Leroi-Gourhan, a Philosopher of Technique and Evolution

Author(s): Franoise Audouze

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Journal of Archaeological Research, Vol. 10, No. 4 (December 2002), pp. 277-306
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41053189 .
Accessed: 16/05/2012 15:10

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.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Archaeological
Research.

http://www.jstor.org
Journal Research,Vol.70,No. 4, December2002 (t 2002)
ofArchaeological

Leroi-Gourhan,a PhilosopherofTechnique
and Evolution
FranoiseAudouze1

Withthepublication oftwovolumeson technology - L'Hommeet la matireand

Milieuettechnique intoEnglish
in 1943-45,and Le gesteet la parole(translated
- Leroi-Gourhan
in 1993as GestureandSpeech,) assertedhimselfas a majorso-
cial anthropologist, and thefounderof theFrenchschoolsof the
prehistorian,
ethnologyoftechniqueandofprehistoricethnology. Thispaperanalyzestheinno-
oftheseoriginalworks,whichdrawtheirinspira-
vativeconceptsand thecontent
tionanddatafrombiology, physiology,
psychology, anthropology,andprehistory
and techniqueas its medium,to createa global scienceof
to studyevolution,
humanity.
KEY WORDS: Leroi-Gourhan; prehistoric
ethnology; oftechnique;evolutionary
ethnology theory;
originsoftechniques
andlanguage;history
of socialscience.

INTRODUCTION

AndrLeroi-Gourhan (Fig. 1) is farfrombeingas famousintheAnglo-Saxon

worldas his contemporary Claude Levi-Straussin social anthropology or even
FranoisBordesinprehistoric archaeology. Yet,Leroi-Gourhan 's impacthasbeen
muchbroaderanddeeperinOld Worldarchaeology. Bordes'sworkundoubtedly
was an essentialmilestonein prehistoric research.However,his influence is no
longerfelttothesameextent, whereasthedirections exploredbyLeroi-Gourhan
are stillevolvingand are now spreadingto theAnglo-American world(Bleed,
2001; Dobres,2000).
Severalfactorsexplainhis relativeanonymity: It was onlyin 1993 thathis
major work, Le geste et la parole, was translatedinto Englishas Gestureand
Speech and made availableto British and NorthAmerican readers.Untilthattime,

laboratoired'Archologie (ARSCAN- UMR 7041), CentreNational

etdes Sciencesde l'Antiquit
de la Recherche Nanterre,
Scientifique, France;e-mail:audouze@mae.u-paris10.fr.

277

1059-016 102/1200-0277/0 2002 PlenumPublishing

Corporation
278 Audouze

Fig. 1. AndrLeroi-Gourhan(standingon theleft)withAbbHenriBreuil

lookingat Mousterian
faunalremainsat Arcy-surCurein 1951(photograph
byHlneBalfet).

Leroi-Gourhan was knownonlyforthetranslation of hisPrhistoire de I1Artoc-

cidental(1965b). In addition,
Leroi-Gourhan undertook theconstruction ofa vast
theoretical
framework intowhichtheactualplacement of factswas notalwaysa
primeconsideration. ThistypicallyFrenchperspective is quitedifferentfromthe
empiricalnature of North American social sciences.2A third is
factor the absence
ofepistemological definitions
andtheuse of a stylefullof imagerythatcombines
descriptionsratherthandefinitions
anddiscussionsina dialecticprogression, mak-
ing Leroi-Gourhan to read,in spiteof theclarityof theconcrete
ratherdifficult
vocabulary he used.
Beyondtheseproblemsof translation and language,manyresearchers (in-
cludingsomeFrenchauthorities) founditdifficult tocriticizehismultidisciplinary
approachbecauseoftheoriginality ofhisthought. Leroi-Gourhan borrowed from

The 1960sand 1970shadbeenperiodsofintensive theoretical

development inthesocialsciencesas
a wholeinFrance,withtheexceptionofarchaeology thatremainedtotally And,although
empirical.
Anglo-Saxonsocial scienceat thesame periodwas characterizedby a strongdose of empiricism,
Anglo-American archaeologyitselfwas distinguished
by itsdesireto createan approachthatwas
bothexplicitly
scientific
andsolidlygroundedtheoretically.
 a PhilosopherofTechnique
Leroi-Gourhan, 279

philosophy,social anthropology, prehistory, paleontology, and biology,without

adoptingthe fulltheoretical
framework and practice any them.3As a result,
of of
English-speaking preferred selectLevi-Strauss
functionalists to as an opponent in
socialanthropology.In archaeology, Binford andtheNewArchaeologists foundit
morerelevant tocrossswordswithFranoisBordes,whowas interested incultural
evolution than
rather toconfront Leroi-Gourhan's ideas.
Evenmorefundamental issuesminimized theinfluence ofideascomingfrom
Europein the1960sand 1970s.Americanarchaeologists werepreoccupied with
theirowninnovative developments, whichpowerfully energizedboth theoretical
researchandfieldwork. CulturalecologyfollowedtheleadofJulianSteward, then
theNewArchaeology ofLewisBinford, as wellas theapplication ofquantitative
methods tothestudyofformal variables(e.g.,Binford andBinford, 1968;Cowgill,
1989;Sackett,1966;Spaulding,1960).In Margaret Conkey'sview(1989,p. 140),
"intheearly1960s(Leroi-Gourhan's approach)was strikingly incompatible with
theemergencein theAnglo-American worldof theNew Archaeologyand its
denialof 'mind/ "
Leroi-Gourhan' s contributionstoprehistory werewideranging, includingthe
development of excavationmethods (Leroi-Gourhan and Brzillon, 1966) and his
proposedinterpretationofcave art(Leroi-Gourhan, 1965b, 1982). But thesearenot
dealtwithin anydetailhere.Insteadthisessayconcentrates on Leroi-Gourhan' s
fundamental and
technological evolutionary works (published from themid- 1940s
tothemid-1960s)inordertointroduce someoftheprincipalmethodological and
theoretical
directionsheexplored, to
and suggest their relevance for contemporary
research.

LEROI-GOURHAN, THE MAN

A Few Elementsof Biography

Bornin 1911,Leroi-Gourhan cametomaturity in 1930s,a verylivelyperiod

forFrenchsociologyandethnology.4 Raisedbyhisgrandparents, he lostinterest
informaleducationearly.Attheage of 14,Leroi-Gourhan leftsecondary school
andbegantoworkin a hosieryanda library. Laterinhislife,he wouldalwaysbe
proudofbeinga self-taught manandwouldalwaysclaimhisindependence from
all schoolsofthought.
he actuallyreceivedmorediplomasthandidmost
Despitebeingself-taught,
otheracademics.Entering theuniversity
directly,Leroi-Gourhan obtaineda degree
in Russianat theage of 20 in 1931,and thenextyearsaw himwitha degreein

appearedinFranceseemfairly
3MostreviewsofLe gesteetla paroleatthetimeitoriginally superficial,
as iftheirauthors
hadencountered in comingtogripswiththebook'ssubjectmatter.
realdifficulty
4Formoredetailedaccounts,see Audouze( 1992,pp. 8-12) and Gaucher(1987).
280 Audouze

Chinese and in Humanities.In 1945 he defendeda dissertationin ethnologyfora

humanitiesdoctorate.
In 1954 this accomplished scholar submitteda dissertationin paleontology
fora science doctorate.His yearsas a studentof Marcel Mauss and Paul Rivetbe-
foretheSecond WorldWar werecrucial. Leroi-Gourhanparticipatedin theintense
theoreticaldebates of the times as well as theirdirectapplicationto the reorga-
nization of the Muse de l'Homme. At the Muse de VHomme, Leroi-Gourhan
followed the seminarsof these two great social anthropologiststogetherwitha
generationof brightstudentswho would later become major social anthropolo-
gists,such as Claude Lvi-Strauss,Marcel Griaule, Andr-GeorgesHaudricourt,
Georges-HenriRivire,and Jacques Soustelle. In 1937-38, Leroi-Gourhanspent
2 years in Japan,workingon Japanese and Ainu materialculture,collectingthe
data thathe later used for his research in technology.He began publishingpa-
pers and books in 1935. By 1943 and 1945 his two major volumes on technology
came out: Evolution et techniques - L 'Homme et la matire and Evolution et
techniques//- Milieu et technique.Thestbooks securedLeroi-Gourhan'sintellec-
tual notorietyand placed him at the forefrontof a new school of theethnologyof
techniques.
Leroi-Gourhanheld a range of positionsduringthecourse of his career.He
was successivelya researcherat theCentreNational de la RechercheScientifique,
an assistantdirectorof the Muse de l'Homme, a curatorat the Museum of Far
Eastern Art, and a professorof ethnologyat the Universityof Lyon and later
at the Sorbonne in Paris. The early 1960s were extremelyfruitful years withthe
publicationofhis majorwork,Le gesteet la parole (Leroi-Gourhan, 964a, 1965a).
1
He also published Les religions de la prhistoire(1964b), Prhistoirede VArt
occidental (1965b), and the firstmonographon the famous Magdalenian site of
Pincevent(Leroi-Gourhan and Brzillon, 1966). With these books, he asserted
his position as a major social anthropologist,major prehistorian,and specialist
in art.
From 1968 to 1982, Leroi-Gourhanheld thechairof prehistory at theCollege
de France in Paris. His teachingtherewas considereda mustforsocial anthropol-
ogists,as muchas Levi-Strauss's lectures.Whole generationsof studentsin social
anthropologyand prehistoryattendedhis lecturesand took partin the fieldtrain-
ing schools thathe created,theTrainingCenterforEthnologicalResearchin 1946
and the Research Center forPrehistoryand Protohistoryin 1962. In thecaves of
Arcy-sur-Cureand laterat theopen air site of Pincevent,he devised new methods
forexcavatingand recordingprehistoriclivingfloors.These methodswould make
the lattersite veryfamous. Indeed hundredsof studentsfromall over the world
were trainedthere.
Leroi-Gourhandied in 1986, authorof a dozen majorbooks, severalhundred
papers; creatorof thedisciplineof culturaltechnology;and renovatorof thestudy
of prehistorywithhis novel approachto "paleoethnology"or prehistoric ethnology
(Audouze and Schnapp, 1992).
 a PhilosopherofTechnique
Leroi-Gourhan, 281

An OriginalMode ofThinking:Towardsa Scienceof Man

It was neverLeroi-Gourhan's intention to becomea philosopher. If someof

his worksareconcernedwithphilosophy, it is becausetheproblemshe wanted
to solvehad to be tackledat a philosophical level.He soughta globalapproach
to thediversity of humanity to seize "thehumanphenomenon in its totality"
(Leroi-Gourhan, 1993,p. 141).
Leroi-Gourhan's originality is manifest inseveralways:He stoodapartfrom
mostother ethnologists withhisinsistence oninclusion ofthediachronic dimension
intheanalysisofhumandiversity. Foreverymajorquestionconcerning technology,
evolution,rockart,or theinterpretation of archaeologicalsites,he devisednew
approachesand methodsthatcorresponded to his particular pointof view.His
reasoning often the
proceededthrough pairing topics of that he consideredto be
relatedtocomplementarity orcontinuity, rather thaninopposition toone another.
Thusforhimculture replaced nature and it;
supplemented technique andlanguage
interactedwithone another. Leroi-Gourhan the
sought complementarity of such
concepts through mediators. He was as a consequencemostly interested in grasping
theprocessesofinteraction andarticulation amongdifferent levels(culturalupon
natural,functional uponphysiological, symbolicuponfunctional, figurative upon
symbolic)(Stiegler,1992b,p. 34).
Leroi-Gourhan's multidisciplinary researchcombinedmethodsandapproa-
ches fromverydifferent disciplinessuch as biology,technology, paleontology,
psychology, and physiology, as well as ethnology, sociology,and thehistory of
art.Ata timewhenotherscholarsin thesocial sciencesweretrying, notwithout
substantialdisagreement amongthemselves, to definethecontoursand limitsof
theirrespective disciplines,Leroi-Gourhan conceivedofa single,holisticscience
ofhumanity thatintegrated all thefieldsofbiologyandethnology5 (Guille-Escuret,
1994;Leroi-Gourhan, 1952b,1993,p. 141).
In thisvein,he refusedeitherto respector to erectbarriersbetweendisci-
plines.Biology,psychology, sociology,andethnology wereforhimonlydifferent
waysofapprehending reality atvariouslevelsofobservation andtimescale.Inhis
arguments, he combinedperspectives fromall thesefieldsas well as ecologyor
neurology. Fromthestart andwithout explicitly formulating it,heemployeda sys-
temicapproachandoftenreferred to systems. Butwhatwas probablyhisgreatest
originalcontribution (sharedwiththeSwisspsychologist andepistemologist Jean
Piaget) wasto constructhis arguments through methods and analogies derived from
biology(mainlyphysiology andcomparative anatomy)inorderto makeintelligi-
bleprocessesrelatedtothesocialrealm(Schlanger,1994).Indeed,Leroi-Gourhan
hadfromtheoutseta strong intuition forthecontinuity oflivingbeingsandforthe
relationsbetweenthebiologicaland thesocial realms.He consideredthesocial

5He included in his science of man fieldsconcerned withthe

verylong termand the shortterm,but he
excluded historyde facto because its time span was too shortforevolution.
282 Audouze

bodyas "a prolongation of theanatomicalbody"(Leroi-Gourhan, 1993,p. 20).

Organicmetaphors constantlyappearin his texts, as a
serving powerful meansto
casta newlighton Vhommezoologique(zoologicalman)whois at theveryroot
ofevolution (Leroi-Gourhan, 1993,pp.401-402; Stiegler,1992b,p. 34).
In thedomainof methodology he neverfeltclose to thestructuralists, in
part because of his diachronicperspective,butalso because he could not imag-
ine resortingto a singleapproach.In his view,each of themajorquestionsthat
interestedhimcalledforitsownspecialmethodology, tailoredto itsownspecial
requirements. Todayhisapproachis oftenalliedto thatof structuralism. Butthis
kinship,whichhe himselfdeniedenergetically, was evidentneither to himnor
to his contemporaries. This pointwas underlined by Levy-Strauss a yearafter
Leroi-Gourhan's death,who,inpayingtribute to him,said,
Our relationswere not as close as theyshould have been, to the point in factthatwe found
ourselves perceived as in opposition from time to time. But in rereadinghis work I am
now profoundlystruckby the fact that,although working in differentdomains, he and I
were essentially tryingto do the same thing. When one rereads his writingson physical
anthropology,technology,prehistoricarchaeology and art,one sees thatthe key idea that
governedhis thinkingwas always to studythe interrelationsbetween thingsratherthanthe
thingsthemselves,to tryto reduce the chaotic diversityof the empirical data to invariant
relationsand to use ... a methodof transformations(Levy-Strauss, 1988, pp. 203-204).

THE WORK

A New Field of Investigation:ComparativeTechnology

Leroi-Gourhan's goal was tostudymaterial

first cultureandtechniques inso-
faras theyarecharacteristicofhumankind. He consideredtechniques tobe the only
humanundertaking thatcanbe tracedbacktotheearliesttimesandthatarepresent
throughout humanevolution. He thusneededan analytical methodforcomparing
technical facts,forevidencing theirsimilarity for
ordiversity, establishing covari-
ationsandcausalrelationships, andforidentifyingchangesinthetechnical system
as a wholeandcorrelated changesin thesocial system.Sucha methodology had
tobe applicableto pasttechniques as wellas to modernones.In addressing these
themes,Leroi-Gourhan helpedestablishthenewfieldofcomparative technology
thatis at theoriginof theFrenchschoolofculturaltechnology or theethnology
oftechniques (see theConcludingDiscussionbelow).
The twovolumesL'Hommeet la matire(Man and matter; Leroi-Gourhan,
1943) andMilieuettechnique (Milieuandtechnique; Leroi-Gourhan, 1945) areof-
tenconsidered onlyas a vastencyclopedia oftechniques.6 It is infactmuchmore
thanthatsinceit containsnotonlyan innovative typology and classification of

6The two volumes of Evolution et techniques were reprintedin 197 1 and 1973. Because Leroi-Gourhan
made some additionsand modificationsin the latteredition,I referto the second edition in thisessay.
Leroi-Gourhan,a PhilosopherofTechnique 283

techniquesbutalso a theoryoftechnique(Lemonnier,1992). Ratherthanfollowing

mostethnographicalclassificationinto typesof tools or products,Leroi-Gourhan
concentratedon thetechnicalmodes of action on matter.This led him to enlight-
ening conceptsand theoriesabout technicalprocesses, imitation,and innovation.
As alreadynoted,Leroi-Gourhanwantedhis classificationto encompass complex
contemporary techniquesand machines as well as simple prehistoricones.
Drawing on some 40,000 entries(writtenon manuscriptcards, of course, at
thattime) describingtools and technical processes, his classificationwas based
on (1) the physical propertiesof matterand the means of action to transformit
and (2) a divisionof techniquesaccordingto theirfinality, e.g., manufacturing and
acquisition techniques. The entries in the classification
first are physical forces,
properties,and actions. They provide a usefulgrid of analysis. The second clas-
sificationhad entriessuch as elementarymeans and forces. Elementarymeans
include prehension,percussions to break,cut, or shape; fireto heat, cook, melt,
dry,and bend; waterto mix, melt,soften,wash, and to use in different solutions
to tan or preserve; and air to dry,clean, or stir up fire(Leroi-Gourhan, 1971,
pp. 18-19).
Forces include the forceof human and animal muscle, air, and water.These
forcescreatemovementthatcan be directed,amplifiedby levels or transmissions,
or saved by equilibrium.Raw materialsare classifiedas solids, semiplasticsolids,
supple solids (hide, fabrics,etc.), and fluids. Many other classificationsexist,
but the utilityof such a classificationresides in the potentialsignificanceof the
questionsthatcan be derivedfromit. By reducingcategoriesto elementaryforces
and gestures,Leroi-Gourhanwas able to divide techniques into theirelementary
steps.This procedureis stilla greathelp when analyzinga productionsequence.
Even moreimportantforus today thanhis classificationare theconcepts he
introducedto account forthe evolutionof techniques,theirinnovation,and their
diffusion.He firstasserted the universalityof technique (Stiegler, 1994, p. 57)
and itssystemicnature(Leroi-Gourhan,1973, p. 342). In an importantdiscussion,
Leroi-Gourhanpresentedand put in oppositiontwo typesof phenomena:les faits
techniques(technicalfacts),whichare localized in space and timeand whichcan be
observed,and la tendancetechnique(technicaltendency),a long-termevolutionary
process thataccounts forthe unendingimprovementof tools and techniquesfor
bettersolutiontasks,a betterresponseto physicalconstraints, and higherefficiency.
There was, incidentally,no moral connotationhere: "No judgement of value can
be made aboutan evolutiveprocess" (Leroi-Gourhan,1993, p. 253). The technical
tendency,in any case, evolves througha numberof solutions limitedby physical
constraints,in a way thatis comparable to the pressuresof naturalselection. By
using this concept of technical tendency,Leroi-Gourhan explains the unityof
techniquespresentall over the world and evolving everywherein a comparable
way. He then explains the diversityof technical facts and theirrelationsto the
social systemsin which theyexist (Stiegler, 1994, pp. 61-67).
284 Audouze

For Leroi-Gourhan,technicalfacts(operationsor tools) can be classifiedin

two different orders:a chronologicalorderor a logical order.In manycases whena
chronological/historical classificationwas notpossible because of the absence of
evidence,Leroi-Gourhanturnedto a logical classification,on thebasis of variation
fromtheessentialto thesecondary.The correspondingdendrogramillustratesles
degrs dufait (degrees of specificity)and allows theidentification of affiliation
or
diffusionof traits.If a logical order is chosen, technicalfacts mustbe analyzed
as a networkof a dominantattribute,major attributes, and ancillaryones. In this
way, isolated items can be included in a series and can acquire a real compara-
tive value. It also is possible to identifydifferentvalues forthe attributesand to
rankthemaccordingto les degrs dufait. Leroi-Gourhanadds thatanotheruseful
methodwould be to compare networksof technicalfacts(in otherwords,techni-
cal systemsor subsystems),but this can be accomplished only throughdetailed
descriptionsof the materialculturesassociated withrelatedethnicgroups. Such
in-depthdescriptionsrarelyhave been achieved (Leroi-Gourhan,1971, p. 29).
To clarifytheseconcepts,I takea classic exampledeveloped byLeroi-Gourhan
in L'Homme et la matire- the spearthroweror atlatl.The atlatlis an implement
thathas existedsince prehistorictimesand intorecentcenturiesall over theworld.
Brieflyput,its functionis to augmentthe strength,leverage,and precisionof the
human arm. To work,all spearthrowersmusthave a body made of a small board
or a stick(usually of wood, bone, or antler),an end forholding(a handle),and an
end on which the spear or weapon rests.
If we classifyall thedifferent typesof spearthrowers in a dendrogram,we find
a firstlevel, "the firstdegree of fact,'*correspondingto function - an implement
devised forincreasingtheforceof a throwingweapon such as a spear or a javelin.
All the examples, includingthe prehistoricones, fitthisdefinition.In subsequent
degreesof fact,varietiesare classifiedaccordingto theirends (active parts)and/or
the shape of theboard or stick.We can thuscreate a dendrogramwithtwo to five
levels or degreesoffacts.Fromthethirddegreeand beyond,thetypesbecome more
regionallydetermined.Regional distributionsreflecttechnicalsystemsrelatedto
different ethnicgroups(e.g., in Australia).Affiliation and diffusioncan be inferred
fromsuch a dendrogramif the chronologyof the appearance of types is known
(Cresswell, 1993; Leroi-Gourhan,1971, pp. 30-35).
For Leroi-Gourhan,then,tools and implementsare the "objectivation"7or
concreteexpressionof Pa tendance in technical factsat a specificplace in space
and time. Among the degrs du fait, Leroi-Gourhangives primacyto function
and physical constraints.Choices and style are in his view secondaryand relate
to ethnicity.In other words, social aspects express themselvesin variationsof
secondaryor superficialimportance,whichare expressedin thelastdegrsdufait.
Today, however,virtuallyall specialists of style,includingthe ethnologists
fromLeroi-Gourhan's school, would deny any secondaryposition to the social

7Thisis thephilosophic
meaningoftheterm.
 a PhilosopherofTechnique
Leroi-Gourhan, 285

dimension of technical facts (Lemonnier, 1993, pp. 1-16; Sackett, 1966). We

see here one of Leroi-Gourhan'sparadoxes. Althoughhe did create a theoretical
frameworkthatshould have allowed him to avoid such dichotomies and escape
fromassigning preeminenceto one of its terms,he eventuallystood back and
adopteda moreconformistposition.
In thelast parto Milieu et technique,Leroi-Gourhansoughtto analyze tech-
nical creations.Transmission,diffusion,and innovationwere analyzed through
the three concepts of milieu extrieur,milieu intrieur,and milieu technique
(Leroi-Gourhan,1973, pp. 334-346). Leroi-Gourhaninsistedthatthe appropriate
level at which to analyze innovationwas not thatof the individual actor (how-
ever originalor gifted),butrather,forreasons we will presentlyexamine, thatof
the group in its entirety.The milieu extrieur(external milieu) is a very broad
notionthatforLeroi-Gourhanincludes the naturalenvironmentplus the material
cultureand ideas of othergroups.The milieu intrieur(internalmilieu) is the in-
tellectualcapital of a givengroup,a set of perpetuallymodifiedmentaltraditions
and modes of thoughtthatincludes as one of its componentsor subsystemsof the
milieutechnique(technicalmilieu).The evolutionofthismilieutechniqueproceeds
by accumulation,so thatits acquisitions neverdisappear. When an ethnicgroup
transforms itself,theknowledgeremainsin the new unitscreated fromthatethnic
group(Leroi-Gourhan,1973, pp. 331-376).
Technicalactions,Leroi-Gourhanargued,can be consideredresponsesto ex-
ternalpressure,but theyalso are a deliberateexpansion of milieu technique.The
milieu techniquegeneratesinnovationthroughinternalmodificationsor by bor-
rowingfromtheexternalmilieu,whenfavorablecircumstancesarise. An essential
propertyof the milieu techniqueis its coherence and continuity,resultingfrom
thepermanentrelationshipof each elementwiththetotalityof otherelementsand
fromtheirperpetualinteractions(Leroi-Gourhan, 1973, p. 344).8 Covariations
constantlyoccur; thedistribution of basketrymade of intertwined
twigs precedes
thatof potterymade withcoils. The mill wheel, potter'swheel, wood lathe,hy-
draulicwheel,spinningwheel,bobbin,and cartusuallycoexist in theethnicgroups
thathave one of them.Some groups have the hoe and the spindle,whereas others
have theplough and thespinningwheel, etc. (Leroi-Gourhan,1971, pp. 39^0).
This continuityof the milieu techniqueimplies thatthe techniquesincluded
in it are compatiblewithone another.Strangelyenough,and probablybecause he
had decided fromthestartnotto deal at thisinitialstage withthesocial dimension,
Leroi-Gourhandid not commenton the fact thatthese techniques also mustbe
socially compatible(Latour and Lemonnier,1994, pp. 12-16). There are indeed
many examples of groups that refusedto adopt a potentiallyuseful technique
because theyfoundit incompatiblewiththeirsystemof representation(Descola,
1994). This phenomenonwas lateranalyzed in detailby such culturaltechnologists
as Cresswell ( 1983, 1994) and Lemonnier( 1994). Giventhesepremises,borrowing

milieuxas systemsand subsystems.

