What is the correct armorial shield shape?
by
Mike Oettle
African shields
THERE is no one correct answer to this question. However, it can be answered in two broad categories.
The first question to ask is whether the coat of arms in question belongs to the broad Western tradition of armory, or whether it has a specific connection with a particular cultural or ethnic background that either falls within the Western tradition but has its own forms of expression, or perhaps one that falls entirely outside the Western tradition.
To the broad tradition two categories of exception must be noted, however: the arms of clergy, and the arms of women.
The
Western tradition:
If it does form part of the broad Western tradition, or is intended to be so, there is a fairly straightforward answer: the ideal shape is the one known as the heater (known in Continental Europe as early Gothic).
The big Oxford English Dictionary simply states that the classic shield shape – generally in use around AD 1200 – is called “heater” because it has the shape of a heater. Nowadays this shape (a triangle rounded on its two longer sides) is associated with the hot plate of the pressing-iron, but when we talk of shields, the name heater is still used.
It seems that this was arrived at by taking the long Norman shield, slicing its rounded top off, and shortening it.
Other styles developed in due course, but during the classic[1] period of heraldry they retained the flat top and pointed base of the heater.
Allcock[2] notes that the shield generally fell out of use in warfare around 1360 following the introduction of the crossbow, which largely rendered it useless in defence.
It continued in use in the tournament, but in styles that became increasingly impractical. This becomes clear in those designs featuring a rounded base – in earlier times a shield had to have a point in base for practical reasons of warfare. These rounded shields are referred to on the Continent as being late Gothic.
A feature that begins to be found around 1400 is the lance rest – a notch in the upper dexter corner which allowed the knight to slot his lance into the shield during the mounted charge. This was eminently practical in the tilting yard, but counterproductive on the battlefield.
And as the shield became more a device used in artwork and decoration, rather than a defensive weapon, even the lance rest degenerated – originally it was angled downwards and inwards from the upper dexter corner, but in due course the horizontal notch appeared, and in later centuries shields were drawn with “lance rests” pointing downwards, from which any lance would fall out immediately. François Velde calls this last version a “targe”, but this seems wrong in English.
It is hardly surprising that a progressive degeneration can be seen in succeeding styles – especially in those which show the influence of the baroque and rococo styles of artistic decoration. In these the shield itself has a very poorly defined form, and is principally a means for allowing the artist to add as much elaborate scrollwork (frequently gilded) as possible.
These shields were not only never intended to be carried in war, but in all probability were regarded purely as abstract decoration, either in a book or in architectural tat.
A variety of odd shapes emerge from this period, including one that is almost rectangular, with a rounding on either side at the base and a base point in the middle. It may have first appeared around 1500, but it was widely used in the 19th century, as were several other equally impractical forms. In some circles it is called a French shield.
Of the four shown at right, the first is unfamiliar to me, but the rest still of these make a strong showing, even in the 21st century, in South African coats of arms that have not been through the Bureau of Heraldry (and a few which have in fact been registered). The second (the arms of the Oranje Vrij Staat) is known as a Renaissance shield, and the last an “English” shield (the arms of Wynberg). The one in between is typical of the 18th and 19th centuries and is the arms of Sir Benjamin d’Urban.
Several varieties are known of both the oval cartouche (used in the arms of priests, and often of ladies, but notably also in the arms of the Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek and the Transvaal Province) and the “diamond”-shaped lozenge, used exclusively for ladies, as explained here.
Having outlined these styles, the question still needs to be asked: which is preferable? The simple answer is: in most cases, the classic heater or one of its variants.
However an exception must be made in the case of a quarterly shield, or in a coat of arms which has a considerable amount of detail in the base. In instances like this, the broad “rectangular” shield is permissible.
Outside the Western tradition:
While armory originated in Western Europe and is even today principally a Western style of identification and display, heralds in the 20th century, especially, have attempted to make coats of arms more relevant to communities in countries outside Europe by adopting shield shapes commonly used in those societies.
This is seen principally in African heraldry – originally in grants to newly independent countries by the College of Arms, but more especially in arms registered by the Bureau of Heraldry in Pretoria.
Most widely used is the Nguni shield, so called because it is based on the traditional shield of the abaNguni, and principally from among that subgroup of the Bantu-speaking peoples, the amaZulu of South Africa.
Similarly shaped shields also occur among other Bantu-speaking peoples, so it is not inappropriate that the arms of Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania all appear with Nguni shields.
Within South Africa, the arms of KwaZulu, its successor KwaZulu-Natal, Ciskei and Gauteng have Nguni shields.
Also occurring within Southern Africa is the Sotho-speaking group, which has two similar but distinct shield shapes. These are found in the arms of Lesotho, Bophuthatswana and Qwaqwa.
Outside Africa, there have been exciting developments in armory, notably in Canada, where the Canadian Heraldic Authority has made full use of its independence from the College of Arms to develop a strongly indigenous symbolism, not only for arms within the Western tradition, but especially in the devices of native peoples.
The round shield of the Inuit people has appeared in several grants made in Ottawa, notably in the arms of the territory of Nunavut. Shown here are the arms of Peter Irniq, of Iqaluit in Nunavut.
This question is dealt with in more detail here.
