D'Alviella's next argument[77] is that the triskelion, formed by the same process as the tetraskelion, is an "incontestable" representation of solar movement. No evidence is submitted in support of this assertion, and the investigator of the present day is required, as in prehistoric objects, to depend entirely upon the object itself. The bent arms contain no innate evidence (even though they should be held to represent rotary or gyratory motion) representing the sun or sun gods. It is respectfully suggested that in times of antiquity, as in modern times, the sun is not represented as having a rotary motion, but is rather represented by a circle with diminishing rays projecting from the center or exterior. It seems unjustifiable, almost ridiculous, to transform the three flexed human legs, first appearing on the coins of Lycia, into a sun symbol, to make it the reliable evidence of sun worship, and give it a holy or sacred character as representing a god. It is surely pushing the argument too far to say that this is an "incontestable" representation of the solar movement. The illustrations by d'Alviella on his page 71 are practically the same as figs. 224 to 226 of this paper. Count d'Alviella's further argument[78] is that symbols of the sun god being frequently associated, alternated with, and sometimes replaced by, the Swastika, proves it to have been a sun symbol. But this is doubted, and evidence to sustain the proposition is wanting. Undoubtedly the Swastika was a symbol, was intentional, had a meaning and a degree of importance, and, while it may have been intended to represent the sun and have a higher and holier character, yet these mere associations are not evidence of the fact.