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

It may have been (1) originally discovered or invented by a given people in a given country, and transmitted from one generation to the next, passing by migration from one country to another, and it may have been transmitted by communication to widely separated countries and among differently cultured peoples; or (2) it may have appeared in these latter countries by duplicate invention or by accident, and without contact or communication.

Positive evidence concerning its origin and earliest migration is not obtainable, and in its absence we are driven to secondary and circumstantial evidence. This will consist (1) of comparison of known facts directly concerning the subject; (2) of facts indirectly concerning it, and (3) reason, induced by argument, applied to these facts, presenting each truly, and giving to each its proper weight.

The possible migrations of the Swastika, and its appearance in widely separated countries and among differently cultured peoples, afford the principal interest in this subject to archæologists and anthropologists. The present or modern scientific interest in and investigation of the Swastika as a symbol or a charm alone are subsidiary to the greater question of the cause and manner of its appearance in different countries, whether it was by migration and contact or by independent invention. In arguing this question, we must keep continually in mind the rules of reason and of logic, and neither force the facts nor seek to explain them by unknown, imaginary, or impossible methods. There must be no dogmatic assertions nor fanciful theories. If we assume certain migrations of the Swastika, we must consider those things which might have (or must have) migrated with it; and we must admit the means necessary to the assumed end.

The history of the beginning and first appearance of any of the forms of the cross is also lost in antiquity, and it would be hazardous for any person to announce positively their origin, either as to locality or time. The Swastika was certainly prehistoric in its origin. It was in extensive use during the existence of the third, fourth, and fifth cities of the site of ancient Troy, of the hill of Hissarlik; so also in the Bronze Age, apparently during its entire existence, throughout western Europe from the Mediterranean Sea to the Arctic Ocean. It continued in use in Europe during the Iron Age, and also among the Etruscans, Greeks, and Trojans. The name “Swastika,” by which it is recognized to-day in all literature, is a Sanscrit word, and was in common use among the Sanscrit peoples so long ago that it had a peculiar or individual pronunciation in Pânini’s grammar prior to the fourth century B. C. Some authorities are of the opinion that it was an Aryan symbol and used by the Aryan peoples before their dispersion through Asia and Europe. This is a fair subject for inquiry and might serve as an explanation how, either as a sacred symbol or charm, an amulet, or token of good wishes or good fortune, the Swastika might have been carried to the different peoples and countries in which we now find it by the splitting up of the Aryan peoples and their migrations and establishment in the various parts of Europe.

Professor Sayce is of the opinion that the Swastika was a Hittite symbol and passed by communication to the Aryans or some of their important branches before their final dispersion took place, but he agrees that it was unknown in Assyria, Babylonia, Phenicia, or among the Egyptians.

Whether the Swastika was in use among the Chaldeans, Hittites, or the Aryans before or during their dispersion, or whether it was used by the Brahmins before the Buddhists came to India is, after all, but a matter of detail of its migrations; for it may be fairly contended that the Swastika was in use, more or less common among the people of the Bronze Age anterior to either the Chaldeans, Hittites, or the Aryans. The additional facts in this regard have been set forth in the chapter on this subject, and need not be repeated here.

Examples illustrating these questions are to be found in history as well as in everyday life. The Scarabæus of Egypt and Etruria was a symbol of eternity. The golden hoop on the lady’s finger representing a snake swallowing its tail, is also a symbol of eternity. These represent a sentiment, and are symbols of that sentiment without regard to sect or organized body.

On the other hand, the Maltese cross was the symbol of the Knights of Malta, and has become, in later years, that of the Masonic fraternity; while the three links is the symbol of the Order of Odd Fellows. The Latin cross is a symbol of the Christian religion and, to a certain extent, of a Christian denomination.

Upon the evidence submitted, we must accept the Swastika first as a symbol of that sect of Jains within the Buddhist Church originally in Tibet, which spread itself in the Asiatic country under the names of Tao-sse, Tirthankara, Ter, Musteg, and Pon or Pon-po, the last signifying purity (ante, p. 774). This sect, or these sects, adopted the Swastika as their symbol, giving it the translation su “well,” asti, “it is,” the whole word meaning “it is well,” or “so be it,” implying resignation under all circumstances, the sect holding, in accordance with the meaning given to their symbol, that contentment and peace of mind were the chief objects of human life. In so far as it concerns this sect, the Swastika was a symbol of both kinds. It represented a religious or at least a moral and philosophic idea, and also the sect which held to this idea.

Among the Buddhists proper, the Swastika seems to have been employed as a holy or sacred symbol; its occurrence as one of the signs in the footprint of Buddha, their founder, with some relation either to the mystery of his appearance as a leader, a missionary, or of the holy and sacred object of his mission, causes this to be inferred. Their use of it on the bronze statues of Buddha, and associating it with solemn inscriptions in the caves of India, leaves no doubt as to its use as a symbol more or less of this character.

Again, the use in the early Christian times of different forms of the cross, coupled with the extensive use by the Christians of the “monogram of Christ” (fig. 6), shows how naturally there may have been a conflict of opinion in the selection of a cross which should be a representative, while we know from history that there was such discussion, and that different forms of the cross were suggested. Among other forms was the Swastika, but to what extent or with what idea the author is not informed. The Swastika was used, Burnouf says, a thousand times on Christians’ tombs in the catacombs at Rome. This is evidence of its use to a certain extent in a sacred or solemn and funereal character, which would signify its use as the symbol of a religious idea.

Whether among the Bronze Age people of western Europe—among the Trojans, Greeks, or Etruscans—whether among the semicivilized peoples of South or Central America, or among the savages (mound-builders) of North America, there is apparently no instance of the Swastika having been regarded as holy or used on a sacred object—that is, holy and sacred in the light of godliness, piety, or morality. It may have been or may yet be discovered that some of these wild men used the Swastika upon objects serving at ceremonies or festivals of their religion, or which had, in their eyes, a semi-sacred character. But it does not seem that it was used as a representative of a holy idea or of any god or supernatural being who stood for such an idea. The meal used in the Zuñi ceremony may have been regarded as sacred, and it may, indeed must, have been made on a stone metate, yet neither the metate nor the stone thereby obtained any holy or sacred character. So, also, it may have been decorated with a fret, chevron, herringbone, or any of the numerous styles, none of which would receive any sacred character from such use. So it is believed to have been with the Swastika found on these objects; it was not holy or sacred because of this use.

The author declines to discuss the possible relation of the Swastika to the sun or sun god, to the rain or rain god, the lightning, to Dyaus, Zeus or Agni, to Phebus or Apollo, or other of the mythological deities. This question would be interesting if it could be determined with certainty, or if the determination would be accepted by any considerable number of persons. But this is left for some one more competent and more interested than the author.