France: A Continental Insularity

Author(s): Francoise Audouze and Andre Leroi-Gourhan

Source: World Archaeology, Vol. 13, No. 2, Regional Traditions of Archaeological Research I (Oct.
, 1981), pp. 170-189
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/124436
Accessed: 16-06-2015 18:41 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to World Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 200.5.106.13 on Tue, 16 Jun 2015 18:41:03 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

France:a continentalinsularity
Fran9oiseAudouze and Andre Leroi-Gourhan

It is not our intention to report here on French archaeologicalresults of the past decade. We
have rathertried to delineate the main tendencies, currentsof thought and currenthypotheses
among French archaeologists.Therefore the bibliographyhas been restrictedto those works
that include information about theories, methods, techniques or debates. People interested in
knowing what French archaeologistshave achievedin France and abroadduringthe past ten
years should refer to the annual report edited by the Centre de la Recherche Scientifique:La
Recherche en Sciences Humaines(1976-7, 1977-8, 1979-80). They also may refer, for metropolitan excavations, to the InformationsArcheologiquespublished every year in Gallia and
GalliaPrehistoire(1970-80).

The historicaldimension
Archaeology as a specialized field emerged in the middle of the nineteenth century. Since
the beginning,the divisionbetweenthe differentfieldshas been effective: prehistory,Orientalism,
Egyptology and classicalarchaeologyhave each experienceda separatedevelopment.
This is particularlyclearfor prehistoricarchaeologyand classicalarchaeology,which may be
considered as representativeof other historical archaeologies as far as trends and aims are
concerned.
Prehistoricarchaeology
At the start, in the middle of the nineteenth century, French prehistoricarchaeologywas influenced both by the naturalsciences, geology and palaeontology,and by the new-borncultural
anthropology.From the former two, it borrowed a chronologicalframe and notions of stratigraphy (Boucher de Perthes 1847). From the latter, it acquiredan ethnological vision of prehistoric man. From all three, it adopted the leading paradigmof the century: evolutionism.
Culturalanthropologyand prehistoricarchaeologywere at that time interacting,the first including the originsof manin its topics, the latterusingcomparativeethnographyin the interpretation
of prehistoricfinds. The word paloethnologique often appearsin texts of the time (Chantre
1875-6). However, distrust of ethnographicanalogies,to become so strongat a later date, and
WorldArchaeology

Volume13 No. 2

Regional traditions

?R.K.P. 0043-8243/81/1302-170 $1.50/1

This content downloaded from 200.5.106.13 on Tue, 16 Jun 2015 18:41:03 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

France: a continental insularity 171

preference for observation and morphological classification were alreadyevident. One of the
first to express this was J. Boucher de Perthes, who consideredit impossible to describethe
ethnological dimension of prehistoricman from availableartefacts(Boucherde Perthesquoted
1964: 165).
by Laming-Emperaire
In the perspective of evolutionism, the prehistoric cultures were considered as successive
phases of a monophyletic evolution which were, in some way, genetically derived from one
another.Theiridentificationrested upon typology of artefacts(de Mortillet 1883).
During a second period (1900-50), all the French prehistorianswere dedicated to a single
task: to identify and classify artefacts,artisticartefactsfrom cavesincluded, and define cultures.
Every culturewas characterizedby a fewfossiles directeurs,flint or bone tools with characteristic
shapesand retouch alwaysfound together in a layer. Evolutionismstill influencedprehistorians,
for instance,when two cultureswerefound to be contemporary,they were supposedto originate
from two differentphylaratherthan expressfunctional differences.La bataillede l'Aurignacien,
the great debate that opposed HenriBreuil(1905, 1937) to Adriende Mortilleton the existence
of two phyla, the Aurignaciantradition and the Perigordiantradition, instead of a single one,
was strictly based on argumentsabout successionof layers and the unity of traditionin artefact
assemblages.Denis Peyrony (1933) closed the debate with a demonstrationbased on empirical
data collected in his admirableexcavationsat La Ferrassieand Laugerie-Hautein the Dordogne.
He showed that the two traditions co-existed, the Aurignaciandevelopingduringthe middle
phase of the Perigordian.However, modern prehistoriansincline to consider early and late
Perigordianas two separateentities.Most researcherstended to dismissethnologicalcomparisons
as mere speculations,except in the study of the cave paintings.There,HenriBreuilmade use of
somewhat uncontrolled ethnographiccomparisons(1952). As pointed out by J. R. Sackett
(1981), the traditonal school of PrehistoricArchaeologywas 'settled' duringthis period, preoccupying itself with typology and stratigraphy,trying 'to define artifactualsimilaritiesand
differences among assemblagesand, taking advantagesof whateverlight can be shed by stratigraphy, to seriate them into regional sequenceswhich at least potentially can be broughtinto
alignmentwith one another by cross-correlation.'The implicit genetic model is still underlying
research.
In the 1950s startsthe presentschool of Frenchprehistoricarchaeology,with the setting out
of the systematictypology of Fran9oisBordes. Bordes'swork broughtimprovementsand clarification. He first replaced the fossiles directeurs by a standardizedcomprehensivetypology in
which total artefact assemblagesare considered,and he separatedartefact typology from the
ordering of assemblages,which he analysed by distinct procedures. Instead of a qualitative
diagnosis, he created a quantitative analysis based on percentagesof artefact types, debitage
types and indices present in a stratigraphicunit. Two standardtype-listshave been designedso
that every artefact can be identifiedand counted: one for the MiddlePalaeolithic(Bordes 1950)
and one for the Upper Palaeolithic(de Sonneville-Bordes1960). The percentagefrequency of
types present in different stratigraphicunits and indices regardingthe flint flakes are drawnon
a cumulativegraphwhere they are orderedaccordingto their rankin the type-list. The resultant
graph visually summarizesresemblancesor differences between the stratigraphicunits under
study. In spite of inherent defects such as subjectivityin distributingartefacts between types
and lack of samplingstrategy (Kerrichand Clarke 1967), this method has not been surpassed;
only equalled by much more complicated computing procedures(Azoury and Hodson 1973;
Newcomer and Hodson 1973). Being a very simple method, it is still in use (Gaussen1980).

This content downloaded from 200.5.106.13 on Tue, 16 Jun 2015 18:41:03 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

172

FranVoiseAudouze and Andre Leroi-Gourhan

The argument about style and function in Palaeolithic assemblagesthat arose between
L. R. Binford (1973) and F. Bordes compelled Bordes to make his hypothesis explicit, but
he declined to consider the problem of the origins and changes of culture, asserting that
locations in space and time were the only elements to be defined at this stage of research(i.e. he
accepted only a classificatoryparadigm).Bordes vigorouslyadvocatedthe existence of stylistic
differences between the four Mousteriantraditions and thus of severalparallelphyla (Bordes
1973).
Though working in the same field as Bordes,G. Laplaceholds a very strangeplace in French
archaeology: a few years after Bordes, he built up a new procedure for the comprehensive
analysisof flint artefactsand for the comparisonof assemblagesamongthemselves(1964, 1966).
This 'synthetotype' met with complete opposition from French prehistorians.His method included a type-list as well as an attribute-list.Thoughmore systematicandanalyticalthan Bordes's
procedure,it was more difficult to use, with a very abstrusevocabularyand namesreplacedby
figures. It was less adapted to Upper Palaeolithic industries from southwestern France than
Bordes's procedure. After too short a debate (Bordes 1965), Laplace'swork was discardedin
France while it was adopted in Spain and Italy where Bordesand D. de Sonneville-Bordes'slists
were less useful (Ammerman1971).
Another attempt at understandingin depth the structure of lithic typology was Michel
Brezillon'sworkLa Denominationdes objets de pierre taillee (1968). His detailed analysisof all
the existing definitions of types led to a better evaluation of the origins of types and of their
variability.His work included a very originalsemiologic approachto typology which was only
very briefly summarizedin the first chapter.
Since the beginningof the 1950s a second current emerged.It developed along three lines:
the first was a re-examinationof diggingtechniques and strategiesallowingmore scientific collection of data and the recovery of information relative to living floors. One of the very rare
manualsof excavationwas publishedin 1950 (Leroi-Gourhan1950b). Archaeologicalsites were
consideredas archivesdestroyed by excavations, and data recordinghad to be systematic and
total. Premises of the 'ethnographicdigging' procedure (see below) were set up at this time
duringseveralexcavationsat LaCavernedes Furtins(Leroi-Gourhan1950a), the second hypogea
of Les Mournouards(Leroi-Gourhan,Bailloudand Brezillon 1962) and in the caves of Arcy-surCure (Leroi-Gourhan1961). The influence of Soviet excavations played a part in this development as well as the marxistnotion of archaeologyas the history of materialculture.
Along a second line, this current tended to set prehistoric archaeology on a firmer base
through intense criticism and reassessmentof archaeologicalsources and interpretations.Its
main manifestationwas Les Religions de la prehistoire(Leroi-Gourhan1964a), which advocated
a re-examinationof all so-calledreligious and ritual facts and the re-orientationof excavations
toward spatial analysis(ibid: 7-9). This book was partly misunderstoodabroad(Klejn 1977). It
was only taken as a denial of the value of ethnographiccomparisonsand as a willingnessto deal
only with the information provided by excavation. Besides the call for excavations allowing
spatial analysis, this work introduced the important notion of a hierarchyin interpretation:
naturaland technologicalexplanationshad to be givengreaterimportancethan socialor religious
explanations because their probability was higher and because mechanicalcontingencies and
technologicaldeterminismwere easierto detect. Finally, there wasto be the searchfor statistical
regularitiesamong associations of data (mainly in prehistoric art). At this stage, looking for
clean data and significant distributionsor associationsseemed more urgentthan interpretation.