conceivedhisdifferent
8Inotherwords,Leroi-Gourhan
286 Audouze

froma neighboring groupis verysimilartoinventing sinceitcallsforrecombining

alreadyexisting elements and creating new associations oftechnical elements. For
borrowing to be successful, it must occur in a compatible milieu, receive a local
imprint, and fulfill therequirements of thelocal rawmaterials (evenifitretains
someof itsoriginalcultural attributes).
An accumulation ofborrowings leadsto a mutation ofmilieutechnique and
henceto a mutation ofmilieuintrieur. A goodexamplegivenby Leroi-Gourhan
concernstheintroduction of reindeerbreedingamongsome Eskimogroupsin
Alaska between1890 and 1900. Thus the pertinent level at whichto analyze
innovation is nottheindividual, butthecollectivelevel,i.e.,themilieutechnique.
Invention canoccuronlyifpreexisting elements arealreadyinplace,ifthereis what
Leroi-Gourhan callsa technical intention (usuallythedesiretoestablish a newtype
ofcontrolovermatter, according toor in agreement with the tendance technique).
As in thecase of borrowing, themilieuintrieur also mustbe favorable.
Considered atthisgeneralleveloftechnical evolution, thesamemechanisms leadto
invention andborrowing. Thesourceoftechnical progress lies in the accumulation
ofinnovations within themilieutechnique through associations ofelements (Leroi-
Gourhan,1973,pp. 351-384).
Leroi-Gourhan hadbeeninfluenced in thisevolutionary viewoftechnology
the
by philosophy of Henri Bergson in his 1907 Evolution cratrice (Stiegler, 1994,
pp. 58-59). Although Leroi-Gourhan avoids the of
concept Bergson's lan vital
(lifeforce), it is clear that his tendance is very close to it. When discussing"the
propensity of technical factsto be endowed with a great force of progression," he
refersto thechapterV Activit in
cratrice(thecreativeactivity) Bergson's book
(Leroi-Gourhan, 1973,p. 95). This dialecticbetweendiverging tendencies and
converging statesis directly derivedfromBergson.
On theotherhand,although he hasaffinities withTeilhardde Chardin'sphi-
losophy(theysharetheviewofcontinuity fromzoologietosocial),Leroi-Gourhan
refusestheteleology oftheOmegapoint(Lemonnier, 1992,p. 14;Martinelli, 1988,
p. 77). For him,la tendancetechniqueis a trajectory thathas no predetermined
goal. In a finalist perspective, he sees predetermination as resulting fromphysical
constraints and "naturarselectionthatact alongthetrajectory. Atthebeginning
ofGestureandSpeech,however, Leroi-Gourhan also makesitclearthatheis con-
scious thatthefinality of evolutionis retrospective and thusartificial and thatit
wouldbe easy,considering otherseriesoffacts,toidentify othertendencies, other
finalities.

La chaneopratoire

Aftercompleting
thetwovolumesofEvolutionettechnique,Leroi-Gourhan
continuedtosearchfora better
methodtoanalyzetechnical
phenomena.He found
itintheearly1950sintheconceptofchaneopratoire sequence).At
(operational
 a PhilosopherofTechnique
Leroi-Gourhan, 287

thattime,he became aware of the flintknapping experimentsof Francois Bordes,

and he also invitedan experimentalknapperto practiceat one of his seminars.This
led himto realizejust how informativetheanalysis of a technicalprocess could be
whenitis consideredin termsof a meaningfulsequence of operationsand actions.
This perspectiveis what would come to be called thechane opratoire:

Techniquesareat thesametimegestures andtools,organizedinsequencebya truesyntax

whichgivestheoperational The operational
and theirflexibility.
seriesboththeirstability
syntaxis generatedby memory and is bornfromthedialoguebetweenthebrainand the
materialrealm.(Leroi-Gourhan,1993,pp. 114,230-234)

As further
definedby Lemonnier,

Operationalsequencesareseriesofactionswhichtransform fromitsnatural
a rawmaterial
statetoa manufactured aremadewithactionson matter,
state.Theseoperations preparatory
anda know-how.
phases,phasesofrestandtheyareassociatedwitha knowledge (Lemonnier
1980,p. 8)

Today,thetermchane opratoirerefersto a methodthatis an analyticalgrid,

nothingmore. But it is a verycomplex gridthatallows one to relatethedifferent
stages of productionto each otherand to order themalong with related factors,
includingphysicaland economic ones, terminology, places, social relations,sym-
bolics, etc. For lithics,it is similarto the core reductionsequence. But thereis a
semanticdifference betweenthereductionsequence and thechane opratoire.The
term"reductionsequence" implies a subtractionof matter,which is appropriate
forchipped stone and morebroadlyforothertypesof lithicsprocessing.It is in-
appropriate,however,whendealing withceramics,basketry,or metallurgy, where
adding matter is partof the productionprocess. The chane opratoire method has
its for
proven efficacy identifying strategicand tactic choices at everystage the
of
manufacturing process (as evidenced by hundreds of papers written duringthelast
20 years)and as a means to approachcognitiveproblems,includingintentionality.
As occurred several times duringhis life, Leroi-Gourhan had crystallized
an idea or a set of ideas thatwere emergingat the time. This, incidentally,also
occurredwiththe studyof prehistoricart,when Leroi-Gourhanpublishedseveral
articlesand a book on thestructure of prehistoriccave art,just afterthishypothesis
was taken up by the art historianMax Raphal and the archaeologist Annette
Laming-Emperaire.9In anycase, theidea of an operationalsequence composed of
various momentsof materialtransformation is implicitin the technologicalwork
of Marcel Mauss (1936). It is even more explicitlypresentedas a methodology
by Marcel Maget in the 1950s (1953). Nevertheless,Leroi-Gourhanwas the first
to create the concept and to suggest its utilityand its implications. Already in
the 1940s, Leroi-Gourhanpromoteda dynamicconcept of tools and techniques:
"the tool ... is only a testimonyof the extriorisationof an efficientgesture... it

9 innovations was notoneofLeroi-Gourhan's

orideasofotherprehistorians Bib-
traits.
Acknowledging
references
liographic areminimal,
andheneveracknowledged hisdebttoMauss,Laming-Emperaire,
orRaphal.
288 Audouze

is thematerializationoftheinteraction of matterwiththemeansto transform it"

(Leroi-Gourhan, 1971,p. 319, 1973,p. 333).
The conceptof chaneopratoirewas at theheartof his nextmajorwork,
Le gesteet la parole,becausefromthispointforward he had a meansforinves-
tigatingthe mental of
processesand representationsprehistoric humansthrough
theirmanufacture oflithicartifacts.
He immediately sawthecognitiveperspectives
openedby thechaneopratoire.Withit he could giveup theartificial division
hehadinitially acceptedbetweenHomofaberandHomosapiens(Leroi-Gourhan,
1952a) andexploreinsteadthecontinuity he perceivedfromanimalto humanin
thetechnological realm.Thisconcepto chaneopratoire provedtobe extremely
in thedevelopment
influential of theFrenchschoolsof comparative or cultural
technology and of prehistoric technology and archaeology.In recentyears,this
conceptalso has becomeincreasingly amongseveralAnglo-Saxonar-
influential
chaeologists(Dobres,1995;DobresandHoffman, 1994,1999;Enloe,1991,1992;
White,1989,1997),resulting ina welcomebroadening ofapproaches andresearch
questions.

in Evolution
A New Vision:Continuity

The twovolumesofLe gesteet la parolewerepublishedin 1964and 1965.

Theyconstitute Leroi-Gourhan's mostambitious work,an essaythatencompasses
a reflexionon thequestionoforiginsbutalso thedevelopment ofhumansocieties
andeventheirfuture. In thisbook,Leroi-Gourhan intendedtocreatea theoretical
framework thatwouldallowhimtoconceiveofhumandevelopment incontinuity
withtheevolutionof theanimalkingdom(Akrich,1994, p. 112). He wanted
to showhowcultureis articulated withnature.It is essentialto stressthatwhat
interestedhimwererelations, andlinks,muchmorethanevolutionary
connections,
stages,categories, -
orlevels relationsbetweengestures, tools,andlanguage,and
betweentechnique, memory, andsociety.Continuity fromthebiologicalrealmto
thesocialrealmanda searchforinteractionsbetweenthetwothrough themediation
oftechniquearethemainconstants ofhisapproach.Gestureand Speechalso is a
vastfrescoin whichLeroi-Gourhan describesan evolutionstarting withthefirst
livingbeingsand elaborating uponwhatwe knowas its ultimate developments
(Groenen,1996).

and Exteriorization
Liberation,
Mobility,

To expressthecontinuityexistingbetweenanimalsand humansand at the

sametimetoshedlightonthetransformations thatmakehumansstandapartfrom
animals,Leroi-Gourhanfirst
soughttheoriginsoftechnique,
speech,memory,and
social grouping derivedfrom
in theanimalrealmitself.The modesof reasoning
biologyprevailed.
 a PhilosopherofTechnique
Leroi-Gourhan, 289

The firstpartof the argumentincludes a descriptionof various evolutionary

changesas analyzed by functionalpaleontology.Here Leroi-Gourhandrewheavily
on his 1954 dissertationin paleontologyentitled"The Mechanical Equilibriumof
the VertebrateSkeleton." He identifiedthe mechanical organizationof the spine
and limbs, the suspension of the skull, dentition,the hand, and the brain as the
significant
parameters.
The coevolutionof theseparametersoccurs along six successive stages,each
characterizedby an acquisitionor a liberation.The keyconcepts of his theoretical
frameworkare mobility,liberation,and exteriorization.

