disclaimers:

- I was not arguing in favor of racial limitations on various helmets or other heraldic paraphenalia (sp?)—only saying that I personally wouldn’t likely use e.g. a Japanese helmet, not because i couldn’t or shouldn’t, but because it wouldn’t say anything useful about me or my family.  If a cousin lived there or had some other close conection, I wouldn’t object to him doing so; though our arms (see the avatoar) would likely look out of place in that context.  Some arms might fit into that context better (though others would be worse) depending on complexity & similarity to the general run of mon designs..

- As to helmets generally—its not IMO a question of "rights" to use a given helmet; rather, picking one that does not assert, or apprear to assert, any special "rights" beyond the status of a citizen of the republic.

- On the artistic debate between Guy & Joe—y’all go fight it out, I’ll hold yer coats (of arms, of course).  Seriously, Guy’s example of the Imperial mon displayed in Western style in the Garter chapel, is the other side of my first point above—some Japanese mon will work quite nicely in the context of Western heraldic forms.  Others perhaps will not.  My impression (only that, & perhaps skewed) is that the transfer likely works better or more often Japanese-to-Western than vice-versa, because mon are nearly all clean,simple designs while Western heraldry sometimes (sadly) isn’t..

- Having disagreed somewhatwith Guy on "Japanese only" I will have to disagree with Joe somewhat on another point.  I don’t think heraldry is, or even should, be viewed as quite that Euro-centric.  The forms & conventions originated in Europe, but they serve underlying concepts and purposes that IMO are more universally applicable.  Some (many) Western heraldic arms would work poorly in qa Japanese context, & vice-versa.  Some of us look equally good in Bermuda shorts or a kimono, others are…shall we say…less visually felicitous (and yes, I speak for myself there).  Still, IMO the "ideal" would be heraldic designs that were so clean & simple that they would work equally well in either context if so desired—some would so desire, others wouldn’t—in which case the choice of Western or Japanese forms would be little more than artistic license.  As noted, an ideal, not usually the reality, but hey, a boy (OK, and old boy) can dream…

I understand the point about this being America and we have the right to "ape" any aspect of European heraldry we like.  I also appreciate the argument about historical and artistic convention and continuity.  The debate is really helping me come up with a position on the issues that I’m comfortable with.  Keep the exchanges up please.

But out of curiosity, is it the case that any American of European descent can use a helment even if his or her European ancestors were from a class that never bore helments, was never part of a warrior class/caste?

Do some helments out rank others?  Is the tilting helment the lowest in the rank? What does it suggest?  Don’t helments suggest that one’s ancestors fought in battles?

I’m just trying to understand as much as I can about some basics before I move forward on a design, and because I would like to be able to explain to those in the know as well as those who are not the design rationale of my arms in particular and heraldry in general.

Trent wrote:

But out of curiosity, is it the case that any American of European descent can use a helment even if his or her European ancestors were from a class that never bore helments, was never part of a warrior class/caste?

Any American of any descent can use a helmet.  There may be some European countries that have historically denied helms to people who were not from the knightly class (I can’t think of any offhand; the French once insisted that non-nobles should not have crests, but I don’t think they ever said they couldn’t have helms.)  But the American custom has always been that anyone who bore arms could use a helm.

Quote:

Do some helments out rank others? Is the tilting helment the lowest in the rank? What does it suggest? Don’t helments suggest that one’s ancestors fought in battles?

Hey, if you go far enough back, everyone’s ancestors fought in battles of some kind, even if only with the savage band from the next village.  Seriously, not even all nobles in the middle ages had ancestors who were knights, because not all feudal property was held by knight service.  And arms with crests were taken up by all kinds of classes long before the Middle Ages were over.

In some countries, there is a specified pecking order of helms.  I think it’s accurate to say that where there are different ranks of helms, barred helms outrank the others.  For all practical purposes, barrel, tilting and pot helms and armets with closed visors are all equal to each other, and all simply signify a gentleman.

The "code of conduct" I drafted and which we vetted around the group a few years ago suggests that the plain steel barrel helm, tilting helm, or closed armet are the most appropriate helms for use in American heraldry.

Trent wrote:

I understand the point about this being America and we have the right to "ape" any aspect of European heraldry we like.  I also appreciate the argument about historical and artistic convention and continuity.  The debate is really helping me come up with a position on the issues that I’m comfortable with.  Keep the exchanges up please.

Trent,  I know that you really did not mean it in the pejoritive, but I think the position shared by most members of this society is that our developing heraldic tradition is as legitimate as that of England, Scotland, Germany, etc.  Thus, it is really not "aping" as all individuals have an inherent right to use arms.  Remember that heraldry was an autochthonous phenomenon in its origin, and arms where originally assumed, and not granted by the sovereign.

Ben Foster wrote:

Remember that heraldry was an autochthonous phenomenon in its origin, and arms where originally assumed, and not granted by the sovereign.

Question: who was it who ussumed arms? Was it all and sundry, or was it a select few individuals who had some amount of power in their own right?

I may be a bit off base here, but I rather think arms in America don’t quite mean the same thing, as say, in England. Here anyone can assume arms, but they do so with what I gather is very little legal protection.

Quote:

I may be a bit off base here, but I rather think arms in America don’t quite mean the same thing, as say, in England. Here anyone can assume arms, but they do so with what I gather is very little legal protection.

I disagree totally. They mean just as much and are just as valid as those of Europe. In fact when reading on the history of heraldry one sees that the first arms were themselves assumed. It was not until some time into the game that there began more serious moves to control heraldry. And even then, according to Neubeker (sp?) the French could not get a centralized granting authority to last long and I dare say that French heraldry is just as valid as British where there is now and historically was more control.

And technically there is very little legal protection for arms the world over not just in the U.S.A. Aside from Scotland I can’t think of a nation off the top of my head that really enforces much heraldic law (in terms of legal protection) whatsoever.

Joe et al can correct me as needed.

loaba wrote:

I may be a bit off base here, but I rather think arms in America don’t quite mean the same thing, as say, in England. Here anyone can assume arms, but they do so with what I gather is very little legal protection.

I disagree as well. Many in common folk in Europe, such as merchants, have assumed and been granted arms.

Also In a different thread it is mentioned that Spain is going to (or considering) letting anyone who lives in a former territory of Spain (that includes US states like California, New Mexico, Texas, Colorado etc) to register their arms in Spain and having them be formally recognized by Spain. So it’s not just our view, but European countries that view our arms as equal to anything granted by a european government and given legal protection.