Editing Asian Heraldry

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.

Latest revision Your text
Line 86: Line 86:
==Registerability:==  
==Registerability:==  
''(Restricted, Reserved, SFPP, OOP)''
''(Restricted, Reserved, SFPP, OOP)''
===June 2018 CL - t'ai-chi not registerable===
From Wreath: T'ai-Chi and Field Divisions Embowed Counter-Embowed
The January 2018 LoAR included a device that was pended for discussion and research on period European armorial uses of the motif of a roundel per fess embowed counter-embowed argent and sable charged in fess with two roundels counterchanged, known in SCA blazon as a t'ai-chi (also commonly known as a yin-yang symbol). It was found in that pend that "No evidence was presented and none could be found that a t'ai-chi was used in period Asian armory. As a non-European artistic motif, a t'ai-chi is unregisterable under SENA, which means that we must consider it under European armorial standards." Commenters were asked for "examples of the full motif in period European armorial contexts, evidence of embowed counter-embowed as a period complex field division, and discussion on roundels as armorial display."
Only one example of the motif was found, an entry from a 5th century Roman manuscript Notitia Dignitatum of over 400 pages, which had copies made in the 15th and 16th centuries. In the section that depicts some 120 unit insignia, one example is found of a shield divided per pale embowed counter-embowed Or (or vert) and azure, charged with two roundels in pale gules). This single pre-heraldic unit insignia is not sufficient to consider the entire motif as a charge, nor the use of embowed counter-embowed as an appropriate line of division for core heraldry purposes. Barring further documentation, the use of either will be grounds for return.
http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2018/06/18-06cl.html#3
===August 2017 - Chinese dragon unregisterable===
"Tyok Liftfot. Badge. (Fieldless) A Chinese dragon's head cabossed azure.  This submission was previously returned in September 2016:
This device is returned for redraw, for violating SENA A2C2 which states "Elements must be drawn to be identifiable." Commenters had trouble identifying the dragon's head, potentially mistaking it for a demon's head. It might be difficult to achieve recognizability without the rest of the dragon's body.
In the appeal, the submitter provided an example of a 15th century Chinese dragon on a carved lacquer box. The kingdom commentators supplied more examples of Chinese artwork depicting dragon's heads, in an attempt to demonstrate that the motif of a Chinese dragon's head (sans body) is reproducible, recognizable, and exemplified by the submitted artwork.
However, this badge runs into more issues than immediate recognizability. There are only two instances of a Chinese dragon's head in SCA heraldry, both registered to Raymond de Caen. The first was his device, registered in May 1989, and the second was a badge from August 1997, with a note that the same head appears on his device. There is an earlier registration of a Japanese dragon's head to Ryugen Morite in the LoAR of October 1983. As it has been 20 years since this charge was last registered, it must be documented as a charge under SENA's rules. Chinese dragon's heads are not found in European heraldry, and so fall under SENA A2B4, "Elements which are a Step from Period Practice."
Allowed steps from period practice fall under a handful of categories, including non-European armorial elements, non-European plants and animals, other European artifacts, and certain post-period elements. This is neither a European artifact, nor an allowable post-period element, nor a non-European plant or animal, which leaves us with non-European armorial elements.
When Chinese dragons were ruled a step from period practice, our access to and knowledge of Eastern armorial equivalents was severely limited. Since then, we have learned much, and several scholarly books and articles have been published, but we have yet to find any examples of Chinese dragons in any period artwork that may be construed as armorial in nature. They are an artistic motif. We don't have a pattern in SENA or precedents that allow for European artistic motifs, let alone non-European motifs (in fact, SENA A2B5 specifically includes artistic elements that are not found in heraldry i.e. Celtic knotwork and Greek "key" patterns). It would appear that Chinese dragon's heads should likewise fall under this category.
By this return we are explicitly disallowing Chinese dragon's heads, absent evidence which demonstrates use of the motif in an armorial context. Given SENA's rules about steps from period practice, we must also cease consideration of Chinese dragons for all armory submitted after the May 2018 LoAR, unless evidence can be provided of their use in an armorial context."
https://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2017/08/17-08lar.html


===March 2015 - tomoe===  
===March 2015 - tomoe===  
Please note that all contributions to SCA Heraldry Wiki may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see SCA Heraldry Wiki:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel Editing help (opens in new window)