The meaning of ceraunia: Archaeology, natural history and the interpretation of prehistoric stone artefacts in the eighteenth century

British Journal for the History of Science

Volumn 35, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 255-269

  Goodrum, Matthew R ^a  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0040079928     PISSN: 00070874     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0007087402004776     Document Type: Article

References (82)

1. The process by which prehistoric stone implements were eventually understood to be archaeological remains shares many features with the gradual recognition of the organic origin of fossils, which also occurred during the seventeenth century. Despite this, little has been written on how these problems may have been related. On the debates over the interpretation of fossils and the process by which their organic nature was accepted see Martin J. S. Rudwick, The Meaning of Fossils: Episodes in the History of Palaeontology, 2nd edn., New York, 1976.
2. The French term for them, pierre de foudre, literally means 'thunder stones'. Ceraunia is a Latin word, derived from the Greek word κεραυνοσ, both of which mean 'thunderbolt'.
3. See Glyn Daniel, The Idea of Prehistory, London, 1962, Chapter 2; Stuart Piggott, Ancient Britons and the Antiquarian Imagination: Ideas from the Renaissance to the Regency, London, 1989, 89-94.
4. See Glyn Daniel, The Idea of Prehistory, London, 1962, Chapter 2; Stuart Piggott, Ancient Britons and the Antiquarian Imagination: Ideas from the Renaissance to the Regency, London, 1989, 89-94.
5. See Glyn Daniel, The Three Ages: An Essay on Archaeological Method, Cambridge, 1943; Robert F. Heizer, 'The background of Thomsen's three-age system', Technology and Culture (1962), 3, 259-66; Ole Klindt-Jensen, A History of Scandinavian Archaeology, London, 1975, Chapters 4-5; Judith Rodden, 'The development of the three age system: archaeology's first paradigm', in Towards a History of Archaeology (ed. Glyn Daniel), London, 1981, 51-68; Bo Gräslund, 'The background to C. J. Thomsen's three age system', in Towards a History of Archaeology (ed. Glyn Daniel), London, 1981, 45-50; and Bo Gräslund, The Birth of Prehistoric Chronology: Dating Methods and Dating Systems in Nineteenth-Century Scandinavian Archaeology, Cambridge, 1987.
6. See Glyn Daniel, The Three Ages: An Essay on Archaeological Method, Cambridge, 1943; Robert F. Heizer, 'The background of Thomsen's three-age system', Technology and Culture (1962), 3, 259-66; Ole Klindt-Jensen, A History of Scandinavian Archaeology, London, 1975, Chapters 4-5; Judith Rodden, 'The development of the three age system: archaeology's first paradigm', in Towards a History of Archaeology (ed. Glyn Daniel), London, 1981, 51-68; Bo Gräslund, 'The background to C. J. Thomsen's three age system', in Towards a History of Archaeology (ed. Glyn Daniel), London, 1981, 45-50; and Bo Gräslund, The Birth of Prehistoric Chronology: Dating Methods and Dating Systems in Nineteenth-Century Scandinavian Archaeology, Cambridge, 1987.
7. See Glyn Daniel, The Three Ages: An Essay on Archaeological Method, Cambridge, 1943; Robert F. Heizer, 'The background of Thomsen's three-age system', Technology and Culture (1962), 3, 259-66; Ole Klindt-Jensen, A History of Scandinavian Archaeology, London, 1975, Chapters 4-5; Judith Rodden, 'The development of the three age system: archaeology's first paradigm', in Towards a History of Archaeology (ed. Glyn Daniel), London, 1981, 51-68; Bo Gräslund, 'The background to C. J. Thomsen's three age system', in Towards a History of Archaeology (ed. Glyn Daniel), London, 1981, 45-50; and Bo Gräslund, The Birth of Prehistoric Chronology: Dating Methods and Dating Systems in Nineteenth-Century Scandinavian Archaeology, Cambridge, 1987.
8. See Glyn Daniel, The Three Ages: An Essay on Archaeological Method, Cambridge, 1943; Robert F. Heizer, 'The background of Thomsen's three-age system', Technology and Culture (1962), 3, 259-66; Ole Klindt-Jensen, A History of Scandinavian Archaeology, London, 1975, Chapters 4-5; Judith Rodden, 'The development of the three age system: archaeology's first paradigm', in Towards a History of Archaeology (ed. Glyn Daniel), London, 1981, 51-68; Bo Gräslund, 'The background to C. J. Thomsen's three age system', in Towards a History of Archaeology (ed. Glyn Daniel), London, 1981, 45-50; and Bo Gräslund, The Birth of Prehistoric Chronology: Dating Methods and Dating Systems in Nineteenth-Century Scandinavian Archaeology, Cambridge, 1987.
9. See Glyn Daniel, The Three Ages: An Essay on Archaeological Method, Cambridge, 1943; Robert F. Heizer, 'The background of Thomsen's three-age system', Technology and Culture (1962), 3, 259-66; Ole Klindt-Jensen, A History of Scandinavian Archaeology, London, 1975, Chapters 4-5; Judith Rodden, 'The development of the three age system: archaeology's first paradigm', in Towards a History of Archaeology (ed. Glyn Daniel), London, 1981, 51-68; Bo Gräslund, 'The background to C. J. Thomsen's three age system', in Towards a History of Archaeology (ed. Glyn Daniel), London, 1981, 45-50; and Bo Gräslund, The Birth of Prehistoric Chronology: Dating Methods and Dating Systems in Nineteenth-Century Scandinavian Archaeology, Cambridge, 1987.
10. See Glyn Daniel, The Three Ages: An Essay on Archaeological Method, Cambridge, 1943; Robert F. Heizer, 'The background of Thomsen's three-age system', Technology and Culture (1962), 3, 259-66; Ole Klindt-Jensen, A History of Scandinavian Archaeology, London, 1975, Chapters 4-5; Judith Rodden, 'The development of the three age system: archaeology's first paradigm', in Towards a History of Archaeology (ed. Glyn Daniel), London, 1981, 51-68; Bo Gräslund, 'The background to C. J. Thomsen's three age system', in Towards a History of Archaeology (ed. Glyn Daniel), London, 1981, 45-50; and Bo Gräslund, The Birth of Prehistoric Chronology: Dating Methods and Dating Systems in Nineteenth-Century Scandinavian Archaeology, Cambridge, 1987.
11. It is fundamentally important to understand that throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and in some cases even into the eighteenth century, stone implements (ceraunia) were treated as a geological phenomenon and that they were collected and studied in large part by naturalists interested in geology.
12. An example is Annette Laming-Emperaire, Origines de l'archéologie préhistorique en France: Des Supersitions medievales à la découverte de l'homme fossile, Paris, 1964.
13. This is the approach taken by Heizer, op. cit. (4), which identifies some important eighteenth-century works that discuss stone implements but only to the extent that they serve as steps towards the idea of a Stone Age.
14. Alain Schnapp's Le Concjuête du passé: Aux Origines de l'archéologie, Paris, 1993 presents a very interesting and wide-ranging analysis of archaeological thought, including many of the major developments in the interpretation of stone artefacts during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. See also B. D. Lynch and T. F. Lynch, 'The beginnings of a scientific approach to prehistoric archaeology in seventeenth-century and eighteenth-century Britain', Southwestern Journal of Anthropology (1968), 24, 33-65.
15. Mercati discussed ceraunia in a manuscript work on geology, but it was not published until the eighteenth century. While there is evidence the manuscript circulated, it is unclear if Mercati's ideas influenced seventeenth-century thought on ceraunia. See Michele Mercati, Metallotheca opus posthumum, Rome, 1717. On Mercati's discovery that ceraunia were prehistoric artefacts see
16. Laming-Emperaire, op. cit. (6), 44-8. For an excellent account of Mercati's scientific work, and of the publication and content of the Metallotheca, see Bruno Accordi, 'Michele Mercati (1541-1593) e la Metallotheca', Geologica Romana (1980), 19, 1-50
17. Laming-Emperaire, op. cit. (6), 44-8. For an excellent account of Mercati's scientific work, and of the publication and content of the Metallotheca, see Bruno Accordi, 'Michele Mercati (1541-1593) e la Metallotheca', Geologica Romana (1980), 19, 1-50
18. John Woodward, Fossils of All Kinds, Digested into a Method, Suitable to Their Mutual Relation and Affinity, London, 1728, Part 2, 37. Original italics.
