The Aztec Heritage of the Mexican Flag - NAVA.org · 2020. 10. 15. · Source: Enrique Florescano, Imágenes de la Patria: A Través de los Siglos (Mexico City: Taurus, 2005): 105

QUARTERLYFLAG RESEARCH

REVUE TRIMESTRIELLE DERECHERCHE EN VEXILLOLOGIE

The Aztec Heritage of the Mexican FlagBy John M. Hartvigsen

continued on page 3

SEPTEMBER / SEPTEMBRE 2017 No. 14

A research publication of the North American Vexillological Association-Une publication de recherche de l‘Association nord-américaine de vexillologie

INSIDE / SOMMAIRE Page

Editor’s Note / Note de la rédaction 2

The Flags of Courland 10

From Flying Flags to Museum Flags: A Case Study in Using Minimally Invasive Preservation Techniques to Allow Maximum Flexibility in Display and Interpretation 13

The Mexican flag is not only recognizable and effec-tive, but it is also beautiful and beloved. In 2008, 20 Minutos, a free Spanish language newspaper, ran a survey contest to pick the “most beautiful flag in the world.” Although the publication is based in Spain, the contest was picked up by other publications in Latin America. One of a series of “best-of surveys,” the contest asked readers to rate the flags of 140 nations. Although this was a self-selecting sample and not a scientific survey, it was an interesting outgrowth of the phenomenon of flags. The contest attracted 1,920,000 entry ballots, which was three times the number of participant entries that are normally attracted by similar “best-of contests.” The article’s title announced the results dramati-cally: “Mexico sweeps the most beautiful flag in the world list.” Mexico’s flag received 901,607 points, or 47% of the vote.1 This, of course, does not prove that the Mexican flag is actually the most beautiful flag in the world, but this and extensive anecdotal evidence demonstrates that the flag “works” and is a beloved banner.

Another indication of the esteem in which Mexicans hold their flag has been the erection of “monumental” Mexican flags (banderas monumentales) in the capital city, regional metropolises, and at important locales on the border of the United States, including Tijuana and Ciudad Juarez. These flags, with dimensions of 14.3 meters by 25 meters (47 by 82 feet), are flown on 50-meter (164-foot) flagpoles and are visible for great distances (figure 1).2 The decree authorizing the construction of the monumental flags gives some insight into the pride that Mexican citizens take in their flag: “The National Coat of Arms, Flag and Anthem are the Patriotic Symbols of the United Mexican States and repre-sent our identity and culture, as well as the superior principles of our Nation;… it is the duty of the authorities of the three levels of government, to make every effort to renew and promote the veneration of the Patriotic Symbols, for which reason they should promote and encourage the practice of honoring them in all parts of the national territory.”3

Right: Current flag of Mexico. Source: http://encircleworldphotos.photoshelter.com/image/I0000ERYcGfnhpag

Background watermark: Golden-linear version of coat of arms of Mexico, adopted 1968. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_arms_of_Mexico#/media/File:Coat_of_arms_of_Mexico_(golden_linear).svg

SEPTEMBER / SEPTEMBRE 2017 | No. 14Page 2

FLAG RESEARCH QUARTERLY / REVUE TRIMESTRIELLE DE RECHERCHE EN

VEXILLOLOGIE NO. 14 2017

September / Septembre 2017 Vol. 5, Issue 3 / fascicule 3

ISSN 2334-4407 (print) ISSN 2474-1884 (online)

A research publication of the North American Vexillological Association-Une publication de recherche de l’Association nord-américaine de vexillologie. Published quarterly / Publié

quatre fois par an.Please submit correspondence and

submissions to / Veuillez envoyer toute correspondance à l’adresse suivante: Flag Research Quarterly, Post Office Box 55071 #58049, Boston, Mass. 02205-5071 USA;

[email protected]

EDITORS / RÉDACTEURSKenneth J. Hartvigsen, Ph.D.

Steven A. Knowlton, M.L.I.S., M.A.

EDITORIAL BOARD / COMITÉ DE RÉDACTIONEdward A. McNabb, LL.B.

Chair / DirecteurJohn A. Lowe, M.D., FF

David B. MartucciJohn M. Hartvigsen (ex officio)

PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE / COMITÉ DE PUBLICATIONEdward A. McNabb, LL.B.

Chair / DirecteurLuc V. Baronian, Ph.D.

Kenneth J. Hartvigsen, Ph.D.Anne M. Platoff, M.S., M.A., FF

John M. Hartvigsen (ex officio)

North American Vexillological Association-Association nord-américaine de vexillologie

Founded / Fondée en 1967

John M. Hartvigsen President / Président

Luc V. Baronian, Ph.D. First Vice President / Premier vice-président

Edward A. McNabb, LL.B. Second Vice President / Second vice-président

Lee L. Herold Secretary / Secrétaire

John S. Adcock, J.D., CPA Treasurer / Trésorier

© 2017 North American Vexillological Association-Association nord-américaine de vexillologie. All rights reserved / Tous droits réservés. All images used by permission / Toutes les images sont utilisées avec autorisation. The opinions expressed by individual articles in this publication belong to their authors and do not necessarily represent those of the editor or the Association / Les opinions exprimées dans la présente publication n’engagent que leurs auteurs et ne sont pas nécessairement celles de l’éditeur ou de l’Association.

Editor’s Note / Note de la rédaction2017 is a year of remarkable anniversaries. When I had the privilege of attending the annual meeting of the Organization of American Historians this spring, much of the discussion revolved around the centennial of the entrance of the United States into the First World War, which changed so much about American society—including a renewed interest in flying the Stars and Stripes. Overseas, thousands of Canadians and Britons gathered in France this year to remember the great battles of Vimy Ridge and Passchendaele, in which so many soldiers fought for King and Country under the flags of the Empire. And, while the people of Russia are doing little to commemorate them, both the February Revolution and the October Revolution, with its abundance of red flags, happened a century ago.

It has garnered less attention, but this year marks a significant anniversary in Mexico as well, for it was 100 years ago that the current Mexican Constitution was adopted. After a period of civil war, the constitution enshrined the “Social Pact” that called for workers’ rights, a separation of church and state, and limited terms for presi-dents. In the years afterward, the Mexican people embraced their pre-Cortesian heritage in fields including the arts and architecture—which, naturally, influenced the design of the Mexican flag.

In this issue, we are pleased to present a paper by John Hartvigsen which addresses “The Aztec Heritage of the Mexican Flag.” In the tradition of vexillology as a social science, the author examines the context in which the intriguing pattern of the Mexican National Arms came to include glyphs of Aztec origin at a time when Mexico was searching for means to express its unique culture and history on the world stage. It appears to be the first English-language piece to address this impor-tant aspect of the Mexican flag’s design.

We are also pleased to present Wim Schuurman’s paper on “The Flags of Courland,” bringing to our attention the vexillological tradition of a duchy little remembered outside of Eastern Europe. Finally, Catarina Florio presents a remarkable case study from her work at the Canadian Museum of History in “From Flying Flag to Museum Flag.” The innovative preservation and mounting techniques she discusses may serve as instructive examples to others facing similar issues with older flags.

This is the last issue of Flag Research Quarterly that will be published before the Association meets again in Boston. For those of you who will be in attendance, I look forward to seeing you and hearing your thoughts about this publication. For those unable to join us, I welcome all comments, criticism, and especially contribu-tions! Please contact me at [email protected].

