The question of the migration of the Swastika and of the objects on which
it was marked, which furnished its only means of transportation, remains
to be considered. It is proposed to examine, in a cursory manner perhaps,
not only the migration of the Swastika itself, but some of these objects,
spindle whorls especially, with a view to discover by similarity or
peculiarity of form or decoration any relationship they may have had with
each other when found in distant countries and used by different peoples.
Thus, we may be able to open the way to a consideration of the question
whether this similarity of Swastikas or other decorations, or of the
objects on which they were placed, resulted from the migration of or
contact or communication between distant peoples, or was it accidental
and the result of independent discoveries and duplicate inventions--an
evidence of the parallelism of human thought?
Dr. Brinton, in a communication before the American Philosophical
Society,[307] starts out with a polemical discussion upon the subject of
the migration of the Swastika and its possible American migration, as
follows:
My intention is to combat the opinion of those writers who, like Dr.
Hamy, M. Beauvois, and many others, assert that because certain
well-known Oriental symbols, as the Ta Ki, the Triskeles, the
Svastika, and the cross, are found among the American aborigines, they
are evidence of Mongolian, Buddhistic, Christian, or Aryan
immigrations previous to the discovery by Columbus, and I shall also
try to show that the position is erroneous of those who, like William
H. Holmes, of the Bureau of Ethnology, maintain "that it is impossible
to give a satisfactory explanation of the religious significance of
the cross as a religious symbol in America."
In opposition to both these views, I propose to show that the primary
significance of all these widely extended symbols is quite clear, and
that they can be shown to have arisen from certain fixed relations of
man to his environment, the same everywhere, and hence suggesting the
same graphic representations among tribes most divergent in location
and race, and, therefore, that such symbols are of little value in
tracing ethnic affinities or the currents of civilization.
I am sorry to be compelled to differ with Dr. Brinton in these views. I
may not attempt much argument upon this branch of the subject, but
whatever argument is presented will be in opposition to this view, as not
being borne out by the evidence. Of course, the largest portion of the
discussion of this subject must consist of theory and argument, but such
facts as are known, when subjected to an analysis of reason, seem to
produce a result contrary to that announced by Dr. Brinton.
It is conceded that the duplication of the cross by different or distant
peoples is no evidence of migrations of or contact between these peoples,
however close their relations might have been. The sign of the cross
itself was so simple, consisting of only two marks or pieces intersecting
each other at a right or other angle, that we may easily suppose it to
have been the result of independent invention. The same conclusion has
been argued with regard to the Swastika. But this is a _non sequitur_.
First, I dispute the proposition of fact that the Swastika is, like the
cross, a simple design--one which would come to the mind of any person and
would be easy to make. For evidence of this, I cite the fact that it is
not in common use, that it is almost unknown among Christian peoples, that
it is not included in any of the designs for, nor mentioned in any of the
modern European or American works on, decoration, nor is it known to or
practiced by artists or decorators of either country.[308] For the truth
of this, I appeal to the experience of artists and decorators, and would
put the question whether, of their own knowledge, by their own inventions,
they have ever discovered or made Swastikas, or whether their brother
artists have done so, and if they answer in the affirmative, I would ask
whether those cases were not rare. It may be granted that when the
Swastika has been seen by an artist or decorator it is easily understood
and not difficult to execute, but, nevertheless, I insist that its
invention and use among artists and decorators during the centuries since
the Rennaissance is rare.
It is argued by Zmigrodzki that the Swastika on so many specimens,
especially the Trojan spindle-whorls, having been made regularly,
sometimes turning one way, sometimes another, sometimes square, other
times curved, goes to show the rapidity with which the sign was made, that
it did not require an artist, that its use was so common that it had
become a habit and was executed in a rapid and sketchy manner, as
evidenced by the appearance of the marks themselves upon the whorls. He
likens this to the easy and unconsidered way which men have of signing
their names, which they are able to do without attention. He likens it
also to the sign of the cross made by Roman Catholics so rapidly as to be
unnoticed by those who are unaware of its significance. With this line of
argument, Zmigrodzki reasons that the Swastika was in its time confined to
common use and thus he accounts for the number of ill-formed specimens.
This only accounts for the comparatively few ill-formed specimens, but not
for the great number, the mass of those well formed and well drawn.
Instead of the Swastika being a sign easily made, the experience of the
writer is the contrary. A simple cross like the Latin, Greek, St.
