Palaeontologia Electronica http://palaeo-electronica.org

MacLeod, Norman. 2006. [Review of Mayor, Adrienne, Fossil Legends of First Americans] Palaeontologia Electronica, Vol. 9, Issue 2, R4, 7pp. 2.13MB; http://palaeo-electronica.org/toc9_2.htm

FOSSIL LEGENDS OF THE FIRST AMERICANS

Reviewed by Norman MacLeod

PALAEONTOLOGISTS AMONG THE FIRST PEOPLES?

Adrienne MayorPrinceton University Press, 2005, 488 pp.ISBN: 0-691-11345-9, $32.95

Tracing the origins of a person’s family, ethnicgroup, business, religion, country, etc. are popularpastimes these days, helped along, no doubt, bythe burgeoning pace at which archival informationis becoming available on the Internet. There’s anirony in this phenomenon. Just as globalization istaking firm hold and borders seem to be vanishingbefore our eyes, an ever-increasing proportion ofthe public is becoming interested in who they areand where they came from.

Of course, palaeontologists are no strangersto an obsession with the past. It’s our stock andtrade. An interest in questions of origin is as naturalto us as questions of composition to a chemist orshape to a geometer. The popular obsession withorigins could be regarded as the rest of the worldcatching up with historical sciences like palaeontol-ogy. While there is a difference insofar as the oft-stated scientific rationale for studying the past is tobetter understand the natural processes at worktoday (e.g., evolution, biogeography, tectonics,physical oceanography), if we’re honest I believewe also do what we do simply because, for us, thepast holds a fascination all its own. For example,many dinosaur palaeontologists I know are palae-ontologists simply because that is, for the mostpart, what you have to be to make a living studyingdinosaurs. Dinosaurs actually have limited bios-tratigraphical value and few would argue theirstudy has contributed any truly unique and impor-tant insights to the functional morphology, ecology,

distribution, cell biology,ontogeny, pharmacol-ogy, etc. of any modernorganismal group. Nev-ertheless, a demandexists for informationabout dinosaurs in thescientific marketplace.The same holds formany other fossilgroups. To be sure, weare interested in what-ever use the ‘real world’can make of our fossils.We’re ever alert for links between the sorts of datawe can provide and the information needed by oth-ers to solve present-day problems. Arguably thoseof us who hold professional positions have beenselected for those positions as a result of our abilityto relate at least some aspects of our science toissues others believe important. But for most of us Ithink there’s also a little voice inside telling us we’dstill want to do what we do even if it had no bearingon any contemporary concern.

In this sense I’ve long regarded fossils asbeing like art. True art isn’t ‘for’ any practical thingin particular. But that makes it no less important.Rather, art causes a dialogue to spontaneouslyerupt in us through which we come to knowaspects of ourselves, and others, which are difficultto access in any other way. Like art, there’s some-

MACLEOD: FOSSIL LEGENDS OF FIRST AMERICANS

2

thing about a fossil that speaks to our hearts aswell as our heads. Their designs and symmetriesare so intriguing, simultaneously familiar andunusual. We’re drawn to them irrespective of howmuch we know about them scientifically. Well-pre-served fossils seem so finely wrought. The factthey were created by natural processes, and not bythe mind or hands of humans, only adds to theirallure. I’ve always been curious as to why the aes-thetic dimension of palaeontology has usually goneuncommented upon by palaeontologists them-selves, as if we’re ashamed or embarrassed tohave noticed that these objects are also beautifuland aesthetically moving.

Are we unusual in this respect? Did ancientpeoples respond to fossils as we do? Did theyrespond to the beauty of these objects and, if so,how? Or were fossils ignored or treated with indif-ference, even fear? Given that fossils are, quite lit-erally, just about everywhere, what did ancientcultures make of these objects that were surely asubiquitous their world as they are in ours?

Most historians trace the science of palaeon-tology to the first episode of the Renaissance(1450 – 1546, see Adams 1938). The first book onthe subject that can reasonably be called scientificwas Georg Bauer’s De Natura Fossilum (1546)published under a latinized form of his name,Georgius Agricola (Fig. 1). Like Niels Stensen(Nicholas Steno) after him, Bauer was trained as aphysician, first becoming interested in fossils whenhe was City Physician of Joachimsthal in the min-ing region of Bohemian. While primarily a treatiseon mineralogy—Bauer is known today as the‘Father of Mineralogy’—true fossils were also con-sidered by Bauer, though his discussion of these ismostly devoted to a debunking of various mythsand interpretations published by classical authors(e.g., Aristotle believed fossils grew in the rocks

themselves as a result of the actions of a mis-placed organic ‘seed’) and to fitting them into his‘Classification of Inanimate Subterranean Bodies’(e.g., belemnites, and fossiliferous sedimentaryrocks were classified as ‘Simple Stones’).1

Bauer’s 1546 treatise set the stage for themodern study of fossils, but it was the Swiss natu-ralist Conrad Gesner (Fig. 2) who launched thefield in its modern form. Gesner’s great palaeonto-logical treatise, A Book on Fossil Objects, ChieflyStones and Gems, their Shapes and Appearance(1565) was the fourth (and last) volume of his His-tory of Animals series. Like Bauer’s De NaturaFossilum, this book epitomized everything Gesnerhad learned from reading classical sources, alongwith discussing new findings and interpretationsbeing made by his contemporaries, including hisown. Written and illustrated in a style that harksback to Medieval bestiaries, Fossil Objects set thestyle for many of the publishing conventions allpalaeontologists use today in their systematic writ-ings, including the value of including illustrationsalong with textual descriptions of taxonomic char-acteristics.

But what of the time before Bauer andGesner? Fossils were not unknown or unappreci-ated in either the Middle Ages (11-1450), the so-called ‘Dark Ages’ (500-1100) or in classical antiq-uity (500-BC) as the writings of these (and other)authors take pains to point out. The earliest writtendiscussion of a fossil is usually attributed to Ori-gen’s reference to Xenophanes’ idea (dating fromaround 540 B.C.) that the occurrence of fossilizedshells of Cenozoic marine molluscs offers proof

1. Interestingly Bauer user the term ‘ammonite’ to refer to the rock sedimentologists know today as pisolite.

Figure 1. The only known portrait of Georg Bauer(Georgius Agricola, from Adams 1938).

Figure 2. Portrait of Conrad Gesner (from Adams1938).

PALAEO-ELECTRONICA.ORG

3

that the waters of the sea ‘mingled’ with the Earthin certain places. This seems a perfectly reason-able modern scientific hypothesis, incorporatingobjective observations and the synthesis of seem-ingly unrelated observations into a novel and test-able hypothesis.

Naturally, the classical literature is also full ofstories about the occult origin of fossils, stories thatlink these objects with a power that arises fromtheir coincidental or metaphorical similarity of formwith some other, more familiar, object. The com-mon myth of former ages of the Earth having beenpopulated races of giants or monsters has longbeen felt by classical scholars to derive from thediscovery of large vertebrate bones by ancientpeople and their (incorrect) analogy of these withlarge individuals from among their own populations(Fig. 3). This ascientific, metaphorical connection isalso manifest in the attribution of curative proper-ties to fossils and unusual modern animals; a viewof nature that and comes down to us today in theform of the truly disturbing trade in fossil andendangered species’ ‘parts’ for their supposedmedicinal value. The thing that separates this met-aphorical view of the status of fossils from those oftrue proto-scientific writings is the latter’s focus ondetailed observation of the forms in question. Fewmodern anatomists would mistake a giant sloth orglyptodont long bone for that of a human, giant orotherwise, on the basis of detailed point-by-pointcomparison. After all, the raw materials necessaryto make such comparisons were as readily avail-

able in ancient times as during the Renaissance orthe Enlightenment.

Let me hasten to add that the fact a differenceexists between the supernatural or metaphoricalapproach to the interpretation of fossils and the sci-entific approach does not mean the former is unim-portant or trivial. Metaphors are concerned withsymbolic representation and symbols are importantto many aspects of human culture. Indeed, acquisi-tion of the power to use symbols to express ideasis one of the cognitive attributes that make ushuman. The dialog between the symbolic and sci-entific interpretation of nature is ever with us andunquestionably enriches its experience for anyonewho cares to consider it.

Foccault (among others) has noted that fun-damental shifts in culture can be described asshifts in episteme, or the unconscious but positiveand productive set of relations within which knowl-edge is produced and defined. Despite its philo-sophical and analytical sophistication, science is asmuch a cultural phenomenon as business, art, or,yes, religion, and so cannot avoid all vestiges ofinfluence from prevailing epistema in its own prac-tice (e.g., Kuhn 1970; Mitchell 1998). Problems doarise, however, when the boundaries between sci-ence and symbolism become blurred.

In 2000 the classical folklorist Adrienne Mayorattempted a novel tack in the study of proto-palae-ontology from the metaphorical perspective. Herthesis was actually quite modest: the discovery offossils by ancient cultures posed the problem ofhow to explain these objects and that this problemwas resolved by incorporating metaphorical inter-pretations of fossil discoveries into their culturalmythos. On the face of it, this is not only an uncon-troversial proposition, but unoriginal, exampleshaving been recognized and discussed by histori-ans for literally centuries. Mayor’s unique and, tomy mind, intriguing, contribution, however, lay inher work uncovering the range of possible palae-ontological origins for many common myths.

Mayor’s most convincing contribution—forme—remains the griffin (or gryphon) myth. Thegriffin is a chimera with the head of an eagle, thebody of a lion, and a long serpent-like tail (Fig. 4).Both the eagle and the lion are occult sun symbolswith a generalized beneficent character. Their com-bination in the griffin results in a super-positivesymbol. Griffins are often portrayed as guardians ofroads and bridges (= road to salvation) and posi-tioned beside the Tree of Life. The chimeric natureof the symbol also embodies the concept of ambiv-alence (e.g., the contraposition between psychic

Figure 3. Detail of a Greek column-krater (ca. 550 B.C.)showing Herakles and Hesione confronting the monsterof Troy, which is depicted as a fossil skull weathering outof a rock outcrop. From Mayor 2000.

MACLEOD: FOSSIL LEGENDS OF FIRST AMERICANS

4

energy and cosmic force, Saviour and Antichrist,earth and sky, King of Heaven and Earth, road toHeaven-road to Hell).

As Mayor (2000) explains, the griffin legend isneither Greek nor Roman, but comes from Scyth-ian nomads who occupied the area of present-dayIran and who, about 675 BC, told the Greek trav-eler Aristeas of a vast wilderness to the east wheregold deposits were guarded by lion-like creatureswith hooked, eagle-like beaks. Aristeas workedthese gryps (= hooked) or griffins into a story (prob-ably also related by the nomads) in which men onhorseback battled the griffins for possession of thegold fields or, in later accounts, to protect theirnesting areas and young from the gold miners.Soon after this story—and others like it—appeared,the griffin motif began to be incorporated into clas-sical art and architecture alongside such familiarmythical creatures as dragons, naiads, furies,sphinx, and various giant heroes. Mayor’s uniquecontribution to all this was to follow the trail of clueseast from the Black Sea to the gold fields of theHindu Kush, Altari Mountains, and Gobi Desertwhere she speculated that the archetypal griffinmay have been Protoceratops fossils noticed bythe nomads as they made their way along the SilkRoad (Fig. 5).

If Mayor had left her ‘analysis’ there the asso-ciation between griffins and Protoceratops wouldhave been simple ascientific speculation. ButMayor went further, adopting a science-like searchfor independent confirmatory evidence. Shepointed out that the griffin-Protoceratops link notonly had geographic evidence on its side, but theform of the entire legend could be plausibly derived

from the character of the fossil deposits. The beak,the ‘wings’ (which were not part of the earliestdepictions of griffins, but may have been a fancifulinterpretation of the bony frill at the rear of the skull,see Fig. 6), the claws, the tail, the animal’s size,the nests, the eggs, the young, the association withgold deposits; even down to a distinctive color con-trast between the fossils (white) and sedimentarymatrix (red) that would ensure any alert travelerhappening by couldn’t help but notice these strikingfossils.

Mayor’s (2000) book goes on employ thiscomparative method to the analysis of other, possi-ble palaeontological connections with other ancientmyths, including Chinese and Indian dragons (thelatter legend originating from the fossiliferous Siwa-lik region and embodying a distinction between thehorned upland dragons and non-horned, buttusked, lowland dragons, that is mirrored by thelarge vertebrate fossils found in that region), the

Figure 4. Hammered bronze relief sculpture of a griffin(ca. 630 B.C.). Note baby griffin beneath the adult. FromMayor 2000.

Figure 5. Mongolian Protoceratops skull weathering outof an outcrop. Photo from the AMNH Chapman-AndrewsExpedition

Figure 6. Saka-Scythian representation of a griffin (ca.500 B.C.). Note lack of obvious wings. From Mayor2000.

PALAEO-ELECTRONICA.ORG

5

Neades of Samos (possibly based on mastodonfossils known to occur on the island), the marinemonster of Joppa (possibly based on Zeuglodonfossils). Some of these hypothesis tests were moresuccessful than others. Nevertheless, given theubiquitous nature of these symbols in western art,religious, and political iconography, it is interestingto ponder these links as a way of understandingthe effect fossils may have had on our culture froma point-of-view completely different to the scientificones we usually consider.

Last year Princeton University Press releasedMayor’s newest book on this topic, entitled FossilLegends of the First Americans (2005). This bookhas been something of an open secret among thevertebrate palaeontology community for sometime. As befits a modern historian, Mayor did anexcellent job enlisting the services of her subjectcommunity in her project by posting questionsabout her research to the vrtpaleo listserver. As aresult, I, no doubt along with many others, eagerlyanticipated the book’s publication. After reading itthrough and rereading several long sections forthis review, I must say I’m disappointed with theresult.

Part of the problem lies in the book’s concept.Drawing on the success of First Fossil Hunters,Mayor states in the Preface to Fossil Legends thather purpose is to determine what fossils meant toNative Americans. While this is a worthy questionto ask, it has limited resonance outside those inter-ested in Native American history and so, I believe,misses the point her previous book made so elo-quently. In that work, Mayor showed that by tryingto fit the occurrence of fossils into their world viewclassical Greek and Roman scholars not onlyenriched their world, but also may have had astrong—and continuing—influence on our own.

I do realize, of course, the reason classicalviews of fossils likely have a significant non-scien-tific influence on modern times is down to the factthat western societies cultural origins, art, litera-ture, and religion are all strongly based on ancientGreek and Roman symbols. This has no parallel inNative American culture. Not only were NativeAmerican legends not as richly developed as thoseof classical Greece, Native American culturesnever developed a tradition of writing or artistic rep-resentation to match the sophistication of the Euro-pean classical age. The fact that Native Americancultures were all but exterminated by US westwardexpansion also had a catastrophic effect on theability of those cultures to influence the modernworld, though this influence remains strong in

terms of North American place names (e.g., Ohio isIroquosi for ‘great river’, Minnesota is derived fromthe Dakota word for ‘sky-tinted water’, Illinois isAlgonquin for ‘tribe of great men’). Regardless, inorder to make her thesis matter to any but NativeAmerican scholars, some reason to care about theNative American view of fossils needs to beexplained and developed. Sadly, outside the nor-mal and easy appeals to appreciation of culturaldiversity Mayor never attempts to make this con-nection.

Worse still is the fact that Mayor has chosento arrange her book as a long rebuttal to GeorgeGaylord Simpson’s (Fig. 7) 1942 and 1943 essayson The Beginnings of Vertebrate Paleontology inNorth America and The Discovery of Fossil Verte-brates in North America, respectively. In these arti-cles Simpson reviewed the evidence available tohim from the published literature and concludedthat Native American engagement with fossils con-stituted ‘casual finds without scientific sequel’, thatNative Americans ‘made no real contributions topalaeontological history’, and that ‘all their ideasabout fossils were based on superstition.’ (seeMayor 2005, p. xxvi). So far as I can see, virtuallyall the evidence marshaled by Mayor in her bookmore-or-less supports Simpson’s conclusions, con-tra her own interpretation of her data.

First a few minor concessions. Mayor is cor-rect—and the Simpson quotes she cites incor-rect—that Native Americans did make substantialcontributions to early American palaeontology.Trained, early American and European palaeontol-ogists relied upon local tribes’ knowledge to showthem where the fossil localities were. This is reallyno different from the situation today where, as

Figure 7. American vertebrate palaeontologist, evolu-tionary theorist, and biometrician, George Gaylord Sim-pson.

