Whitney Smith
[Adapted from an article that originally appeared in NAVA News (January-February 1996)]
To understand why and how organized vexillology was founded, it helps to go back to the late 1950s. It was an exciting era for flag changes around the world: for example, the Sudan and Ghana had come to independence, Egypt and Syria had joined to form the United Arab Republic, and the Hungarians had unsuccessfully tried to throw off Communist rule. These and other events involved new flags, but there was no regular source of information on the subject. Often it was several years before encyclopedia—or even flag manufacturers—caught up with changes.
Many people were interested in flags, but they had little contact with one another. For some it was basically a job—to make and sell flags, to illustrate them for reference publications, or to deal with flags as museum artifacts. There were also flag hobbyists, but the lack of communication meant that each felt himself the only one in the world interested in the subject. In Europe flags were generally considered a minor subdivision of heraldry, scarcely worthy of separate notice. In the United States the flag (i.e. the stars and Stripes) was a patriotic symbol which only occasionally got serious attention as part of the political history of the nation.
In Britain a small “Flag Circle” had existed briefly before the Second World War, but by the end of the 1940s it was dead. No regular meetings were ever held and the Flag Circle had no publications, bylaws, or outreach programs. So far as is known. no other association or conference relating to flags had ever been held in world history, aside from the various flag-waiving groups in the United States like the U.S. Flag Association.
My personal interest in flags, going back at least to the age of six, was given a boost in 1950 when I wrote to Greenland. I couldn’t understand how a country so large—in the Mercator projection, it ranks with Africa in size—could have no flag. I was thrilled to receive a response from the governor of Greenland himself, explaining that the flag of Denmark was the only one flown on the island. I then began writing around the world for documentation on flags of all kinds and, in the process, came into contact with other individuals interested in the subject.
My enthusiasm was further stimulated in 1957 when I graduated from high school. Courtesy of an aunt who taught school in Mt. Kisco, New York, I spent two weeks in New York City. To see the flags of the 60 members of the United Nations, flying outside its East River headquarters, was to feel oneself to be at the “flag capital” of the world. I was also privileged to have lunch with William Dwiggins, Sales Manager for Annin &. Company, Rev. Darlington, President of the United States Flag Foundation, and Nathaniel Abelson, Map Librarian of the United Nations. These three men were involved on a daily basis—each from a different perspective—with flags. I told them about the word I had coined for the study of flags, vexillology, based on the Latin word vexillum, meaning flag.
Although I had been sending information for several years to Compton’s Pictured Encyclopedia on flag changes and although in 1958 UNICEF (the United Nations Children’s Emergency Fund) accepted articles of mine for publication in a series of books, I felt frustrated that there were so few flag-related activities. While an undergraduate at Harvard College, I began to think about publishing a series of pamphlets which would present articles on different flag topics. These could be distributed to vexillologists around the world who might in turn write articles for future pamphlets.
The usefulness of this became particularly evident in 1959, the annus mirabilis of new flags. There were 22 new national flags that year around the world. Many were from emerging African countries undergoing transition from colonial status to independence, but other nations acquired new flags as well. South Africa, East Germany, Cyprus, Suriname, the Netherlands Antilles—even the United States—hoisted new flags that year. Unfortunately, very few people had details on these changes. My own work at the time—articles published on “’Mongolian Symbolology” in The Coat of Arms magazine and one on Arab flags in a journal edited in Lebanon—did little to improve the situation.
ORIGINS OF THE FLAG RESEARCH CENTER
Finally, a major turning point was reached in 1961 which forever changed the study of flags. That summer, just before entering graduate school, I spent a month as an intern at the United Nations in New York. Fortuitously. Nathaniel Abelson invited me to join him in an assignment he had just received—to write a booklet on the flags of the UN members which would be sold by the organization at its gift shop. That month I also had a chance to visit several times with Gerhard Grahl, a school teacher five years my senior who lived in The Bronx.
Gary employed flags in his classroom as a teaching device to give students an appreciation for foreign cultures and history. In addition to his genuine enthusiasm for flags, he had a very practical sense of how to go about getting things done. Although in later years his interest in vexillology decreased, I am still extremely grateful to Gary for the concrete solutions and the work which he contributed towards making The Flag Bulletin, The Flag Research Center, and the North American Vexillological Association (NAVA) successful.
In our discussions, I told Gary about my proposed series of pamphlets. Why not, he suggested, make it a magazine issued on a regular basis so that it wouldn’t be necessary to go looking for purchasers of each new “pamphlet.” He volunteered to run off the issues in his classroom on a spirit duplicator, which would keep costs to an absolute minimum. Readers would look forward to each issue and we could combine news of flag changes with book reviews, longer articles on flag history, flag-related events, and similar material. He insisted that we use a name everyone could understand, rather than The Quarterly Journal of Vexillology, which I favored. In this way The Flag Bulletin was born in October 1961.
We sent out the first issue to about 50 people around the world with whom we had been in correspondence, plus others I thought might be interested in our efforts. The response was very positive—so much so that Gary and I decided to establish The Flag Research Center as of the first of February 1962. In addition to publishing The Flag Bulletin, the objectives of the Center were to collect as much information as possible on flags of all kinds, including books and other publications, and to make this available to all interested persons. In 1964 The Flag Bulletin published a list of names and addresses of such people and the following year G.K. Hall published my bibliography of almost 4000 flag-related publications, a resource never before (or since) matched.
These clearly filled important needs because the response to each was immediate and positive. The casual contacts I had developed during the previous decade increased substantially, including book exchanges, notices of new flags, queries about sources of information, swapping of actual flags, etc. Nevertheless it also quickly became clear that we had by no means found the limits to the interest which existed among vexillologists. Another important step in vexillology was taken in 1965. In anticipation of studies in Belgium (which were never realized) for my doctoral dissertation, I had been in correspondence with Klaes Sierksma of the Netherlands about a meeting of vexillologists in his country. In September 1965 we were jointly able to realize the First International Congress of Vexillology. In the little town of Muiderberg 19 participants from Europe, plus myself and a man from South Africa, spent two days discussing flags and enjoying tours, films, lectures, and exhibits. After getting to know each other, on the second day we discussed the future development of our nascent “science of vexillology.”
Everyone agreed that The Flag Bulletin was an important voice for vexillology, but that the proceedings of the congress should be published separately as a permanent contribution to knowledge, particularly for those unable to attend. Congresses should continue to be held on a regular basis for our mutual enrichment, moving from country to country both to encourage wide participation and to give us access to the vexillological treasures of diverse cultures. We also needed some kind of international association to coordinate our activities, especially the International Congresses. Responsibility for creating the association was placed in the hands of myself, Sierksma, and Louis Mühlemann, who was to organize the Second International Congress of Vexillology in Zurich in 1967.
THE ORIGINS OF FIAV
During the course of correspondence between the three of us the present International Federation of Vexillological Associations (FIAV) was developed. We quickly recognized that the original concept of an “International League of Vexillologists” would present many difficulties due to the small number of individuals around the world interested in flags, the tremendous distances involved, and the fact that very few of us had any possibility of getting financial support for vexillology from our occupations. If the only gathering of vexillologists took place at the biennial congresses, decisions would be heavily weighted in favor of the natives of the host country. Moreover, those who for any reason could not attend might well find the possibility of meeting other vexillologists only once a decade or less often.
For these reasons it was decided that FIAV would be a federation linking associations and institutions, rather than individuals. The creation of associations would allow vexillologists in each country or region to organize themselves as they saw fit—with their own meetings, publications, and activities suited to local circumstances. This also eliminated the necessity of a budget for FIAV and the complications which might arise from trying to determine a fair assessment of money, proper control over its spending, and the uneven benefits that might result. For example, a small national association with fewer than a dozen members could pay only a small fraction of what the National Geographic Society with hundreds of thousands of members could afford if both were participants in FIAV, yet it would be unfair for each to have exactly the same vote in deciding FIAV affairs.
