W. Davies: Abbé Henri Breuil

THE ABBÉ HENRI BREUIL (1877–1961)

William Davies

Centre for the Archaeology of Human Origins, School of Humanities (Archaeology), Avenue Campus, University of Southampton, SO17 1BF, UK. Contact email: [email protected] ______

ABSTRACT

This paper considers the considerable contributions made to the development of Palaeolithic archaeology by the Abbé Henri Breuil. It is argued here that Breuil developed pre-existing currents of thought in Francophone archaeology and made them globally-applicable for the first time. His concerns with Palaeolithic art and the chronological and technological development of artefacts set the research agenda for much of twentieth-century Palaeolithic archaeology. Evolutionary processes were discussed more as Lamarckian than Darwinian in Breuil’s work, and this was a direct result of his intellectual heritage.

Full reference: Davies, W. 2009. The Abbé Henri Breuil (1877–1961). In R. Hosfield, F. Wenban-Smith & M. Pope (eds.) Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Special Volume 30 of Lithics: The Journal of the Lithic Studies Society): 127Ŕ 141. Lithic Studies Society, London.

Keywords: Palaeolithic art, Upper Palaeolithic sequence, Darwin, Lamarck, evolution, global Palaeolithic

INTRODUCTION introduced Breuil to prehistory and showed him the Somme terrace deposits (Brodrick ŖI think it is true to say that [Breuil] was the 1963; Straus 1994). This paper will look first prehistorian to develop a genuine both ways, exploring how Breuil developed world-outlook, and his investigation and ideas forged in the uniformitarian and correlation of a mass of evidence from evolutionary Ŗwhite heatŗ of the mid- widely-separated areas has led directly to nineteenth century, and developed them, thus that change of axis which to-day we are making his contribution to the development beginning to take for grantedŗ of twentieth-century archaeological thought. (Garrod 1938: 2; author's comments in []) I shall also consider his legacy for todayřs archaeology. Linking the Abbé Breuil to the discoveries of Boucher de Perthes, and their validation by Breuilřs interests were various and eclectic, Prestwich and Evans in 1859, might seem a covering lithic artefacts, geological far-fetched proposition given that Breuil was sequences, natural history, anthropogenic born almost two decades after that event. (versus carnivore) modification of bone However, connections can be made: his great (Breuil 1938), and Palaeolithic/hunter- uncle was a President of the Antiquarian gatherer art. He was primarily a field- Society of Picardy, and a friend of Boucher worker, but many of his major contributions de Perthes; in the 1890s, Breuil became to the archaeology of the first half of the acquainted with a relative by marriage, twentieth century were in theoretical Geoffroy dřAult de Mesnil, who was an systematisations and syntheses. He was a early geologist and archaeologist, and who founding professor of the Institut de

127

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

Paléontologie Humaine (henceforth, IPH), The works of nineteenth-century French the first holder of a chair in prehistory at the Palaeolithic archaeologists stand as a Collège de France, and an early board somewhat confusing corpus of work, with member of the Centre National de la differing methods, classifications and lines Recherche Scientifique. He was Ŗone of the of evidence being preferred by different first modern professional prehistoriansŗ specialists. The roots of French Palaeolithic (Straus 1994: 190); not only did he take a archaeology lay in Geology and the Natural Ŗglobalŗ perspective on the Palaeolithic, he Sciences, and it comes as no surprise to find was the first to obtain a direct, first-hand that they treated niveaux (levels) and experience of the Palaeolithic around the couches (layers) as de facto proxies for world (Garrod 1938). To some extent this phases of occupation (and thus representing experience derived from his fame, gained successions of different Ŗcultural entitiesŗ), early on in the twentieth century: success and that archaeological artefacts themselves bred success, and it led to many invitations could Ŗevolveŗ in a Lamarckian way, ever from prehistorians around the world for him striving for improvement. Darwinian to examine their local records, and fit them evolution, with its emphasis on lines of into the global syntheses for which he was descent and so much a feature of 1859, was renowned. This can explain his visits to the not clearly applied to archaeology by UK from 1899, Central Europe (the 1920s), nineteenth-century French early Africa (from 1929) and China (1931), for prehistorians, or by many twentieth-century example. He had gained a reputation as a ones, for that matter (Breuil included; Straus great and indefatigable field-worker; 1994). The idea that artefacts (and their ironically, as a child, he was somewhat authors) could show diachronic and sickly. synchronic change, through selective pressures operating on typo-technological variation generated within cultural traditions, ORDER OUT OF CHAOS was a somewhat later (and emphatically Anglophone) approach. Nineteenth century views of the Palaeolithic, primarily focused on France, were inculcated While the roots of French Palaeolithic in Breuil, and shaped his approaches. To research lie deep, they are surprisingly some extent, while he reworked and dependent on a very restricted number of corrected them as appropriate, he never sites, from which large extrapolations were completely abandoned them; he saw himself made. Let us briefly consider the Palaeolithic as working in a great living tradition of archaeologists that preceded Breuil in French research, applied at the global scale. France, and assess their impact on his For a prehistorian whose career had been thought. The work of Jacques Boucher de largely built on the identification of Perthes (1788–1868), which started at chronologies, he made little use of Abbeville in 1837 (Breuil 1951), was radiometric dating techniques and results preceded by the work (Table 1) of François when they exploded into archaeological use Vatar de Jouannet (1765–1845), Joseph- in the last decade of his life, and it would Jean-Théophile de Mourcin (1784–1856) seem he did not quite know what to do with and Paul Tournal (1805–1872), and was them (Breuil 1954a). Perhaps by then his penecontemporary with that (Table 2) of the views were too entrenched for such Abbé Audierne (1798–1891), Alexis Joseph techniques to have an impact. Much of this Dominique de Gourgue (1801–1885), last decade was spent in writing synthetic Édouard Lartet (1801–1871) and Henry and consolidating works that would Christy (1810–1865) (Aufrère 1935; Cleyet- articulate a lifetime of accumulated Merle et al. 1990). As can be seen in Table experience and views. 1, perhaps four major sites (Pech de lřAzé,

