Hereditary emblems: Material culture in the context of social change

JOURNAL

OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL

Hereditary

Emblems:

ARCHAEOLOGY

4, 149-176 (1985)

Material Culture in the Context of Social Change DAVE D. DAVIS

Department

of Anthropology,

Tulane

University,

New

Orleans,

Louisiana

70118

And the Lord spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying, Every man of the children of Israel shall pitch by his own standard, with the ensign of his father’s house. Numbers

II:2

Emblematic artifacts, which signify personal or social identity, are potentially valuable sources of information about social organization. To date, however, there has been little comparative study of the social contexts that give rise to use of different kinds of emblems, nor of the ways in which the social significance of emblematic artifacts may change over time. This paper is specifically concerned with the emergence and changing use of hereditary emblems in stratified societies. The histories of lineage devices in western Europe and Japan exhibit a number of similarities which suggest that, in complex societies, hereditary emblems are likely to appear in the presence of unstable systems of social rank. Once introduced, such emblems may acquire additional, nonhereditary, significance without undergoing noticeable iconographic change. The cases examined here suggest a series of general propositions about evolutionary relationships between hereditary emblem use and socioeconomic factors. Although we currently lack a well-developed methodology for identifying hereditary emblems archaeologically, it is clear that the key to their identification lies not in stylistic analysis, but rather in their contexts of use and patterns of association with other items of material culture. Hypotheses derived from consideration of the evolution of lineage emblems in western Europe and Japan are applied to the interpretation of shield decorations of the Archaic and Classical periods in Attic Greece. B 1985Academic Ress.

Inc.

INTRODUCTION

Emblems, which may be defined as objects or representations that overtly signify the personal identity or social group affiliations of individuals, are common items of material culture.‘** Familiar historic examples include flags, badges, sodality pins, totem poles, and military insignia, to name a few. In light of the wide range of circumstances that * See Notes section at end of paper. 149 0278-4165/85 $3.00 Copyright 0 1985 by Academic Press, Inc. AU rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

150

DAVE

D. DAVIS

give rise to their display, it seems likely that various types of emblematic artifacts were used during much of later prehistory. Some of the marks on Mesopotamian cylinder seals, the shield devices depicted on various Classic Maya monuments, and even some of the motifs associated with the Mississippian period “Southern Cult” of the southeastern U.S. are cases of artifacts which may be emblematic in nature. Yet, as these examples indicate, even when a great deal is known about a society from written sources, the specific significance of its emblematic artifacts may remain poorly understood. Because they are designed to convey information about identity or group membership, emblems are potentially important sources of data for the study of social organization. At present, however, little is known about the circumstances that promote the use of different kinds of emblems, about their significance in social change, or about whether different categories of emblems should be expected to change or vary predictably in space or time. In the absence of such principles, the significance of emblem systems that are only represented archaeologically will remain, in large part, veiled. It is my purpose in this paper to show that comparative study of this aspect of material culture may yield information that can shed new light upon social organization and change. I am specifically concerned here with the occurrence in stratified societies of a class of artifacts that may be called “lineage emblems.” These are artifacts or artifact attributes whose primary function is to identify the lineage membership of their owners or bearers. Perhaps the type of lineage emblem that is most widely known to western readers is the “coat of arms,” a hereditary device that has been employed by western European nobility and gentry since medieval times. Although the use of heraldic devices originated throughout western Europe at about the same time and in similar social circumstances, the last 600 years have witnessed the development of rather different patterns of use in several areas of the continent. The degree of formal institutionalization, rules defining the right to display arms, and the circumstances in which heraldic insignia are used have all changed over the years, and vary today among heraldic systems of different nations. Indeed, it is of some interest that European heraldic systems persisted and maintained their basic iconographic integrity well past the period when their initial functions as markers of personal identity for nobility and knights had faded. Another kind of lineage emblem that has considerable historic time depth is the Japanese family crest, or mon. Like heraldic devices in most of Europe, mon are regarded by many in the present day more as curiosities than as vital components of social structure. Yet the social and economic conditions which gave rise to the use of mon closely parallel those that underlay the appearance of heraldic devices in Europe.

HEREDITARY

EMBLEMS

151

Consideration of the development of these systems of hereditary emblems in western Europe and Japan suggests certain preconditions for the emergence of lineage emblems in stratified societies. Specifically, these cases support the hypothesis that, in stratified societies, hereditary emblems are only likely to appear in unstable systems of inherited social rank. Lineage emblems represent the use of material culture to reconcile (1) systems of social ranking and economic privilege that are formally grounded in principles of inheritance with (2) the de facto upward mobility of some individuals into the lower ranks of the elite. The evolution of heraldic practices in Europe and Japan also demonstrates that the design structure of an emblem system may be maintained when its social function, or the rules governing its use, change. Indeed, the same kinds of emblems may function during the same period of time, but in differing circumstances, both as markers of lineage membership and as indicators of other, nonhereditary, statuses. It may be possible to specify the conditions under which devices that were initially lineage emblems are likely to acquire nonhereditary significance. Recent research by Hodder (1977, 1979, 1981, 1982), Wobst (1977), Plog (1976, 1980), Eighmy (1981), Hardin (1979), Sackett (1977), and others (cf. Gould and Schiffer 1981) has stimulated interest in the ways that “stylistic” dimensions of material culture enter into the definition of social boundaries. Both Hodder’s work in East Africa and Wobst’s research in Yugoslavia show that artifacts may come to stand as markers of ethnic identity, and that the spatial distribution of such artifacts may exhibit “falloff” at the boundaries of ethnic or other spatially or hierarchically defined groups. Hodder (1979) has proposed that these cases reflect boundary maintenance responses to economic or other social pressures. Wobst has incorporated his observations into the general theoretical proposition that style is best regarded as a means of relaying information. Although I find this definition of style rather restrictive, I think that Wobst’s perspective makes sense with respect to emblems. The primary research of both Hodder and Wobst involved differences in artifact style across ethnic or tribal boundaries. However, as Hodder recognized, material culture may also play a role in reinforcing interaction or separation among hierarchically defined groups within a society. In complex societies, it is with these vertical relationships that lineage emblems are most directly involved. In the following discussion, I focus upon artifacts that appear first as markers of membership in an hereditary elite. However, although the forms and attributes of these artifacts may remain essentially constant, their social functions shift in response to changing conditions of social structure. Investigation of these changing relationships can shed light upon the changing distributions, frequencies, and archaeological contexts of such artifacts. My discussion begins with a consideration of the origins and initial functions of heraldic devices in western Europe (especially England) and

152

DAVE

D. DAVIS

Japan. Parallels between the two cases suggest that, in stratified societies, certain unstable social conditions may promote the use of hereditary emblems. Once such an emblem system is established, it may acquire different roles in response to changes in political organization or to a shift in the focus of economic power. At each stage of an emblem system’s evolution, the prevailing social conditions and the contexts in which the emblems are used are the main keys to their cultural significance. Finally, although the social “function” of an emblem system has some bearing upon its iconographic content, emblem design does not seem to respond quickly or with great predictability to changing use. It may thus be difficult or impossible to determine the social significance of an emblem system from iconographic evidence alone. In the final part of this paper, the hypotheses suggested by the cases of western Europe and Japan are applied to the interpretation of shield decoration in Archaic and Classical Greece. Although Greek shields of these periods technically fall within the realm of history, the available written sources are inadequate to determine the social importance of shield decorations. However, in the light of what is known about social change in Greece between the eighth and fifth centuries B.C., archaeological data indicate that Greek shield devices evolved along lines that were broadly similar to those followed by lineage emblems in England and Japan. I want to emphasize that this paper is an initial inquiry into a rather complex subject, and the propositions raised here are of a very general nature. My primary goal is to point out some relationships that seem to obtain between social processes and the changing use of hereditary emblems, with a view toward stimulating further discussion and consideration of specific cases. ORIGINS

AND SOCIAL FUNCTIONS OF LINEAGE STRATIFIED SOCIETIES

EMBLEMS

IN

There is considerable evidence that conditions of social conflict and the existence of social ranks are primary prerequisites for the emergence of hereditary (or heraldic) emblem systems. These factors are, in turn, closely related to the principal functions of an heraldic system in the early stages of its evolution, namely, (1) to mark the social affiliations or personal identities of individuals during specific occasions of conflict or competition; and (2) to reinforce claims to social and economic privilege. These two functions are not necessarily coincident. A given heraldic emblem may be displayed solely as a marker of social affiliation, without any implied claim of privilege. However, in a different use context, display of the emblem may stand as an assertion both of membership in a privileged class and of rights to specific property or rank.

