Although he died in obscurity, the Belgian museum conservator Aimé Rutot was one of the most famous European archaeologists between 1900 and 1920. The focus of his scientific interest was stone flints, which he claimed to be the oldest known human tools, so‐called eoliths. Skeptics maintained that the flints showed no marks of human workmanship, but Rutot nevertheless managed to spread his “Eolithic theory” in an important part of the scientific community. This essay demonstrates how material objects—series of stone flints (...) and sets of statues that purported to reconstruct prehistoric “races”—were given scientific meaning by Rutot. Rutot diffused his ideas by disseminating his stones and statues, thus enlarging his networks of influence. For a time he managed to be at the material center of a trade network as well as at the intellectual center of archaeological debate. The essay shows how Rutot achieved this status and how he eventually fell from favor among serious scientists. (shrink)

This essay tells the story of early French ethology—“the science dealing with the habits of living beings and their relations, both with each other and with the cosmic environment.” The driving force behind this “ethological movement” was the biologist Alfred Giard (1846–1908). The essay discusses how the ethological viewpoint of Giard and his pupils developed in a period in which the current disciplines of field biology were not yet crystallized. It also shows how concepts and research interests could travel within (...) Giard's network from one working context to another, even from one discipline to another. By studying this traveling process, the essay reveals that, unlike the modern ethology of Konrad Lorenz and Niko Tinbergen, Giard's ethology was not a discipline at all but, rather, a scientific attitude. This scientific attitude triggered a reappraisal of fieldwork, but at the same time Giard's ethology was never limited to the field alone. It also found its way to the laboratory, the museum, and the zoo. -/- . (shrink)

Summary In 1918, Henry de Dorlodot—priest, theologian, and professor of geology at the University of Louvain (Belgium)—published Le Darwinisme au point de vue de l'Orthodoxie Catholique (translated as Darwinism and Catholic Thought) in which he defended a reconciliation between evolutionary theory and Catholicism with his own particular kind of theistic evolutionism. He subsequently announced a second volume in which he would extend his conclusions to the origin of Man. Traditionalist circles in Rome reacted vehemently. Operating through the Pontifical Biblical Commission, (...) they tried to force Dorlodot to withdraw his book and to publicly disown his ideas by threatening him with an official condemnation, a strategy that had been used against Catholic evolutionists since the late nineteenth century. The archival material on the ‘Dorlodot affair’ shows how this policy ‘worked’ in the early stages of the twentieth century but also how it would eventually reach the end of its logic. The growing popularity of theistic evolutionism among Catholic intellectuals, combined with Dorlodot's refusal to pull back amidst threats, made certain that the traditionalists did not get their way completely, and the affair ended in an uncomfortable status quo. Dorlodot did not receive the official condemnation that had been threatened, nor did he withdraw his theories, although he stopped short on publishing on the subject. With the decline of the traditionalists’ power and authority, the policy of denunciation towards evolutionists made way for a growing tolerance. The ‘Dorlodot affair’—which occurred in a pivotal era in the history of the Church—can be seen as exemplary with regards to the changing attitude of the Roman authorities towards evolutionism in the first half of the twentieth century. (shrink)

Around 1960, leading figures in the international conservation circuit – such as Julian Huxley, Frank Fraser Darling and E. Barton Worthington – successfully propagated new visions about the value of undomesticated African mammals. Against traditional ideas, they presented these mammals as a highly efficient source of protein for growing African populations. In line with this vision, they challenged non-interventionist ideals of nature preservation, and launched proposals for active management through game ‘ranching’ and ‘cropping’. As such, they created a new socio-technical (...) imaginary for Africa's future, in which the consumption of wildlife meat took up a central position. This article explores the motivations of Western conservationists for this drastic rebranding. It argues that the rationale of considering African wildlife in terms of protein played an important symbolical role at various levels. It was crucial in the reorganization of the transnational networks of conservation, but also in the boosting of their scientific reputation, in the restructuring of their institutional ties, and in their attempts to maintain an authoritative position for Western ecologists in a rapidly decolonizing world. (shrink)

In historical literature, Edouard van Beneden is mostly remembered for his cytological discoveries. Less well known, however, is that he also introduced evolutionary morphology – and indeed evolutionary theory as such – in the Belgian academic world. The introduction of this research programme cannot be understood without taking both the international and the national context into account. It was clearly the German example of the Jena University that inspired van Beneden in his research interests. The actual launch of evolutionary morphology (...) at his University of Liège was, however, also connected with the dynamic of Belgian university reforms and the local rationale of creating a research “school.” Thanks to his networks, his mastering of the rhetoric of the “new” biology, his low ideological profile and his capitalising on the new academic élan in late-19th century Belgium, van Beneden managed to turn his programme into a local success from the 1870s onwards. Two decades later, however, the conceptual underpinnings of evolutionary morphology came under attack and the “Van Beneden School” lost much of its vitality. Despite this, van Beneden’s evolutionary morphology was prototypical for the research that was to come. He was one of the first scientific heavyweights in Belgium to turn the university laboratory into a centre of scientific practice and the hub of a research school. (shrink)