128

W. Davies: Abbé Henri Breuil

Combe-Grenal, Badegoule and the Grotte de stone were made by de Jouannet; he also Bize) had been explored in southern France recognised the importance of stratigraphic before about 1830, and little would change, succession (Cleyet-Merle et al. 1990). despite re-exploration of those sites, until the Tournal devised a term (anté-historique) to late 1850s. Pech de lřAzé and Combe- describe the period before history, but it is Grenal, for example, were both excavated debatable whether it really encompassed from c. 1816 by de Jouannet (Bordes & what we know now as Ŗprehistoryŗ (Rowley- Bourgon 1950, Bordes 1955). While serious Conwy 2006). The Abbé Audierne, while research in the pre-1859 period was scanty happy to retain the chronologies derived and irregular (dominated by antiquarians and from the Bible, was among the first people to collectors, such as de Mourcin and the Abbé emphasise the importance of open-air sites, Audierne), some methodological and the transport patterns of flint raw materials, theoretical advances were made in this and the demonstration of in situ knapping period. For example, relative diachronic from scatters of debris (Cleyet-Merle et al. distinctions between knapped and polished 1990).

Archaeologist Years of (field) Publication Sites Significance work dates Joseph de Mourcin 1824–1828 1877–1881 Primarily an (1784–1845) antiquarian/collector François de Jouannet c. 1810–1845 c. 1811– Interested in typological (1765–1845) 1837 classification; proposed in 1834 that knapped stone preceded polished stone; emphasised the importance of stratigraphic succession. Abbé Audierne Mid-1820s 1863 Essentially an Ŗarmchairŗ (1798–1891) onwards Pech de lřAzé, archaeologist; revisited Combe-Grenal, Jouannetřs sites, without Badegoule exploring any for new ones. Keen to maintain Biblical/catastrophist view of the past. Was among the first to emphasise: the importance of open-air sites, the transport patterns of lithic (flint) raw materials, and the importance of knapping debris in demonstrating in situ knapping. Paul Tournal 1827 1828 Human bones associated with (1805–1872) those of extinct animals. Divided Grotte du Bize the record into historic and anté- historique in 1833.

Table 1: Principal French antiquarians and archaeologists working prior to 1859 (Cleyet-Merle et al. 1990)

However, the pattern and intensity of galvanise a new phase of exploration in research seems to change from the late France. One French researcher that straddled 1850s, doubtless linked to the interest seen in this Ŗ1859 divideŗ was the Vicomte de Abbeville, further north. The publication of Gourgue (Table 2), who concentrated on the tenets of Darwinian evolution, together exploring sites in the Vézère valley of SW with the validation of Boucher de Perthesř France, in and around Les Eyzies. He was finds by Evans and Prestwich, seemed to primarily interested in how the work of

129

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

Boucher de Perthes, and that of Lyell, related mobiliary art uncovered by this intense to the antiquity of human development, and season of excavations came to reside in the how geological events, such as glaciations, British Museum, on the death of Christy in affected the timing of human developmental 1865. These collections in the British ones. He also began to develop the Museum were to be of crucial importance to conclusions of Evansř and Prestwichřs Breuil, some 35 years later. validation of Boucher de Perthesř findings; no longer was it adequate simply to prove In a sense, while the Lartet and Christy stratigraphic connection between extinct excavations were to mark a crucial turning animal bones and human artefacts, but point in the exploration of the French human impact on those bones Palaeolithic, providing an increased database (modifications, cutmarks, etc.) needed to be for constructions of chronology (Lartetřs demonstrated. De Gourgue also tried to Ages of: Large Cave Bear; Mammoth and describe horizontal distributions of artefacts Rhinoceros; Reindeer; Bison and Aurochs) within sites, including concentrations, at the and typology, theoretical developments sites he studied. To this end, he made would move slowly, until Breuil set to work preliminary explorations of now-classic in the beginning of the twentieth century. Périgordian sites, such as La Madeleine, the Intriguingly, Lartet himself believed that the two main Laugerie locations, sites in the diagnostic material from Aurignac preceded Gorge dřEnfer, and Le Moustier (Cleyet- that from Solutré, and came after Le Merle et al. 1990). Essentially though, de Moustier (de Mortillet 1870: 50–1): a Gourgue initiated, rather than exhaustively foreshadowing of the arguments that were to developed, promising lines of research. His make Breuilřs name. The typological collections of artefacts were to prove of constructs of Gabriel de Mortillet (e.g. de crucial importance to his friend, Édouard Mortillet & de Mortillet 1881), developed Lartet. between 1869 and 1872, were to prove a straightjacket to such developments, and a In late 1860, Lartet (1861) had stopped at the tectonic shift of emphasis and analysis was Pyrenean town of Aurignac, where he needed to advance the discipline. Despite the located bones, stone tools and a split-based events of 1859, Darwinian evolution was antler point in a black layer of charcoal and slow to permeate the world of the French ashes within the Grotte dřAurignac. Lartet Palaeolithic. Although Christy was part of had been in epistolary contact with de Darwinřs circle (Hooker 1862), and Gourgue since at least March 1862, on the presumably well-versed in his theory of direct advice of Boucher de Perthes himself, evolutionary descent through Natural which alerted him to the potential of the Selection, Darwinřs theory did not seem to Dordogne as a productive area of study. The have had much impact on French approaches sites he studied with the Englishman Henry to the Palaeolithic, perhaps because Lartet Christy, in the winter of 1863Ŕ4, provided a and de Mortillet outlived Christy. Lartet, of suite of sites (together with the already- course, although he had studied Law in Paris known Pech de lřAzé and Grotte Richard) in the 1820s, had also studied with Cuvier that would still be talismanic in Breuilřs day: and Lamarck. That might explain the Laugerie-Haute and Laugerie-Basse, Le strongly Lamarckian approach to change in Moustier, La Madeleine, the Gorge dřEnfer the Palaeolithic by French researchers sites and La Liveyre. Art, such as the ivory particularly, to which Breuil was no real plaquette bearing an engraving of a exception. Evolution, for him as for others, mammoth from La Madeleine, became the moved in discrete, ever more earliest-known to the age, and also helped to improved/advanced stages (except for demonstrate the coexistence of humans with isolated cases of Ŗdegeneracyŗ, such as the now-extinct species. Much of the wealth of Mesolithic Asturian of Northern Spain).

