Page 52 - Hrobat Virloget, Katja, et al., eds. (2015). Stone narratives: heritage, mobility, performance. University of Primorska Press, Koper.
P. 52
stone narratives
The trip to Iguape and the carrying of the growing stone inspired Camus to write the
short story The Growing Stone (La pierre qui pousse), which was included in his collection of
short stories Exile and the Kingdom (L’exil et le royaume, 1957). Festa do Bom Jesus de Iguape
is still taking place there every year with fresh chops of the stone available. (It was recently
joined by the Festival Literário de Iguape inspired by Camus’ visit and his novella.)
Now we move on to our last case, borrowed from the study of the local farmers’
view of soil formation on two Caribbean islands of Martinique and Saint Lucia (Feller &
Blanchart, 2010). Of all our cases, this one was given the most careful account. Feller and
Blanchart are soil scientists, not ethnographers, but they nevertheless thought it necessary
to discuss the topic in detail with several interlocutors on both islands. The general picture
of the local farmers’ view of lithogenesis that emerges (but it is shown that individual opin-
ions can diverge) is strongly reminiscent of the theories from the previous centuries we took
a look at in the beginning. The most striking correspondence is the notion that there is
some ‘substance’ or ‘cream’ contained in the earth which nourishes both plants and stones.
Plants and stones are hence competing for the same resources: »Thus, bad plant growth is
attributable, in some cases, to a competition between plants and rocks (to the advantage of
the latter) in the use of the ‘earth substance’. This justifies why gravels should be removed
from arable land, and why uncultivated fields will soon be loaded with rocks.« (2010, pp.
281–182)5 ‘Wounded stones’ are also capable of competing with plants by emitting sub-
stances that are either toxic for plants or block the effects of fertilizers (2010, p. 282). Wa-
ter is, as always, of critical importance for the growth of stone, since the ‘substance’ that is
needed for rock formation »is found in the water of the earth and moves from earth to-
wards the rock’s heart. A rock grows at its periphery, the outer cortex being always moister
than its heart and still looking like ‘earth’ (rock in formation)« (2010, p. 281). And seeds
are also there. Most stones grow from earth, but pebbles in the river have different origin:
they are »an earth rolled by rivers and transformed into pebbles« (2010, p. 280). Pebbles
are »‘like seeds’ and have a life history: birth, life and death.« (2010, p. 281)
Feller and Blanchart’s account contains other elements that we have not come across
in other cases such as the notion of a wounded or broken stone (which is losing/emitting its
substance and »giving back earth« (2010, p. 281)) and the influence of the moon. It is clear,
though, that in this case the researchers asked more detailed questions than the folklorists
who wrote about the Hawaiian and Blaxhall beliefs. But we should also bear in mind that
the farmers in this case seem to be more deeply engaged with lithogenesis because they see
it as a competitor to their growing food. More stones equals less food grown. What might
be of particular interest in this case is that Feller and Blanchart produced rather rich eth-
nographic evidence without following usual anthropological agenda (reconstructing local
cultural system or even local cosmology) but with a different aim. Their aim was (refresh-
ingly for anthropologists tired of exoticism) to compare the scientific and the local farmers’
view of lithogenesis. After describing both views they also proposed a scheme representing
the differences between the two. Although they do not seem to have harboured structural-
ist ambitions, the scheme suggests a symmetric inversion between the two views to be the
rule.
5 Inverse beliefs, i.e., that stones buried in earth stimulate the growth of plants seem to be much more widespread
around the world, from Europe to Oceania. The Papuans have been reported to wrap selected stones in bast and
bury them at sowing time; they would remove them from the earth during harvest (Varner, 2004, p. 66.)
50
The trip to Iguape and the carrying of the growing stone inspired Camus to write the
short story The Growing Stone (La pierre qui pousse), which was included in his collection of
short stories Exile and the Kingdom (L’exil et le royaume, 1957). Festa do Bom Jesus de Iguape
is still taking place there every year with fresh chops of the stone available. (It was recently
joined by the Festival Literário de Iguape inspired by Camus’ visit and his novella.)
Now we move on to our last case, borrowed from the study of the local farmers’
view of soil formation on two Caribbean islands of Martinique and Saint Lucia (Feller &
Blanchart, 2010). Of all our cases, this one was given the most careful account. Feller and
Blanchart are soil scientists, not ethnographers, but they nevertheless thought it necessary
to discuss the topic in detail with several interlocutors on both islands. The general picture
of the local farmers’ view of lithogenesis that emerges (but it is shown that individual opin-
ions can diverge) is strongly reminiscent of the theories from the previous centuries we took
a look at in the beginning. The most striking correspondence is the notion that there is
some ‘substance’ or ‘cream’ contained in the earth which nourishes both plants and stones.
Plants and stones are hence competing for the same resources: »Thus, bad plant growth is
attributable, in some cases, to a competition between plants and rocks (to the advantage of
the latter) in the use of the ‘earth substance’. This justifies why gravels should be removed
from arable land, and why uncultivated fields will soon be loaded with rocks.« (2010, pp.
281–182)5 ‘Wounded stones’ are also capable of competing with plants by emitting sub-
stances that are either toxic for plants or block the effects of fertilizers (2010, p. 282). Wa-
ter is, as always, of critical importance for the growth of stone, since the ‘substance’ that is
needed for rock formation »is found in the water of the earth and moves from earth to-
wards the rock’s heart. A rock grows at its periphery, the outer cortex being always moister
than its heart and still looking like ‘earth’ (rock in formation)« (2010, p. 281). And seeds
are also there. Most stones grow from earth, but pebbles in the river have different origin:
they are »an earth rolled by rivers and transformed into pebbles« (2010, p. 280). Pebbles
are »‘like seeds’ and have a life history: birth, life and death.« (2010, p. 281)
Feller and Blanchart’s account contains other elements that we have not come across
in other cases such as the notion of a wounded or broken stone (which is losing/emitting its
substance and »giving back earth« (2010, p. 281)) and the influence of the moon. It is clear,
though, that in this case the researchers asked more detailed questions than the folklorists
who wrote about the Hawaiian and Blaxhall beliefs. But we should also bear in mind that
the farmers in this case seem to be more deeply engaged with lithogenesis because they see
it as a competitor to their growing food. More stones equals less food grown. What might
be of particular interest in this case is that Feller and Blanchart produced rather rich eth-
nographic evidence without following usual anthropological agenda (reconstructing local
cultural system or even local cosmology) but with a different aim. Their aim was (refresh-
ingly for anthropologists tired of exoticism) to compare the scientific and the local farmers’
view of lithogenesis. After describing both views they also proposed a scheme representing
the differences between the two. Although they do not seem to have harboured structural-
ist ambitions, the scheme suggests a symmetric inversion between the two views to be the
rule.
5 Inverse beliefs, i.e., that stones buried in earth stimulate the growth of plants seem to be much more widespread
around the world, from Europe to Oceania. The Papuans have been reported to wrap selected stones in bast and
bury them at sowing time; they would remove them from the earth during harvest (Varner, 2004, p. 66.)
50