HEREDITARY

EMBLEMS

153

From the time of its origin in the medieval period, English armorial design has been most closely identified with higher social statuses. Indeed, Anderson (1971:3 1) has characterized all of early western European heraldry as a boundary maintenance device of the aristocracy. However, upon closer inspection it is clear that English rules about the right to “bear arms” have been considerably more liberal than those of the French, whose heraldic designs share common historic origins with those of the English. For several centuries English arms have been regarded as signs of social quality, and although the right to bear them was often an ascribed privilege of royalty, nobles, and barons, it could be, and frequently was, “earned” by individuals of lesser status. If it is defined as “the systematic use of hereditary devices centered upon the shield,” (Wagner 1939:12), western European heraldry can be traced to early twelfth century France. However, the practice spread almost instantly to other areas of Europe. Throughout medievel Europe, the purpose of armorial markings was to distinguish among knights in battle and in tournament (Wagner 1939; Denholm-Young 1948, 1965). [Strictly speaking, armorial bearings were used only by barons and higher ranks before 1250 or so, but spread to knights by about that time (Wagner 1967:25).] Use of shield markings to identify knights grew rapidly after the thirteenth century introduction of plate armor and the visored helmet, which made properly outfitted horsemen otherwise anonymous (ScottGiles 1950:6). Medieval shield markings were often simple in design, as befitted their purpose. Nonetheless, the number of specific designs in use quickly grew; this growth was accompanied by the emergence of a class of specialists whose function was to recall for their sponsors the identifying marks of other knights. Probably by the end of the thirteenth century, these heralds were devising a series of rules defining proper combinations of motifs and color, and a strict grammar for describing (or “blazoning”) coats of arms. Fourteenth century England was a nation of two languages. Although commoners spoke Anglo-Saxon, the language of the aristocracy was French, and it was thus French that became the “mother tongue” of British heraldry in its formative years. The influence of French terminology, though somewhat diluted, is clearly visible in modern heraldic language. From an archaeological perspective, it is of note that most of the earliest extant nondocumentary evidence of heraldry in western Europe appears not on shields, but rather on seals of twelfth century date (Wagner 1939: 13 - 15). Indeed, documentary (but not archaeological) evidence shows that “the lance flag came before the shield device and was the original ‘conoissance’ or cognizance” (Wagner 1946:7), although that practice was soon abandoned. This indicates that heraldic emblems may

154

DAVE

D. DAVIS

be transferred to media other than those on which they were initially displayed, and that such adoptions may occur very early in the history of an heraldic design system. Throughout the late thirteenth and the fourteenth centuries, heralds were employed by individual members of the nobility. However, by 1400, the Constable of France was claiming power to regulate appointments and activities of heralds in that country, and the English Constable was exercising the same authority by 1420 (Wagner 1967:39). As early as 1398, the English High Court of Chivalry undertook to consider heraldic cases (Wagner 1960: 108). Regulation of heralds and heraldry by the Crown was a product of the wider social functions that were served by coats of arms by the late fourteenth century. Armorial bearings were visible signs of the holding (and prerogatives) of their aristocratic owners. Since real property was inherited in the male line, it early became customary for a son to acquire the right to display the arms of his father. It was in this manner that heraldic devices acquired genealogical significance and stood as claims to aristocratic ancestry and privilege. Heralds thus became guardians of genealogical knowledge, and confirmation of the right to bear arms amounted to confirmation of aristocratic background. By 1400, it was clearly in the interest of both the British and French upper classes to ensure that charlatans and untrained pretenders were not allowed to pose as proper heralds. In 1484, British heralds received a charter of incorporation from Richard III. This act marked the birth of the institution known in modern times as the College of Arms. For 500 years the hierarchically organized College, whose leadership is appointed by the Earl Marshal, has remained the primary official arbiter of heraldic questions in England. Its highest official, the Garter principal King of Arms, is, ex ojfkio, an officer of the Order of the Garter and a member of the Royal household. Although the prerogatives of the position have changed over the years, Garter has usually been permitted to grant or confirm arms for any part of England. In theory, if not always in practice, Garter maintains the privilege of review of any substantive decisions of the other heralds. The second organizational tier of the College of Arms is occupied by two positions, Clarenceux King of Arms and Norroy King of Arms, which are responsible for heraldic activities in the southern and northern provinces of England, respectively (with the spheres of responsibility bounded by the River Trent). Below these are six provincial heralds (Chester, Lancaster, Richmond, Somerset, Windsor, and York). The designations of the offices notwithstanding, a provincial herald’s activities in the confirmation, granting, and design of arms is not limited within England. Provincial heralds, like the Kings of Arms, are appointed by the Earl Marshal. Such appointments have often been made upon the recommen-

HEREDITARY

EMBLEMS

155

dation, or with the tacit consent, of the Kings of Arms but, especially before 1869, consultation was in many cases either perfunctory or nonexistent (Wagner 1967). The third and lowest tier of heralds is occupied by pursuivants (Fr., “followers”). These are essentially apprentice heralds but, like apprentices in many professions, they often do more than their share of day-today work. The College currently maintains four pursuivants “in ordinary. ” The office of Garter was created by Henry V in 1415, and thus predates formal incorporation of the heralds. The title “Clarenceux” as a designation for the King of Arms of the southern region appears in 1420, and that of Norroy in 1467 (Wagner 1967:40-50). Other positions have from time to time existed at the ranks in the College below Garter. However, the control of heraldic appointments by royalty and high nobility, through the authority of the Earl Marshal, has persisted since the end of the fourteenth century. A more diffuse, but equally important, pattern of noble interest in the appointment of heralds can be traced back to the thirteenth century (Denholm-Young 1965). From that time forward, heralds were thus potential links between the high nobility and the rest of English society. As arms became symbols of social rank the heralds, as the principal authorities on armorial questions, became agents of social change. The origins of Japanese heraldry are strikingly parallel to those of heraldry in Europe. The late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries were marked by considerable conflict among regional leaders in Japan (Susumu 1977:144-145). Although the earliest use of family crests was by the feudal nobility in the eleventh century, the real growth of the tradition began with the use of the devices in the late twelfth century by male members of the elite martial class for the purpose of identification in combat. Media for their display included banners, cloth curtains that were used to mark a commander’s camp, and a garment worn beneath the armor but visible on the legs and arms. Eventually, man were applied to a number of other items of battlefield equipment (Dower 1971:4-7) and, by the Momoyama period (1574-1600), were often incorporated in architectural design (Okada 1941:97). Crests were soon adopted by courtiers, who usually displayed them on items of clothing and other personal, publically visible, belongings. By the seventeenth century, if not earlier, there emerged a class of specialists whose purpose was to identify members of the nobility according to their mm. The Tokugawa shogunate, which began in 1603, even included a class of clerical offtcials (gezami) who were stationed along roads leading to the shogun’s castle to identify approaching members of the nobility so that they might receive proper treatment. However, unlike European her-

156

DAVE

D. DAVIS

alds, neither the gezami nor their privately employed counterparts ever became formally responsible for genealogical documentation (Dower 1971:16-17). More similar to the European case was the Japanese practice of bestowal of crests by the high nobility-a practice that persisted until the seventeenth century. The use of visual markings to identify the ufJiliations of combatants is so common in situations of armed aggression that it hardly deserves mention. However, heraldic devices differ from other distinctive items of military dress or decoration in that the former are primarily markers of the social statuses and prerogatives of individuals, and only secondarily of military affiliation. Once such a practice is established, the right to possess or bear an emblem of a certain kind may become coterminous with the right to hold economic and political power. When social rank is hereditary, so are the material symbols that reinforce it. Clearly, though, not all hereditary ranking systems give rise to heraldry. A more specific condition must be met. I suggest that one additional factor is the stability (or rather the instability) of the system of inheritance . “Stability” here refers to the degree of continuity in patterns of hereditary status and privilege. In feudal societies, and perhaps in some chiefdoms and in primitive states in general, heredity of power, like the mere possession of power, is a fragile affair. Although privilege may be claimed on grounds of heredity, the need to build alliances and maintain allegiances with certain individuals born to lower status may favor a degree of upward mobility. Opportunity for upward mobility may be created by marriage rules, or by certain mercantile or military conditions. The coupling of hereditary principles with limited interrank mobility can result in competition among individuals occupying lower elite ranks. Among members of elite ranks, the positions of the less competent and the newly arrived are, in general, the least assured. It takes only a glance at the social history of medieval Europe and Japan to realize that military prowess was among the principal means of nonhereditary access to prestige and wealth. Denholm-Young (1965:2) claims that all recorded cases of British arms before 1370 belonged to knights, and Wagner (1975:42) suggests that heraldic research on the medieval period is of primary importance for understanding “the changing composition of the class which begins as the chivalry and ends as the gentry.” Social rank boundary maintenance mechanisms are often most significant at the margins of elite classes. I suggest that it was instability at the lower margins of the upper classes that, in Europe and Japan, promoted the first widespread use of emblems as markers of social privilege. The fact that heraldic design in both areas originated in military emblems is, in a broader perspective, incidental. It was the fact that the knighthood was a principal means of entering into lower elite status that made an individual’s shield decoration a particularly appropriate hereditary emblem.

HEREDITARY

157

EMBLEMS

This last hypothesis suggests that the social functions of early heraldic designs were at least twofold. First, the emblems certainly served the practical purpose of denoting the personal identities (or fealties; see below) of their bearers during combat, while traveling, and, in the case of Europe, at tournaments. However, the significance of armorial bearings as a statement of identity was matched, and eventually superceded, by their importance as a statement to lower classes and potential challengers from within an individual’s own geographic or political sphere. It is only in the latter sense that the hereditary character of heraldic emblems comes to the fore. To display arms or man as one’s own was to claim, publicly and quite visibly, the right to the privileges of elite status, usually by reason of descent. Very early in their respective histories, arms in both Europe and Japan came to be borne by nonelites to mark their affiliations with particular individuals or families of higher status. However, the appropriate contexts for display of armorial bearings by servants, retainers, and the like were, at best, limited to combat or processions when the nonelite bearers either accompanied or officially represented the knight or noble who “owned” the arms. In such cases, the display of heraldic emblems was a surrogate act, a simple extension of the elite bearer’s claim of hereditary privilege. In England, display of an individual’s arms by his retainers and servants became prominent in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries in the form of the household badge which was worn as an item of personal adornment (Scott-Giles 195O:lO). In thirteenth century Japan, the crests of some of the most powerful nobles were “used as a common badge of identification by all followers of these regional lords, regardless of kinship ties” (Dower 1971:7). THE SHIFT TO BROADER

SOCIAL

CONTEXTS

If heraldic emblems usually originate as markers of or claims about elite social status, their social functions often expand over time to include identification of the social personae of lower status individuals. This tendency toward progressive “democratization” of heraldic systems seems in some cases to be a consequence of increasing economic power of middle-rank groups, and in others of a shift to non-kin based polities. Partly because of these factors, heraldic emblems may also come to be “owned” by towns or other non-kin corporate units. In Japan, the shift of heraldry to a broader social context began at least as early as the first decade of the fourteenth century when “single armies flew two hundred, even three hundred, family crests” (Dower 1971:6). By the late seventeenth century, family crests were frequently displayed on clothing by members of all social ranks (Shively 1964:125). The same years were marked by the end of the Tokugawa shogunate and by a

158

DAVE

D.

DAVIS

rapidly growing middle class centered upon the accumulation of wealth through both commerce and the arts (Masamoto 1977:160). In France, the spread of heraldic emblems to the nonnoble statuses had begun to occur by the thirteenth century in the form of seal designs that were adopted by clergy, bourgeois merchants, and some tradesmen (Galbreath and Jequier 1977:43). Indeed, by the same time, French towns had also begun to adopt arms (Galbreath and Jequier 1977), often with designs based upon those of local nobility (Mathieu 1946:20-23). Civic arms began to appear in England in the fourteenth century; by the sixteenth century arms were being granted to English towns and counties by the Kings of Arms (Scott-Giles 1950:227). As in France, early civic arms in England often included elements borrowed from the arms of local nobility of higher status individuals. The arms of the city of Gloucester, for example, include three red chevrons, which are central elements of the shields of the Earls of Gloucester; the shield of Canterbury is marked in part by three birds, borrowed from arms attributed to St. Thomas Becket. Grants of arms to individuals of social ranks below knights were made in England at least as early as the fifteenth century and arms were unofficially assumed by such individuals (especially by wealthy merchants) well before that time (Denholm-Young 1969). In western Europe, the changing applications of heraldic devices in the late medieval period were results of two distinct, but superimposed, processes. The sanctioned acquisition of heraldic bearings by individuals of non-noble (and non-knightly) status reflected the growing economic power of merchants and professionals. Use of arms by this class did not violate the character of heraldic devices as markers of lineage membership. In contrast, the display of arms by towns, and eventually by corporations, effectively expanded the domain of heraldic emblems to include the identification of membership in entities which, like lineages, had both corporate integrity and longevity, but which were based upon principles of residence or employment rather than kinship. A detailed consideration of the processes by which use of heraldic devices by individuals on non-noble status came to be sanctioned in England reveals some of the ways that patterns of emblem use may evolve to fit new social and economic circumstances. HERALDRY AND THE CHANGING COMPOSITION ENGLISH GENTRY

OF THE

In a series of essays on the value of genealogical research in English social history, Wagner (1975) repeatedly argued that historians have too often assumed, either tacitly or implicitly, that English social structure is rooted in relatively static hereditary class divisions. It is a recurrent