Steven A. Knowlton Co-editor, FRQ

CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS ISSUE. John M. Hartvigsen is President of NAVA and twice a Driver Award winner. Catarina Florio is Textile Conservator at the Canadian Museum of History. Wim Schuurman is past secretary of the Nederlandse Vereniging voor Vlaggenkunde (Dutch Association for Vexillology) and former publisher of Vexilla Nostra.

A research publication of theNorth American Vexillological Association /Une publication de recherche del’Association nord-américaine de vexillologie

FLAG RESEARCH QUARTERLY /REVUE TRIMESTRIELLE DE RECHERCHE

EN VEXILLOLOGIE


Despite the visibility of the Mexican flag within its country and to its neighbors, in the English-speaking world there are elements of the flag’s design that are not well-known, yet which are important parts of the flag’s meaning and impor-tance to citizens of Mexico. The Aztec symbolism embedded in the flag tells a story about not only the early history of the country, but also its modern search for a national identity.

The Mexican flag violates several of the “principles” of flag design proposed by some authors—for example, it features many colors, and its central emblem is quite complex. Nonetheless, it is revered and widely accepted in Mexico, at least in part because the elements of its complex design speak so powerfully about the nation’s history and culture.

The basic story portrayed by the Mexican national arms, the flag’s central emblem, is well known, especially by vexil-lologists. It is repeated in numerous flag books. The Aztecs, or Mexica, as they called themselves, traveled from Aztlan (“The Place of the Herons”), a mythical island, to find a new place to settle. Their patron god, Huitzilopochtli, appeared

and instructed them to settle where they would see an eagle perched on a cactus growing from a rock. The eagle would be seen holding a snake in its beak and talon. The Aztecs wandered for two hundred years searching for the sign, and finally settled where they saw the foretold sign, founding a city they named Tenochtitlan, usually interpreted as the “place of the wild prickly pear cactus” (figure 2).4

The ruins of Tenochtitlan lie beneath modern Mexico City. Whitney Smith noted that the story is illustrated in many pictorial versions:

Repeated endlessly in diverse forms, the eagle and snake and cactus motif of Mexico is a six-hundred-year-old symbol that continually provides fresh inspiration to new generations.5

The Aztec symbol of the eagle and the snake was initially suppressed by Spanish authorities in the first centuries of colonization, but by the seventeenth century it was in use not only by descendants of the Aztecs but also by criollo (Mexican-born descendants of Spanish colonists) and mestizo (descen-dants of Spanish colonists and native Americans) groups, to distinguish themselves from Spanish-born bureaucrats and landlords.6 Its use on flags began with the Mexican War of Independence (1810-1822). When the priest Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla first raised an armed group in 1810 to revolt against the Spanish colonial government, his band marched under a banner showing the Virgin of Guadalupe painted on fabric of blue (St. Mary’s color). On the reverse was a depiction of the eagle and snake motif (figure 3).

After Hidalgo was captured and executed, his fellow priest José María Teclo Morelos Pérez y Pavón continued to lead the rebels, fighting under a white flag, bordered with blue and white squares, also displaying the eagle and snake (figure 4). Morelos met the same fate as Hidalgo, and the war dragged

Hartvigsen: The Aztec Heritage of the Mexican Flag continued from page 1

Figure 1: Raising the Bandera monumental of Tijuana. Source: Wikipedia, https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banderas_monumentales_de_M%C3%A9xico

Figure 2: The founding of Tenochtitlan. Source: Diego Duran, Historia de las Indias de Nueva España e islas de la tierra firme (manuscript, 1579), http://bdh-rd.bne.es/viewer.vm?id=0000169486&page=1, page image 28.

Figure 3: The flag of Hidalgo, 1810 (reverse). Source: Enrique Florescano, Imágenes de la Patria: A Través de los Siglos (Mexico City: Taurus, 2005): 105.

Figure 4: A flag of Morelos, ca. 1812-13. Source: Enrique Florescano, Imágenes de la Patria: A Través de los Siglos (Mexico City: Taurus, 2005): 108.



EN VEXILLOLOGIE

A research publication of theNorth American Vexillological Association /

Une publication de recherche del’Association nord-américaine de vexillologie

on through 1821. In that year, a royalist officer, Agustin de Iturbide, turned against the Spanish government and led a successful campaign that resulted in the independence of Mexico. His army fought for the principles that Mexico should be a Roman Catholic country, independent from Spain, and offer social equality for all classes and ethnic groups. To symbolize the “Three Guarantees” of their plan, Iturbide’s

Trigarante army flew a diag-onal tricolor of white, green, and red (figure 5). The colors symbolized religion, independence, and unity, as the Three Guarantees were summarized.7

A few weeks after Iturbide’s triumphal procession into Mexico City, on November 2, 1821, the provisional government of Mexico estab-lished the national flag in the

pattern still used: a vertical tricolor of red, white, and green, with the national arms of the eagle and cactus in the white stripe. (Later, Iturbide was crowned emperor, and the eagle temporarily acquired a crown) (figure 6).8 Iturbide’s army was inspired in its use of symbolism, uniforms, and flags by the Napoleonic armies of revolutionary France, whose vertical tricolor influenced the re-arrangement of the colors the Trigarante flag into their positions on the new national flag.9

As changes in regime have brought new cultural and artistic influences to bear on the life of the country, Mexico’s arms have been refined in eight official versions since 1821 (the most notable changes are shown in figures 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11). The Mexican government is extremely particular that correct models of both the coat of arms and the flag are preserved in the Mexican General Archives and the National Museum of History.

Official examples of the national arms are maintained at these two locations and at the National Mint.10

The most striking changes to the arms have been in the designs of 1934 and 1968, when the naturalistic depictions of the lake, stone, and wreath were augmented or replaced with seemingly abstract symbols. Although Whitney Smith

devoted four pages to the history of the Mexican flag as part of the “Flags Through the Ages” section of his book Flags Through the Ages and Across the World in addition to the expected Mexican flag column in the “Flags Across the World” section, he made no comment about added symbols depicted in the 1968 version of the flag . That revision occurred a mere seven years before the copyright date of his book; one would have thought that these added emblems would have been obvious and timely subjects for him to discuss.

At the base of the cactus is a symbol, unrecognizable to many, that appears in the place of the rocks shown on earlier flags. It is an unfamiliar little pillow-like symbol, and below that is an unusually-shaped representation of water that appears to have little tassels around its outer edge. The cactus displays what seemed to be flowers or fruit. A wreath cradles the image with acorns and oak leaves on the left, and what may be olive leaves on the right. The two branches making up the wreath are joined by a ribbon of the Mexican tricolor (figure 12).

What do these symbols mean? I expected that a quick check

Figure 5: The Flag of the Army of the Three Guarantees, 1821. Color has faded with time. Source: Guadalupe Jiménez Codinach, México: Su Tiempo de Nacer, 1750–1821 (Mexico City: Fomento Cultural Banex, 1997): 232.

Figure 6: The Flag of the First Mexican Empire, 1822 (reverse). Color has faded with time. Source: Guadalupe Jiménez Codinach, México: Su Tiempo de Nacer, 1750–1821 (Mexico City: Fomento Cultural Banex, 1997): 247.

