MarcAntoine Kaeser: L’univers du préhistorien: Science, foi et politique dans l’œuvre et la vie d’ÉduardDesor (1811–1882),L’univers du préhistorien: Science, foi et politique dans l’oeuvre et la vie d’Éduard Desor(1811–1882) by Marc‐Antoine  KaeserReview by: rev. by Michael ChazanIsis, Vol. 97, No. 2 (June 2006), p. 365Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/507378 .

Accessed: 17/06/2014 23:40

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 ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

The University of Chicago Press and The History of Science Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to Isis.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.82 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 23:40:31 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BOOK REVIEWS—ISIS, 97 : 2 (2006) 365

Marc-Antoine Kaeser. L’univers du prehisto-rien: Science, foi et politique dans l’oeuvre et lavie d’Eduard Desor (1811–1882). (Histoire desSciences Humaines.) 621 pp., illus., bibl., in-dexes. Paris: L’Harmattan, 2004.

Eduard Desor is an obscure figure in the historyof biology, known mostly for the scandal sur-rounding his public breach with Louis Aggassizin 1848. In L’univers du prehistorien,Marc-An-toine Kaeser has produced a thorough biograph-ical study grounded in a wealth of archival ma-terial. Kaeser’s biography succeeds brilliantly inpresenting the career of a scientist at the marginsof nineteenth-century science. However, whenhe tries to argue that Desor should be recognizedas a more central figure in the history of sciencethe result is forced and unconvincing. Particu-larly problematic, given the focus of the book,is that Kaeser does not establish that Desorplayed a critical role in the development of pre-historic archaeology.

Desor was never trained as a scientist. His en-try into the sciences came by way of his em-ployment as secretary to Agassiz. In this role De-sor joined a scientific team in which he rapidlybecame integrated into research projects, pri-marily in the glacial geology of the Alps. WhenAgassiz moved to the United States in 1846 De-sor followed. However, by this point many ofthe tensions in his relationship with Agassiz,which in 1848 erupted in charges of immoralityand plagiarism, were already in place.

The most interesting parts of Kaeser’s biog-raphy trace the web of connections created byDesor in the course of his career. The link toAgassiz is already well known, but other signifi-cant connections emerge for the first time in thisstudy. While traveling to the United States, De-sor made a detour to visit Scandinavia and studyglacial features; there he met the zoologist andprehistorian Sven Nilsson. This meeting createdone of the first links between glacial geology andthe emerging field of prehistory. The extent ofthe network Desor created after arriving in theUnited States is particularly striking. In Cam-bridge he became a follower of the radical Uni-tarian theologian Theodore Parker. Parker be-lieved in the historical interpretation of biblicaltext and the reconciliation of science and reli-gion. He introduced Desor to prominent Tran-scendentalists, including Henry David Thoreauand Ralph Waldo Emerson. Desor also traveledwidely in the United States, participating in geo-logical surveys along Lake Superior.

Desor’s life took a sudden turn once again in1852, when he was called back to Neuchatel to

care for his ailing brother. After his brother’sdeath, in 1858, Desor inherited significantwealth, which allowed him to pursue an eclecticcareer that combined local and national politicalengagement, spiritualism, educational reform,science (including fieldwork in the Sahara), and,eventually, prehistory. When submerged Neo-lithic and Bronze Age sites were discovered inSwitzerland, Desor threw himself into theemerging discipline of prehistory. His engage-ment with prehistory involved supporting field-work around Neuchatel (he did none of the workhimself), writing popular syntheses, and tire-lessly organizing meetings and groups. With hiswide network of connections in the scientificworld, Desor was able to play a critical role increating many of the organizations, including an-nual international congresses, that provided theframework for the emerging field of prehistory.

There are some surprising gaps in Desor’s ca-reer as it emerges in Kaeser’s biography. Darwinappears to have eluded him completely, andthere is no mention of the dispute over the theoryof evolution that vexed Agassiz’s later years. Itis also puzzling that, despite his experience as ageologist, Desor never emphasized the potentialof stratigraphy for archaeology. Nor does he ap-pear to have shown much interest in exploringglacial strata for evidence of early human occu-pation.

Kaeser’s biography of Desor provides insightinto the social and intellectual context of theemerging discipline of prehistory. Without for-mal scientific training, Desor became a scientistby living the life of a scientist. Alongside hisscientific career, he was also an active participantin both local and national politics and pursued aspiritual path that followed Parker’s radical the-ology. By training his attention on a secondaryfigure, Kaeser is able to retrieve a valuable per-spective on the fabric of scientific practice dur-ing the critical period that saw fundamentalshifts in biology and the emergence of prehis-tory.

MICHAEL CHAZAN

Helge Kragh.Matter and Spirit in the Universe:Scientific and Religious Preludes to ModernCosmology. (History of Modern Physical Sci-ences, 3.) 298 pp., bibl., index. London: ImperialCollege Press, 2004. $62 (cloth).

It is widely known that the history of the lifesciences during the last two hundred yearsabounds in cases where science and religionhave interacted. It is less widely recognized thatthe history of the physical sciences since 1800

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.82 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 23:40:31 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions