Matthew R. Goodrum - Questioning Thunderstones and Arrowheads The Problem of Recognizing and Interpreting (Early Science and Medicine, 13, 5, 2008) PDF

Questioning Thunderstones and Arrowheads: The Problem of Recognizing and Interpreting
Stone Artifacts in the Seventeenth Century

Author(s): Matthew R. Goodrum
Source: Early Science and Medicine, Vol. 13, No. 5 (2008), pp. 482-508
Published by: BRILL
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20617752 .
Accessed: 08/06/2014 19:56
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Early Science and Medicine.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 31.220.200.77 on Sun, 8 Jun 2014 19:56:01 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Early
'Science and
6 S" / ' 3Medicine
BRI L L EarlyScienceandMedicine 13 (2008) 482-508 www.brill.nllesm
QuestioningThunderstones andArrowheads:
The ProblemofRecognizingand Interpreting
Stone
Artifactsin theSeventeenth
Century
Matthew R. Goodrum
VirginiaTech,Blacksburg*
Abstract
Flint arrowheads,spearheads,and axe headsmade by prehistoricEuropeans were gen
erallyconsidered before theeighteenthcentury to be a naturallyproduced stone that
formed in stormclouds and fellwith lightning.'Thesestoneswere called ceraunia,or
thunderstones,and itwas not until the sixteenthcentury that theirstatus as a natural
phenomenon was challenged.During the seventeenthcenturynatural historiansand
antiquaries began to suggest that thesecerauniawere not thunderstonesbut ancient
human artifacts.I argue thatnatural historymuseums, European contactwith the
stone-toolusing peoples in theNew World, and theclose relationshipbetween natural
history and antiquarianismwere critical to this reinterpretationof ceraunia. Once
theseobjectswere recognized to be ancient artifactstheycould be used to investigate
theearliestperiods of human historyfromsourcesother than texts.
Keywords
ceraunia, thunderstones,antiquarianism, prehistory,historyof archaeology,prehis
toricartifacts
During a violent thunderstormover theGerman townof Torgau in

May 1561 an object reportedlyfell from the sky accompanied by
a flashof lightning.'Theobject,which was later recoveredfrom the
place where it had apparently struck the ground, was a very hard
*
Department of Science and Technology in Society,Virginia Tech, Blacksburg,
VA 24061. Email: mgoodrum@vt.edu. I would like to thank the refereesfor their
comments and suggestions.
? Koninklijke BrillNV, Leiden, 2008 DOI: 10.1 163/157338208X345759

MR. Goodrum/EarlyScienceandMedicine 13 (2008) 482-508 483
black stone shaped somewhat like an axe head or a wedge. Several

people witnessed this event and JohannesKentmann, a physician
and geological collectorwho lived in Torgau, later recorded the
occurrence.Therewas littledoubt about what thisobject was, many
had been collected and described by natural philosophers over the
centuries.Theywere called ceraunia inLatin,' a termmeaning thun
derbolt,but in thevarious vernacular languagesof Europe theywere
often called thunderstones(Donnerstein in German, pierre de fou
dre in French). There were plenty of previous instancesof ceraunia
being retrievedfrom the ground where lightninghad struck. In
1565 theSwiss naturalistKonrad Gesner described thediscoveryof
the ceraunia at Torgau and noted thatceraunia had also been found
aftera thunderstorminVienna some years earlier,while a similar
stone thathad fallenduring a storm in 1492.2
For compilers of medieval and Renaissance lapidaries,meteoro
logical treatises,and works on natural philosophy ceraunia were a
reasonablywell-understood part of the naturalworld. Natural his
torianscollected them as natural curiositieswhile peasants also fre
quently kept them as amulets to protect them from lightningor
fearedthem as elf arrows.3By the late seventeenthcentury,however,
a number of prominent naturalistsand antiquarieswere ridiculing
the centuries old idea that ceraunia were a natural phenomenon
associatedwith lightningand were arguing instead that theywere
stone implementsmanufactured by peoples in ancient times.This
paper is an inquiry into the reasons and themeans bywhich nat
ural philosophers during the seventeenthcenturycame to exchange
one understanding of what ceraunia were for a quite different
one.
Historians of archaeology have long been interestedin seeking
the firstindividualswho recognized flint tools as ancient artifacts,
1} The a bolt of
Latin ceraunia derives from the Greek work K?p0tt)vos, meaning light
ning.
2) rerum
Konrad Gesner, De et gemmarum maxime & simi
fossilium, lapidum figuris
litudinibusliber (Zurich, 1565), 64r-66v.
3) The
folklore ceraunia in has been
surrounding Europe explored by Christian Blin
kenberg, The ThunderweaponinReligion and Folklore,A Study inComparativeArchae

ology (Cambridge, 1911).

484 M.R. Goodrum/EarlyScienceandMedicine 13 (2008) 482-508
and they frequently mention that prior to the eighteenthcentury

these objects were considered to be thunderstones.iGlyn Daniel
has written about some of the importantfiguresin seventeenth-cen
tury archaeology who realized that ceraunia were actually stone
implements.More recentlyAlain Schnapp has examined the prob
lem of how antiquaries during the seventeenthand eighteenthcen
turiescame to recognizeprehistoricstone tools as such.5Daniel and
Schnapp treatthisproblem only briefly within the contextofmuch
broader discussions of thehistoryof prehistoricarchaeology.Stuart
Piggott has provided a somewhatmore nuanced investigationof the
subject inAncientBritonsand theAntiquarian Imaginationwhere he
situates this specificproblem within the context of European sci
ence, philosophy,and religion.Piggott shows that in order to under
stand seventeenth-century archaeological researchone must recognize
the role that the biblical historyof mankind, the discoveryof the
New World, and the relianceon classicalGreek and Roman descrip
tions of the ancient Gauls, Britons, and Germans had on scholars
interpretingancient antiquities.6
Despite the importannceof thesecontributions, theyhave some
shortcomings.They view theproblem of the recognitionof "prehis
toric stone tools" solely from the perspective of the history of
archaeology.The story for them essentiallybegins in the late sev
enteenth century,when this interpretationalswitch occurs.While
4) Some are Marcel Baudouin and Lionel "Les

prominent examples Bonnem?re,
haches polies dans l'histoirejusqu'au XIX si?cle,"Bulletin de la Soci?t?d'Anthropologie
(1904), 496-547; Ernest-Th?odore "Mat?riaux pour servir ? l'histoire de l'ar
Hamy,
ch?ologie pr?historique,"Revue arch?ologique,fourth series,4 (1906), 239-259; and

Annette de en France: des super
Laming-Emperaire, Origines l'arch?ologie pr?historique
sitionsmedievales? la d?couvertede l'homme fossile (Paris, 1964).
5)
Glyn Daniel, The Idea ofPrehistory(Baltimore, 1964) and^4 ShortHistory ofArchae
ology (London, 1981); Alain Schnapp, La Conqu?te dupasse. Aux originesde l'arch?o
logie (Paris, 1993). Schnapp's book has been translatedintoEnglish by IanKinnes and
Gilliam Varndell as TheDiscovery ofthePast (NewYork, 1997).
6) Stuart Ancient Britons and the Antiquarian Ideas from the
Piggott, Imagination:
Renaissance to the (London, 1989). has also examined developments
Regency Piggott
in seventeenth and in Ruins in a Landscape: Essays
in
eighteenth-century archaeology
1976). Thomas Kendrick has drawn attention
Antiquarianism (Edinburgh, Downing
to some of these issues inBritishAntiquity (London, 1950).