It is possibleto regardmobility featureof evolutiontowardthehuman

as thesignificant
state.Locomotion willbe consideredhereas thedetermining ofbiologicalevolution.
factor
(Leroi-Gourhan, 1993,p. 26)
Withina perspectivewhichstartswiththefishin thePaleozoicera and endswithmanin
theQuaternary we werewitnessing
period,itis as though a seriesofsuccessiveliberations:
thatofthewholebodyfromtheliquidelement, thatoftheheadfromresting on theground,
thatofthehandfromtherequirements oflocomotion andfinallythatofthebrainfromthe
facialmask.Inthissequence,thepertinentformsarethosethat,ateachstageoftheprocess,
achievethemostperfectbalancebetweenmobility - fromthetriple
andcapacityforsurvival
pointof viewof nutrition,locomotionand theorgansof responsiveness.
(Leroi-Gourhan.
1993,pp. 25-26)

Havingreachedthevertebrate body,Leroi-Gourhanidentifiedtwo poles inthe

anteriorfield,or thefieldof responsiveness(senses): "a facial pole governedby the
actions of the head and a manual pole governedby the actions of the forelimb.
The two poles act in close relationshipto performthe most elaborate technical
operations"(Leroi-Gourhan,1993, p. 31).
In thismanner,Leroi-Gourhanintroducedtechniqueas a biological dimension
of humanity,in relationto the paleontological concept of technicity.It follows
thenthattechnicalaptitudeswere presentsince the originsof life and developed
graduallyover the course of time.
A second partof Leroi-Gourhan'sargumentin Le geste et la parole concerns
theevolutionof hominids.Much of thisdiscussion is now obsolete because of the
verylimitedknowledge available at the time and the rathersimplifyingnotions
thatLeroi-Gourhanchose to use. Homo habilis was not distinguishedfromthe
AustralopitheceneSy which are called Australanthropiansand personifiedin the
Zinjanthropus.Paleoanthropians(Neanderthals)wereconsideredintermediate be-
tween the Archanthropians(Homo erectus) and Neanthrvpians(Homo sapiens
sapiens). But the details and the flaws of this scheme are not really important.
What is essential is the way in which Leroi-Gourhananalyzed the mechanismof
humanevolution,using mobility,liberation,and exteriorization(Leroi-Gourhan,
1993, pp. 25-26).
Unlike othermammals,humans are generalists.Every time a specialization
occurs, it is exteriorizedoutside the human body. Human ancestors evolved in
parallel with othermammals untilbipedalism,when a drasticchange occurred.
290 Audouze

It created the conditionsforfreeingthe anteriorfield- the hand, the mouth,but

also the brain, which can, with the migrationof the occipital foramenand the
opening of the frontaland middle frontoparietal area of the skull, develop the
middle corticalarea. This resultsin increasingthecomplexityof the motorareas
and in fullyexpandingthecortex in a fan-shapedway,connectingit withcenters
related to the area involvinglanguage. Freeing the hand fromlocomotion brings
tools intoexistence.

The freedom ofthehandalmostnecessarily impliesa technicalactivity fromthe

different
apes . . . and commandstheuse of artificial organs,thatis, of implements.Tools appear
as a "secretion" of theanthropoid's bodyand brain.Dp to thisstage,extriorisation was
an evolutivebiologicaltendency. Fromnow on it becomesa technicaltendency . . . The
emergence oftoolsas a speciescharacteristic
marksthefrontier betweenanimalandhuman
initiating a longtransitionalperiodduringwhichsociologyslowlytookoverfromzoology.
(Leroi-Gourhan, 1993,p. 90)

The concept of exteriorizationwas used again laterin his workin describing

the transitionfromtools to machines, and the "excorporalization"of memory
(Stiegler, 1994, pp. 162-182).

Tools and Language: FromPaleoanthropiansto Neanthropians

Leroi-Gourhanwenton to describe the characteristicsthatdefineeach stage

in theevolutionof earlyhumansfromAustralopithecusto Homo sapiens sapiens,
and he also sought to relate the identifiednoveltiesto the tendenciesevidenced
earlier. The chopper and chopping tools of the Australanthropians, as well as
the Acheulean bifaces of the Archanthropians,representfor him real "stereo-
types,"which correspondto mentalpicturesand remainidenticalforhundredsof
thousands of years. He concludes with this strongand potentiallycontroversial
statement:

Australanthropian seemsto possesshis toolsin muchthesamewayan animalhas claws.

We mightsay thatwiththe Archanthropians, tools were still,to a largeextent,a di-
rectemanationof specificbehaviour . . . Throughoutthegreaterpartof our chronologi-
. . . humantechnicity
cal existence, wouldthusseemto havebeenrelatedmoredirectly to
zoologythantoanyotherscience.(Leroi-Gourhan, 1993,pp. 97-98)

This situationchanged withthe Paleoanthropians.Leroi-Gourhanendowed

themwithtechnicalintelligencebecause of the diversification and specialization
of theirtools and because of the foresightthattheirmanufacturing appears to re-
quire, as evidenced by theirchane opratoire. Leroi-Gourhan also endowed the
Paleoanthropianswith symbolic intelligence,because of the existence of burials
and some incipientaestheticconcerns.He findsparallelevidence forthe emergence
of language in thedevelopmentof thecerebralcortexof thebrain.

The originof languagein anthropoids Homosapiensthusseemsto be closely

preceding
linkedwithtechnicalmotorfunction. as theydo
Indeedthelinkis so closethatemploying
Leroi-Gourhan,a PhilosopherofTechnique 291

thesamepathway
inthebrain,thetwomainanthropoid toone
couldbe attributed
functions
andthesamephenomenon. 1993,p. 115)10
(Leroi-Gourhan,

Leroi-Gourhan'soverall thesisis not,of course,withoutits weak aspects and

unsolved contradictions.Since manufacturing behavior is no longer regardedas
genetic, is notclear whetherthedevelopmentof tools remainsbased in zoology,
it
i.e., genetics,as he statesin severalplaces. Moreover,how does thetransitionfrom
geneticto social developmentactuallyproceed? Recently,a French philosopher,
BernardStiegler,has proposed to overcomethiscontradictionby consideringthis
process as an epiphylogeneticone, withthe evolutionof tools acting as feedback
on thedetermination of thecorticalizationprocess. It would act by influencingthe
process of selectivemutations"because, unlikenon-artificial life,lithicindustryis
preservedin itsformbeyondtheindividualswho manufactured or used it'XStiegler,
1992a, p. 28, 1994, pp. 183-185).
ConcerningHomo sapiens sapiens, Leroi-Gourhanidentifiedthreemajorten-
dencies: a constantincreasein efficiency, diversity,and specialization. In an exam-
ple that became well-known in prehistoriccircles,he presenteda graphof theratio
of the lengthof usable cuttingedge per kilogramof flintfashionedin tools of a
specificform.This ratiodrasticallyincreasedovertimein parallel withan increase
in cranialcapacity.Once again, Leroi-Gourhanwas impressedby thisparallelism
betweenthebeginningof technologicaland biological evolution(Leroi-Gourhan,
1993, Tables 64, 65).
FromtheUpperPaleolithiconwards,he observedanothermajorchange. From
thatpoint,Leroi-Gourhanargued,biology and technologydiverged.

The volumeof thehumanbrainhas apparently reacheditspeak,and the(lithic)industry

curve,on thecontrary,
is at thestartof itsverticalascent Humanculturaldevelopment
beginstobe dominatedbysocialphenomena. (Leroi-Gourhan.1993.p. 144)

This diversityof lithicindustrieshad led prehistoriansto create Upper Pale-

olithic "cultures."AlthoughLeroi-Gourhanacknowledged the regional diversity
of these cultures,he also warned us thattheymightnot be equivalent to ethnic
groups. The greaterdiversityof tools is, however,not the result of an acceler-
ation of technicalevolution,but ratherthe productof "culturaldiversification,"
whichis themain regulatingfactorin thedevelopmentof Homo sapiens (sapiens)
(Leroi-Gourhan,1993, p. 206).
The analysis of social evolutionwas the nextstep in Leroi-Gourhan's argu-
ment.He suggestedthattherootsof social evolutionwerebiological and thatthere
were numerousexamples of groupingfor mutual benefitamong mammals and
morewidelyamong vertebrates(Leroi-Gourhan,1993, p. 206). At the same time,

10Leroi-Gourhanadopteda verydifferent
thesisfromFodorandMithen, whichpostulates a modularity
ofthemindwithmodulesonlyintertwining inthemindofprehistoric manatthebeginning ofUpper
Paleolithic(Fodor,1983;Mithen,1996).His conceptofevolution restsupona progressive transfor-
mationofa three-partcomplexcomposedofmanas anorganicbeing,hisknowledge accumulated on
different
mediums, as earlyas EarlyPaleolithic(Stiegler,1992a).
andtoolsthathedevelops,starting
292 Audouze

Leroi-Gourhanstressedthatthe developmentof "social machinery"and technoe-

conomic organizationis closely connectedto theevolutionof techniques.
His analysis of the evolution of societies throughthe Neolithic and Metal
Ages is less original. But among the familiaror commonplace argumentshe ad-
vanced, the followingis particularto him. As he triedto relatemajor inventions
(such as agricultureand animal husbandry,metallurgy,sedentismand urbaniza-
tion,mechanizationand industrialization)withnew formsof society,he observed
thatfromthe agriculturalstage onwards,the social body includeda new element
in its constituents:the craftsmanor technician,an individualwho is engaged in
tasks notdirectlyrelatedto food productionand who is supportedby thegroupas
a whole.
Itcan be said thattheseasonal pauses inagriculturalworkhavecreateda milieu
favorable (favorablemilieu) fortheappearanceofthistechnician.A new liberation
occurred- thefreeingoftime.Likewise, stabilityin space (i.e., sedentism)and the
increaseofresourcesthroughdemographicgrowthinduceda newstateofthemilieu
intrieurwithincreasingneeds and a strongdemand forinnovation,resultingin
what Leroi-Gourhancalls the "snowball effect"of accelerated technicalprogress
(Leroi-Gourhan,1993, p. 169).

Language and Hand, Motor Skills and Rhythm:The Originof Writing

Leroi-Gourhan's thinkingwas like an octopus,sendingtentaclesin manydi-

rections,but all ultimatelyconnected. At the end of the firstvolume of Gesture
and Speech, he introducedinto his general theoreticalframeworkthe intellec-
tual propertiesof humans:Language and thought,writingand memory,all evolve
in a synchronizedway mediated throughtechnique.The two poles he identified
as the key poles of evolution- hand/tooland face/language - are the actors in
this development. Although he constructedan argumentto prove the coevolu-
tion of the two poles, Leroi-Gourhaneventuallygave dominance to language. It
was characteristicof him to modifyhis concepts and reformulate his conclusions
fromone chapterto the next,and to involvethe reader in the constructionof his
ideas.
Why are we surprisedto see himgive prominenceto language? Because, ac-
cordingto his own criteria,he shouldexplain whytechniquesundergosuch a rapid
evolutionwhenlanguage and thinkingdo not(Guille-Escuret,1994,pp. 161-162).
Leroi-Gourhanwas probablythe firstto notice that,in thecoupling of technique
and language, techniquesactuallyevolve muchfasterand in an uncontrolledway.
Leroi-Gourhanproceeded by associating mental and manual operationshe
considereddeeply rootedin biological characteristicsof mammals.These are mo-
torskillsand rhythms, whichas earlyas theUpperPaleolithicled tographicsrelated
to initial concepts associated with mythologicalmotifs.This firststage, which
he calls primitivethinking,is characterizedby a feeling of continuitybetween
 a PhilosopherofTechnique
Leroi-Gourhan, 293

humansandtheirenvironment, wherespace,e.g.,radiatesfromego. Earlytraces

ofengraving andflutingonmaterial surfaces thisstage.Another
reflect perspective
onhishypothesis is provided the
by topographical organization ofthebraincortex
in whichmotorskillsand speechareasareclose neighbors andoperatetogether.
This leads,as a consequence,to theconjoineddevelopment of thematerialand
theverbal(Leroi-Gourhan, 1993,p. 299).
Graphics,whichare at theoriginof artand writing, are inscribedin the
humanbodythrough rhythms. For Leroi-Gourhan, rhythms are firstexpressed
biologicallyinthebody(e.g.,breathing, thenbythebody(e.g.,singing
heartbeats),
and dancing),and laterexteriorized throughrepeateduse of percussiontools,
musicalinstruments, etc.Progressin handmotorskills,alongwiththeevolution
oflanguageandthinking towards andrational
reflexive thought,also ledtowriting.
This impliesa narrowing of thereasoningmodethatceased to radiateoutwards
andbecamelinearand rational, as occurredwithsedentism and agriculture. For
Leroi-Gourhan, is
writing part of the milieu
agriculturalists' technique; associated
witha symbolism thatis quitedistinctfromthatofhunter-gatherers, writingcomes
withanincreaseintechniques andmotorskills,as wellas specificequipment (clay
pottery and tablets)and a needforaccounting and forstoringcapacities(1993,
pp. 187-216).

