^{This page is part of © FOTW Flags Of The World website}

Celic (Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina)

Coat of Arms
by Zeljko Heimer, 16 May 2004

Overview

See also:

Overview

The community fo Čelić (C<elic/) is a small community in the Tuzla Canton, formed from the parts seceeding from the community of Lopare in 1991 when Lopare joined Srpska (actually at the time Community of Lopare joined the "Srpska autonomna oblast Semberija i Majevica", that was one of the few SAO's that formed RS soon afterwards). The Dayton agreement in 1995 confirmed the division with the IEBL (Interentity boundary line - border between RS and FBiH).
The coat of arms of the community is in details described at <www.celic.ba>. Sumarised it says more of less so:
The coat of arms is composed of six elements: fortification as a symbol of defence, honeycomb as a symbol of seduility of the local people, crescent and star as a symbol of Islam and Bosniak people, flower with two rows of twelve patails, symbolising the twelve settlelments composing the community and twelve genocides over the local people though history. Inner rows of petails is red and the outer is green, except for the one petails that is chequy, designating the Croatian population living there. The golden fleur de lys is the statehood symbol, and the rising sun is the symbol of the community reborn.
It may be noted that the blue diagonal is entirely unmentioned in the description, and the blue is not even mentioned in the list of colours used in the coa: white, green, purpure red, yellow, golden yellow, honey colour, dark green and brown. (sic!)
The flag is not mentioned, and I wrote them for more info, though I am not entirely optimistic that they shall answer. I have a distinct feeling that the flag may well be a white rectangle with the Coat of Arms in the middle, but this is just a hint as yet.
As a side note, this is a good example of the modern B&H "heraldry" as it often degenrates into showing many elements in attempts to "show it all". The lack of any heraldic (or vexillologic, for that matter) authority that "inspect" the emblems in any way in B&H is surely one of the reasons. The other might be lack of any real heraldic tradition in the last half a century at least, and a frequent (global) misconception that the graphic designers are the people who are qualified to design Coat of Arms. We shall see many of such emblems in B&H yet (not quite unlike the symbols in say, Russia or Island, to name a few), though I have noticed lately that many of the local communities statutes begin to mention a central authority that is supposed to approve the symbols. I am not aware that such authority is yet established but it is a good sign and I guess that some of the "clumsy" symbols adopted recently may well be redesigned in future. After all a bad(ly designed) symbol is maybe better then no symbol at all. Information located by Pascal Gross.
Zeljko Heimer, 16 May 2004