130

W. Davies: Abbé Henri Breuil

Archaeologist Years of (field) Publication Sites Significance work dates Vicomte Alexis de c. 1824 onwards 1843–1873 La Madeleine, One of the first to connect Boucher de Perthesř & Lyellřs works to the antiquity of Gourgue (1801– Laugerie-Basse & humanity; interested in the relative chronological position between human events and 1885) Laugerie-Haute, geological ones (glaciations, Ŗdiluviaŗ, etc.). Not content with stratigraphic associations Gorge dřEnfer, Le between lithics and bones, but wanted direct proofs of whether (and how) humans modified Moustier such bones. Tried to describe horizontal distributions and concentrations of artefacts within sites, and the identifiable levels of (taphonomic) disturbance. Édouard Lartet 1837–c. 1868 c. 1860– Grotte de Massat, Trained as a lawyer in Paris in 1820s, though also studied under Cuvier and Lamarck. (1801–1871) 1870 Grotte dřAurignac, Excavated vertebrate fossils at Sanson between 1837 and 1856. Became interested in the Abri Crô-Magnon flints and bones recovered from Gr. de Massat by A. Fontan in 1856; in epistolary contact (see below for with Boucher de Perthes from early 1859. Publishes a paper in 1860 (Lartet 1859–60), excavations with part-dealing with anthropogenic markings on fossil bones. Sept. 1860: on return from Christy) examining Gr. de Massat, stops at Aurignac, where he finds a black layer of organic materials containing bones and artefacts (published in May 1861: Lartet 1861). Proposes first chronological succession based on types of fauna. Informed by Boucher de Perthes of de Gourgue and his collections, and makes contact with the latter. Henry Christy (with 1862–1865 1864–1870 Grotte Richard, Following Lartetřs discovery of a breccia block in a Paris antique dealerřs shop, containing Lartet) Gorge dřEnfer reindeer bones and lithics; Lartet and Christy undertake a series of excavations in the (1810–1865) valley, Laugerie- region of the Vézère valley between autumn 1863 and spring 1864. Abri Crô-Magnon Haute, Laugerie- excavated in 1868, after Christyřs untimely death. Basse, Le Moustier, La Madeleine, La Liveyre, Pech de lřAzé

Table 2: French archaeologists and antiquarians working at or in the aftermath of the events of 1859 (Cleyet-Merle et al. 1990)

131

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

Following the daughter of Marcelino de working. Thus, de Mortillet believed ŕ for Sautuolařs discovery of the Bison Ceiling at the Upper Palaeolithic ŕ that the acme of Altamira in 1879, the Madrid professor stone-working was the Solutrean, and that Vilanova came to be convinced that the this must therefore come immediately after images were genuinely Palaeolithic. the Mousterian. The Solutrean was Vilanova spoke on the subject of these succeeded by the Magdalenian, of which a paintings at an international congress in small facies was the niveau d’Aurignac of Lisbon in 1880. Among the audience were Lartet. This Aurignacian was held to be Émile Cartailhac, who was sceptical of their intermediate between the Solutrean and the authenticity, and John Evans, whose Magdalenian, as it contained both finely- response to a request for authenticating them worked lithic implements (cf. Solutrean) and is not recorded (Brodrick 1963). We may worked bone, antler and ivory ones (cf. the suppose, however, that he did not feel Magdalenian). impelled to travel to Spain to validate them; a general indifference among the delegates By the 1890s, problems had arisen with this pertained, and only later did a French civil chronological scheme, largely due to the engineer, Édouard Harlé, visit the site and excavations of Dubalen, and then Piette, at pronounce the paintings modern forgeries Brassempouy. Breuil (1906) lists another (Cleyet-Merle et al. 1990: 34; Ripoll Perelló seven sites, such as Trou Magrite, Goyet and 1995). It might seem that the nineteenth Spy (Belgium), and Pair-non-Pair and La century, while amenable to the concept of Ferrassie (France), whose stratigraphies Palaeolithic mobiliary art, was incapable of placed the Aurignacian in the Ŗpre- acknowledging the existence of parietal art. Solutreanŗ period. The Solutrean, in contrast, immediately underlies Magdalenian Nevertheless, from Lartet and Christy occupations, with no trace of an intervening onwards, the twin elements of art and Aurignacian. It is worth noting that typology became the prisms through which ŖAurignacianŗ, as defined by Breuil in a to view the (French) Palaeolithic record. series of key papers (1906, 1907, 1909a, Breuil was to combine and realign those 1909b, 1912), encompassed three types (see prisms, creating a Ŗglobal Palaeolithicŗ for Table 3), defined by key tool types. These the first time. The nineteenth century had papers comprise a significant contribution to made huge advances in the study of the the Bataille Aurignacienne (Battle of the Palaeolithic, but these advances were Aurignacian), fought against Adrien de essentially isolated and moderately Mortillet (son of Gabriel), Paul Girod, and incremental. The analytical frameworks others, who changed their accounts of sites erected by Gabriel de Mortillet and others in a desperate attempt to support their were imperfect in their construction, and increasingly fragile position. Breuil (1907, restricted any advances that could be made. 1909a) responded by adducing more It was difficult to make reliable comparisons stratigraphic data from an increased number between different sites, often dug with of sites, and by explicitly describing the different research agendas, and using extensive bone industries from Solutrean different techniques. sites. By 1912, when Breuilřs paper to the Congrès International d’Anthropologie et d’Archéologie Préhistoriques (Geneva) on BREUIL’S BUILDING BLOCKS his refinements to his Upper Palaeolithic chronology was published, he had won the The underlying rationale behind de battle, and de Mortilletřs defenders were Mortilletřs scheme was that Ŗsimpleŗ routed. Having established the early Upper preceded Ŗcomplex.ŗ Stone-working was Palaeolithic on a firmer footing, Breuil only held to be more Ŗprimitiveŗ than bone- intermittently engaged with typological-

