Series in Progress: Antiquities of Nature,Numismatics and Stone Implements in the Emergence of Prehistoric Archaeology

For more archaeologically-oriented appraisal of antiquarian historiography, first developed by Arnaldo Momigliano, see particularly Schnapp Alain , La conqute du passé: Aux origines de l'archéologie (Paris, 1993), translated as The discovery of the past: The origins of archaeology (London, 1996); Piggott Stuart , Ancient Britons and the antiquarian imagination (London, 1989); and Pinon Pierre , La Gaule retrouvée (Paris, 1991).

Leclerc Georges Louis de Buffon Comte , Époques de la nature (Paris, 1776), 3 (quoted and discussed in Schnapp , op. cit. (ref. 1), 271ff.). translations from the French are mine throughout.

Georges Cuvier, “Extrait d'un mémoire sur un animal dont on trouve les ossements dans la pierre à plâtre des environs de Paris, et qui parait ne plus exister vivant aujourd'hui” (1798), in Rudwick M. J. S. , Georges Cuvier, fossil bones and geological catastrophes (London, 1997), 286.

Georges Cuvier , Discours sur les révolutions de la surface du globe et sur les changements qu'elles ont produites dans le règne animal (Paris, 1822), 1. See Schnapp , op. cit. (ref. 1), 286 and Rudwick , op. cit. (ref. 3), 46 on the ‘monuments of physical history’.

Mantell Gideon , The medals of creation or, first lessons in geology, and the study of organic remains (London, 1854), i, 17, original emphasis.

Such an assessment would require a re-examination from the naturalists' perspective of what the likes of Caylus and Winckelmann were doing. See Schnapp , op. cit. (ref. 1), 266ff; Myrone Martin Peltz Lucy (eds)., Producing the past: Aspects of antiquarian culture and practice, 1700–1850 (London, 1999); Pearce Susan (ed.)., Visions of antiquity: The Society of Antiquaries of London 1707–2007 (London, 2007); and Aghion Irène (ed.)., Caylus mécène du roi: Collectionner les antiquités au XVIIIe siècle (Paris, 2002). see also Rappaport Rhoda , “Borrowed words: Problems of vocabulary in eighteenth-century geology”, The British journal for the history of science, xv (1982), 1982–44, pp. 27–31, on the aura of credibility surrounding the notion of ‘monument’ and the study of coins and medals. For his part, Krzysztof Pomian, “Médailles/coquilles = érudition/philosophie”, in Collectionneurs, amateurs et curieux. Paris, Venise: XVIe—XVIIIe siècle (Paris, 1987), 143–62, links a shift from numismatic to naturalist collections in the mid-eighteenth century to changing conceptions of historicity and aesthetics. For his part, Krzysztof Pomian, “Médailles/coquilles = érudition/philosophie”, in Collectionneurs, amateurs et curieux. Paris, Venise: XVIe—XVIIIe siècle (Paris, 1987), 143–62, links a shift from numismatic to naturalist collections in the mid-eighteenth century to changing conceptions of historicity and aesthetics.

See Evans Joan , Time and chance: The story of Arthur Evans and his forebears (London, 1943), and the recent celebratory volume, MacGregor Arthur (ed.), Sir John Evans (1823–1908): Antiquity, commerce and natural science in the age of Darwin (Oxford, 2008) whose contents sum up the Ashmolean Museum's Sir John Evans Centenary Project (http://johnevans.ashmolean.org/). For Evans's archaeological activities see Sherratt Andrew , “Darwin among the archaeologists: The John Evans nexus and the Borneo Caves”, Antiquity, lxxvi (2002), 2002–7; White M. J. , “Out of Abbeville: Sir John Evans, palaeolithic patriarch and hand axe pioneer”, in Milliken S. Cook J. (eds), A very remote period indeed: Papers on the Palaeolithic presented to Derek Roe (Oxford, 2001), 242–8; and the thorough discussion in O'Connor Anne , Finding time for the Old Stone Age: A history of palaeolithic archaeology and quaternary geology in Britain 1860–1960 (Oxford, 2007).

Evans John , “On the date of British coins”, Numismatic chronicle, xii (1850), 127–37.

See Babelon Ernest , Traité des monnaies greques et romaines: Première partie: Théorie et doctrine (Paris, 1901) and, more recently, Giard Jean-Baptiste , “L'évolution de la numismatique antique au XIXe siècle”, Revue suisse de numismatique, 1986, 167–74. For Celtic coins see de Beaulieu Jean-Baptiste Colbert , Traité de numismatique celtique. I: Méthodologie des ensembles (Paris, 1973), and for medieval coins Bompaire Marc Dumas Françoise , Numismatique médiévale: Monnaies et documents d'origine française (Turnhout, 2000). On Evans see de Jersey Philip , “Evans and ancient British coins”, in MacGregor (ed.), op. cit. (ref. 7), 152–72.

Evans John , The coins of the ancient Britons, arranged and described by John Evans F.S.A., F.G.S. and engraved by F. W. Fairholt, F.S.A. (London, 1864), 27–28. ”Evans returned to ‘natural selection’ with reference to Darwin in publications such as, The coinage of the ancient Britons and natural selection”, Notices of the proceedings of the Royal Institution of Great Britain, vii (1875), 1875–87, and The coins of the ancient Britons: Supplement (London, 1890).

Besides Cuvier's well known influence on such fields as linguistics and philology, his method inspired historical archaeologists from the 1840s: Van Riper A. B. , Men among the mammoths: Victorian science and the discovery of human prehistory (Chicago, 1993), 31ff. For architecture (and specifically Thomas Rickman's 1817 identification of Gothic styles) see Miele C. , “Real antiquity and the ancient object: The science of Gothic architecture and the restoration of medieval buildings”, in Brand V. (ed.), The study of the past in the Victorian age (Oxford, 1998), 103–24, pp. 117ff. For art history, see Walter Christine , “Towards a more ‘scientific’ archaeological tool: The accurate drawing of Greek vases between the end of the nineteenth and the first half of the twentieth centuries”, in Schlanger N. Nordbladh J. (eds), Archives, ancestors, practices: Archaeology in the light of its history (Oxford, 2008), 179–90. see also Blanckaert Claude , “Chrono-logiques: Le tournant historiciste des sciences humaines”, in Coye Noël Hurel Arnaud (eds), Archéologues et géologues dans l'épaisseur du temps (Paris, forthcoming).

Mantell distinguished between medals, “rare and splendid organic remains”, and fossil testaceous mollusca which “from their durability, numbers and variety, may be considered as the current coin of geology” valuable, to the likes of Lyell, for their quantitative, statistical potential ( Mantell , op. cit. (ref. 5), 436).

Evans , Coins (ref. 10), 34–5.

On the geological notion of Drift see Mantell , op. cit. (ref. 5), 19; van Riper , op. cit. (ref. 11), 69.

On Evans's visits to France see Evans Joan , op. cit. (ref. 7), 100ff; Evans Joan , “Ninety years ago”, Antiquity, xxiii (1949), 115–25; and Prestwich G. A. , Life and letters of Sir Joseph Prestwich (London, 1899), 119ff. The “moral and collateral testimony” is in Joseph Prestwich, “On the occurrence of flint-implements, associated with the remains of animals of extinct species in beds of a late geological period, in France at Amiens and Abbeville, and in England at Hoxne”, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society, cl (1860), 1860–318, p. 287. see also Aufrère Léon , “Figures de préhistoriens. I: Boucher de Perthes”, Préhistoire, vii (1940), 1940–134; Aufrère Léon , Le cercle d'Abbeville: Paléontologie et préhistoire dans la France romantique (Turnhout, 2007); Gruber Jacob , “Brixham Cave and the antiquity of man” (1965), reprinted in Murray Tim Evans Christopher (eds), Histories of archaeology: A reader in the history of archaeology (Oxford, 2008), 13–45; Grayson Donald K. , The establishment of human antiquity (New York, 1985); van Riper , op. cit. (ref. 11); Coye Noël , La préhistoire en parole et en acte: Méthodes et enjeux de la pratique archéologique (1830–1950) (Paris, 1997); O'Connor , op. cit. (ref. 7); and Richard Nathalie , Inventer la préhistoire: Les débuts de l'archéologie préhistorique en France (Paris, 2008).

Prestwich , “Flint-implements” (ref. 15), 303; Evans John , “On the occurrence of flint implements in undisturbed beds of gravel, sand and clay”, Archaeologia, xxxviii (1860), 280–307, quoted from the offprint version circulated by Evans, entitled Flint implements in the Drift; being an account of their discovery on the Continent and in England. Communicated to the Society of Antiquaries by John Evans, F.S.A., F.G.S. (London, 1860), 2.

The main publications are: Evans, “Flint implements” (ref. 16), and Evans , “Account of some further discoveries of flint implements in the Drift on the Continent and in England”, Archaeologia, xxxix (1862), 57–84, here quoted from the offprint version, op. cit. (ref. 16). These culminated in Evans's massive The ancient stone implements, weapons, and ornaments, of Great Britain (London, 1872 and subsequent edns).

Evans , “Flint implements” (ref. 16), and Prestwich , “Flint-implements” (ref. 15). The quote is from Evans's 1877 address cited (in a critical light) by Broom Robert , Finding the missing link (London, 1950), 4–5.

de Perthes J. Boucher , Antiquités celtiques et antédiluviennes: Mémoire sur l'industrie primitive et les arts à leur origine (Paris, 1847), i, 34, 178, 181.

Pinsard Charles , “La première hache en pierre authentiquement découverte à Saint-Acheul”, manuscript note to the photographs in Album Pinsard, Amiens, reproduced in de Bussac E. (ed.), 1859, naissance de la préhistoire: Récits des premiers témoins (Clermont-Ferrand, 1999), 251–5, p. 254. This in situ flint handaxe has recently been identified in the Prestwich collection (Cat. Num. E 5109) at the Natural History Museum by Clive Gamble and Robert Kruszynski, “John Evans, Joseph Prestwich and the stone that shattered the time barrier”, Antiquity, lxxxiii (2009), 2009–75.

This photograph and its accompanying close-up have been rediscovered in the Album Pinsard and published by M. Agache-Lecat, “Boucher de Perthes vue par une Anglaise”, Bulletin de la Société d'Émulation Historique et Littéraire d'Abbeville, xxiii (1972), 232–40, p. 233. de Bussac Compare , op. cit. (ref. 20); and Lewuillon Serge , “Positif/négatif: Les antiquités nationales, l'estampe et la photographie”, Les nouvelles de l'archéologie, cxiii (2008), 37–45, pp. 39ff. see also Lewuillon Serge , “Archaeological illustrations: A new development in 19th century science”, Antiquity, lxxvi (2002), 2002–34; Gamble Kruszynski , op. cit. (ref. 20); and Feyler Gabrielle , “Contribution à l'histoire des origines de la photographie archéologique: 1839–1880”, Mélanges de l'École Française de Rome: Antiquité, xcix (1987), 1987–47. Feyler quotes (p. 1029) the orientalist Victor Place (1851) who took photographs of ongoing in situ discoveries for his patrons in France: “one can from now on dispense with an illustrator, since what is at stake here is to bring back copies that would be exact rather than artistic.” See also Lyons Claire , Antiquity & photography: Early views of ancient Mediterranean sites (London, 2005), and for subsequent developments, Schlanger and Nordbladh , op. cit. (ref. 11), 164–230.

Evans wrote next day to his fiancée that “We had a photographer with us to take a view of it so as to corroborate our testimony” ( Evans Joan , op. cit. (ref. 7), 102), and some time later to the Society of Antiquaries (Evans, “Flint implements” (ref. 16), 16). See also Prestwich, “Flint implements” (ref. 15), 291–2, and Prestwich Joseph , “On the occurrence of flint-implements, associated with the remains of extinct mammalia, in undisturbed beds of a late geological period [abstract]”, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, x (1860), 50–9, p. 52. Lyell noted that Prestwich's Royal Society report was “accompanied by a photograph showing the position of the flint tool in situ before it was removed from its matrix”: Lyell Charles , The geological evidences of the antiquity of man (London, 1862), 103; Gamble Kruszynski , op. cit. (ref. 20). see also Evans Christopher , “‘Delineating objects’: Nineteenth-century antiquarian culture and the project of archaeology”, in Pearce (ed.), op. cit. (ref. 7), 267–303, pp. 271ff., 283.

Pouchet Georges , “Sur les débris de l'industrie humaine, attestant l'existence d'une race d'hommes contemporaine des animaux perdus”, session of 3 November 1859, Bulletin de la Société Anthropologique de Paris, i (1860), 42–53, p. 44 (followed by “Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire — Sur l'homme fossile”, and [Broca P.], “Reprise de la discussion sur les débris de l'industrie primitive”, ibid., 58–78, 84–9, 117–19). Pouchet wrongly gives the date of 1858 rather than 1859 and confused one Englishman (Evans) with another (Flower).

While their format, reproduction and control are unclear, the Pinsard photographs certainly circulated across the Channel. One should examine why they so rapidly disappeared from view and from disciplinary histories. Questions of personal trust and authority might be relevant: Both Evans and Prestwich sought to defend their hard-won authority from further impersonal mechanization. The label later affixed to the hand axe Pinsard photographed (now E5109, Natural History Museum) had an autograph addition by Prestwich stating “Present when found” ( Gamble Kruszynski , op. cit. (ref. 20), 470), just the kind of testimony photography was supposed to supersede. Pouchet immediately mitigated the ‘impersonal’ thrust of the photograph: “Nevertheless it was useful to undertake new verifications in order to convince oneself as much as to convince others” ( Pouchet , op. cit. (ref. 23), 44).

Evans , “Flint implements” (ref. 16), 16. The langue de chat implement, so called by the workers, is now E5109. On the compensation for time lost, see Pinsard , op. cit. (ref. 20), 252. The gravel served for road repairs and building purposes (Evans, “Flint implements” (ref. 16), 283). A revealing remark by Prestwich shows how cupidity was both denied and instilled: “I may observe that our visit, both at Abbeville and Amiens, was entirely unforeseen and unexpected, and very little value was then placed [by the workers] on either flint-implements or fossils” (Prestwich, “Flint implements” (ref. 15), 292).

Evans , Ancient stone implements (ref. 17), 575, emphasis added. Highly relevant issues concerning workers in early archaeological practice, their motivations and reliability cannot be developed further here.

Evans , “Flint implements” (ref. 16), 6 (on coin purchase), 18.

Grayson , op. cit. (ref. 15); van Riper , op. cit. (ref. 11), 134ff. On coin counterfeiting and fabrication, see Evans , Coins (ref. 10), 44–5; Evans John , “On the forgery of antiquities”, Notices of the Proceedings of the Royal Institution of Great Britain, iv (1866), 356–65. For frauds of flint implements see also Evans , “Further discoveries” (ref. 17), 14, on “unimpeachable” patina; Evans , Ancient stone implements (ref. 17), 574–7.

Evans , Ancient stone implements (ref. 17), 22, 292, 573ff.

Evans John , “On the form and nature of the flint-implements”, letter to Prestwich, 25 May 1859, Appendix A in Prestwich, “Flint implements” (ref. 15), 310–12, p. 310.

Evans , “British coins” (ref. 8), 135.

Besides the sources in ref. 9, see Hollard Dominique , “L'illustration numismatique au XIXe siècle”, Revue numismatique, 1991, 337–42, on the growing importance of photography for producing a corpus and for calibrating information between researchers. Evans himself recognised that in some cases “it would have been better to have recourse to the autotype process or some other means of photographic reproduction” (Supplement (ref. 10), 418).

Evans ended his 1850 paper with the proposition that ” The coins generally recede farther from the prototype as the places of their discovery recede from the southern coast”. He also pointed at the historical implications of distinguishing routes favoured by the Gauls and by the Romans (“British coins” (ref. 8), 136, 131–2). The table accompanying the plate (Figure 1 here) included, for each depicted coin, ” (item) number”, “metal”, “authority”, “weight (grains)” and “where found”. The expression “metallic mirror” is by Friedrich Creuzer, cited in Babelon , op. cit. (ref. 9), 66.

Links between numismatics and nineteenth-century prehistoric archaeology have been mentioned but under-researched. Only Gräslund has suggested that such Scandinavian scholars as J. J. Thomsen and later the Hildebrands (father and son) used to consider coins as chronological markers, extrapolated such qualities to other finds (weaponry, pottery), and applied to them the notion of ‘type’: Gräslund Bo , The birth of prehistoric chronology: Dating methods and dating systems in nineteenth-century Scandinavian archaeology (Cambridge, 1987), 26, 66, 99–100.

Evans , Ancient stone implements (ref. 17), p. v.

Evans John , The ancient bronze implements of Great Britain (London, 1881), pp. v, viii.

Evans's letter in Prestwich, “Flint implements” (ref. 15), 310. Evans's classification, discussion and illustration of ancient stone implements varied little across his publications. They were followed by most of his English contemporaries, including Lyell , op. cit. (ref. 22); Lubbock John , Pre-historic times as illustrated by ancient remains and the manners and customs of modern savages (London, 1865); and Stevens E. T. , Flint chips: A guide to pre-historic archaeology, as illustrated by the collection in the Blackmore Museum, Salisbury (London, 1870). For modern evaluations of Evans's stone implement work, see Roe Derek , The Lower and Middle Palaeolithic periods in Britain (London, 1981); White , op. cit. (ref. 7); O'Connor , op. cit. (ref. 7); and Roberts Alison Barton Nicholas , “Reading the unwritten story: Evans and ancient stone implements”, in MacGregor , op. cit. (ref. 7), 95–115.

Evans and like-minded colleagues connected the acceptance of high human antiquity on empirical grounds (including photographs) and the theoretical (and for some still suspect and inapplicable) Three Age System emanating from Scandinavia. See Rowley-Conwy Peter , From Genesis to prehistory: The archaeological Three Age System and its contested reception in Denmark, Britain, and Ireland (Oxford, 2007), 238–41, including the proposition that Evans's traditional antiquarian and numismatist credentials were important in making the more conservative members of the Society of Antiquaries better disposed to the Three Age System.

Evans's letter in Prestwich, “Flint-implements” (ref. 15), 310.

Lubbock , op. cit. (ref. 37), 2–3; see also Boucher de Perthes's distinction between ‘antediluvian’ and Celtic times.

Such a dichotomy between inscribed and uninscribed coins, of various metals and provenances, served Evans to structure his Coins (ref. 10), table of contents and p. 33.

Evans , Coins (ref. 10), 10–11. This did not keep Evans from soon identifying a repertoire of flake forms and functions. The perception of some implements and forms as ‘non-diagnostic’ echoes the numismatics phenomenon of ‘immobilisation’, when a type is conserved without changes across time and through several issuing authorities: Bompaire Dumas , op. cit. (ref. 9), 104ff.

Evans , “Further discoveries” (ref. 17), 25–6, emphasis in original. Plate IV is Figure 4 here.

Evans , “Flint implements” (ref. 16), 9; Evans , “Further discoveries” (ref. 17), 20–1; and Evans , Ancient stone implements (ref. 17), 561, 566–7. The barbarous implement is no. 10 in Figure 4 here.

Evans , Coins (ref. 10), 34. To this production-related variability must be added the ‘taphonomic’ transformations of each coin: Their patina, wear and tear, and eventual filings, alterations or markings. de Beaulieu Colbert , op. cit. (ref. 9), 13ff., has commented on the then widely held ‘postulate of infinite disparity’ in Gaulish coins. See Bompaire Dumas , op. cit. (ref. 9), 453–531, and Jere Wickens, ” The production of ancient coins”, Bearers of meaning (1996) at http://www.lawrence.edu/dept/art/buerger/essays/production.html.

Evans , Ancient stone implements (ref. 17), 567.

Bradley R. J. , “Archaeology, evolution and the public good: The intellectual development of General Pitt Rivers”, The archaeological journal, cxl (1983), 1–9; van Keuren D. K. , “Museums and ideology: Augustus Pitt-Rivers, anthropological museums, and social change in later Victorian Britain”. Victorian studies, xxviii (1984), 1984–89; Bowden Mark , Pitt Rivers: The life and archaeological work of Lieutenant-General Augustus Henry Lane Fox Pitt Rivers, DCL, FRS, FSA (Cambridge, 1991); Lucas Gavin , Critical approaches to fieldwork: Contemporary and historical archaeological practice (London, 2001); Petch Alison , “Chance and certitude: Pitt Rivers and his first collection”, Journal of the history of collections, xviii (2006), 2006–66; Evans Christopher , “Engineering the past: Pitt Rivers, Nemo and The Needle”, Antiquity, lxxx (2006), 2006–9; Gosden Christopher Larson Frances , Knowing things: Exploring the collections at the Pitt Rivers Museum 1884–1945 (Oxford, 2007), 94; and Steadman Philip , The evolution of designs: Biological analogy in architecture and the applied arts, rev. edn (London, 2008), 83–9.

International Congress of Prehistoric Archaeology, third session, Norwich—London, 20th to 28th August 1868 (London, 1869), p. xxii. On the institutional background see Chapman William Ryan , “The organizational context in the history of archaeology: Pitt Rivers and other British archaeologists in the 1860s”, The antiquaries journal, lxix (1989), 23–42; Evans Christopher , op. cit. (ref. 22).

Augustus Pitt Rivers [Lane Fox], “Primitive warfare, Part II: On the resemblance of the weapons of early man, their variation, continuity, and development of form”, Journal of the Royal United Services Institution, xii (1868), in Pitt Rivers , The evolution of culture and other essays (Oxford, 1906), 89–143, p. 116. On Cissbury see Bowden , op. cit. (ref. 47), 70–1. Joint expeditions are recorded in Evans, Ancient stone implements (ref. 17), 531.