Andrew's, and other common forms may be very easy to make, but a really
good specimen of the Swastika is difficult to make. Any one who doubts
this has only to make the experiment for himself, and make correctly such
a specimen as fig. 9. While it may be easy enough to make the Greek cross
with two lines of equal length intersecting each other at right angles,
and while this forms a large proportion of the Swastikas, it is at its
conclusion that the trouble of making a perfect Swastika begins. It will
be found difficult, requiring care and attention, to make the projecting
arms of equal length, to see that they are all at the same angle; and if
it is bent again and again, two or three turns upon each other, the
difficulty increases. If a person thinks that the Swastika, either in the
square or the ogee curves or the spiral volutes, is easy to make, he has
but to try it with paper and pencil, and, if that is his first attempt, he
will soon be convinced of his error. The artist who drew the spirals for
this paper pronounces them to be the most difficult of all; the curves are
parabolic, no two portions of any one are in the same circle, the circle
continually widens, and no two circles nor any two portions of the same
circle have the same center. To keep these lines true and parallel, the
curve regular, the distances the same, and at the same time sweeping
outward in the spiral form, the artist pronounces a most difficult work,
requiring care, time, and attention (fig. 295). Even the square and
meander Swastikas (figs. 10, 11) require a rule and angle to make them
exact. All this goes to show the intention of the artist to have been more
or less deliberate; and that the object he made was for a special purpose,
with a particular idea, either as a symbol, charm, or ornament, and not a
meaningless figure to fill a vacant space.
Yet it is practically this difficult form of the cross which appears to
have spread itself through the widest culture areas, extending almost to
the uttermost parts of the earth. All this is foundation for the
suggestion that the Swastika was not the result of duplicate invention or
independent discovery, that it is not an illustration of parallelism in
human thought, but that it was transmitted from person to person, or
passed from one country to another, either by the migration of its people,
by their contact or communication, or by the migration and transmission of
the symbol and the sign itself. Pushing the argument of the difficulty of
its making, to account for the rarity of the design, it is alleged that in
modern times the Swastika is practically unknown among Christian peoples.
It passed out of use among them nigh a thousand years ago and has been
supplanted by every other imaginable geometric form. The fret, chevron,
herringbone, crosses, and circles of every kind, spirals, volutes, ogees,
moldings, etc., have all remained in use since neolithic times, but no
Swastika. The latest use mentioned in the literature upon this subject
appears to have been in the arch-Episcopal chair in the cathedral at
Milan, which bears the three ancient Christian crosses, the Latin cross,
the monogram of Christ, and the Swastika, of which the first and last are
carved in alternates around the pedestal of the chair. Yet the knowledge
of the Swastika has been perpetuated in some countries and its use has not
died out all over the world; therefore, examples of its use in modern
times should be noted in order to prevent misapprehension and
contradiction. The double Greek fret made with two continuous lines (fig.
139) forms a pseudo Swastika at each intersection, although we have seen
that this is not a real but only an apparent Swastika (p. 783). This is
used in modern times by carpet and linen weavers as borders for carpets
and tablecloths, and by tile makers in similar decoration. The Swastika
mark has continued in use among the Orientals; the Theosophists have
adopted it as a seal or insignia; the Japanese (fig. 30), the Koreans (p.
799), the Chinese (fig. 31), the Jains (figs. 33, 34), and, among the
North American Indians, the Navajo (pl. 17), and those of the Kansas
Reservation (pls. 15 and 16). It is not used by European peoples in modern
times, except in Lapland and Finland. The National Museum has lately
received a collection of modern household and domestic utensils from
Lapland, some of which bear the marks of the cross and one a churn, the
lid of which bears a possible Swastika mark. Through the kindness of
Professor Mason and Mr. Cushing, I have received a drawing of this (fig.
344). Theodor Schvindt, in "Suomalaisia koristeita,"[309] a book of
standard national Finnish patterns for the embroideries of the country,
gives the Swastika among others; but it is classed among "oblique designs"
and no mention is made of it as a Swastika or of any character
corresponding to it. Its lines are always at angles of 45 degrees, and are
continually referred to as "oblique designs."
The Swastika ornaments Danish baptismal fonts, and according to Mr. J.
A. Hjaltalin it "was used [in Iceland] a few years since as a magic
sign, but with an obscured or corrupted meaning." It arrived in that
island in the ninth century A. D.[310]
[Illustration: Fig. 344. MODERN CHURN LID WITH DESIGN RESEMBLING SWASTIKA.
Lapland. U. S. National Museum.]
