Archaeology by Experiment

  Experimental Archaeology

Experimental archaeology is one of the methods available to us in the process of studying the material remains of life in the past. It is a sub-discipline and draws heavily on cornerstones of scientific methodology, which is described as the assumptions, and theories that determine the methods of archaeological investigation, and the procedures by which archaeological statements are tested, allying itself closely with the procession approach proposed by Lewis Binford in the 1960’s. It also tries to take the patterns observed in archaeological recordings and studies the processes that man would have had to engage in to produce those patterns.

Experimental archaeology aims to test hypotheses and data resource, whilst being replicated so that its results may be assessed statistically, though not exclusively, of those associated with function, technology, or economic matter about the past. Forming a hypothesis about a process, artefact, or ecofact and testing it using similar materials to those found on site. For example using replica artefacts to discover their function. Reconstruction use data as the basis for models that can be tested. Recreating taphonomic and other transformation processes to understand the patterns on real archaeological site. Peter Reynolds makes the following statement that experiment is by definition a method of establishing a reasoned conclusion, against an initial hypothesis by trial or test.

However the true experimental archaeology still suffers from something of a malaise; experimental archaeology has not come of age and there remains a ‘persistence of and unexpected immaturity in this field. If the experiment is done correctly, it can recreate situations as close to the original as possible. This can also help in the understanding of the original problem of human settlement subsistence, for example shelter, and many different arts and crafts. In order for such an archaeological experiment to succeed, it must have been well designed and aimed at answering specific research questions.

A further consideration is the fact that archaeological records are often incomplete, inaccurate, be politically motivated or not relevant to the questions that the archaeologist is attempting to answer. After all, he sometimes only has bones, stone chips and bits of ruins to go on although occasionally he is more fortunate with monuments and graves, which can give a more positive result in an experiment as they would contain more easily understood information. Additionally, ‘experimental archaeology has nothing to do with ‘living in the past’, ‘dressing in period costume’, ‘re-enactment of past events’ or indeed, the teaching of well understood techniques.

In order for an archaeological experiment to succeeded it must have been well designed and aim at answering specific research questions. Its not just simply scientifically valid to construct a shaft furnace in a garden in order to see what will happen, and in this respect we must call into question several of the projects carried out by popular television programmes such as Time Team who time is short and use modern technology to make the experiments work this is what I feel is not experimental archaeology at its best, in forcing such experiments to work to make good viewing.

British Television has made some effort to illustrate how we lived in the past with various programmes but these as in the re-enactment of the Iron Age have shown very little in the way of true archaeological experiments and also little in the way in which Iron Age man lived and work and can tells us more about modern sociology than earlier society. In addition and, in my opinion, the most important of all how Iron Age Man used his brains to make new tools. The programme could be said to try to re-enact, but the emphasis is usually on what would make good television rather than making a factual documentary.

The one positive thing what did come out of this programme was that it highlighted the fact that twenty first century man would never have coped with the basic living conditions of Iron Age Man. Experimental archaeology draws itself on three main disciplines, which are, education, experience and experiment. Education is vital if we are to learn from the experiment that is to being carried out.

Additionally, by using replica artefacts to construct tools in the manner of Iron Age Man we are able to discover their function as well as problems that he would have encountered a good example is flint axes. We can test them to see how effectively they would have been in chopping down trees and we can compare the wear patterns with known Neolithic examples. At Plymouth Plantation in America archaeologists attempted to recreate activities from the past. The remains of an experimental village were examined there and they maybe overlap ethnoarchaeology. Those carrying out the experiments would then study the variations by comparing their own findings with those from previous archaeological examples..Taphonomy (the study of post-mortem history of organics remains and the process of their becoming part of the fossil deposits) can be used in experimental archaeology as well as other transformation processes, which help us to be to understand   patterns created on a real archaeological site. In Africa, for example, studies showed effects of scavengers on distribution of bones from a carcass.

Archaeology Experiments

Other archaeological experiments have been carried out in the Somerset Levels after discovering a Neolithic trackway. John and Bryony Coles did experiments on the use of different axes used in the construction of the Sweet Track. The focus was the ends of the pegs that were uncovered by archaeological excavations to find out how these end pegs were created. These experiments found Neolithic man using a stone axe produced the ends of the pegs that showed dished facets. The felling of trees showed the stone axe only bruised the timber whilst the Bronze Age axe did not.

They also carried out archaeological experiments on how Neolithic man managed to split tree trunks to make planks by using wedges, which were hammered into the trunk of the tree, and it was possible to do. An important point is that such experiments can only confirm that it could have been used in the past, not that it actually was. Experimental archaeology can be of ‘particularly important in investigating structures from prehistoric and medieval times. John Coles also did an experiment in the reconstruction of the Sweet Track. The experiment gave good evidence that the trackway could cross the swap quite quickly. They revisited the trackway a year later and found that it was covered in places and hidden from view by vegetation, which had died in the winter and collapsed over it. The experiment also provided archaeological evidence that the reeds needed to be cut back by using flint tools to keep the trackway clear from obstacles.

Archaeology experiments can also be used to either prove or disprove theories and interpretations. It had once been believed that typical Iron Age storage pits in Britain could only hold up to five bushels of grain. Later experiments found this belief to untrue and in fact, it was subsequently shown that the capacity was actually no fewer than forty-four bushels. Such archaeological evidence gave a new understanding that Iron Age farming was much more intense than was at first believed. Butser Ancient Farm carried out experiments on ancient farming practices to reconstruct the full agricultural cycle of the Iron Age People, using only implements and methods which would have been employed by them. The experiment was to show how such farming was developed and how the fields were prepared levelled with branches and the seed sown in shallow furrows, made with a kooked stick before the seeds were sown in to the ground.