19. See Christian F. Feest, 'North America in the European Wunderkammer', Archiv für Völkerkunde (1992), 46, 61-109.
20. See Christian F. Feest, 'The collecting of American Indian artifacts in Europe, 1493-1750', in America in European Consciousness, 1493-1750 (ed. K. O. Kupperman), Chapel Hill, 1995, 324-60.
21. Edward Lhwyd, 'Extracts of several letters from Mr. Edward Lhwyd, (M.A.) Late Keeper of the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, to Dr. Rich. Richardson, (M.D.) of North Bierly in Yorkshire; containing observations in natural history and antiquities, made in his travels thro' Wales and Scotland', Philosophical Transactions (1713), 99. Lhwyd also noted the similarity between the stone hatchets used by the natives of America and some types of ceraunia found in Britain.
22. Antoine de Jussieu, 'De l'Origine et des usages de la pierre de foudre', Mémoires de l'Académie royale des sciences (1723), 7.
23. On this see Michael Hunter, 'The Royal Society and the origins of British archaeology: I', Antiquity (1971), 45, 113-21; Joseph M. Levine, Dr. Woodward's Shield: History, Science, and Satire in Augustan England, Berkeley, 1977; Stanley Mendyk, 'Speculum Britanniae': Regional Study, Antiquarianism, and Science in Britain to 1700, Toronto, 1989; Piggott, op. cit. (3).
24. On this see Michael Hunter, 'The Royal Society and the origins of British archaeology: I', Antiquity (1971), 45, 113-21; Joseph M. Levine, Dr. Woodward's Shield: History, Science, and Satire in Augustan England, Berkeley, 1977; Stanley Mendyk, 'Speculum Britanniae': Regional Study, Antiquarianism, and Science in Britain to 1700, Toronto, 1989; Piggott, op. cit. (3).
25. On this see Michael Hunter, 'The Royal Society and the origins of British archaeology: I', Antiquity (1971), 45, 113-21; Joseph M. Levine, Dr. Woodward's Shield: History, Science, and Satire in Augustan England, Berkeley, 1977; Stanley Mendyk, 'Speculum Britanniae': Regional Study, Antiquarianism, and Science in Britain to 1700, Toronto, 1989; Piggott, op. cit. (3).
26. On this see Michael Hunter, 'The Royal Society and the origins of British archaeology: I', Antiquity (1971), 45, 113-21; Joseph M. Levine, Dr. Woodward's Shield: History, Science, and Satire in Augustan England, Berkeley, 1977; Stanley Mendyk, 'Speculum Britanniae': Regional Study, Antiquarianism, and Science in Britain to 1700, Toronto, 1989; Piggott, op. cit. (3).
27. Scientific institutions and the virtuoso culture of Britain, especially as they relate to the Royal Society during the eighteenth century, have been explored by Michael Hunter in 'The cabinet institutionalized: the Royal Society's "repository" and its background', in The Origins of Museums: The Cabinet of Curiosities in Sixteenth-and Seventeenth-Century Europe (ed. Oliver Impey and Arthur MacGregor), Oxford, 1985, 159-68; David P. Miller, 'The "Hardwicke circle": the whig supremacy and its demise in the eighteenth-century Royal Society', Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London (1998), 52, 73-91; and G. S. Rousseau and D. Haycock, 'The Jew of Crane Court: Emanuel Mendes da Costa (1717-91), natural history and natural excess', History of Science (2000), 38, 127-70.
