The Swastika, the Earliest Known Symbol, and Its...

The solar significance of the Swastika is proven by the Hindu coins of the Jains. Its generative significance is proven by a leaden statuette from Troy. It is an equivalent of the lotus (pl. 47, figs. 1, 2, 3), of the solar diagram (pl. 57, fig. 12, and pl. 60, fig. 8), of the rosette (pl. 20, fig. 8), of concentric rings (pl. 47, fig. 11), of the spiral scroll (pl. 34, fig. 8, and pl. 39, fig. 2), of the geometric boss (pl. 48, fig. 12), of the triangle (pl. 46, fig. 5), and of the anthemion (pl. 28, fig. 7, and pl. 30, fig. 4). It appears with the solar deer (pl. 60, figs. 1 and 2), with the solar antelope (pl. 37, fig. 9), with the symbolic fish (pl. 42, fig. 1), with the ibex (pl. 37, fig. 4), with the solar sphinx (pl. 34, fig. 8), with the solar lion (pl. 30, fig. 4), the solar ram (pl. 28, fig. 7), and the solar horse (pl. 61, figs. 1, 4, 5, and 12). Its most emphatic and constant association is with the solar bird (pl. 60, fig. 15; fig. 173).

Count Goblet d’Alviella, following Ludwig Müller, Percy Gardner, S. Beal, Edward Thomas, Max Müller, H. Gaidoz, and other authors, accepts their theory that the Swastika was a symbolic representation of the sun or of a sun god, and argues it fully.[74] He starts with the proposition that most of the nations of the earth have represented the sun by a circle, although some of them, notably the Assyrians, Hindus, Greeks, and Celts, have represented it by signs more or less cruciform. Examining his fig. 2, wherein signs of the various people are set forth, it is to be remarked that there is no similarity or apparent relationship between the six symbols given, either with themselves or with the sun. Only one of them, that of Assyria, pretends to be a circle; and it may or may not stand for the sun. It has no exterior rays. All the rest are crosses of different kinds. Each of the six symbols is represented as being from a single nation of people. They are prehistoric or of high antiquity, and most of them appear to have no other evidence of their representation of the sun than is contained in the sign itself, so that the first objection is to the premises, to wit, that while his symbols may have sometimes represented the sun, it is far from certain that they are used constantly or steadily as such.

An objection is made to the theory or hypothesis presented by Count d’Alviella[75] that it is not the cross part of the Swastika which represents the sun, but its bent arms, which show the revolving motion, by which he says is evolved the tetraskelion or what in this paper is named the “Ogee Swastika.” The author is more in accord with Dr. Brinton and others that the Swastika is derived from the cross and not from the wheel, that the bent arms do not represent rotary or gyratory motion, and that it had no association with, or relation to, the circle. This, if true, relieves the Swastika from all relation with the circle as a symbol of the sun. Besides, it is not believed that the symbol of the sun is one which required rotary or gyratory motion or was represented by it, but, as will be explained, in speaking of the Assyrian sun-god Shamash (p. 789), it is rather by a circle with pointed rays extending outward.

D’Alviella[76] presents several figures in support of his contention. The first (a) is on a fibula from Etruria (fig. 190 of this paper). His explanation is that the small circle of rays, bent at right angles, on the broad shield of the pin, represents graphically the rotary movement of the sun, and that the bent arms in the Swastikas on the same object are taken from them. It seems curious that so momentous a subject as the existence of a symbol of a great god, the god of light, heat, and thus of life, should be made to depend upon an object of so small importance. This specimen (fig. 190) is a fibula or pin, one of the commonest objects of Etruscan, Greek, or Roman dress. The decorations invoked are on the broad end, which has been flattened to protect the point of the pin, where appears a semicircle of so-called rays, the two Swastikas and two possible crosses. There is nothing about this pin, nor indeed any of the other objects, to indicate any holy or sacred character, nor that any of them were used in any ceremony having relation to the sun, to any god, or to anything holy or sacred. His fig. b is fig. 88 in this paper. It shows a quadrant of the sphere found by Schliemann at Hissarlik. There is a slightly indefinite circle with rays from the outside, which are bent and crooked in many directions. The sphere is of terra cotta; the marks that have been made on it are rough and ill formed. They were made by incision while the clay was soft and were done in the rudest manner.

There are dozens more marks upon the same sphere, none of which seem to have received any consideration in this regard. There is a Swastika upon the sphere, and it is the only mark or sign upon the entire object that seems to have been made with care or precision. His third figure (c) is taken from a reliquaire of the thirteenth century A. D. It has a greater resemblance to the acanthus plant than it has to any solar disk imaginable. The other two figures (d and e) are tetraskelions or ogee Swastikas from ancient coins.

