"Systematic use of hereditary emblems centered on the shield"

For the most part I’m in agreement if we can acknowledge that:

"systematic" is defined by the customs and standards of the geographic/geopolitical location/jurisdiction where those particular arms originated. I often refer to this as the "framework" for that area’s/people’s heraldry.

I’m not sure heraldry must be hereditary.  I think a framework may include representation of geographic area or allegiances without this requirement - granted, it makes that framework less useful for familial position identification - but if there is a systematic way of designing the emblems on the shield, is "hereditary" necessary for a shield so designed to be heraldry?  Particularly as one encounters the cross cultural "sharing" people do as they encounter each other - be it in trade or war..

I’m definitely in the camp that the central element of heraldry is the shield.  I also believe there is a central requirement that heraldry is used for identification purposes.  Hence I believe badges, flags and the like as an "addition" to the arms fall within the realm of heraldry in some traditions - but the shield is primary and must exist within the complete system.

One other thing I believe is required for something to be heraldry is that one must be able to describe the design of the shield in a way any artists familiar with the language of the design can reproduce it as recognizable as that coat of arms. Without this element in the system of heraldry, then a single emblazon become the only possible rendition which, for my personal opinion means you might as well have a logo - a one-off piece of artwork.

This is as good a definition of heraldry as any I’ve read.  The importance of the centrality of the shield and the blazon for it to be true heraldry cannot be over emphazised.
Kathy McClurg;104238 wrote:

"Systematic use of hereditary emblems centered on the shield"

For the most part I’m in agreement if we can acknowledge that:

 

"systematic" is defined by the customs and standards of the geographic/geopolitical location/jurisdiction where those particular arms originated. I often refer to this as the "framework" for that area’s/people’s heraldry.

 

I’m not sure heraldry must be hereditary.  I think a framework may include representation of geographic area or allegiances without this requirement - granted, it makes that framework less useful for familial position identification - but if there is a systematic way of designing the emblems on the shield, is "hereditary" necessary for a shield so designed to be heraldry?  Particularly as one encounters the cross cultural "sharing" people do as they encounter each other - be it in trade or war..

 

I’m definitely in the camp that the central element of heraldry is the shield.  I also believe there is a central requirement that heraldry is used for identification purposes.  Hence I believe badges, flags and the like as an "addition" to the arms fall within the realm of heraldry in some traditions - but the shield is primary and must exist within the complete system.

 

One other thing I believe is required for something to be heraldry is that one must be able to describe the design of the shield in a way any artists familiar with the language of the design can reproduce it as recognizable as that coat of arms. Without this element in the system of heraldry, then a single emblazon become the only possible rendition which, for my personal opinion means you might as well have a logo - a one-off piece of artwork.

It is a nicely succinct definition, but only for personal or family heraldry in the European or European-derived tradition; but the hereditary part doesn’t really fit the wide range of other non-people kinds of heraldry even in that tradition: civic, ecclesiastical, military, corporate etc.

And for personal or family hereditary emblems (badges, symbols, totems,  or what have you) in non-European traditions, limiting it to shield-based is as likely to be off-base as on.

You could say "unique" symbols "usually" centered on a shield;

or maybe better, "Systematic use of unique symbols, suitable to be displayed on a shield, banner, clothing or other similar surface, to identify persons, families, lineages and institutions over time," which is historically more accurate even in Europe.

I’d rather back away from form and first focus on purpose - what are arms supposed to be for?  First, for identification of persons, families, and institutions of all sorts.  Second, as a visual unifying focus for those affiliated with the family (tokens of kinship, which covers heredity within the lineage) or institution (tokens of affiliation or in some cases position within the institution).  Third, as decoration and visual beauty (eye candy )

[In some times and places, there are additional functions involving social or legal status or rank, but not everywhere, so not essential or appropriate in a universal definition.]

European-style heraldry, if well done, accomplishes these three essential functions and meets my suggested definition above; but so would several other non-European systems, such as Japanese Mon and some tribal totems.

Michael F. McCartney;104243 wrote:

It is a nicely succinct definition, but only for personal or family heraldry in the European or European-derived tradition; but the hereditary part doesn’t really fit the wide range of other non-people kinds of heraldry even in that tradition: civic, ecclesiastical, military, corporate etc.

The last concern is easily correctable by allowing in symbols derived from the system as described (hereditary, systematic, centered on the shield).

Quote:

And for personal or family hereditary emblems (badges, symbols, totems, or what have you) in non-European traditions, limiting it to shield-based is as likely to be off-base as on.

No, it’s exactly on base.  If it isn’t based on the shield or deriving from the system of symbols based on the shield, it isn’t heraldry.  It may be something else very interesting, but it isn’t heraldry.  Mons are not heraldry and coats of arms are not tamghas.  There may be cross fertilization, but one is not the other.

Quote:

You could say "unique" symbols "usually" centered on a shield;

What does unique mean?  Is "Azure three fleurs-de-lis Or" unique?

Quote:

or maybe better, "Systematic use of unique symbols, suitable to be displayed on a shield, banner, clothing or other similar surface, to identify persons, families, lineages and institutions over time," which is historically more accurate even in Europe.

Anything can be displayed on clothing.  If I systematically produce millions of T-shirts imprinted with "I ♥ NY," does that make it heraldry?  Anything can be put on a shield.  Does that make the state seal of Oregon heraldic?

And what about patterns of cloth?  They can be systematic, distinctive of a lineage or institution, and by definition suitable to be displayed on banner or clothing.  Tartans?  Various patterns of African kinte cloth distinctive to the respective tribes?  What are you going to leave out?

Quote:

I’d rather back away from form and first focus on purpose - what are arms supposed to be for? First, for identification of persons, families, and institutions of all sorts. Second, as a visual unifying focus for those affiliated with the family (tokens of kinship, which covers heredity within the lineage) or institution (tokens of affiliation or in some cases position within the institution). Third, as decoration and visual beauty (eye candy

Quote:

European-style heraldry, if well done, accomplishes these three essential functions and meets my suggested definition above; but so would several other non-European systems, such as Japanese Mon and some tribal totems.

Who says otherwise?  But why do you and Kathy want to conduct this imperialist campaign to bring them within the heraldic domain?  Do you have to define them as heraldry to make them of interest?

Joseph McMillan;104235 wrote:

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)

No, this slippery slope will fail to slide that far. Semiotics isn’t just the study of visual symbols, and Heraldry will never reach the point of encapsulating semiotic fields such as Kinesics (study of body language) or any subset such as Oculesics (Study of Eye movement, behaviour, & eye-based communication) or Haptics (Study of touch-based communication).

Even if Heralds began to incorporate more sets of symbols, e.g. the allowance of an ‘armorial song’ as part of one’s full achievement, Heraldry will never encapsulate the entirety of Music Semiology, just the subset that would deal with ‘armorial songs’.

But please, continue debating how permissive or restrictive you view the definition of heraldry.

Michael F. McCartney;104243 wrote:

It is a nicely succinct definition, but only for personal or family heraldry in the European or European-derived tradition; but the hereditary part doesn’t really fit the wide range of other non-people kinds of heraldry even in that tradition: civic, ecclesiastical, military, corporate etc.

And for personal or family hereditary emblems (badges, symbols, totems,  or what have you) in non-European traditions, limiting it to shield-based is as likely to be off-base as on.

 

You could say "unique" symbols "usually" centered on a shield;

 

or maybe better, "Systematic use of unique symbols, suitable to be displayed on a shield, banner, clothing or other similar surface, to identify persons, families, lineages and institutions over time," which is historically more accurate even in Europe.

 

I’d rather back away from form and first focus on purpose - what are arms supposed to be for?  First, for identification of persons, families, and institutions of all sorts.  Second, as a visual unifying focus for those affiliated with the family (tokens of kinship, which covers heredity within the lineage) or institution (tokens of affiliation or in some cases position within the institution).  Third, as decoration and visual beauty (eye candy )

 

[In some times and places, there are additional functions involving social or legal status or rank, but not everywhere, so not essential or appropriate in a universal definition.]

 

European-style heraldry, if well done, accomplishes these three essential functions and meets my suggested definition above; but so would several other non-European systems, such as Japanese Mon and some tribal totems.

There is only"European-style" heraldry as there is nothing else that can be called heraldry.  The other traditional systems of symbols representing tribes, clans, religious, military, or cultural groupings that have developed outside of Europe or nations who’s cultural inheritance is largely European (such as ours) are not heraldry.  In the case of the Japanese Mon, it is a very similar system, but uniquely it’s own and not the same as heraldry.

Heraldic imperialism?  How do you spell ad hominem? ) on the details, but however some of us may resist any change, that train has left the station.  Opening the heraldic subset of society to match the growth of the broader society seems to me preferable to watching the train roll away without us.

And from what I see and read about the current European scene, it’s not just here.

Changing times and changing demographics can be an opportunity rather than a loss, but not if we play heraldic ostrich. Or to switch awkward analogies one more time, don’t think of throwing out the baby with the bath water, rather recognize the baby is growing and needs a bigger tub.  It needn’t be the open sea, but bigger than the old bascinet.