A Programmatology:
Memoryand Rhythms

Memory

Writing is themeansforexteriorizing memory. ThispartofLeroi-Gourhan's

workhasattracted renewed attentionfromseveralFrenchphilosophers. Itis mostly
hisprogrammatology, as BernardStieglercalls it,thathas influenced thephiloso-
pherJacquesDerridaas wellas Stieglerhimself (Derrida,1967;Stiegler,1994).In
brief,Leroi-Gourhan sees memory as a setofprograms ofoperational sequences
thatareusedindifferent waysaccording tothe kind ofmemory He distin-
activated.
guishes threekinds of that
memory overlap one another. The kind
first of memory
is a specificorgeneticmemory present inall livingbeings,inwhichprograms are
but
shapedbyexperience through narrow prespecified species-specificchannels.
Theseprograms are activatedby thecentralnervoussystemunderphysiological
impulsesandexternal stimuli.
Thesecondkindofmemory is individual memory thataccumulates programs
through experience and education.It existsat a certainlevelin highermammals,
butis quantitatively and qualitatively different in humans,in whommemoryis
totally channeled and
by knowledge transmitted and preservedby languagein
everyethnicgroup.Withthisknowledge,theindividualhas access to thethird
kindof memory: a virtualmemory thatis theethnicor social memoryand that
belongsas a wholeto theethnicgroup.
294 Audouze

According to the type of operationalbehaviorinvolved,the individualcalls

upon or activates one of these threememories. Automaticbehaviors related to
one's biological nature,such as feedingor sexual behaviorsor body attitudes,call
forthegeneticmemory.A second level of behavioris concernedwithoperational
sequences acquired througheducation and experience,but which take place in
a "semiautomatic" mode; brushingyour teeth and puttingon your clothes do
not requirefull attention.However, as soon as an incidentor interruption occurs
(e.g., accidentallyinjuringoneselfduringsuchactivity),semiautomatic behavior is
replaced by lucid behavior,which introducesa confrontation between the present
situationand experiencethroughlanguage symbols.
The thirdlevel is lucid behavior in which language takes a dominantpart,
whetherfor repairingan accident in an operational sequence or for creatinga
new one. Periodical operationalsequences and exceptionaloperationalsequences
requirelucid behavior.But mostof our lives are filledwithsemiautomaticstereo-
typedoperationalsequences thatare transmitted throughthe familyunitor youth
peer groups. They form the basis of individualbehavior withinthe ethnicgroup
and give the strongestethnic imprintto the individual.They are the necessary
counterpartto freedomof behaviorin exceptionalcircumstances(Leroi-Gourhan,
1993, pp. 227-233).

The Exteriorizationof Memory

With memory,humanityexperiences a double exteriorization.One is the

transferof the largestsegmentof knowledge outside the individualto the social
or ethnicmemory.The second is partof theevolutionarytrendoutsidethehuman
body. Memory was firstorally transmitted and thenfixedin writingthatinitially
reproduced oral lore. Libraries were created to preservewrittenmemory.By the
nineteenthcentury,memorywas fixed in a new multidimensionalsystemwith
files and indices thatpermittedthe sortingof data in different ways (by subject,
geography,chronology,etc.). Files can be considered a manual machineof some
kind.The nextstep was realized only in the midtwentieth - sortingmachinesand
perforatedcards. Leroi-Gourhanobservesthatalthoughverysimilarin theirtech-
nical structure,these files appearredonly a centuryafterthe Jacquardloom (the
firstmechanical loom).
The next step occurred withcomputersand artificialintelligence,implying
not only memorybut also human reflexivethought(anotherdimensionof exte-
riorization).This may seem commonplace today,but when Leroi-Gourhanwas
writingin the early 1960s, it was quite innovative.
To refuseto see thatmachines will soon overtakethe human brain in operations involving
memory and rationaljudgment is to be like Pithecanthropuswho would have denied the
possibility of the biface, the archer who would have laughed at the mere suggestion of
the crossbow, most of all like the Homeric bard who would have dismissed writingas a
mnemonic trickwithoutany future.We mustget used to being less clever thanthe artificial
 a PhilosopherofTechnique
Leroi-Gourhan, 295

brainthatwe haveproduced, justas ourteetharelessstrong thana millstone

andourability
toflynegligible compared withthatofa jetcraft Wealreadyknow, orwillsoonknowhow
toconstruct machines capableofremembering andofjudgingthemostcomplex
everything
situationswithouterror.Whatit meansis thatour cerebralcortex,howeveradmirable,
is inadequate just as ourhandsand eyesare inadequate;thatitcan be supplemented by
electronicanalysismethods;and thattheevolution ofthehumanbeing- a livingfossilin
thecontextof thepresentconditions of life- mustfollowa pathotherthantheneuronic
one ifitis to continue.Puttingitmorepositively, we couldsaythatifhumansareto take
thegreatest possibleadvantageofthefreedom theygainedbyevadingtheriskoforganic
overspecialization, theymusteventually go evenfurther theirfaculties.
in exteriorizing
(Leroi-Gourhan, 1993,p. 265)

Symbolismand Aesthetics

Leroi-Gourhanwas convincedthathumansweredistinctfromanimals or ma-

chines,and he soughtevidence forthisin two directions- symbolicactivitiesand
aesthetics.He thoughtthatthe conquest of tools and language representedonly
partofhumanevolutionand thatwhathe called "aesthetics"in our ascenthas been
as important. But aestheticswas muchmoredifficult to documentbecause "at first
glance, it leftno tracesin skeletonsand tools" (Leroi-Gourhan,1993, p. 274).
Indeed, Leroi-Gourhanmade a veryoriginalcontributionin the fieldof aes-
thetics,which was carried furtherby French ethnologists(Bromberger,1987).
Instead of directlyanalyzing style- forhim an essential componentof ethnicity
and ethnicidentity - he preferredto analyze aesthetics,a much broaderfieldthat
is notlimitedto creatingimages materializedin artisticproductionbutextendsto
livingas a whole throughrhythms, forms,and flavors.Leroi-Gourhanwanted to
takeintoaccount notonly auditoryand visual representations but also the totality
of thesensoryapparatus.Withinthisframework, stylebecame the means through
whichethnicgroupsput theirimprinton forms,values, and rhythms.
Leroi-Gourhanwas interestedmore in analyzing the internalcharacteristics
of artproductionthanin theirideological meaning(althoughhe was also interested
in thelatteraspect). In thishe differedfromthemain trendsin social sciences both
thenand now. In the manyprevious examples I have noted,he also intendedhis
analysis to encompass all aestheticmanifestationsfrombiological aestheticsto
themostrefinedfigurativeartor abstractpainting.
He workedatthreedifferent levels- physiological,technical,and social. Thus
he identifiedthreekinds of aesthetics.Physiological aestheticsare deeply rooted
in livingbeings throughsymmetry and rhythms. Functionalaestheticsare present
in all humanproductions,such as tools and instruments, and theycorrespondto
a truemechanical determinismrelated to laws of matter.(Functional aesthetics
are associated withthe search for objects whose formsare perfectlyadapted to
theirfunction.)Reflexiveaestheticsare embodied in figurativeand nonfigurative
representations (Leroi-Gourhan,1993, pp. 281-31 1).
The ethnomorphologicalanalysisderivedfromtheseconceptswas thusbased
on different dimensionsof artisticrepresentations: mode of expression(frompure
296 Audotize

geometricto analyticalfigurative),shapingof forms(fromelementaryoutlinesto

exuberantornamentation), composition(includingperspective,spatialdistribution,
movement), and construction (framingand creationof intervalscreatingrhythms).
Leroi-Gourhanapplied thismethodto theanalysisof Africanand prehistoric
statuesand figurines.He showed how these figurineswere constructedaccording
to repetitiveintervals,thelengthof whichwas relatedto thewidthof theadze used
on wood or to the size of the hand. But at thesame timehe also indicatedhow the
choice of intervalsand theiroverlappingwere deeplyrootedin ethnicstyle.It was
thuspossible "to isolate ethno-stylistical characteristicswhich [could] be defined
as infrastructural" (Leroi-Gourhan, 1970, p. 676).
This particularexample makes it clear thatartisticproductionswere forhim
mostlydeterminedby materialand technicalconstraintsand only subsequentlyby
ethnicstylewithinthe narrowmarginallowed by functionalrequirements.How-
ever, we findhere one of the paradoxical situationshe created by changing his
perspectiveor the manner of his discourse. In some paragraphs,style is a su-
perstructure restingon the infrastructure of materialconstraints,but it is also a
comprehensiveexpression that imprints aspects of an ethnicgroup's culture.
all
In a few illuminatingpages, he succeeded in connectingaestheticsto symbolism.
For example, he demonstratedthattheaestheticsof clothingwere rootedin sym-
bolism and thatthe symbolicrole of clothingwas as importantifnotmoreso than
its function(Leroi-Gourhan, 1993, pp. 35O-353).11
Leroi-Gourhanattemptedto demonstratehow cityplans fromoriginsdown
to the eighteenthcenturywere symbolic representations of the universe,linking
space and time through solar or stellarmythology calendar..He also recognized
and
thatindustrialization had introduceda breakin townevolution,leading to special-
ization and decentralizationof townsand cities,and to thegrowingimportanceof
networks.In thishe foreshadowedmuch laterurbangeographystudies.
In this last part of Gesture and Speech he also introducedhis analysis of
prehistoriccave artthathe thoroughlydeveloped in Prhistoirede Vartoccidental
publishedthe same year (Leroi-Gourhan, 1965b).12

The Futureof Human Evolution

The vast theoreticalframeworkconstructedby Leroi-Gourhanin the two

volumes of Le geste et la parole ends witha tentativeprospectiveview of human

1' Much
earlier,he hadarguedhow theJapanesecostumewas totallyconditioned by its symbolic
functionto thepointofbeingratherunpractical (Leroi-Gourhan, 1946).
'*
Leroi-Gourhan s workon prehistoric
artis well knownto Anglo-Saxonreadersand has beenthe
subjectof manycomments (Conkey,1989). It is notanalyzedhere.Whilehistheory ofcave paint-
rulesis stillvalid,his stylistic
ingsorganizedaccordingto structural chronologyis obsolete.The
Chauvetcave (datedtoaround30,000and 26,500/25,000 B.P.)broughtthefinaldocumentation that
Aurignacian artwas in no wayonlyschematicand thattherewas no evolutionfromschematics to
realism.
 a PhilosopherofTechnique
Leroi-Gourhan, 297

evolution,builtas a musical fuguein whichthemesassociated by pairor tripletsre-

curindifferent - hand/face,hand/tool,
associationsas partsof an intricatenetwork
technique/language, memory/rhythms, tool/language/rhythmic creation,function,
form, and aesthetics.
From the beginning of his first
volume,Leroi-Gourhan wanted
to studyethnicgroups.He thoughtthatthiswas thetypicalformof humangroup-
ing and a significantunitof analysis. Individualsfoundtheiridentityas members
of an ethnicgroupand in sharingits characteristicsas muchin automaticbehavior
as in reflexivebehavior.In a large section of Techniqueet language, he studied
"the social organism"(Leroi-Gourhan, 1993, pp. 145-183) or "the social body"
(i.e., ethnicgroupsor social groups) as the place wheresocial evolutionreplaces
or takesover biological evolution.
However,in thecourse of his researchLeroi-Gourhancame to reconsiderhis
belief thatethnicgroups were indeed the basic social componentsof humanity.
Humanitywas evolving towardswhat he called a "megaethny,"in a process that
we would call globalization today- the globalization of the economy and of in-
formation, thestandardizationof modes of lifeand of culture.He saw thatas part
of social evolution.While developingotherthemes,he wroteon occasion several
lines on his expectationsand concerns about thisevolutionarytrend.He devoted
an entirechapterto this subject- concernsabout physical Man overcome by the
actingand thinkingmachineshe had devised, about thedegradationof motorand
technicalskills,concernsaboutdiminishingparticipationin theproductionof sym-
bols replacedby access to virtualleisuresorganizedby a few specialists in charge
of creation(Leroi-Gourhan,1993).
Extrapolatingfrom the evolutionarytrajectoryhe designed, he expressed
concerns that are now at the heart of the interrogationsof the twentieth
century.
"The technicalliberationunquestionablyreduces the technical freedomof
adapts theworker
theindividual"(Leroi-Gourhan,1993, p. 253). Industrialization
to the machine, so that"the liberationof a facultyalways leads to accelerated
improvement, notof the individualas such butof the individualas an elementof
a supermechanism."The technicalliberation

has led to theexteriorization

of tools,... of muscle,and eventually of thenervoussys-
temof responsiveness. The exteriorization of timetookplace simultaneously butalong
differentlines;timebecamethegridwithinwhichindividuals becamelockedat themo-
mentwhenthesystemof responsiveness reducedtheperiodrequiredfortransmission to
hours,minutes, and eventuallyto seconds.In sectorswherethelimithas been reached,
theindividualfunctions as a cell, an elementof a collectiveprogram, withina network
of signalsthatnotonlycontrolhis or hergestures, or effectivementalactivitybutalso
regulatehis or herrightto absence,thatis to restor leisuretime.(Leroi-Gourhan,1993,
p. 317)
Ourelectronic cultureis barely50 yearsold andis supportedbya physiological
apparatus
whichitselfis 40,000yearsold.Whilewe havetotrust thedistortion
ouradaptivepotential,
stillexistsand thereis some contradiction betweena civilizationwithnearlyunlimited
powersandman'sagressivity whichhas remainedunchanged fromthetimewhenkilling
reindeer? meantsurvival.(Leroi-Gourhan, 1993,p. 402)
298 Audouze

