The argument in this paper on the migration of arts or symbols, and with
them of peoples in prehistoric times, is not intended to be exhaustive. At
best it is only suggestive.
There is no direct evidence available by which the migration of symbols,
arts, or peoples in prehistoric times can be proved, because the events
are beyond the pale of history. Therefore we are, everybody is, driven to
the secondary evidence of the similarity of conditions and products, and
we can only subject them to our reason and at last determine the truth
from the probabilities. In proportion as the probabilities of migration
increase, it more nearly becomes a demonstrated fact. It appears to the
author that the probabilities of the migration of the Swastika to America
from the Old World is infinitely greater than that it was an independent
invention.
The Swastika is found in America in such widely separated places, among
such different civilizations, as much separated by time as by space, that
if we have to depend on the theory of separate inventions to explain its
introduction into America we must also depend upon the same theory for its
introduction into the widely separated parts of America. The Swastika of
the ancient mound builders of Ohio and Tennessee is similar in every
respect, except material, to that of the modern Navajo and Pueblo Indian.
Yet the Swastikas of Mississippi and Tennessee belong to the oldest
civilization we know in America, while the Navajo and Pueblo Swastikas
were made by men still living. A consideration of the conditions bring out
these two curious facts: (1) That the Swastika had an existence in America
prior to any historic knowledge we have of communication between the two
hemispheres; but (2) we find it continued in America and used at the
present day, while the knowledge of it has long since died out in Europe.
The author is not unaware of the new theories concerning the parallelism
of human development by which it is contended that absolute uniformity of
man's thoughts and actions, aims and methods, is produced when he is in
the same degree of development, no matter in what country or in what epoch
he lives. This theory has been pushed until it has been said, nothing but
geographical environment seems to modify the monotonous sameness of man's
creations. The author does not accept this theory, yet he does not here
controvert it. It may be true to a certain extent, but it surely has its
limitations, and it is only applicable under special conditions. As a
general proposition, it might apply to races and peoples but not to
individuals. If it builds on the hereditary human instincts, it does not
take into account the will, energy, and reasoning powers of man. Most of
all, it leaves out the egoism of man and his selfish desire for power,
improvement, and happiness, and all their effects, through the individual,
on human progress. In the author's opinion the progress of peoples through
consecutive stages of civilization is entirely compatible with his belief
that knowledge of specific objects, the uses of material things, the
performance of certain rites, the playing of certain games, the possession
of certain myths and traditions, and the carrying on of certain
industries, passed from one country to another by migration of their
peoples, or by contact or communication between them; and that the
knowledge, by separate peoples, of the same things, within reasonable
bounds of similarity of action and purpose, and with corresponding
difficulty of performance, may well be treated as evidence of such
migration, contact, or communication. Sir John Lubbock expresses the
author's belief when he says,[315] "There can be no doubt but that man
originally crept over the earth's surface, little by little, year by year,
just, for instance, as the weeds of Europe are now gradually but surely
creeping over the surface of Australia." The word migration has been used
by the author in any sense that permitted the people, or any number
thereof, to pass from one country to another country, or from one section
of a country to another section of the same country, by any means or in
any numbers as they pleased or could.
The theory (in opposition to the foregoing) is growing in the United
States that any similarity of culture between the two hemispheres is held
to be proof of migration of peoples. It appears to the author that these
schools both run to excess in propagating their respective theories, and
that the true condition of affairs lies midway between them. That is to
say, there was certain communication between the two hemispheres, as
indicated by the similarities in culture and industry, the objects of
which could scarcely have been the result of independent invention; while
there are too many dissimilar arts, habits, customs, and modes of life
belonging to one hemisphere only, not common to both, to permit us to say
there was continuous communication between them. These dissimilarities
were inventions of each hemisphere independent of the other.
An illustration of the migration to America is the culture of Greece. We
know that Greek art and architecture enter into and form an important part
of the culture of Americans of the present day; yet the people of America
are not Greek, nor do they possess any considerable share of Greek culture
or civilization. They have none of the blood of the Greeks, nor their
physical traits, nor their manners, habits, customs, dress, religion, nor,
indeed, anything except their sculpture and architecture. Now, there was
undoubtedly communication between the two countries in so far as pertains
to art and architecture; but it is equally true that there has been no
migration of the other elements of civilization mentioned.
The same thing may be true with regard to the migrations of prehistoric
civilization. There may have been communication between the countries by
which such objects as the polished stone hatchet, the bow and arrow, the
leaf-shaped implement, chipped arrow- and spear-heads, scrapers,
spindle-whorls, the arts of pottery making, of weaving, of drilling and
sawing stone, etc., passed from one to the other, and the same of the
Swastika; yet these may all have been brought over in sporadic and
isolated cases, importing simply the germ of their knowledge, leaving the
industry to be independently worked out on this side. Certain
manifestations of culture, dissimilar to those of the Old World, are found
in America; we have the rude notched ax, the grooved ax, stemmed scraper,
perforator, mortar and pestle, pipes, tubes, the ceremonial objects which
are found here in such infinite varieties of shape and form, the metate,
the painted pottery, etc., all of which belong to the American Indian
civilization, but have no prototype in the prehistoric Old World. These
things were never brought over by migration or otherwise. They are
indigenous to America.
Objects common to both hemispheres exist in such numbers, of such infinite
detail and difficulty of manufacture, that the probabilities of their
migration or passage from one country to another is infinitely greater
than that they were the result of independent invention. These common
objects are not restricted to isolated cases. They are great in number and
extensive in area. They have been the common tools and utensils such as
might have belonged to every man, and no reason is known why they might
not have been used by, and so represent, the millions of prehistoric
individuals in either hemisphere. This great number of correspondences
between the two hemispheres, and their similarity as to means and results
is good evidence of migration, contact, or communication between the
peoples; while the extent to which the common industries were carried in
the two continents, their delicacy and difficulty of operation, completes
the proof and forces conviction.
It is not to be understood in the few foregoing illustrations that the
number is thereby exhausted, or that all have been noted which are within
the knowledge of the author. These have been cited as illustrative of the
proposition and indicating possibilities of the argument. If a completed
argument in favor of prehistoric communication should be prepared, it
would present many other illustrations. These could be found, not only
among the objects of industry, utensils, etc., but in the modes of
manufacture and of use which, owing to their number and the extent of
territory which they cover, and the difficulty of accomplishment, would
add force to the argument.