132

W. Davies: Abbé Henri Breuil

Early Upper Palaeolithic Sub- Description Divisions Lower Aurignacian (Châtelperron Curved, backed knives, generally thick, with abrupt, backing retouch; type) sometimes short and squat, sometimes thin and tapering. Numerous [=Peyronyřs Lower Périgordian Mousterian types persisted, and bone tools (if present) were rare and (phases I–II); Garrodřs poorly-defined. Châtelperronian] Middle Aurignacian (Aurignacian The culmination of ŖAurignacian retouchŗ, used to make Aurignacian type) blades, which were generally large and sometimes strangulated, frequently [=Peyronyřs Aurignacian (phases carrying an endscraper on one/both extremities. Lamellar retouch was I–V); Garrodřs Aurignacian] mostly identified on thick flakes or cores, removing thin, narrow parallel bladelets from the lithic blank, and creating thick, carinated and nosed endscrapers, and rabots (large, heavy-duty tools, presumed to have been used for scraping or shaving wood), as well as burins busqués. Bone tools are both varied and abundant, e.g. several types of bone/antler point, with the split-based forms being held to be particularly characteristic (pointes d’Aurignac). Upper Aurignacian (Gravette General disappearance of the above tool-types, and development instead of type) assemblages comprising very large quantities of angled burins made on [=Peyronyřs Upper Périgordian retouched truncations. Characterised by well-made flint points of variable (phases IV–V); Garrodřs size, made on blades and sometimes bladelets, which have been created by Gravettian] abrupt backing retouch on one side of a knife-like blank. These Gravettian points were accompanied by Font-Robert ones (with distinctive tanged ends), Noaillian burins and fléchettes (thin, often laminar, marginally- biconvex pieces with semi-abrupt marginal retouch); endscrapers on both retouched and unretouched blades, truncated pieces, marginally-retouched blades and bladelets.

Table 3: Breuil’s (1912) subdivisions of the early Upper Palaeolithic (modified after Davies 2001); all three stages were believed to have had independent origins cultural debates thereafter, though he did results of the 1902 expedition to Altamira participate in the British Ŗeolith questionŗ (which included Breuil) finally vindicated (see below and McNabb, this volume) and the Palaeolithic attribution of the art at helped to define the ŖSolutreanŗ of Central Altamira, and spurred Édouard Piette (who Europe (now better known as the Szeletian; had always believed its authenticity) to Breuil 1923). Much of the rest of his encourage Cartailhac to repent his scepticism research would instead concentrate on the (Bahn & Vertut 1997: 20–2). Breuil had also description and discussion of parietal art. begun to think of the Upper Palaeolithic succession in France, re-evaluating de Mortilletřs idiosyncratic classification and BREUIL’S DEVELOPMENT chronology in the light of Pietteřs and Rutotřs discoveries. It is astonishing to note Breuilřs progress, making major changes to views on the Upper Breuil had come into contact with Piette in Palaeolithic succession and Palaeolithic art 1897, when he was 20, and already while still a student. Even before he obtained embarked on training for the priesthood at his degree in Natural Sciences from the the seminary at Issy-les-Moulineaux, a University of Paris in October 1903, at the dependency of St.-Sulpice, in Paris. At Issy, age of 26, Breuil had already made major the Abbé Guibert encouraged Breuilřs contributions to Palaeolithic archaeology. He interest in natural history and evolution, and was instrumental in authenticating Upper also encouraged him to consider prehistory, Palaeolithic parietal art, at La Mouthe, Les lending him the works of de Mortillet Combarelles and Font-de-Gaume in 1901 (Brodrick 1963: 29). While at Issy, Breuil (Brodrick 1963; Bahn & Vertut 1997). The also befriended Jean Bouyssonie, who ŕ

133

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) together with his brother, also a priest, and Monaco conference, where Breuil for the the Abbé Bardon ŕ was to uncover the first time addressed his ideas on the Chapelle-aux-Saints Neanderthal skeleton in Aurignacian question and the succession of 1908. In 1895, dřAult de Mesnil had co- the Upper Palaeolithic to a wide audience written a paper arguing that ŖChelleanŗ (A.C.B. 1906), and was to die only a few (which Breuil (1932) later tried to rename months after Breuil was elected an Ordinary ŖAbbevillianŗ) preceded the Acheulean, Fellow of the Royal Anthropological which itself predated the Mousterian (Breuil Institute of Great Britain and Ireland on 24th 1945: 25). Thus, in broad outline, the relative March 1908. chronology of the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic was settled before the end of the Breuil was ordained a priest in late 1900, but nineteenth century; the same could not be managed to persuade the Bishop of Soissons said for the disarray that was the Upper to excuse him from parochial work for four Palaeolithic. Breuil became reacquainted years. During this time he would be formally with dřAult de Mesnil in 1896, and was attached to the Diocese of Soissons, and his introduced to the Somme river gravels, a title would be ŘAbbéř, a priest unconnected topic and region to which he was to return with a specific parish (Brodrick 1963). He frequently throughout his career. still continued to read for his degree, and also developed his researches in Upper 1897 was a momentous year for Breuil, as Palaeolithic art, chronology and typology. not only did he enrol as a student at the By the time of his graduation in 1903, Breuil Faculty of Sciences, University of Paris was well-placed to become the pre-eminent (while still at the seminary of St.-Sulpice), Palaeolithic specialist of his generation. The but he moved beyond his native northern next few years were to see him consolidate France, and took up Bouyssonieřs invitation that position, operating on the twin fronts of to come to Brive, and thence to Les Eyzies art and typology/chronology. Nevertheless, (Brodrick 1963). In the latter place, he met while the Roman Catholic Church had Denis Peyrony (1869–1954), his elder and a provided the education, it did not provide the local school-teacher (Breuil 1954b). In July money to indulge his secular interests, and that year, he joined Piette at the Pyrenean thus a patron was needed. Initially, the fate site of Brassempouy, where stratigraphic of having to become a parish priest was evidence had been recovered that made a prevented by obtaining a private teaching nonsense of de Mortilletřs Upper position at the University of Fribourg, thanks Palaeolithic chronology. Viewing Pietteřs to the intercession of his peer at the Issy incomparable collection of Magdalenian seminary, the Abbé Brunhes. However, the mobiliary art and artefacts, at his home in Monaco conference brought a rather larger, Rumigny, inspired Breuil to study the and more influential, patron into the picture: Magdalenian. He thus returned to the Vézère Prince Albert of Monaco, who had the following year to dig at Crô-Magnon and sponsored the 1906 conference, and much La Madeleine (Brodrick 1963). other archaeological work besides, and who was planning to establish his own In 1899, Breuil made his first visit abroad, to archaeological institute in Paris (the IPH). the UK, where he looked over the Christy Given his rapid and deserved success in just collection of Magdalenian mobiliary art, a few years, Breuil was considered by the while staying with Sir John Evans at his Prince to be the pre-eminent candidate for house at Nash Mills, Hertfordshire (Breuil the chair of Prehistoric Ethnology (Brodrick 1945; Brodrick 1963). Breuil was evidently 1963). The Institute was formally constituted not to forget his contact with Evans, as he in 1910, but its building would not be would later refer to him regularly. In completed until 1920, delayed from the end addition, Evans was present at the 1906 of 1914 by the distractions of World War I