theymention the previouslyheld opinion that these objects were

thunderstones,they do not examine the scientific tradition that
upheld thisopinion. I want to offera more complete and system
atic examinationof how the interpretation of ceraunia changed dur
ing the course of the seventeenthcentury.It is necessary to examine
this issue fromwithin thecontextof sixteenthand seventeenth-cen
turynaturalphilosophy in order to understand thegeological,mete
orological, and chemical theories thatwere invoked to explain the
existenceof thunderstones. Once one recognizes thatcerauniawere
not mysterious phenomena demanding explanation but a generally
familiarand understood natural curiosity,then the immediateques
tion thatneeds to be answered iswhat happened during the course
of the seventeenthcentury to make some investigatorsbegin to
doubt the traditionalexplanation of ceraunia and to suspect that
theyhad a quite differentorigin and meaning.
This is the basic problem to be explored here.When it is ap
proached from this perspective the seventeenth-century change in
interpretation becomes much more complex and interestingthan it
is presented inmany historiesof archaeology.The changing inter
pretation of ceraunia becomes intricatelylinked to other develop
ments thatwere taking place in natural history, specifically the
debate over another categoryof geologic specimens,namely fossils.
Justas natural historianswere considering the possibility that "fig
ured stones" that resembledplants or animalsmight in factbe the
petrifiedremainsof once livingorganisms,7some were also recon
sidering their interpretationof ceraunia for some of the same rea
sons.
The interpretationof ceraunia was also changing because new
groups of researcherswere studying them.Natural historianswere
collecting and examining them as thunderstones,but by the end of
7) nature over fossils and

The complexity and multifaceted of this debate their mean
the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries is in Martin
ing during expertly displayed
J. S. Rudwick, TheMeaning ofFossils:Episodes in theHistory ofPalaeontology,2nded.
(New York, 1976), chs.1-2; Paolo Rossi, TheDark Abyss ofTime: TheHistory ofthe
Nations fromHooke toVico, tr.Lydia G. Cochrane (Chicago,
Earth and theHistory of
1984), 1-10.
chapters

486 M. Goodrum/EarlyScienceandMedicine 13 (2008) 482-508
the seventeenthcentury antiquarieswere also beginning to collect

and study theseobjects.Antiquarianism was a discipline on the rise
during the sixteenthand seventeenthcenturies that combined the
activities of the historical document collector, archaeologist, and
genealogist.8Antiquaries brought a differentbody of knowledge and
differentprinciplesof interpretationto the study of ceraunia than
earliernaturalphilosophersdid. Historians such asDaniel, Schnapp,
and Piggott have argued that a critical element that enabled anti
quaries to recognize that ceraunia were in fact stone implements
was the discovery of stone tool using peoples in theNew World
and the addition of such artifactsto the natural historymuseums
of European collectors.9Yet these authors offervery few details
about justwhat informationwas available to European antiquaries
and natural historians about the stone implementsfrom theNew
World. We must not only examine thisquestion more thoroughly,
but we must also address the question of the criteria that natural
historians and antiquaries resorted to in order to distinguishprod
ucts of nature (such as fossils,minerals, or meteorites) from arti
factsof human production (such as flintarrowheads and polished
stone axes).Moreover, once antiquaries began to argue that cerau
nia were indeed ancient stone implements, theywere immediately
faced with yet another problem, that of explaining why some
ancient Europeans made tools from stone when metal toolswere
obviously superior and were used by many ancient peoples.
The recognition thatcerauniawere human artifactswas a pivotal
event in thehistoryof prehistoricarchaeology.It led antiquaries and
natural historians in theeighteenthcentury to reconsidertraditional
8) as a its connections to natural

On antiquarianism scholarly activity and history and
research the early modern see G.
archaeological during period Stanley Mendyk, 'Spec
ulum Britanniae: and Science in Britain to 1700
Regional Study, Antiquarianism,
(Toronto, 198 8); Rosemary Sweet, Antiquaries: The Discovery Past in
ofthe Eighteenth
CenturyBritain (NewYork, 2004); Michael Hunter, "TheRoyal Society and theOri

in
gins ofBritishArchaeology: I" Antiquity,45 (1971), 113-121 [reprinted Michael
Hunter, Science and the Shape Intellectual in Late Seventeenth
of Orthodoxy: Change
CenturyBritain (Woodbridge, 1995), 181-200].

9) A Ancient Britons and the Anti
Daniel, Short History ofArchaeology, 35; Piggott,
quarian Imagination, 73-86.

M.R Goodrum/EarlyScienceandMedicine 13 (2008) 482-508 487
notions of thehistoryof the firstEuropeans and generated entirely

new questions and methods of investigatingearly human history
through itsmaterial remains.10By examining the process bywhich
they revised their interpretationof ceraunia we learnmuch more
than just about the beginningsof one area of prehistoricarchaeol
ogy,we can learn something about the practice of science in the
seventeenthcentury and the close relationship that existed at that
time between the natural and the human sciences.
Ceraunia and EarlyModern Natural History
Natural historiansduring the sixteenthcenturyaccumulated a curi

ous and heterogeneous collection of factsabout ceraunia fromear
lier authors, popular folklore,and personal experience. Everyone
agreed theywere a distinctive type of stone found throughout
Europe, but descriptionsof thesestonesvaried.Konrad Gesner,who
was a diligent collector of obscure factsabout nature, asserted in
his De rerumfossiliumfiguris (1565) that ceraunia sometimes are
pyramidal in formbut others resemblewedges or hammers."1The
Italian natural philosopher Camillo Leonardi also mentions them
having a pyramidal shape in a book firstpublished in 1502,12 as
did the Italian lapidaryCleandro Arnobio a century later.13Georg
Bauer (Agricola), a German naturalistwho was widely recognized
as an authorityon geology, also refersto ceraunia, but described
themas being either round or oblong stones that resembledanother
10)
Matthew R. Goodrum, "The Meaning of'Ceraunia: Natural History,
Archaeology,
and the Interpretation of Prehistoric Stone Artifacts in the
Eighteenth Century," Brit
ishJournalfor the
History ofScience, 35 (2002), 255-269.
u) rerum
Gesner, De 63v.
fossilium,
12)Camillo
Leonardi, Speculum lapidum (Paris, 1610), 88.
13)
Oleandro Arnobio, II tesoro d?lie trattato intorno aile vertuti, e
gioie, maraviglioso
rare di tutte le avori, inicorni, bezaari, balsami, coceo,
propriet? pi? gioie, perle, gemme,
e malacca, e di tutte
l'altrepi?trepi? famose, epregiate da diligentissimi scrittori, antichi,
e moderni, arabi, greci, latini, editaliani, e lodate, stimate, e
sagri, mondaniplenamente
conosciute salutevoli, e medicinali: d?lie quali anche spesso
sene accenna nette divine carte,
& insime si discorre e valore dell'eccellentissimo letterario

delpregio, delgiacinto (Venice,
1602), 180-181.

488 MR. GoodrumIEarlyScienceandMedicine 13 (2008) 482-508
typeof stone called brontia, except thatbrontia had lines or ridges

on their surfacewhile ceraunia are smooth.14To make matters
worse, Gesner noted thatmany people thought that glossopetrae,
yet another typeof stone thatwas generatingconsiderable debate,
were often confusedwith ceraunia or were considered to have some
kind of relationshipwith them.15
In the textsof sixteenth-centurynaturalists,then,ceraunia appear
as a heterogeneous category of stones of varying color that are
shaped like pyramids,wedges, hammers, spheres,or are sometimes
triangularwhen glossopetrae are included. This is one of the fac
tors that complicated the interpretationof ceraunia in the seven
teenthcentury.However, there is one featurethat all theseauthors
agreed upon. Indeed, itwas the feature thatmore than any other
defined them as a natural type.According toCamillo Leonardi and
Cleandro Arnobio, ceraunia fall from the clouds and impact the
ground where lightninghas struck."6FranciscusTittelmans agreed
that thesestoneswere thrownby lightningand were thereforecalled
"cuneus fulminis."'17 Agricola and Gesner took a somewhatmore
skeptical tone, stating that itwas commonly believed thatceraunia
fallwith lightning,but leaving the reader to choose whether this
popular beliefwas to be accepted or rejected."8
The possible meteorological origin of ceraunia continued to be a
subject of discussion into the seventeenthcentury.Various alche
mists and natural philosophers applied theirknowledge of nature
to explain how these stonesmight be produced. Libert Froidmont,
thewell-known Louvain theologianand natural philosopher,argued
14) Bauer De natura 262. Gesner also notes

Georg Agricola, fossilium (Basil, 1546),
the link between ceraunia and brontia, see De rerum 62r. The known
fossilium, objects
as brontia naturalists were later considered to be fossilized sea ur
by early modern
chins.
15) rerum
Gesner, De fossilium, 67r.
16) 7/ tesoro d?lie gioie, 181
Leonardi, Speculum lapidum, 88; Oleandro Arnobio,
182.
17) Franciscus naturalis philosophiae seu de consideratione
Tittelmans, Compendium
rerum naturalium ad suum creatorem reductione, libri XII (Lyon, 1545),
earumque
67.
18) De natura De rerum 62r.
fossilium, 262; Gesner, fossilium,
Agricola,

that ceraunia were produced when terrestrialexhalations rose into

the atmospherewhere theymixed with themoisture present in
clouds. The resultingmatter was then baked by the heat of light
ning into a very hard stone that fell to the earth.19But therewere
featuresof ceraunia thatwere difficultto explain by this theory.
Konrad Gesner noted thatone kind of ceraunia called a Straalham
mer, orfulmineummalleum inLatin, was shaped exactly likea wedge
and even possessed a hole throughone end asmetal axes do. Among
the factsthatGesner assembled about thesespecimenswas that they
were composed of a material that in all respects resembled flint,
because when it was struckwith iron it produced sparks.20The
hole thatpassed throughone end of the stonewas a particularpuz
zle toGesner, who was however able to devise a clever explanation
for it, suggestingthat thehole was produced not by art,but by the
stone'sviolentmotion through the air.2'
As successivegenerationsof natural philosophersexamined cerau
nia doubts about theirmeteorological origins grew, however. In
1609 the Flemish natural philosopherAnselm Boethius de Boodt
examined the question anew. De Boodt was physician toRudolph
II of Prague, and his interestin alchemy and rare stones led to his
appointment as Rudolph's Chief Lapidary. In his widely read Gem
marum et lapidum historia (1609), which was later published in
French as Le parfaict joaillier (1644), de Boodt discussed ceraunia
and the popular belief that theywere produced in clouds and fell
with lightning.Like Gesner, de Boodt took particularnote of their
form,stressingtheir resemblancewith wedges, axes, and hammers,
although theywere of heavy hard stone, not metal. De Boodt also
noted, as Gesner had done, thatceraunia have the same properties
as flint.Addressing the intriguinghole found in some ceraunia, de
Boodt obseved that theywere wider on one end thanon the other,
19)Libert
Meteorologicorum libri sex (Antwerp,1627), 56. This work was
Froidmont,
widely known and appeared in several editions the century, one
throughout including
published inLouvain in 1646 and one inLondon in 1670.
20) rerum
Gesner, De 62v.
fossilium,
21)
Ibid., 63v.

490 MR. Goodrum/EarlyScienceandMedicine 13 (2008) 482-508
like those bored into metal hammers to receive a wooden han

dle.22
De Boodt thereforeproposed a quite novel idea. He suggested
that cerauniawere not produced in clouds by natural processes but
insteadwere iron tools thathad petrifiedover time.23 He also iden
tifiedsome problemswith the traditionalmeteorological explana
tionof theceraunia.Natural philosophers-physiciens, in theFrench
translation-had argued that ceraunia were produced by earthy
vapors mixing with moisture in clouds and then baked into hard
stones by theheat of lightning.But if thiswas themanner of their
formation,one would expect them to be spherical.Nor did this the
ory adequately explain the presence of the hole and its conical
shape.24 It did furthermorenot seem reasonable to de Boodt that
such a heavy stone could be formed in clouds and carried by the
wind overmountains during storms,as theywould have had to fall
to the ground before theywere fully formed.25The most reason
able explanation for theobserved featuresof ceraunia thereforehad
to be that theyhad originated as human artefacts,as weges and
hammers. But since such tools have always been made of iron or
some othermetal, theonlyway to account forceraunia is that these
metal toolswere turned to stone in the course of time.26
The impact of de Boodt's reinterpretation of ceraunia is evident
inUlisse Aldrovandi's discussion of ceraunia inMuseum metallicum
(1648).27 Aftermentioning that ceraunia derive their name from
the common belief that they fallwith lightning,Aldrovandi draws
the reader'sattention to their close resemblance to human tools.
22) Le o? sont
Anselm Boethius de Boodt, parfaict joaillier; ou, Histoire des pierreries:
descrites leur naissance, iusteprix, moyen de les cognoistre, &

se des con
amplement garder
tre-faites, facultez medecinales, & proprietez curieuses, tr. Jean Bachou (Lyon, 1644),
620.
23) Ibid.
24)
Ibid., 622.
25)
Ibid., 623.
26)
Ibid., 620.
27) Aldrovandi never this work and itwas more than forty
completed only published
after his death. Bartolomeo Ambrosini (1588-1657) edited Aldrovandi's notes
years
final text were
for the book, and portions ofthe composed by Ambrosini.

Like de Boodt, he takesparticularnote of thehole thatmost exem

plars possess, and of the conic shape of the hole, as ifdrilled fora
handle. He also notes that ceraunia are like flintin that theypro
duce sparkswhen struckwith iron.28For these reasons,Aldrovandi
says, there are authorswho believe ceraunia to be petrifiedmetal
implements.But he acknowledged that not everyone agreedwith
thisnew hypothesis,offeringthegenerallyheldmeteorological expla
nation as an alternative.29 But perhaps themain obstacle to the
new theorywas the fact thatmany people claimed to have observed
ceraunia fallduring stormsor to have dug up ceraunia fromspots
struckby lightning.30 Thus, Aldrovandi remainedambivalent about
the origin of ceraunia, although many of the facts he presented
about them pointed to the features they sharedwith man-made
implements.But even Boethius de Boodt had recognized that the
idea thatcerauniawere "fleschedu foudre" (thunderarrows)was so
widely held that itwould appear to be madness to deny it, in par
ticularbecause of themany crediby eyewitnessreports.3'
The interpretation of cerauniawas also complicated by the con
fusionwhat objects actually belonged to that category.Aldrovandi
cited naturalistswho described ceraunia as coming in a diversevari
etyof forms,includingpyramids,wedges, hammers,axes, and discs.
Therewerealso authors
who included
glossopetrae
and belemnites
in thiscategory.32
Glossopetrae
werehardshinystones
whose tri
angular shape resembled iron arrowheadsor spearheads,while bel
emniteswere conical shaped stones, somewhat like the end of a
lance or javelin. Boethius de Boodt thought that belemniteswere
so similar in form to the ironpoints used to head arrows and jav
elins in ancient times thatone could easily conclude that theywere
just suchweapons turned to stone.33Natural historiansduring the
28)Ulisse
Aldrovandi,Museum metallicum in librosIII distributum(Bologna, 1648),
607.
29)
Ibid., 608.
30)
Ibid., 607-608.
31)De
Boodt, Le parfaictjoaillier, 620-621.
32)
Aldrovandi,Museum metallicum, 600, 609; de Boodt, Le parfaictjoaillier, 436,
620.
33)De
Boodt, Le parfaictjoaillier, 614-618.

492 MR. Goodrum/]Early
ScienceandMedicine 13 (2008) 482-508
seventeenthand eighteenthcenturygradually came to the conclu

sion that glossopetraewere fossilizedshark teethwhile belemnites
were the fossilizedshells of a typeof marine mollusk, but the fact
that glossopetrae, belemnites, brontia, and ceraunia were regarded
as relatedphenomena during the sixteenthand parts of the seven
teenthcentury indicates the complexityof the problem of explain
ing the origin and meaning of fossilsand other "figuredstones."
Aldrovandi tried to correct some of the confusion over belem
nites by pointing out thatmany people incorrectlyreferredto stone
weapons manufactured by theRomans as belemnites,whereas true
belemniteswere naturallyoccurringconical stones.34 Yet Aldrovandi
may have added to the confusion over what was a true ceraunia
when in one plate he depicted severalglossopetrae along with per
forated stone axes under the heading of ceraunia,while elsewhere
he illustratedseveral fossil shark's teethbut mistakenly included a
flintarrowhead thathe identifiedas a glossopetrae (see Figure 1).35
This confusion reflectsthe fact thatmost authors only included
wedge or hammer shaped stones as ceraunia,while stones shaped
like arrowheadswere treatedseparatelyor as glossopetrae.
We have seen thatGesner, de Boodt, and Aldrovandi all com
mented on the similarityof certain featuresof ceraunia to metal
tools, and that de Boodt went as far as to propose that ceraunia
were not thunderstonesbut were metal tools thathad been turned
to stone. The French natural philosopher Jean-Baptistedu Hamel,
secretaryof theAcademie Royale des Sciences and professorat the
College royale,adopted this explanation and argued in 1660 that
cerauniawere metal wedges, axes,hammers,and arrowheadschanged
to stone by a "lapidifying spirit."36Natural philosopher's ideas
about cerauniawere changing,but theconviction thatpeople would
34) Museum 618. On he provides an illustration of

Aldrovandi, Metallicum, page 634
what he calls a or artificial belemnite, which he says the Romans
"lapis Sagittarius"
used as arrowheads.
35)
Ibid., 611, 604-5.
36) De meteoris et libri duo: in priore libro mixta
Jean-Baptistedu Hamel, fossilibus
in sublimi a?re vel apparent fuse pertractantur: posterior
imperfecta qu que velgignuntur
liber mixta perfecta complectitur: ubi salium bituminum, et metal
lapidum, gemmarum
lorum nature causa et usus inquiruntur (Paris, 1660), 210.

644. VIRUf~m~ikMS_ ~ k~iaiM Y LiUIY. 6os
& d
o~pe~ma~d~SNU ~ Q~P~*U~"map;P
Liz_~~~~~i
Figure 1. Plates fromUlisse Aldrovandi'sMusaeum metailicum (pp. 604-605) depict

ingvarious specimensof glossopetrae,or fossilizedshark'steeth.However, theobject
in theupper rightis in facta flintarrowheadand not a glossopetrae.Flint arrowheads
were frequentlyconfusedwith glossopetrae in the seventeenthcentury.
only make tools out of metal and not out of stone prevented them
fromdrawing the conclusion that some Europeans had once made
tools out of stone.Yet this ideawas not entirelyinconceivable since
at least one person had already reached this conclusion.
Michele Mercati and theOrigins of Ceraunia

Michele Mercati has long been touted by historiansof archaeology
as the first person to have recognized that the stone axes and arrow
were in fact
heads collected by natural historians as thunderstones
toolsmade by earlyEuropeans.3 But his contribution to the inter
37) Andr?
Vayson de Pradenne, "Les pr?curseurs de la pr?histoire," 31
L'anthropologie,

494 MR. Goodrum/Early ScienceandMedicine 13 (2008) 482-508
pretation of stone artifactsduring the Renaissance is complicated

by the fact thathis ideaswere not published untilmore than a cen
turyafterhis death, although themanuscript where he discussed
thiswas accessible during the seventeenthcentury.Mercati studied
medicine and philosophy at theUniversity of Pisa and served as
superintendentof theVatican botanical garden under severalpopes
at the end of the sixteenth century.This position gave Mercati
access to theVatican's impressivenatural historymuseum, and very
importantlyto its largegeological collection,which containedmany
specimens of ceraunia. Like many natural historymuseums estab
lished during the earlymodern period, zoological, botanical, and
geological specimenswere ranged alongside archaeological artifacts
and ethnographicobjects fromAfrica,Asia, and theAmericas.38
Mercati was devoted to the study of minerals and fossils,and
before his death in 1593 he completed a massive geological treatise
titledMetallotheca.39His book contains a lengthyand highly orig
inal discussion of ceraunia. In chapter 15Mercati examines "cerau
nia cuneata," or ceraunia having the shape of a wedge or axe.After
mentioning thatpeople have traditionallythoughtthem to fallfrom
the skywith lightning,which iswhy they are called "folgara" in
Italy,he states that they exactly conform to the shape of an axe
(securis).40In the accompanying plate thatappears in the published
text six polished stone axes are depicted under the caption "lapis
fulmineusvulgo fulgur."In thenext chapterMercati discusseswhat
he refersto as "ceraunia vulgaris,et sicilex,"which consists primar
ilyof stone arrowheads.These objects, also called sagitta,were com
(1921), 357-360; Laming-Emperaire,Originesde l'arch?ologie en

pr?historique France,
44-48;
38) On museums of the sixteenth and seventeenth see Oliver
natural history century,
Museums: The Cabinet ofCurios
Impey andArthurMacGregor (eds.), TheOrigins of
ities in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Europe (Oxford, 1985).
39)
For an extensive discussion of Mercati's geological
research and theMetallotheca
see Bruno Accordi, "Mich?leMercad (1541-1593) e laMetallotheca," Geol?gica Ro
mana, 19 (1980), 1-50.
40)Mich?le et
Mercati, Metallotheca. Opus posthumum, auctoritate, munificentia d?
mentis Undecimi Maximi e tenebris in lucem eductum, ed. Johannes Maria
Pontifias
Lancisi (Rome, 1717), 241.

mon in Italy and have a triangularshape, like the heads of arrows

(telorum)made of metal, although theseobjects appear to be com
posed of flint.41
There are two opinions regardingthe origin and nature of these
objects, according toMercati. Many people believe theyare thrown
to theground by lightning,but thosewho know history think that
in early timesbefore ironwas used tomake weapons people made
blades and arrowheadsof hard flint.42 Mercati offeredevidence in
support of this idea. He cites referencesin the Bible that sharp
stone kniveswere used by theHebrews to performcircumcision as
well as Roman textsthatdescribe theuse of stone arrowheadsbefore
the use of iron.He also cites the Roman Epicurean philosopher
Lucretius,who in theDe rerumnature imagined primordialmen
using horn and sharpened stoneweapons before theybecame civi
lized and learnedmetallurgy. In addition,Mercati also reliedupon
ethnographic informationthat therewere people in theNew World
("orbisoccidui") who still used stone implements,because theydid
not know the use of metal.43 Indeed,many accounts had been pub
lished about the inhabitantsof theNew World and theirway of
life,mentioning thatmany groups did not possessmetal tools but
insteadused implementsmade of stone.Many such specimenswere
brought back to Europe and entered natural history collections,
including theVatican's large collection.Mercati seems to have rec
ognized the resemblancebetweenEuropean ceraunia andNew World
axes and arrowheadshoused in theVatican natural historymuseum
and combined thiswith his knowledge of classical sources to draw
the conclusion that cerauniawere in fact stone tools.
Mercati took his conclusions even further,though.He noticed
the rough chipped surface of these European arrowheads,which
indicated that theywere made by strikinga piece of flintwith
another stone. He even recognized the stump at the base of these
arrows as where the arrowwould be hafted to thewooden shaft.44
41>
Ibid., 243.
42>Ibid.
43)
Ibid., 243-244.
**>
Ibid., 244.

But all of this raised a very importantquestion: why would ancient

Europeans (orNew World peoples for thatmatter) use stone imple
ments when metal ones were superior and the biblical record tells
us thatmetallurgywas inventedby Tubal-Cain not long after the
creation of mankind? To thisMercati offersan ingenious answer.
He suggests that as a resultof the devastation caused by the bibli
cal deluge and the subsequentmigration of the sons of Noah and
theirdescendants into the harsh wildernesses of theworld, some
groups lost theknowledge ofmetallurgyeitherbecause theylost the
skills requiredor because they lived in regions that lacked iron. In
these cases, some nations would have resorted to the use of stone
implementsuntil theycould rediscovertheprinciplesofmetallurgy.45
So, for instance,Mercati suggests that in Italy,where cerauniawere
frequentlyfound in thecountryside,theaboriginal inhabitantsmust
have made spear points out of flintuntil the use of ironwas rein
troduced through tradewith other nations.46
Thus Mercati realized that accepting the idea that cerauniawere
not thunderstonesbut ancient stone implements had surprising
implicationsforour interpretation of earlyhuman history.Yet these
implications could be adequately addressed within the accepted
understandingof human history provided by theOld Testament.
Mercati felt reasonably assured that he had found the true origin
of ceraunia.He had been able to show how theymight have been
made out of pieces of flintand had even found classical sources that
supported the idea that stone tools had been used in the past. Yet
some doubt remained in his mind because therewas the possibil
ity thatcerauniamight simplybe "sportsof nature" (naturaejocus),
since itwas well-known and widely accepted thatnature possessed
the capacity to produce objects thatclosely imitatedart (just as nat
ural historians investigatingfossilswere also aware thatnature could
imitateorganic forms in inorganicmaterial). 4 Indeed, one criti
cism of the idea that some ceraunia were stone arrowheads, he
notes,was the fact thatmany were so small that one might think
45) Ibid.
46)
Ibid., 245.
47) Ibid.

them useless as arrowheads.But the evidencemore heavily favored

an interpretation of ceraunia as human artifacts,andMercati mar
shaled some powerful arguments in support of this idea. Remark
ably,Mercati had reached this conclusion in the late sixteenth
century,even beforeBoethius de Boodt had published his own inno
vative interpretation.The problem was thatMercati's Metallotheca
was not published until 1717, and it appears that few if any sev
enteenth-century natural historiansor antiquarieswere aware of his
groundbreakingopinions, though some contemporariesmay have
read his work inmanuscript form.
Antiquarianism and Ancient Stone Artifacts
There were severalcritical elements thathelpedMercati to imagine

that cerauniamight be ancient stone implements that also played
a central role in the late seventeenthcenturywhen other natural
historiansand antiquaries began to reach the same conclusion inde
pendently.The formationof largenatural historycollections during
the sixteenthand seventeenthcenturiesmeant thatmany specimens
of ceraunia could be assembled and compared to one another, as
well as to other fossilsand minerals. This helped Gesner, de Boodt,
and Aldrovandi to begin the process of clarifying what the essen
tial characteristicsof ceraunia were and what distinguished these
objects fromother kinds of "figuredstones."The comparisonwith
stone tools broughtback fromtheNew World was also significantly
contributed to the reinterpretation of ceraunia, as we have seen in
Mercati's case.
Europeanexplorers
wereparticularly
struck
bywhat theyconsid
ered to be the crude and barbarous way of life of many of the
native peoples of theAmericas, and by the early seventeenthcen
tury bookshadbeenpublishedthatoffered
numerous vividdescrip
tionsof the physical attributesof theAmericans, theirculture and
way of life,and especially theirclothing,dwellings,domestic imple
ments and militaryweapons. Among theseaccountswere occasional
referencesto the use of stone tools by some New World peoples.
Jean de Lery wrote in 1578 that the natives of Brazil used sharp

stones as knives and Rene Goulaine de Laudonniere noted that the

Indians of Florida used arrows pointed with the teeth of fish or
workedstones.48
finely The Englishexplorer
JohnSmithobserved
that theSasquesahanock ofVirginia used bows and arrows in their
hunting and warfare, and that theirarrowswere made from sprigs
ofwood or reedsheaded with "splintersof a white cristall-likestone,
in formeof a heart, an inch broad, and an inch and a halfe or
more long."49In the place of metal swords theyused the horn of
a deer inserted into a piece of wood like a pickaxe and theymade
hatchets by forcinga long stone sharpened at both ends througha
wooden handle.50RogerWilliams noted that the Indians of New
England used a varietyof stone implements in the place of metal
knives, awls, hatchets, or hoes.51
These books not only described the tools and weapons used by
many New World peoples but theyalso contained remarkableillus
trations thatportrayed these people and theirpeculiar customs to
enthrallEuropean readers.52 But perhaps evenmore importantthan
the descriptions and images of stone implements from theNew
World were the largequantities of ethnographicobjects thatEuro
48) en la terre du Br?sil, autrement

Jean de L?ry, Histoire d'un voyage fait dite Am?rique
(La Rochelle, 1578), 244-245; Ren? Goulaine de Laudonni?re, L'Histoire notablede

la Floride situ?e es Lndes Occidentales, contenant les trois voyages faites en icelle
par
cer
tains & pilotes Fran?ois, descrits par le Capitaine Laudonni?re, a com

Capitaines qui y
mand? d'un an trois moys: ? a este adioust? in
l'espace laquelle quatriesme voyage fait par
leCapitaine Gourgues (Paris, 1586), 4r.
49) The Generall Historie and the Summer Isles:
John Smith, of Virginia, New-England,
with theNames and Governours from their First Beginning
ofthe Adventurers, Planters,
an: 1584 to thisPresent 1624 (London, 1624), 24-25, 31.
50)
Ibid., 31.
51)
RogerWilliams, A Key into theLanguage ofAmerica: Or, An Help to theLanguage
of Natives in thePart ofAmerica, CalledNew-England(London, 1643), 38, 148.
the
52)Fredi on theOld
Chiappelli, First Images ofAmerica: The Impact oftheNew World
(Berkeley,1976); Paul H. Hulton, "Images ofthe New World: le
Jacques Moyne de
and John White," in K. R. Andrews, N. P. Canny, and P. E. H. Hair, (eds.),
Morgues
TheWestwardEnterprise.EnglishActivities in Ireland, theAtlantic, and America 1480
1650 (Liverpool, 1978), 195-214; Paul H. Hulton, "Realism andTradition inEthno
in A. Ellenius, (ed.), The
logical
and Natural History Imagery ofthe 16th Century,"
Natural Sciences and theArts: Aspects of Interaction from the Renaissance to the Twentieth
Century (Stockholm, 1985), 18-31.

pean explorersbrought back toEurope, which found theirway into

natural historycollections. By the seventeenthcentury itwas com
mon for the best natural history collections in Europe to possess
clothing,weapons, ornaments,and other culturalobjects fromNorth
and South America.53Among theseobjects were stone arrowheads,
polished stone axes, stone knives, and a varietyof otherweapons
or toolsmade of stone, bone, or wood. The renownedmuseum of
the Italian natural historianFerrante Imperato contained such arti
facts, including a stone knife from theWest Indies that he illus
trated in the published catalog of his museum in 1599.54Often
ethnographicartifactsfrom theNew World were part of huge col
lections that also contained zoological, botanical, and geological
specimens as well as art objects.55As a result,some natural history
collections contained stone implements fromAmerica as well as
ceraunia. JohnTradescant's famous collection contained several ce
raunia, glossopetrae, and belemnites as part of itsmineral collec
tions and also bows, arrowsand darts fromCanada and Virginia.56
Ulisse Aldrovandi's largemuseum also contained a stone axe given
to him byAntonio Gigas, who said the Indians of America used
them in theirsacrifices. Aldrovandi also owned a stone knife from
America.57Despite having stone implementsfrom theNew World
in his collection it is interestingthatAldrovandi did not emphasize
53) F. Feest, in the

