In opposition to both these views, I propose to show that the primary significance of all these widely extended symbols is quite clear, and that they can be shown to have arisen from certain fixed relations of man to his environment, the same everywhere, and hence suggesting the same graphic representations among tribes most divergent in location and race, and, therefore, that such symbols are of little value in tracing ethnic affinities or the currents of civilization.

I am sorry to be compelled to differ with Dr. Brinton in these views. I may not attempt much argument upon this branch of the subject, but whatever argument is presented will be in opposition to this view, as not being borne out by the evidence. Of course, the largest portion of the discussion of this subject must consist of theory and argument, but such facts as are known, when subjected to an analysis of reason, seem to produce a result contrary to that announced by Dr. Brinton.

It is conceded that the duplication of the cross by different or distant peoples is no evidence of migrations of or contact between these peoples, however close their relations might have been. The sign of the cross itself was so simple, consisting of only two marks or pieces intersecting each other at a right or other angle, that we may easily suppose it to have been the result of independent invention. The same conclusion has been argued with regard to the Swastika. But this is a non sequitur.

First, I dispute the proposition of fact that the Swastika is, like the cross, a simple design—one which would come to the mind of any person and would be easy to make. For evidence of this, I cite the fact that it is not in common use, that it is almost unknown among Christian peoples, that it is not included in any of the designs for, nor mentioned in any of the modern European or American works on, decoration, nor is it known to or practiced by artists or decorators of either country.[308] For the truth of this, I appeal to the experience of artists and decorators, and would put the question whether, of their own knowledge, by their own inventions, they have ever discovered or made Swastikas, or whether their brother artists have done so, and if they answer in the affirmative, I would ask whether those cases were not rare. It may be granted that when the Swastika has been seen by an artist or decorator it is easily understood and not difficult to execute, but, nevertheless, I insist that its invention and use among artists and decorators during the centuries since the Rennaissance is rare.

It is argued by Zmigrodzki that the Swastika on so many specimens, especially the Trojan spindle-whorls, having been made regularly, sometimes turning one way, sometimes another, sometimes square, other times curved, goes to show the rapidity with which the sign was made, that it did not require an artist, that its use was so common that it had become a habit and was executed in a rapid and sketchy manner, as evidenced by the appearance of the marks themselves upon the whorls. He likens this to the easy and unconsidered way which men have of signing their names, which they are able to do without attention. He likens it also to the sign of the cross made by Roman Catholics so rapidly as to be unnoticed by those who are unaware of its significance. With this line of argument, Zmigrodzki reasons that the Swastika was in its time confined to common use and thus he accounts for the number of ill-formed specimens. This only accounts for the comparatively few ill-formed specimens, but not for the great number, the mass of those well formed and well drawn. Instead of the Swastika being a sign easily made, the experience of the writer is the contrary. A simple cross like the Latin, Greek, St. Andrew’s, and other common forms may be very easy to make, but a really good specimen of the Swastika is difficult to make. Any one who doubts this has only to make the experiment for himself, and make correctly such a specimen as [fig. 9]. While it may be easy enough to make the Greek cross with two lines of equal length intersecting each other at right angles, and while this forms a large proportion of the Swastikas, it is at its conclusion that the trouble of making a perfect Swastika begins. It will be found difficult, requiring care and attention, to make the projecting arms of equal length, to see that they are all at the same angle; and if it is bent again and again, two or three turns upon each other, the difficulty increases. If a person thinks that the Swastika, either in the square or the ogee curves or the spiral volutes, is easy to make, he has but to try it with paper and pencil, and, if that is his first attempt, he will soon be convinced of his error. The artist who drew the spirals for this paper pronounces them to be the most difficult of all; the curves are parabolic, no two portions of any one are in the same circle, the circle continually widens, and no two circles nor any two portions of the same circle have the same center. To keep these lines true and parallel, the curve regular, the distances the same, and at the same time sweeping outward in the spiral form, the artist pronounces a most difficult work, requiring care, time, and attention ([fig. 295]). Even the square and meander Swastikas (figs. [10], [11]) require a rule and angle to make them exact. All this goes to show the intention of the artist to have been more or less deliberate; and that the object he made was for a special purpose, with a particular idea, either as a symbol, charm, or ornament, and not a meaningless figure to fill a vacant space.

Yet it is practically this difficult form of the cross which appears to have spread itself through the widest culture areas, extending almost to the uttermost parts of the earth. All this is foundation for the suggestion that the Swastika was not the result of duplicate invention or independent discovery, that it is not an illustration of parallelism in human thought, but that it was transmitted from person to person, or passed from one country to another, either by the migration of its people, by their contact or communication, or by the migration and transmission of the symbol and the sign itself. Pushing the argument of the difficulty of its making, to account for the rarity of the design, it is alleged that in modern times the Swastika is practically unknown among Christian peoples. It passed out of use among them nigh a thousand years ago and has been supplanted by every other imaginable geometric form. The fret, chevron, herringbone, crosses, and circles of every kind, spirals, volutes, ogees, moldings, etc., have all remained in use since neolithic times, but no Swastika. The latest use mentioned in the literature upon this subject appears to have been in the arch-Episcopal chair in the cathedral at Milan, which bears the three ancient Christian crosses, the Latin cross, the monogram of Christ, and the Swastika, of which the first and last are carved in alternates around the pedestal of the chair. Yet the knowledge of the Swastika has been perpetuated in some countries and its use has not died out all over the world; therefore, examples of its use in modern times should be noted in order to prevent misapprehension and contradiction. The double Greek fret made with two continuous lines ([fig. 139]) forms a pseudo Swastika at each intersection, although we have seen that this is not a real but only an apparent Swastika ([p. 783]). This is used in modern times by carpet and linen weavers as borders for carpets and tablecloths, and by tile makers in similar decoration. The Swastika mark has continued in use among the Orientals; the Theosophists have adopted it as a seal or insignia; the Japanese ([fig. 30]), the Koreans ([p. 799]), the Chinese ([fig. 31]), the Jains (figs. [33], [34]), and, among the North American Indians, the Navajo ([pl. 17]), and those of the Kansas Reservation (pls. [15] and [16]). It is not used by European peoples in modern times, except in Lapland and Finland. The National Museum has lately received a collection of modern household and domestic utensils from Lapland, some of which bear the marks of the cross and one a churn, the lid of which bears a possible Swastika mark. Through the kindness of Professor Mason and Mr. Cushing, I have received a drawing of this ([fig. 344]). Theodor Schvindt, in “Suomalaisia koristeita,”[309] a book of standard national Finnish patterns for the embroideries of the country, gives the Swastika among others; but it is classed among “oblique designs” and no mention is made of it as a Swastika or of any character corresponding to it. Its lines are always at angles of 45 degrees, and are continually referred to as “oblique designs.”

The Swastika ornaments Danish baptismal fonts, and according to Mr. J. A. Hjaltalin it “was used [in Iceland] a few years since as a magic sign, but with an obscured or corrupted meaning.” It arrived in that island in the ninth century A. D.[310]

Fig. 344.
MODERN CHURN LID WITH DESIGN
RESEMBLING SWASTIKA.
Lapland. U. S. National Museum.