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

The U. S. National Museum possesses a small shell ornament (fig. 305) in the form of a cross, from Lenoir’s burial place, Fort Defiance, Caldwell County, N. C., collected by Dr. Spainhour and Mr. Rogan, the latter being an employé of the Bureau of Ethnology. It is in the form of a Greek cross, the four arms crossing at right angles and being of equal length. The arms are of the plain shell, while they are brought to view by the field being cross-hatched. The specimen has, unfortunately, been broken, and being fragile has been secured in a bed of plaster.

This and the foregoing specimens have been introduced into this paper that the facts of their existence may be presented for consideration, and to aid in the determination whether the cross had any peculiar or particular meaning. The questions involuntarily arise, Was it a symbol with a hidden meaning, religious or otherwise; was it the totem of a clan, the insignia of a ruler, the charm of a priesthood, or did it, with all the associated shell engravings, belong to the category of trinkets? Those questions may be partially answered in the section on the meanings given to the cross by the North American Indians (p. 933).

There is also introduced, as bearing on the question, another shell ornament (fig. 306), the style, design, and workmanship of which has such resemblance to the foregoing that if they had not been (as they were) found together we would be compelled to admit their identity of origin, yet the latter specimen has but three arms instead of four. This might take it out of the category of crosses as a symbol of any religion of which we have knowledge. Many of the art objects in shell heretofore cited were more or less closely associated; they came from the same neighborhood and were the results of the same excavations, conducted by the same excavators. In determining the culture status of their makers, they must be taken together.

When we consider the variety of the designs which were apparently without meaning except for ornamentation, like the circles, meanders, zigzags, chevrons, herringbones, ogees, frets, etc., and the representations of animals such as were used to decorate the pipes of the aborigines, not alone the bear, wolf, eagle, and others which might be a totem and represent a given clan, but others which, according to our knowledge and imagination, have never served for such a purpose, as the manatee, beaver, wildcat, heron, finch, sparrow, crow, raven, cormorant, duck, toucan, goose, turkey, buzzard, cardinal, parroquet, conies, lizard; when we further consider that the cross, whether Greek, Latin, or Swastika form, is utterly unlike any known or possible totem of clan, insignia of ruler, or potent charm of priesthood; when we consider these things, why should we feel ourselves compelled to accept those signs as symbols of a hidden meaning, simply because religious sects in different parts of the world and at different epochs of history have chosen them or some of them to represent their peculiar religious ideas? This question covers much space in geography and in time, as well as on paper. It is not answered here, because no answer can be given which would be accepted as satisfactory, but it may serve as a track or indication along which students and thinkers might pursue their investigations.

The U. S. National Museum possesses a necklace consisting of three shell ornaments, interspersed at regular intervals with about fifty small porcelain beads (fig. 307).[284] It was obtained by Capt. George M. Whipple from the Indians of New Mexico. These shell ornaments are similar to objects described by Beverly in his work on the “History of Virginia,” page 145, as “runtees” and “made of the conch shell; only the shape is flat as a cheese and drilled edgewise.” It is to be remarked that on its face as well as on figs. 308 and 309[284] appears a cross of the Greek form indicated by these peculiar indentations or drillings inclosed in a small circle. The specimen shown in fig. 308 is from an ancient grave in Upper Sandusky, Ohio, and that shown in fig. 309 from an Indian cemetery at Onondaga, N. Y. Similar specimens have been found in the same localities.

Fig. 310 shows a small globular cup of dark ware from the vicinity of Charleston, Mo.; height, 2½ inches; width, 3½ inches. It has four large nodes or projections, and between them, painted red, are four ornamental circles, the outside one of which is scalloped or rayed, while the inside one bears the figure of a Greek cross. The specimen shown in fig. 311 (Cat. No. 47197, U. S. N. M.) is a medium-sized decorated olla with scalloped margin, from New Mexico, collected by Colonel Stevenson. It has two crosses—one Greek, the other Maltese—both inclosed in circles and forming centers of an elaborate, fanciful, shield-like decoration. In fig. 312 (Cat. No. 39518, U. S. N. M.) is shown a Cochiti painted water vessel, same collection, showing a Maltese cross.

Dozens of other specimens are in the collections of the U. S. National Museum which would serve to illustrate the extended and extensive use of the cross in great variety of forms, so that no argument as to either the meaning or the extent of the cross can be based on the supposition that these are the only specimens. Fig. 313 (Cat. No. 132975, U. S. N. M.) shows a vase from Mexico, about 8 inches high, of fine red ware, highly polished, with an elaborate decoration. Its interest here is the Maltese cross represented on each side, with a point and concentric circles, from the outside of which are projecting rays. This may be the symbol of the sun, and if so, is shown in connection with the cross. This style of cross, with or without the sun symbol, is found in great numbers in Mexico—as, for example, the great cross, pl. 20, from the temple at Palenque.[285]

It would be an excellent thing to dissect and analyze the Swastika material we have found; to generalize and deduce from it a possible theory as to the origin, spread, and meaning of the Swastika and its related forms, and endeavor, by examination of its associated works, to discover if these were religious symbols or charms or mere decorations; and, following this, determine if possible whether the spread of these objects, whatever their meaning, was the result of migration, contact, or communication. Were they the result of similar, but independent, operations of the human mind, or were they but duplicate inventions, the result of parallelism in human thought? This investigation must necessarily be theoretical and speculative. The most that the author proposes is to suggest probabilities and point the way for further investigation. He may theorize and speculate, but recognizes what many persons seem not able to do—that speculation and theory are not to be substituted for cold facts. He may do no more than propound questions from which other men, by study, experience, philosophy, or psychology, may possibly evolve some general principle, or a theory pointing to a general principle, concerning the mode of extension and spread of culture among separate and independent peoples.

When the facts shall have been gathered, marshaled, arranged side by side, and each aggregation of facts shall have been weighed, pro and con, and its fair value given “without prejudice or preconceived opinion,” then will be time enough to announce the final conclusion, and even then not dogmatically, but tentatively and subject to future discoveries.

It is rare in the study of archæology and, indeed, in any science, that a person is able to assert a negative and say what does not exist. The present investigations are rendered much more comprehensive by the appearance of the extensive and valuable work of Col. Garrick Mallery in the Tenth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, on the subject of “Picture Writing of the American Indians.” It is a work of about 800 pages, with 1,300 illustrations, and is the result of many years of laborious study. It purports to be a history, more or less complete, of the picture writing, signs, symbols, totems, marks, and messages of the American Indian, whether pictographs or petroglyphs. A large portion of his work is devoted to ideography, conventional signs, syllabaries and alphabets, homorophs and symmorophs, and their respective means of interpretation. Among these he deals, not specifically with the Swastika, but in general terms with the cross. Therefore, by looking at Colonel Mallery’s work upon this chapter (p. 724), one is able to say negatively what has not been found.