An Addendum to Winchell’s Other Boulder…
The Class of 1878 Memorial Boulder did not stay in one orientation and possibly not in one place. As shown below, its past orientation was obviously different than how it currently lies, However, past photographs also appear to show it in slightly different locations over the years.
So how or why did the boulder move?
Rebecca Toov of the University of Minnesota Archives came across a series of 1906 articles in The Minnesota Daily which suggest moving or hiding the Class of 1878 Boulder had become something of an early campus tradition.
The May 24th issue claimed members of the sophomore class had been responsible for burying the boulder beneath four feet of dirt but assured readers that the juniors and seniors would force the culprits to dig it up and restore it to its place.
Must Dig It Up
So Say Upper Classmen To Those Who Buried Boulders.
Considered an Insult to Class of ’78 – For the Honors of Old Traditions
They Will Make Culprits Excavate It.
Four feet underground beneath a mound of fresh earth the stone of the class of ’78 has rested since Saturday. Since then wrath has been rising in the hearts of all who love University tradition that anyone should have the temerity to move from its place such a landmark as the old stone, and especially have the upperclassmen express dtheir [sic] ideas upon the outrage in no gentle terms
"Minnesota has but tew traditions," said a Junior yesterday, “and those it is our duty to preserve. Someone has buried the stone of ’78 and offered a direct insult to the honor of the class. It is the duty of those who love Minnesota's traditions to see that the stone is placed in the old spot and the insult avenged.’’
Investigation has been going on quietly and the blame for the deed has been fixed upon certain members of the Sophomore class.
This morning at chapel time a company of Seniors and Juniors using the rights that generations of tradition have conferred upon them, will force the culprits to unearth the stone and place in its rightful position.
The Minnesota Daily – Thursday, May 24, 1906 – page 1
However, the upper classes failed to follow through, as according to an October 11th article the stone was still buried beneath a mound that autumn. The following day, the University Press Club suggested they might raise the stone, but that promise fell through as well and the women of the senior class threatened to do the job if the men did not.
Dig Up The Rock
New students passing along the walk from the gate to the mechanical engineering building have been heard to remark:
“What is that little mound there for?”
And the old student proceeds to explain that it is the grave of the old rock of the class of ’78, buried last year by the freshmen.
And the old student can not help feeling, as he tells about it, a tinge of shame over the fact that it still lies there — buried.
The freshmen treated it as a joke when they accomplished the deed. That was all proper enough. Each fall during many previous years, the underclass had buried and exhumed, and exhumed and buried, the old rock, but never was it left, as it is now, to the oblivion of a mouldy grave. It was a point of honor with the upperclassmen, if not with the sophomores, to keep the boulder above ground.
And it is yet. The fact that over it there is now a green sod, is a reflection on the honor of the student body.
Dig it up!
The Minnesota Daily – Thursday, October 11, 1906 – page 2
The Minnesota Daily – Friday, October 12, 1906 – page 2
May Raise Boulder
There seems to be no disposition on the part of the underclassmen to exhume the historic, much insulted ’76 boulder from its grave. It is very probable, however, that the stone will be raised under the auspices of the university press club on the same day that the official flag raising takes place.
The October 16th Minnesota Daily reported that the senior women’s challenge had succeeded but it would be the sophomore men who would exhume the rock for them. Every sophomore was requested to show up because by this time the rock had achieved mythical mass.
Sophomores To Lift Rock
Second Year Men Come to Aid of Senior Girls
The valiant senior girls who so bravely offered to dig up the old ’78 rock which was buried by irreverent freshies last year, will not have to “make good,” for some gallant sophomores are planning to exhume the old memorial themselves. Some day next week, it is rumored, a bunch of the sophomores will go out during chapel time, and dig it up with ceremonial rites. Every sophomore is expected to be there, for the old stone is rather heavy and will need all the muscle that can be mustered.
The Minnesota Daily – Tuesday, October 16, 1906 – page 2
Two articles from the Saturday, October 20th Minnesota Daily recorded the result. On the front page, a three-quarter column story relates that although the sophomores did exhume the stone on the evening of the 18th, they then left it in place overnight for a rechristening the following morning. However, that evening, others returned and reburied the rock in a new location. The sophomores had to dig the rock up a second time before it was formally re-christened in front of a crowd of hundreds. Unfortunately, a representative of the 1878 class did not show up as expected. On the second page, an opinion article castigated the vandals, suggesting the prank had outlived its time.
Stone Of “78” Is Moved 3 Times In Twelve Hours
Rock is Exhumed by Sophs, Reburied by Unknown Parties, Then Re-Exhumed
Several Mysterious Moves Made by Landmark — Stone is Re-Christened
Thursday evening the historical stone of ’78 was disturbed in its resting place by a number of sophomores who doubtless did not realize that the old stone had had hard treatment since interred by the class of ‘78. After much hindrance on the part of the freshmen the sophs succeeded in getting the stone out of the ground and in their possession long enough to christen it.
At 8 o’clock Thursday evening the sophomores arrived on the campus with picks and shovels, ready for labor. After a few hours’ work they succeeded in accomplishing their purpose and rolled the stone in front of Pillsbury monument in order to carry on the ceremonies in the morning to better advantage.
They left the scene about 12 o’clock well satisfied with the result of their work.
Under cover of the morning hours, unknown parties, evidently not pleased with the work of the sophs, proceeded to dig a good-sized hole in front of the monument and re-bury the stone.
