Experimentation and Interpretation

the Use of Experimental Archaeology in the Study of the Past

Dana C. E. Millson

• Publisher: Oxbow Books
• Year: 2010
• ISBN:
  9781842178409
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Archaeology
• Index: Social Sciences

In December 2008, a session on Experimental Archaeology was held at TAG in Southampton. Although at first it seemed out-of-place to discuss a topic stemming from science at a theory conference, the contributions demonstrated that many of the best archaeological projects today are those which use methodology and interpretation from both the sciences and the arts. The contributions from the session, which focus on sites and material culture spanning from the Mesolithic to the Late Medieval periods, are presented in these proceedings. They range from the history of experimentation in archaeology and its place within the field today, to the theory behind 'the experiment', to several projects which have used controlled experimentation to test hypotheses about archaeological remains, past action, and the scientific processes we use. Now that archaeology has moved beyond the focus of the Processual/Post-Processual debates of the 1970s and 80s, which pitted science against the arts, archaeologists have more freedom to choose how to 'do archaeology'. The contributions to this book reflect this as problems are approached in creative ways, which move back and forth between science and theory in a hermeneutic fashion, and hypotheses are challenged and new theories formed. The session proved successful in creating a venue for positive discussion between archaeological scientists and theorists and it is this optimism that these proceedings aim to capture.

1. Introduction

Dana C. E. Millson

In December 2008, at the annual Theoretical Archaeological Group (TAG) conference in Southampton, I organized a session which focused on the use of experimentation in archaeology. Much curiosity ensued, questioning why such a practical part of archaeology should be discussed in a theory conference. Indeed, archaeology is a field which spans two (sometimes opposing) philosophies – that of science and arts – which is best described by Jones (2002, 1) as an “archaeology of ‘two cultures’.” It is this dichotomy which makes archaeology a strong discipline, capable of drawing knowledge from some of the most fragmentary evidence; but it is also what has caused much confusion about what archaeology is and how it should be conducted. This has caused countless arguments and even fissures within the discipline. In the midst of all this is Experimental Archaeology, which approaches the archaeological record in a scientific way, but in reality, is inextricably tied to the humanistic interpretations we create. It is how we test our hypotheses and then progress to develop new theories, and perhaps it is for this reason the session proposal was accepted in the first place. It is of no doubt, however, that the contributors’ projects, which demonstrate the interesting and novel ways in which Experimental Archaeology can be used, and the fascinating results it can offer, is what made the session so successful that, by the second half, the audience stretched into the corridor.

A Little Bit of History...

Experimental Archaeology is not a new idea, but an implement which has been used since the days of the antiquarians (Coles 1973, 13–14; Forrest 2008, 62–65). This often involved experimentation with actual artifacts that had been excavated, but some work, such as Pitt-Rivers’ (1876, 382–83) study at Cissbury, Sussex, involved the construction of replicas to perform planned experiments. Pitt-Rivers reconstructed antler picks that were found on-site and used them to dig ditches of the same depth and size as those at the hillfort. The results proved Pitt-Rivers’ inference correct that the ditches had been dug using the picks and that it could be done quickly, “...we had made an excavation 3 feet square and 3 feet deep in an hour and a half...it would have taken us twelve hours to form the longest gallery found...” (Pitt-Rivers 1876, 382).

However, it was not until the 1960s, particularly with the work of Louis Binford and followers of the New Archaeology, that Experimental Archaeology became established as a practice in its own right. After realizing that the culture-historical approach was not sufficient enough to give clear detail about past culture, Binford searched for new ways to approach archaeology:

An accurate and meaningful history is more than a generalized narrative of the changes in composition of the archaeological record through time...If we hope to achieve the aim of reconstructing culture history, we must develop means for using archaeological remains as a record of the past and as a source of data for testing propositions which we set forth regarding past events, rather than a record we can read according to a set of a priori rules or interpretive principles whose application allow the skilled interpreter to ‘reconstruct’ the past (Binford 1968, 11).

In contrast to past theoretical frameworks, his was a discipline which did not follow a straight path where new information was simply added to the story, but more of fibrous route where, “...every time you learn something new, it impacts on everything you ever thought you knew in some sense” (Sabloff 1998, 42, quoting Binford). Since he had first been educated in the natural sciences, taking a scientific approach, particularly testing hypotheses with experimentation, was an obvious step and he introduced the use of methods from other disciplines, particularly anthropology and the natural sciences.

In the early 1980s, however, a new movement began to develop, which criticized and rejected New Archaeology and its sub-disciplines. The Post-processualists argued that science was insufficient in the study of past culture because humans do not behave like organisms and cultures vary so greatly that scientific laws cannot be applied to them the same way as they can be to biological processes. It was further argued that objectivity could not be fully achieved when studying culture, because the bias of our own cultural values would always interfere with our interpretation (Trigger 2008, 456–57; Shanks and Tilley 1987). Moreover, they argued, the New Archaeologists, or Processualists, had completely ignored the fundamental aspects of culture that could not be considered empirically, like ideology and religion (Trigger 2008, 450–51; Sabloff 1998, 91). As part of this backlash, the methods of the Processualists, Experimental Archaeology included, were largely abandoned or marginalized.

The criticism against treating archaeology solely as a science and attempting complete objectivity is valid; however, the rejection of science in archaeology was the Post-processualists’ greatest weakness. The discipline had formerly been teetering on one foot in the scientific sector, with the Post-processualist movement, but it now took an equally imbalanced shift in the opposite direction. It is true that not everyone working in the field at the time took on these ideas, or even entered the debate, but the literature enforces an atmosphere of revolution where one was obliged to choose a side, and be attacked either way.

By the 1990s, the Post-processualists’ points had been made and archaeology had been changed, and it was at this point the main flaws of a completely humanistic approach began to be observed (Trigger 2008, 516). Along with this was the impetus of new scientific and technological applications that could be used in archaeology to gain new forms of data to support theory (Brothwell & Pollard 2001, xix; Trigger 2008, 540). The development of residue analysis, using mass spectrometry, was underway (Evershed et al. 1990). Improved AMS dating, allowing for margins of error in radiocarbon dates to be greatly reduced (Taylor 2001, 26), and isotopic analysis, enabling past diet to be gleaned, were increasingly used to answer new questions (Sealy 2001, 272). Moreover, the first studies, focussing on ancient DNA, extracted from bone, were done in the late 1980s (Brown 2001, 301), and the development of more sophisticated computers and programs to manipulate data made it possible to do larger-scaled projects and more intricate statistical work. And so science crept back to a prominent position in archaeology.

Today, at the end of the first decade of the 21st century, we are well beyond the explosive arguments of the Processual/Post-processual debate, and are in a time which is more optimistic than ever before. We have inherited the knowledge of both movements and are able to look back at the merits and weaknesses of each, but now have the freedom to choose how to approach archaeological problems without having to choose one side of an ongoing argument.

Experimental Archaeology

It is at this point in history, then, that Experimental Archaeology should be able to become a working part of archaeology, yet it still holds a marginal role. Part of the reason for this is the lack of understanding by the wider archaeological community of what Experimental Archaeology actually is, what it can be used for, and why it is so important in the balance between science and theory.

Experimental Archaeology is a process whereby controlled experimentation is used to answer specific questions. This can take two forms:

1)	experiments to test hypothesis made about a site or type of artefact,
2)	experimentation to test methods which are used to gather data about the past to ensure the data collected is a true representation of the past.

This is vitally different from Experiential Archaeology as it attempts to gain facts from the past as free as possible from modern biases. Experience does not meet this aim because a person’s experience replicating past action will always be modern. They cannot escape their own habitus and the bias it will have in their interpretation of past human motives and emotions (Cunningham et al. 2008, vi; Reynolds 1999, 158). This is not to say there is no value in experience as it can greatly help us learn and put the humanity back into the ancient people we study as we try to emulate their daily routine or how they did things. It is simply that Experimental Archaeology is a different process with different objectives. Experimental Archaeology attempts an objective approach targeting specific questions and resulting in data which can be empirically understood. However, it is linked with experience as it, “...supplies the confirmed material of and for education and experience” (Reynolds 1999, 157).

With Experimental Archaeology, a scientific methodology must be adopted where variables are controlled to ensure replicability. This may include using professionals to recreate objects which will be experimented upon (since past people would have been experts in their craft), and using materials as similar as possible to those used in the past. Each part of the experiment must be meticulously recorded so that it is replicable (and therefore falsifiable), and it should be of a standard that is acceptable to experts working in the scientific field the application has been taken from. For example, if residue analysis is being conducted, the experiment should meet the standards of chemistry, and the paper should be peer-reviewed by chemists as well as archaeologists (Mathieu and Meyer 2002; Outram 2008). The results must then be related to the wider archaeological context so that the information is transferable and comprehensive throughout the discipline.

The Role of Experimental Archaeology

Experimental Archaeology thus forms an essential step in archaeological endeavour whereby hypotheses and theories that have been made about the past can be tested to be confirmed or rejected. Theory can then be reconsidered in light of this new information and a new foundation for further study created. So, although scientific in practice, Experimental Archaeology is strongly connected to theory and plays a bridging role between data and theory – between science and arts. It is a step where “interpretation [is] a process of creative tension in which interpretations arise from the movement back and forth between theory and data” (Jones 2002, 37). In the climate of archaeology today, where we can choose how much science or theory is necessary, based on each situation, Experimental Archaeology has a very important role to play.