Figure 7: Mexican flag, as designed by Constitutional Congress in 1823. Source: Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Mexico

Figure 8: Mexican flag, as designed by Thomas de la Peña in 1893. Source: Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Mexico



EN VEXILLOLOGIE


of Flags Through the Ages and Across the World would bring the answers, but Whitney Smith does not mention any of these symbols. I checked Barraclough & Crampton, Znamerowski, and more than a dozen other flag books.11 They all relate the story of the founding of Tenochtitlan with the eagle, snake and cactus; a couple mention the wreath and tricolored

ribbon; however, the other puzzling symbols receive no notice. To be fair, the current flag with the usual symbols was adopted in 1968. Earlier Mexican flag designs depicted more recognizable representations of rocks and water in the arms. Flag books published before 1968, therefore, were correct in their Mexican flag descriptions. However, later published works had apparently only repeated the earlier descriptions without noticing the additions of 1968.

The symbols on the Mexican flag, are not European emblems, but rather hearken back to the pre-Cortesian cultures of Mexico. These symbols appear in pictorial form in surviving Aztec artifacts.

Aztec glyphs are carved or inscribed symbols, which may be described as pictograms, ideograms or phonograms, which can be defined as follows:

1. Pictograms picture the thing they represent.2. Ideograms express an idea or tell a story.3. Phonograms, like alphabetic letters, represent sounds.

Part of Aztec writing, these glyphs can be used singly or combined to express syllables or form logograms. Logograms are signs which represent a word or phrase. Glyphs were displayed on stone carvings and in Aztec codices, which are illustrated Aztec books painted on long strips of paper made from tree bark that is folded accordion-style (figure 13). The codices display colored images that give an amazing insight into Aztec iconography. Many codices were destroyed after the Spanish Conquest of Mesoamerica. Aztec priests destroyed some to keep them from falling into Spanish hands and Catholic priests, trying to replace Aztec traditions with Catholicism, destroyed others. Whitney Smith noted, “it is impossible to calculate how many representations of this iconography are unknown to us because they were destroyed by the Spanish.”12

Figure 9: Mexican flag, as designed Antonio Gómez in 1916. Source: Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Mexico

Figure 10: Mexican flag, as designed Jorgé Enciso in 1934. Source: Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Mexico

Figure 11: Current Mexican flag, designed by Francisco Eppens Helguera in 1968. Source: Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Mexico

Figure 12: Symbols displayed on the Mexican flag. Source: http://sgg.edomex.gob.mx/escudo_nacional, modified by the author.



EN VEXILLOLOGIE



The glyphs on the 1968 flag are related to a carving on the back of the Teocalli Stone, which served as the throne for Moctezuma II (often known as Montezuma), Aztec emperor from 1502-1520 (figure 14). The carving shows an eagle

perched on a cactus. Interestingly, a war glyph is shown below the eagle’s beak, and it combines the symbols of water and fire. The fire symbol depicts flames at the bottom of the emblem while the water symbol issues forth from the left side with four streams, each capped by either a round or a shell-shaped symbol (figure 15). Another stone carving, on the lid of a box, depicts an animal caught in flood waters, and the symbol for water shows the streams capped with the same round and shell-shaped symbols (figure 16).13 This water glyph appears in numerous Aztec pictorial representations and is shown as the symbol for water on the Mexican arms and flag.

The pillow-shaped symbol at the base of the cactus on the Mexican flag is also shown in numerous illustrations depicted on surviving codices. In the first page of the Codex Mendoza, the eagle-and-cactus theme appears in the center (figure 17). At the base of the cactus is the same symbol found beneath the cactus on the Mexican arms and flag.14 This unusually-shaped object is the Aztec glyph for stone.

Both the water and stone glyphs are shown on an illustra-tion of the Aztec founding of Tenochtitlan found in the Codex Durán.15 However, these glyphs are more than pictograms or ideograms, they are also phonograms.

Aztec writing did not spell out the syllables of words, but repre-sented words using the first and last sounds of the word, almost like a rebus. This can be seen in the pictogram of the Aztec Triple Alliance, the Ēxcān Tlahtōlōyān, which was the polit-ical alliance between the city-states of Tenochtitlan, Texcoco, and Tlacopan (figure 18). The pictogram shows in the center the logogram for Tenochtitlan made up of the “stone” glyph and the glyph for the flowering nopal cactus. The sound for the “stone” glyph is “tetl” and the flowing nopal cactus glyph reads “nochtili,” which reads tetl+nochtli, equaling Tenochtitlan.

Figure 13: An Aztec codex, the Codex Borbonicus. Source: http://www.wikiwand.com/nl/Azteekse_codices

Figure 15: Detail from the Teocalli Stone, showing an eagle perched upon a cactus, re-drawn for clarity. Sources: Charles Phillips, The Lost History of Aztec & Maya (London: Hermes House, 2004).

Figure 14: (left) The Teocalli Stone, shown in full. (top) Detail of the Teocalli Stone. Sources: http://www.hermetics.org/yurtlar.html; https://www.flickr.com/photos/ilhuicamina/2070118394



EN VEXILLOLOGIE


The logogram of the flowering nopal cactus growing from the rock glyph was repeated regularly in both stone carvings and codices as a sign for Tenochtitlan. Using this type of “spelling” we might picture an otter, with an electrical switch set to on, to “spell out” OTT+ON to stand for Ottawa, Ontario. We would have enough of the sound and could fill in the rest.

The flowering nopal cactus on the Mexican arms and flag has always been an Aztec glyph. The 1968 version of the arms and flag added two more Aztec glyphs, one representing stone and one representing water. The glyphs of the cactus and stone spell out Tenochtitlan, the ancient Aztec capital.

Interestingly, when considering the ancient glyphs of eagle, cactus and stone—the eagle is usually shown facing to the right, which in western heraldry is to the sinister. Early versions of the Mexican flag often showed the eagle facing to the fly end rather than the hoist, which is more “acceptable” in European tradition.16 Also, the rock and water were shown in more recog-nizable images in place of the Aztec glyphs. The 1968 version of the flag turned to earlier Aztec symbolism for the water and the rock. While some elements of the flag have become more “Europeanized,” others have expressed more Aztec styling.

To complete the description of the Mexican arms:• The wreath is made up of oak leaves on the left and

laurel leaves on the right. The traditional European meaning of an oak branch would be strength, and that of the laurel would be victory.17

• The ribbon joining the two branches is a national cravat that is sometimes displayed with Mexican national colors (figure 19).

When considering the prominence of Aztec symbols on the Mexican flag, it is worth noting that the earliest flags of the Mexican independence movement feature, more promi-nently than the eagle and snake of Aztec legend, the Roman Catholic symbol of St. Mary of Guadelupe. Eduardo Matos Moctezuma raises the following question: Why was the Virgin of Guadalupe, emblem of the insurgent army, not placed on the white band, which signified the purity of the Catholic religion? He then answers his own question: “During the war of independence it was deemed necessary to appeal to the precedent of pre-Hispanic Mexico, which was a strong, united nation until the Spanish conquest brought tragedy to the peoples of ancient Mesoamerica.”18 This is another aspect of the Mexican flag’s design that had not been mentioned by any published flag books or any online sources in English.

Figure 16: Carving from an Aztec stone box, depicting an animal surrounded by floodwaters. Source: Charles Phillips, The Lost History of Aztec & Maya (London: Hermes House, 2004).