In historical literature, Edouard van Beneden (1846–1910) is mostly remembered for his cytological discoveries. Less well known, however, is that he also introduced evolutionary morphology – and indeed evolutionary theory as such – in the Belgian academic world. The introduction of this research programme cannot be understood without taking both the international and the national context into account. It was clearly the German example of the Jena University that inspired van Beneden in his research interests. The actual launch of evolutionary (...) morphology at his University of Liège was, however, also connected with the dynamic of Belgian university reforms and the local rationale of creating a research “school.” Thanks to his networks, his mastering of the rhetoric of the “new” biology, his low ideological profile and his capitalising on the new academic élan in late-19th century Belgium, van Beneden managed to turn his programme into a local success from the 1870s onwards. Two decades later, however, the conceptual underpinnings of evolutionary morphology came under attack and the “Van Beneden School” lost much of its vitality. Despite this, van Beneden’s evolutionary morphology was prototypical for the research that was to come. He was one of the first scientific heavyweights in Belgium to turn the university laboratory into a centre of scientific practice and the hub of a research school. (shrink)

Numbers of European hamsters in the Dutch Province of Limburg have been subject to much scrutiny and controversy. In the late nineteenth century, policymakers who considered them too numerous set up eradication programs. In the second half of the twentieth century, even when its domestic relative increasingly circulated as a pet in urban spaces, the numbers of European hamsters in the rural areas collapsed. Large-scale preservation campaigns and reintroduction programs ensued. According to some media, all this has turned the European (...) hamster into the most expensive undomesticated animal of the Netherlands. A whole network of institutions became involved to save the species – ranging from local activist organizations, over zoos and universities, to federal ministries and international organizations. The interactions between the Dutch and ‘their’ hamsters, this article argues, were inscribed in various forms of biopolitics. The article highlights the changing discursive framings and spatial practices that have shaped the management of Cricetus cricetus over time and calls attention to the diversity of living and non-living agents that produced the multispecies choreographies of the present-day Limburg landscape. Finally, it alerts us to the kinds of agency that reside in the numbers of non-human animals. (shrink)

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, jésuite et paléontologue, est surtout connu pour ses idées peu orthodoxes, au travers desquelles il tenta de concilier la science évolutionniste avec ses théories spirituelles personnelles. En dépit de la censure de la part des autorités ecclésiastiques, Teilhard essaya d’élaborer cette conciliation et de la disséminer dans les milieux intellectuels catholiques. Pour mener à bien ces deux projets, il trouva du soutien dans les cercles évolutionnistes de l’Université Catholique de Louvain et la maison jésuite de la (...) même ville belge. Le réseau louvaniste de Teilhard agit comme un amplificateur important de ses idées et lui offrit une aide concrète pour répandre celles-ci et pour éviter la censure. Malgré leur influence mutuelle significative, des divergences d’ordre philosophique entre Teilhard et ses amis louvanistes demeurèrent pourtant, et finirent par les séparer. Pendant les années 1930, le réseau louvaniste de Teilhard fut dissous en grande partie. Ses actions ne restèrent pourtant pas sans résultat. Ce petit groupe d’intellectuels fit sans aucun doute évoluer le climat en faveur de l’évolutionnisme au sein des milieux catholiques, et prépara, de cette manière, le succès des idées teilhardiennes à la suite de la Seconde Guerre mondiale. The Jesuit and palaeontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin is basically known for his not always orthodox conceptions by which he tried to reconcile evolutionist science with his personal spiritual ideas. In spite of censorship from the ecclesiastical authorities, Teilhard attempted to elaborate this conciliation and to spread it among catholic intellectuals. For both of these projects he found crucial support in evolutionist circles at the Catholic University of Louvain and the Jesuit house in the same Belgian town. Teilhard’s Louvain network proved to be an important sounding board and it offered concrete help in spreading his ideas and in bypassing the censorship. Despite significant mutual influences, philosophical divergences between Teilhard and his Louvain friends remained, and would eventually drive them apart. Therefore, in the 1930s, Teilhard’s Louvain network largely dissolved. However, its actions had not been without result. This small group of intellectuals definitely changed the climate among Catholics in favour of evolutionism and thus prepared the success that Teilhardian ideas would have in the aftermath of the Second World War. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Jesuit und Paläontologe, ist vor allem wegen seiner nicht immer orthodoxen Ideen bekannt, mit denen er versuchte, die Evolutionstheorien mit seinen persönlichen spirituellen Überzeugungen zu vereinbaren. Ungeachtet der Zensur durch die kirchlichen Autoritäten bemühte sich Teilhard um die Ausarbeitung dieser Versöhnung und um ihre Verbreitung in den katholischen Intellektuellenmilieus. Bei der Verwirklichung dieser beiden Projekte fand er Hilfe in den evolutionistischen Kreisen der Katholischen Universität Löwen und bei der Jesuitengemeinschaft derselben Stadt. Das Löwener Netzwerk half ihm dabei, seine Ideen einem größeren Publikum zugänglich zu machen, und lieferte konkrete Unterstützung bei der Verbreitung der Thesen und bei der Umgehung der Zensur. Trotz ihrer bedeutenden gegenseitigen Beeinflussung bestanden jedoch auch weiterhin philosophische Divergenzen zwischen Teilhard und seinen Löwener Freunden, die schließlich zur Trennung führten. In den 30er Jahren wurde der Löwener Kreis um Teilhard größtenteils aufgelöst. Sein Handeln blieb jedoch nicht ohne Resultat. Diese kleine Gruppe Intellektueller hat mit Sicherheit dazu beigetragen, das Klima zugunsten der Evolutionstheorien innerhalb der katholischen Kreise zu verbessern und bereitete auf diese Weise den Weg für den Erfolg der teilhardschen Ideen nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg. (shrink)

