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

The simple cross made with two sticks or marks belongs to prehistoric times. Its first appearance among men is lost in antiquity. One may theorize as to its origin, but there is no historical identification of it either in epoch or by country or people. The sign is itself so simple that it might have originated among any people, however primitive, and in any age, however remote. The meaning given to the earliest cross is equally unknown. Everything concerning its beginning is in the realm of speculation. But a differentiation grew up in early times among nations by which certain forms of the cross have been known under certain names and with specific significations. Some of these, such as the Maltese cross, are historic and can be well identified.

The Tau cross (fig. 5), so called from its resemblance to the Greek letter of that name, is of uncertain, though ancient, origin. In Scandinavian mythology it passed under the name of “Thor’s hammer,” being therein confounded with the Swastika. It was also called St. Anthony’s cross for the Egyptian hermit of that name, and was always colored blue. Clarkson says this mark was received by the Mithracists on their foreheads at the time of their initiation. C. W. King, in his work entitled “Early Christian Numismatics” (p. 214), expresses the opinion that the Tau cross was placed on the foreheads of men who cry after abominations. (Ezekiel ix, 4.) It is spoken of as a phallic emblem.

Another variety of the cross appeared about the second century, composed of a union of the St. Andrew’s cross and the letter P (fig. 6), being the first two letters of the Greek word ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ (Christus). This, with another variety containing all the foregoing letters, passed as the monogram of Christ (fig. 6).

As an instrument of execution, the cross, besides being the intersection of two beams with four projecting arms, was frequently of compound forms as , on which the convicted person was fastened by the feet and hung head downward. Another form , whereon he was fastened by one foot and one hand at each upper corner; still another form , whereon his body was suspended on the central upright with his arms outstretched upon the cross beams.

Higgins, in his “Anacalypsis,” a rare and costly work, almost an encyclopedia of knowledge,[2] says, concerning the origin of the cross, that the official name of the governor of Tibet, Lama, comes from the ancient Tibetan word for the cross. The original spelling was L-a-m-h. This is cited with approval in Davenport’s “Aphrodisiacs” (p. 13).

Of the many forms of the cross, the Swastika is the most ancient. Despite the theories and speculations of students, its origin is unknown. It began before history, and is properly classed as prehistoric. Its description is as follows: The bars of the normal Swastika (frontispiece and fig. 9) are straight, of equal thickness throughout, and cross each other at right angles, making four arms of equal size, length, and style. Their peculiarity is that all the ends are bent at right angles and in the same direction, right or left. Prof. Max Müller makes the symbol different according as the arms are bent to the right or to the left. That bent to the right he denominates the true Swastika, that bent to the left he calls Suavastika (fig. 10), but he gives no authority for the statement, and the author has been unable to find, except in Burnouf, any justification for a difference of names. Professor Goodyear gives the title of “Meander” to that form of Swastika which bends two or more times (fig. 11).

The Swastika is sometimes represented with dots or points in the corners of the intersections (fig. 12a), and occasionally the same when without bent ends (fig. 12b), to which Zmigrodzki gives the name of Croix Swasticale. Some Swastikas have three dots placed equidistant around each of the four ends (fig. 12c).

There are several varieties possibly related to the Swastika which have been found in almost every part of the globe, and though the relation may appear slight, and at first sight difficult to trace, yet it will appear more or less intimate as the examination is pursued through its ramifications. As this paper is an investigation into and report upon facts rather than conclusions to be drawn from them, it is deemed wise to give those forms bearing even possible relations to the Swastika. Certain of them have been accepted by the author as related to the Swastika, while others have been rejected; but this rejection has been confined to cases where the known facts seemed to justify another origin for the symbol. Speculation has been avoided.