Christian "North America Wunderkammer," Archiv f?r
European
V?lkerkunde,46 (1992), 61-109; Feest, "European Collecting ofAmerican Indian
Artifacts and An," Journal of theHistory ofCollections, 5 (1993), 1-11; Feest, "The
of American Indian Artifacts in 1493-1750," in K. O.
Collecting Europe, Kupper
man, ed., America in Consciousness, 1493-1750 Hill, 1995), 324
European (Chapel
360.
54)Ferrante
Imperato,DelThistoria naturale libriXXVIII (Naples, 1599), 580.
55)
Paula Findlen, Possessing Nature: Museums, Collecting, and
Scientific Culture
in
Early
Modern Italy (Berkeley,1994);ArthurMacGregor, "TheCabinet ofCuriosities inSev
inOliver
enteenth-Century Britain," Impey and Arthur MacGregor, eds., The Origins
ofMuseums: The Cabinet Curiosities in Sixteenth- and

of Seventeenth-Century Europe
(Oxford, 1985), 147-158.
56) um Tradescantianum:
John Tradescant, Mus Or, A Collection Rarities Preserved
of
at South-Lambeth
Neer London (London, 1656), 22, 45.
57)
Aldrovandi, Museum metallicum, 156, 158.

the similaritybetween these objects and the ceraunia in his collec

tion.
The roleof ethnographicobjects in natural historymuseums and
theirimpacton the interpretation of ceraunia isparticularlyevident
in the case of Robert Plot. Plot was an avid collector and a skilled
natural historian.He was a professorof chemistryat Oxford Uni
versity,and in 1683 he was appointed theKeeper of theAshmolean
Museum at Oxford. This put an immensecollection at his disposal,
including a substantialnumber of geological specimens, as well as
a modest quantityof ethnographicartifactsfrom theAmericas. Plot
was deeply involved in the debate over themeaning of fossilsat the
end of the seventeenthcentury,but he also tackled theproblem of
ceraunia. In TheNatural Historyof Oxford-shire,. published in 1677,
Plot made only a brief referenceto thunderstones,which he de
scribed as having the shape of arrowheads.He noted that theywere
commonly believed to be darts thathad fallen from the skyand for
this reasonhe classifiedthemamong other typesof stones thatorig
inated in the sky.58Plot appears onlyminimally interestedin them
and resorts to the traditional interpretationof theirorigin in his
explanation.However, a decade laterhis thinkinghad changed. By
the timePlot published hisNatural Historyof Stafford-shire in 1686
his interestin natural historyhad expanded to include a broader
interestin antiquities as well.
In the section devoted to the antiquities of Staffordshire,Plot
states that he will only discuss monuments and artifacts "very
remote from the presentAge," which in this case meant objects
belonging to the earlyBritons, Romans, Saxons and Danes.59 Once
again he mentions that flintsin the shape of arrowheadshave been
found in various parts of Britain. One sent to him by theBritish
antiquaryCharles Cotton had a jagged edge and a thickstemwhere
it could be attached to a wooden shaft.Plot also owned a stone
spearhead, given to him by Thomas Gent, anotherBritish collector
of antiquities. But Plot's interpretationof these objects had now
58) The Natural an toward theNatu

Robert Plot, History of Oxford-shire, Being Essay
ralHistory ofFngland (Oxford, 1677), 93.
59)Robert
(Oxford, 1686), 392.
Plot,Natural History ofStafford-shire

MR Goodrum/EarlyScienceandMedicine 13 (2008) 482-508 501
TAflXXXUjL
v', AIVi
Figure 2. Plate XXXIII fromRobert Plot's Natural History of Stafford-shire showing

various British antiquities, including a stone arrowhead, axe, and spearhead in the
upper leftalongwith severalmetal artifactsin theupper right.
completely changed fromhis account of them in 1677. Now he

considered them to be implementsmade by the earlyBritons, and
not thunderstones.60 Plot defended this novel conclusion by citing
Roman authors, especiallyJuliusCaesar, who described theBritons
at the time of theRoman invasionof Britain. According to these
authors, the tribes that lived along the coast used iron,but most
inland tribesdid not,making weapons and tools fromflintinstead.
After scrutinizingthe flintarrowheadsand spearhead he owned Plot
also observed that their surface bore the marks of having been
manufactured.6'Additional support for this idea came
intentionally
from the resemblancethatPlot observed between axe-shaped thun
derstones found in Britain and stone axes from theNew World
60) to me a that the archaeological

Ibid., 396. It has been by colleague
suggested
researches of John Aubrey may have encouraged Plot s interest in antiquities and influ
enced his thinking about stone On researches

implements. Aubreys archaeological
and its impact seeMichael Hunter, JohnAubreyand theRealm ofLearning (London,
1975).
61)
Ibid.

housed in theAshmolean Museum.62 Not unlikeMercati, Plot thus

relied upon a direct knowledge of antiquities, Roman historical
sources,and theobserved physical similaritybetween thunderstones
and New World artifacts.
By contrast,Nehemiah Grew, an English physician and natural
philosopherwho served as Secretaryof theRoyal Society of Lon
don, offersa notable example of a researcherwho had access to
thunderstonesand American stone artifactsbut failed to recognize
any connection between them. In his catalog of the specimens held
in theRoyal Society'smuseum, Grew described an object he called
a "flatbolthead" made of flintand "pointed like a Speer"with ser
rated edges like the head of a "Bearded Dart."63 In everyway he
describes thisobject as if itwere a stone spearhead, but he is quick
to note that natural historians consider these objects to be cerau
nia or thunderbolts,because theyare believed to fall from the sky
during thunderstorms. Grew's response to this idea is that it is not
incredible.64What makes his view so interestingis that elsewhere
in the catalog Grew describes bows and arrows from theWest
Indies, also held in the collection. The arrowshad long cane shafts
tipped with either bone or stone, usually with serrated edges.65
Grew does, however, not have perceived any similarity to cerau
nia.
There are,however,also instanceswhen itwas apparentlynot nec
essary to compare European thunderstones with New World stone
tools to recognize that theywere ancient stone artifacts.In 1656
the English antiquaryWilliam Dugdale recorded the discovery in
what he assumed was a Roman fortnear the village of Oldburie,
inWarwickshire, of some curious flintstones. Theywere shaped like
the head of a pole-axe and had a smooth surface that apparently
was produced by grinding a piece of flintinto the shape of an axe.
62)
Ibid., 396-397.
63) Societatis. Or a & Description
Nehemiah Grew, Musaeum Regalis Catalogue ofthe
Natural and ArtificialRaritiesBelonging to theRoyal Societyand Preservedat Gresham
College (London, 1681), 303.
64)
Ibid., 304.
65)
Ibid., 367.

After this brief description of these objects, Dugdale suggests that

since flintwas an abundantmaterial in this locale, the ancientBrit
ons had used it tomake axe heads, completewith a hole to receive
a wooden handle. Dugdale thought theBritons might have made
weapons of flintbecause theydid not know how to smelt iron or
brass.66One might wonder how Dugdale could have reached such
a matter of factconclusion, given thatother natural historianswere
still treatingthem as thunderstones.Perhaps the answer lies in the
fact thatDugdale was not a natural historian,but an antiquarywho
probably knew theRoman historical sources rather than lapidary
treatises.This may also illuminatewhy Plot revisedhis initial inter
pretation of thunderstones, which was informedby the traditional
natural historical account of them, to his later interpretationthat
relied in part on comparisonswith New World weapons but also
upon Roman descriptionsof the ancient Britons.
Powerful support for the idea that stones of thiskind were an
cient implementsarrivedwhen an ancient sepulcherwas discovered
in July 1685 in the town of Colcherel, in France.Workmen dig
ging for"Free-Stone" to be used for repairsunearthed a tomb con
structedof unhewn stones that contained twentyskeletons.67 Near
the head of one body theworkmen found a piece of yellow flint
thathad been cut into the shape of thehead of a pike, "verysharp
and cutting at both ends and on the sides."Near thehead of a sec
ond body lay a "greenishStone" shaped like thehead of an axe and
having a very sharp edge and a hole piercing one end.68Elsewhere
in the tomb theyfoundmore perforatedaxe heads as well as stones
thatmight have been used as knives and sharpened pieces of bone
thatmight have headed arrows.69Three other small axe heads were
particularlyinterestingbecause itwas apparent that they "were by
66)
William Dugdale, TheAntiquities ofWarwickshireIllustrated;
from Records,Leiger
Books, Manuscripts, Charters, Evidences, Tombs and Arms: with Maps, Pros
Beautified
pects and Portraictures(London, 1656), 778.
67)
Henri Justel, "The Verbal Process upon the Discovery of an Antient in
Sepulchre,
the of Cocherel upon the River Eure in France," Transactions, 16
Village Philosophical
(1686), 221-222.
68)
Ibid., 223.
69)
Ibid., 223-225.

Figure 3. Illustrationof the tomb excavated at Cocherel fromHenri Justel'spaper in

thePhilosophicalTransactions(facingp. 226) showing its structureand the arrange
ment of thebodies.
theirnarrow end to be put into a piece of Staggs Horn fitted to

receive them,as appeared by severalpieces found in thisSepulcher,
which had an oval hollow at theend to receiveone of these stones."
These pieces of staghorn had a hole cut in theopposite end so they
could be fastened to a handle. Moreover, itwas apparent that the
horn had been shaped and polished by using a stone and not cut
with iron.70
Henri Justel,a FrenchHuguenot who emigrated to England just
before the revocationof theEdict of Nantes, published an account
of these discoveries in the Philosophical Transactionsof the Royal
Society of London shortlyafter theywere made. Justelhad served
as secretarytoKing Louis XIV before leavingFrance and soon after
his arrival in England became Keeper of theKing's Library at St.
James'sPalace. Justelparticipated in the scientificand philosophi
cal culture of the late seventeenthcenturyand correspondedwith
such figuresas John Locke, Robert Boyle, Edmond Halley, and
Henry Oldenburg. He also published a widely readwork on the
70)
Ibid., 224.

voyages of exploration toAfrica and theAmericas, so he was quite

aware of thecultureof the indigenouspeoples of thesecontinents.7"
Justelbrought a scientist'sand scholar's eye to the problem of the
tomb at Cocherel.
In addition to the stone artifacts,Justelscrutinized the human
skeletons.He noted that theirbones were thickerand strongerthan
the bones ofmodern human skeletons,although theywere of nor
mal stature.But the skeletons appeared to be very ancient.72Be
cause the tombwas constructedof rough stone and therewere no
inscriptionsor carvingson themJustel felt it had to be pre-Chris
tian.Additional support for thisview came from theobjects placed
in the tomb,which indicated a population still immersed in idol
atrous superstition.73Itwas also noteworthy thataround the tomb
burnt bones and asheswere found.From the evidence of thedesign
of the tomb, the presence of stone artifacts,and the featuresof the
skeletons Justelconcluded that theCocherel tomb contained the
bodies of ancient Gauls and thewarriors of some invadingbarba
rous nation who had died in battle.74That thesepeoples were bar
barous was indicatedby the fact that theirweapons were not made
of brass or ironbut insteadwere made of stone and sharpenedbone
just as "some Indian nations do now."75The only matter that
remained unresolved forJustelwas "to guess, by these Stones and
what Antiquitieswe have leftinhistory, who theseBarbarians should
be, and at what time the Sepulcher might be made."76 This sort
of questionwould in fact increasinglybecome the focusof antiquar
ieswho investigatedstone artifactsin the eighteenthcentury.
71) Henri
Justel, Recueil de divers voyages faits en Afrique et en
l'Am?rique: qui n'ont
est? encore contenant coutumes & le commerce des
point publiez: l'origine, les moeurs, les
habitans de ces deux parties du monde: avec des traites curieux touchant la Haute
Ethy
opie, led?bordementduNil, la merRouge,& lePr?te-Jean:le toutenrichidefigures,&
de cartes servent ? es choses contenue en ce volume (Paris,
g?ographiques qui l'intelligence
1674).
72)
Justel, "The Verbal Process upon the Discovery of an Antient 222
Sepulchre,"
223.
73)
Ibid., 225.
74)
Ibid., 226.
75>Ibid.
76) Ibid.

Conduding Remarks
The central problem examined in this paper is how earlymodern

natural historiansand antiquaries came to distinguishartifactsfrom
natural objects. The solution to thequestion ofwhat cerauniawere
turnedout to be extremelyimportantfor thehistoryof prehistoric
archaeology as these artifactsbecame sources of evidence about the
earliestperiods of human history.But this followed a difficultpro
cess bywhich ceraunia, understood as stones naturallyproduced in
clouds during thunderstorms,came to be understood as stone arti
factsproduced by people. Few historiansof archaeologyhave inves
tigated the specificevents that led to this importantreinterpretation
of theseobjects, but thedetails of this transformationtellus a great
deal about early archaeology and its relationship to natural his
tory.
The renewed interestin natural history in the sixteenthcentury,
accompanied by the establishmentof natural historymuseums and
the printing of encyclopedic natural history books containing il
lustrationsof specimens,provided an importantcontext for the re
examinationofmany natural objects, including fossilsand ceraunia.
When natural historians such as Gesner and Agricola assembled
collections of ceraunia, described their attributes and compared
differentspecimenswith one another and with earlierpublished de
scriptions,ceraunia as a categoryof stones came under scrutinyand
became betterdefined.A similarprocesswas happeningwith fossils
and we should view these as related events.As the heterogeneous
nature of the category became more apparent natural historians
began to emphasize the formand thematerial of ceraunia.Although
Gesner and Aldrovandi did not argue that theywere hammers
or axes, they did draw the reader's attention to their distinctive
attributes,which included their resemblance to hammers and axes.
This made it much easier for de Boodt to then speculate that
cerauniawere metal tools turned to stone.What seems to have been
the decisive step in the interpretationof these objects was the
comparison of objects known to be axes and arrowheadsmade of
stone from theNew World with ceraunia.Now themorphological
similaritiesrecognizedby Gesner and accepted by de Boodt could

MR Goodrum/EarlyScienceandMedicine 13 (2008) 482-508 507
legitimatelybe used to argue thatcerauniawere thevery same kinds

of stoneweapons and tools.
Ethnographic objects from theAmericas appear to have been
influentialin leadingMercati and Plot to thissurprisingconclusion,
but itmay have been equally importantthat therewere written his
torical sources that supported this interpretation.It was easier to
accept the idea that ceraunia were ancient stone artifactswhen
Roman sourcesmentioned that the earlyBritons used implements
of stone. It is particularlynoteworthy that forantiquaries such as
Dugdale and Justelthe idea that some ancient Europeans had used
stone implementswas not veryproblematic,whereas fornatural his
torians the traditionalnotion that theseobjectswere thunderstones
was an alternative interpretationthathad to be taken seriously.
But once natural historians and antiquaries accepted stone axes
and arrowheads as ancient artifactsentirelynew questions arose,
such as what thismeant for the culture of earlyEuropeans and for
the biblical account of early human history.The recognition that
cerauniawere in factancient artifactsprovided antiquaries and the
nascent science of archaeologywith a new source of evidence about
the earliest ages of human history.Previously,textswere themain
sourceof informationabout thepast and fewworks were considered
to be authentic recordsof themost ancient times.The Bible was
generallyconsidered to be the only reliable source of information
about the origin of human beings and the firstcivilizations,but
great ingenuitywas required to fill in the gaps between the biblical
record and the origins of the firstEuropeans.77Now ancient arti
factsoffereda new source of evidence for investigatingthe remote
past.
More significantly,the presence of stone artifacts throughout
Europe raised troublingquestions about the culture of the indige
77)See Paolo
Rossi, TheDark Abyss ofTime: TheHistory oftheEarth and the
History of
Nations fromHooke toVico tr.Lydia G. Cochrane (Chicago, 1984), chs. 17-36;Mar
garetT Hodgen, EarlyAnthropologyin theSixteenthand Seventeenth Centuries (Phil
adelphia, 1964), chs. 6-9; Don Cameron Allen, The Legend ofNoah: Renaissance
Rationalism in Art, Science and Letters (Urbana, 1963); Arthur B. Utter
Ferguson,
Antiquity:PerceptionofPrehistoryinRenaissanceEngland (Durham, 1993).

508 M.R. Goodrum/Early ScienceandMedicine 13 (2008) 482-508
nous inhabitantsof Europe. If these earlyEuropean peoples used

stone implementslike theones used by the inhabitantsof theAmer
icas, did thatmean that earlyEuropeans had also been rude and
savage peoples who lived by hunting,wore animal skins,and lived
in crude dwellings.These were some of theproblems thatantiquar
ies began to investigateduring the eighteenthcentury in thewake
of the general acceptance of the existence of stone artifacts in
Europe.78 The study of ancient stone artifacts,fromEurope and
elsewhere,gave rise in the nineteenth century to the development
of prehistoric archaeology, the formulationof the Three Age Sys
tem thatproposed a prehistoricsuccession of a Stone, Bronze, and
Iron Age, and of the discovery that humans had coexisted with
extinct Ice Age animals.79All of this arose directlyfrom the trans
formationthatoccurred in the seventeenthcentury in the interpre
tationof ceraunia from thunderstonesto ancient artifacts.
78) I this in Matthew R. "The Meaning of 'Ceraunia:

have examined Goodrum,
Natural and the Interpretation of Prehistoric Stone Artifacts in
Archaeology, History,
the Eighteenth Century," BritishJournalfor theHistory ofScience, 35 (2002), 255
269.
79)BarbaraD. a
Lynch and Thomas F. Lynch, "The Beginnings of ScientificApproach
to Prehistoric in Seventeenth-Century and Eighteenth-Century Britain,"
Archaeology
Southwestern Journal ofAnthropology,24 (1968), 33-65; JudithRodden, "TheDevel
opment of theThree Age System:Archaeology's First Paradigm," inGlyn Daniel,
(ed.), TowardsaHistory ofArchaeology(London, 1981), 51-68; Bo Gr?slund, TheBirth
Methods and Dating inNineteenth-Century
of Prehistoric Chronology: Dating Systems
Scandinavian 1987); Peter Rowley-Conwy, From Genesis to
Archaeology (Cambridge,
in
Prehistory:TheArchaeologicalThreeAge Systemand ItsContestedReception Denmark,
Britain, and Ireland (Oxford,2007); Donald K. Grayson, TheEstablishment Human
of
A. Bowdoin Van Men theMammoths: Vic
Antiquity (NewYork, 1983); Riper, among
torian Science and theDiscovery ofHuman Prehistory (Chicago, 1993).


Matthew R. Goodrum - Questioning Thunderstones and Arrowheads The Problem of Recognizing and Interpreting (Early Science and Medicine, 13, 5, 2008) PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Matthew R. Goodrum - Questioning Thunderstones and Arrowheads The Problem of Recognizing and Interpreting (Early Science and Medicine, 13, 5, 2008) PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Questioning Thunderstones and Arrowheads: The Problem of Recognizing and Interpreting

Stone Artifacts in the Seventeenth Century

This content downloaded from 31.220.200.77 on Sun, 8 Jun 2014 19:56:01 PM

During a violent thunderstormover theGerman townof Torgau in

? Koninklijke BrillNV, Leiden, 2008 DOI: 10.1 163/157338208X345759

This content downloaded from 31.220.200.77 on Sun, 8 Jun 2014 19:56:01 PM

black stone shaped somewhat like an axe head or a wedge. Several

kenberg, The ThunderweaponinReligion and Folklore,A Study inComparativeArchae

This content downloaded from 31.220.200.77 on Sun, 8 Jun 2014 19:56:01 PM

and they frequently mention that prior to the eighteenthcentury

4) Some are Marcel Baudouin and Lionel "Les

ch?ologie pr?historique,"Revue arch?ologique,fourth series,4 (1906), 239-259; and

This content downloaded from 31.220.200.77 on Sun, 8 Jun 2014 19:56:01 PM

theymention the previouslyheld opinion that these objects were

7) nature over fossils and

This content downloaded from 31.220.200.77 on Sun, 8 Jun 2014 19:56:01 PM

the seventeenthcentury antiquarieswere also beginning to collect

8) as a its connections to natural

CenturyBritain (NewYork, 2004); Michael Hunter, "TheRoyal Society and theOri

CenturyBritain (Woodbridge, 1995), 181-200].

quarian Imagination, 73-86.

This content downloaded from 31.220.200.77 on Sun, 8 Jun 2014 19:56:01 PM

notions of thehistoryof the firstEuropeans and generated entirely

Ceraunia and EarlyModern Natural History

Natural historiansduring the sixteenthcenturyaccumulated a curi

& insime si discorre e valore dell'eccellentissimo letterario

This content downloaded from 31.220.200.77 on Sun, 8 Jun 2014 19:56:01 PM

typeof stone called brontia, except thatbrontia had lines or ridges

14) Bauer De natura 262. Gesner also notes

This content downloaded from 31.220.200.77 on Sun, 8 Jun 2014 19:56:01 PM

that ceraunia were produced when terrestrialexhalations rose into

This content downloaded from 31.220.200.77 on Sun, 8 Jun 2014 19:56:01 PM

like those bored into metal hammers to receive a wooden han

descrites leur naissance, iusteprix, moyen de les cognoistre, &

This content downloaded from 31.220.200.77 on Sun, 8 Jun 2014 19:56:01 PM

Like de Boodt, he takesparticularnote of thehole thatmost exem

This content downloaded from 31.220.200.77 on Sun, 8 Jun 2014 19:56:01 PM

seventeenthand eighteenthcenturygradually came to the conclu

34) Museum 618. On he provides an illustration of

This content downloaded from 31.220.200.77 on Sun, 8 Jun 2014 19:56:01 PM

644. VIRUf~m~ikMS_ ~ k~iaiM Y LiUIY. 6os

Figure 1. Plates fromUlisse Aldrovandi'sMusaeum metailicum (pp. 604-605) depict

Michele Mercati and theOrigins of Ceraunia

This content downloaded from 31.220.200.77 on Sun, 8 Jun 2014 19:56:01 PM

pretation of stone artifactsduring the Renaissance is complicated

(1921), 357-360; Laming-Emperaire,Originesde l'arch?ologie en

This content downloaded from 31.220.200.77 on Sun, 8 Jun 2014 19:56:01 PM

mon in Italy and have a triangularshape, like the heads of arrows

This content downloaded from 31.220.200.77 on Sun, 8 Jun 2014 19:56:01 PM

But all of this raised a very importantquestion: why would ancient

This content downloaded from 31.220.200.77 on Sun, 8 Jun 2014 19:56:01 PM

them useless as arrowheads.But the evidencemore heavily favored

Antiquarianism and Ancient Stone Artifacts

There were severalcritical elements thathelpedMercati to imagine

This content downloaded from 31.220.200.77 on Sun, 8 Jun 2014 19:56:01 PM

stones as knives and Rene Goulaine de Laudonniere noted that the

48) en la terre du Br?sil, autrement

(La Rochelle, 1578), 244-245; Ren? Goulaine de Laudonni?re, L'Histoire notablede

tains & pilotes Fran?ois, descrits par le Capitaine Laudonni?re, a com

Century (Stockholm, 1985), 18-31.

This content downloaded from 31.220.200.77 on Sun, 8 Jun 2014 19:56:01 PM

pean explorersbrought back toEurope, which found theirway into

53) F. Feest, in the