MACLEOD: FOSSIL LEGENDS OF FIRST AMERICANS

6

often as not, discoveries of significant fossil mate-rial are made by local people (farmers, ranchers,game wardens, hikers) and then brought to theattention of professionals. The contributions ofthese local collectors are very important and theydeserve to be celebrated2. But it should also beacknowledged that, in the vast majority of cases—and possibly in all cases involving Native Ameri-cans in the 1600s –1800s—the scientific value ofthe specimens recovered could not be judged bytheir discoverers, but required examination bycompetently trained specialists. At the very least apartnership was involved that included a bothNative Americans and one or more trained anato-mists-morphologists with the latter supplying theexpertise required to make the discovery scientifi-cally important. Claiming that the act of object dis-covery itself constitutes a scientific advance is tomistake the ingredients of a cake for the finishedproduct; on a superficial level they are the same,but the absence of knowing how to combine themcorrectly makes the probability of achieving a satis-fying result vanishingly small.

Mayor is also correct—and the Simpsonquotes she cites incorrect—that Native Americansdid recognize the organic nature of some fossiltypes. These tended to be vertebrates and inverte-brates whose morphology was reminiscent offamiliar local plants and animals (e.g., well pre-served trilobites are not all that different in generalaspect from many insects and crustaceans). Otherfossil groups—especially those of marine inverte-brate groups unfamiliar to land-locked tribes—aremore abstract in appearance and would be lessreadily identifiable as organic (e.g., corals, bryo-zoans, sponges). This is really no different from thehistory of palaeontological studies in Europe (seeRudwick 1976).

The key to making a scientific contribution—and I suspect this was the real point of Simpson’scriticism—is that one must synthesize observa-tional information into general statement of originand/or development that can tested empirically viaappeal to other available observations. Discoveringa fossil bone and then concluding it provides evi-dence the existence of giant stone humans atsome remote time in the past that preyed on NativeAmericans (see the Iroquois legend of Ot-ne-yar-

heh, Mayor 2005, pp. 40-42) does not constitute ascientific discovery made by Native Americans.The only evidence for such an interpretation is thefossil bones themselves, none of which reallyresemble human bones in detail. If such a connec-tion between the discovery of a fossil and the cre-ation of a legend could be made convincingly, acase for the cultural significance of the discoverymight be justified, as Mayor herself did repeatedlyin her 2000 book; but not a case for its scientificimportance. Similarly the vision-quest legend of theMonster Bear—which appeared to Seneca brave ina dream, breaking off its own canine tooth and giv-ing it to the brave to symbolize its promise to nolonger prey on the Seneca people—is not a scien-tific discovery, but a metaphorical interpretation ofa (possible) fossil find on a par with the interpreta-tion of mastodon crania as the skulls of a race ofpeople-eating, one-eyed giants by the ancientGreeks.

In recounting the bear story Mayor also putsher own scientific credentials into question by iden-tifying the Monster Bear as ‘probably belonging tothe short-faced bear (Arctodus simus) of the Pleis-tocene’ (p. 45). Unlike her previous, Old Worldinvestigations (see above), no cultural geographic,or palaeontological evidence is produced in sup-port of this assertion; just a brief sketch of whatwas arguably one of Pleistocene, North America’smost fearsome predators. In fact, North Americawas host to a diverse bear fauna in the Pleistoceneany species of which could have served as themodel for the Monster Bear legend. Arctodussimus was long limbed and probably a fast runner,but this is insufficient to identify the species as theprobable source of a Monster Bear legend (a vari-ant of which describes a brave outrunning of thebear). All Pleistocene bears could undoubtedly runfaster than any Pleistocene human (at least inshort busts) and the normal thing to do whenencountering any bear species unexpectedlywould have been to run the other way. Even moredisturbingly, careful reading of Mayor’s accountreveals a singular lack of any evidence this legendhas anything whatsoever to do with any fossil.

Highly suspect examples of similar baldextrapolations litter the text. The basic mode ofanalysis seems to be one of cataloguing a series ofNative American natural history legends from oneof five different regions of the US, undertaking asuperficial analysis of the local fossil records in theareas where those tribes live today, identifying anyparticularly exotic, large, ferocious, or otherwiseinteresting ancient species that might have served

2. The Paleontological Society in the US makes an Annual Award—The Strimple Medal—to amateurs in order to acknowledge and celebrate their contribution to our science and the UK Palaeontological Associa-tion awards its Marie Anning prize for the same pur-pose.

PALAEO-ELECTRONICA.ORG

7

(neglecting to mention any uncertain or complicat-ing factors) and then implying the relation is nowproven. To have this sort of thing thrown back atany palaeontologically informed audience, muchless use as post-hoc criticism of such an eminenceas George Gaylord Simpson, along with thinlyveiled accusations of Simpson’s supposed racismand indifferent cultural scholarship3 wears verythin, very quickly.

On the positive side, Mayor has done a greatservice to Native Americans by collecting togethermany of their legends, including many that had pre-viously been unrecorded or that had not beenavailable in any but much more obscure publica-tions for some time. While these are not recountedwith sufficient background information to makethem informative academically in their own right,their collection and brief mention by Mayor shouldserve as a stimulus to this field for some years tocome.

The real story of how Native American culturewas touched by fossils—and whether this had anylasting impact beyond those local Native Americancultures—would be well worth investigating. Thefear is that too much time has passed for culturesbased on oral histories to provide sufficient docu-mentation of the connection between fossils andparticular legends, especially when the sacredobjects themselves either no longer survive orremain inaccessible. In my view Mayor has notmanaged to make the case for these associationsin sufficient detail to convince any audience apply-ing modern scientific evidentiary standards.Whether such a case can be mounted for must beleft to others, possibly inspired by Mayor’s attempt.

What can be said is that, like their Greek andRoman counterparts and as well as the millions ofpeople worldwide who appreciate them today, fos-sils spoke to Native Americans in ways thatdemanded their attention. I can’t imagine any sen-tient human from any historical age not beingmoved by the discovery of a fossil. I suspect anappreciation of fossils may have predated anappreciation of art and perhaps can even be linkedto the development of representational art in somecultures. In (partial) support of this these I wouldpoint to a recent study reporting that two marineshells from the Natural History Museum’s Palaeon-tology collections have been identified as beads,and are the world’s oldest known items of jewelry

(Vanhaeren et al. 2006). These shells came fromtwo different archeological sites and were dated as100,000 and 35,000 years old. Possibly they werethemselves sub-fossil shells. Certainly many genu-ine fossil shells look no different.

While both Mayor’s books raise intriguingquestions about the cultural history and signifi-cance of our favorite natural objects, I still see theirscientific investigation beginning with Bauer,Gesner and colleagues in the mid-1500s. AlthoughSimpson did not say it, he certainly would haveagreed with Zittle (1899) that ancient peoples’‘baseless hypotheses and haphazard observationcannot be considered as the foundation for scien-tific achievement.’, (p. 11). Nonetheless, I certainlydo agree with Mayor that these sorts of investiga-tions represent important new attempts to under-stand and appreciate the holistic significance offossils.

REFERENCESAdams, F. D. 1938. The birth and development of the

geological sciences. Williams & Wilkins, 506.Foucault, M. 1972. The archaeology of knowledge.

Tavostock, London, 256 pp.Kuhn, T. S. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions

(second edition). Chicago University Press, Chicago,210 pp.

Laporte, L. F. 2000. George Gaylord Simpson. ColumbiaUniversity Press, 256.

Mayor, A. 2000. The first fossil hunters: paleontology inGreek and Roman times. Princeton University Press,359.

Mayor, A. 2005. Fossil legends of the first Americans.Princeton University Press, 488.

Mitchell, W. J. T. 1998. The last dinosaur book: the lifeand times of a cultural icon. University of ChicagoPress, Chicago, 321 pp.

Rudwick, M. J. S. 1972. The meaning of fossils: epi-sodes in the history of palaeontology. MacDonald,287.

Simpson, G. G. 1942. The beginnings of vertebrate pale-ontology in North America. Proceedings of the Amer-ican Philosophical Society, 86130–188.

Simpson, G. G. 1943. The discovery of fossil vertebratesin North America. Journal of Paleontology, 17(1), 26–38.

Vanhaeren, M., d’Errico, F., Stringer, C., James, S. L.,Todd, J. A., and Mienis. H. K. 2006. Middle Pale-olithic Shell Beads in Israel and Algeria. Science,312, 1785-88.

Zittle, K. A. v. 1899. Geschichte der Geologie und Palae-ontologie bis Ende des 19 Jahrhunderts. 523.

PE Review Number: 9.2.5RCopyright: Coquina Press 2006

3. Simpson was married to psychologist Anne Roe and had a deep interest in cultural subjects (see Laporte. 2000).