Inhissoberassessments, Leroi-Gourhan rejectedthefearofanatomicapoca-

lypseas wellas Teilhard
de Chardin's
visionof an ascenttowards a Utopian
Omega
point.He also dismissedthe of a
hypothesis totally world
artificial in whichhu-
manbeingswouldonlybe thecells of a megaorganism. InsteadLeroi-Gourhan
to
preferred imaginethathumanity will consciously decide to remainsapiens
sapiens.
withsocietywillhaveto be
In suchan event,theproblemof theindividual'srelationship
completely we mustfaceup squarelyto thequestionofournumerical
rethought: density
andourrelationswiththeanimalandplantworlds.(Leroi-Gourhan, 1993,p. 408)

CONCLUDING DISCUSSION

Leroi-Gourhan's teachinghadas muchinfluence on hisstudents as hiswrit-

ings, or even more.This impactexplainswhy his former students have insisted
on thesocial roleplayedby techniqueswhilethisemphasisis strangely missing
in hiswritten work.Thisshortand slenderman,withthesharpfaceofa fox,shy
and secret,thisslow speakerwho avoidedmostof hiscolleaguesbecauseofhis
shyness,was a fascinating and charismatic teacher.Listeningto him,you were
captivated in an excitingintellectualadventure. His lecturesreflected notonly
his intellectualtrajectorybutalso his of
way conducting excavations. As Guille-
Escuretrecalls,Leroi-Gourhan was sucha prodigious professor because, in hisap-
proach,observation andtheory wereassociated inan insolublewhole. Each served
to correct andconsolidatetheotheras theworkprogressed (Guille-Escuret, 1994,
p. 10).
As soonas students discoveredLeroi-Gourhan, theywantedtocontinuewith
him.The scientific approachwas there,therigor,theimagination. Duringthe
springof 1964,theMagdalenianopen-airsiteof Pincevent was discoveredand
begantobe destroyed bya quarry. All shynessforgotten, Leroi-Gourhan pulledall
theacademicand politicalstringshe couldto stopthedestruction and calledhis
students totherescue.Morethan50 students answered, interruptedtheiruniversity
courses,andspent4 months, digging with him until Malraux, theauthor andthen
minister ofculture,hadthelandpurchasedbythestate.
DiggingwithLeroi-Gourhan was an excitingadventure. Everymorning, he
put forth new and
hypotheses, everybody was entitled to comment or question.
Overthenext20 yearshe spent2 months inthefieldeveryyear,andanyonecould
sit withhimat mealsand engagein discussion(a veryuncommonsituation in
Frenchacademiclifeat thetime).Leroi-Gourhan was an intelligent manin the
etymological meaningoftheword.
Fromthe1950son,Leroi-Gourhan hada considerable, andevendecisive,in-
fluenceonFrenchprehistorians andon someFrenchsocialanthropologists, as well
as on German,Swiss,andSpanishprehistorians. His innovative excavationmeth-
ods atPincevent, involvingthehorizontaldcapageoflivingareas(Leroi-Gourhan
Leroj-Gourhan,a PhilosopherofTechnique 299

and Brzillon, 1966), were further developed and refinedto become standardpro-
cedure foropen-airsites in the Old World. His influenceextendedto French ar-
chaeologists workingon living floors and settlementsin Mesoamerica, Central
America,and theNear East.
Equally importantly, Leroi-Gourhan,togetherwithknappingexperimentsde-
veloped in JacquesTixier's laboratory,was at theoriginoftheschool of prehistoric
technologythatdeveloped fromthe practiceof flintconjoining(or refitting) at the
siteofPincevent.These tworesearchgroups,whichjoined forcesinthe 1980s, have
been accumulatinga veryimportantbody of theoreticalknowledgeon techniques
and cognition,using the powerfulconcept of the chane opratoire.Technology
is now as essential a componentof Paleolithic or Neolithic researchprojects as
typology.Prehistorianssuch as Jacques Tixierand collaborators,Claudine Karlin,
Nicole Pigeot,Sylvie Ploux, PierreBodu, Jacques Pelegrin,Jean-MichelGeneste,
and Eric Boda, have broughtimportanttheoreticalor methodologicalcontribu-
tionsto prehistorictechnologyand cognition(Boda, 199 1; Geneste, 199 1; Karlin
et a/., 1991, 1992; Karlin and Julien,1994; Plegrin,1993; Plegrinet ai, 1988;
Pigeot, 1987, 1990; Ploux et al.y 1991; Tixier, 1988).
A school of comparativeethnologyand culturaltechnologywas created di-
rectlyundertheinfluenceofEvolutionand Technique,Leroi-Gourhan's firstmajor
work.Major figuresof thismovementare RobertCresswell withhisjournal Tech-
niques & Culture(1993), Balfet (1991a,b), Bromberger(1987), Digard (1979),
Lemonnier(1980, 1992), and Martinelli(1988). Many of these researchershave
shown a deep interestin understandingthe reciprocal influencesof social orga-
nization and techniques. Some French social anthropologistsalso having been
influencedby Leroi-Gourhan,tryto relatetherationalityinscribedin theevolution
of techniquesto theanalysisof theMarxist"productiveforces"and to linktogether
technicaland social orproductionprocesses (among them,Digard, 1979). But here,
alongside Leroi-Gourhan,one mustalso mentiontheinfluenceof Haudricourt,his
contemporaryin social anthropologywith an agronomic and a linguisticback-
ground.Haudricourtcreated the ethnoscience approach in France (Haudricourt,
1968, 1987; Sigaut, 1991). Much more thanLeroi-Gourhan,Haudricourtstressed
thesocial and culturalaspect of techniques(Bonte, 1992). A memberof theethno-
science school, and froma muchyoungergeneration,Georges Guille-Escuretalso
acknowledgesa directconnectionto Leroi-Gourhanin his theoryof thesocial fact
(Guille-Escuret,1994).
It took much longer for Leroi-Gourhan's influenceto be feltin the United
States and GreatBritain,where language and an altogetherdifferent set of scien-
tificprioritieshad establishedalmost insurmountablebarriers.It was at thetimeof
thetranslationof Prhistoirede I*art occidental (Treasuresof PrehistoricArt)that
rock art specialists such as Andre Rosenfeld and Peter Ucko became interested
in his work,but thenonly in a verycriticalfashion.They were able to perceive
the weaknesses butnot the innovativeaspects of his work (Ucko and Rosenfeld,
1967).
300 Audouze

Anotherdozen years intervenedbeforethe influenceof Leroi-Gourhanwas

feltin the United States, even among Old World specialists. This took place at
the momentwhen postprocessualismhad begun to weaken the thrustof the New
Archaeology and when a spiritof intellectualrenewal was in the air. Margaret
Conkey's work in the late 1970s and early 1980s seems to have been the first
to regardLeroi-Gourhan'sstructuralistapproach to artas one capable of offering
new perspectives.Among otherthings,itinformedherworkon engravedbone and
antlerassemblages fromMagdalenian sites of north-coastalSpain (Conkey, 1978,
1980, 1989). By 1985, Randy White recognized the methodologicalpotentialof
the chane opratoire as he began his analysis of personal ornamentsfromthe
Aurignacian.
Althoughtheythemselveslacked firsthand knowledgeof his writings,Amer-
icans workingin the Near East were keptconstantlyup-to-dateon theprogressof
Leroi-Gourhan'sschool, thanksto JacquesTixier,thewell-knownprehistorian and
on
expert technology.Beginning in the 1980s, reference to the chane opratoire
and French thinkingon the subject appeared in the bibliographiesof Angela E.
Close (2000) and James L. Phillips (1991). Ofer Bar-Yosef,a Harvardprofessor
workingin Israeli withFrenchprehistoriansat Kebara, notonlykeptup-to-dateon
chane opratoireresearchbutin factincorporateditintohis own approach,where
it was allied withrefittinganalysis and the morphometricstudyof tool supports
(Bar-Yosef, 99 1; Bar-Yosefet al. , 1992). For stillotherprehistorians,
1 it was as a
directresultof workingin France thattheybecame familiar with the intellectual
heritageof Leroi-Gourhan(Simek, 1994); all themoreiftheyworkedat Pincevent
as Enloe did forhis PhD. Since then,his excavationmethodsforuncoveringliving
floorsand his field school at Verberiein northernFrance have retainedmuch of
Leroi-Gourhan'smethod(Enloe, 199M992).
The belated translationGestureand Speech in 1993 provideda widerAmer-
ican audience with access to Leroi-Gourhan's major theoreticalwork. His ideas
also were diffusedto English readers throughthe worksof Marcia-AnnDobres.
Apartfroma PhD dissertationapplyingthe chane opratoireto the manufacture
and subsequentrejuvenationof bone tools (Dobres, 1995), her articlesand book
furnisha criticalsynthesisof thehistoryof Frenchthoughton technologyfromthe
time of Marcel Mauss to the present(Dobres, 1999, 2000; Dobres and Hoffman,
1994, 1999). Leroi-Gourhan's work now seems to reach a wideraudience in the
Anglo-Saxon world (Bleed, 2001).
Aboutthesame timeas in theUnitedStates,an interestintechnologyemerged
at the Universityof Cambridge in England. This interestbore fruitwiththe ap-
pearance of an entirenumberof the CambridgeArchaeological Review(edited by
Nathan Schlanger) devoted to "Techniques as Human Action" in 1990. In this,
several Frenchprehistorianswere given theopportunity to reviewthemajor theo-
reticaland methodologicaladvances made in thisfieldin the 1980s. In the same
year Mark Edmonds broughthis understandingof chanes opratoiresto bear on
 a PhilosopherofTechnique
Leroi-Gourhan, 301