Figure 18: Pictogram of the Triple Alliance, showing glyphs for Texcoco, Tenochtitlan, and Tlacopan. Source: http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsAmericas/CentralAztecTetzcoco.htm

Figure 17: Front page of the Codex Mendoza, showing the glyph for rock. Source: https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ap-art-history/early-europe-and-colonial-americas/colonial-americas/a/frontispiece-of-the-codex-mendoza



EN VEXILLOLOGIE



Matos Moctezuma goes further to explain in succinct terms a central meaning of the symbolism shown on the Mexican flag and arms:

But the most significant thing in all this is the presence of the national symbols on the coat of arms and flag, to which refer-ence has been made repeatedly. They have brought an entire people to identify itself under the symbol of Huitzilopochtli [the Aztec patron deity of Tenochtitlan]. The Aztecs would be proud to know the symbol of their city and patron god would live on centuries later, as the symbol of a nation.19

Throughout the nineteenth century, the eagle and snake endured as a symbol of Mexican independence. However, as we have seen, the stylization of the national arms became progressively more Europeanized. But in the revision of 1934, designed by Jorge Enciso, an Aztec glyph for “stone” was first introduced. And in Francisco Eppens Helguera’s 1968 revi-sion, the complex set of glyphs that still appear made their debut. The progressive introduction of Aztec elements into the national arms and flag was not merely a designer’s whim, but rather reflected important movements in Mexican culture.

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Mexican independence was threatened by a series of inter-ventions from the French and American governments, which in turn generated civil unrest and revolution. Following the restoration of order by the 1930s, cultural critics assessed a feeling of confusion in the arts, as Mexicans were neither recognized by Europeans as part of the liberal international order, nor were the Aztec traditions embraced in the arts of Mexico.20 In response, the Mexican government encour-aged a revival of Aztec design and symbolism in architecture, graphic arts, and official symbolism. The 1934 flag redesign “recovered the pre-Cortesian ancestry” of the Mexican state.21 Its designer, Jorge Enciso, was associated with the fine arts movement that favored traditional European design styles;

his use of the Aztec glyph is an indication of the extent to which the government of Mexico embraced the movement to recover ancient symbolism.22

However, cultural critics noted what Octavio Paz called a continuing “inferiority complex” among Mexicans regarding their culture—a feeling among certain influential artists and authors that Mexicans had internalized the dismissive opin-ions of some Europeans and Americans toward Mexicans as lacking a distinctive national character that would be reflected in its art and symbolism.23 This problem was exacer-bated by a political climate in which an increasingly repres-sive ruling party—whose forces would massacre student protesters in Mexico City shortly before the 1968 Olympics began—continued to express an ideology of reform.

Another opportunity for reflection on the Mexican national character arose when Mexico City was offered the opportunity to host the 1968 Olympic Games. In designing the athletic venues and iconography for the Olympiad, the planners aimed to present to the world a view of Mexico as a nation that was “a modern progressive country that was comfortable with its past.”24 One aspect of that presentation was the organization of a Cultural Olympics alongside the athletic contests. The Cultural Olympics exposed the art, music, dance, and litera-ture of many nations to the international audience flocking to Mexico City, and were hosted in facilities that drew upon motifs from the art of Aztecs and other pre-Cortesian peoples of Mexico, which coincidentally were reminiscent of many of the “op-art” designs then current in the European and American art world.25 The same spirit of combining ancient Mexican culture and modern art influenced the logo and signage used for the athletic competition (figure 20).

The current design of the seal and flag were made official on September 16, 1968—just weeks before the opening ceremony of the Olympics on October 12—but Eppens had obviously been at work on them for some time. Eppens was known for his paint-ings and sculptures that used traditional Mexican themes to support the Mexican government, especially on postage stamps, which the regime used “to mask the growing gulf between the ruling regime and the social ideas it claimed to hold.”26

With the eyes of the world upon Mexico, the government observed that the time was ripe to present the nation as having emerged through “a longer-standing process of postrevolu-tionary modernization” to be able to host the Olympics in an environment where the “national patrimony, pre-Columbian, colonial, and modern,” had given rise to a nation where, despite Paz’s lament, pride in its bi-cultural history could be expressed through modern design.27 Eppens’s design for the new flag provided an artistic dimension to the ideas the government wished to promote. Its expanded repertoire of Aztec glyphs, and use of them in the phonogrammatical context of their origin,

Figure 19: Mexican flags with cravats at top of poles (at inauguration of President Enrique Peña Nieto in 2012). Source: Los Angeles Times, http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/01/world/la-fg-wn-pena-nieto-sworn-mexico-20121201



EN VEXILLOLOGIE


reflected growing national pride in the pre-Cortesian history of Mexico. Eppens described the significance of his artwork: “I tried to design [the seal] in the most pre-Hispanic manner possible, inspired by the style of Aztec seals.”28

That the glyphs have a resemblance to the stylized or abstract shapes used in contemporary art gives an air of modernity to the seal. And the unveiling of a new design at the same time as Mexico was enjoying the world’s attention, for the first time by many millions of viewers, was a metaphorical “rite of passage” for the nation to take its place among the powers of the world. (Such newfound status was reinforced by Mexico’s controversial but influential decision to bar the racially exclusive teams of South Africa and Rhodesia from the Olympic Games, thus averting a boycott by many newly independent African nations.)29

The design of Eppens has lasted for nearly half a century—longer than any previous rendition of the national arms. While the gap between the ideals espoused by the Mexican government and its actions no doubt persists—as in all coun-tries—the flag of Mexico is not only a poll-winner in the eyes of the Spanish-speaking world, it is also widely embraced by the Mexican public. While that is true of many flags, the symbols of Mexico embody a long history of struggle for inde-pendence, self-reliance, and national identity. That the flag does so by cleverly combining Aztec glyphs and modern art to make a statement about the aspirations of Mexico to be a modern nation with pride in its heritage makes the close inspection of its elements a vital exercise for vexillologists seeking to understand how and why flags speak so powerfully for and about the citizens they represent.This paper was originally presented as part of a longer talk at the 49th Annual Meeting of NAVA in Ottawa, Ontario, on October 18, 20151 “Most Beautiful National Flag in the World! Bandera Más Bonita del Mundo! Bandeira Mais Bonita do Mundo!” 20 Minutos, May 20, 2008, http://listas.20minutos.es/lista/most-beautiful-national-flag-in-the-world-bandera-mas-bonita-del-mundo-bandeira-mais-bonita-do-mundo-174912 Stephan Dinan, “Mexican Flag Casts Giant Shadow on Obama at Border,” Washington Times, May 10, 2011, http://www.washingtontimes.com/

