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