his studyof the productionof polished axes in northernEngland (Bradley and

Edmonds, 1993; Edmonds, 1990).
Afterits translationintoEnglish, Gestureand Speech also foundan echo in
Great Britainamong social anthropologistssuch as Tim Ingold (personal com-
munication,1998), as well as prehistorianssuch as Clive Gamble who- while
notadoptinghis ideas- have foundtheirown thoughtto be greatlystimulatedby
Leroi-Gourhan'sdistinctivemannerof definingand attackingthe issues thatnow
engage theirown concerns(Gamble, personal communication,2001).
Because itwas translatedintoJapanesenotlong afteritspublicationin France,
Gestureand Speech is partof the archaeologyreadingsat the universityin Japan,
but this did not lead to real influence.AlthoughJapanese prehistorianspractice
lithicrefitting(Aita et al.%1991), theyhave closer affinitiesto Bordes's approach.
But thereis interestin Leroi-Gourhan's earlier work on Japan thatresulted in
the recentpublicationof two volumes of Leroi-Gourhan's photographsfromhis
1937-38 missionin Japan(Yamanaka 2000, 2001 ).
Leroi-Gourhan'sinfluencetoday does not rest solely on his printedworks.
Indeed,thanksto themassivecontribution made by his manystudentsand younger
associates,his workand thoughtno doubtenjoy muchgreatercurrencytodaythan
theyever did in his own lifetime.When Leroi-Gourhan's major work was pub-
lished, it was received not only with admirationbut also with some perplexity.
Thirtyyears earlier,when Marcel Mauss read Leroi-Gourhan's firstbook on the
CivilizationofReindeer( 1936), he had toldhiminjest thathe feltlikea henthathad
hatcheda duckling.The same commentapplies to Le geste et la parole. What was
one to do withsuch an enterprise, whichconstantlyreferredto methodsfromother
fieldsand whichdisplaced primaryquestions? Biologists could not use it in their
discipline,and neithercould psychologists,social anthropologists, norforthatmat-
terprehistorians.For severalyears,Gestureand Speech was ignoredas an intimi-
datingmonument.Leroi-Gourhanoperatedat threelevels of reasoning:a concrete
analyticallevel forobservingfactsand manipulatingdata; a highlyabstractlevel
involvingvastquestionssuch as originsor evolutionthatcould onlybe approached
throughphilosophical investigations;and an intermediatelevel of abstraction,
the most original,where he constructedthe networksof biological, psychologi-
cal, and social relationsthatestablished the technical realm as the mediatorof
evolution.
Thirtyyears later,prehistoriansand social anthropologistshave retainedthe
analyticalmethodsand,mostofall, theacquisitionsat thepracticallevel: thechane
opratoire,the analysis of techniques,and the excavation methodshave all been
as
adopted,refined,and enlarged.At the abstractlevel, Frenchphilosopherssuch
Foucaultor Derridahave been interestedor even inspiredby Leroi-Gourhan's con-
cepts. There is todaya school of philosophersof science and techniques,centered
on BernardStiegler,thatstressesagain the importanceof Leroi-Gourhan.His vi-
sion of theevolutionof technique,his "programmatology," seems to themhighly
302 Audouze

inspiring.Leroi-Gourhan's realoriginality,hisabilitytocombinein a uniqueap-

a 13
proach scienceofman,biology and social sciences,hasnotyetfoundfollowers.
UponreadingLe gesteetla parole,one maynotethathisdescription ofearly
humansis nowinaccurate, thathischronology andstructural ofpre-
interpretation
historicartneedsto be revised,thathissweepingreconstructions areat timesfar
too ambitious, and thatsomeof his terminology wouldnowbe considered to be
"politicallyincorrect."
All of thisis true,butit is farmoreimportant and worth-
whileto remember thatin his workLeroi-Gourhan providesan extraordinarily
powerful theoretical
framework forthinking abouttechniques andtheirevolution
andthathefurthermore expressesverycontemporary and
insights concernsabout
aesthetics andecology,aboutfreedom and politics.Thereis no doubtthatLeroi-
Gourhan'sworkconstitutes a majorcontribution in bothFrenchprehistory and
socialanthropology. Yetthoseaspectsof hisworkthathavenotbeenassimilated
stilloffera potentialsourceof insightsand interrogations. If we wantto know
moreaboutearlyprehistoric and
societies,technology, evolution, we shallhaveto
deal withfundamental questionsat thelevelat whichLeroi-Gourhan formulated
andaddressedthem.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This paperoriginated in publiclecturesthatI presented whilea GeorgeA.

Millervisiting at theUniversity
professor of Illinois,Urbana-Champagne, infall
1996,andina classthatI taught attheUniversity ofCalifornia,Berkeley,inspring
1998.I expressmygratitude to JanetKeller,Olga Soffer, and Margaret Conkey
forgivingme thoseopportunities and providing usefulcomments. In preparing
thispaper,I am verymuchin debtto Hlne Balfet,AnickCoudait,Georges
Guille-Escuret, PierreLemonnier, BernardStiegler, andNathanSchlanger, whose
writingson Leroi-Gourhan me
helped clarify my own views. MegConkey, Marcia-
AnnDobres,andRandyWhitehelpedmesortthrough theinsandoutsofAmerican
archaeology. I amalso extremely gratefultoAnickGirardandElizabethDinanfor
the
correcting imperfect English ofthe first
version ofthistext,toNathanSchlanger
forhis constructive critiques,and to Jim Sackett for theadditionsto
translating
thistext.I use thisopportunity toexpressmygratitude to himforintroducingme
toAmerican 30 I
archaeology yearsago. Last, warmly thank DouglasPrice for
the
finalediting.

REFERENCES CITED

Aita,Y., Kato,MMand Yamanaka,I. (1991). Le remontagedes piceslithiques:uneillustration

des
diffrentes du Palolithique
techniques au Japon.In25 ans d'Etudestechnologiques
suprieur en

IJHoweverGuille-Escurethas attempted in Le dcalage humain(1994) to explaintheoriginof the

socialfactbydrawingon biology,ecology,ethology,andthesocialsciences.
 a PhilosopherofTechnique
Leroi-Gourhan, 303

Prhistoire, Bilanetperspectives, Actesdes XlmesRencontres Internationales d'Archologie et

d'Histoired'Antibes(18-20 octobre1990),APDCA, Antibes,France,pp. 305-317.
Akrich,M. (1994). Commentsortirde la dichotomietechnique/socit. Prsentation des diverses
sociologiesde la technique. In Latour,B., andLemonnier, P. (eds). De la prhistoire aux missiles
balistiques, l'intelligence des techniques, La Dcouverte, Paris,pp. 105-130.
Audouze,F. (1992). Essai de portrait. In Audouze,F.,andSchnapp,A. (eds.), Unhomme, uneoeuvre:
Leroi-Gourhan (dossier).Les Nouvellesd'e VArcheologe 48/49:5-54.
Audouze,F., and Schnapp,A. (eds.) (1992). Un homme... une uvre:AndrLeroi-Gourhan. Les
Nouvellesde VArchologie 48/49:5-54.
Balfet,H. (d.) (1991a). ObserverVactiontechnique. Des chanesopratoires pourquoifaire?,Ed.
duCNRS, Paris.
Balfet,H. (1991b).Chanesopratoires etorganisation socialedutravail:quatreexemplesde faonnage
de poterieau Maghreb.In Balfet,H. (ed.). ObserverVactiontechnique. Des chanesopratoires
pourquoifaire?,Ed. du CNRS, Paris,pp. 87-95.
Bar-Yosef, O. (1991).Thesearchforlithicvariability amongLevantine Epi-Paleolithic industries. In25
ans d'Etudestechnologiques en Prhistoire, Bilanetperspectives, Actesdes XlmesRencontres
Internationales d'Archologie et d'Histoired'Antibes(18-20 octobre1990),APDCA, Antibes,
France,pp.319-335.
Bar-Yosef, O., Vandermeersch, B.,Arensburg, B., Belfer-Cohen, A.,Goldberg, P.,Laville,H.,Meignen,
L., Rak,Y.,Speth,J.D., Tchernov, E., Tillier,A. M.,andWeiner, S. ( 1992). Excavations atKebara,
Mt.Carmel.Current Anthropology 33: 497-550.
Binford,L. R.,andBinford, S. R. (1968). NewPerspectives inArcheology, Aldine,Chicago.
Boda, E. (1991). Approchede la variabilit des sytmesde production lithiquedes industries du
Palolithique infrieuret moyen.Chroniqued'une variabilit attendue.Techniqueset Culture
17/18:37-39.
Bont,P. (1992). AprsLeroi-Gourhan: tendances etproblmes d'uneapprocheethnologique des faits
techniques. Les Nouvellesde l'Archologie 48/49: 18-22.
Bradley,R.,andEdmonds, M. ( 1993).Interpreting theAxeTrade:Production andExchangeinNeolithic
Britain, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, MA.
Bromberger, C. (1987). AndrLeroi-Gourhan et l'esthtique. InAndrLeroi-Gourhan ou les voiesde
l'homme, actesdu colloquedu CNRS,Paris 1987,Albin-Michel, Paris,pp. 157-168.
Close,A. E. (2000). Reconstructing movement inprehistory. JournalofArchaeologicalMethodand
Theory 7(1): 49-77.
Conkey,M. (1978). An Analysisof Design Structure:Variability among MagdalenianEngraved
BonesFromNorth-Coastal Spain,Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University
ofChicago,Chicago.
Conkey, M. (1980). Context, structure andefficacy in paleolithicart.In Foster,M. L., andBrandes,S.
(eds.),Symbolas Sense,AcademicPress,NewYork,pp. 225-248.
Conkey,M. (1989). The structural analysisof Paleolithicart.In Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. (ed.).
Archaeological Thought inAmerica,Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, MA, pp. 135-154.
Cowgill,G. L. (1989). Formalapproachesinarchaeology. In Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. (ed.).Archae-
ologicalThought inAmerica,CambridgeUniversity Press,Cambridge, MA, pp. 74-88.
Cresswell, R. ( 1983). Transferts de techniques etchanesopratoires. Techniques etCulture 2: 144- 159.
Cresswell,R. (1993). Tendanceet fait,logiqueet histoire. Techniques et Culture21: 5-37.
Cresswell,R. (1994). La naturecycliquedes relations entrele techniqueet le social.Approchetech-
nologiquede la chaineopratoire. In Latour,B., and Lemonnier, P. (eds.). De la prhistoire aux
missilesbalistiques, l'intelligence des techniques. La Dcouverte, Paris,pp. 275-289.
Derrida.J.H 9671 De la Grammatnlnpie. Editionsde Minuit.Paris.
Descola,P.( 1994).PourquoilesIndiensd'Amazonien'ont-ils pasdomestiqu le pcari?Gnalogiedes
objetsetanthropologie de l'objectivation. InLatour,B., andLemonnier, P.(eds.),De la prhistoire
aux missilesbalistiaues.V'intelligence des techniaues. La Dcouverte.Paris.DD.329-344.
Digard,J.-P(1979). La technologie en anthropologie: finde parcoursou nouveausouffle? L'Homme
19: 73-104.
Dobres,M.-A.( 1995). GenderintheMaking:LateMagdalenianSocial RelationsofProduction inthe
French Midi-Pyrnes, Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department ofAnthropology, University
ofCalifornia, Berkeley.
304 Audouze

