|
|
Problems of Islamic Heraldry (cont.) – 5
Summary and Conclusions
Coming back to questions posited earlier, several observations can be made. Perhaps the most obvious is that Islamic heraldry should be appreciated first in the light of local traditions. It is essential to define Islamic heraldry in terms of Islamic art as a whole, and then attempt to trace the meanings of the designs. Nowhere is this better illustrated than in the case of the blazons with raptorial birds. These animals have a special significance for Arabs, and clearly show how well heraldry was integrated into Arab society. At the same time designs are transmitted from one age to another, as is the case with the cup. Many have assumed that the West can be credited with many of the charges, but the evidence suggests that a number of designs in fact originated in the East, as is the case with the double headed eagle. There are no easy rules to follow, and some designs may remain unclear no matter how one looks at the available material evidence.
Given that chess was a game of skill and not chance, and imitated political realities, it may not be surprising that there is a blazon of a chessboard. Perhaps as the form of the pieces may vary, the board was the only universal symbol that could be recognized. Yet even at that time the armiger may have wanted uncertainty, as chess may have been prohibited in some circles. The last two blazons may be an even better example of mixed messages, yet it also may suggest something further. One may not have to be a Muslim to bear an 'Islamic' blazon. Christian communities played a significant role in many past and present Near Eastern nations. There is no reason why a blazon could not be issued in a style sympathetic to the recipient. On the other hand there would be nothing to stop a community, particularly an isolated community far from a centre of control, from assuming a blazon
Much of art history has been focussed upon design relationships with a lesser emphasis on the mechanics of the culture that made them. The discipline of archaeology is largely concerned with preserving the web of relationships that can be extracted from material culture. While it is labourious to accumulate what may at first appear to be unrelated facts, at least future generations will able to pose new questions using old data. Invariably as questions change, the nature of the records change. Yet careful documentation is the difference between treasure hunting and modern archaeology. Much art history, while it may have focussed on different questions, has not risen above treasure hunting to consider wider social issues. It is vitally important, particularly in the absence of written records, to record all possible information about an object. Supposed date is not enough, to determine what kind of community made an object. Some of the most significant questions raised after looking at this small sampling of evidence are:
- What kind of trade relations existed between various Near Eastern communities and Europe. Is it possible that a blazon was adapted from a coin or perhaps a fabric or other commonplace object? One can assume that designs travelled, and the next question is the direction?
- What kind of everyday activities are attested in the archaeological record? How common were they in everyday life in contrast to what is known from contemporary literature? Was falconry widespread before the introduction of firearms. Was chess a popular game among the populace, and, if so, how was it played?
- Can one propose "Christian Arab Heraldry"? This requires
 detailed archaeological evidence as well as a re-appraisal of how arms were granted or assumed.
|
|