The Purpose of the TAG Session

So this is why I held an Experimental Archaeology session at TAG. Because you cannot study the arts without the sciences in archaeology. Because you cannot talk about theory unless you have the data to back it up. Because theoretical archaeologists and scientific archaeologists need to communicate more. And because Experimental Archaeology needs to claim its place within the field, rather than simply being an after-thought in projects, or a marginal practice. Experimental Archaeology can be a greatly informative tool in archaeology and needs to be utilized much more in general archaeological enquiry – a recent debate at the Scottish Neolithic panel workshop about whether timber halls were thatched, or could even have possibly been so, is a good example why. The session at TAG was meant to stimulate this and draw attention to the good work that has been going on and will continue to do so. In the end, whether we are archaeological theorists or archaeological scientists, or somewhere in between, we are on the same side and are all seeking the same thing: “...the evidence and experience of life, in the hope and the knowledge that by doing so mankind will better understand why life is as it is, and why man behaves as he does” (Coles 1979, 1) – we seek the answer to the ‘why’s’ of the human condition.

Contributions to this Volume

The papers presented in this book cover several areas of experimental archaeology, including its history, philosophy and the wide range of ways it can be used to test our hypotheses about the past. In chapter 2, Penny Cunningham considers storage pits, which are found in great numbers on Mesolithic sites. Her experiments test whether different types of pits were more favourable than others for the storage of nuts. Since Mesolithic sites tend to be composed mainly of pits and charred nut shells, the result of this work is a better understanding of site formation and use, and therefore, will enable better classification in future excavation.

Jodi Reeves Flores provides an in-depth look at the history of experimentation in archaeology in chapter 3, extending from the very beginnings of the discipline to present, and provides insight into just how much experimental work is currently going on.

In chapter 4, Claire Marshall, a professional musician, studies sound at Neolithic monuments, using instruments she constructed out of materials that would have been plentiful in the Neolithic, and from faunal analysis at sites, are known to have been important resources.

Chapter 5 focuses on the philosophy behind experimentation and how it fits into archaeological enquiry. Stephanie Koerner considers the ideas of several thinkers and, for the first time, applies their concepts to archaeology, to create a new foundation for experimentation.

In chapter 6, Merryn Dineley discusses the continuing project that she has been working on, considering the possibility that the largest Grooved Ware vessels may have been used for beer brewing. This is particularly intriguing since it is most likely that new forms of pottery were developed for their function or contents, rather than simply for aesthetic purposes. The introduction of beer has great implications for both cultural change and for a greater use of domesticated plants in the Late Neolithic.

Chapter 7 covers Harriet Hammersmith’s research on Beaker pottery and the manufacturing processes, which were employed to create the different types known in the literature. As a professional potter, Hammersmith reconstructed replica vessels using different methods that have been inferred in previous publications by Beaker experts. Her results largely prove these hypotheses wrong, and give alternative ways in which Beakers may have been constructed.

Finally, Thomas Gurling’s work, presented in chapter 8, is the secondary type of experimental archaeology outlined above, where a scientific application is tested so that it can be more accurately applied to archaeological remains. Here, luminescence dating is tested, considering brickwork from Medieval buildings of an approx imated age, and is evaluated for its usefulness as an archaeological method.

The contributions to the session held in Southampton reflect the diversity of work that is currently being done in experimental archaeology, but also just how pertinent this methodology is to the wider archaeological context. Although it is not a new concept, it is now a new time when this method of testing can be less controversially used to check the validity of our interpretations and further our understanding of the past. It is with this momentum that we, as archaeologists, should grasp this opportunity to use all that is accessible to better understand the past.

Acknowledgements

I would first like to thank all of the contributors for making the session at TAG08 so successful and so very interesting. Equally, special thanks to University of Southampton and the co-ordinators of TAG for accepting the session in the first place and for providing the equipment and space needed. A personal thank you goes to my PhD supervisors, Prof. Chris Scarre and Prof. Peter Rowley-Conwy, who are an unending support to me, and whose encouragement and advice helped to make this possible. And also to my family and friends who are eternally supportive of my endeavours, no matter how ambitious they may seem.

Bibliography

Binford, L. R. (1968) Archaeological Perspectives. In S. R. Binford and L. R. Binford (ed.), New Perspectives in Archaeology, pp. 5–32. Chicago, Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago.

Brothwell, D. R. and A. M. Pollard (2001) Introduction. Handbook of Archaeological Sciences. New York, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Brown, T. A. (2001) Ancient DNA. Handbook of Archaeological Sciences, pp. 301–311. New York, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Coles, J. (1973) Archaeology by Experiment. London, Hutchinson University Library.

Coles, J. (1979) Experimental Archaeology. London, Academic Press.

Cunningham, P., Heeb, J. and R. Paardekooper (2008) Experiencing Archaeology by Experiment. Oxford, Oxbow Books.

Evershed, R. P., Heron, C., and L. J. Goad (1990) Analysis of Organic Residues of Archaeological Origin by High-temperature Gas Chromatography and Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry. Analyst, 115: 1339–1342.

Forrest, C. (2008) The Nature of Scientific Experimentation in Archaeo...