news/2011/may/10/mexican-flag-casts-giant-shadow-on-obama-at-border. 3 President of Mexico, “Decreto por el que se establece que la Secretaría de la Defensa Nacional será responsable del programa de construcción, estableci-miento, operación, mantenimiento y custodia de las astas banderas y banderas monumentales que se encuentran en el Territorio Nacional,” July 1, 1999, http://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=4950865&fecha=01/07/1999 (translation by the author, via Google Translate). 4 José Luis de Rojas, Michael Ernest Smith, Marilyn A Masson, and John Wayne Janusek, Tenochtitlan: Capital of the Aztec Empire (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2012), 24.5 Whitney Smith, Flags Through the Ages and Across the World (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975), 158.6 Enrique Florescano, La bandera Mexicana: Breve historia de su formación y simbolismo, 3a. ed. (Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 2014), 151. 7 J. Ignacio Rubio Mañé, “Creación de la Bandera Nacional Mexicano, 1821-1971,” Boletin del Archivo General de la Nacion Ser. 2, 12, no. 1-2 (1971): 5-26.8 Ibid.9 Enrique Florescano, Imágenes de la patria: A través de los siglos (Mexico City: Taurus, 2005), ch. 5.10 Cámara de Diputados del H. Congreso de la Unión, “Ley sobre el Escudo, la Bandera y el Himno Nacionales,” February 8, 1984, http://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/es/mx/mx142es.pdf.11 E. M. C. Barraclough, Flags of the World (New York: Frederick Warne, 1971); Alfred Znamierowski, The World Encyclopedia of Flags (London: Lorenz, 2004).12 Smith, Flags Through the Ages and Across the World, 158.13 Charles Phillips, The Lost History of Aztec & Maya (London: Hermes House, 2004), 168.14 Elizabeth Hill Boone, “Aztec Writing and History,” in The Aztec World, ed. Elizabeth Brumfiel and Gary M. Feinman (New York: Abrams, 2008), 187.15 Elizabeth Brumfiel, “The Aztec World in Historical Context,” foreword to The Aztec World, ed. Brumfiel and Feinman (New York: Abrams, 2008), 13.16 The bald eagle displayed on United States presidential flags has also seen changes in its direction. See Robert M. Williamson, “Exploring the Genealogy of the President’s Flag of the United States of America, 1915-1959,” Raven 22 (2015): 79-100.17 Ernst Lehner and Johanna Lehner, Folklore and Symbolism of Flowers, Plants and Trees (New York: Tudor Publishing Co, 1960), 77, 122.18 Eduardo Matos Moctezuma, “The Aztec World’s Presence in Colonial and Modern Mexico,” in The Aztec World, ed. Brumfiel and Feinman (New York: Abrams, 2008), 218-19.19 Ibid., 223.20 Florescano, Imágenes de la Patria.21 Amparo Gómez Tepexicuapan and Francisco González-Hermosillo, La evolución del Escudo Nacional (Mexico City: Museo Nacional de Historia, 1997), 42 (translation by the author, via Google Translate.)22 Guillermo Tovar de Teresa, Gabriel Breña Valle, Fernando García Correa, and Xavier Guzmán, Repertory of Artists in Mexico: Plastic and Decorative Arts (Mexico City: Grupo Financiero Bancomer, 1995), 366.23 Octavio Paz, El laberinto de la soledad [The Labyrinth of Solitude] (Mexico City: Cuadernos Americanos, 1950; reprint, New York: Grove Press, 1994), 10. Citations refer to the Grove edition.24 Claire Brewster, “Changing Impressions of Mexico for the 1968 Games,” in Reflections on Mexico ’68, ed. Keith Brewster (London: John Wiley, 2010), 36.25 Kevin B. Witherspooon, Before the Eyes of the World: Mexico and the 1968 Olympic Games (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 2008), 71-78; Claire and Keith Brewster, “Mexico City 1968: Sombreros and Skyscrapers,” in National Identity and Global Sports Events, ed. Alan Tomlinson and Christopher Young, 99-116 (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2006).26 Tovar de Teresa et al, Repertory of Artists in Mexico, 370.27 Luis M. Castañeda, Spectacular Mexico: Design, Propaganda, and the 1968 Olympics (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2014), 105.28 Francisco Eppens, quoted in Ramón Valdiosera Berman, Francisco Eppens: El hombre, su arte y su tiempo (Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 1988), 69 (translation by the author, via Google Translate).29 Witherspooon, Before the Eyes of the World, 65-71.

Figure 20: (left) Ancient Huichol design, which influenced (right) the official logo of the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City. Sources: Keith Brewster, ed., Reflections on Mexico ’68 (Wiley, 2010), 35; http://imjustcreative.com/1968-mexico-olympics-logo-lance-wyman/2013/12/03



EN VEXILLOLOGIE



The Flags of CourlandBy Wim Schuurman

A little-known flag appears on the chart “Tableau des Pavillons que la Plupart des Nations à la Mer arborent à la Mer. Fait au dépôt des Cartes de la Marine pour le service des vaisseaux du Roy par Ordre de M. de Machault, Garde des Sceaux de France, par le Sr. Bellin Ingénieur de la Marine 1756” (“Table of Flags, which most of the Seagoing Nations display at sea. Made at the Map Bureau of the Navy for the use of royal ships, by order of Mr. de Machaut, Guardian of the Seals of France, by Seigneur Bellin, Engineer of the Navy, 1756”).1 The fifth row shows a flag of two equal horizontal stripes, red over white, captioned “Pavil. de Curlande” (Flag of Courland) (figure 1). The image appears among flags of cities on the Baltic Sea. The name “Courland,” unknown to me among other place names, intrigued me and inspired me to perform the research presented in this paper.

About CourlandOn maps of Europe from the nineteenth and twentieth century, one will look in vain for the names Courland, Courlande, or Kurland. One must venture further back in time, to different political conditions. The area of Courland is now the western part of the Republic of Latvia. The coastal region of Courland was on the Baltic Sea and its flag saw maritime use, which is why it is shown on the flag chart (figure 2).

The area is named after its original inhabitants, the Baltic people called Curonians, who gradually blended into the Latvians. The Curonians, with their nature-based religion, were threatened in the early thirteenth century by crusaders from the Christian military order called the Livonian Brothers of the Sword. To prevent an invasion, in 1230 the Curonian king Lammekinus was baptized and acknowledged the pope as feudal lord. The arms of the Brothers of the Sword are recorded, but it is not known whether they flew a flag over Courland (figure 3).

In 1237, the Brothers of the Sword were merged into the Teutonic Knights. In 1245, Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor, granted Courland as a fief to the Teutonic Order. The Teutonic order

subjugated the area entirely by 1269.2 A manuscript depic-tion of the banner of the Teutonic Knights survives (figure 4).

After three centuries of rule over Courland, the Teutonic Knights suffered military setbacks and in 1561 the order was disbanded. Its Grand Master, Gotthard Kettler, was named Duke of Courland and Semigallia, holding the duchy as a fief of the Polish-Lithuanian crown. Semigallia is the terri-tory to the east of Courland. The duchy bore arms, as did the dukes. (See figures 5–8.) The Kettler family arms are canting arms of a sort. The device shown is a pot-hook—a tool used to suspend kettles over a fire. In some cases, the arms were painted onto mili-tary colors (figure 9).

Courland’s Naval FlagsIn the seventeenth century, Courland developed maritime

commerce, so there was need for flags at sea. The Courland state flag comprised two equal horizontal stripes, red over white. In fact, Courland established colonies at the mouth of the Gambia River and on the island of Tobago, although those colonies were later lost.4

The colors were drawn from the arms of Courland: a red lion reaching to the left, on a silver shield (see figure 5). The colors were also those of its feudal overlord Poland-Lithuania

and were used by many cities on the Baltic Sea.

The commercial or merchant flag for the duchy had the same colors, but the second quarters from the hoist were swapped (figure 10). However, no flag charts showing this design are known.

The state flag is documented in Flags of all Nations, published in 1862 by K. Z. Steenbergen.5 Illustration number 170 shows the state flag. Illustration 135 shows the ducal flag (figure 11), with an alternative design for the ducal maritime flag in illustration 457 (figure 12).

But there was also a different design. Illustration number 97 in Steenbergen shows a merchant flag. This was a crimson flag with a black crab on it (Figure 13). The same flag was also shown in Gerrit Hesman’s Flaggeboek, published in Friesland about 1708, as illustration number 101.6 It shows a flag

Figure 1. (top and above) Detail from “Tableau des Pavillons que la Plupart des Nations à la Mer arborent à la Mer,” 1756.

Figure 2: Location of Courland. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courland



EN VEXILLOLOGIE


with crab, with the caption: “rood mei in swart krab”; that is, “red with a black crab.” Illustration number 102 in Hesman shows the state flag (figure 14).

In the book Bandiere di Tvtte le Potenze e Nazioni Naviganti in Tvtto il Mondo a Bologna 1772 (Flags of All the Powers and Sailing Nations of the World), from 1772, there is a crimson flag with a crab in natural colors.7 It is captioned, “The sea crab on the raspberry red background—the flag of military ships of Duke Jacob” (figure 15).8 Note that this is assigned to naval ships! The status of the flags on various charts differs. Whether there were written regulations in Courland is probably no longer possible to determine, because of the wartime destruction of archives and other sources.

The flags of the Duchy of Courland were in use until 1795. In that year, the Third Partition of Poland rendered the kingdom extinct, eliminating the vassal states under it, including the Duchy of Courland. Until 1918, Courland was administered as a governorate of the Russian Empire.9

On a flag chart published by R. H. Laurie in 1832, flags for Courland were still shown, as illustrations 79, 80, and 81.10 These were copied from Steenbergen’s illustrations 457, 27, and 170.

On land, the population in the governorate used a flag of three equal horizontal stripes of green, blue, and white (figure 16). This was not official, but was used at song

festivals. The meaning of the colors is unknown.11 The Livonians, neighbors of the Courlanders, used a flag with the same three colors but in a different order.

The layout of the provin-cial arms was like that of other governorates of the Russian Empire: the shield showed the familiar coat of arms of the former double- Duchy of Courland and Semigallia, surmounted by the red-lined gold Russian Czar’s Crown. The shield was wreathed with two gold oak branches with a blue ribbon wrapped around them (figure 17).

In the First World War, Courland was largely occu-pied by the German army from the spring of 1915. The leadership of the German army supported plans to create a political entity for

Figure 3: Arms of the Brothers of the Sword. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livonian_Brothers_of_the_Sword

Figure 4: Flag of the Teutonic Order, from the medieval manuscript Banderia Prutenorum. Source: http://www.tarnautojai.lt/memorandum/ru/modules/banderia/primus.htm

Figure 5: Traditional arms of Courland.3 Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courland

Figure 7: Kettler family arms. Source: http://akromer.republika.pl/poczet_kurlandia.html

Figure 6: Arms of the Duchy of Courland and Semigallia. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Courland_and_Semigallia

Figure 8: Arms of the Dukes of Courland under the Kettler dynasty, from a 1596 manuscript: the arms of the dual duchy with an inescutcheon of the family arms—gold with a red pot-hook, impaled with a gold shield bearing the cipher of the Polish monarch (in this case, Sigismund Augustus). Source: http://www.hubert-herald.nl/LatvijaCourland.htm



EN VEXILLOLOGIE



the Baltic Germans in the territory of today’s Latvia and Estonia: das Vereinigte Baltische Herzogtum (the United Baltic Duchy), whose flag would have revived the design used by the Teutonic Knights (figure 18). When these plans then failed, Courland-Semigallia fell in 1918 and became part of the independent Republic of Latvia.1 Klaes Sierksma, Vlaggen: Symbool, Traditie, Protocol (Bussum, Netherlands: C. A. J. van Dishoeck, 1963).2 Readers interested in this history may consult Peter Z. Olins, The Teutonic Knights in Latvia (Riga: Lamey, 1928).3 This is familiar as the “ordinary” legal lion of Courland.4 Readers interested in this history may consult Alexander V. Berkis, The History of the Duchy of Courland (1561–1795) (Towson, Maryland: Paul M. Harrod Company, 1969).5 K. Z. Steenbergen, ed. Vlaggen van alle Natiën, opgedragen aan zijne Koninklijke Hoogheid Prins Hendrik der Nederlanden = Pavillons de toutes les Nations, dédiés à son Altesse Royale le Prince Henri des Pays-Bas = Flags of all Nations, dedicated to his Royal Highness Prince Henry of the Netherlands (Amsterdam: Weytingh & Brave, 1862).6 Gerrit Hesman, Klaes Sierksma, and J. C. Terluin, Flaggeboek: neffens in hânskrift fan om 1700 hinne (Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy, 1975).7 Ludwig August, Graf von Mellin, Bandiere di Tvtte le Potenze e Nazioni Naviganti in Tvtto il Mondo a Bologna 1772, manuscript, held at Rokrakstu un Reto Grāmatu Kolekcija, Latvijas Universitate (Manuscripts and Rare Books Collection, University of Latvia).8 According Filip Kubiaczyk, this would be the flag that was flown in the colony of Tobago. Unfortunately the author has not specified the source. Filip Kubiaczyk, “Jeszcze Polska Nie Zgineła—part 2,” Flagmaster 137 (December 2010): 4–5.9 Readers interested in the history of Courland under Russian rule may consult Andreas Plakans, The Latvians: A Short History (Stanford, Calif.: Hoover Institution Press, 1995) and Mara Kalnins, Latvia: A Short History (London: Hurst and Co., 2015).10 The Maritime Flags of All Nations (London: Richard H. Laurie, 1832).11 Email from Victor Lomantsov to the author, January 13, 2016. For more information see P. Falck, “Unsere alten Landesfarben,” Düna-Zeitung no. 165, July 25, 1900; and H. G. Ströhl-Mödling, “Landesfarben,” Deutscher Buch-und Steindrucker 15, no. 8 (Mai 1909): 722-26+.

Figure 9: Company color of a Courland cavalry regiment, 1672–1674. Source: http://www.hubert-herald.nl/LatvijaCourland.htm

Figure 10: Courland merchant marine flag. Source: https://flagspot.net/flags/lv-cour.html#hist Figure 11: Ducal flag of

Courland, as shown in Steenbergen.

Figure 12: Maritime ducal flag of Courland, as shown in Steenbergen.

Figure 13: An alternative flag of Courland, as shown in Steenbergen.

Figure 16: Flag used in the Governorate of Courland under the Russian Empire. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courland_Governorate

Figure 17: Arms of the Russian Courland governorate. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courland_Governorate

Figure 18: (right) Proposal for a flag for the United Baltic Duchy. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Baltic_Duchy

Figure 14: Flags of Courland, as shown in Hesman.

Figure 15: Courland’s “naval” flag, as shown in Bandiere di Tvtte le Potenze e Nazioni Naviganti in Tvtto il Mondo a Bologna 1772.



EN VEXILLOLOGIE


By Catarina Florio

Introduction The study of flags is a complex and specialized discipline. Accordingly, any conservation strategy challenges the conser-vators to first educate themselves in the history, customs and relevance of flags. As a textile conservator at the Canadian Museum of History (CMH), I had the duty to develop the conservation treatment of an election banner for the campaign of Dunn and Buchanan in 1841. There were many technical and physical challenges related to conservation of the flag as a physical object. However, the appropriate presentation of the flag for public viewing was also an important consideration. My research in the field led to a question about the semantic implications of presenting a “flag” in a static form on display at CMH. This paper will focus on the significance and relevance of museum artifacts and how they retain, diminish or change their meaning through time and context.

Context and association of flagsHistorically, flags have had many uses and meanings. They rally groups, identify affiliations, provoke commitment, and are often instilled with meaning. They have helped shape communities with their call to allegiance and still today have a central part to play in everything from football club support to the celebra-tion of national days. There is always a tension expressed in the movement of a flag, an intention of affirmation and recognition, pride and great emotion. A flag conveys a meaning not only by its pattern and colors but also by where and how it is positioned or carried. On the moon there is an American flag—a flag that symbolizes a victory in the space race, for the United States.

As early as the sixteenth century, the colours and designs of flags acquired symbolic meaning and were associated with ideological and political messages of the power of churches and states. By the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, other groups had appropriated the flag and charged it with their specific message. Among these groups were labour unions, political agencies and government officials, sports clubs, schools and universities, charitable organizations and cultural associations, and business corporations.

Traditionally, in addition to its image and iconography, a flag’s essential quality was its ability to move in the wind. Its

power is relayed through the movement and the sounds that it produces. Because of that, the effect of motion on a flag’s viewer is crucial; it augments the impact and the intensity of the message that the flag carries and expands its communica-tion power. When conserving the banner under discussion in this article, I bore in mind this definition by W.G. Perrin:

Flag may be defined as a piece of pliable material, attached at one end so as to move freely in the wind, serving as a sign or a decoration. This word…does not appear to have come into use in this particular meaning until the sixteenth century, and the etymology of it is obscure. Perhaps the most satisfactory of the derivations hitherto put forward is that of Professor Skeat, who derives it from the Middle English “flakken” to fly, one of a number of similar onomatopoeic words sugges-tive of the sound of something flapping in the wind. Its first appearance with a meaning coming within the above defini-tion is as a specific term denoting a rectangular piece of mate-rial attached by one vertical edge, flown at the masthead of a ship, as a symbol of nationality or leadership.1

Conservation and ethical context The validation in Perrin’s definition of the importance of the material and physical qualities of a flag made for a good starting point when deciding how to approach the treatment of an 1841 election banner. As conservators, we are constantly faced with the challenge of preserving the dual nature of objects, their tangible substance and their immaterial content. Conservation, by its nature, is an interdisciplinary field, often crossing the boundaries of art and science, the intellectual and the practical. As a general statement, our professional respon-sibility as conservators is not only to record and preserve infor-mation in the least invasive way, but also to be part of the process that determines the presentation and interpretation of objects. Conservation has been described as a process of investigation, preservation and interpretation. It is a field that evolves constantly, so that the current approach of minimal physical/material intervention allows conservators to focus as well on presentation and other aspects of the interpretation process. For example, in the case of the banner held by CMH, the treatment coincided for the main part with the display method and the display method was an essential part of the treatment, thus leading us to develop a two-way approach. Specifics of this treatment will be described in detail further

From Flying Flags to Museum Flags: A Case Study in Using Minimally Invasive Preservation Techniques to Allow Maximum Flexibility in Display and Interpretation



EN VEXILLOLOGIE



on, to illustrate how developing the best possible passive mounts for display has become a major part of many conser-vators’ preservation protocols. Trying to balance the often competing needs of conservation and preservation with the desires and visions of curators and other stakeholders to feature objects in a particular interpretative context has become more and more challenging and a multifaceted task.2 The ever-changing political context of flag displays over the decades, and the fact that choices about flag display vary from curator to curator, have shaped the role of conservators and influenced our way of approaching treatment of flags. In current muse-ology, the concept of the distinct phases of the objects’ “life” and the range of meanings attributed to each of them, is part of a long-standing debate and it provides a great example for exploring how understanding the context greatly influences conservation.3 In addition, acknowledging that conservation offers significant support in producing meaning and enriching museum interpretation justifies the efforts made in presenting objects in a particular way in museums.

Much of what it is currently done in conservation starts from the museological idea of preserving as many values, or combi-nation of values associated with the objects as possible. Objects can be preserved for their symbolic, historic, emotional, mone-tary or social value, and even their educational value within the context of a heritage institution. In general, museum artifacts are different things at different times, with shifting relevance and importance in a constantly changing context. This way of thinking demands that the changing physical and social environments be taken into account when formulating conservation treatments.4 It is, however, a delicate balancing act to tackle the range of meanings attributed to the objects, considering that anything we do or don’t do in our preserva-tion efforts reflects current knowledge and thinking.

Having said all this, we are still faced with the question of whether a flag is still a flag when it enters a museum collec-tion. Further questions arise: What set of values is the museum preserving in collecting a flag? And what values are we favoring if the flag is not going to be flown anymore? What’s the minimum “requirement” to recognize a flag as such?

Through a review of the treatment I carried out, I hope to shed some light on this complex issue, though I doubt there is a definitive answer to any of the questions posed above.

Case study at the Canadian Museum of HistoryCMH has in its collection a banner promoting the candi-dacies of Isaac Buchanan and John Henry Dunn (figure 1). Both won narrow victories in the 1841 election that chose the first parliament to represent the newly united Province of Canada. Each represented a riding in Toronto, and supported the union of Upper Canada and Lower Canada.5

The banner was selected for display in the temporary exhi-bition called “1867: Rebellion and Confederation,” produced by the Canadian Museum of History for display in 2015. The

banner is thought to have been used in a political rally to celebrate the electoral victory of Buchanan and Dunn. The banner, painted on both sides, has the image of a crown in the center surrounded by the inscription, “British rule and British institutions”. Below the inscription are the names of the two candidates, Dunn and Buchanan. At the top of the banner, between the words “British Rule”, there is a date, 1842, which may have been added later. Historical records speak of a banner displayed by supporters of John Henry Dunn and Isaac Buchanan in the political election campaign of that following year. The banner measures 270 cm x 173 cm (8 feet 10 inches x 5 feet 8 inches) and on the left-hand side it displays the typical hoist made of jute cord. It is composed of fine tabby silk of ivory color. Both the gold leaf and the oil paint are applied over a layer of yellow mordant (dye fixa-tive), not meant to be visible. When it first arrived in the lab it was in very bad condition, very fragile and dry, and rolled as a preventive measure around a large tube.

Documentation of the stratigraphy and analysis of the various paints used on the banner were requested to inform treatment decisions and to determine the mechanical stability of the painted surface. Four samples were taken from the inscription: two samples of gilding in the lettering, green paint from the shadow around the lettering, and green paint from the 1842 date. The numbers in the date were not gilded as the letters were and the green paint appears to be a different shade from that used in the shadows of the letters. These differences and the fact that the first election was held in 1841 and not 1842 may indicate that the date was added to the banner at a different time. In addition, samples of blue paint and gilding with red highlighting were taken from the

Figure 1: Election banner promoting candidates John Henry Dunn and Isaac Buchanan for the Parliament of the Province of Canada (CMH 2003.45.1) Photograph by Steven Darby, used with permission.



EN VEXILLOLOGIE


crown for analysis. Pigments and fillers in the paints were identified using a combination of the following techniques: scanning electron microscopy/energy dispersive spectrometry (SEM/EDS), Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), and Raman spectroscopy. The composition of the lettering layer in the inscription is consistent with the material referred to in conservation standards as ”gold size1” or “gilders oil size2” (size is an adhesive used to attach gold leaf to fabric).6

The general condition of the banner was fair. It could have been considerably worse, given the many inherent problems of working with a stiffened painted surface, both inelastic and fragile. The painted areas were brittle and the substrate fabric had come apart in many sections. There was also a substantial loss of pigment in many areas, but the pigments that remained adhered well to the substrate and there was no flaking. Very sharp folds, due to improper storage over time, encouraged the splitting and loss of the painted surface and pigments throughout. However, the silk ground (base layer) fabric was in relatively good structural condition overall, although quite delicate. Except for the top and bottom corners, the silk was not torn by the stitching where the rope attached to the hoist edge, indicating perhaps that it was not subject to signifi-cant stress. For example it may not have flown outdoors for prolonged periods. The silk was stained in numerous areas, but the discoloration was not obtrusive to the general appear-ance of the textile. See figures 2 and 3.

The treatment plan had three original goals: to fulfill the narrative vision of the curator, to safely display the banner vertically and finally, to provide a secure and efficient long-term storage solution.

The first step was to physically address the material of the banner, to preserve as much as possible of the physical appear-ance. This initial phase consisted primarily in the flattening of the folds, since they jeopardized the stability of the fabric in the painted areas and ultimately the piece itself. A series of tests was performed to evaluate the response of the painted surface to the effects of an ultrasonic mister, which is how we intended to eliminate the sharp creases. The successful testing allowed us to begin the delicate process of reducing the creases. A complicating factor was the size of the banner. A special

leaning device was fashioned to allow access to the critical central areas of the banner. See figures 4 and 5.

After the initial stabilization work was done, the condition of the fabric was less precarious and the immediate source of damage was reduced, facilitating handling and a more accu-rate evaluation of the steps to follow. At this point, together with the curator, we had to decide how to proceed with the interpretation of the piece and how we wanted to present the flag to the public. The curator was less interested in the overall flag than in the content, namely the names of the candidates and the slogan.

Therefore, after a thorough review of the literature, a special pressure mount was designed, in collaboration with one of the CMH preparators, in order to consolidate the physical components without sacrificing any relevant histor-ical or contextual elements. This specific mount was chosen as the most appropriate method to serve all these purposes. A pressure mount has a padded base and a plexiglas cover; the object is placed between the base and the cover. In addition to the technical challenges of treating fabric in fair condi-tion, the banner size was again an issue. The question was how to maintain an even pressure throughout the surface and avoid the sliding of the flag to the bottom, once it was mounted in a vertical position. We resolved this problem by applying concentric circular layers of batting (cotton fabric typically used to fill quilts) which gradually compensated for the diminished pressure in the centre of the frame. In addi-tion, the frame was made up of many different layers of non-reactive materials, which provided a safe substrate for the flag. See figures 6 and 7.

Figures 2 and 3: Details of the condition of the banner before treatment. Photos by CMH, used with permission.

Figures 4 and 5: Details of the flattening treatment with ultrasonic humidifier. Photos by CMH, used with permission.

Figures 6 and 7: Details of pressure mount padding compensation layer. Photos by CMH, used with permission.



EN VEXILLOLOGIE



This type of mount provides uniform support for the flag while in a vertical position through an even distribution of pressure; it eliminates the need to sew together tears or cuts in the fabric (a process called needle consolidation); it permits complete access to both sides with minimum handling. It offers many benefits for future interpretation since it limits the direct intervention of conservators on the banner itself. What was most appealing about this mount strategy was that it allows for future curators to interpret and present the banner according to a different narrative.

The process secured the materials and the iconographic meaning in accordance with the curator’s vision, but obvi-ously the physical potential of the flag as a moving message was sacrificed. However, the pressure mount, coupled with museumgoers’ preconceived notions of flags as moving things, compensated for the missing meaning/value associated with movement. As mentioned previously, flags are a great part of the lives of citizens and the general public, and so it was consid-ered sufficient to present the two-dimensional visual aspect of a flag, and to rely on the common knowledge of the visitor to fully experience the banner in the exhibition context.

To a certain extent, in museums, objects are validated even if they are decontextualized,7 but when integrated into an exhibition narrative the public’s knowledge is encouraged to fill the gaps and offer them a full experience. It is the public that recontextualizes the object through their participation and experience. As Laura Mina states, by acknowledging the effects of observation, we can better evaluate the methods used by conservators and seek ethical treatment choices for an object’s current needs.8

As a final note, these findings were presented at the annual meeting of the North American Vexillological Association in 2015, in Ottawa, Ontario. One astute audience member suggested that the presence of holes on both the hoist and fly edges indicated that the cloth was not a traditional flag in which the fly end waves free, but was rather likely to have been carried as a banner in a parade, mounted on two poles, similarly to the banner shown in figure 8.

Conclusions The values associated with an artifact, in this case a flag displayed in a museum, change from one context to another. It is the conservator’s responsibility to ensure that the signifi-cance and values that shift in time and context remain acces-sible for future interpretations. Specifically, our decision to pressure mount and secure the banner allows for future cura-tors to display it in the same fashion or to decide on a more dramatic dynamic approach. We decided to focus on main-taining and containing the material that made up the banner, and to provide access to the limited but important text.

While we didn’t account for the movement of the flag, which is surely part of its essence, we provided a framework that when displayed in a museum allowed for the imagination and ingenuity of the viewer to compensate for this omission.

AcknowledgementsI would like to thank Leslie Tepper and Ian Martin for their help in facilitating the thinking process; Paul Vardy for being an indispensable presence in this project; and Jennifer Poulin, Elizabeth Moffatt, Edith Gendron for their technical exper-tise. I would also like to acknowledge Wanda McWilliams and Rebecca Renner for their support.This paper was originally presented at the 49th Annual Meeting of NAVA in Ottawa, Ontario, on October 17, 2015.1 W.G. Perrin, British Flags: Their Early History, and Their Development at Sea; With an Account of the Origin of the Flag as a National Device (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1922), 1.2 Caterina Florio, “Textile Conservation and the Museum Public”, in The Public Face of Conservation, ed. Emily Williams (London: Archetype, 2013) 37-44.3 Dinah Eastop and Charlotte Dew, “Context and Meaning Generation: The Conservation of Garments Deliberately Concealed within Buildings,” in The Object in Context: Crossing Conservation Boundaries: Contributions to the Munich Congress, 28 August-1 September 2006, ed. David Saunders, Joyce Townsend, and Sally Woodcock, (London : International Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works, 2006), 17. 4 Frances Lennard and Patricia Ewer, Textile Conservation: Advances in Practice (Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2010), 55.5 Kenneth McNaught, The History of Canada (Toronto: Bellhaven House, 1970), 90-95; Douglas McCalla, “Isaac Buchanan,” in Dictionary of Canadian Biography, ed. Francess G. Halpenny (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1982), 11: 125-31; Ken Cruikshank, “John Henry Dunn,” in Dictionary of Canadian Biography, ed. Francess G. Halpenny (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985), 8: 251-57.6 Elizabeth Moffatt and Jennifer Poulin, “Analysis of the Paint on a Silk Election Banner,” Canadian Museum of History Report No. CSD 5157, CCI 127129, July 31, 2014, 5.7 Miriam Clavir, Preserving What Is Valued: Museums, Conservation, and First Nations (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2002), 134. 8 Laura Mina, “The Observer Effect in Conservation: Changes in Perception and Treatment of a Man’s Silk Suit c.1745,” in The Textile Specialty Group Postprints 21 (2011): 17, http://www.conservation-us.org/docs/default-source/periodicals/textile-specialty-group-postprints-volume-21-(2011).pdf

Figure 8: (Top center of photo) Parade banner mounted on two sticks, in a 1913 rally for women’s suffrage in the United States. Source: https://twitter.com/archivesfdn/status/733727432742711302?lang=en

The Aztec Heritage of the Mexican FlagEditor’s Note / Note de la rédactionThe Aztec Heritage of the Mexican Flag (continued)The Flags of CourlandFrom Flying Flags to Museum Flags: A Case Study in Using Minimally Invasive Preservation Techniques to Allow Maximum Flexibility in Display and Interpretation

Documents

The Aztec Heritage of the Mexican Flag - NAVA.org · 2020. 10. 15. · Source: Enrique Florescano, Imágenes de la Patria: A Través de los Siglos (Mexico City: Taurus, 2005): 105