From the sound observation, derived from Evans, that flint fracture could at times be difficult to control, Pitt Rivers rather disingenuously concluded that ” The earlier Palaeolithic forms … were not designed outright, as the nineteenth-century man would have designed them for special uses, but arose from a selection of varieties produced accidentally in the process of manufacture”: “On the evolution of culture”, Proceedings of the Royal Institute of Great Britain, vii (1875), in Rivers Pitt , op. cit. (ref. 49), 20–44, p. 34.

Rivers Pitt , “Primitive warfare” (ref. 49), 97.

Augustus Pitt Rivers [Lane Fox], Address to the anthropological section of the British Association (14 August 1872) (off-print, 1872), 12–13. The same ideas and illustrations are reiterated in “On the principles of classification adopted in the arrangement of his anthropological collection, now exhibited in the Bethnal Green Museum”, Journal of the Anthropological Institute, iv (1874), in Rivers Pitt , op. cit. (ref. 49), 1–19, p. 15, and in Pitt Rivers, “Evolution of culture” (ref. 50), 40–1.

The figure in Pitt Rivers, “Evolution of culture” (ref. 50), Plate XXI, is said to be reproduced, with permission, from Evans, “Coinage of Ancient Britons” (ref. 10).

Augustus Pitt Rivers, “Typological museums, as exemplified by the Pitt-Rivers Museum at Oxford, and his provincial museum at Farnham, Dorset”, Journal of the Society of Arts, xl (1891), 114–22, p. 121.

Rivers Pitt , “Primitive warfare” (ref. 49), 102.

Rivers Pitt , “Primitive warfare” (ref. 49), 103, 105–7.

Rivers Pitt , “Primitive warfare” (ref. 49), 108.

Evans's meticulous numismatic inspired gazetteer contrasted with Pitt Rivers's recourse to poorly provenanced and haphazardly collected specimens from around the world: Petch , op. cit. (ref. 47). Pitt Rivers had also placed at a crucial juncture of the series (items 12 to 15 or 17 in Figure 7) implements that were in reality unfinished and unpolished Celt pre-forms. On the other hand, he must be absolved of the visual illusion inscribed in this figure. His representation of Celt axes with their broad working edges downwards and not upwards, in morphological continuity with the Drift axes (base downwards), defies conventions that were only subsequently established. These may well be own representational conventions that reinforce the distinction between Drift and Celt implements.

Evans , Ancient stone implements (ref. 17), 560–1, 72, 568, 618.

The quote continues: “as there is little doubt that the whole of these varieties have been in use in one and the same district at the same time, the forms being to some extent adapted to the flake of flint from which the arrow-heads were made, and to some extent to the purposes which the arrows were to serve” ( Evans , Ancient stone implements (ref. 17), 330).

Duke of Argyll, Primeval man: An examination of some recent speculations (London, 1869), 181ff; Lyell , op. cit. (ref. 22), 377; and Dawkins William Boyd , Cave hunting: Researches on the evidence of caves respecting the early inhabitants of Europe (London, 1874), 352–3.

Systematization of the Palaeolithic mainly took place back in France, in the context of materialist and transformist debates in late Empire and early Third Republic science: Hammond Michael , “Anthropology as a weapon of social combat in late nineteenth-century France”, Journal of the history of the behavioural sciences, xvi (1980), 118–32; Harvey Joy , “Evolutionism transformed: Positivists and materialists in the Société d'Anthropologie de Paris from Second Empire to Third Republic”, in Oldroyd David Langham Ian (eds), The wider domains of evolutionary thought (New York, 1983), 289–310. See also Coye , op. cit. (ref. 15); Richard , op. cit. (ref. 15); and Schlanger Nathan , “Le travail en éclats: Perspectives historiques sur des problématiques actuelles”, Techniques et culture, xlvi (2006), 2006–32.

Evans , Ancient stone implements (ref. 17), 566.

Evans , Coins: Supplement (ref. 10), 421.

Evans , Coins: Supplement (ref. 10), 422.

Evans was praised in 1905 by George Macdonald for having “worked out independently, in the sphere of art, a philosophy that was strikingly consistent with the biological theory through which Darwin revolutionized the modes of human thought”: Coin types, their origin and development (Glasgow, 1905), 88.

Balfour Henry , The evolution of decorative arts (London, 1893), pp. viii, 30 on Evans's numismatics; Haddon Arthur Cort , Evolution in art as illustrated by the life history of designs (London, 1895), 313, on Evans.