This content downloaded from 200.5.106.13 on Tue, 16 Jun 2015 18:41:03 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

France:a continental insularity

173

Though looking for obvious or hidden structures among data (mapped artefacts or painted
animalsin caves), this position was quite distinct from Levi-Strauss'sstructuralismand more a
part of the generalHegelianfamily of thought interestedin structures.
The third line of this currentwas the development of techno-morphology(Leroi-Gourhan
1943, 1945, 1964b, 1965; Leroi-Gourhanand Brezillon 1966), which studied man throughthe
materialshe used and the way he transformedthem. Severalnotions that would later re-appear
in the literaturecame to light: the need for statisticalvalidationof typologies, the influence of
technological determinismand function and of wear and re-sharpeningon the shape of tools.
Though this last line was not developed by many people at this time, it led to very rich results
when attemptswere made to re-fit flint-knappingdebriswith cores (Cahenand Karlin 1980).
The 1960s also saw the beginningof computer archaeologywith J. Gardin'sworks, but this
was first directedtowardsclassicaland Near Easternarchaeology.
Classicalarchaeology
It seems more difficult to pinpoint decisive changes in classical archaeology (as well as in
Near Easternarchaeologyand Egyptology) since these are included in the generalevolution of
Europeanarchaeology.
From the beginning,classicalarchaeologywas linked with history, and mergedwith history
of art, oriented as it was towardsmonumentalarchitecture(palacesand temples) and epigraphic
data collecting. The main steps of its developmentare the creationof the Academiedes Inscriptions in 1663, and then of the French School of Archaeology at Athens in 1846, followed
by a few others (mainly Rome, Cairo, Beirut, Madrid,Pondicherryin South India). Classical
archaeologywas supposed to evolve in parallelwith history and claimed to adopt the aims of
Lucien Febvre'shistoire totale but did not really change its strategyand diggingtechniquesto
adapt to it. Egyptologistswere the first ones to become interestedin diggingdomestic districts
in a town, with the excavationof Deir-el-Medinehin 1923. Duringthe fifties, J.-J. Hatt showed
an interest in stricter stratigraphiccontrol, but his influence remainedlimited. It is only at the
end of the decade and the beginning of the next one that P. Courbinintroduced Wheeler's
method of excavation.His teachingat the Ecole pratiquedes HautesEtudes and the publication
of his textbook on diggingtechniques(Courbin1963), the first to be oriented towardsclassical
archaeology, had a great influence on the slow improvementwhich took place duringthese
years. Until the 1960s, French archaeologyabroadwas much more developed than at home.
Great excavationsabroadwere subsidizedby the ForeignOffice while metropolitanexcavations
received meagreallowancesfrom the Ministryof Culture.The formerwere dedicatedto monumental remainsand were long-lastingprogrammes(for example, the excavationat Ras Shamra
in Syria, startedin 1929 and still going on). These massiveprojectsdid not encouragemethodological improvements,since they providedenormous quantitiesof new data which absorbedall
the activitiesof archaeologists.
Laterprehistorymet particularlyunfavourableconditions for its development:afterJ. Dechelette's death, duringthe First WorldWar,occurred a breakin later prehistoricresearchesand a
second start around 1960 was due to a few isolated men: G. Bailloudand J. Arnalfor the Neolithic, J.-J. Hatt, J. Audibertand J.-P. Millotte for the metal agestudies. Classifyingand ordering
the objects from old collections were such lengthy tasks that no attention was paid to methodological problems. All the studies were based upon the comparativemethod underthe leading

This content downloaded from 200.5.106.13 on Tue, 16 Jun 2015 18:41:03 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

174

FranVoiseAudouze and Andre Leroi-Gourhan

influence of the Germanproto-historians,anddiffusionismwas the single explanationfor change.

P. Giot played an important part in the quarrelabout the long and short chronologiesfor the
Neolithic and metal ages when C14 dating was introduced in France. His work on megalithic
monuments completely renewed the subject and led to a considerabledevelopment of later
prehistoryin Brittany(Giot et al. 1979).
Mediaevalarchaeologystarted duringthe 1950s under the impulse of M. de Bouardand his
laboratoryat the Universityof Caen(1975). To encouragethis development,the Ecole pratique
desHautesEtudesset up ajoint programmewith the PolishAcademyof ScienceunderP. Courbin's
direction to organize excavations of deserted mediaevalvillages and benefit from the much
longer experienceof the Poles in this field (ArcIeologie du villagedeserte 1970).

Archaeologyin Francetoday: a science of observation

Archaeology in France today is the result of the currentsthat developed duringthe previous
decades. It is characterizedby the preponderantimportancegiven to excavations.If automatic
computingprocedureshad not been introducedby J.-C.Gardinduringthe 1960s, generalchanges
in French archaeologywould have proceededonly from improvementsin excavations.
Archaeology in France is mainly a science of observation,which explains that most of the
improvementsduringthe last years focus on excavationmethods. But these improvementshave
also led to new possibilitiesin the analysisof data. The notion that absolutelyeverythinghad to
be collected on a site before destruction,though utopian, neverthelessencouragedthe spatial
analysisof settlement floors (see for example the use of ochre tracesand flint chips at Pincevent
(Leroi-Gourhanand Brezillon 1972: 89-99) or the improvementsbroughtabout in palaeozoology
(Poplin 1976; Desse 1979). It is quite typical that improvementscame from empiricalprogress
in observation and data-collectingrather than from theoretical arguments.Moreover,though
spatial analysis at site level started rather early (duringthe 1950s at Arcy-sur-Cure,Yonne), no
comprehensivetheory was ever publishedin this country.
In an intensiveeffort made duringthe 1960s to bringFrencharchaeologyto a higherscientific
level, each school of thought promoted its own approach,emphasizingdifferencesratherthan
similarities.After ten years, the debate is over and each method is includedwith an appropriate
strategy: ethnographicexcavation is dedicated to the study of settlement floors in situ, open
area excavation is used for large settlements from which floors disappeared.A third approach
now attractinginterest is urban archaeology,combining the uncoveringof largeareasof floors
with accuratestratigraphy.A specialmention should be madeof ecological studies, and interests
in technology which have recently beconmepopular.
Though their respectivesupporterswould have stronglyopposed this assimilationa few years
ago, it is clear that ethnographicexcavationsand open areaexcavationsarebut two aspectsof the
same systematic approachto archaeologicalsites. They are both concernedwith spatialanalysis
and inter-relationsamong artefacts. They both rely on spatialmodels which determinethe grid
level chosen for recording structures and artefacts and they lead to a true integrationof the
differentmethods used in the study, from palynology and palaeozoologyto typology, to explain
is usuallypreferredby the French
the life of the settlement inhabitants(the word 'interpr&tation'
archaeologiststo 'explanation'because it takes account of the part of subjectivityinherent in
this process). Beyond these essentialsimilarities,the two methods do differ.