HEREDITARY

EMBLEMS

159

theme of Wagner’s book that upward mobility has been both a more common fact and a more significant force in the social history of England than is sometimes recognized. The nexus of what Wagner has called the “recruitment” of the upper classes is the gentry. Since medieval times, membership in the gentry has derived largely from three sources: descent; the possession of wealth in the form of land or, in later periods, money; and service to the State. It is the last two of these criteria that have permitted access to the gentry in individuals born to low status. However, the specific amounts of land or money, or the specific value of service to the State (and the matter of just what constitutes proper character and attitude) for a member of the gentry has never been successfully codified. Instead, the test has traditionally turned upon an individual’s qualifications to bear arms. As early as the fourteenth century, English heralds explicitly defined a gentleman as a person who was entitled to bear armorial devices (Denholm-Young 1%9:4). In 1492, one Hughe Vaughan offered a patent of arms to him by Garter as evidence of his gentility (Wagner 1939:80). Since 1389, the Court of Chivalry of England has heard cases in which questions of such status turned upon the testimony of heralds. Heraldry has thus loomed large in the specific application and interpretation of the general principles that define the boundaries of the gentry. In the heralds’ changing interpretations of those principles over five centuries lies the key to heraldry’s primary value for the high aristocracy. Both the concept of the gentry and the widespread use of armorial devices have their origins in the knighthood. It is important to note that medieval knighthood was less a privilege than an obligation of a certain group of freeholders of land. In a predominantly agrarian economy, wealth was derived from land ownership. Knights were, of course, the principal military force in England at this time. Recruitment of new knights from the ranks of yeomen was fairly common, and was in most cases secured by land grants. English knighthood of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries grew primarily through a process by which barons granted holdings of real property in return for specified periods of military service (Wagner 1975:83). Shield devices soon came to stand as visible statements not only of personal identity, but also of knightly position and of rights in property. Since the latter were inherited in the male line, arms soon came to serve as lineage emblems. The use of arms to indicate social rank higher than yeoman (or franklin) thus became fixed by the end of the thirteenth century. Thereafter, heraldic devices functioned both as lineage emblems and as markers of social rank. The fact that arms were readily recognizable was particularly important in a society in which the great majority of people were not literate. The 1330’s witnessed changes in military tactics (Denholm-Young

160

DAVE

D. DAVIS

1969:2), with the result that esquires, who were emerging as the rank immediately below knights (although they were sometimes of equal means) were needed for military service. By the 1380’s, individuals bearing the title “esquire” possessed hereditary coats of arms. The fourteenth century also saw the establishment of Parliament in something resembling its modern form. The Parliament held further opportunities for upward mobility by esquires and by certain local officials born in relatively well-to-do franklin (“yeoman”) families who ranked socially just below esquires. For various reasons, there was an effective shortage of knights to fill the positions in the Commons. A certain scheming mentality, as well as outright corruption, were not unknown in the fourteenth century House of Lords, whose members sometimes endeavored to control votes in the lower chamber by promoting election of esquires or aspiring franklins who could, by reason of direct or indirect indebtedness to one or more Lords, be expected to vote in ways that benefitted their patrons (Denholm-Young 1969:69-72). The new members of the military and of the Commons seem to have comprised the first group of any size below knights to bear armorial devices. The fifteenth century laid the foundation for sanctioned use of arms for reasons other than military or civil service. The situation is confused by the loose definition of “esquire” status, which in the late fourteenth century represented the lowest armigerous rank. Over the course of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, unauthorized adoption of armorial bearings seems to have grown as merchants and some tradesmen-the emerging rural middle class-gained wealth equal to or greater than that of many esquires (Wagner 1967:35). Of greatest interest in the present context, though, is the fact that the increase in unauthorized use of arms was of sufficient concern to the Crown to promote formal chartering of an organization of heralds to control acquisition of such devices. The growth in unapproved adoption of coat-armor threatened to destroy its value as a means of allying selected individuals to the aristocracy. By the early fifteenth century, “gentlemen” (the rapidly growing rank immediately below esquires) were becoming armigerous, and the use of coat-armor seems to have expanded significantly. Many historians share the view that display of arms in the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries was basically aimed at maintaining the sanctity of the upper classesthat it was an exclusionary mechanism. MacFarlane, for example, argued that “such bartiers are only raised when the privilege feel themselves in danger of being swamped by the mass of invaders” (MacFarlane 1973:122), and he pointed to sumptuary laws as additional evidence of this process. However, in the face of rising use of armorial bearings by individuals of relatively low social position, the Crown did nor forbid those claiming or aspiring to the title “gentleman” to own such devices.

HEREDITARY

EMBLEMS

161

Instead, it chose to regulate their use, selectively (and increasingly) approving the practice. The case is similar with sumptuary laws. In 1390, a royal statute of Richard II issued a general prohibition against the use of livery by anyone of non-noble rank. However, provision was explicitly made for exceptions, the most significant one being that “no lord shall henceforth give any livery or cognizance, except at such times when he has a special command from the king to raise people for the king’s aid, to resist his enemies, or to repress riots within his land. . . .” Another provision permitted the use of livery by life-long retainers and household servants (Statutes ofthe Realm, London, 1810-1828, Vol. II, pp. 74-75, reprinted in Rosenthal 1976: 160- 162). As with heraldry, sumptuary regulation was not simply exclusionary, but also served to selectively promote allegiance and alliance. More directly related to the present inquiry is a 1417 decree by Henry V which forbade the new adoption of armorial devices by anyone who had not fought with him at Agincourt. As for preexisting arms, the decree required that their use be validated by ancestry or that they be shown to have been granted by someone of appropriate authority (i.e., by the King, great lords, or perhaps King or Arms) (Wagner 1960:109, 1967:36, 39). Although the advent of the ‘Ilrdors in 1485 is often credited with the “democratization” of the English upper classes, the process was well under way earlier in the century. There can be no question that, by the end of the fifteenth century, merchants, professionals, and tradesmen were sources of considerable economic power in England. The right to display arms had become coextensive with the right to claim gentility (or higher rank), but the definitions of both (like that of “esquire”) remained vague. The creation of the heralds’ college in 1484 made excellent use of that ambiguity by allowing the heralds considerable latitude in applying general principles to specific cases. As Wagner (1967:39) has noted, early grants by the Kings of Arms “usually begin by setting out that the grantee’s conduct and virtues have proved him worthy to be admitted to the company of noble and gentle men, and it is in recognition of this ‘moral nobility’ that the arms are granted.” This flexibility was merely an extension of the strategy by which the aristocracy in earlier years had opened the mantle of social respectability to enfold knights, esquires, and gentry as each of these groups in turn became potentially valuable allies of the nobility. Merchants and professionals (and even some tradesmen) were, for the same reason, soon to become acceptable candidates for armorial bearings. If the merchants were shunned, or in some sense perceived by the aristocracy as a threat, earlier in the fifteenth century, the situation changed before the century’s end.

162

DAVE D. DAVIS

The value of merchants for the nobility requires little comment. The salient features of the relationship between the two groups have been outlined by Lenski. . . merchants stood in a market relationship with the governing class, not an authorify relationship (1966:250) . . . not only did [the political elite] enjoy ready access to commodities which would otherwise have been rare or unobtainable, they also shared in the profits of mercantile activity through taxes placed on merchants’ goods , . , taxation of this kind had the added advantage of shifting to the merchants part of the responsibility for extracting the economic surplus from the common people (1%6:252). (Emphasis in original.) Between 1438 and the time of the heralds’ incorporation in 1484, grants or confirmations were made to London guilds, and a number of patents of arms were issued to individual London merchants in the decades immediately following the incorporation (Wagner 1967: 126- 127). The significance of wealth derived from chattel property in the granting of patents of arms is reflected in a lengthy dispute that occurred between the Clarenceux and Garter Kings of Arms in the 1530s. Sir Thomas Wriothesley, Garter, had been accused by Clarenceux of granting arms to individuals of ignoble quality, In his own defense, Wriothesley listed the criteria which he claimed to have consistently employed in issuing patents of arms. Among these was the requirement that the recipient have “lands and possessions of free tenure to the yearly value of & 10 sterling, or in moveable goods f 300 sterling” (quoted in Wagner 1967: 165) During the sixteenth century, the number of individuals who acquired “gentility” grew rapidly. Thomas Fuller (1586) was one of a number of writers of the period who-noted the trend. Complaints lodged in the High Court of Chivalry make it clear that money, not social background, was the factor underlying many of the heralds’ patents of arms in those years (Squibb 1959:171- 175). As early as 1793, Dallaway wryly observed that a large number of grants in the 1520s and 1530s were made to newly monied individuals. An additional advantage of the practice was the increased income to the Crown that derived from the fact that the gentry were taxed at higher rates than subjects of lower rank. From 1530 (if not earlier; Wagner 1939: 106- 120) until 1686, a series of royal commissions were granted to the Clarenceux and Norroy Kings of Arms to permit them to travel through their respective provinces to verify claims to arms. Although specific guidelines and procedures varied to a degree over the years, the general purpose of all Visitations was to expose those who could not justify their claims to heraldic devices. These individuals were required to sign disclaimers which were later published or read aloud in the principal town of each county. The effectiveness of the Visitations in reducing unauthorized use of armorial bearings cannot be measured with precision, but the impact was

HEREDITARY

EMBLEMS

163

probably significant. Yet the Visitations were not merely exclusionary in function. Grants of arms were frequently made during the Visitations to men who proved themselves worthy to be called gentlemen. This practice of the Kings of Arms did not go unnoticed by the nobility. In 1565, the Earl Marshal ordered that all proposed pat_entsof arms by Visiting Kings of Arms must be reviewed and approved by the Duke of Norfolk or his representative (Wagner 1967:187). Once again, the nobility elected not to prohibit the new acquisition of arms, but rather to regulate it by applying criteria of their own device. The late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries again witnessed an expansion of interest in heraldry among merchants and professional men (Ever&t 1966). Yet Wagner (1%7:318) reported that the number of grants of arms fell during this period until, between 1704 and 1706, no grants were issued; elsewhere, Wagner has suggested that this decline might be attributable to the fact that the readjustments which followed the Revolution into the hands of great Whig lords whose concept great gulf should yawn between themselves and the interest in the strict regulation of a privilege-that and the poorest gentry shared. (Wagner 1960: 117).

of I&38 put political authority of the social order was that a mere gentry . . . they had little of bearing arms-which they

It was Wagner’s explicit, and probably correct, assumption that it was only the number of grants, and not the number of unauthorized new claims to arms, which declined during these years. Yet the lack of interest of the Whig leadership in the regulation of heraldic devices cannot fully explain the decline in grants of arms after 1688. At the least, the explanation may be taken another step back. The high aristocracy of this period was small in number (Plumb 1965:8), but very wealthy. The great successof the Whig barons and peers lay in the creation, often through marriage, of huge estates and considerable wealth (Habakkuk 1939, 1953). It is likely that there did not exist in England between 1690 and the middle-to-late eighteenth century any sizeable group of nonarmigerous individuals whose alliance with this aristocracy would have been effectively cemented by grants of arms. Moreover, the relegation of heraldry to a less significant role in English social change was not to be temporary. Coincident with the rise of the Whig aristocracy was a continuing decline in the broader importance of the nobility in English politics. As the focus of national power shifted, slowly but inexorably, to the House of Commons, the significance of coatarmor for allying individuals of lower status with the nobility waned. When the Victorian period brought a resurgence of interest in both Classicism and medieval institutions (including heraldry), the number of grants of arms did not increase, but rather fell once again (Elmhirst 1956).

164

DAVE

D.

DAVIS

Two points are especially important here. First, fixed hereditary ranks with no opportunity for upward mobility are rare, and this for good reason. The advent of large standing armies and the rise of mercantihsm both are likely to draw into position of de facto political or economic power individuals whose circumstances of birth are relatively humble. Once there is a significant number of such people, the upper ranks are, in a sense, faced with two options. On the one hand, they may erect symbolic and legal barriers which reinforce their (hereditary) separation from the newly powerful members of lower ranks. Such a choice almost inevitably creates increasing tensions between elite and nonelite ranks. Alternatively, members of upper ranks may develop institutions which promote alliances with selected individuals of lower birth-institutions which, in effect, selectively permit upward mobility between nonelite and elite ranks. In systems which tie rank to the possession of real property, this may be accomplished through grants of land from the aristocracy to selected individuals of lower rank. Such a practice was common, for example, in the land grants made to skilled warriors by the nobility in medieval England, in feudal Japan (Dower 1971), and by the Aztec at the time of the Conquest (Bray 1968:119). It is of note that, in each of these cases, the right to use certain highly visible items of material culture was conferred along with rights in land. Second, I suspect that “status stress”-a feeling of insecurity about one’s own social position -is greater at the lower margins of the elite than at higher ranks. Symbolic reinforcement may thus be more important, and more likely to proliferate, at those margins. DESIGN

CONTENT

The emblem of any corporate group (including a lineage) must, of course, be distinguishable from those of other corporate groups in the same social system. This may be accomplished by the selection of unique motifs. In European and Japanese heraldry, however, many traditional motifs recur frequently, and it is often the specific configurations of elements that distinguish one emblem from another. There is no indication that the design structure of lineage emblems differs in any consistent way from that of other corporate emblems. Similarly, the sources of individual motifs are quite varied. In western European heraldry, common sources of charges include symbols of specific deeds or occupations of the bearers or their ancestors (e.g., ships, books, musical instruments, swords), general symbols of power, nobility, or other qualities (e.g., the cross, lion, rose, sun, or fleur-de-lys), and puns on family names (e.g., three conjoined arms that charge the shield of Tremain, a man falling out of a tree on the arms of Abbot Islip of West-

HEREDITARY

EMBLEMS

165

minster Abbey; Scott-Giles 1950:lOO- 102). Japanese mon frequently incorporate designs which refer to folk beliefs (e.g., the iris as a means of repelling evil spirits), puns (cf. Dower 1971:29-30), events contributing to family honor (the rising sun of the Nasu family commemorating victory in a sea battle), religious devotion (e.g., Shinto shrine ornaments), and power or prowess in combat [e.g., arrows, swords, helmets, or conch shells (once used as military trumpets)], as well as more general symbols of power or strength (e.g., pigeons, which were messengersof the Shinto god of war, oak trees). In both Europe and Japan, the relative abundance of different kinds of pictorial and symbolic motifs has not remained constant over time. In both cases, motifs referring to warfare, nobility, power (either secular or divine), and fortitude are predominant in earlier periods. Later, with the advent of widespread use of hereditary emblems by non-noble and nonknightly ranks, other motifs grew in popularity. Although a specific design configuration is, in theory, associated with one and only one lineage, this principle may be violated in practice. In late medieval England, arms were sometimes ceded along with the sale of estates (Wagner 1939:14). Since the fourteenth century, transfer of crests between social equals has occurred frequently in Japan as a symbol of alliance (Dower 1971:12-14) and especially during the Edo period, individuals of non-noble ranks often chose new crests, either to mark achievements beyond those of their fathers or to avoid offending nobility whose crests bore similar designs. By the fifteenth century in England, there developed the practice of “cadency,” by which sons and other male relatives added (usually, minor) motifs to the “basic” family arms borne by the father or principal heir. SUMMARY

OF HYPOTHESES

It is clear that, within a given social system, a single emblem design may serve, at various times, as a marker of personal identity, a marker of rights in real property, a symbol of elite status, a marker of lineage membership, or as a mark of fealty to an individual of high status. Emblems that are similar in general design context but diierent in specific detail may, at the same time, mark occupational status or rights in political office. In the absence of written evidence, it may be difficult or impossible to determine whether a particular emblem was hereditary. However, the preceding discussion does suggest that, in stratified societies: 1. Lineage emblems originate in the presence of hereditary ranking; 2. Lineage emblems serve first as boundary maintenance devices in situations marked by sufficient fluidity in the basically hereditary ranking

166

DAVE

D. DAVIS

system to permit some degree of upward mobility, and by stress or competition within upper ranks. 3. Under such circumstances, use of hereditary emblems may soon extend to military leaders, whose allegiance is secured by grants from elites of land or other inheritable social or economic prerogatives. 4. Since both the number of individuals and the degree of competition from below tend to be greatest in the lower elite ranks, use of hereditary emblems tends to proliferate at those ranks. 5. A growth of economic power in the middle ranks may promote extension of the right to use hereditary emblems to lineages of non-elite statuses. 6. Elite-status lineage emblems may be displayed by individuals of low status, or by corporate units such as towns, as symbols of fealty. However, in these cases, the appropriate contexts or media of display differ between the “owners” of the emblems and others. 7. If factors other than lineage membership become significant in determining access to political power, emblems that are similar in design structure to hereditary emblems may come to be used to identify political offices or units without respect to kinship. The general proposition here is that, while there is nothing peculiar or unique about the design or physical attributes of lineage emblems themselves, such emblems are, in stratified societies, often centerpieces of broader patterns of emblem use. Moreover, patterns of emblem use that are centered around lineage emblems may evolve along predictable lines, with nonhereditary use of similar emblems appearing in specifiable contexts under specifiable conditions. Theory about the ways in which the social significance of emblems changes over time may shed light upon, and help to frame new hypotheses about, archaeological cases. One very interesting example is that of ancient Greek shield decoration. SHIELD

EMBLEMS

IN ANCIENT

GREECE

Greek shields are rarely preserved in the archaeological record, but they are frequently depicted in vase painting of the Archaic and Classical periods, and are often mentioned in literary sources, most of which date to Classical or later times. Shield decorations that appear in vase paintings are often animal forms, but anthropometric and geometric designs are also common. Animals and gods comprise virtually all of the shield decorations that are described in literary sources. At least as early as the first quarter of the nineteenth century, it was known from historic sources that at least some Greek infantry of the Classical Period carried shields bearing emblems that identified their par-

HEREDITARY

EMBLEMS

I67

titular city-states, and that specific designs often symbolized the city’s tutelary deity (Potter 1824:79). However, by the middle of that century, there is evidence of disagreement about the full significance of Greek shield decoration. St. John (1842:166), citing evidence from a work by Aristophanes, stated that “it was customary to paint upon shields a number of devices, each warrior selecting one for himself. . . .” Yet Ellis (1869:30-49) argued against those who believed that shield decoration on vase paintings had no systematic significance, and tried to show that most or all of the known cases, including those mentioned in literary sources, were hereditary emblems. At the turn of the century, Chase (1902) proposed that Greek shield decoration could be divided into 10 categories: (1) purely decorative devices; (2) “terrible” emblems, intended to inspire fear; (3) references to the cult of a god; (4) references to country or nationality; (5) references to family or descent; (6) references to deeds of the bearer; (7) indications of rank; (8) references to personal characteristics; (9) devices composed of a number of these elements; and (10) designs chosen from individual caprice. Although Chase’s work is still widely cited, his arguments for the existence of some of the types (e.g., personal characteristics) rely upon general assumptions that are demonstrably false. Moreover, some of the categories [e.g., (1) and (10); (6) and (8)] are partially redundant. Finally, although Chase did note that “terrible” emblems seemed predominant before 700 B.C., he made little other effort to consider chronological variation in the presence or frequency of his categories (indeed, this would have been difficult, given the quality of his data base). In the intervening years, Classicists have become considerably more critical in their use of literary sources, and the corpus of Geometric, Red Figure, and Black Figure vases bearing scenes that include decorated shields has grown. However, relatively little attention has been paid to the social significance of Greek shield devices. In general, shield decoration is regarded as a relatively unimportant source of information about Greek society. In a well-known general work on Black Figure vases, Boardman (1974:207) stated that shield decorations on those artifacts are “rarely if ever significant of identity or allegiance,” and did not feel compelled to provide support for that conclusion. Of late Geometric period vases of the eighth century B.C., Webster (1955) even suggestedthat shields depicted are “heroic property,” and that the scenesin which they occur are legendary, although this view seems to be rejected by other Classicists (Snodgrass 1980:74-76). Since qualities of design alone cannot identify an emblem as hereditary, arguments based solely upon characteristics of shield decorations depicted in vase paintings are unlikely to be compelling one way or the other, particularly if chronology is ignored. Indeed, chronology is of pri-

168

DAVE D. DAVIS

mary importance. The centuries that spanned the interval from 800 to 400 B.C. were marked by significant social changes in Greece. There is every reason to suspect that the social significance of shield emblems in the fifth century may have been quite different from its significance four hundred (or perhaps even one hundred) years earlier. The hypotheses developed earlier in this paper suggest that the use of hereditary emblems in stratified societies first occurs among the highest elite ranks in the presence of instability. It was also suggested that use of such emblems may soon extend to military leaders, especially if they move into elite ranks and acquire inheritable lands or economic prerogatives. Before the sixth century B.C., political organization in Greece was strongly lineage based (Thompson 1949:104-106). In the main, economic power (probably since the end of Mycenae) resided in a landed aristocracy, with succession in the male line (Ehrenberg 1960). Agricultural labor was provided by a serf class (Ehrenberg 1967:31). In at least these senses, much of Greece before the sixth century was feudal. The aristocracy was organized into patronymically designated clans. In the early years, the nobility was, by and large, a military class as well. At least until sometime in the seventh century, the military was identical with the aristocracy (Ehrenberg 1967:20). During this period in Greece, The frst characteristic that defines a noble class is . . . the name it bears or is sometimes granted . . Family trees continue to be part of the gene . . . in a number of places nobles are called “knights” . . . The nobility is a military order, and a minimum prerequisite for noble status is ownership of a horse (Gernet 1968:282-283).

During the middle of the seventh century, phalanx warfare was introduced, and the composition of Greek armies changed (Ehrenberg 1967:20, 53). Infantrymen of non-noble status became the cornerstones of the military, and through this means some individuals of non-noble birth acquired considerable influence in community life. The hoplites who comprised the phalanx infantry were not peasants, but rather “owners of small or medium-sized estates” (Ehrenberg 1%7:20). Throughout the seventh century, considerable competition for political power existed among the nobility in several of the Greek states (Ehrenberg 1967:48-60). In Attican Greece, the source of most of the literary references to shield design, the second half of the sixth century was marked by dramatic changes in the social order. In that age of “democratic reforms,” the kinbased political structure rapidly dissipated, even though some of its terminology was maintained. Attican laws, while maintaining the phratry system in name, redefined the criteria for membership so that single phratries could include individuals unrelated by kinship (Ehrenberg 1967:88-

HEREDITARY

EMBLEMS

169

95). By the end of the century, kinship played a relatively insignificant formal role in the political (and military) organization of Attican Greece (Thompson 1949:107- 108). Inheritance was still in the male line, but perhaps of greater significance here is the fact that a citizen’s demotikon, or deme name, based upon residence rather than kinship, came to serve as his legal surname, rather than the patronymikon that had been used previously (Thompson 1949:109; Ehrenberg 1967:89). The social changes of relevance here may be summarized as follows: (1) Before the sixth century B.C., Attic polities were organized by principles of kinship; (2) during the same period, political and economic power resided in a landed aristocracy; (3) prior to the middle of the seventh century, the elite class was relatively small and was the source of the military; (4) during the seventh century, (if not earlier), antagonism among the nobility was strong; (5) between about 650 B.C. and the late sixth century, lower elite status and considerable political power were acquired by a number of lesser landowners through participation in the military; (6) in the late sixth century, there occurred a rapid shift to a political (and military) structure in which lineage membership and ownership of land played a decidedly less important part. If the hypotheses raised earlier in this paper are correct, the cultural landscape of seventh century Greece was ripe for the use of hereditary emblems as boundary maintenance devices. The general social conditions which seem to have given rise to the early use of heraldic devices in Europe and Japan -hereditary ranks, stress or conflict among elite lineages, and circumstances permitting some limited upward mobility of nonelite into lower elite status-were all present. If Greek shield designs served this purpose in the early seventh century, our hypotheses suggest that their social significance should have grown after about 650 B.C., as increasing numbers of individuals “joined” the lower nobility through participation in military endeavors, since the status of those newly arrived to nobility was probably the least stable. Finally, we would expect the hereditary character of Greek shield design to have been maintained until the last part of the sixth century, after which shield emblems should have been shared by individuals related by residence but not by kinship. These specific hypotheses are partially testable, although it should be said in advance that the currently available evidence is somewhat fragmentary. The significance of literary references for the interpretation of shield design is extremely difficult to grasp. Poets and writers of heroic tales have always been notorious for taking license with such matters. The famous eleventh century A.D. Bayeux Tapestry is a good example of the ability of individuals who know few of the specifics of their society’s hereditary emblems to invent designs which, without a close look, ring true. As early as 1869, Ellis (1869:33) offered evidence that some of the