D’Alviella’s next argument[77] is that the triskelion, formed by the same process as the tetraskelion, is an “incontestable” representation of solar movement. No evidence is submitted in support of this assertion, and the investigator of the present day is required, as in prehistoric objects, to depend entirely upon the object itself. The bent arms contain no innate evidence (even though they should be held to represent rotary or gyratory motion) representing the sun or sun gods. It is respectfully suggested that in times of antiquity, as in modern times, the sun is not represented as having a rotary motion, but is rather represented by a circle with diminishing rays projecting from the center or exterior. It seems unjustifiable, almost ridiculous, to transform the three flexed human legs, first appearing on the coins of Lycia, into a sun symbol, to make it the reliable evidence of sun worship, and give it a holy or sacred character as representing a god. It is surely pushing the argument too far to say that this is an “incontestable” representation of the solar movement. The illustrations by d’Alviella on his page 71 are practically the same as figs. 224 to 226 of this paper.

Count d’Alviella’s further argument[78] is that symbols of the sun god being frequently associated, alternated with, and sometimes replaced by, the Swastika, proves it to have been a sun symbol. But this is doubted, and evidence to sustain the proposition is wanting. Undoubtedly the Swastika was a symbol, was intentional, had a meaning and a degree of importance, and, while it may have been intended to represent the sun and have a higher and holier character, yet these mere associations are not evidence of the fact.

D’Alviella’s plate 2, page 80, while divided into sections a and b, is filled only with illustrations of Swastika associated with circles, dots, etc., introduced for the purpose of showing the association of the Swastika therewith, and that the permutation and replacing of these signs by the Swastika is evidence that the Swastika represented the sun. Most of the same illustrations are presented in this paper, and it is respectfully submitted that the evidence does not bear out his conclusion. If it be established that these other symbols are representatives of the sun, how does that prove that the Swastika was itself a representative of the sun or the sun god? D’Alviella himself argues[79] against the proposition of equivalence of meaning because of association when applied to the Crux ansata, the circle, the crescent, the triskelion, the lightning sign, and other symbolic figures. He denies that because the Swastika is found on objects associated with these signs therefore they became interchangeable in meaning, or that the Swastika stood for any of them. The Count[79] says that more likely the engraver added the Swastika to these in the character of a talisman or phylactery. On page 56 he argues in the same line, that because it is found on an object of sacred character does not necessarily give it the signification of a sacred or holy symbol.

He regards the Swastika as a symbol of good fortune, and sees no reason why it may not be employed as an invocation to a god of any name or kind on the principle, “Good Lord, good devil,” quoting the Neapolitan proverb, that it will do no harm, and possibly may do good.

Prof. Max Müller[80] refers to the discovery by Prof. Percy Gardner of one of the coins of Mesembria, whereon the Swastika replaces the last two syllables of the word, and he regards this as decisive that in Greece the meaning of the Swastika was equivalent to the sun. This word, Mesembria, being translated ville de midi, means town or city of the south, or the sun. He cites from Mr. Thomas’s paper on the “Indian Swastika and its Western Counterparts”[81] what he considers an equally decisive discovery made some years ago, wherein it was shown that the wheel, the emblem of the sun in motion, was replaced by the Swastika on certain coins; likewise on some of the Andhra coins and some punched gold coins noted by Sir Walter Elliott.[82] In these cases the circle or wheel alleged to symbolize the sun was replaced by the Swastika. The Swastika has been sometimes inscribed within the rings or normal circles representing what is said to be the four suns on Ujain patterns or coins (fig. 230). Other authorities have adopted the same view, and have extended it to include the lightning, the storm, the fire wheel, the sun chariot, etc. (See Ohnefalsch-Richter, p. 790.) This appears to be a non sequitur. All these speculations may be correct, and all these meanings may have been given to the Swastika, but the evidence submitted does not prove the fact. There is in the case of the foregoing coins no evidence yet presented as to which sign, the wheel or the Swastika, preceded and which followed in point of time.

The Swastika may have appeared first instead of last, and may not have been a substitution for the disk, but an original design. The disk employed, while possibly representing the sun in some places, may not have done so always nor in this particular case. It assumes too much to say that every time a small circle appears on an ancient object it represented the sun, and the same observation can be made with regard to symbols of the other elements. Until it shall have been satisfactorily established that the symbols represented these elements with practical unanimity, and that the Swastika actually and intentionally replaced it as such, the theory remains undemonstrated, the burden rests on those who take the affirmative side; and until these points shall have been settled with some degree of probability the conclusion is not warranted.

As an illustration of the various significations possible, one has but to turn to Chapter IV, on the various meanings given to the cross among American Indians, where it is shown that among these Indians the cross represented the four winds, the sun, stars, dwellings, the dragon fly, midēᐟ society, flocks of birds, human form, maidenhood, evil spirit, and divers others.

As far as I have been able to trace or connect the various manifestations of this emblem [the Swastika], they one and all resolve themselves into the primitive conception of solar motion, which was intuitively associated with the rolling or wheel-like projection of the sun through the upper or visible arc of the heavens, as understood and accepted in the crude astronomy of the ancients. The earliest phase of astronomical science we are at present in position to refer to, with the still extant aid of indigenous diagrams, is the Chaldean. The representation of the sun in this system commences with a simple ring or outline circle, which is speedily advanced toward the impression of onward revolving motion by the insertion of a cross or four wheel-like spokes within the circumference of the normal ring. As the original Chaldean emblem of the sun was typified by a single ring, so the Indian mind adopted a similar definition, which remains to this day as the ostensible device or cast-mark of the modern Sauras or sun worshipers.

The author will not presume to question, much less deny, the facts stated by this learned gentleman, but it is to be remarked that, on the theory of presumption, the circle might represent many other things than the sun, and unless the evidence in favor of the foregoing statement is susceptible of verification, the theory can hardly be accepted as conclusive. Why should not the circle represent other things than the sun? In modern astronomy the full moon is represented by the plain circle, while the sun, at least in heraldry, is always represented as a circle with rays. It is believed that the “cross or four wheel-like spokes” in the Chaldean emblem of the sun will be found to be rays rather than cross or spokes. A cast is in the U. S. National Museum (Cat. No. 154766) of an original specimen from Niffer, now in the Royal Museum, Berlin, of Shamash, the Assyrian god of the sun. He is represented on this monument by a solar disk, 4 inches in diameter, with eight rays similar to those of stars, their bases on a faint circle at the center, and tapering outwards to a point, the whole surrounded by another faint circle. This is evidence that the sun symbol of Assyria required rays as well as a circle. A similar representation of the sun god is found on a tablet discovered in the temple of the Sun God at Abu-Habba.[84]

Perrot and Chipiez[85] show a tablet from Sippara, of a king, Nabu-abal-iddin, 900 B. C., doing homage to the sun god (identified by the inscription), who is represented by bas-relief of a small circle in the center, with rays and lightning zigzags extending to an outer circle.

In view of these authorities and others which might be cited, it is questionable whether the plain circle was continuously a representation of the sun in the Chaldean or Assyrian astronomy. It is also doubtful whether, if the circle did represent the sun, the insertion of the cross or the four wheel-like spokes necessarily gave the impression of “onward revolving motion;” or whether any or all of the foregoing afford a satisfactory basis for the origin of the Swastika or for its relation to, or representation of, the sun or the sun god.

Dr. Max Ohnefalsch-Richter[86] announces as his opinion that the Swastika in Cyprus had nearly always a signification more or less religious and sacred, though it may have been used as an ornament to fill empty spaces. He attributes to the Croix swasticale—or, as he calls it, Croix cantonnée—the equivalence of the solar disk, zigzag lightning, and double hatchet; while to the Swastika proper he attributes the signification of rain, storm, lightning, sun, light, seasons, and also that it lends itself easily to the solar disk, the fire wheel, and the sun chariot.

Considered finally, it may be asked if the fylfot or gammadion was an early symbol of the sun, or, if only an emblem of the solar revolutions or in movements across the heavens, why it was drawn square rather than curved: The , even if used in a solar sense, must have implied something more than, or something distinct from, the sun, whose proper and almost universal symbol was the circle. It was evidently more connected with the cross than with the circle or solar disk.

Several authors, among the rest d’Alviella, Greg, and Thomas, have announced the theory of the evolution of the Swastika, beginning with the triskelion, thence to the tetraskelion, and so to the Swastika. A slight examination is sufficient to overturn this hypothesis. In the first place, the triskelion, which is the foundation of this hypothesis, made its first appearance on the coins of Lycia. But this appearance was within what is called the first period of coinage, to wit, between 700 and 480 B. C., and it did not become settled until the second, and even the third period, 280 to 240 B. C., when it migrated to Sicily. But the Swastika had already appeared in Armenia, on the hill of Hissarlik, in the terramares of northern Italy, and on the hut-urns of southern Italy many hundred, possibly a thousand or more, years prior to that time. Count d’Alviella, in his plate 3 (see Chart I, p. 794), assigns it to a period of the fourteenth or thirteenth century B. C., with an unknown and indefinite past behind it. It is impossible that a symbol which first appeared in 480 B. C. could have been the ancestor of one which appeared in 1400 or 1300 B. C., nearly a thousand years before.