ABSTRACT This essay tells the story of early French ethology— “the science dealing with the habits of living beings and their relations, both with each other and with the cosmic environment.” The driving force behind this “ethological movement” was the biologist Alfred Giard (1846– 1908). The essay discusses how the ethological viewpoint of Giard and his pupils developed in a period in which the current disciplines of field biology were not yet crystallized. It also shows how concepts and research interests (...) could travel within Giard’s network from one working context to another, even from one discipline to another. By studying this traveling process, the essay reveals that, unlike the modern ethology of Konrad Lorenz and Niko Tinbergen, Giard’s ethology was not a discipline at all but, rather, a scientific attitude. This scientific attitude triggered a reappraisal of fieldwork, but at the same time Giard’s ethology was never limited to the field alone. It also found its way to the laboratory, the museum, and the zoo. (shrink)

ArgumentSince the linguistic turn, the role of rhetoric in the circulation and the popular representation of knowledge has been widely accepted in science studies. This article aims to analyze not a textual form of scientific rhetoric, but the crucial role of materiality in scientific debates. It introduces the concept ofmaterial rhetoricto understand the promotional regimes in which material objects play an essential argumentative role. It analyzes the phenomenon by looking at two students of prehistory from nineteenth-century Belgium.In the study of (...) human prehistory and evolution, material data are either fairly abundant stone tools or very scarce fossil bones. These two types of material data stand for two different strategies in material rhetoric. In this article, the first strategy is exemplified by Aimé Rutot, who gathered great masses of eoliths. The second strategy is typified by the example of Julien Fraipont, who based his scientific career on only two Neanderthal skeletons. Rutot sent his “artifacts” to a very wide audience, while Fraipont showed his skeletons to only a few selected scholars. Unlike Rutot, however, Fraipont was able to monitor his audience's interpretation of the finds by means of personal contacts. What an archaeologist gains in reach, he or she apparently loses in control. In this article we argue that only those scholars who find the right balance between the extremes of reach and control will prove to be successful. (shrink)

In the early twentieth century, ornithology underwent significant changes. So far, these changes, basically, have been studied by focussing on the elite of professional biologists working at universities or state museums. However, important developments also occurred in what Lynn Nyhart has called “the civic realm” of science – the sphere given form by private naturalist associations, nature writers, taxidermists and school teachers. This article studies the changing dynamics of civic ornithology, by looking at one particular case: the influential orinthological observatory (...) in Rossitten, East-Prussia. This observatory, the first of its kind, was founded in 1901 and led, for the first three decades of its existence, by the minister Johannes Thienemann. This article analyses the ornithological practices Thienemann developed in Rossitten and the rhetoric he used to defend these practices. In both, so it is argued, one finds a mixture of the traditional, locally anchored naturalist approach with the new ideals of the “modern” and “experimental” university laboratories. The innovations which Thienemann introduced in this hybrid form of ornithology called for specific spatial strategies which made optimal use of the natural chatacteristics of his workplace and which mobilized a large civic network of geograhically scattered amateurs. At the same time, his work also altered the space he shared with the birds – materially, conceptually and culturally. Thus, this article maintains Thienemann's ornithology can only be understood by acknowledging its continuous interaction with the geographical and civic context in which it arose. (shrink)