Geomythology is a relatively recent term, coined by Dorothy B. Vitaliano in 1966. It represented the birth of what will become a new multidisciplinary approach, aimed not only at explaining the geological meaning of natural phenomenon behind long-told folklore (myths and legends), but also at bridging the communication gap between scientists and non-scientists (Vitaliano, 1973).
Geomythology established itself as a scientific approach thanks to the contributions published, and peer-reviewed for the first time, in Piccardi and Masse (2007), following the “Myth and Geology” session held at the 32nd International Geological Congress in August 2004 in Florence, Italy.
In my opinion, Geomythology also bridges worlds, where ancient folklore from every culture is liberated from too-long existing prejudices. Tales once reduced to mere fantasy from cultures considered wild and inferior, can now be seen as knowledge for all mankind. The importance of folklore can finally be unearthed, as a more or less accurate and/or transfigured description of natural events, even capable of saving lifes. Emblematic is the case of the Pacific Ocean tsunami of 2004, during which the Moken and Simeulue peoples managed to save themselves thanks to their oral tradition, handed down following similar events. This can be the true power of traditions!
This post is in honor of Dorothy B. Vitaliano (Fig. 1) and all the authors actively involved in geomythology research, to whom we owe the term, its scientific meaning and its spreading communication.
Fig. 1. Photo of Dorothy B. Vitaliano and cover of her book “Legends of the Earth: Their Geologic Origins”, published in 1973.
The Scientific approach
Geomythology as a scientific approach is capable of using folklore to direct research toward certain questions and locations, by applying systematic methods based on myth analysis and geological correlations to test geological explanations. Geomythology is based on the awareness that folklore might contains hints about natural phenomena that once existed and/or still exist. Geological folklore can be inspired by i) an existing geological feature of particular interest, ii) the presence of natural phenomenon, or iii) an actual geological event, mostly a catastrophe (Vitaliano, 1973). The first case includes e.g., the Giant’s Causeway (EGU Blog – Giant’s Causeway: the mythical stone way), the Devils tower (EGU Blog – Devils tower: born from hell?), fossils (EGU Blog – The Cyclopes, the Skeletons, and the Dwarfs Elephants). The second refers to i.e., the flaming gas vents in Turkey (EGU Blog – Chimera: the lion, the goat, the snake and the flaming gas vents) and the Delphi oracle (coming soon). The third case includes earthquakes (EGU Blog – Japan’s Earthquakes – The work of Namazu?), volcanic eruptions (EGU Blog – Hawaii islands and the journey of Pele; Crater Lake: from Love, War and/or natural phenomena), tsunamis and impact craters (coming soon).
In this context, I would like to refer to the article by Swanson (2008), which I believe fully represent the concept and charm of Geomythology.
Swanson (2008) brilliantly analysed oral traditions involving Pele and her sister Hi’iaka to show how Hawaiian myths described the two major volcanic events of the Hawai’i island better than how geologists did until recent times. The myth to which Swanson referred is different than that from our EGU Blog (Hawaii islands and the journey of Pele) and I invite you to read it. Long story short: Pele sent her sister Hi‘iaka to fetch her beloved Lohi‘au, giving only 40 days. But when more than 40 days passed, Pele burned her sister’s forest. Once Hi‘iaka came back with Lohi‘au, in revenge they made love under Pele’s eyes, who killed Lohi‘au and throw him inside the Kilauea. Hi‘iaka dug deeper and deeper until she got back with Lohi‘au.
Swanson (2008) suggest that this myth properly describe the timing of the events, since a huge lava flow (Pele burning the forest) anticipated the Kilauea’s caldera formation (Hi‘iaka digging). The author was also able to “absolute” date the events following what the Hawaiians told about the volcano being active during the entire time of the kings ruling the island. Assuming there were 10 – 15 rulers lasting about 20 to 25 years each, the caldera would have formed between 1440 and 1600 C.E. These ages fit the 1470 and 1500 C.E. range from 14C dating, and anticipate the formation of the Kilauea’s caldera by ca. 300 yr then previously thought.
The Bridging Gap
Geomythology as a scientific communication medium is capable of amuse and connect to all class of people, from kids fascinated by folklore, to non-scientists and no-humanists who appreciate fantastic worlds and knowledge, to researchers interested in improving their multidisciplinary approach.
In this context, I would like to show you one short film and one animated video, which use geomythology as a medium to captivate viewers and to step into the communication gap between scientists and no-scientists: “Geomythology” by La Sagra della Scienza presented to the On The Rocks film festival organized by the Italian Geological Society (SGI) and the TED-Ed video “Why do so many cultures have dragon legends?” by Prof. Timothy J. Burbery.
The first video links the famous myths of Namazu (EGU Blog – Japan’s Earthquakes – The work of Namazu?), Pele (EGU Blog – Hawaii islands and the journey of Pele) and Persephone (EGU Blog – Persephone on the endorheic Pergusa lake) to their respective geological explanation with an amusing yet substantive script.
The second video introduces why so many unrelated cultures ended up with similar legendary creatures… Dragons! and also why different cultures describe dragons differently, yet comprising shared similarities.
Enjoy the view!
References
Vitaliano, D.B., 1973. Legends of the Earth: their Geological Origins. Indiana University Press, Bloomington/London, 324 p.
Piccardi, L. and Masse W.B., 2007. Myth and Geology. Geological Society, London, Special Publications 273, 346 p.
Swanson, D.A., 2008. Hawaiian oral tradition describes 400 years of volcanic activity at Kīlauea. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 176, 427 – 431.