134

W. Davies: Abbé Henri Breuil

(Boule 1922). Breuil now had his base from the walls of neighbouring Bacon Hole that which to conquer the global Palaeolithic. they described (Sollas 1913: 372) were subsequently revealed to be nineteenth- century daubs (Daniel 1961: 259). Despite THE GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE contributing to these questionable lines of evidence, Breuil also made significant ŖI have often regretted, for England, that no contributions to the study of the British work has tried to group, by critiquing them, Palaeolithic, particularly the Lower the results obtained since Buckland and (Clactonian, ŖChelleanŗ and Acheulean: MacEnery. It even seemed that the interest Breuil 1930, 1932; Kelley & Breuil 1956). for these studies had greatly weakened Breuil (1930) was instrumental in helping to among your compatriots since the heroic age define the Clactonian, distinguishing it from of Prestwich, Lyell, and Evans. It is with the ŖMesvinianŗ (Breuil 1926), and fitting it great pleasure that I have seen it re- into his pre-Acheulean phase. He was also emerging, first with the re-excavation at responsible for encouraging Garrod (1926) Paviland by Professors Sollas and Marett, to to study the British Upper Palaeolithic which I am happy to have contributed.ŗ material, so that it could be fitted into a (Breuil1, in Garrod 1926: 5Ŕ6; 1Originally in continental synthesis. Breuilřs election as French, authorřs translation] president of The Prehistoric Society of East Anglia in the mid-1930s helped to steer it Although the UK seems to have been the towards a more international perspective, first foreign country to be visited by Breuil, ultimately to be renamed, simply, The his academic involvement with its Prehistoric Society. Palaeolithic record does not really seem to have started until about 1912. That year saw Breuil had a long-standing research interest him invited by Lankester and Moir to Britain in Iberia, which started in 1902 with to offer expert advice on the vexed question Altamira (Figure 1). Revisiting Spain in of the sub-Crag flints. Breuilřs initial view of 1906, he worked mainly in the north (along the eoliths was one of extreme scepticism, the Cantabrian coastal strip) with Alcalde del but a return to the subject in 1921 found him Rio, but later (1908) visited the Spanish readier to believe their authenticity as Levante region with Cabré Aguilo to view anthropogenically-used artefacts (Moir 1921: the rock art. In 1909, Breuil worked with 418, 1929: 63; Garrod 1961: 206). With Hugo Obermaier (Züchner, this volume) at hindsight, it is difficult to know why Breuil sites such as El Castillo, Altamira and allowed himself to be convinced by Reid Covalanas (Pales 1962), and impressed the Moirřs examples, but perhaps they came to visiting Prince Albert of Monaco enough for fit his changing conception of pre-Acheulean him to offer Breuil the chance to be a part of technocomplexes. his proposed IPH. Breuil had a natural affinity with Spain, learning to speak fluent While on a trip to the UK with Boule in Spanish, and this would later lead to him summer 1912, he visited Oxford, and both becoming attached to the French Embassy men examined the material uncovered by and Naval Bureau in Madrid during World Buckland from Paviland. A little later, Breuil War I. Running occasional diplomatic visited Paviland with Sollas (Sollas 1913: errands between Madrid and Gibraltar, he 329); having pronounced on the Upper found himself with just enough leisure time Palaeolithic succession of western Europe, to discover the Mousterian site of Devilřs Breuil was happy to classify the materials Tower in April 1917 (Breuil 1922). Almost a from that site as his ŖAurignacianŗ, from the decade later, Breuil would recommend that Middle and Upper phases (i.e. Aurignacian his ex-pupil Garrod excavate this site further and Gravettian: Table 3). The red stripes on (Garrod 1961). Breuil would continue to be

135

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) involved with work in Iberia for the rest of Catholic institution, free of the secular his career, even working as Visiting tendencies of the French state (Hammond Professor at the University of Lisbon in 1982), and the Bouyssonie brothers, 1941–2, just after he had been in France, Obermaier and Teilhard de Chardin, to take inspecting the newly-discovered art at some examples, were all fellow priests with Lascaux. an interest in archaeology. Garrod had converted to Catholicism during World War In the mid-1920s, Breuil (1923, 1924, 1925) I. The role of Catholicism should not be travelled greatly round countries in central overstated, however, as many of Breuilřs Europe, gaining first-hand experience of colleagues were not Catholics, notably Miles their Upper Palaeolithic records in particular. Burkitt and Mary Boyle. Catholicism seems In 1929, he made his first trip to South to have provided a network of largely Africa, and would return to that country sympathetic researchers that Breuil could frequently, notably being invited by Field- exploit, especially at the outset of his career. Marshall Smuts to spend the duration of Breuil was canny in the ways in which he World War II (from 1942) there (Brodrick operated within accepted codes of conduct. 1963). It was on Breuilřs advice that the In contrast, Teilhard de Chardin, a friend and Archaeological Survey of South Africa had frequent collaborator with Breuil, had been founded in the 1930s (Garrod 1961), displeased the Catholic Church by his and his effects on South African archaeology writings on evolution, and was thus sent were far-reaching and long-lasting. Breuil abroad in the 1920s, ostensibly to keep him was struck not only by the wealth of out of trouble. However, that strategy seems archaeological material from South Africa, to have backfired: having sought to combine but also its wealth of ethnography. By the his scientific, theological and philosophical end of the 1930s, Breuil had made many knowledge with evolution while in the UK visits to different parts of Africa, even between 1908 and 1912 (he dug at Piltdown venturing to pass comment on the in 1912), Teilhard de Chardin became archaeology of northern Africa, for instance involved in Zhoukoudian when in China. on the Aterian (Pales 1962). Despite a largely peripatetic existence for The 1930s were an especially busy time for much of his life, Breuil regularly found time Breuil, given that not only was he travelling to return to the Somme gravels, his native in Europe and Africa, but had also ventured region. His presidential address on the to China in 1931 and 1935, and become centenary of Boucher de Perthesř Antiquités involved with ŖPeking Manŗ in conjunction Celtiques et Antédiluviennes (printed in with his frequent colleague Teilhard de 1847, but only offered for sale in 1849) in Chardin (Pales 1962). He also visited 1949 (Breuil 1951) set his own thoughts on Garrodřs and Neuvilleřs excavations in the the Lower Palaeolithic of northern France Levant in 1933 (Garrod 1961), but perhaps into a broader historical context of research, more as a Ŗtouristŗ than as a researcher. with Boucher de Perthes as the fulcrum point. He clearly saw himself as an heir and It cannot be denied that Breuil was well- upholder of Boucher de Perthesř legacy. connected, right from the start of his career. Interestingly, in this publication aimed However, that would also underestimate his squarely at the Francophone audience, Breuil own considerable abilities, and the way he carefully mentioned just two precursors to applied them; it did not take long for his Boucher de Perthes, both English ŕ successes to lead to further invitations of Conyers and Frere ŕ but noted a collaboration. These connections were contemporary lack of reaction to their frequently facilitated by his connections publications. It is implied that this presumed within the Catholic faith: the IPH was a lack of co-ordinated British response to their

136

W. Davies: Abbé Henri Breuil

Figure 1: Breuil in Autumn 1902, during a break from recording the parietal and ceiling art at Altamira, N. Spain; the white dots on his cassock are wax drips from the candles used to illuminate the art [Photograph reproduced from Ripoll Perelló 1995: 70]

137

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30) compatriot pioneers of the discipline thus left across the Channel at the start of the the field open to Francophone dominance. twentieth century (Breuil 1945; in Garrod 1926: 5–6). To some extent, he was not wrong, at least in his own case: he had many BREUIL’S LEGACY: ‘THE ABBÉ British disciples, such as Burkitt and, EXTRAORDINARY’ notably, Garrod (Price, this volume). However, the best of those disciples It is impossible to avoid the global developed and tested Breuilřs ideas, and did perspective when discussing Breuil. He not always support his conclusions. himself ensured that he would be considered as a global prehistorian from the outset of his In this anniversary year, it is worth passing career. That might explain in part why he final comment on Breuilřs relationship with took such a variety of approaches to the the Darwinian theory of evolution. Unlike Palaeolithic, e.g. technology/typology, art his friend and sometime colleague Teilhard and symbolism, and the modification of bone de Chardin, Breuil deliberately avoided and stone (distinguishing anthropogenic confrontation with the Catholic Church over agencies from other, non-human ones). In the application and significance of evolution. some ways, he can be seen as a key figure in He wrote remarkably little on the subject, the development of our concepts of the and when he did, was remarkably vague. Palaeolithic, devising new ideas to explain Detailed, high theory evidently interested techno-typological development, rationales him little; instead he was notable for his for parietal and mobiliary art (where, despite empiricism, almost preferring to see artefacts his eminence at the time, he encountered as entities independent of their authors. mixed success in explaining and/or dating Breuilřs preference often seemed to be for such images), and non-human/taphonomic unilinear developmental sequences, as he explanations for modifications on bones and first described for the Upper Palaeolithic of stones. He employed experimental Western Europe, and which he vigorously reconstructions to try and explain creation of defended (with Garrodřs invaluable eoliths and identify anthropogenic assistance) for the first half of the twentieth modifications on bones. He also was among century. However, on occasion he could be the first to predict the effects of too many persuaded to support multi-linear evolution, visitors to Palaeolithic decorated caves, and especially in the Lower and Middle warned of measures that needed to be taken Palaeolithic, where he saw contemporary, to protect them (Breuil & Bégouën 1933), separately evolving Ŗcultural traditionsŗ ironically some years before the discovery (Breuil 1926: 178; 1930: 226). Breuil was and subsequent over-exploitation of prepared to countenance morphological Lascaux. evolution between type fossils, e.g. from Abri Audi points into Châtelperronian knives Underlying all those advances, Breuil had a (Breuil 1909b), but was less inclined to shrewd idea of his own worth, and never believe that technocomplexes evolved into knowingly undersold himself. He also had a other ones. That belief arose from his strong sense of historical perspective in the conviction that stone tool industries reflected development of the Palaeolithic, and sought ethnicity, and that the lithic remains of these to place himself within it. He had great ethnic groups should not necessarily be respect for the nineteenth-century British expected to evolve into new artefactual pioneers of the discipline, such as MacEnery, forms. The detection of Řethnicityř in Lyell, Prestwich and Evans (Walker, Pope & material artefacts is still hotly-debated today. Roberts, McNabb, Lamdin-Whymark, this volume), but felt (along with compatriots Excepting the verification of Boucher de such as Boule) that the torch had been passed Perthesř work in 1859, that year marks less