Dobres,M.-A. (1999). Technologylinksand chanes:The processualunfolding of techniqueand

technician. InDobres,M.-A.,andHoffman, C. R. (eds.).MakingCulture:Essayson Technological
Practice,and WorldViews,MIT Press,Washington, DC, pp. 124-146.
Dobres,M.-A.(2000). Technology and Social Agency,Blackwell,Oxford.
Dobres,M.-A.,andHoffman, C. R. (1994). Social agencyandthedynamics ofprehistoric technology.
JournalofArchaeological Methodand Theory1:21 1-258.
Dobres,M.-A.,and Hoffman, C. R. (1999). MakingCulture:Essayson Technological Practice,and
WorldViews,Smithsonian Institution Press,Washington, DC.
Edmonds,M. (1990). Description, understanding and thechaneopratoire. Archaeological Review
FromCambridge 9: 55-70.
Enloe,J.G. (1991). SubsistenceOrganizationin theUpperPaleolithic:Carcass Refitting and Food
Sharingat Pincevent,Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology. University of New
Mexico,University Microfilms, AnnArbor.
Enloe,J.G. (1992). Subsistenceorganization in theearlyUpperPaleolithic:Reindeerhunters of the
Abridu Flageolet.In Kneicht,H., Pike-Tay, A., and White,R. (eds.). BeforeLascaux: Complex
RecordoftheEarlyUpperPaleolithic,CRC Press,Boca Raton.FL.
Fodor,J.(1983). TheModularity oftheMind.MIT Press.Cambridge, MA.
Gaucher,G. (1987). AndrLeroi-Gourhan, biographie. Bulletinde la SocitPrhistorique Franaise
84:302-315.
Geneste,J.-M.(1991). Systmestechniquesde production lithique;variations techno-conomiques
danslesprocessusde ralisation des outillagespalolithiques. Techniques etCulture17/18:1-35.
Groenen,M. (1996). Leroi-Gourhan. Essence et contingence dans la destinehumaine.De Boeck
Universit, Bruxelles.
Guille-Escuret, G. (1994). Le dcalage humain.La Dcouverte.Paris.
Haudricourt, A.-G.(1968). La technologie culturelle. Essai de mthode. In Poirier, J.(ed.). Ethnologie
Gnrale1,Gallimard, Paris,dd. 731-882.
Haudricourt, A.-G.(1987). La Technologie sciencehumaine.Recherches d'histoireetde technologie
des techniques. Editionde la Maisondes Sciencesde l'Homme,Paris.
Karlin,C, Bodu,P.,andPlegrin, J.( 1992). Somesocio-economic aspectsoftheprocessoflithicreduc-
tionamonggroupsofhunter-gatherers oftheParisBasinarea.In Berthelet, A.,andChavaillon, J.
(eds.), TheuseofToolsbyHumansandNon-Human Primates (symposiaoftheFyssenFoundation
No. 3), ClarendonPress.Oxford,dd. 3 18-340.
Karlin,C, Bodu,P., and Pigeot,N. (1991). Processustechniqueset chanesopratoires. Comment
les prhistoriens s'approprient un conceptlaborparles technologues. In Balfet.H. (ed.). Ob-
serverl actiontechnique.Des chanesopratoirespour quoifaire?.Editiondu CNRS, Paris,
pp. 87-95.
Karlin,C, andJulien,M. (1994). Prehistoric technology: A cognitivescience?In Renfrew, C. and
Zubrow,E. (eds.). TheAncientMind:Elements ofCognitive Archaeology, Cambridge University
Press,Cambridge, MA, pp. 152-164.
Latour,B., andLemonnier, P. (eds.) (1994). De la prhistoire aux missilesbalistiques,l'intelligence
des techniques. La Dcouverte,Paris.
Lemonnier, P.(1980). Les Salinesde l'Ouest,logiquetechnique, logiquesociale.Editionde la Maison
des Sciencesde l'Homme,Paris.
Lemonnier, P.( 1992). Leroi-Gourhan ethnologue destechniques. Les Nouvellesde l 'Archologie 48/49:
13-17.
Lemonnier, P. (1993). Introduction. In Lemonnier. P. (ed.). Technological choices.Transformation in
MaterialCulturesSincetheNeolithic.Routledee,London,pp. 1-35.
Lemonnier, P.(1994). Choixtechniques etreprsentation de l'enfermement chezlesAngade Nouvelle-
Guine.Ethnologie et technologie. In Latour,B., and Lemonnier, P. (eds.). De la prhistoireaux
missilesbalistiques, l'intelligence des techniques. La Dcouverte, Paris,pp. 254-270.
Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1943). Evolutionet techniques /- L'Hommeet la matire, AlbinMichel,Paris.
Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1945). Evolutionet techniauesil- Milieuet techniques, AlbinMichel,Paris.
Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1946). Symboliquedu vtement japonais.Rythmes du Monde4: 31-40.
Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1952a). Homofaber-Homosapiens.Revuede Synthse 30: 79-102.
Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1952b). Sur la positionscientifique de l'ethnologie. Revuephilosophique. Paris
octobre-dcembre: 506-508.
 a PhilosopherofTechnique
Lero-Gourhan, 305

Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1964a). Le gesteetla parolei- Technique et langage,AlbinMichel,Paris.

Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1964b).Les religions de la prhistoire.PressesUniversitaires de France,Paris.
Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1965a). Le gesteetla paroleIl-La mmoire et les rythmes,AlbinMichel,Paris.
Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1965b).Prhistoire de l'Artoccidental,Mazenod,Paris.
Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1970). Observations technologiques surle rythme In Exchangesetcom-
statuaire.
munications (Mlangesofferts C. Lvi-Strauss),Mouton,La Hague,pp. 658-676.
Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1971). Evolution ettechniques I- L'Hommeetla matire, 2ndedn.,AlbinMichel,
Paris.
Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1973). Evolutionet techniques II- Milieuet techniques, 2ndedn.,AlbinMichel,
Paris.
Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1982). TheDawnofEuropeanArt,CambridgeUniversity Press,Cambridge, MA.
Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1993). Gestureand Speech (translated by Anna BostockBerger),MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Leroi-Gourhan, A., and Brzillon,M. (1966). L'habitationmagdalnienne n~l de Pincevent, prs
Montereau (Seine-et-Marne). Gallia-Prhistoire 9(2): 263-385.
Lvy-Strauss, C. (1988). Nous avonslui et moiessayde faire peu prsla mmechose.In Andr
Leroi-Gourlian ou les Voiesde l'Homme(Actesducolloquedu CNRS- mars1987).AlbinMichel,
Paris,pp.201-206.
Maget,M. ( 1953). Guided'tudedirectedescomportements culturels. du Sud,
Editiondes civilisations
Paris.
Martinelli,B. (1988). Aprs AndrLeroi-Gourhan:les cheminsde la technologie.In Andr
Leroi-Gourhan ou les voiesde l'homme, actesdu colloquedu CNRS,Paris 1987,Albin-Michel,
Paris,pp.61-89.
Mauss,M. (1936). Les techniques du corps.Journalde Psychologie. 32(3/4): 271-293.
Mithen, S. (1996). ThePrehistory oftheMind,Thamesand Hudson,London.
Plegrin,J.(1993). A framework foranalysingprehistoric stonetoolsmanufacture and a tentative
application tosomeearlyindustries. In Berthelet,A., andChavaillon,J.(eds.). TheUse ofTools
byHumansand Non-Human Primates(symposiaof theFyssenFoundationNo. 3), Clarendon
Press,Oxford, pp.302-314.
Plegrin,J.,Karlin,C, and Bodu, P. (1988). Chanesopratoires: un outilpourle prhistorien. In
Tixier,J.(ed.), Technologie prhistorique. Editionsdu CNRS. Paris,pp. 55-62.
J.L. ( 1991). Refitting,
Phillips, edge-wearandchanesopratoires: A case studyfromSinai.In 25 ans
d'Etudestechnologiques en Prhistoire, Bilanetperspectives. Actesdes Xl rencontres interna-
tionalesd'archologieet d'histoired'Antibes(18-20 octobre1990). APDCA, Antibes,France,
pp.305-317.
Pigeot,N. ( 1987).Magdalniens d Etiolles;conomie, dudbitageetorganisation sociale.XXVesuppi
toGallia-Prhistoire, Editionsdu CNRS, Paris.
Pigeot,N. (1990). Technicaland social actors:Flintknapping specialistsat MagdalenianEtiolles.
Cambridge Archaeological Review 9: 126- 141.
Ploux,S., Karlin,C, andBodu,P. ( 1991). D'une chanel'autre:Normesetvariations dansle dbitage
laminaire magdalnien. Techniques et Culture17/18:81-1 14.
Sackett,J.R. (1966). Quantitative analysisofUpperPaleolithicstonetools.AmericanAnthropologist
68: 356-394.
Schlanger, N. (1994). Piagetet Leroi-Gourhan. Deux conceptionsbiologiquesdes connaissanceset
des techniques. In Latour,B., andLemonnier, aux missilesbalistiques,
P. (eds.),De la prhistoire
l'intelligence des techniques.La Dcouverte,Paris,pp. 165-183.
Sigaut,F.( 199 1). Uncouteaunesertpas coupermaisencoupant.Structure, fonctionnement etfonction
dansl'analysedes objets.In Tixier,J.(ed.),25 ans d'tudestechnologiques enprhistoire, actes
desXleRencontres internationales
d'Archologie etd'Histoired'Antibes1991,APDCA, Antibes,
France,pp. 21-34.
Simek,J.F. (1994). The organization oftechnology andevolution:Notesfromthecontinent. In Carr,
P. J.(ed.). TheOrganization ofNorthAmericanPrehistoric ChippedStoneToolsTechnologies,
International Monographs in Prehistory,AnnArbor,MI, pp. 118-123.
Spaulding,A. C. (1960). Statisticaldescription and comparisonof artifact assemblages.In Heizer,
R. F., and Cook,S. F. (eds.). TheApplicationof Quantitative Methodsin Archaeology. Viking
FundPublications inAnthropology 28, QuadrangleBooks,Chicago,pp. 60-92.
506 Audouze

B. (1992a). Leroi-Gourhan,
Stiegler, partinauditede l'anthropologie.Les Nouvellesde l'Archologie
48/49:23-30.
Stiegler,B. (1992b). La programmatologie de Leroi-Gourhan. Les Nouvellesde l Archologie48/49:
31-36.
B. (1994). La technique
Stiegler, etle temps,L La fauted%Epimthe, Galile/Citdes Sciencesetde
VIndustrie, Paris.
Tixier,J.(d.) (1988). Technologie prhistorique, Editionsdu CNRS, Paris.
Ucko,P.,andRosenfeld, A. (1967). PaleolithicCave Art,McGraw-Hill, NewYork.
White,R. (1989). Production complexity and standardisation in earlyAurignacian bead and pendant
manufacture: Evolutionary implications. C, and Mellars,P. (eds.),TheHumanRev-
In Stringer,
olution:Behaviouraland BiologicalPerspectives on theOriginsofModernHumans,Edinburgh
University Press,Edinburgh, Scotland,pp. 366-390.
White,R. (1997). Substantial acts:Frommaterials to meaningin UpperPaleolithic In
representation.
Conkey,M. W.,Soffer, O., Stratmann, D., andJablonski, N. (eds.).BeyondArt:UpperPaleolithic
Symbolism, CaliforniaAcademyof Sciences.San Francisco,pp. 93-121.
Yamanaka,I. (2000). Le Japonvu par AndrLeroi-Gourhan, 1937-1939, Vol. L Osaka Culture
Association, Kyoto,Japan.
Yamanaka,I. (2001). Le Japonvu par AndrLeroi-Gourhan, 1937-1939, Vol.2, Osaka Culture
Association, Kyoto,Japan.

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF RECENT LITERATURE

Audouze,F. (1999). New advancesinFrenchprehistory. Antiquity 73: 167-175.

Bleed,P. (2001). Treesorchains,linksorbranches:Conceptualalternatives forconsiderationofstone
toolproduction andothersequentialactivities.JournalofArchaeological Methodand Theory 8:
101-127.
Boda,E. ( 1997). Technogense du systme de production lithiqueau Palolithique etmoyen
infrieur
en Europeoccidentaleetau Proche-Orient, Habilitation,Universit de ParisX-Nanterre.
Coudait,A. (1999). Is post-processualism boundto happeneverywhere? The Frenchcase. Antiquity
73(279): 161-167.
Inizan,ML., Roche,H., andTexier,J.( 1999). Technology and Terminology ofKnappedStone,CREP,
Nanterre, France.
Michelson,A. (1986). In praiseofhorizontally: AndrLeroi-Gourhan. 1911-1986.October37: 3-5.
Plegrin,J. (2000). Les techniquesde dbitagelaminaireau Tardiglaciaire: critresde diagnoseet
quelques rflexions. In Valentin,B., and Bodu. P. (eds.), L'Europecentraleet septentrionale
au Tardiglaciaire. Confrontationdes modlesrgionauxde peuplement, APRAIF,Nemours,
pp. 73-86.
Ptrequin,P., Ptrequin, A.-M.,Jeudy,F., Jeunesse,C Monnier,J.L., Plegrin,J.,and Praud,Y.
(1998). Fromtherawmaterial totheNeolithicstoneaxe. Production processesandsocialcontext.
In Edmonds,M, andRichards, C. (eds.). Understanding theNeolithicofNorth-Western Europe,
Cruithne Press,Glasgow,Scotland,pp. 277-311.
Valentin, B. (1995). Les groupeshumainsetleurstraditions au Tardiglaciairedansle BassinParisien,
Ph.D. Dissertation, de Paris,Paris.
Universit