Universal Heritage of Humanity: Why Using Indigenous Symbols Isn’t Cultural Theft

Symbols as Universal Language of Humanity

Motifs and symbols of indigenous cultures are not the exclusive property of individual ethnic groups – they rather represent universal heritage of all humanity. Throughout history, we encounter surprisingly similar patterns in various civilizations, even those that were not in direct contact with each other. This suggests that human cultures share a common wellspring of symbols and archetypes, emerging from general human experience. Swiss psychiatrist Carl Gustav Jung expressed this idea through the theory of collective unconscious – according to him, universal archetypal images exist innately in every human mind, which explains why similar symbols (spirals, crosses, circles, sacred animals, etc.) appear in all cultures. Jung aptly noted that "the form of the world into which [man] is born is already inborn in him as a virtual image" – in other words, humanity has a shared symbolic language encoded deep in the psyche.

Historical and archaeological research supports this view. Many seemingly "indigenous" or ethnically specific motifs occur among multiple nations on different continents. For example, the ancient symbol of the swastika (broken cross) was used for thousands of years in many societies worldwide – from India and China, through cultures of Africa and Europe, to indigenous peoples of both Americas. Even among North American Indians, a variant of the swastika existed: the Navajo used a symbol called the "whirling log," which had sacred meaning in their mythology and ceremonies. There are countless similar examples. Ethnographers have noticed that traditional Indian Navajo rugs sometimes combine the bird motif with the "tree of life" symbol – this composition strikingly resembles patterns on Turkish woven carpets. Expert Mehmet Ali Eroğlu states that birds as a sacred symbol appear abundantly in both Indian and Turkish folk tradition; both Navajo and Turkish tribes decorate their clothing, textiles and objects with stylized motifs of birds or their feathers in very similar patterns. Even such distant civilizations as the ancient Maya in Mesoamerica and ancient cultures of Asia share surprisingly similar elements. Famous archaeologists Gordon Ekholm and Robert Heine-Geldern pointed out that ornamental serpent motifs depicted on pyramids in the Mayan city of Chichén Itzá are virtually identical to those on temples on the island of Java, and lotus flowers in Mayan art strikingly resemble motifs from ancient India. These examples suggest that symbols and patterns do not belong to a single culture – either people in the past passed them across continents, or they stem from profound psychological archetypes common to all humanity.

Historical research indeed documents hundreds of such parallels between distant civilizations. Comparative studies have revealed that more than two hundred cultural elements are common to civilizations of the Old and New World. This leads scientists to the question: are all these similarities mere coincidence (result of independent development), or do they testify to ancient contacts and exchange between cultures? Today many experts admit that cultural diffusion – the spread of motifs and ideas from one community to another – played a significant role in history. In other words, cultural motifs can be understood as shared heritage of humanity: people migrated, traded and inspired each other since prehistoric times. For example, paleoanthropologist Genevieve von Petzinger found that prehistoric cave paintings across Europe repeatedly use the same set of only 26–32 geometric signs, and many of them match symbols discovered on other continents (e.g., in Indonesia and Australia). Von Petzinger concludes that this invention of symbolic notation probably reaches back to a "common point of origin in Africa" – even before the spread of humans throughout the world. People have passed aesthetic and spiritual elements across cultures since time immemorial, and thanks to this, similar motifs appeared in many places independently. Cultural universals – elements common to all known cultures – are thus not an exception, but the rule.

Cultural Appropriation vs. Natural Exchange

In today's popular debate, "cultural appropriation" is often discussed. Critics mean situations where a member of one (often dominant) culture uses elements of another (often minority or historically oppressed) culture – and claim this is a form of theft or abuse. These concerns stem from the belief that foreign symbols, clothing or motifs are exclusive property of a given community and their use by "unauthorized" persons is offensive or disrespectful. Undoubtedly, cases exist where cultural creations are abused – for example, stereotypical sports team mascots imitating Indians (caricaturing indigenous inhabitants) have long been criticized as a harmful form of appropriation that hurts the original community. Similarly, commercial use of sacred motifs (e.g., printing sacred symbols on fashion accessories) may rightfully outrage original culture bearers. Such cases represent disrespect and dishonoring.

However, one cannot universally label all adoption of foreign motifs as morally wrong. It is essential to distinguish abuse from natural cultural exchange. By abuse we mean using a foreign symbol in a way that ridicules, trivializes or commercializes it without regard to its original meaning (typically the mentioned sports mascots or fashion trends inappropriately using sacred elements). In contrast, natural cultural exchange occurs when people inspiringly borrow an element of another culture with respect and understanding – or when a similar motif arises independently in different places simply because different nations arrived at the same idea.

Philosophers Stephen Kershnar and Nathan Bray in their essay "In Defense of Cultural Appropriation" (2024) emphasize that no one owns cultural symbols, and therefore their adoption cannot by definition be considered theft. Cultural customs, artistic styles or symbols are not subject to exclusive ownership like private property – they are rather a common resource that constantly transforms as various groups adapt it. Kershnar and Bray also point out that not every borrowing of elements from another culture has a ridiculing or exploitative character – in fact, most cases include no intention to offend or harm anyone. Members of dominant culture often adopt foreign motifs simply because they admire them or find inspiration in them, not to mock. Such behavior cannot in itself be considered immoral. In other words, using a foreign motif is not wrong if it does not lead to its devaluation or harm to original bearers.

Even in mainstream media, the view that culture cannot be owned like property is heard. For example, commentator Kenan Malik noted that accusations of cultural appropriation sometimes resemble a secular form of blasphemy accusations – as if certain images or symbols were so sacred to one group that others must not use them at all. Such an approach denies the possibility that people of different origins could share mutual understanding and "radical sympathy" across ethnic boundaries. In reality, cultural life is a process of constant sharing, borrowing and mutual inspiration – no tradition arose in a vacuum and every culture in history adopted something from others. Strict claiming of symbols and prohibiting their use by "foreign" people would only lead to isolation and stagnation, while openness to exchange enriches cultures instead.

Respect and Equal Right to Symbols

The key to healthy cultural sharing is a respectful approach. Cultural motifs can be adopted in a way that honors their original meaning instead of distorting it. If someone, for example, wears clothing with a pattern inspired by Indian art because they admire its beauty and spiritual depth, they are not taking away anyone's right or value. On the contrary, they pay tribute to the original culture and help keep these motifs alive in a new context. Such use is not theft – it takes nothing away from the original bearers of the symbol. An idea or symbol cannot be consumed or destroyed by someone else adopting it. Culture is not a limited resource like mineral raw materials. On the contrary, by sharing motifs, these symbols can reach a wider circle of people and show their timeless universal validity.

Let us also remember the historical interconnectedness of cultures. Every nation at some stage adopted something from others – whether it was writing, musical instruments, technical inventions or artistic styles. No one today labels as "cultural theft" that Europeans use Arabic numerals or that people around the world build houses using the invention of the wheel (which originated in prehistoric Mesopotamia). Similarly, it is natural and legitimate to use aesthetic and spiritual motifs from various traditions – it is part of developing a unified world culture. Cultural exchange has been happening since time immemorial and thanks to it humanity has progressed forward. Isolation and strict reservation of symbols to a single ethnicity would instead lead to impoverishment of all. As philosopher James O. Young noted, insisting that styles, motifs or stories are property of a specific culture would mean constraining artistic creativity and placing arbitrary boundaries on intellectual freedom. Young in his study Cultural Appropriation and the Arts (2008) argues that general themes and stylistic elements belong to the "artistic commons" of all humanity and every creator may draw from them. He further emphasizes that cultural appropriation threatens a tradition not when others borrow from it, but only when its own members stop valuing their traditions and uncritically adopt foreign influences. In other words, primary responsibility for maintaining culture lies with its bearers, not the surrounding world.

It is understandable, however, that minority members may be sensitive to ways the majority society handles their symbols. Therefore, respect and knowledge of context should be the starting point when using foreign motifs. This means, for example, finding out what meaning a given symbol has for the original culture, and avoiding depictions that are expressly sacred or forbidden (e.g., not wearing an Indian feather headdress that is intended only for revered chiefs). In many cases, however, no strict prohibitions exist and it is only about sensitivity and taste. Sharing symbols can then function as a bridge between cultures, not as a pretext for mockery.

Common Archetypes in Mythology and Symbolism

Across world cultures we find surprisingly similar themes in myths and symbols. Many stories and signs are universal: we encounter myths about world creation, about flood, about heroic expeditions or about the cycle of birth, death and rebirth in various corners of the world. These stories have local variations, but contain similar archetypes – which again demonstrates the unity of human imagination. Some symbols have almost universal meaning:

Spiral – often represents creation, development or cyclical renewal of life. As a motif of fertility and growth, it appears from prehistoric Europe to indigenous art in America.

Cross – even before it acquired today's religious connotations, it was a symbol of protection or sun rays in various cultures. Different forms of cross (including swastika) were used from Asia through America to Europe for positive purposes, as wishes for happiness or warding off evil.

Animal motifs – for example, snake is almost everywhere associated with transformation, rebirth or healing power (due to its ability to shed skin, snake is a symbol of renewal). Birds usually symbolize freedom and spiritual ascent – their ability to fly inspired ideas of liberty in countless cultures. Turtle is perceived worldwide as a symbol of wisdom, longevity and stability – from myths about the "world turtle" carrying Earth (India, North America) to Chinese and African stories, turtles represent patient wisdom.

Besides thematic similarities, technical and practical factors also play a role. For example, basic geometric patterns (squares, triangles, meanders) occur in folk art around the world not only because the same aesthetic idea existed everywhere, but also because producing these shapes is technically easier. In weaving carpets or fabrics, it is simpler to create rectangular and geometric patterns than to complexly depict organisms – therefore even where weavers wanted to show animals or figures, the result often has a "pixelated," stylized appearance. Different nations thus independently discovered similar patterns because they used similar craft procedures. As one researcher aptly noted, weavers around the world actually solve similar "algorithms" and thus arrive at convergent design development – certain forms (e.g., eight-pointed stars, zigzag lines, grids) appear repeatedly because they work both aesthetically and technically. These similarities therefore do not always have to mean direct historical contact, but also reflect universal human creativity responding to similar needs and conditions.

Practical Consequences for the Present

Recognition of the concept of shared cultural heritage also has practical consequences. Modern international conventions, such as the UNESCO World Heritage program, stem from the idea that certain exceptional cultural and natural monuments belong to all humanity. As UNESCO states, "World Heritage represents the mutual dependence of the world's natural and cultural diversity, human mind and inspiration, and serves as a symbol of global protection of the heritage of all humanity." This approach recognizes that historical monuments, for example, are not just national property of one country, but that their value transcends boundaries – they are a legacy of us all. Similarly, we can view intangible cultural wealth such as symbols, stories or traditions: instead of locking them into "ownership" of one group, it makes sense to understand them as bridges connecting different nations.

Excessive emphasis on the concept of cultural ownership leads to undesirable cultural segregation. If every community insisted on exclusive rights to its symbols and forbade others to use them, it would mean fragmenting the shared space of creativity. Artists would lose the freedom to be inspired by various sources, dialogue between cultures would fall silent. Philosopher James O. Young points out that strict restrictions of this kind would be counterproductive for art and knowledge. Instead of building walls between cultures, it is more fruitful to build bridges – to allow people to mutually enrich themselves with elements of their traditions. Of course, provided there is respect and sensitivity, as mentioned above.

Responses to Common Objections

Objection: "What if a foreign symbol is abused or ridiculed?" – It is necessary to distinguish disrespect from respect. If a symbol is used in a way that offends the original community (e.g., caricatures of Indians as mascots), it is a problem and such depiction should be criticized. However, most cases of adopting cultural elements are not motivated by malice. Abuse occurs when a symbol is taken out of context and used superficially or contemptuously. In contrast, natural borrowing – such as a Western person wearing a shirt with an Indian pattern because they like its aesthetics and know its meaning – causes no harm. Therefore, how and why the motif is used is important. Education and dialogue are key: if we take interest in the meaning of foreign symbols and listen to voices of original communities, we can prevent misunderstanding. And if someone points out that a certain way of use is insensitive, it suffices to show willingness to learn and possibly modify or abandon inappropriate depiction.

Objection: "Symbols of one culture belong only to its members." – From historical and biological perspectives, this claim does not hold. Modern genetics and archaeology show that humanity has common origin and has been migrating and mixing for tens of thousands of years. Nations as we know them today are the result of long migrations and cultural transformations. The original triggers that led human populations to move to new territories were probably biological (e.g., need for food, pressure of population growth) and related to changing climatic conditions. In other words, our ancient ancestors spread throughout the world and brought shared symbolic foundations with them. Later these foundations developed in specific directions in different localities, but the roots remained common. Cultural identity is of course important and unique – however, this does not mean that elements of this identity cannot resonate with other people as well. Shared humanity causes sacred images of nature, heroic stories or maternal symbols to move people across cultures in similar ways. Accepting this fact does not mean loss of identity, but rather recognition of the deep connection of all human communities.

Symbols as Bridge, Not Wall

Symbols of indigenous cultures represent much more than just property of one ethnicity – they are part of a deeper, archetypal pattern of human psyche that transcends geographical and ethnic boundaries. Carl Jung summarized this idea with the words: "There exists only one unconscious, and that is the human unconscious." In practice, this means that images and motifs born in one community can also appeal to people from the other end of the world, if they are able to understand their message. Instead of perceiving these symbols as exclusive property of a closed group, we can see them as bridges that connect humanity in its shared creative and spiritual journey. Respect for original cultures does not mean prohibition of their symbols for others, but rather understanding their deeper meaning and appreciation of their beauty.

Cultural motifs of ancient and contemporary ethnicities can be understood as wealth that belongs to us all. If we approach them with respect, knowledge of context and genuine appreciation, there is no reason to fear "cultural appropriation" in the negative sense. Sharing symbols and inspirations between nations is not a crime or disrespect – on the contrary, it is a continuation of the age-old dialogue between civilizations, from which we all draw inspiration and lessons. Contemporary anthropological research confirms that cultural universals – patterns and traits common to all human societies – exist in abundance. Similar motifs appear in many cultures and there is no "exclusive owner" of these symbols. Cultural creation is by nature a shared enterprise of humanity. Instead of fear of "theft," we should therefore support open cultural dialogue – this allows people of different origins to understand each other and value their traditions. In the globally connected world of the 21st century, it applies doubly that symbols are not a wall that divides us, but a bridge that connects us.

Bibliography

1. Von Petzinger, G. (2016). The First Signs: Unlocking the Mysteries of the World’s Oldest Symbols. Scribner. 

2. Jung, C. G. (1966). “Two Essays on Analytical Psychology,” Collected Works 7. Quote para 300. 

3. “How the Swastika, an Ancient Symbol of Good Fortune, Became the Nazi Logo.” Smithsonian Magazine (24 Sep 2024). 

4. Moab Museum. “The History of the Whirling Log Motif.” (26 Oct 2023). 

5. Eroğlu, M. A. (2023). “Bird Motifs and Symbols in Turkish and Native American Cultures.” Motif Akademi Halkbilimi Dergisi 16(42): 544-565. 

6. Ekholm, G. F. (1953). “A Possible Focus of Asiatic Influence in the Late Classic Cultures of Mesoamerica.” Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology 9: 72-89. 

7. Brown, D. E. (1991). Human Universals. McGraw-Hill. 

8. “Diffusionism and Acculturation.” University of Alabama Anthropology Theory Project (n.d.). 

9. Kershnar, S. & Bray, N. (2024). “In Defense of Cultural Appropriation.” Public Affairs Quarterly 38(4): 265-292. 

10. Malik, K. (2017). “Cultural Appropriation and Secular Blasphemy.” Pandaemonium blog, 9 Jul 2017. 

11. Young, J. O. (2008). Cultural Appropriation and the Arts. Wiley-Blackwell. 

12. UNESCO. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (para 49, definition of Outstanding Universal Value). 

13. Lekka, L. (2008). “Motifs and Symmetry Characteristics of Ornamentation on Traditional Woven Textiles.” Fibres & Textiles in Eastern Europe 16(1): 61-66.