Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-29T02:28:01.347Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Material Rhetoric: Spreading Stones and Showing Bones in the Study of Prehistory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

David Van Reybrouck ,
Raf de Bont  and
Jan Rock
David Van Reybrouck
Affiliation:
Brussels
Raf de Bont
Affiliation:
University of Leuven
Jan Rock
Affiliation:
University of Amsterdam
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Argument

Since the linguistic turn, the role of rhetoric in the circulation and the popular representation of knowledge has been widely accepted in science studies. This article aims to analyze not a textual form of scientific rhetoric, but the crucial role of materiality in scientific debates. It introduces the concept of material rhetoric to understand the promotional regimes in which material objects play an essential argumentative role. It analyzes the phenomenon by looking at two students of prehistory from nineteenth-century Belgium.

In the study of human prehistory and evolution, material data are either fairly abundant stone tools or very scarce fossil bones. These two types of material data stand for two different strategies in material rhetoric. In this article, the first strategy is exemplified by Aimé Rutot, who gathered great masses of eoliths (crudely chipped stones which he believed to be prehistoric tools). The second strategy is typified by the example of Julien Fraipont, who based his scientific career on only two Neanderthal skeletons. Rutot sent his “artifacts” to a very wide audience, while Fraipont showed his skeletons to only a few selected scholars. Unlike Rutot, however, Fraipont was able to monitor his audience's interpretation of the finds by means of personal contacts. What an archaeologist gains in reach, he or she apparently loses in control. In this article we argue that only those scholars who find the right balance between the extremes of reach and control will prove to be successful.

Type
Research Article
Information
Science in Context , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , June 2009 , pp. 195 - 216
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

de Beaufort, Henri. 1888. “La Grotte de Spy.” In Congrès scientifique international des Catholiques tenu à Paris du 8 au 13 Avril 1888, Bureaux des Annales de philosophie chrétien, 2 vols, Paris, vol. 2, 704–709.Google Scholar
Beer, Gillian. 1983. Darwin's Plots: Evolutionary Narrative in Darwin, George Eliot and Nineteenth-Century Fiction. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
de Bont, Raf. 2003. “The Creation of Prehistoric Man: Aimé Rutot and the Eolith Controversy (1900–1920).” Isis 94:604–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Bont, Raf. 2008. Darwins kleinkinderen: de evolutietheorie in België, 1865–1945. Nijmegen: Vantilt.Google Scholar
Boule, Marcellin. 1905. “L'origine des éolithes.” L'Anthropologie 16:257–267.Google Scholar
Boule, Marcellin. 1923. Les hommes fossiles. Eléments de paléontologie humaine, 2nd ed., Paris: Masson.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Homo academicus. Paris: Éditions de Minuit.Google Scholar
Breuil, Henri. 1910. “Sur la présence d'éolithes à la base de l'Eocène parisien.” L'Anthropologie 21:385–408.Google Scholar
Ceccarelli, Leah. 2001. Shaping Science with Rhetoric. The Cases of Dobzhansky, Schrodinger and Wilson. Chicago: Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callon, Michel. 1986. “Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay.” In Power, Action and Belief. A New Sociology of Knowledge? Edited by Law, John, 196–233. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Collignon, René. 1880. “Description des ossements fossiles humains trouvés dans le Lehm dans la vallée du Rhin, à Bolwiller.” Revue d'Anthropologie 9, 2e série, 3:395–413.Google Scholar
Collignon, René. 1887. “Les fouilles de Spy (grotte et terrasse).” Revue d'Anthropologie 16, 3e série, 2:632–743.Google Scholar
Cremo, Michael A. and Thompson, Richard L.. 1993. Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race. San Diego: BBT Science.Google Scholar
Findlen, Paula. 1996. Possessing Nature: Museums, Collecting and Scientific Culture in Early Modern Italy. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Fourmarier, Paul. 1913–1914. “Notice biographique sur Julien Fraipont.” Annales de la Société géologique de Belgique 41:B336–B350.Google Scholar
Fraipont, Julien. 1888. “Le tibia dans la race de Néanderthal.” Revue d'Anthropologie 17, 3e série, 3:145.Google Scholar
Fraipont, Julien. 1891. “Les Hommes de Spy (La Race de Canstadt ou de Néanderthal en Belgique).” In Congrès international d'Anthropologie et d'Archéologie préhistoriques. Compte rendu de la dixième session à Paris, 1889 (Congrès international d'Anthropologie et d'Archéologie préhistoriques 10), 321–362. Paris: E. Leroux.Google Scholar
Fraipont, Julien. 1896. Les caverners et leurs habitants. Paris: Baillière.Google Scholar
Fraipont, Julien, and Lohest, Max. 1886. “La race humaine de Néanderthal ou de Canstadt, en Belgique. Recherches ethnographiques sur des ossements humains découverts dans des dépôts quaternaires d'une grotte à Spy et détermination de leur âge géologique.” Bulletin de l'Académie Royale des Sciences, des Lettres et des Beaux-Arts de Belgique 56, 3e série, 12:741–784.Google Scholar
Fraipont, Julien and Lohest, Max. 1887. “La race humaine de Néanderthal ou de Canstadt en Belgique. Recherchements ethnographiques sur des ossements humains découverts dans les dépôts quaternaires d'une grotte à Spy et détermination de leur âge géologique.” Archives de Biologie 7:587–757.Google Scholar
Gilson, Gustave. 1914. Le Musée d'histoire naturelle moderne. Sa mission, son organisation, ses droits. Brussels: Musée royale d'histoire naturelle de Belgique.Google Scholar
Grayson, Donald K. 1986. “Eoliths, Archeological Ambiguity, and the Generation of ‘Middle Range’ Research.” In American Archaeology: Past and Future, edited by Meltzer, David J. and Fowler, Donald D., 77–133. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
Gross, Alan G. 1990. The Rhetoric of Science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Jousset de Bellesme, F. 1912. Physiologie préhistorique: des causes de l'évolution du cerveau pendant les temps préhistoriques. Lettre à M. Ernest Haeckel. Brussels: F. Berghmans.Google Scholar
Joy, Dorothy Harvey. 1983. “Evolutionism transformed: Positivists and Materialists in the Société d'Antropologie de Paris.” In The Wider Domain of Evolutionary Thought, edited by Oldroyd, David R. and Langham, Ian, 289–310. Boston: Springer.Google Scholar
Landau, Misia. 1991. Narratives of Human Evolution. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno and Woolgar, Steven. 1979. Laboratory Life: The Social Constuction of Scientific Facts. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Laville, André. 1905. “Percuteurs du type reutélien d'origine sénonienne, de Mantes (Seine-et-Oise).” Feuille des jeunes naturalistes 35:110.Google Scholar
Lenoir, Timothy, ed. 1998. Inscribing Science: Scientific Texts and the Materiality of Communication. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lewuillon, Serge. 2002. “Archaeological Illustrations: A New Development in 19th Century Science.” Antiquity 76:223–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lohest, Max, Julin, Charles, and Rutot, Aimé. 1925. “Notice sur Julien Fraipont, membre de l'Académie, né à Liège le 17 août 1857, y décédé le 22 mars 1910.” Annuaire de l'Académie royale des Sciences, des Lettres et des Beaux-Arts de Belgique 91:131–197.Google Scholar
Manouvrier, Léon. 1890. “Etude sur la rétroversion de la tête du tibia et l'attitude humaine à l'époque quaternaire.” Mémoires de la Société d'Anthropologie de Paris 2e série, 4:219–264.Google Scholar
de Mortillet, Gabriel. 1891. “Cours d'Anthropologie préhistorique. Excursion en Belgique.” Revue mensuelle de l'Ecole d'Anthropologie de Paris 1:204–205.Google Scholar
de Mortillet, Gabriel and de Mortillet, Adrien. 1900. La préhistoire. Origine et antiquité de l'Homme, 3rd ed.Paris: Schleicher frères.Google Scholar
Moser, Stephanie. 1998. Ancestral Images: The Iconography of Human Origins. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Podgorny, Irina. 2005. “Bones and Devices in the Constitution of Paleontology in Argentina at the End of the Nineteenth Century.” Science in Context 18:249–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahon, Joseph. 1893. “Recherches sur les ossements humains anciens et préhistoriques en vue de la reconstitution de la taille. Epoque quaternaire, néolithique, protohistorique et Moyen Age.” Mémoires de la Société d'Anthropologie de Paris, 2e série, 4:403–458.Google Scholar
Rock, Jan. Forthcoming. “Koninklijke Neanderthalers: het internationale succes en de nationale aanhang van de ontdekkers van Spy, 1886–1935.”Google Scholar
Rudwick, Martin. 1976. “The Emergence of Visual Language for Geological Science.” History of Science 14:149–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutot, Aimé. 1904. “Sur la cause de l'éclatement naturel de silex.” Mémoires de la Société d'Anthropologie de Bruxelles 6:1–16.Google Scholar
Rutot, Aimé. 1919. Un essai de reconstitution plastique des races humaines primitives, Bruxelles: Lamertin.Google Scholar
Schaaffhausen, Hermann. 1888. Der Neanderthaler Fund. Der Deutschen Anthropologischen Gesellschaft zu ihrer XIX. Allgemeinen Versammlung in Bonn gewidmet. Bonn: Adolph Marcus.Google Scholar
Shapin, Steven and Schaffer, Simon. 1985. Leviathan and the Air-Pump. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Shepherd, William R. 1911. Historical Atlas. New York: Henry Holt and Company.Google Scholar
Stocking, George W. 1985. Objects and Others: Essays on Museums and Material Culture. Madison: Wisconsin University Press.Google Scholar
StrausWilliam L., Jr William L., Jr. and Cave, Alexander J. E.. 1957. “Pathology and Posture of Neanderthal Man.” Quarterly Review of Biology 32 (4):348–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stringer, Chris and Gamble, Clive. 1993. In Search of the Neanderthals: Solving the Puzzle of Human Origins. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
Trinkaus, Erik and Shipman, Pat. 1993. The Neandertals: Changing the Image of Mankind. London: Knopf.Google Scholar
Van Reybrouck, David. 1998. “Imaging and Imagining the Neanderthal: The Role of Technical Drawings in Archaeology.” Antiquity 72:56–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Reybrouck, David. 2002. “Boule's Error: On the Social Context of Scientific Knowledge.” Antiquity 76:158–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verneau, René. 1906. “La XIIIe session du congrès international d'anthropologie et d'archéologie préhistoriques.” L'Anthropologie 18:103–143.Google Scholar
Weiner, Annette B. 1992. Inalienable Possessions: The Paradox of Keeping-While-Giving. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Yanni, Carla. 2005. Nature's Museums. Victorian Science and the Architecture of Display. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.Google Scholar