Thus it was decided that the core purpose of the new international organization would be to provide a forum every two years for member associations and institutions to meet and discuss mutual problems. When appropriate, this would result in internationally-binding decisions. In addition, sponsorship of the International Congresses of Vexillology was to be an important ongoing responsibility for FIAV. While there have been objections to this system over the years, some people insisting that FIAV should have more power, my own feeling is that it has worked extremely well. We get the greatest possible benefit for vexillology at both the national and international level without the many complications that might have arisen under another system—particularly if FIAV had a regular budget and assessment of dues from its members.
While there was general agreement that national associations would provide the regular opportunities for individual vexillologists to meet, exchange information, publish. and develop their interests, in fact national associations did not exist in 1965. Thus the decision to constitute FIAV as a federation of vexillological associations was a prime factor leading to the creation of those associations. Things would have worked out very differently if the original concept of an International League of Vexillologists had been followed.
Sierksma was the head of the Foundation for Vexillology and Heraldry, while Gary and I ran The Flag Research Center. Lawrence Tower was president of the United States Flag Foundation, although this was not really a vexillological association since its only interest was in promoting the Stars and Stripes. Others belonged to heraldic associations where vexillological interests were definitely in the minority.
It is also important to keep in mind that in 1965 The Flag Research Center constituted a de facto association. The 200 people around the world who subscribed to its then quarterly Flag Bulletin frequently thought of themselves as members of a society with common objectives, communications, and leadership. Even though The Flag Research Center has always specifically disavowed the concept of membership, there are still people today who renew their subscriptions to The Flag Bulletin by sending what they refer to as “membership dues.”
The Flag Research Center might have taken an aggressive approach to this issue, proclaiming itself the International Association of Vexillologists. This was not done for a number of reasons, but first and foremost Gary and I felt that it would be presumptuous of us to announce ourselves the leaders of such a society. Moreover, it would have been difficult for us to meet the real needs and interests of a membership-based organization of world scope.
In 1965 we were both employed full time, he as a school teacher and I as an instructor at Boston University; each of us had two small children. Neither of us had the time or financial resources to operate a worldwide membership organization properly. It would have been a reasonable expectation at the very least to hold one annual meeting, perhaps even several meetings a year, in different parts of the world. Members would rightly have expected to take an active role in running the organization and setting its policies, including The Flag Bulletin, The Flag Research Center library, research projects, etc.
Europeans of an older generation in particular might not have been comfortable with two Americans, aged 25 and 30, presuming to set the tone and pace for such an association and for the International Congresses of Vexillology. Therefore I believe that the decision Gary and I made to limit The Flag Research Center to an institution, rather than an association, and to encourage the development of FIAV and its separate national associations as independent groups was the correct choice for everyone concerned.
There was another factor involved, although at the time it was not of great significance. The Flag Research Center had (and has) legal status as an unincorporated business. Its assets. rather modest in 1965, were the personal possessions of Gary and myself. After I left Boston University as an assistant professor of political science in 1969, the growth of the Center led to commercial developments which would have been difficult to justify as part of a membership association with noncommercial gains.
The Netherlands Association of Vexillology (NVvV) was the first national association of vexillology, founded in 1966 by the Dutch. The French Association of International Vexillological Studies (no longer in existence) was the second organization formed, later that same year. NAVA, the third vexillological association to be created, has always had the largest membership. These three joined the institutes headed by Sierksma and by Gary and myself—plus the United States Flag Foundation and five heraldic societies—when the provisional creation of FIAV was announced in September 1967 at the Second International Congress of Vexillology. Twelve associations and institutions recognized themselves as the charter Members of FIAV on September 7, 1969 at Boston University at the Third International Congress of Vexillology held in Boston, Massachusetts, USA. FIAV currently (1996) has 21 vexillological associations and eight institutions, three heraldic associations, one army historical association, and two flag-waiving organizations as members in 26 countries.
—
P. S. See also FIAV History page.
Last Updated on August 14, 2021