The Swastika mark appears both in its normal and ogee form in the Persian
carpets and rugs.[311] While writing this memoir, I have found in the
Persian rug in my own bedchamber sixteen figures of the Swastika. In the
large rug in the chief clerk's office of the National Museum there are no
less than twenty-seven figures of the Swastika. On a piece of imitation
Persian carpet, with a heavy pile, made probably in London, I found also
figures of the Swastika. All the foregoing figures have been of the normal
Swastika, the arms crossing each other and the ends turning at right
angles, the lines being of equal thickness throughout. Some of them were
bent to the right and some to the left. At the entrance of the Grand Opera
House in Washington I saw a large India rug containing a number of ogee
Swastikas; while the arms crossed each other at right angles, they curved,
some to the right and some to the left, but all the lines increased in
size, swelling in the middle of the curve, but finishing in a point. The
modern Japanese wisteria workbaskets for ladies have one or more Swastikas
woven in their sides or covers.
Thus, it appears that the use of the Swastika in modern times is confined
principally to Oriental and Scandinavian countries, countries which hold
close relations to antiquity; that, in western Europe, where in ancient
times the Swastika was most frequent, it has, during the last one or two
thousand years, become extinct. And this in the countries which have led
the world in culture.
If the Swastika was a symbol of a religion in India and migrated as such
in times of antiquity to America, it was necessarily by human aid. The
individuals who carried and taught it should have carried with it the
religious idea it represented. To do this required a certain use of
language, at least the name of the symbol. If the sign bore among the
aborigines in America the name it bore in India, Swastika, the evidence of
contact and communication would be greatly strengthened. If the religion
it represented in India should be found in America, the chain of evidence
might be considered complete. But in order to make it so it will be
necessary to show the existence of these names and this religion in the
same locality or among the same people or their descendants as is found
the sign. To find traces of the Buddhist religion associated with the sign
of the Swastika among the Eskimo in Alaska might be no evidence of its
prehistoric migration, for this might have occurred in modern times, as we
know has happened with the Russian religion and the Christian cross. While
to find the Buddhist religion and the Swastika symbol together in America,
at a locality beyond the possibility of modern European or Asiatic
contact, would be evidence of prehistoric migration yet it would seem to
fix it at a period when, and from a country where, the two had been used
together. If the Swastika and Buddhism migrated to America together it
must have been since the establishment of the Buddhist religion, which is
approximately fixed in the sixth century B. C. But there has not been as
yet in America, certainly not in the localities where the Swastika has
been found, any trace discovered of the Buddhist religion, nor of its
concomitants of language, art, or custom. Adopting the theory of migration
of the Swastika, we may therefore conclude that if the Swastika came from
India or Eastern Asia, it came earlier than the sixth century B. C.
If a given religion with a given symbol, both belonging to the Old World,
should both be found associated in the New World, it would be strong
evidence in favor of Old World migration--certainly of contact and
communication. Is it not equally strong evidence of contact to find the
same sign used in both countries as a charm, with the same significance in
both countries?
The argument has been made, and it has proved satisfactory, at least to
the author, that throughout Asia and Europe, with the exception of the
Buddhists and early Christians, the Swastika was used habitually as a sign
or mark or charm, implying good luck, good fortune, long life, much
pleasure, great success, or something similar. The makers and users of the
Swastika in South and Central America, and among the mound builders of the
savages of North America, having all passed away before the advent of
history, it is not now, and never has been, possible for us to obtain from
them a description of the meaning, use, or purpose for which the Swastika
was employed by them. But, by the same line of reasoning that the
proposition has been treated in the prehistoric countries of Europe and
Asia, and which brought us to the conclusion that the Swastika was there
used as a charm or token of good luck, or good fortune, or against the
evil eye, we may surmise that the Swastika sign was used in America for
much the same purpose. It was placed upon the same style of object in
America as in Europe and Asia. It is not found on any of the ancient gods
of America, nor on any of the statues, monuments, or altars, nor upon any
sacred place or object, but rather upon such objects as indicate the
common and everyday use, and on which the Swastika, as a charm for good
luck, would be most appropriate, while for a sacred character it would be
singularly inappropriate.
The theory of independent invention has been invoked to account for the
appearance of the Swastika in widely separated countries, but the author
is more inclined to rely upon migration and imitation as the explanation.
When signs or symbols, myths or fables, habits or customs, utensils,
implements or weapons, industries, tools or machinery, have been found in
countries widely separated from each other, both in countries bearing
characteristics so much alike as to make them practically the same objects
or industries, and which are made in the same way, they present a question
to which there are only two possible solutions: Either they are
independent discoveries or inventions which, though analogous, have been
separately conceived, or else they have been invented or discovered in one
of the countries, and passed to the other by migration of the object or
communication of the knowledge necessary to form it, or by contact between
the two peoples. Of these inventions or discoveries said to have been made
in duplicate, each of which is alleged to have sprung up in its own
country as a characteristic of humanity and by virtue of a law of physics
or psychology, it is but fair to say that in the opinion of the author the
presumption is all against this. Duplicate inventions have been made and
will be made again, but they are uncommon. They are not the rule, but
rather the exception. The human intellect is formed on such unknown bases,
is so uncertain in its methods, is swayed by such slight considerations,
and arrives at so many different conclusions, that, with the manifold
diversities of human needs and desires, the chances of duplicate invention
by different persons in distant countries, without contact or
communication between them, are almost as one to infinity.
The old adage or proverb says, "Many men of many minds," and it only
emphasizes the differences between men in regard to the various phenomena
mentioned. There are some things sure to happen, yet it is entirely
uncertain as to the way they will happen. Nothing is more uncertain than
the sex of a child yet to be born, yet every person has one chance out of
two to foretell the result correctly. But of certain other premises, the
chances of producing the same result are as one to infinity. Not only does
the human intellect not produce the same conclusion from the same premises
in different persons, but it does not in the same person at different
times. It is unnecessary to multiply words over this, but illustrations
can be given that are satisfactory. A battle, a street fight, any event
happening in the presence of many witnesses, will never be seen in the
same way by all of them; it will be reported differently by each one; each
witness will have a different story. The jurors in our country are chosen
because of the absence of prejudice or bias. Their intellect or reason are
intended to be subjected to precisely the same evidence and argument, and
yet how many jurors disagree as to their verdict? We have but to consider
the dissensions and differences developed in the jury room which are
settled, sometimes by argument, by change of conviction, or by compromise.
What would be the resources of obtaining justice if we were to insist upon
unanimity of decision of the jury upon their first ballot or the first
expression of their opinion and without opportunity of change? Yet these
jurors have been charged, tried, and sworn a true verdict to render
according to the law and evidence as submitted to them. There is no doubt
but that they are endeavoring to fulfill their duty in this regard, and
while the same evidence as to fact, and charge as to law, are presented to
all of them at the same time, what different impressions are made and what
different conclusions are produced in the minds of the different jurors.
Illustrations of this exist in the decisions of our Supreme Court,
wherein, after full argument and fair investigation, with ample
opportunity for comparison of views, explanations, and arguments, all
based upon the same state of facts, the same witnesses; yet, in how many
cases do we find differences of opinion among the members of the court,
and questions of the gravest import and of the most vital character
settled for the whole nation by votes of 8 to 7 and 5 to 4? The author has
examined, and in other places shown, the fallacy of the rule that like
produces like. Like causes produce like effects is a law of nature, but
when the decision rests upon the judgment of man and depends upon his
reason and his intellect, our common knowledge testifies that this law has
no application. When the proposition to be determined has to be submitted
to individuals of widely separated and distinct countries between whom
there has been neither communication nor contact, and who have received no
suggestion as to their respective ideas or needs, or the means of
satisfying them, it seems to the author that no rule can be predicated
upon the similarity of human condition, of human reason, or of human
intellect, certainly none which can be depended on to produce the same
conclusion.
Consideration of the facility with which symbols, signs, myths, fables,
stories, history, etc., are transmitted from one people to another and
from one country to another, should not be omitted in this discussion. It
may have slight relation to the Swastika to mention the migrations of the
present time, but it will give an idea of the possibility of past times.
In this regard we have but to consider the immense number of articles or
objects in museums and collections, public and private, representing
almost every country and people. We there find objects from all quarters
of the globe, from the five continents, and all the islands of the sea.
Some of them are of great antiquity, and it is a matter of wonderment how
they should have made such long passages and have been preserved from
destruction by the vicissitudes of time and space. We have but to consider
how money passes from hand to hand and is always preserved to be passed on
to the next. Every collection of importance throughout the world possesses
a greater or less number of Greek and Roman coins antedating the Christian
era. We have an excellent illustration of those possibilities in the word
"halloo," commonly rendered as "hello." A few years ago this word, was
peculiar to the English language, yet an incident lately occurred in the
city of Washington, within sight of my own residence, by which this word,
"hello," has traveled the world around, has spread itself over land and
sea, has attached itself to and become part of most every spoken language
of civilization, and without much consideration as to its meaning; but
being on the procrustean bed of imitation, there are people, foreigners,
who believe that the telephone can be only made to respond when the demand
is made "hello!"