The sophs Friday morning displayed good nerve in again raising the stone. The performance proved an entertaining feature the greater part of the morning, for about 200 spectators [ ] was completed in time for [ ] christening which took place at cha[ ]e.
The expected representative of the class of ’78 did not put in an appearance, so the success of the ceremonies depended entirely upon the oratorical genius of the sophomore class as a whole.
Although several people have expressed their opinions that the misused memoir should be granted a rest it seems that, according to the words of Prof. Sardeson, the only way to keep it in place is to place it on a cement foundation and fasten it with iron bolts.
The Minnesota Daily – Saturday, October 20, 1906 – page 1
The Minnesota Daily – Saturday, October 20, 1906 – page 2
Damaged Property
The burying of the historical stone of ’78 in front of Pillsbury monument has been a topic of much discussion among college students since the incident occurred, and the act of these unknown parties is universally condemned.
The idea of outwitting the sophs after their evening’s-work was undoubtedly a brilliantly conceived one hit [sic] the persons of such originality, should also have had good judgment enough to have buried the stone on some part of the campus where the damage to the appearance of the grounds would not have been so material.
To return the stone to the place where it should have remained at all times, was done only after the expending of considerable time, trouble, and money on the part of the university authorities.
Such childlike pranks should have been dropped in high school days and not retained thruout college. They are sometimes carried too far and even now there are rumors of faculty action being taken against the persons who have maliciously damaged university property.
Suggestions were made to avoid a repeat of the stone’s burial. On the last (fourth) page of the October 25th Daily Cardinal, under the ‘Queer Campus Doings’ title, “Capt.” Allen W. Guild, the university’s superintendent of buildings, was quoted as saying the stone would not be placed in cement. The next day, President Northrop waded into the fray, dismissing the idea of concrete and facetiously suggesting enclosing the rock within a fence and charging admission to students who wished to dig it up.
Queer Campus Doings
THAT ’78 STONE
Not on your tin-type, says Capt. Guild.
Captain Guild will not see the ’78 stone in cement. “I don’t care how much they bury it or dig it up,” said that gentleman, “the university has nothing to do with that. That pavement is the only thing that the university has anything to do with.”
The Minnesota Daily – Thursday, October 25, 1906 – page 4
"Fence The Boulder In”
This is President Northrop’s Suggestion — Faculty Members Do Not Favor Cement Idea
The idea of imbedding the '78 stone in cement does not seem to appeal to the faculty as a feasible plan. They refuse to regard the matter seriously.
President Northrop, when asked about it, said; “I hope the time will soon come when the students will ashamed of rolling that rock around the campus. But if it is necessary to make it stationary in some way, how would it be to use a chain and anchor? If the students are in need of physical exercise, it might be a good idea to inclose [sic] the rock with a high board fence, and charge admittance of the freshmen and sophomores who want to dig.”
Dr. Westermann said that he believed every university had some object which was treated in a similar manner. “At Missouri university,” he said, “the Jefferson monument is always toted from place to place — and it really doesn’t matter much, as long as the students get the exercise.”
Miss Comstock considered it ridiculous to think of putting the rock in cement, altho the stone should really be left in place for a few years, by way of a change. "It seems a pity," she observed, “that anything must be firmly nailed down, if it is to keep its place on the campus. Planting the ’78 stone in cement seems to me like putting things on a high shelf to keep children from handling them – and then, it is apt to spoil the children.”
Ada L. Comstock was an Instructor in Rhetoric
William Linn Westermann was a historian at Minnesota from 1906 to 1908
The Minnesota Daily – Friday, October 26, 1906 – page 1
The stone now reposes at an angle with respect to its carved ’78, its orientation instead set for a tablet with the names of the 1878 class. Since some 1906 stories mention the stone being previously rolled about, the tablet may have been installed at the 1906 ceremony or shortly afterwards, possibly ending the tradition of moving or burying the stone. However, I wondered when that tradition had begun.
The Beginning of a Tradition
By coincidence, while researching another topic I discovered the answer to my question in an 1879 issue of the Daily’s predecessor student publication, Ariel. The first class to bury the Class of 1878 boulder turned out to be the next year’s Class of 1879.
Upset with their sacrilege, President Folwell as an ‘incentine’ (presumably an Ariel typo) offered a reward of fifty dollars for the identification of the burial perpetrators.
Ariel - Vol. 2, No. 10 - June 4, 1879
During the early part of last week, the large bolder, weighing nearly a ton-and-a-half, which has rested upon the campus, under the class-tree of '78, for the past year, and which had been placed there by that class as a memento of by-gone recollections, was, by some rascally hands, underminded [sic] and sunk in the ground. Some may consider this as a very laughable and practicable joke, but certainly it is a pity to desecrate that spot to which a graduating class has consecrated its memory. The deed is also to be censured much the more since the class upon which it was perpetrated is not now a member of the University, and cannot therefore protect its interest. As an incentine [sic] to ferret out the actors in this "contemptable piece of business," the President offers a reward of fifty dollars.
Ariel - Volume 2, No. 10 - June 4, 1879
If the Arial article is accurate, Folwell’s response may have backfired. Depending on the model used, fifty dollars in 1879 would be the equivalent of $1,600 to $2,000 today. Not necessarily enough to unmask the villains but enough of a reaction from the administration to enshrine the prank as a campus tradition, at least for the next quarter century.