28. Scientific institutions and the virtuoso culture of Britain, especially as they relate to the Royal Society during the eighteenth century, have been explored by Michael Hunter in 'The cabinet institutionalized: the Royal Society's "repository" and its background', in The Origins of Museums: The Cabinet of Curiosities in Sixteenth-and Seventeenth-Century Europe (ed. Oliver Impey and Arthur MacGregor), Oxford, 1985, 159-68; David P. Miller, 'The "Hardwicke circle": the whig supremacy and its demise in the eighteenth-century Royal Society', Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London (1998), 52, 73-91; and G. S. Rousseau and D. Haycock, 'The Jew of Crane Court: Emanuel Mendes da Costa (1717-91), natural history and natural excess', History of Science (2000), 38, 127-70.
29. Scientific institutions and the virtuoso culture of Britain, especially as they relate to the Royal Society during the eighteenth century, have been explored by Michael Hunter in 'The cabinet institutionalized: the Royal Society's "repository" and its background', in The Origins of Museums: The Cabinet of Curiosities in Sixteenth-and Seventeenth-Century Europe (ed. Oliver Impey and Arthur MacGregor), Oxford, 1985, 159-68; David P. Miller, 'The "Hardwicke circle": the whig supremacy and its demise in the eighteenth-century Royal Society', Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London (1998), 52, 73-91; and G. S. Rousseau and D. Haycock, 'The Jew of Crane Court: Emanuel Mendes da Costa (1717-91), natural history and natural excess', History of Science (2000), 38, 127-70.
30. On Worm's museum and archaeological work see Schnapp, op. cit. (8), 160-7; and H. D. Schepelern, Museum Wormianum, dets Forudsaetninger og Tilblivelse, Odense, 1971.
31. On Worm's museum and archaeological work see Schnapp, op. cit. (8), 160-7; and H. D. Schepelern, Museum Wormianum, dets Forudsaetninger og Tilblivelse, Odense, 1971.
32. R. F. Ovenell's The Ashmolean Museum 1683-1894, Oxford, 1986 contains a valuable account of Plot and Lhywd's contributions to the museum and the place of the Ashmolean in seventeenth-and eighteenth-century science.
33. Thomas Hearne, 'A discourse concerning some antiquities lately found in Yorkshire', in The Itinerary of John Leland the Antiquary, 3rd edn., 9 vols., Oxford, 1770, i, 123-4, 143. This discourse is dated 1709.
34. On Sloane's collection see Arthur MacGregor, 'Prehistoric and Romano-British antiquities', in Sir Hans Sloane: Collector, Scientist, Antiquary, Founding Father of the British Museum (ed. Arthur MacGregor), London, 1994, 180-97. It is important to note here that Sloane also assembled an important collection of North American ethnographic material; see J. C. H. King, 'North American ethnography in the collection of Sir Hans Sloane', in The Origins of Museums: The Cabinet of Curiosities in Sixteenth-and Seventeenth-Century Europe (ed. Oliver Impey and Arthur MacGregor), Oxford, 1985, 232-6. Another eighteenth-century naturalist who collected prehistoric artefacts as well as ethnographic material was Joseph Banks. On this see John Gascoigne, Joseph Banks and the English Enlightenment: Useful Knowledge and Polite Culture, Cambridge, 1994.
35. On Sloane's collection see Arthur MacGregor, 'Prehistoric and Romano-British antiquities', in Sir Hans Sloane: Collector, Scientist, Antiquary, Founding Father of the British Museum (ed. Arthur MacGregor), London, 1994, 180-97. It is important to note here that Sloane also assembled an important collection of North American ethnographic material; see J. C. H. King, 'North American ethnography in the collection of Sir Hans Sloane', in The Origins of Museums: The Cabinet of Curiosities in Sixteenth-and Seventeenth-Century Europe (ed. Oliver Impey and Arthur MacGregor), Oxford, 1985, 232-6. Another eighteenth-century naturalist who collected prehistoric artefacts as well as ethnographic material was Joseph Banks. On this see John Gascoigne, Joseph Banks and the English Enlightenment: Useful Knowledge and Polite Culture, Cambridge, 1994.
