Modern Christian archæologists have obstinately contended that the Swastika was composed of four gamma, and so have called it the Croix Gammée. But the Ramâyana placed it on the boat of the Rama long before they had any knowledge of Greek. It is found on a number of Buddhist edifices; the Sectarians of Vishnu placed it as a sign upon their foreheads. Burnouf says it is the Aryan sign par excellence. It was surely a religious emblem in use in India fifteen centuries before the Christian era, and thence it spread to every part. In Europe it appeared about the middle of the civilization of the bronze age, and we find it, pure or transformed into a cross, on a mass of objects in metal or pottery during the first age of iron. Sometimes its lines were rounded and given a graceful curve instead of straight and square at its ends and angles. [See letter by Gandhi, pp. 803, 805.] M. Cartailhac notes[103] several facts concerning the associations of the Swastika found by him in Spain and Portugal and belonging to the first (prehistoric) age of iron: (1) The Swastika was associated with the silhouettes of the duck, or bird, similar to those in Greece, noted by Goodyear; (2) the association (in his fig. 41) on a slab from the lake dwellings, of the Maltese cross and reproduction of the triskelion; (3) a tetraskelion, which he calls a Swastika "flamboyant," being the triskelion, but with four arms, the same shown on Lycian coins as being ancestors of the true triskelion (his fig. 412); (4) those objects were principally found in the ancient lake dwellings of Sambroso and Briteiros, supposedly dating from the eighth and ninth centuries B. C. With them were found many ornaments, borders representing cords, spirals, meanders, etc., which had the same appearance as those found by Schliemann at Mycenæ. Cartailhac says:[104] Without doubt Asiatic influences are evident in both cases; first appearing in the Troad, then in Greece, they were spread through Iberia and, possibly, who can tell, finally planted in a far-away Occident. A writer in the Edinburgh Review, in an extended discussion on "The pre-Christian cross," treats of the Swastika under the local name of "Fylfot," but in such an enigmatical and uncertain manner that it is difficult to distinguish it from other and commoner forms of the cross. Mr. Waring[105] criticises him somewhat severely for his errors: