Page 53 - Hrobat Virloget, Katja, et al., eds. (2015). Stone narratives: heritage, mobility, performance. University of Primorska Press, Koper.
P. 53
planting, growing and breeding stones
But what particularly intrigued the two soil scientists was the fact that local farmers
from two islands of volcanic origin would never acknowledge volcanic activity as a possi-
ble source of stones in their soil. If they conducted research on the beach of Punalua (which
is a scene of intense volcanic activity, Big Island being the youngest island in the Hawai-
ian archipelago), they would likely ask the same question. European ‘protogeology’ of the
sixteenth and most of the seventeenth century also ignored all about igneous rocks and
their metamorphoses. When rocks of magmatic origin were discovered and recognized as
the most important source of rocks on Earth, there was no need anymore to believe that
the stones grow. Trying to see beyond the local construction cherished by so many anthro-
pologists, Feller and Blanchart came to the conclusion that »the farmers’ perceptions of
earth-rock relationships and rock genesis from soil may also come from scientific discours-
es conveyed by colonizers two or three centuries ago (2010, p. 285). Interestingly, they were
encouraged to look in this direction by anthropologist Jacques Barrau who »told us (pers.
comm.) that a scientific theory very close to that of farmers was common in the 18th cen-
tury concerning mines that were ‘left for rest’ so that they will ‘build up again’« (p. 285).
Unfortunately, Feller and Blanchart do not say anything about the sociological and
ethnological profile of their interlocutors besides revealing that they were communicating
in the local Creole. Were they blacks (the great majority on these two islands), white Cre-
oles or belonged to some other small minority?6 Short of these data, it is impossible to ven-
ture into inquiry about a possible transcultural interaction between the beliefs from anti-
quated European scientific theories and beliefs from other cultural traditions.
Concluding remarks
The cases we have chosen – and our selection was inevitably rather limited due to the rela-
tively scarce evidence of beliefs in stone growth – present highly uneven accounts regarding
precision and detail, with some being only an indication of these beliefs. At this very early
stage of research, we have not dared to propose any sketch of the geographical distribution
of this kind of beliefs. While their distribution undoubtedly involves several continents,
the difficulty of finding evidence for Africa is particularly tantalizing. Europe (perhaps At-
lantic Europe) seems, on the contrary, to be very rich with this kind of beliefs. This applies
both to Great Britain with Ireland (as partly suggested also by this article) and to France:
the grand panorama of French folklore collected by Paul Sébillot witness to the presence of
this kind of beliefs in virtually every corner of France (Sébillot, 1904). European settlers in
‘New Europes’ actively disseminated these beliefs throughout North America (where espe-
cially Appalachians conserved them until this day) and other continents. In Europe, this
belief has through centuries been transmitted as part of the Classical tradition, as it had
been shared by many authorities of Classical Antiquity, Democritus, Aristotle, Theophras-
tus, and Pliny the Elder among others. It is therefore a minor paradox that the richest evi-
dence of these beliefs originates from ‘rationalist’ Europe.
In a sense, though, these beliefs are not so radically incompatible with the modern sci-
ence of geology. If our present-day imagination of stones is impoverished, if our notion of
rocks is simplistic, modern science is not to blame. To hold it responsible for »the restrict-
ed life of modern stone, doomed at best to mere decay and chemical reaction« (Wiseman,
6 As Arthur and Juanita Niehoff (1960) have reported for the nearby Trinidad, the belief in growing stones was
widespread among the local Hindu community.
51
But what particularly intrigued the two soil scientists was the fact that local farmers
from two islands of volcanic origin would never acknowledge volcanic activity as a possi-
ble source of stones in their soil. If they conducted research on the beach of Punalua (which
is a scene of intense volcanic activity, Big Island being the youngest island in the Hawai-
ian archipelago), they would likely ask the same question. European ‘protogeology’ of the
sixteenth and most of the seventeenth century also ignored all about igneous rocks and
their metamorphoses. When rocks of magmatic origin were discovered and recognized as
the most important source of rocks on Earth, there was no need anymore to believe that
the stones grow. Trying to see beyond the local construction cherished by so many anthro-
pologists, Feller and Blanchart came to the conclusion that »the farmers’ perceptions of
earth-rock relationships and rock genesis from soil may also come from scientific discours-
es conveyed by colonizers two or three centuries ago (2010, p. 285). Interestingly, they were
encouraged to look in this direction by anthropologist Jacques Barrau who »told us (pers.
comm.) that a scientific theory very close to that of farmers was common in the 18th cen-
tury concerning mines that were ‘left for rest’ so that they will ‘build up again’« (p. 285).
Unfortunately, Feller and Blanchart do not say anything about the sociological and
ethnological profile of their interlocutors besides revealing that they were communicating
in the local Creole. Were they blacks (the great majority on these two islands), white Cre-
oles or belonged to some other small minority?6 Short of these data, it is impossible to ven-
ture into inquiry about a possible transcultural interaction between the beliefs from anti-
quated European scientific theories and beliefs from other cultural traditions.
Concluding remarks
The cases we have chosen – and our selection was inevitably rather limited due to the rela-
tively scarce evidence of beliefs in stone growth – present highly uneven accounts regarding
precision and detail, with some being only an indication of these beliefs. At this very early
stage of research, we have not dared to propose any sketch of the geographical distribution
of this kind of beliefs. While their distribution undoubtedly involves several continents,
the difficulty of finding evidence for Africa is particularly tantalizing. Europe (perhaps At-
lantic Europe) seems, on the contrary, to be very rich with this kind of beliefs. This applies
both to Great Britain with Ireland (as partly suggested also by this article) and to France:
the grand panorama of French folklore collected by Paul Sébillot witness to the presence of
this kind of beliefs in virtually every corner of France (Sébillot, 1904). European settlers in
‘New Europes’ actively disseminated these beliefs throughout North America (where espe-
cially Appalachians conserved them until this day) and other continents. In Europe, this
belief has through centuries been transmitted as part of the Classical tradition, as it had
been shared by many authorities of Classical Antiquity, Democritus, Aristotle, Theophras-
tus, and Pliny the Elder among others. It is therefore a minor paradox that the richest evi-
dence of these beliefs originates from ‘rationalist’ Europe.
In a sense, though, these beliefs are not so radically incompatible with the modern sci-
ence of geology. If our present-day imagination of stones is impoverished, if our notion of
rocks is simplistic, modern science is not to blame. To hold it responsible for »the restrict-
ed life of modern stone, doomed at best to mere decay and chemical reaction« (Wiseman,
6 As Arthur and Juanita Niehoff (1960) have reported for the nearby Trinidad, the belief in growing stones was
widespread among the local Hindu community.
51
