INTRODUCTION

IRISH HERALDRY

SEPT ARMS and ARMS of CHIEFTAINSHIP

ARMS TODAY

- From the Description of the Battle of Magh Rath (637 AD) in Keating 

here is a fair amount of confusion about the use and abuse of "coats of arms." The general rule in England and much of Europe is that a coat of arms can only belong to an individual, not to a family or clan. The use of the arms is typically passed from father to son through the system of primogeniture. 

Heraldry, as we understand it in modern terms, was brought to Ireland by the Normans. However the ancient Irish seem to have had their own system symbols which they used prior to the coming to the Normans and which they sometimes adapted to the Norman system. This essay is an attempt to look at Gaelic Irish Heraldic Practice over time from a historical viewpoint which is informed by anthropology. 

From the earliest times, the Irish used flags and standards which they carried with them into battle. One of the earliest reports of battle flags is in relation to the battle of Belach Duin Bolg in 594 AD. According to the tale, while looking down on an armed camp the King of Leinster mistakes the battle flags of the army for "a great stationary bird-flock of mixed colors, such was the number of banners floating on tall poles over the booths." ¹ 

In the accounts of ancient battles, there are a number of references to the banners used by each chief and clan. For example, the account of the Battle of Moyrath (637 AD) describes the banner of the Prince of Ulster as a yellow lion on a green field. O'Doherty's battle standard is described, "his battle blade of golden cross upon their chieftain's banner gleams; a lion and bloody eagle stand on glistening sheet of satin white" (Quoted in O'Mahoney's footnote in Keating, History of Ireland).

The symbol or picture displayed on an Irish banner was called a suaicheantas or samlach. "Every captain bore upon his standard his peculiar device or ensign, so that each distinct body of men could be easily distinguished from all others by those shanachies² whose duty it was to attend the nobles when about to contend in battle, and that these shanachies might thus have a full view of the achievements of the combatants, so as to be able to give a true account of their particular deeds and valor." (Keating, History of Ireland) 

> continued next column

In the Caithreim Thoirdhealbhaigh, a famous medieval Gaelic text, Irish warriors in 1304 are described as "advancing under banners and ensigns of device." 

So it is clear that the Gaelic Irish had a very long tradition of carrying flags and banners into battle. It is not so obvious whether the symbols and devices on these banners were personal to the particular captain or if they were a clan or sept symbol. 

Maybe there were several types or levels of symbols and banners. Maybe there were rules about their use. Unfortunately, we have only hints and circumstantial evidence about all this. A verse from the Caithreim Thoirdhealbhaigh gives us a tantalizing glimpse: 

   Beneath the supreme chief's  standard,
   Uplifted be the spear-points of battle;
   To display them separately is not proper,
   But let all flags together form one
      threatening cloud ... 

Why would it not be proper to display the flags separately? There must have been some governing traditions about the display of symbols and banners. Unfortunately, we don't know what they were. This is important because, in English heraldry, possession of symbols and the right to display them is the key issue. 

The whole discussion of Irish Heraldry must begin and end with one's definition of heraldry. If one chooses seventeenth century English heraldic practice as the norm, then true heraldry would have to include the following concepts: shield centered, hereditary via primogeniture, systematic, regulated, and feudal. Following this definition, there was never any such thing as "Irish Heraldry" - only English Heraldry as practiced in Ireland. The only problem is that twelfth-century English Heraldry would also have a little trouble suiting this definition. 

The Norman's use of heraldic devices seems to have evolved from the need of feudal magnates for recognition in an illiterate age. By the middle of the twelfth century, about the time of the first Anglo-Norman incursions into Ireland, the Norman system of heraldry was starting to become regularized. 

"By about 1150, a number of knights were painting their shields with pictures or symbols which, at a later date, appeared on the shields of their sons. This was the beginning of heraldry, a system of identification that was enormously elaborated during the middle ages. At first the devices were animals, birds or simple geometric shapes chosen to decorate the shield of the knight, either to identify himself to his companions and followers in the turmoil of battle or in order to distinguish him in the tournament." (Norman and Pottinger, 1966)

Important lords also used seals to authenticate documents. There was an obvious value for each noble to develop his own personal symbol. It was also obviously useful for the succeeding son to inherit his father's symbol and continue to use it. These heraldic devices were the precursors of today's corporate logos. Those lower on the social ladder were not slow to recognize their usefulness and, in accord with the laws of human nature, quickly began to imitate their "betters" and use heraldic symbols. 

In the earlier middle ages, arms were assumed by members of the landed gentry without any particular restriction or formality. Of course the Crown could grant arms, but this was always rare. By the fourteenth century the English Crown began to arbitrate in cases of heraldic disputes between people who bore arms. The Crown's agents were the Marshall and the Constable. 

Originally, English heralds had been private individuals whose function was to act as master of ceremonies and identify contestants at jousting tournaments or similar events. They also seemed to keep track of rolls of arms and help organize court ceremonies. Over time, they began to fulfill the function of royal messengers and evolved into royal ambassadors. 

Sometime around the middle of the fourteenth century the English Crown seems to have given certain heralds the right to grant arms or confirm the right to their use in the name of the King. These special heralds were known as "King of Arms" and controlled a particular territory or province. The first formal record of a confirmation of arms was in 1417. 

By the end of the fifteenth century the Kings of Arms were ambassadors of the Crown, arbitrators in heraldic disputes, and possessors of the faculty of granting arms and recording pedigrees." 

Irish foot soldiers, known as kern (circa 1550), wore little or no armor.

Remembering the key concepts of Norman English heraldry (i.e., shield centered, hereditary via primogeniture, systematic, regulated, and feudal), lets return to the situation in Ireland. 

At the time the Anglo-Normans introduced heraldry into Ireland, their own customs were still in a state of flux also. The Anglo-Norman "conquest" of Ireland was very incomplete (in fact it wouldn't be completed until about 1603). This incomplete conquest resulted in a cultural patch-work which ranged from pure Anglo-Norman (if there was such a thing, since that culture was evolving at the time) through pure Gaelic.

Over time, this patch-work constantly changed shape as many Anglo-Normans were assimilated by the Gaels, some Irish were anglicized by the Anglo-Normans, and the Anglo-Normans themselves turned into Englishmen, or at least Anglo- Irishmen. 

To complicate things further, there were always "New English" moving into Ireland as the "Old English" became Gaelicized. 

We know that some Gaelic Irish kings were using seals as early as 1276. Symbolic designs or devices were certainly used in seals by the fourteenth century. These may only represent a sort of proto-heraldry because these devices are not found on the heraldic shields borne by the same family in later years. 

On the other hand, these may have indeed been family devices which were used by a few individuals in succession, but died out with a particular family line or were otherwise somehow supplanted. 

> continued next column

Even in English heraldry there are many instances of families changing their arms over time. Anyway, the record is so sketchy that it's impossible to draw any hard and fast conclusions. 

Here is an important fact: There don't seem to be any records that the Gaelic Irish ever carried Norman-type heraldic shields into battle. So Irish Heraldry definitely has a problem with "shield-centered." 

Irish Battle Flags. However, there are still those troublesome battle flags to consider. Were they heraldic? 

In English heraldic custom, a war leader's battle standard did not display the same symbols as his personal coat of arms.³ What about Irish flags? As we have already seen, flags, banners and standard bearers are mentioned in the Gaelic literature throughout the Middle Ages. 

In 1542 two Gaelic battle flags captured from O'Cahan and MacDonnell were described by the English who captured them (Bartholomew, York Herald, circa 1542, quoted in MacCarthy Mor, 1996). The MacDonnell flag bore devices which were certainly heraldic and hereditary. Of the five separate devices on the O'Cahan flag (a lizard, a salmon, a horseman, a griffon and a hawk), two were later recorded on the arms associated with that family (the lizard and the salmon). The other three were not recorded for that family, but maybe this was an Irish attempt at distinguishing a particular sub-sept from the main clan. Plenty of other explanations could be theorized, but battlefield victors rarely quiz the losers about such subtleties. 

Although in two of the above sections the word "standards" could be understood as a unit of men, the record is clear that the Gaelic Irish used battle flags and banners with symbols and that there were probably customs or rules about their use. This could be considered as a sort of proto-heraldry. These symbols may have been used in other ways too, like personal adornment, but we have no particular evidence of this. There is evidence that certain of these symbols were common to specific regions or, clans, septs or other social groups. Whether or not they were ever viewed as the private property of any particular individual is unknown.

When analyzing the arms attributed to the Gaelic Irish, there are some discernible patterns in the use of the various elements and colors. We know that certain symbols (these symbols are called "charges" in heraldic practice) appear again and again in the arms of families who were geographically or genealogically related or otherwise allied. Therefore It seems likely that, at least sometime in Irish history, there were such things as tribal or clan symbols.

The most obvious of these are the red hand of Ulster which was incorporated in the arms of the O'Neills, the oak tree of the O'Conors and the stag of

Munster and the MacCarthys. Less  prominent clans or families may have had less famous symbols like the boar used by the MacDermots and some of their off-shoots.

Another example is the blue lion found on the arms of MacBranain of Connacht and also found on the arms of O'Mulvill who once shared the territory of Corca Achlann with MacBranain. 

Some of the patterns are not real obvious. The "Red Hand of Ulster" is used as frequently by Connacht families as by those of Ulster. However, the distribution is heavily weighted toward those claiming descent from Naill of the Nine Hostages. It's use is not common in the southern half of Ireland. 

Only the following Gaelic Irish families use a Blue Lion Rampant, shown to the left:

From a heraldic point of view it would be interesting to know whether these symbols belonged to the clan or belonged personally to the chief because, if they were the property of the clan, any member of the clan might claim use of them. Conversely, if they were the personal possession of the Chief, it would not be appropriate for others to adopt them.⁵ 

It is also conceivable that the clan chief had an emblem which applied only to him - but only during his tenure. This would be something like a seal of office and would be symbolic of the office, and only by some extension to the clan as a whole. Such a symbol would pass to the next chief in succession, but according to the Gaelic Irish laws of tanistry, not primogeniture. (In other words, instead of necessarily passing to the chief's son, it could just as well pass to a brother, cousin, nephew, etc.)

At the end of the day, we must admit much of this must remain supposition because we simply don't have enough evidence to be doctrinaire about clan or sept arms. Naturally the idea of clan or sept arms is anathema to English heraldic practice (like a lot of other Gaelic Irish customs). However it is not totally unique. "In eastern Europe whole groups of families or territorial areas adopted the same armorial bearings (in) a form of clan affiliation." This was particularly evident in Poland where arms may pertain to a whole group of families and, in one extreme example, almost 600 families bear the same symbol - a horse shoe enclosing a cross (Bedington & Gwynn-Jones, 1993).

However it is not totally unique. "In eastern Europe whole groups of families or territorial areas adopted the same armorial bearings (in) a form of clan affiliation." This was particularly evident in Poland where arms may pertain to a whole group of families and, in one extreme example, almost 600 families bear the same symbol - a horse shoe enclosing a cross (Bedington & Gwynn-Jones, 1993). 

*

Ireland History in Maps is a most comprehensive site worth a visit.  The Ireland medieval map was taken from information here.