adminOur hallowed National Symbol Flag Staff and Heraldry are revered by the entire nation and diplomatically by the world, as visual heraldic representative of Zimbabwe – but are they understood in their full context? Recently one of my art and archaeology students quizzed me regarding the gender of the Zimbabwe Bird that we all know and recognise from the flag, coins, bank notes and Coat-of-Arms.
She asked in earnest: “Is the Zimbabwean Bird male or female? And is it not facing backwards?”
If this is the case, would it not be retrogressive for a national symbol which should inspire greatness and fortitude and inspire progress and fortitude and future looking? What does it imply for a nation to have its symbol forever looking backwards?
The eagle sejant’s position occupied by the Zimbabwe Bird is usually best demonstrated by the heraldic poses of the lion in other studies of heraldry. But our bird is no lion. What does its half squat position mean in modern heraldry? Here, the obvious answer is that the bird is female!
The art of blazon is the scientific description of a Coat-of-Arms in words which cannot be misinterpreted or misunderstood. From a correct blazon anyone versed in heraldry can instantly picture what the Coat-of-Arms look like and draw a pictorial reproduction of its verbal description, and visa-versa.
From my studies and records of Mediaeval Heraldic practice national flags, military trappings, surcoats, shields and badges follow a universally outlined pattern of design.
Usually when countries gain independence, such as South Sudan has done recently, all national heraldry has to be revised. However, when Zimbabwe gained its independence in April 1980, the bird which appears to be facing backwards inherited from the previous colonial governments all of whom portrayed the majestic bird in retrogression – should this not have been questioned at the time of independence, rather than simply accepted at face value?
How did this faux pas come about? No doubt the error was in the original printing reproduction of the emblem where reproductions are transfaced and the image faces in the opposite direction. A faux pas which has been now carried forward and adopted for over a century.
Zimbabwe inherited the sejant bird in this retrospective profile and continued to use it in its position – was this an oversight? Should this not have been questioned at the time, rather than simply accepted at face value?
While it could be argued that in printing the original Zimbabwe Bird, prior to the advent of the modern computer the images were erroneously inverted and the error perpetuated by the Rhodesians. However, for a proud people steeped in a glorious history, like Zimbabwe, the oversight seems indefensible.
It is unfortunate neither our universities, the Registrar-General, Registrar of Deeds, National Museums or other bodies have built up collections of Zimbabwean National Heraldry such as those in the University of St Andrews and University of Glasgow, which still possess splendid examples of ancient silver maces adorned with heraldic shields whose workmanship is some of the best in the world.
Our Zimbabwe Bird which is illustrated as the eagle sejant expresses the description and direction that the symbolic bird faces – backwards?
Heraldry is capable of demonstrating the combination of symbolic inheritances of the country as well as its ancestral proto genealogy in a stylised and internationally decipherable style and design.
As a system of decoration, a reservoir of information, a symbol of identification, it appeals to the best and deepest senses of human nature and is an art form, not of the past, but of the present and of the future. It has preserved the principles, culture and tribal organisation of societies and is a specialised branch of the Arts pertaining to the law of heritable property.
Bearing this in mind, the Zimbabwe bird sculpture embodies genealogical and heraldic information pertinent to the nation, often with an accuracy of detail and craftsmanship envied by many other nations.
Zimbabwe needs to be properly documented in its correct visual symbolism.
What is the way forward now? Was the direction of the Zimbabwe Bird an error of incompetence? An oversight? If so, can it be rectified? Was my student right in her assertion? Can we as a nation begin to look forward together?
Dr Tony Monda holds a PhD in Art Theory and Philosophy and a Doctorate of Business Administration in Post-Colonial Heritage Studies. He is a writer, musician, art critic, practising artist and corporate image consultant.
Online Reporter