The archaeological experiments recreated how Iron Age man harvested his land by using sickles and flint tools, however the experiment also showed how nature had intervened Unfortunately, the wheat plot had been savagely mauled by hares in the summer and failed to ripen sufficiently. Which I think is good as it highlighted that Iron man must have had the same problems, as did those carrying out the experiment. The next stage was the storage of the harvest. The Iron Age people dug pits in the ground, filled them with grain and then made the pit airtight and watertight; sometimes the pits were lined with wickerwork. The reconstruction took the four pits that were dug and using just two of the larger pits that were lined with basketwork and made watertight with clay.

One was filled with grain having a moisture content of 22% and the other filled with grain, moisture content 14%. Copper pipes were fitted to test for carbon dioxide build-up and the pits were sealed. The object of this part of the experiment is to determine the relative values of storing wet and dry grain for both methods were used by Iron Age man. Such experiments have shown how Iron Age man was able to store grain.

Argument Against

The argument against is built around the issue of proof. Experiments don’t work all the time neither do they always illustrate the strong points that were hoped for. Jane McIntosh explains that archaeology experiments can also show flaws in experimental archaeology theories like Kon-Tiki.. Kon-Tiki was built as a copy of a prehistoric South American vessel, which did not sink to the bottom as many had predicated it would. However, the voyage of the Kon-Tiki exposed a false assumption, as the archaeological evidence was so overwhelmingly in favour of settlement from Southeast Asia

Another archaeological experiments were carried out by recreating a Greek and Roman warships the most recent to date is the reconstruction of the Olympias that was used to test configurations of oarsmen and claims for the speed and manoeuverability However, this has raised problems with the reconstruction and the size of the crew but no illustration or descriptions gives an unambiguous account of the arrangement It could be argued that the validity of the experiment carried out.

One argument for experimental archaeology is that it may be seen as an attempt to discover practical aspects that might otherwise have been overlooked. One such example could be experimenting with antler picks and using wicker baskets for carrying rubble used during construction. By this method a pattern could be produced which would illustrate the number of man-hours accurately involved in constructing a building. From this information, the archaeologist could establish the size of the workforce, which would be used to accomplish such a task. It may also be used in an attempt to resolve how monoliths would be best moved, either on rollers or beds of straw.

It is also important to remember that there is no way that one can think one’s way into the mind of a different culture by simply dressing up and acting the part of Iron Age Man, so that would be of little value when studying archaeology. However, the reconstruction of a prehistoric or an historic building such as Butser Hill is of very real value because it demonstrates how and why buildings were made. At Butser Ancient Farm which was a programme for both research and education experimental archaeology has allowed the archaeologist to combine experience with education, which is of true value.

The Anglo Saxon house at West Stow was based on archaeological excavation remains. Accuracy may be popular with the public but may be misleading. It may be possible to reconstruct a wooden handle of an Iron Age tool with a degree of accuracy but, rebuilding a Neolithic house by using the post holes found on site will become more problematic. It is far better to show how something was used even if this means how inaccurate or provide the evidence and ask people to make their own assumptions. At The Jorvick Centre in York, who tried to recreate the Vikings past by introducing everyday smells, I feel can not be archaeological experiments as we really never know what the everyday smells were really like, we can only take a rough guess, plus this is really not experimental archaeology at work. It is down to archaeologist’s personal choice and judgements on the smells that surrounded the Vikings at the time.

If we were to carry out an archaeological experiment, we must use the same technology as our ancestors had used, so we can learn from our own mistakes and if it was at all possible to recreate in the same way. Its far too easy to create a design using a computer which can give accurate details on various angles but I feel all that we have created is an accurate model and not a one our ancestors would even recognised.

Construct, Process, and Function

Construct is the means of exploration in three-dimensions of the ground plan of a structure, which is revealed by archaeological excavation. They are restricted to sites like the one at the Welsh Folk Museum to where reconstruction takes place are recorded in full detail and disassembled at the location. Where only a ground plan survives, any structure based on it can only be conjecture and is therefore termed a construct. The best example is the experimental earthworks at Overton and Wareham Down earthworks in Britain.

Process and Function experiments seek to examine how thing were achieved One example is the storage pit s of the Iron Age which were used for long-term storage of grain. The experiment not only established the methodology of storing grain in underground silos and its efficiency or otherwise, they also proved that it is possible to store seed grain.

There is a continuing need for further process and function experiments, especially with regard to implements which currently attract definitive interpretations, as well as with structures which are customarily designated as buildings or features. The work of James Wood and Gene Titmus in limestone quarries of Nakbe, has provide examples of reconstruction of stone tools on the site and they effect on wood cutting experiments. However, these experiment are worthless as no evidence of the tools has yet been found and the replicas used relied on evidence imported from other sites.

Simulation is a style of experiment and has led to some of the most successful attempts in archaeological experiments. Examining the prime data projecting backwards to form a construct does this; the decay over a space of time the construct can be watched and compared back to prime data. A good example of this technique is the archaeological experiments at Overton and Wareham Down Eventuality Trials. These are probably the most complicated types of archaeological experiment that can be constructed. The aim is to examine the eventual yield and efficiency of a process and to determine its best and worst-case scenarios. Again, Butser has led the way in this kind of experiment, for since 1972 a series of agricultural trials has been carried out there, based on a good knowledge of prehistoric farming techniques and crops.

These resources are maintained by and © Webmaster of these pages No part of any of this text or pictures must be copied without consent All Rights Reserved. All information published on this site is corrected and was working when the site was launched by its owners