This content downloaded from 200.5.106.13 on Tue, 16 Jun 2015 18:41:03 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

France:a continental insularity

175

Ethnographicexcavations
This is concerned with settlement floors and is usually restrictedto small or middle-sizeexcavations. It is mainly applied to Palaeolithicopen-airsettlementsbut also to caves and later sites
where such floors exist (Audouze et al. 1981; Allain 1976). The refitting of blocks of raw
material(flint and hearth stones), of ceramicsand broken bones, together with graphicspatial
analysis, are essential for demonstratingthe relations between artefacts and their allocation to
one structureor another(Cahenet al. 1980).
Though it started early the underlyingmodel on which 'ethnographicexcavation'rested was
never made totally explicit. It includes two levels: one is a series of assumptions regarding
generalhuman behaviourin a domestic space in terms of activity areaas opposed to rest areaor
refuse area;the other is a specific model for Magdalenianhabitationswhich was exposed in the
first large-scaleexcavationof this type, Pinceventin Seine-et-Marne
(Leroi-GourhanandBrezillon
1972: 239-56) (fig. 1). The generalmodel slowly emergedthrougha long collective discussion
100

101

102

103

104

105

107

106

IOB

Ii

110

109

12

113

114

1-____

0\

-I

----

-<-

\1

T
1----

<

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

- osu.e

____

1-__

<

I_______

__

!..

t0-< 00~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
7ux 1X

BLOCSI

Figure 1 Pincevent(Seine-et-Marne).Distributionmap of the brokenheated stones: re-fittingof

the stone blocks (granite, millstone, chert) used in and around the hearths reveals people's
movements or the contemporaneitybetween severalhabitations. The inhabitantsof 36-V105
have rejected their broken heated stones around their tent, mainly in the refuse area R-S-T
106-107. Rejected fragmentsfrom T-U 112 are located in the refuse areacommon to the two
habitations. Moreover,the re-fittings demonstratelong-distancemoves towards anotherhearth
southward.Thick black lines: hearthsand tent contours;dotted lines: hypothetical contours of
tents. (Drawing:R. Humbert.)

This content downloaded from 200.5.106.13 on Tue, 16 Jun 2015 18:41:03 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

176

Fran!oiseAudouze and Andre Leroi-Gourhan

La s&riede vases apparait ordonn6e

A gauche. les vases plars et larges.
en bas. les vases p/us profonds mais
encore larges et en remontant a drolte.
des vases de plus en plus profonds et
it(roits

axe 2

0470~~~

@ 1110

13

@163
D0

'-

IIS40~~~~~
@360'

'

'3 .
iso

@1630

var/
'YO70

,320

A4140

M460~~~36

@160

r0
AIMC

13

axes

-1

"l

oT'KiI3

@660I'll630
X330

ble1

310

01241

nO

33

230

panl de mnsraios0
A~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~w
Trecolle

en

1936)o

compte pour

10alyse factoUSelleV

A1330

Al"

J.-P
(From~~~~~~
1oh0

191,93

........

.......
Lp

Apantirdes mensuratlons
Lt Lf .,polses sur les dyfft6_entes
paniies dun vase, ont 6-t/ calcul6es
les 27 vanab/es: Ht HP HP ...polses
Lt 4p hp
en compte pour/Ianalyse factonle/le.
4p.

ig10.

talo~~~~~~331

@330

M3ai0

@60
1130

GI?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~10

@330
@11
13

Figure 2 Factor analysis(analysedes correspondances)of vasesfound in Iron Age cemeteriesin

Aquitaine shows a continuity in shapesand dimensions.Accordingto site, only a few types are
presentin each largecategory(largeshallow dishes, deep and largevases,largeandnarrowvases).
(From J.-P.Mohen 1981,~93,fig. 34.)
on terminology at the 'Sd'minairesur les structures d'habitat' de la Chairede Predhistoire
du
Coll'ege de France (Laboratoire d'Ethnologie pr6historique 1973, 1975, 1978). This task
was undertakento give an objective base to the descriptionof data collected duringthe excavations.The resultingvocabularyhas ever since provedits efficiency for sites of variousdates
(for example, de Lumley and Boone 1976; Masset 1972; Rigaud 1976; Tixier, Marmierand
Trecolle 1976).

This content downloaded from 200.5.106.13 on Tue, 16 Jun 2015 18:41:03 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

France: a continental insularity

177

A controversialdebate took place duringthe last decade about the reality of such settlement
floors. F. Bordes arguedthat it was not possible to isolate one humanoccupancy at a time on a
settlement floor and thus to define structuresof habitationexcept under extremely infrequent
circumstances(Bordes, Rigaud and de Sonneville-Bordes1972; Bordes 1975). The controversy
rose again for a while when the first spatial analysis on a thick archaeologicallevel came out
(Van Noten 1978; F. Bordes 1980a, b; Cahen 1980). But the existence of spatiallystructured
floors on thin archaeologicallevels is now broadlyaccepted.
It is quite characteristicof the absence of theoretical and methodological debate in France
that the propagationof this method did not take place thanks to any excavation manual,but
through students trained at the Pincevent site and through the Pincevent publication. Among
others, it influenced the French-speakingSwiss archaeologistswho, in turn, influenced archaeologists in eastern France. In this lakes area,the ethnographicexcavationmethod allied to new
diggingtechniques gave very interestingresults on Neolithic and BronzeAge settlements(Boisaubertet al. 1974; Bocquet 1979). The ethnographicmethod is now broadlyaccepted in France
for prehistoricsites and has a deep influenceon excavationsof all periodsespeciallymetropolitan
excavations(Ferdiere 1980).
Open-areaexcavations
The second strategy,open-areaexcavations,was first introducedto Franceby the Czech archaeologist, B. Soudsky, as a coherentglobal approach.He had set up his method on the exemplary
site of Bylany in Czechoslovakia,and was one of the first archaeologiststo use computingproceduresto recordandanalysehis data. At the same time as he startedteachingon late prehistory
at the University of Paris I, he organizedlarge-scalerescue excavationsof linearpottery and La
Tene settlements in the Aisne rivervalley. The lack of settlement floors in such sites allowed
him to focus on traces of structurefoundationsafter the topsoil had been removedby machinestripping.The recordingsystem was based on structures,or on a squaremetre grid inside large
structures. B. Soudsky's method relied upon three models operating at distinct levels which
were very clearly defined, probably because of his use of computers. The first model gives a
systematic account of possible relations among settlement structures(Cleuziou and Demoule
1980a: 101-2), then comes a model for linearpottery houses and their surroundings(Soudsky
1969) and, at a higher level, a model for defining cultures and culturalfaci6s(Soudsky 1973).
Though re-shapedthrough the concepts of diffusionism,movements of populations and local
change,it seemsthat the old genetic model is still in use here, implyingthe derivationof cultures
from one another in an arborescentsystem. In ethnographicexcavations this question is not
raised at all, the diachronicdimension being consideredonly to question the possible contemporaneity of different structures.
These models have been used mainly in the Aisne valley project (Vallee de l'Aisne 1973-8).
Because of the higher cost of such excavations, and because of the smallrevolutionthey introducedby choosinga preselectedlevel for recordingdata, they first met with stronghostility. The
scientific value of this method is now acknowledged,but very few similarprojects have since
been undertakenbecause of their expense and because of the individualismof most French
archaeologists.However,mention shouldbe made of the on-goingproject of Villeneuve-Tolosane
in southern France and a few Gallo-Romanor mediaeval projects (Demolon 1972; Ferdiere
1975). In one case. at Noyen (Seine-et-Marne),C. and D. Mordant(1977) made an interesting

This content downloaded from 200.5.106.13 on Tue, 16 Jun 2015 18:41:03 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

178

FranVoiseAudouze and Andre Leroi-Gourhan

compromisebetween the two methods, uncoveringa large open-areaby machine-strippingand

then diggingby hand and mappingall finds accordingto the ethnographicexcavationmethod.
Large-scaleopen-areaexcavations are now always preceded by aerial surveys.The use of aerial
photographyhas greatlyexpanded,mainly in northernand centralFrance duringthe last fifteen
years (Agache 1978). But it is not yet consideredto be a complete professionaloccupation and
there is only one full-time archaeologistspecializingin aerialsurveyin the Aisne region.
Urbanexcavations
In the past few years,the young generationof classicaland mediaevalarchaeologistshave reacted
againstthe overwhelmingpreponderanceof the ethnographicexcavationmethod in their field,
method becauseit was not exactly adapted
andespeciallyagainstthe so-called'Courbin-Wheeler'
to the problems they had to face. Consequently,under the influence of mediaevaland urban
English and Dutch archaeology(Barker1977), they have designedan appropriatestrategyresulting from a combinationof ail the others. This is characterizedby excavationson largeareas,by
a very careful analysis of stratigraphyperformedon many thin layers (which are destroyed as
soon as they are no longer needed for controlling the succession of layers and structures),by
horizontal strippingby hand, following naturalfloors and by a three-dimensionalrecordingof
finds. As in the Aisne valley project, a computeris often used in these excavationsto recordthe
data collected during the excavation. Four projects are currently proceedingat Douai, Lyon,
Saint-DenisandTours(Galinie1980). But this renewalseemslimitedto metropolitanexcavations.
Traditionaldiggingtechniqueswhich arewell suited for recoveringarchitectureare used without
much change on monumental sites abroad. But the introduction of photogrammetry,where
archaeologistscan afford it, has certainlyimprovedgraphicdata collecting.
The ecologicalapproach
As a matter of fact, it is now difficult to delineate different approachesin French archaeology,
for all successfultendencieshaveinfluencedother ones. Everyprojectincludesa multi-disciplinary
study of the environmentand any deficienciesin this areaare usually due to lack of researchers
or of money. However, it is possible to distinguishin prehistory a group of both prehistorians
and proto-historianswho emphasizeecological studies. They usually do this within a diachronic
perspective and consider changesin the environment.Among them, should be mentioned the
Laboratoirede Paleontologie humaine et de Pr6histoirede Marseille(de Lumley 1975), The
Institut du Quaternairede Bordeaux(Laville and Renault-Miskovsky1977), the Centre d'Anthropologie des Societes ruralesde Toulouse which runs the 'Anthropologieet Ecologie pyrdn6ennes' project (Guilaineet al. 1979). The precursorsof this currentwere P. Ducos and J. and
M.-C. Cauvin,whose project was the first to be explicitly oriented towardsecology: 'Ecologie
humaine des communautesvillageoisesprimitives'.While one may regret that most ecological
researchprojects lack consistency and are often a patchworkof parallelstudies, this last project
is certainly the most integratedone and has led to importantresultson the originof the domestication of plants and animals(Ducos 1968; Cauvin1978).
The technologicalapproach
The last years have seen a strong development of dissatisfactionamong lithic typologists. The

This content downloaded from 200.5.106.13 on Tue, 16 Jun 2015 18:41:03 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

century

BC.

(Photograph:

A.

Caubet.)

,~~~~~~~~~~~~O

Plate 3 (below) Mergarh,Baluchistan. A potter's storage room in

a craftsmen's area. Third millen nium BC. (Photograph: C. Jar'rige.)
.

Ir I--1

...

-..

?..m?N:01

......... .

.,..

f.

W..

This content downloaded from 200.5.106.13 on Tue, 16 Jun 2015 18:41:03 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

180

Audouze and Andre Leroi-Gourhan

Fran_9oise

feeling that the Bordesmethod had achieveda particulartask but did not allow furtherprogress,
that automaticprocedureshad failed as well to produce new results,has led researchersworking
in this field to try new directions.New alternativeshave been proposedin two colloquia held at
Senanque (Camps-Fabrer1976, 1977) and one held at Valbonne (Prehistoireet technologie
lithique 1980). The first one allies attributeanalysisand technologicalstudies on bone tools. The
other is a technological study of flint-knappingwhere the flint tool is consideredas a part of a
technical process. This is achieved by re-fitting the tool into the originalblock of raw material,
and by experimentalknapping(Cahenand Karlin1980; Tixier et al. 1980). The latter approach
is also directed towards the economy of raw materials(Demars 1980; Perles 1980). Attribute
analysis, though successful for later periods, is still not as efficient as expected for prehistoric
data (Delporte and Maziere1977; Boutin et al. 1977).
This shift from typology to technology can also be found in late prehistory and historical
periods,where petrographyandmetallographyhave renewed the study of objects (Leroux 1976;
Giot et al. 1964-5: Mohen 1980; Fontes et al. 1980). Even such a field traditionallydedicated
to the history of art as Roman mural paintingsis now being studied from a technical point of
view (Barbetand Allag 1972).
Changesin classicalarchaeology
Classical and Middle Eastern archaeology still proceed through monumentalexcavations and
urban studies (Margueron1980). But some changes of focus can be perceived:archaicand late
periods are preferredto classical(Bounni et al. 1979; Courbin1977-8); there is a shift from the
central areas to the periphery,with large excavations of Greek and Roman periodsin Turkey,
Lebanon,Syria, Palestineand Afghanistan(Martin1976-7).
Besides large monumental remains, attention is paid to smalleror earlierbuildings,and to
rawmud-brickconstructionsas well as to firedbrickpalacesand temples (Jarrigeand Lechevallier
1979; Arnaudet al. 1979; DollfussandHesse 1977). Specialstudiesarededicatedto civil districts,
to domestic architectureand spatial organization(Yon et al. n.d.: figs 3 and 4). Accumulations
of data duringhalf a century now allow rich synthesis even without change in the conceptual
frame (Margueron1977; Aupert and Callot 1980). Repercussionsof the changesin the French
school of history have led to more attention being paid to environment,the humaninfluence on
landscapeand to socio-economics(Jourdan1976; Vallet and Villard 1963; Vallet et al. 1976).
Computingscience and theory in archaeology
The introduction of computing science in archaeologygave an opportunity to archaeologists
from all fields to meet and discusssubjectsof common interest. It obliged many of them to pay
more attention to the conceptual bases of archaeology.Before the end of the 1960s, they had
been very little interested in building theories. This could be explainedby the conservatismof
classicistsand by the exaggerateddescriptivismof prehistorians(Cleuziouand Demoule 1980b:
11) but also by the extreme partitioningof the different archaeologieswhich did not allow a
generalview of the field. The drasticchangewas the work of Jean-ClaudeGardin,whose researches
have been centred on documentation techniques and archaeologicalreasoningsince the end of
the fifties. He worked on problemsrelatedto systematic descriptionof archaeologicalartefacts
(1963); he tried to devise rules of descriptionto avoid the usual inconvenienceof verbalismin

This content downloaded from 200.5.106.13 on Tue, 16 Jun 2015 18:41:03 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

France:a continental insularity

181

documentationwork and proposedthe firstoperationalchainof informationstorageandretrieval

(1971). The laboratorythat he created,the Centred'AnalyseDocumentairepour l'Archeologie,
had a preponderantinfluence on all archaeologistsinterested in computing procedureseither
for data analysis(Borillo, Gardinand Jaulin 1968; Gardin1970) or for documentationand data
banks (Borillo and Gardin 1974; Borillo and Bourrelly 1976), and it was associatedwith most
of the projectsinitiated in the early 1970s.
After ten years, a certain disillusionhas replaced the originalenthusiasm.Most data banks
have failed. Out of the fourteen projects that had been presentedat the Marseillescolloquium
in 1974, just six have been achieved but two have no users and the others are only partiallyor
experimentally used because of conceptual reasons or from institutional opposition (Cleuziou
and Demoule 1980b: 9; Ginouvesand Guimier-Sorbets1979).
Classifications,seriationsand discriminantanalysisappliedto unsuitabledata have given few
results (Audouze 1976). A debate is now open on the necessity to take into account, or not,
the probabilisticperspectivein archaeologicalanalysis.The Benz6cris'statisticalschool opposed
this and proposeda set of complementarymethods (factor analysis,classification,seriation,discriminantanalysis,etc.) that used euclidiandistances,and did not imply a probabilistichypothesis
Benzecri et al. 1973; Jambu 1978; Benz6criand Benz6cri 1980). This very efficient set of programmeshas recently been favouredby archaeologists(Mohen 1980).
Both data banks and data analysishave made a new start on more modest, but theoretically
firmer, bases. Several data banks of excavations are operational,for example for the sites of
Salamis of Cyprus, Levroux and the Aisne valley. The diffusion of micro-computersis now
changingthe dimensionsof the problemand no clearevaluationof the near future can be made.
The theoretical field studied by J.-C. Gardin is linked to computing science, since he has
been concernedwith problemsof logic in archaeologicalreasoning.In a recent synthesis(1979),
he analyses the intellectualoperationsin archaeologyand proposesa chain of logical operations
necessaryto produce a scientific workin the humansciences:definitionof goals - data-collecting
- interpretation - validation. This formalismis an interestingrationalizationof the archaeological process, but does not solve the theoreticalproblemof the formationof hypotheses.
However,the influence of J.-C. Gardinhas been considerableon the generationwho graduated
around 1970 and will certainlyinfluence archaeologicalwritingsover the next years.
Influencesfrom abroad
Until now, French archaeologyhas remainedout of internationaltrendsexcept for excavations
abroad. Severalreasons can be put forward:the linguistic barrier,institutional restraints(lack
of libraries,predominanceof rescueexcavations)and a generalpreferenceby archaeologistsfor
empiricaland pragmaticprocedures.
However, archaeologistsworkingon excavationsabroadare usually concernedwith the same
themes as their colleagues, but are very seldom engagedin general debates. Researcheson the
origins of man and Australopithecinesin easternAfrica are practisedaccordingto international
standards.But they give a special importanceto ethnographicexcavationswhenever they can
take place on Acheulean settlement floors (Chavaillonet al. 1979). The originsof the domestication of plants and animals,which is a world-widesubject of interest, have been first studied
outside, and then within France, as was the origin of sedentarizationand urbanization(Perrot
1962). Whileregionalspatialanalysisis seldompractisedin France,it is one of the maindiscussion

This content downloaded from 200.5.106.13 on Tue, 16 Jun 2015 18:41:03 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

182

FrangoiseAudouze and Andre Leroi-Gourhan

topics of the French abroad (for example Lavalle et al. 1976; Gardin and Lyonnet 1979).

They often are engaged in internationalprojects such as 'The human occupation of Susiana
during the fifth millennium' conducted by a French archaeologicaldelegation in Iran, and
Michigan,Rice and Chicagouniversities.But the influence of metropolitanprehistoriansappears
in the methods and in the specialinterest given to specific settlement structuressuch as hearths
(Dollfuss and Hesse 1977).
The way French archaeologistsreacted to the AmericanNew Archaeology is typical of the
superficialpenetration of foreign ideas. Though many of them had readthe writingsof L. and
S. R. Binford there were no written reactions before 1973. No one expressed the commonly
sharedfeeling of defiance in front of the gap which existed between the theoreticalmodels and
availabledata.Two paperscameout in 1973: the firstone expressedF. Bordes'sdenial(see below),
the other was an enthusiastic account of the New Archaeology (Cleuziou et al. 1973). The
hypothetico-deductivemodel was never adopted. However, the New Archaeology contributed
to widen the scope of French archaeologyand to introduce socio-economic explanationsfor
culture changes. Several fields adjacent to archaeology were developed in France under the
influence of British and American archaeology, such as archaeometry,environmentalstudies
and more recently ethnoarchaeology.
The latter is just startingin Franceand only small studies on technologicaltopics have so far
been attempted (Bernus and Gouletquer 1976; Stordeur 1980; Jarrige and Audouze 1980) or
on settlements (Digard 1975). A few large-scale projects of investigation and experimentation

are now starting(Coudartn.d.; Audouze and Perles 1980).

A virtualstate of crisis
French archaeology today has inherited a prestigioustradition, but the lack of personnel and
funds led to impoverishmentbetween the two world wars. Like other Europeancountries, it
has gone through deep changesthrough the last twenty years. Excavationmethods have been
modernized and inserted in scientific strategies. Archaeological projects have really become

multi-disciplinarywith the adjunctionof archaeometry,environmentaland computersciences.

The long-termfundingof largeexcavationsabroadhas produceduniqueinformationon urbanism,
as at Angkorin Cambodia,Susa in Iranor Ras Shamrain Syria.
However, French archaeologyis in a virtualstate of crisis.The transformationhas concerned
only a few laboratories with space, money and numerous researchers at their disposal. Laboratories for archaeometry, computing applications and restoration are, by far, too few, and the
gap between supply and demand for archaeometric and environmental analysis constantly
grows.

Two reports (Soustelle 1974; Chapelotet al. 1979) have clearly analysedthe elements of the
crisis and show that, in spite of all the changesperformedduringthe twenty last years, its main
causes remain unchanged.They mainly consist of an imbalancebetween the cursusstudiorum
and recruitment to professional positions, in the existence of two parallel cursus leading to
different recruitments, and the lack of co-ordination between the universities,the Service
des Fouilles and the Centre National de la Recherche scientifique.Comparedwith other European countries, there is an importantlack of professionalarchaeologists,which explainsthe exceptionally importantpart still played by the amateurs,and the prevalenceof rescueexcavations

This content downloaded from 200.5.106.13 on Tue, 16 Jun 2015 18:41:03 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

France: a continental insularity

183

over planned excavations;however, there has been a slight reverseof trend duringthe last two
years.
Important departmentsof archaeologywith researchlaboratoriesof an internationallevel
and with specializedlibrariesare too few, and this may explain why French archaeologyis so
imperviousto Europeancurrentsof thought, especiallytheoreticalones.
Only a drastic change in the national policy of archaeologyand education and much more
co-operation with the archaeologicalinstitutions of the Europeancountries could reversethe
situation. Though it is possible to exhibit many interestingresults and new trends of research
initiated by individualsor by a few laboratories,there now needs to be a generaldevelopment
to raisethe whole field to an internationallevel.
Note: We are grateful to A. Caubet, A. Schnapp, C. Girardand C. Perles for their advice and
their help in assemblingthe bibliography.
17.iv.1981

CNRS,Paris
Laboratoired 'EthnologieprMhistorique
Collegede France,Paris

References
et romaine.Amiens: Memoiresde la Societe des AntiAgache, R. 1978. La Somme pre'-romaine
quairesde Picardie,vol. 24.
Allain, 1976. Argenton-sur-Creus(Indre) Argentomagus.In Union internationaledes Sciences
prehistoriqueset protohistoriques,IXe Congr's: Livret-guidede l'excursionA], Sud du Bassin
Parisien(ed. A. Leroi-Gourhan,J. Allain and M. Brezillon).Nice, pp. 104-10.
Ammerman,A. J. 1971. A computer analysis of epipalaeolithicassemblagesin Italy. In Mathematics in the Archaeologicaland HistoricalSciences (ed. F. R. Hodson, D. G. Kendalland P.
Tautu). EdinburghUniversityPress,pp. 133-7.
Archeologiedu villagedeserte. 1970 (ouvragecollectif). Paris:ArmandColin(cahierdes Annales).
Arnaud,D., Calvet, Y. and Huot, J.-L. 1979. Ilsu-Ibnisu,orfevrede 1'EBabbarde Larsa.Syria.
56: 1-64.
Audouze, F. 1976. Traitementstatistiquedes donnees et descriptiondu materialprehistorique.
In Union internationaledes Sciences prehistoriqueset protohistoriques,IXe Congre's:theme
specialise Classificationautomatiquedes industriesprehistoriques(ed. L. Barral).Nice, pp. 9-22.
Audouze, F., Blanchet, J.-C., Brunaux,J.-L. 1981. L'Habitata l'Age du Fer dans la moyenne
vallee de l'Oise. In L'Habitatd l'Age du Fer en Europe: l'Evolutionde l'habitaten Berry:Actes
du Colloque de Levroux,1978 (ed. 0. Buchsenschutz).Paris:Editionsde la Maisondes Sciences
de l'Homme,pp. 67-82.
Audouze, F. and Perles,C. 1980. Quelquesnotes sur1'ethnoarcheologieen France.Nouvelles de
l'archeologie.4: 22-3.
Aupert, P. and Callot, 0. 1980. Le Stade de Delphes. Ecole francaised'Athenes.
Azoury, I. and Hodson, F. R. 1973. ComparingPalaeolithic assemblages:Ksar Akil, a case
study. WorldArchaeology.4: 292-306.