36. On Sloane's collection see Arthur MacGregor, 'Prehistoric and Romano-British antiquities', in Sir Hans Sloane: Collector, Scientist, Antiquary, Founding Father of the British Museum (ed. Arthur MacGregor), London, 1994, 180-97. It is important to note here that Sloane also assembled an important collection of North American ethnographic material; see J. C. H. King, 'North American ethnography in the collection of Sir Hans Sloane', in The Origins of Museums: The Cabinet of Curiosities in Sixteenth-and Seventeenth-Century Europe (ed. Oliver Impey and Arthur MacGregor), Oxford, 1985, 232-6. Another eighteenth-century naturalist who collected prehistoric artefacts as well as ethnographic material was Joseph Banks. On this see John Gascoigne, Joseph Banks and the English Enlightenment: Useful Knowledge and Polite Culture, Cambridge, 1994.
37. Bernard de Montfaucon, L'Antiquité expliquée et représentée en figures, 2nd edn., 5 vols., Paris, 1722, v, Part 2, 194-5.
38. Montfaucon, op. cit. (21), iv, Part 1, 28.
39. Montfaucon, op. cit. (21), iv, Part 1, 70-1.
40. Montfaucon, op. cit. (21), iv, Part 1, 68.
41. Hearne, op. cit. (19), 124.
42. Thomas Hearne, 'Some remarks occasion'd by the foregoing letter', in The Itinerary of John Leland the Antiquary, 3rd edn., 9 vols., Oxford, 1770, iv, pp. xii-xiii.
43. Montfaucon, op. cit. (21), v, Part 2, 196.
44. Montfaucon, op. cit. (21), v, Part 2, 196-7.
45. Woodward, op. cit. (10), 39. Ralph Thoresby suggested that the ancient Britons made arrowheads of flint because iron was so rare that they had even used it for money.
46. Woodward, op. cit. (10), 39.
47. Jussieu, op. cit. (14), 8.
48. Jussieu, op. cit. (14), 7.
49. Nicolas Mahudel, 'Sur les Prétendues Pierres de foudre', Histoire de l'Académie royale des inscriptions et belles lettres (1740), 12, 165-7.
50. Jussieu, op. cit. (14), 8.
51. Mahudel, op. cit. (33), 168.
52. Samuel Pegge, 'Observations on stone hammers', Archaeologia (1773), 2, 127-8.
53. Élle Bertrand, Dictionnaire universel des fossiles propres, et des fossiles accidentels contenant une description des terres, des sables, des sels, des soufres, des bitumes, des pierres simples and composées, communes and prétieuses, transparentes & opaques, amorphes & figurées, des minéraux, des métaux, des pétrifications du régne animal, & du règne végétal & c. avec des recherches sur la formation de ces fossiles, sur leur origine, leurs usages, Avignon, 1763, 135-6.
54. Antoine-Joseph Dezallier d'Argenville, L'Histoire naturelle éclaircie dans deux de ses parties principales. La Lithologie et la conchyliologie, dont l'une traite des pierres et l'autre des coquillages. Ouvrage dans lequel on trouve une nouvelle méthode & une notice critique des principaux auteurs qui ont écrit sur ces Matières, Paris, 1742, 68-9.
55. Johan Gottschalk Wallerius, Minéralogie, ou description générale des substances du règne minéral, 2 vols., Paris, 1753, ii, 134.
56. William Borlase, Antiquities, Historical and Monumental, of the County of Cornwall. Consisting of Several Essays on the First Inhabitants, Druid-Superstitions, Customs, and Remains of the most Remote Antiquity in Britain, and the British Isles, Exemplified and Proved by Monuments now Extant in Cornwall and the Scilly Islands, with a Vocabulary of the Cornu-British Language, 2nd edn., London, 1769, 287-9.