Michael F. McCartney;104253 wrote:

Heraldic imperialism? How do you spell ad hominem?

You spelled it right, but aren’t using it right. None of what I wrote is ad hominem; I’m criticizing your arguments, not you personally. You and Kathy seem to be out to conquer other, non-heraldic systems of family insignia, different in appearance, rules, application, and history—and claim them for the realm of heraldry.

Anyway, nothing in your post changes my mind. Okay, there are lots of people in the U.S. of non-European ancestry. They’re welcome to use heraldic insignia if they like, or to use analogous systems of symbols from their ancestral country of origin, or somewhere else, as long as people from the third country don’t mind. But isn’t all heraldry, even if that term is figuratively applied to it in casual usage. We also talk about the chemistry of interpersonal relationships and the mechanics of putting together a presentation, but I don’t remember my college chemistry or engineering courses covering either of those subjects.

As for differences between British and American usage Anthony Wagner, whose definition of heraldry is where I started, was, I think, English.

Joseph McMillan;104255 wrote:

You spelled it right, but aren’t using it right. None of what I wrote is ad hominem; I’m criticizing your arguments, not you personally. You and Kathy seem to be out to conquer other, non-heraldic systems of family insignia, different in appearance, rules, application, and history—and claim them for the realm of heraldry.

That’s twice you’ve included me in this argument.  Some posts ago I disagreed with Michael’s argument that systems which did not include a shield were not heraldry.

However, I am not settled with one single aspect of Wagner’s definition, that being the requirement for the shield to be hereditary.  In this, I haven’t fully decided my viewpoint - for example, if I’m a single person without issue my arms to not pass down - does that mean I shouldn’t assume arms?  Does that make my assumption of arms less heraldic?

All frameworks/systems of heraldry may not include the inheritance of arms - I do not know (mainly because I cannot claim to know all systems of heraldry).  All other aspects of the indigenous people’s shields fall within Wagner’s definition of heraldry.  It’s one of the few independently developed systems of identification that does.  The mons does not, all vexillology (I am not looking up how to spell that again) does not.  I haven’t seen a definition that says "a European system" specifically.

All definitions I’ve come across do include a shield and require a systematic way to design or place the charges and colors on the shield.

I am closer to agreement with Joe than with Michael…  Just have one outlying point I’m not yet decided on my viewpoint.

Just exploring the edges… 

Kathy,

Apologies, then, for grouping you together, but trying to include the non-heraldic shield designs of indigenous peoples within heraldry still seems a little expansionist, if not as imperialistic as Mike’s apparent agenda.

(N.B.—I’m using "imperialist" figuratively here, as Mike suggests we use "heraldry.")

Ah, so maybe we can ask Wagner’s ghost to define "imperialism" ... though I’d probably disagree with that too

But I strongly believe that whether or not the changing and broader national culture is my ideal—sometimes yes, sometimes no, depending on the day’s news—it is the culture which a vibrant American heraldry must mirror and (at least attempt to) embrace.  Circling the heraldic wagons is an irrelevant exercise when the rest of the world is blithely racing past on the Interstate.

And I think we can do so consistent with our Guidelines with a little less fixation on the necessity for a shield.  If Canada can do it, we certainly can, even if our result may differ in some ways from theirs.  Jeez, if we can accept that some of our semi- or non-heraldic state seals are arms just because the state law says they are (someone here sbould recall saying that) we can certainly find a way to accept a fair share of Mons, tribal totems, and other similar non-European family or institutional symbols that serve the same functions as arms, if those that use them would like to be included.

Michael F. McCartney;104258 wrote:

What is more likely "imperialistic" is an approach which essentially says to our non-European countrymen that their traditional ways don’t merit inclusion in our American heraldry - armorial "my way or the highway."

I don’t see this.

Let’s leave aside the issue of non-European cultures for a moment. Your view, as I understand it, is that heraldry embraces all types of:

Quote:

Systematic use of unique symbols, suitable to be displayed on a shield, banner, clothing or other similar surface, to identify persons, families, lineages and institutions over time…

as long as these symbols serve the purposes of

<ul class=“bbcode_list”>
<li>"Identification of persons, families, and institutions of all sorts."</li>
<li>Providing "a visual unifying focus for those affiliated with the family (tokens of kinship, which covers heredity within the lineage) or institution (tokens of affiliation or in some cases position within the institution)"</li>
<li>Being decorative</li>
</ul>
In a purely European context, this would include such things as the different arrangements of plumes worn on the bearskin caps of British foot guards regiments, regimental ties, academic regalia, freemasons’ aprons, livery gowns of guilds, yacht club burgees and blazer patches, collar facing and piping on hunt club jackets, Boy Scout and Girl Guide insignia, the striped blazers worn by members of rowing clubs and the blade patterns of the oars they pull, printers’ colophons, sports teams jerseys, the colored ribbons and caps ("couleur") of German university fraternities, political party rosettes, and trademarks and housemarks. If we add in Euro-North America: pins of clubs, fraternities, and lodges, the medal-like badges of hereditary societies, street gang graffiti and tattoos, baseball caps, football helmets, the Augusta National green jacket, academic hoods, fraternity windbreakers, the T-shirts distributed at family reunions, college and prep school scarves, and nurses’ caps (which indicate the school at which the nurse trained). And many more.

Our world is full of emblems of individual and collective identity. They are often figuratively referred to as "heraldry," but they aren’t, not in any sense that is useful to bounding the problem. A definition that embraces everything is not a useful definition.

I’m not suggesting that a clear, bright circle can be drawn, and that everything inside it is heraldry and everything outside isn’t. There are always ambiguous cases. But Wagner’s definition is the most useful one I know of to define the core—what is it that differentiates "heraldry" from all the other systems of symbols that serve similar purposes, even within European/North American culture.

I am simply applying the same standard to non-European systems of symbols as I am to European ones.

None of this is "circling the heraldic wagons" to keep out non-European influences. If a Japanese person or family chooses to adopt a coat of arms, it’s perfectly legitimate to take the family kamon and place it on a shield and assign permanently fixed tinctures to it. But the kamon in its native environment is not heraldry. It’s very much like heraldry, just as Haida totems are somewhat like heraldry, and football helmets are a little bit like heraldry.  But it’s not heraldry.

Let me make an analogy to dance. There are European traditions of dance and there are non-European traditions of dance. Some dances within the European tradition fall within the category of ballet, others do not. The bounds of what is ballet have been stretched by dancers and choreographers, but if we go to a performance of the New York City Ballet, we’re generally pretty sure we’re not going to see Appalachian clogging, Japanese buyo, or Polynesian hula. That doesn’t make any of these "not dance," but they are "not ballet."

"Heraldry" is analogous to "ballet," not to "dance." It is one among many art-forms by which family and corporate identity is expressed. Like ballet, it derives from a particular cultural and historical origin. Just as modern ballet borrows from other dance forms, modern heraldry can borrow from other symbolic systems.

But to define heraldry as the totality of these systems of group identity is like including the Navajo rain dance under the category of "ballet," or calling a Zulu war chant an oratorio.

Joseph McMillan;104259 wrote:

"Heraldry" is analogous to "ballet," not to "dance." It is one among many art-forms by which family and corporate identity is expressed. Like ballet, it derives from a particular cultural and historical origin. Just as modern ballet borrows from other dance forms, modern heraldry can borrow from other symbolic systems.

But to define heraldry as the totality of these systems of group identity is like including the Navajo rain dance under the category of "ballet," or calling a Zulu war chant an oratorio.

I’m buying Joe’s argument—excellent analogue.

—Guy

Guy Power;104260 wrote:

I’m buying Joe’s argument—excellent analogue.

—Guy

Ditto.

Almost ditto…

I’m not convinced that heraldry MUST include the heraldic system define inheritance.

Examples have been given as to civic and ecclesiastic heraldry in the European traditions.  But - I’m convinced SCA is probably the single organization most actively practicing heraldry - thousands of members worldwide have heraldic shields which are unique to individuals and they have a systematic way of designing these.

Bringing it into the real world.  If a person who never married and never had children and never had siblings becomes interested in heraldry and assumes arms within one of the various guidelines for assumption, knowing their arms will never be inherited, are their arms any less heraldry than someone passing arms to further generations?  Should they just not bother because that aspect of many frameworks is closed to them?  Would any of us be so crass as to tell them not to bother?

If you see a traditional heraldic display, you would have absolutely no idea if these arms had anything to do with being inherited.  ONLY if they were constructed within a heraldic system which had markings or a system for inheritance which was denoted in the arms themselves (a label of 3, perhaps) would you believe they had association with inheritance.. otherwise, you may make assumptions (depending on your previous focus or information about heraldry) - but that display is heraldry whether built in a system allowing for inheritance or not.

Every graphic identity is not heraldry.  Absolutely agree.  BUT does heraldry HAVE to be hereditary to BE heraldry.  I’m not so sure.

Michael—the honor is all mine.