170

DAVE

D. DAVIS

descriptions of shield devices in Greek literature reflected little more than the fancies of poets. Even granting that the literary sources must be viewed with caution, the fact remains that most such references date to the fifth century B.C. or later; a few occur in the ninth century writings of Hesiod and Homer, but the critical seventh and sixth centuries seem to be almost devoid of literary references to shield devices (despite the fact that such devices are commonly depicted on funerary pottery of that period). Such evidence as there is suggests that, in the fifth and early fourth centuries, both lineage and town emblems appeared on shields. Euripides (Phoenissae I, 1107) states that Parthenopaeus bore a shield “having a family device [episema oikion] . . . Atalanta destroying the Aetolian boar.” Chase (1!902:73) notes that a text by Pindar, probably dating to sometime in the mid-fifth century, has a scholium which refers to a family emblem displayed on the shield of Alcmaeon. Yet the early fourth century Suida states that the tomb of Epaminondas was decorated with a shield bearing a serpent to signify that he was a Theban, and Bacchylides in the midfifth century described the Mantineans as bearing shields that displayed the trident, symbol of Poseidon. Some descriptions of shield devices do occur as early as the ninth century, in the works of Hesiod and Homer. However, I have been unable to find any sources dating before about 500 B.C. that indicate the presence of town, demotikon, or other nonlineage or nonindividual emblems on Attican shields. Thus, although the literary sources are not inconsistent with the predictions of our hypotheses, neither do they constitute powerful evidence in favor of them. Can the hypotheses be tested archaeologically? During some periods in western European history, emblems are often found in funerary contexts, where their presence contributes to a claim of lineage privilege by the descendents of the deceased. It was noted above that the social significance of hereditary emblems as claims of privilege in Greece should have increased significantly between about 650 B.C. and the late sixth century as the ranks of lower nobility rapidly grew. In the light of these two propositions, the date summarized in Table 1 are of some interest. The importance of shields as funerary and dedicatory objects increased dramatically after 650 B.C., despite a coincident decline in the occurrence of other preservable elements of armor. A final body of evidence is provided by pictorial Greek vase painting. There are several sources of ambiguity in this evidence. First, Black Figure and Red Figure vases (the dominant painted style during the periods of concern here) often depict actions of mythical or Heroic figures. Second, individual vase painters may have exercised considerable imagination in assigning shield devices to their subjects. Finally, dates of the vases are estimated, usually to within a 20-year period or less, on indirect

HEREDITARY TABLE CHRONOLOGICAL

DISTRIBUTION

1

OF ELEMENTS OF ARMOR OLYMPIA, GREECP

IN SANCTUARY

ca. 800-725

ca. 725-650

ca. 650-575

ca. 280 -

ca. 398 78 2

72 ca. 10

-

8

Cauldrons and cauldron attachments Helmets Breast- and backplates Shields and shield armbands a Distribution

171

EMBLEMS

DEDICATIONS

AT

ca. 575-500 43 1+

125+

ca. 120

in approximate years B.C. From data presented in Snodgrass 1980: 107.

stylistic grounds, and are in most cases subject to some possible error. Nonetheless, most vase painters were undoubtedly aware of the general principles of shield blazon in their own society, and long-term trends in shield depiction on vases probably reflect something of actual practice. Among a number of publications on Attican vases are John Boardman’s Athenian Black Figure Vases (1974) and his Athenian Red Figure Vases: The Archaic Period (1975). These two volumes include illustrations of a total of 662 pictorial vases dating between about 650 B.C. and about 320 B.C., with the majority falling between 570 and 450. By coincidence, if the sample is divided by probable date into two groups, with the boundary at 500 B.C. (the end of the decade of democratic reforms which are most relevant to our hypotheses), the two subsamples each include 331 vases. If Greek shield decoration enjoyed its greatest prominence as a marker of lineage privilege before 500 B.C., we might expect decorated shields to figure more prominently in Greek vase painting during those earlier years. The sample bears this out. Of the group dating between 650 and 500 B.C., 16.9% of the specimens include scenes depicting individuals bearing decorated shields; in the post-500 B.C. subsample, only 8.8% depict decorated shields (Table 2). It is of further interest that, in the subsample dating after the democratic reforms, at least 69.0% of the cases TABLE CHRONOLOGICAL

CHANGE

2

IN SHIELD DEPICTION ON ATTICAN RED FIGURE VASE@

Period

n

Percentage of vessels depicting decorated shields

650-500 B.C. 500-320 B.C.

331 331

16.9 8.8

BLACK

FIGURE

AND

Percentage of shields carried by mythical figures 50.0 69.0

0 Data compiled from information and illustrations in Boardman 1974 and Boardman 1975.

172

DAVE

D. DAVIS

depicting shields involve mythical or Heroic figures; in the earlier period, only half (50.0%) of the shields are definitely associated with gods and ancient heroes. Vases depicting multiple individuals bearing the same shield emblem are rare in both subsamples, although the number is somewhat greater after 500 B.C. Thus, data from literary sources, funerary furniture and sanctuary offerings, and pictorial vase paintings all support the hypothesis that between about 650 and 500 B.C., Greek shield emblems functioned primarily and perhaps exclusively as markers of personal identity and privilege; that the social significance of shield blazons diminished after 500 B.C. with the advent of a polity based upon principles other than kinship; and that the use of shield decoration to indicate the bearer’s place of residence or of birth (as contrasted with lineage membership or personal identity) was a secondary occurrence confined to the period after the Cleisthenian reforms. SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS

A great deal is known about the realm of material culture that might generally be called “technology,” and persuasive explanations of prehistoric technological variation and change are not hard to come by. But there is another dimension of material culture-the dimension that is about which we have little systematic unoften loosely called “style”derstanding. It is when material culture enters the service of society through this “stylistic” dimension that artifact patterning is most directly related to patterns of social organization and interaction. Development of a body of theory about the social uses of artifact style therefore promises to further understanding of aspects of past societies about which little is currently known. Unlike much of technology, style does not have to answer directly to the strict or short-term demands of human survival. However, this does not mean that we cannot establish principles about the social significance or artifact style that can be applied cross-culturally. Just as there are conditions under which certain technological changes are more or less likely to occur, it is also possible to identify the circumstances in which material culture is likely to be employed in the service of other, nontechnological, ends. Emblems, broadly defined as artifacts or artifact attributes that are used to convey information about social identity or group affiliation, provide a potentially fertile field for investigation of some of the ways that changes in the distribution, frequencies, and associations of material culture items may be related to changes in social structure and organization. Expla-

HEREDITARY

EMBLEMS

173

nation of patterned variation and change in such artifact classes must be grounded in an understanding of how and why different kinds of emblems are used in different social circumstances. In general, the degree and intensity status differentiation in a society are probably positively correlated with the degree to which emblems are used to mark social affiliation. This principle is conceptually related to Hodder’s (1979) proposition that social and economic stress between hierarchically or spatially defined groups often promotes the use of material culture to mark or reinforce corporate identity. At certain stages in the development of stratified societies, lineage emblems constitute such markers. The appearance of lineage devices under similar social and economic conditions in western Europe and Japan gives rise to the proposition that, in stratified societies, lineage emblems originate in unstable systems of hereditary ranking that are marked by conflict within upper ranks and between upper and middle ranks. Although the right to display hereditary emblems may be controlled by the elite, that right may eventually be extended to selected members of middle ranks as a means of allying the latter with the nobility. Use of lineage emblems often proliferates at these lower margins of privilege. Elite-status lineage emblems may also be displayed by individuals of low rank, but in such situations, the contexts of display are different. Finally, if political organization shifts to a structure based upon factors other than kinship, emblems similar or identical in iconography to lineage devices may come to be used to identify other corporate groups or statuses. The frequencies, spatial distributions, and archaeological contexts of emblems that originate as hereditary devices may thus change dramatically as their social significance shifts and broadens. Investigations of the roles that material culture may play in regulating and structuring social interactions may thus help to explain what may at first appear as anomalous chronological or spatial distribution of artifacts. At the same time, though, theory about the social “functions” of material culture may provide the framework for better understanding of social change in both prehistory and history. NOTES I Although many other kinds of artifacts are specific to particular social groups, emblems serve specifically and primarily to signify social identity to some “target” group or groups. Of course, some objects (e.g., the Rolls-Royce automobile) have emblematic dimensions but also serve other important functions. For present purposes, however, there is no need to seek a more exhaustive definition than that given here, since this paper is an initial and consciously broad exploration of the subject.

174

DAVE D. DAVIS

REFERENCES

CITED

Anderson, R. T. 1971 Traditional Europe: A problem in anthropology and history. Wordsworth, Belmont, Calif. Boardman, J. 1974 Athenian Black Figure vases. Oxford University Press, New York. 1975 Athenian Red Figure vases: The Archaic Period. Thames & Hudson, London. Bray, W. 1%8 Everyday life of the Aztecs. G. P. Putman’s Sons, New York. Chase, G. H. 1902 The shield devices of the ancient Greeks. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 13:61- 127. DalIaway, J. 1793 inquiries into the origin and progress of the science of heraldry in England. Deuholm-Young, N. 1948 The tournament in the thirteenth century. In Studies in Medieval history presented to Frederick Maurice Powicke, pp. 240-268. Oxford University Press, New York. 1%5 History and heraldry 1254 to 1310. Oxford University Press, London. 1%9 Country gentry in the fourteenth century. Oxford University Press, London. Dower, J. 1971 The elements of Japanese design. John Weatherhill, New York. Ehrenberg, V. 1960 The Greek state. Oxford University Press, New York. I%7 From Solon to Socrates: Greek history and civilization during the sixth and fifth centuries B.C. Methuen, London. Eighmy, J. L. 1981 The use of material culture in diachronic anthropology. In Modern material culture: the archaeology of us, edited by R. A. Gould and M. B. Schiier, pp. 31-49. Academic Press, New York. Ellis, W. S. 1869 The antiquities of heraldry. John Russel Smith, London. Elmhirst, E. 1956 The fashion for heraldry. The Coat of Arms 4~47-50. Eve&t, A. 1966 Social mobility in early modem England. Past and Present 33:70-72. Fuller, T. 1586 The institution of a gentleman. Galbreath, D. L., and L. Jequier 1977 Manuel du blason, nouvelle kdition. SPES, Lausanne. Gemet, L. 1968 The anthropology of ancient Greece. Translated by J. Hamilton and B. Nagy. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Gould, R. A. and M. B. Schiffer 1981 Modern material culture: The archaeology of us. Academic Press, New York. Habbakuk, H. J. 1939 English landownership, 1680- 1740. Economic History Review lO:l- 17. 1953 England. in The European nobility in the eighteenth century, edited by A. Goodwin.

HEREDITARY

175

EMBLEMS

Hardin, M. A. 1979 The cognitive basis of productivity in a cognitive art style: Implications of an ethnographic study for archaeologists’ taxonomies. In Ethnoarchaeology: implications of ethnography for archaeology, edited by C. Kramer, pp. 75-101. Columbia University Press, New York. Hodder, I. 1977 The distribution of material culture items in the Baring0 district, western Kenya. Man 12:239-269. 1979 Economic and social stress and material culture pattern. American Antiquity 44:446-454.

1981 1982

Reply to Davis. American

Antiquity Ethnoarchaeological

46~468-470. studies

of material culture. Cambridge University Press, London. Lenski, G. E. 1966 Power and privilege: A theory of social stratification. McGraw-Hill, New York. Masamoto, K. 1977 The Tokugawa period. In Guides to Japanese culture, edited by M. Hyoe and E. G. Seidensticker, pp. 158-162. Japan Culture Institute, Tokyo. Mathieu, R. 1946 Le systeme heruldique fruncuis. J. B. Janin, Paris. McFarlane, K. B. 1973 The nobility of later medieval England. Oxford University Press, London. Okada, Y. 1941 Japanese family crests. Japanese Government Railways Board of Tourist Industry, Tokyo. Plog, s. 1976 Measurement of prehistoric interaction between communities. In The early Mesoamerican village, edited by K. V. Flannery, pp. 255-272. Academic Press, New York. 1980 Stylistic variation in prehistoric ceramics. Cambridge University Press, New York. Plumb, J. H. 1%5 Sir Robert Walpole: The making of a statesman. Potter, G. 1824 Antiquities of Greece. Dunbar, Edinburgh. Rosenthal, J. T. 1976 The nobles and the noble life, 1295-1500. Allen & Unwin, London. St. John, J. A. 1842 The history of the manners and customs of ancient Greece, Vol. III. Richard Bently, London. Sackett, J. R. 1977 The meaning of style in archaeology: A general model. American Antiquity Symbols

in action:

42~369-380.

Scott-Giles, 1950 Shively, D. 1964

C. W.

heraldry. Frederick Wame, London. H. Sumptuary regulation of status in early Tokugawa Japan. Harvard Asiatic Studies 15:123- 164. Snodgrass, A. 1980 Archaic Greece: The age of experiment. Dent, London. Boutell’s

Journal

of

176

DAVE D. DAVIS

Squibb, G. D. 1959 The High Court of Chivalry. Clarendon Press. Oxford. Susumu, 1. 1977 Kamakura shogunate. In Guides to Japanese culture, edited by M. Hyoe and E. G. Seidensticker, pp. 144-149. Japan Culture Institute, Tokyo. Thompson, G. D. 1949 Studies in ancient Greek society: The prehistoric Aegean. International Publishers, New York. Wagner, A. R. 1939 Heralds and heraldry in the Middle Ages. Oxford University Press, London. 1946 Heraldry in England. Penguin, Baltimore. 1960 English genealogy. Oxford University Press, London. 1967 Heralds of England. Her Majesty’s Stationery OBice, London. 1975 Pedigree and progress: Essays in the genealogical interpretation of history. Phiiimore, London. Webster, T. B. L. 1955 Homer and Attic geometric vases. Annual of the British School at Athens 50: 38-50. Wobst, H. M. 1977 Stylistic behavior and information exchange. In For the director: Research essays in honor of James B. Griflin, edited by C. Cleland, pp. 317-342. Universigv of Michigan Museum of Anthropology, Anthropological Papers No. 61.