57. Charles Lyttelton, 'Observations on stone hatchets', Archaeologia (1773), 2, 118-23.
58. Pegge, op. cit. (36), 124-8.
59. Dezallier d'Argenville, op. cit. (38), 68-9.
60. Wallerius, op. cit. (39), 133-5.
61. Bertrand, op. cit. (37), 135-6.
62. Jussieu, op. cit. (14), 9. Mahudel op. cit. (33), 169 expresses much the same opinion.
63. Joseph François Lafitau, Moeurs des sauvages Ameriquains, comparée aux moeurs des premiers temps, 2 vols., Paris, 1724, ii, 195.
64. For a general outline of these beliefs in Britain see Piggott, op. cit. (3), 59-61.
65. See the discussion of this in Laming-Emperaite, op. cit. (6), 45-8. Don Cameron Allen, The Legend of Noah; Renaissance Rationalism in Art, Science, and Letters, Urbana, 1949 investigates this and other generally accepted ideas relating to Noah and the Deluge.
66. See the discussion of this in Laming-Emperaite, op. cit. (6), 45-8. Don Cameron Allen, The Legend of Noah; Renaissance Rationalism in Art, Science, and Letters, Urbana, 1949 investigates this and other generally accepted ideas relating to Noah and the Deluge.
67. Woodwatd, op. cit. (10), 41-2. Original italics.
68. Woodward, op. cit. (10), 41. Original italics.
69. Mahudel, op. cit. (33), 165.
70. Mahudel, op. cit. (33), 164.
71. On the rather complex relationship between natural history, human history and Earth history in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries see Paolo Rossi, The Dark Abyss of Time: The History of the Earth & the History of Nations from Hooke to Vico (tr. Lydia G. Cochrane), Chicago, 1984 and Rhoda Rappaport, When Geologists Were Historians, 1665-1750, Ithaca, 1997.
72. Lyttelton, op. cit. (41), 118. This paper was written in 1765 and read before the Society of Antiquaries in 1766.
73. Lyttelton, op. cit. (40), 121-2.
74. John Bagford, 'A letter to the publisher, written by the ingenious Mr. John Bagford, in which are many curious remarks relating to the city of London, and some things about Leland', in Joannis Lelandi Antiquarii de rebus Britannicis collectanea, 6 vols., Oxford, 1715, p. lxiv.
75. Bagford, op. cit. (57), p. lxiv.
76. For a thorough discussion of Esper's discovery and its significance in the history of prehistoric anthropology and archaeology see Donald K. Grayson, The Establishment of Human Antiquity, New York, 1983, 89-95. For the relevant passages see Esper, Ausführliche Nachricht von neuentdeckten Zoolithen unbekannter vierfüssiger Tiere, 1774, 26. A French translation of this work appeared in the same year, which greatly expanded the influence of the book.
77. For a thorough discussion of Esper's discovery and its significance in the history of prehistoric anthropology and archaeology see Donald K. Grayson, The Establishment of Human Antiquity, New York, 1983, 89-95. For the relevant passages see Esper, Ausführliche Nachricht von neuentdeckten Zoolithen unbekannter vierfüssiger Tiere, 1774, 26. A French translation of this work appeared in the same year, which greatly expanded the influence of the book.
78. François-Xavier Burtin, Oryctographie de Bruxelles ou description des fossiles tant naturels qu'accidentels découverts jusqu'à ce jour dans les environs de cette ville, Bruxelles, 1784, 66.
79. Burtin, op. cit. (60), 66.
80. 'Un monument si respectable d'une antiquité la plus réculée, que rien de ce qui la regarde ne peut être indifférent, ni traité légèrement'. Burtin, op. cit. (60), 66.
81. Frere made this discovery in 1797 but his description of it was not published until 1800 (in the journal Archaeologia). I have not discussed Frere's ideas here because they mark the beginning of a quite new approach to the study and conceptualization of stone artefacts, which sets Frere's paper on the Hoxne axe apart from what went before. The significance of this paper as a pivotal transition between two somewhat distinct periods or traditions in the study and interpretation of prehistoric stone implements would demand a lengthier discussion than is possible here.
82. These developments are discussed at length in Grayson, op. cit. (59).