Home › Stones as Talismans and Amulets › Stones as Talismans and Amulets

Stones as Talismans and Amulets

THE use of precious stones in early times as amulets and talismans is shown in many ancient records, and several scholars have assumed that the belief in the magic efficacy of stones gave rise to their use as objects of personal adornment. It is, of course, very difficult either to prove or to disprove such a theory, for, even in the case of the oldest texts, we must bear in mind that they do not in the least represent primitive conditions, and that many thousands of years must have elapsed before a people could attain the grade of civilization necessary for the production of even the simplest literature. For this reason, certain investigators have preferred to seek for a solution of this problem in the customs and habits of the so-called uncivilized peoples of our own time; but we must not forget that conditions which seem to us very rudimentary are, nevertheless, the result of a long process of development. Even if this development was arrested many centuries or millenniums ago, it must have required a very considerable period of time to evolve such usages and conventions as are found even among the lowest races. Indeed, many uncivilized peoples have very complicated rules and observances, testifying to considerable thought and reflection.

Fetichism in all its forms depends upon an imperfect conception of what constitutes life and conscious being, so that will and thought are attributed to inanimate objects. We can observe this in the case of animals and very young children, who regard any moving object as endowed with life. In the case of stones, however, it seems probable that those supposed to be the abode of spirits, good or evil, were selected because their natural form suggested that of some animal or of some portion of the human body. On the other hand, the wearing of what we call precious stones is more likely to have been due to the attraction exercised by bright colors upon the eye of the beholder and to the desire to display some distinguishing mark that would command attention and admiration for the wearer. This tendency runs through the higher animal kingdom, and its workings have served as a foundation for the theory of natural selection.

It seems likely that we have here the true explanation of the motive for the gathering, preserving, and wearing of precious stones. Since these objects are motionless, they can scarcely have impressed the mind of primitive man with the idea that they were alive; they were not imposing by their mass, as were large stones, and their crystalline form scarcely figured any known living shape. Hence their chief, we may even say their only attraction was their color and brilliancy. What effect these qualities had upon the visual sense of primitive man may be safely inferred from the effect such objects produce upon infants. The baby has no fear in regard to a small and brilliantly colored object which is shown to it, but will eagerly put out its hand to seize, hold, and gaze upon a bright-colored stone. As the object is quite passive and easily handled, there is nothing to suggest any lurking power to harm, and therefore there is nothing to interfere with the pleasurable sensation aroused in the optic nerve by the play of color. In this naive admiration of what is brilliant and colored, the infant undoubtedly represents for us the mental attitude of primitive man.

Probably the first objects chosen for personal adornment were those easily strung or bound together,--for instance, certain perforated shells and brilliant seeds; the harder gems must have been hoarded as pretty toys the help of the simplest tools, probably came next, while the harder gems must have been hoarded as pretty toys long before they could be adjusted for use as ornaments.

Unquestionably, when these objects had once been worn, there was a disposition to attribute certain happenings to their influence and power, and in this way there arose a belief in their efficacy, and, finally, the conviction that they were the abodes of powerful spirits. In this, as in many other things, man's first and instinctive appreciation was the truest, and it has required centuries of enlightenment to bring us back to this love of precious stones for their esthetic beauty alone. Indeed, even to-day, we can see the power of superstitious belief in the case of the opal, which some timid people still fear to wear, although until three or four centuries ago this stone was thought to combine all the virtues of the various colored gems, the hues of which are united in its sparkling light.

A proof that bright and colored objects were attractive in themselves, and were first gathered up and preserved by primitive man for this reason alone, may be found in the fact that certain birds, notable the Chlanydera of Australia, related to our ravens, after constructing for themselves pretty arbors, strew the floors with variegated pebbles, so arranged as to suggest a mosaic pavement. At the entrance of the arbors are heaped up pieces of bone, shells, feathers, and stones, which have often been brought from a considerable distance, this giving evidence that the birds have not selected these objects at random. It is strange that the attraction exercised upon the sense of sight by anything brilliant and colored, which is at the same time easily portable and can be handled or worn, should be overlooked by those who are disposed to assert that all ornaments of this kind were originally selected and preserved solely or principally because of their supposed talismanic qualities.

The theory that colored and brilliant stones were first collected by men because of their beauty rather than because of their talismanic virtues, is corroborated by the statement made that seals select with considerable care the stones they swallow, and observers on the fishing grounds have noted this and believe that pebbles of chaleedony and serpentine found there have been brought by the seals. (Lucas, "The Swallowing Stones by Seals," Science, N.S. Report of Fur Seal Investigation.) The popular derivation of the word "amulet" from an Arabic word hamalat, signifying something suspended or worn, is not accepted by the best Arabic scholars, and it seems probable that the name is of Latin origin, in spite of the fact that no very satisfactory etymology can be given. Pliny's use of amuletum shows that with him the word did not always denote an object that was worn on the person, although this later became its meaning. The old etymology given by Varro (118-29 B.C.), who derived amuletum from the verb amoliri, "to remove," "to drive away," may not be quite in accord with modern philology, but still has something to recommend it as far as the sense goes, for the amulet was certainly believed to hold dangers aloof, or even to remove them. Talisman, however, a word not used in classical times, undoubtedly comes from the Arabic tilsam, this being in turn derived from used in late Greek to signify an initiation, or an incantation.