This content downloaded from 200.5.106.13 on Tue, 16 Jun 2015 18:41:03 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

184

Fran9oise Audouze and Andre Leroi-Gourhan

Barbet, A. and Allag, C. 1972. Techniques de preparation des parois dans la peinture murale
romaine. In Melanges de l'Ecole fran(aise de Rome. 84: 935-1069.
Barker, P. 1977. Techniques of Archaeological Excavations. London: Batsford.
Benz6cri, J.-P. and Benz6cri, F. 1980. Pratique de l'analyse des donnees. Paris: Dunod.
Benzecri, J.-P. et al. 1973. L'Analyse des donnees. Vol. I: La Taxonomie: vol. II: L'Analyse des
correspondances. Paris: Dunod.
Bernus, S. and Gouletquer, P. 1976. Du cuivre au sel: recherches ethnoarch6ologiques sur la
region d'Azelik (campagne 1973-5). Journal des Africanistes. 46: 7-68.
Binford, L., 1973. Interassemblage variability: the Mousterian and the 'functional' argument. In
The Explanation of Culture Change (ed. C. Renfrew): London: Duckworth, pp. 227-54.
Bocquet, A. and Petrequin, P. 1974. Recherches recentes sur le Neolithique lacustre: le village
des Baigneurs 'aCharavines, Isere et les sites littoraux du lac de Clairvaux, Jura. Archeologia. 69:
43-55.
Bocquet, A. 1979. Lake bottom archaeology. Scientific American. February, no. 240: 56-64.
Boisaubert, J.-L., Shifferdecker, F. and Petrequin, P. 1974. Les villages n6olithiques de Clairvaux
(Jura, France) et d'Auvernier (Neuchatel, Suisse): problemes d'interpr6tation des plans. Bulletin
de la Societe Prehistorique Fran(aise. 71: 355-82.
Bordes, F. 1950. Principes d'une methode d'etude des techniques de debitage et de la typologie
du Pal6olithique ancien et moyen. L'Anthropologie. 54: 19-34.
Bordes, F. 1965. A propos de typologie. L'Anthropologie. 69: 369-77.
Bordes, F. 1973. On the chronology and the contemporaneity of different palaeolithic cultures
in France. In The Explanation of Culture Change (ed. C. Renfrew). London: Duckworth, pp.
217-26.
Bordes, F. 1975. Sur la notion de sol d'habitat en pr6histoire pal6olithique. Bulletin de la Socikte
Prehistorique Fran aise. 72: 139-43.
Bordes, F. 1980a. Question de contemporan6it6: l'illusion des remontages. Bulletin de la Soci&te
Prehistorique Fran aise. 77: 13 1-3.
Bordes, F. 1980b. Savez-vous remonter les cailloux a la mode de chez nous? Bulletin de la
Societe Prehistorique Fran aise. 77: 232-4.
Bordes, F., Rigaud, J.-P. and Sonneville-Bordes, D. de. 1972. Des buts, problemes et limites de
l'archeologie paleolithique. Quaternaria. 16: 15-34.
Borillo, M. and Bourrelly, L. (eds). 1976. Banques de donnees et m6thodes formelles en archeologie prehistorique et protohistorique. Union internationale des Sciences prMhistoriques et
protohistoriques, IXe Congres: colloque IV. Nice.
Borillo, M. and Gardin, J.-C. (eds). 1974. Les Banques de donnees archeologiques. Paris: CNRS.
Borillo, M., Gardin, J.-C. and Jaulin, B. 1968. Calcul et formalisation dans les sciences de
l'homme. Paris: CNRS.
Bouard, M. de 1975. Manuel d'archeologie medievale, de la fouille d l'histoire. Paris: SEDES.
Boucher de Perthes, J. 1847. Antiquite celtique et antediluvienne. 3 vols. Paris: Treultel and
Wurtz.
Bounni, A., Lagarce, E., Lagarce, J., Saliby, N. and Badre, L. 1979. Rapport pr6liminaire sur la
troisieme campagne de fouilles (1977) a Ibn Hani (Syrie). Syria. 56: 217-91.

This content downloaded from 200.5.106.13 on Tue, 16 Jun 2015 18:41:03 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

France: a continental insularity

185

Boutin, P., Tallur, B. and Chollet, A. 1977. Essai d'application des techniques de I'analyse des
donnees aux pointes a dos des niveaux aziliens de Rochereil. Bulletin de la Societe Prehistorique
FranVaise. 74: 362-75.
Breuil, H. 1905. Essai de stratigraphie des depots de I'Age de Renne. Congres pre'historique de
France, Perigueux. pp. 74-80.
Breuil, H. 1937. Les subdivisions du Paleolithique superieur et leur signification. Congres international d'Anthropologie et d'Archeologie prcRhistorique,14e session, Geneva, 1912, pp. 6-78.
Breuil, H. 1952. Quatre cents Siecles d'art parietal. Montignac: Centre d'etude et de documentation prehistoriques.
Br6zillon, M. 1968. La Denomination des objets de pierre taillee. IVe supplement a Gallia Prehistoire. Paris: CNRS.
Cahen, D. 1980. Question de contemporaneite: l'apport des remontages. Bulletin de la Socie't
Pre'historique FranCaise. 77: 230-2.
Cahen, D. and Karlin, C. 1980. Les artisans de la Prehistoire. La Recherche. 116: 1258-71.
Cahen, C., Karlin, C., Keeley, L. H. and Van Noten, F. 1980. Methodes d'analyse technique,
spatiale et fonctionnelle d'ensembles lithiques. Helinium. 20: 209-59.
Camps-Fabrer, H. (ed.). 1976. Actes du premier colloque international de l'industrie de l'os
dans la prehistoire, abbaye de Senanque, 1974, publications de l'Universite de Provence.
Camps-Fabrer, H. (ed.). 1977. Methodologie appliquee d l'industrie de l'os prehistorique. Colloque international no. 568 du CNRS. Abbaye de Senanque. Paris: CNRS.
Cauvin, J. 1978. Les premiers Villages de Syrie-Palestine du IXeme au VIIeme millenaire avant
J.C. Lyon: Maison de l'Orient.
Chantre, E. 1875-6. Age du Bronze: recherches sur l'origine de la metallurgie en France: Etudes
pale'oethnologiques dans le Bassin du Rh6ne. 5 vols. Paris: Baudry.
Chapelot, J., Querrien, A. and Schnapp, A. 1979. L'archeologie en France, les facteurs d'une
crise. L e Progres scien tifiqu e. No. 202: 57- 110.
Chavaillon, J., Chavaillon, N., Hours, F. and Piperno, M. 1979. From Oldowan to Middle Stone
Age at Melka-Kunture: understanding cultural changes. Quaternaria. 21: 87-114.
Cleuziou, S. and Demoule, J.-P. 1980a. Enregistrer, gerer, traiter les donnees archeologiques. In
L'Archeologie aujourd'hui (ed. A. Schnapp). Paris: Hachette, pp. 87-132.
Cleuziou, S. and Demoule, J.-P. 1980b. Situation de l'archeologie theorique. Nouvelles de
l'Archeologie. 3: 7-15.
Cleuziou, S., Demoule, J.-P., Schnapp, A. and A. 1973. Renouveau des methodes et theorie de
l'archeologie. A nnales Econom ie, Socit&, Civilisation. 1: 35-51.
Coudart, A. n.d. Un centre d'archeologie experimentale a Chassemy. LH'istoire.
Courbin, P. (ed.). 1963. Etudes archeologiques: recueil de travaux. Paris: SEVPEN.
Courbin, P. 1977-8. Ras Basit. Annales archeologiques de Syrie. 29-31.
Delporte, H. and Maziere, G., with Djindjian, F. 1977. L'Aurignacien de la Ferrassie: observations
preliminaires a la suite de fouilles recentes. Bulletin de la Societe Prehistorique Fran!aise. 74:
343-61.
Demars, P. Y. 1980. Les Matieres premieres siliceuses utilisees au Paleolithique superieur dans le
bassin de Brive. These dactylographiee presentee a l'Universite de Bordeaux I.

This content downloaded from 200.5.106.13 on Tue, 16 Jun 2015 18:41:03 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

186

FranVoise Audouze and Andre Leroi-Gourhan

Demolon, P. 1972. Le Village merovingien de Brebieres (VI-VIIe siecle). Arras: M6moires

comm. et depart. des monuments historiques du Pas-de-Calais, 14, no. 1.
Desse, J. 1977. Le materiel osseux des fouilles d'Auvernier: perspectives palethnologiques. Mitteilungsblatt der Schweizerischen Gesellschaft far Ur- und Fruihgeschichte. 8: 5 8-64.
Desse, J. 1979. Etude de l'ichthyofaune et des macromammiferes du site de Khor F. B. (Qatar,
Golfe arabique): methodologie et resultats preliminaires. In Recherche cooperative sur Programme no. 476: Rapport d'activite. Paris: CNRS. Part 1: 12-28.
Digard, J.-P. 1975. Campements baxtyari, observations d'un ethnologue sur des mat6riaux
interessant F'archeologue. Studia iranica. 4: 117-29.
Dollfuss, G. and Hesse, A. 1977. Les structures de combustion du Tepe Djaffarabad, p6riodes I
a III. Cahiers de la Delegation Archeologique fran!aise en Iran. 7: 11-47.
Ducos, P. 1968. L 'Origine des animaux domestiques en Palestine. Bordeaux: Delmas.
Ferdiere, A. 1975. Sauvetages archeologiques sur les traces de l'autoroute A10 (section Ponth6vrard-Orleans) et du pipe-line Coignieres-Orleans (Eure-et-Loire et Loiret). Revue archeologique du Loiret. 1: 41-5 1.
Ferdiere, A. 1980. La fouille, pourquoi faire? In L'Archeologie aujourd'hui (ed. A. Schnapp).
Paris: Hachette, pp. 23-60.
Fontes, P., Laubenheimer, F., Leblanc, J., Bonnefoy, F., Gruel, K. and Widemann, F. n.d. Nouvelles donnees analytiques et typologiques sur les ateliers de production d'amphores en Gaule
du Sud. XXe Symposium international d'Archeometrie, Paris 26-28 Mars 1980 (forthcoming in
Revue d'Archeometrie).
Galinie, H. and Randoin, B. 1979. Les Archives du sol d Tours: Survie et avenir de l'archeologie
de la ville. Tours: LAU.
Galinie, H. 1980. De la stratigraphie 'a la chronologie. In L'Archeologie aujourd'hui (ed. A.
Schnapp). Paris: Hachette, pp. 63-85.
Garanger, J. 1980. Tradition orale et prehistoire en Oceanie. In L 'Archeologie aujourd 'hui (ed. A.
Schnapp). Paris: Hachette, pp. 187-205.
Gardin, J.-C. 1963. Problemes d'analyse descriptive en archeologie. In Etudes archeologiques
(ed. P. Courbin), pp. 133-50.
Gardin, J.-C. 1970. Archeologie et calculateurs: problemes mathematiques et seimiologiques.
Paris: CNRS.
Gardin, J.-C. 1971. Archeologie et calculateurs: nouvelles perspectives. Revue internationale
des sciences sociales. 204-18.
Gardin, J. 1979. Archaeological Constructs: an Aspect of Theoretical Archaeology. Cambridge
University Press.
Gardin, J.-C. and Lyonnet, B. 1979. La prospection archeologique de la Bactriane orientale
(1974-8): premiers resultats. Mesopotamia. 13-14: 99-154.
Gaussen, J. 1980. Le Paleolithique superieur de plein air en Perigord. XIVe supplement a Gallia
Pruhistoire. Paris: CNRS.
Ginouv's, R. and Guimier-Sorbets, A.-M. 1979. La Constitution des donnees en archeologie
classique: recherches et experiences en vue de la preparation de base de donnees. Paris: CNRS.
Giot, P.-R., Bourhis, J. and Briard J. 1964-5. Analyses spectrographiques d'objets prehistoriques
et antiques: Premiere serie. Travaux du Laboratoire d'Anthropologie de Rennes.

This content downloaded from 200.5.106.13 on Tue, 16 Jun 2015 18:41:03 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

France: a continental insularity

187

Giot, P.-R., Briard, J. and Pape, L. 1979. Protohistoire de la Bretagne. Rennes: Ouest-France.
Guilaine, J., Gasco, J., Vaquer, J., Barbaza, M. et al. 1979. L 'Abri Jean Cros. Toulouse: Centre,
d'Anthropologie des Societes rurales.
Jambu, M. 1978. Classification automatique pour l'analyse des donnees. Paris: Dunod.
Jarrige, C. and Audouze, F. 1980. Etude d'une aire de cuisson de jarres du IIIe millenaire: comparaisons avec les techniques contemporaines de la plaine de Kachi au Baluchistan. L 'Archeologie
de l'Iraq du de'but de l'poque neolithique d 333 avant notre ere. Colloque international no.
580 du CNRS. Paris, pp. 85-94.
Jarrige, J.-F. and Lechevallier, M. 1979. Excavations at Mehrgarh, Baluchistan: their significance
in the prehistoric context of Indo-Pakistani borderlands. South Asian Archaeology 1977:
463-535.
Jourdan, L. 1976. La Faune du site gallo-romain et paleo-chretien de la Bourse (Marseille):
Especes domestiques et especes sauvages: L'elevage et l'alimentation d Marseille du IIe au Ve
siecle. Paris: CNRS.
Kerrich, J. E. and Clarke, D. L. 1967. Notes on the possible misuse and errors of cumulative
percentage frequency graphs for the comparison of prehistoric artefact qssemblages. Proceedings
of the Prehistoric Society. 33: 57-69.
Klejn, L. 1977. A panorama of theoretical archaeology. Current Anthropology. 18: 1-42.
Laboratoire d'Ethnologie Prehistorique. 1973-75-78.
la chaire de Prehistoire du College de France. Paris.

Seminaire sur les structures d'habitat de

Laming-Emperaire, A. 1964. Origines de l'archeologie prehistorique en France: des superstitions

medievales d la decouverte de l'homme fossile. Paris: Picard.
Laplace, G. 1964. Essai de typologie systematique. Annali dell'Universita di Ferrara. 15: 1-85.
Laplace, G. 1966. Recherches sur l'origine et 1'evolution des complexes leptolithiques. Rome:
Ecole franqaise de Rome (supplement 4).
Lavallee, D., Julien, M., Robatel, F. and Roblin, A. 1976. Recherches sur l'habitat prehistorique
dans les Andes de Junin. Bulletin de l'Institut franCais d'etudes andines. 5: 39-84.
Laville, H. and Renault-Miskovsky, J. 1977. Approche ecologique de l'homme fossile. Supplement au Bulletin de l'Association franCaise pour l'etude du Quaternaire, no. 47. Paris.
Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1943. L 'Homme et la matiere: Evolution et techniques I. Paris: Albin Michel.
Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1945. Milieu et techniques: Evolution et techniques II. Paris: Albin Michel.
Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1950a. La caverne des Furtins. Prehistoire. 11. 17-143.
Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1950b. Les Fouilles prehistoriques: Technique et methodes. Paris: Picard.
Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1961. Les fouilles d'Arcy-sur-Cure. Gallia Prehistoire. 4: 3-16.
Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1964a. Les ReligionsdelaPrehistoire.

Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1964b. Le Geste et la parole I: Technique et langage. Paris: Albin Michel.

Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1965. Le Geste et la parole II: La memoire et les rythmes. Paris: Albin
Michel.
Leroi-Gourhan, A., Audouze, F. and Karlin, C. 1977-8. Processus de structuration de 1'espace:
La structuration de 1'espace en Prehistoire. La Recherche en sciences humaines: bilan et perspectives. Paris: CNRS: 143-52.

This content downloaded from 200.5.106.13 on Tue, 16 Jun 2015 18:41:03 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

188

FranVoise Audouze and Andre Leroi-Gourhan

Leroi-Gourhan, A., Bailloud, G. and Brecillon, M. 1962. L'Hypogee 1I des Mournouards (Mesnilsur-Oger, Marne). Gallia Prehistoire. 5: 23-134.
Leroi-Gourhan, A. and Brezillon, M. 1966. L'habitation magdalenienne no. 1 de Pincevent, pres
Montereau (Seine-et-Marne). Gallia Prehistoire. 9: 263-85.
Leroi-Gourhan, A. and Brezillon, M. 1972. Fouilles de Pincevent: Essai d'analyse ethnographique
d'un habitat magdalenien (la section 36) (VIIe supplement a Gallia Prehistoire). 2 vols. Paris:
CNRS.
Leroux, C. T. 1976. Ateliers de taille n6olithiques de Sel6din-Plussulien (C6tes-du-Nord). Union
internationale des Sciences prehistoriques et protohistoriques, IXe Congres: Livret-guide A3
(ed. P.-R. Giot and M. Guy). Nice, pp. 52-6.
Lumley, H. de. 1975. Cultural evolution in France in its palaeoecological setting during the
Middle Pleistocene. In After the Australopithecines: Stratigraphy, Ecology and Culture Change
(ed. K. Butzer and G. L. Isaac). The Hague: Mouton, pp. 745-808.
Lumley, H. de and Boone, Y. 1976. Les structures d'habitat au paleolithique inferieur. In La
Prehistoire franCaise (ed. H. de Lumley). Paris: CNRS, vol. 1, part 1, pp. 625-43.
Margueron, J. 1977. Un exemple d'urbanisme volontaire a l'epoque du Bronze recent en Syrie.
Ktema, 2: 33-48.
Margueron, J. 1980. Remarques sur l'organisation de l'espace architectural en Mesopotamie.
L'Archeologie de l'Iraq du debut de l'epoque neolithique d 333 avant notre ere. Colloque international no. 580 du CNRS. Paris, pp. 156-69.
Martin, R. 1976-7. Proche et Moyen-Orient anciens. In La Recherche en sciences humaines, bilan
et perspectives. Paris: CNRS, pp. 18-20.
Masset, C. 1972. The megalithic tomb of la Chauss6e-Tirancourt. Antiquity, 46: 297-300.
Mohen, J. P. 1980. L 'Age du Fer en Aquitaine. (M6moires de la Soci6t6 Pr6historique franqaise,
vol. 14.) Paris: Societe Pr6historique franvaise.
Mordant, C. and Mordant, D. 1977. Noyen-sur-Seine, habitat n6olithique de fond de vall6e
alluviale. Gallia Prehistoire. 20: 229-80.
Mortillet, G. de. 1883. Le Prehistorique: antiquite de l'Homme. Paris: Reinwald.
Newcomer, M. and Hodson, F. R. 1973. Constellation analysis of burins from Ksar Akil. In
Archaeology Theory and Practice (ed. D. E. Strong). New York: Seminar Press.
Van Noten, F., with D. Cahen, L. H. Keeley, J. Moeyersons. 1978. Les Chasseurs de Meer.
(Dissertationes Archaeologicae gandenses, vol. 18.) Bruges: De Tempel.
Perles, C. 1980. Economie de la matiere premiere et 6conomie de d6bitage: deux exemples grecs.
Prehistoire et technologie lithique. Valbonne: Centre de recherches archeologiques du CNRS,
pp. 37-41.
Perrot, J. 1962. Palestine-Syria-Cilicia. In Courses toward Urban Life (ed. R. J. Braidwood and
G. Willey). Edinburgh University Press, pp. 147-64.
Peyrony, D. 1933. Les industries 'aurignaciennes' dans le bassin de la V6zere: Aurignacien et
P6rigordien. Bulletin de la Societe Prehistorique FranXaise. 30: 543-59.
Poplin, F. 1976. Lesgrands Vertebresde Gonnersdorf: Fouilles 1968. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner.
Prehistoire et technologie lithique. 1980. Journ6es du 11-13 juin 1979 organisees par J. Tixier.
Valbonne: Centre de recherches archeologiques du CNRS.
Rigaud, J.-P. 1976. Les structures d'habitat d'un niveau de Perigordien sup6rieur du Flageolet I

This content downloaded from 200.5.106.13 on Tue, 16 Jun 2015 18:41:03 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

France: a continental insularity

189

(B6zenac, Dordogne). Union internationale des sciences prehistoriques et protohistoriques, IXe

Congres: colloque XIII. Nice, pp. 93-102.
Sackett, J. R. n.d. From de Mortillet to Bordes: a century of French Palaeolithic research. In
Towards a History of Archaeology (ed. G. Daniel). London: Thames & Hudson, pp. 85-99.
Schnapp, A. (ed.). 1980. L 'Archeologie aujourd'hui. Paris: Hachette.
Sonneville-Bordes, D. de. 1960. Le Paleolithique supe'rieuren Perigord. 2 vols. Bordeaux: Delmas.
Soudsky, B. 1969. Etude de la maison neolithique. Slovenskd archeologia. 17: 5-96.
Soudsky, B. 1973. Higher level archaeological entities: models and reality. In Models in Prehistory (ed. D. Clarke). London: Methuen, pp. 195-207.
Soustelle, J. 1974. Rapport sur la recherche franXaise en archiologie et anthropologie. Paris: La
Documentation franvaise.
Stordeur, D. (ed.). 1980. Objets en os historiques et actuels. Lyon: Maison de l'Orient.
Tixier, J., Inizan, M.-L. and Roche, H. 1980. Prihistoire de la pierre taillee. Valbonne: Cercle
de recherches et d'etudes pr6historiques.
Tixier, J., Marmier, F. and Trecolle, G. 1976. Le Campement prehistorique de Bordj Mellala,
Ouargla, Algerie. Paris: Cercle de recherches et d'6tudes prehistoriques.
Vall6e de l'Aisne. 1973-8. Les Fouilles protohistoriques dans la vallee de l'Aisne. Rapport
d'activite: 1,1973; 2,1974; 3,1975; ... Paris: Universite de Paris I, Institut d'Art et d'Archeologie.
Vallet, G. and Villard, F. 1963. Ceramique grecque et histoire economique. In Etudes archeologiques (ed. P. Courbin). Paris: SEVPEN, pp. 45-53.
Vallet, G., Villard, F. and Auberson, P. 1976. Le Quartier de l'agora archaique. Megara Hyblea
1. Ecole de Rome.
Yon, M. et al. n.d. Ras Shamra; campagnes 1979-1980. To appear in Syria.

Abstract
Audouze, F. and Leroi-Gourhan,A.
France:a continentalinsularity
French archaeology has experienced a separate development from the rest of Europe partly
becauseof the preponderantimportanceof Palaeolithicresearches.After a century dedicatedto
classificationof artefacts,the interest has shifted towardsexcavations.The largestimprovements
and changes duringthe past two decades have been concerned with methods and strategiesof
excavation as well as data collecting. Open-airand urbanexcavationshave been adopted under
the influence of B. Soudsky and Britishand Dutch archaeologists.Ethnographicexcavationsare
a more specific creation of French palaeolithicarchaeologists.Severalapproachesare currently
developing which focus on ecology, technology and socio-economics. But discoveriesand improvementsare due to individuals,and if a dynamic policy of development of the field is not
engagedin the next years, Frencharchaeologywill suffer a seriouscrisis.

This content downloaded from 200.5.106.13 on Tue, 16 Jun 2015 18:41:03 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions