Blazon: Or chapé azure, water in base of the second and argent, issuant therefrom a mount, surmounted by a pine tree proper issuant from a base vert; in dexter chief, three baskets in pile reversed of the third, in sinister chief a pickaxe of the field; overall on a fess gules two dexter arms clasping hands in fess proper, vested of the field and sable
Oh. Oh no. This is definitely twentieth-century; you can tell from the multiplicity of complex charges that are specifically concerned with industry, as well as the fairly literal symbolism. This is kind of the heraldic definition of Doing Too Much. I know it’s been in use for over a hundred years, but this is just … not visually appealing at all. I’m sort of reluctant to explain all of the symbols, just because they’re so obvious, but I might as well. The pine tree stands for the local forests, the mount and the water stand for a nearby lake and mountain, the baskets and hammer refer to the salt mining industry, and the clasped hands represent the solidarity of the local workers, who absolutely deserve to be represented by something a little nicer than this.
Blazon: Or issuant from a base vert a tree, surmounted by a stone reservoir proper
I don’t have a lot of information about these arms, but I’m also not sure there’s much to say. The reservoir or pool (alberca) is a canting element; the town has borne this name since its origins as an Arab settlement. The Záncara is a local river, and I’m afraid that’s all I’ve got.
Blazon: Per fess I per pale gules a tower or windowed azure and of the last a bridge of three arches argent; II of the last two walnut trees issuant from a base vert
I’m afraid information about this town is pretty thin on the ground, never mind the arms, so I’m left with speculation. I have to assume the bridge is a representation of a specific bridge in the area, particularly since the original blazon specifies a “medieval” bridge. The tower might also represent a specific landmark, though it could also be a visual reference to the arms of Castile. Finally, I’m pretty sure the walnut trees, or árboles nogales, are a canting element.
Blazon: Argent a lion salient or langued gules on a base sable
It’s really an open question whether these are official arms or not; they don’t seem to have any tinctures specified, and I have no idea how long they’ve been in use, but look at them! That has got to be one of the weirdest lions I’ve ever seen, and I have seen some weird lions. It’s not just this depiction, either. The pose! The head! The tongue! It’s glorious, and I needed it on my blog. Thank you for sharing this absolute fucking horror with me.
(Right, I should also say that the family who originally ruled the area from the 1300s through 1695, the Megenzers, had some really beautiful and unique arms that I’m not entirely sure how to blazon – but you’ve got to respect a town that says no, never mind that, we’re going with that goddamn lion.)
Blazon: Azure a house with stepped roof argent, windowed sable on a base vert, on a chief or an antler fesswise sable
I don’t have a ton of information on these arms, probably at least partly due to the fact that Eckenweiler seems to be more of a suburb than a city in its own right. I’m guessing the oddly-shaped house is a reference to a specific local building, which is incredibly common in municipal arms. It could well be the village church; it’s apparently been around since 1789, and, as the only Protestant-majority district in the city, that seems remarkable enough to feature. (This particular bit of land belonged to the Duchy of Württemberg when Duke Ulrich converted his lands to Protestantism, rather than to the Catholic Austria.)
Blazon: Or a stone column* proper on a base vert, in chief a cross of Calatrava gules
Obviously, these are partly canting arms, but I’m more intrigued by the stone column. One of the sources I found implies that these arms are significantly older and, moreover, that there was actually a column in the town square in the 16th and 17th centuries. It seems the column was demolished sometime before 1639, but I have no idea why. It also seems that the original use of these arms dates back to around the same time, and putting a local landmark on municipal arms is an extremely common practice.
*I know, but I’m trying very hard to be mature about it, and the… distinctive shape seems to be unique to this particular depiction