138

W. Davies: Abbé Henri Breuil of a paradigmatic threshold in Francophone constrained. than Anglophone archaeology. A steady increase in the number of excavated French It is difficult to summarise the achievements sites from the beginning of the 1860s was of someone who published over 830 papers instead used to consolidate and develop ideas and books in a paper like this. Breuilřs career based on existing preconceptions. The starts by acknowledging the contributions French took a long time to come fully to made by people such as Piette and Cartailhac terms with Darwinian evolution, and it can to his researches, and people such as John easily be argued that even in the time of Wymer (Ashton, this volume) are similarly- Breuil and Boule, the Catholic establishment credited near its end (Kelley & Breuil 1956). was trying to neutralise the full implications Breuilřs research differs most from that of of Darwinřs ideas (Hammond 1982). Bouleřs today in its scales of analysis, both temporal conception that every fossil hominin he and spatial. Breuil struggled to grasp the full evaluated was an extinct side-branch of implications of radiometric dating, human evolution (Gillette 1943; Hammond admittedly when the techniques were still in 1982), found an analogue in Breuilřs their infancy. He also tended to see patterns treatment of typological and technological in the artefactual and artistic records developments in the Palaeolithic: individual separately from their broader behavioural elements might change, but larger-scale contexts, e.g. development of individual changes could only be explained as sudden images and artefact types in isolation from (catastrophic) events, such as migrations or the rest of the assemblage. Garrod has population replacements. In this sense, summarised Breuilřs overall contributions to Lamarck rather than Darwin was still the archaeology well. In her review of Brodrick dominant paradigm in French academic (1963), she opined (Garrod 1965: 68) that: discourse ŕ setting Breuil in a long line of Lamarckian French archaeologists extending “[Breuilřs] original contribution was very back to Lamarckřs pupil Lartet. great, greater than is now realized by some of his survivors who did not know him in his Nevertheless, it is remarkable that, even prime, and who were stung by his somewhat today, Breuilřs definitions of authoritative ways. Time will re-establish his technocomplexes and their successions have true position, not perhaps on the pinnacle survived relatively unchanged in their sometimes claimed, but very high.” outlines, especially for the Upper Palaeolithic, where he started his career. The 1930s arguments between Peyrony and ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Breuil, and their followers, were largely resolved by the mid-1950s, and it was the I should like to thank Clive Gamble, Paul Bahn, modified Breuil scheme that prevailed. Pamela Jane Smith and the editors for their comments on drafts of this paper. All remaining errors are my Breuilřs vast, mostly first-hand, experience responsibility. of the global Palaeolithic, combined with his meticulous and critical evaluation of the evidence to hand, and set within a pragmatic, REFERENCES testable and workable scheme for explaining the Palaeolithic, had helped to give him the A.C.B. 1906. Proceedings of Societies. Monaco. edge over most of his contemporaries, and Prehistoric Anthropology. Man 6: 94Ŕ96. ensure that even today he cannot be ignored. Aufrère, L. 1935. Une controvers entre François Peyrony was content to restrict most of his Jouannet et Casimir Picard sur les Ŗhaches ébauchéesŗ. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique exploration to a radius of one hourřs cycle Française 32: 300Ŕ302. ride from Les Eyzies (Rigaud & Simek Bahn, P. & Vertut, J. 1997. Journey through the Ice 1987: 55); Breuil was not happy to be so Age. Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London.

139

Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009 (Lithics 30)

Bordes, F. 1955. La stratigraphie de la Grotte de Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Combe-Grenal, commune de Domme (Dordogne): Ireland 75: 21Ŕ31. Note préliminaire. Bulletin de la Société Breuil, H. 1951. Boucher de Perthes: ses précurseurs, Préhistorique Française 52: 426Ŕ429. ses continuateurs. In Centenaire de la publication Bordes, F. & Bourgon, M. 1950. Le gisement du Pech du tome premier des antiquités celtiques et de lřAzé-Nord, prise de date et observations antédiluviennes de Boucher de Perthes (1849): 42Ŕ préliminaires. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique 58. Société dřEmulation Historique et Littéraire Française 47: 381Ŕ383. dřAbbeville, Abbeville. Boule, M. 1922. LřŒuvre anthropologique du Prince Breuil, H. 1954a. Les datations par C14 de Lascaux Albert 1er de Monaco et les récents progrès de la (Dordogne) et Philip Cave (S.W. Africa). Bulletin paléontologie humaine en France [Huxley de la Société Préhistorique Française 51: 544Ŕ Memorial Lecture for 1922]. Journal of the Royal 549. Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Breuil, H. 1954b. Nécrologie: Denis Peyrony. Bulletin Ireland 52: 151Ŕ63. de la Société Préhistorique Française 51: 530Ŕ Breuil, H. 1906. Les gisements Présolutréens du type 533. dřAurignac: coup dřœil sur le plus ancien âge du Breuil, H. & Bégouën, H. 1933. De la Protection des Renne. Congrès International d’Anthropologie et Grottes préhistoriques. Bulletin de la Société d’Archéologie Préhistoriques [XIIIe session], Préhistorique Française 30: 235Ŕ238. Monaco, Volume II: 323Ŕ46. Brodrick, A.H. 1963. The Abbé Breuil: Prehistorian. Breuil, H. 1907. La question aurignacienne: Étude Hutchinson, London. critique de stratigraphie comparée. Révue Cleyet-Merle, J.-J., Soubeyran, M., Memoire, N., Préhistorique 2: 173Ŕ219. Marino-Thiault, M.-H., Roussot, A. & Rigaud, J.- Breuil, H. 1909a. LřAurignacien Présolutréen: P. 1990. Lartet, Breuil, Peyrony et les autres: Une Epilogue dřune controverse. Révue Préhistorique histoire de la Préhistoire en Aquitaine. Ministère 4: 5Ŕ46. de la Culture, Société des Amis du Musée et de la Breuil, H. 1909b. Études de Morphologie Recherche Archéologique, Sarlat. Paléolithique I: La Transition du Moustérien vers Daniel, G. 1961. Editorial [Issue 140]. Antiquity 35: lřAurignacien à lřAbri Audi (Dordogne) et au 257Ŕ262. Moustier. Révue de l’École d’Anthropologie 19: Davies, W. 2001. A Very Model of a Modern Human 320Ŕ340. Industry: new perspectives on the origins and Breuil, H. 1912. Les subdivisions du Paléolithique spread of the Aurignacian in Europe. Proceedings supérieur et leur signification. XIV Congrés of the Prehistoric Society 67: 195Ŕ217. International d’Anthropologie et d’Archéologie Garrod, D.A.E. 1926. The Upper Palaeolithic Age in Préhistoriques, Geneva, Volume 1: 165Ŕ238. Britain. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Breuil, H. 1922. Palaeolithic Man at Gibraltar: New Garrod, D.A.E. 1938. The Upper Palaeolithic in the and old facts. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Light of Recent Discovery. Proceedings of the Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 52: 46Ŕ54. Prehistoric Society 4: 1Ŕ26. Breuil, H. 1923. Notes de voyage paléolithique en Garrod, D.A.E. 1961. Obituary: Henri Breuil: 1877Ŕ Europe centrale, I: Les industries paléolithiques en 1961. Man 61: 205Ŕ207. Hongrie. L’Anthropologie 33: 323Ŕ346. Garrod, D.A.E. 1965. Review of ŖThe Abbé Breuil, Breuil, H. 1924. Notes de voyage paléolithique en Prehistorian,ŗ by A.H. Brodrick [1963]. Antiquity Europe centrale, II: Les industries paléolithiques du 39: 67Ŕ68. loess de Moravie et Bohême. L’Anthropologie 34: Gillette, J.M. 1943. Ancestorless man: the 515Ŕ552. anthropological dilemma. Scientific Monthly 57: Breuil, H. 1925. Notes de voyage paléolithique en 533Ŕ545. Europe centrale, III: Les cavernes de Moravie. Hammond, M. 1982. The expulsion of the L’Anthropologie 35: 149Ŕ151. Neanderthals from human ancestry: Marcellin Breuil, H. 1926. Palaeolithic Industries from the Boule and the social context of scientific research. beginning of the Rissian to the beginning of the Social Studies of Science 12: 1Ŕ36. Würmian Glaciation. Man 26: 176Ŕ179. Hooker, J.D. 1862. Letter to Charles Darwin, 7 Breuil, H. 1930. Le Clactonien et sa place dans la November 1862. Darwin Correspondence Project, chronologie. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Letter 3767. Cambridge: http://www.darwin Française 27: 221Ŕ227. project.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-3797. Breuil, H. 1932. Le Paléolithique ancien en Europe html (accessed: 26th March 2009). Occidentale et sa Chronologie. Bulletin de la Kelley, H. & Breuil, H. 1956. Les éclats acheuléens à Société Préhistorique Française 29: 570Ŕ578. plan de frappe à facettes de Cagny-la-Garenne Breuil, H. 1938. The use of bone implements in the (Somme). Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique old Palaeolithic period. Antiquity 12: 56Ŕ67. Française 53: 174Ŕ191. Breuil, H. 1945. The discovery of the antiquity of Lartet, E. 1859Ŕ60. Note sur des os fossiles portent man: some of the evidence. Journal of the Royal des empreintes ou entailles anciennes et attribuées

140

W. Davies: Abbé Henri Breuil

à la main de lřHomme. Bulletin de la Société Rigaud, J.-P. & Simek, J.F. 1987. ŘArms too short to géologique de France (2e série) 17: 492Ŕ95. box with Godř: Problems and prospects for Lartet, E. 1861. Nouvelles recherches sur la Palaeolithic prehistory in Dordogne, France. In O. coexistence de lřHomme et des animaux réputés Soffer (ed.) The Pleistocene Old World: regional caractéristiques de la dernière période géologique. perspectives: 47Ŕ61. Plenum, New York. Annales des Sciences Naturelles, Zoologie, 4e série Ripoll Perelló, E. 1995. El Abate Henri Breuil (1877– 15: 177Ŕ253. 1961). Universidad Nacional de Educación a de Mortillet, G. 1870. Notes. Matériaux pour Distancia, Madrid. l’Histoire Primitive et Naturelle de l’Homme [et Rowley-Conwy, P. 2006. The concept of Prehistory l’Étude du Sol, de la Faune et de la Flore qui s’y and the invention of the terms ŖPrehistoricŗ and rattachent], 6e année (2e série, No 1): 49Ŕ52. ŖPrehistorianŗ: the Scandinavian origin, 1833Ŕ de Mortillet, G. & A. de Mortillet 1881. Musée 1850. European Journal of Archaeology 9: 103Ŕ Préhistorique. Reinwald, Paris. 130. Moir, J.R. 1921. On an Early Chellean-Palaeolithic Sollas, W.J. 1913. Paviland Cave: An Aurignacian workshop-site in the Pliocene ŖForest Bedŗ of Station in Wales. Journal of the Royal Cromer, Norfolk. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 43: 325Ŕ374. Ireland 51: 385Ŕ418. Straus, L.G. 1994. The Abbé Henri Breuil: Pope of Moir, J.R. 1929. A Remarkable Object from Beneath Palaeolithic Prehistory. In J.A. Lasheras (ed.) the Red Crag. Man 29: 62Ŕ65. Homenaje al Dr. Joaquín González Echegaray: Pales, L. 1962. LřAbbé Breuil (1877Ŕ1961). Journal 189Ŕ198. Museo y Centro de Investigación de de la Société des Africanistes 32: 7Ŕ52. Altamira, Monografías no. 17, Altamira.

141