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

The double-headed eagle on the escutcheon of Austria and Russia.—Count D’Alviella tells the history of the migration of the symbol of the double-headed eagle on the escutcheon of Austria and Russia. It was originally the type of the Garuda bird of southern India, found on temple sculptures, in carved wood, on embroideries, printed and woven cloths, and on amulets. It first appears on the so-called Hittite sculptures at Eyuk, the ancient Pteria in Phrygia. In 1217 it appeared on the coins and standards of the Turkoman conquerors of Asia Minor.

In 1227-28 the Emperor Frederick II undertook the sixth crusade, landing at Acre in the latter year, and being crowned King of Jerusalem in 1229. Within thirty years from these dates the symbol appeared on the coins of certain Flemish princes, and in 1345 it replaced the single-headed eagle on the armorial bearing of the holy Roman Empire. Thus, the historic evidence of the migration of this symbol, from the far east to the nations of the west by direct contact, would seem complete.

The lion rampant of Belgium.—This lion was incorporated into the Percy or Northumberland escutcheon by the marriage of Joceline of Louvain, the second son of Godfrey, the Duke of Brabant, to Agnes, the sister and heir of all the Percys. The Counts of Flanders, Brabant, and Louvain bore as their coat of arms the lion rampant facing to the left, which is the present coat of arms of the King of Belgium. The story is thus told in Burke’s “Peerage” (1895): Agnes de Percy married Joceline of Louvain, brother of Queen Adeliza, second wife of Henry I, and son of Godfrey Barbalus, Duke of Lower Brabant and Count of Brabant, who was descended from the Emperor Charlemagne. Her ladyship, it is stated, would only consent, however, to this great alliance upon condition that Joceline should adopt either the surname or arms of Percy, the former of which, says the old family tradition, he accordingly assumed, and retained his own paternal coat in order to perpetuate his claim to the principality of his father, should the elder line of the reigning duke become extinct. The matter is thus stated in the old pedigree at Sion House: “The ancient arms of Hainault this Lord Jocelyn retained, and gave his children the surname of Percy.”

The migration of this lion rampant is interesting. It was in the twelfth century the coat of arms of the King of Albania. Phillippe d’Alsace, the eldest son of Thierry d’Alsace, was Count of Flanders, sixteenth in succession, tracing his ancestry back to 621 A. D. The original and ancient coat of arms of the Counts of Flanders consisted of a small shield in the center of a larger one, with a sunburst of six rays. Phillippe d’Alsace reigned as Count of Flanders and Brabant from 1168 to 1190 A. D. He held an important command in two crusades to the Holy Land. During a battle in one of these crusades, he killed the King of Albania in a hand-to-hand conflict, and carried off his shield with its escutcheon of the lion rampant, which Phillippe transferred to his own shield, took as his own coat of arms, and it has been since that time the coat of arms of the Counts of Flanders and Brabant, and is now that of Belgium. The lion in the escutcheon can thus be traced by direct historic evidence through Northumberland, Flanders and Louvain back to its original owner, the King of Albania, in the twelfth century. Thus is the migration of the symbol traced by communication and contact, and thus are shown the possibilities in this regard which go far toward invalidating, if they do not destroy, the presumption of separate invention in those cases wherein, because of our ignorance of the facts, we have invoked the rule of separate invention.

Greek art and architecture.—It has come to be almost a proverb in scientific investigation that we argue from the known to the unknown. We might argue from this proverb in favor of the migration of the Swastika symbol and its passage from one people to another by the illustration of the Greek fret, which is in appearance closely related to the Swastika; and, indeed, we might extend the illustration to all Greek architecture. It is a well-known fact, established by numberless historic evidences, that the Greek architecture of ancient times migrated—that is, passed by communication and contact of peoples, and by transfer of knowledge from one man to another, and from one generation to the succeeding generation, until it became known throughout all western countries. The architects of Rome, Vicenza, Paris, London, Philadelphia, Washington, Chicago, and San Francisco derive their knowledge of Grecian architecture in its details of Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian styles by direct communication, either spoken, written or graphic, from the Greek architects who practiced, if they did not invent, these styles.

The Greek fret.—This has migrated in the same manner. As to its invention or origin, we have little to do in the present argument. Whether the fret was the ancestor or the descendant of the Swastika is of no moment to our present question. It has been demonstrated in the early part of this paper that both it and the Swastika had a common existence in early if not prehistoric Greece, and that both were employed in perfected form on the same specimen of Archaic Greek pottery. Figs. 133 and 134 demonstrate that these two signs migrated together from Greece to Egypt, for the particular specimen mentioned was found at Naukratis, Egypt. From this high antiquity the Greek fret has migrated to practically every country in the world, and has been employed during all historic time by the peoples of every civilization. The fret is known historically to have passed by means of teachers, either through speaking, writing, or drawing, and never yet a suggestion that its existence or appearance in distant countries depended upon separate invention or independent discovery.

Why strain at the gnat of independent invention of the Swastika when we are compelled to swallow the camel of migration when applied to the Greek fret and architecture? The same proposition of migration applies to Greek art, whether of sculpture, engraving, or gem carving. These ancient Grecian arts are as well known in all quarters of the civilized globe at the present day as they were in their own country, and this was all done by communication between peoples either through speaking, writing, or drawing. So far from being separate inventions, the modern sculptor or engraver, with full historic knowledge of the origin or, at least, antiquity of these arts, and with an opportunity for inspection and study of the specimens, is still unable to reproduce them or to invent original works of so high an order. The imaginary and newly invented theory that culture is the result of the psychologic nature of man manifesting itself in all epochs and countries, and among all peoples, by the evolution of some new discovery made to fit a human need—that as all human needs in a given stage are the same, therefore all human culture must, per se, pass through the same phases or stages—is a theory to which I refuse adhesion.

It receives a hard blow when we take down the bars to the modern sculptor, requiring of him neither original invention nor independent discovery, but permitting him to use, study, adapt, and even servilely copy the great Greek art works, and we know that with all these opportunities and advantages he can not attain to their excellence, nor reach their stage of art culture.