3. Creating a History of Experimental Archaeology

Jodi Reeves Flores

Abstract

In order to assess the current state of experimental archaeology we must first study and analyse how it has been conducted in the past. The major initiation of experiment as a method for understanding past activities corresponds with the fruition of Western Society’s first active attempts to understand ancient artefacts. By studying this early stage questions arise concerning what initiates such changes in how we view the past, as well as material artefacts. By moving on from this point in time, and placing major trends in the use of experiment in relation to developments within archaeology, we can begin to identify dominant relationships between practice, presentation and theoretical concepts. Such an endeavour creates a more knowledgeable environment within which to critically analyse why we use experimentation to study certain archaeological phenomenon. Perhaps most importantly it allows us to identify how experiment is viewed both as a methodology, and as a potential ‘subfield’ of archaeology. By placing experimental archaeology into a historical context, we can begin to critically evaluate the choices we make when conducting experiments, and it also creates the opportunity to consciously direct future developments within the ‘experimental archaeology community’.

If one listens to a discussion concerning the status of experimental archaeology there is often a concern expressed regarding how it is presented, and how it is accepted. There is a perception that this has led to misunderstanding and possible rejection of data gathered through replicative experiment by the wider archaeological community. While this worry is not necessarily universal, it is prominent enough to be a major topic of discussion at several recent conferences and sessions on experimental archaeology: the Experimental Archaeology Conference at Exeter in 2007 (Cunningham et al. 2008), the last Experimental Archaeology Conference at Edinburgh in 2008, as well as this session on experimental archaeology at TAG in Southampton in 2008. This seems to be a major pre-occupation for this subfield of archaeology, and while it is not unusual (or at all negative) for the participants of a discipline to be critical of their methodologies and approach to their subject, an impasse seems to have been reached regarding this discussion process in experimental archaeology.

Certain members often express frustration with the misunderstandings or indiffer ence they receive from other ‘types’ of archaeologists. Those that attended the Experimental Archaeology Conference at Edinburgh will have experienced the frustration that many incorporating experimental elements into their research often feel. This was expressed in two papers at the conference: More than the daily grind: experiments in grain processing techniques presented by Merryn Dineley, as well as in a discussion of how the method is accepted by other disciplines in Experience versus Experiment: differing disciplines’ definitions leading to the answering of ‘unanswerable’ questions, a case-study using Roman dyeing presented by Heather Hopkins. On the other hand, many practitioners have not experienced such difficulties (This is also discussed in a review of the conference by Roeland Paardekooper 2009, 61).

Why then do portions of experimental archaeologists view the method as excluded by wider archaeological circles? One possible answer is that this is, indeed the case. However, there appears to be stronger evidence that indicates that both historically and presently, well designed and presented experiments are just as accepted as any other form of archaeological investigation. A more productive conclusion may be that as a social group within academia, a portion of experimental archaeologists have developed a social memory that portrays the methodology as being outside accepted academic circles. Instead of taking a stance that analyses why some research is not as well received, a defensive wall seems to have been constructed. Not only does this shield individual participants from accepting criticism, but it also has the potential to turn experimental archaeology into a ‘sub-discipline’ rather than a methodology of archaeology. Such a development, I believe, is actually a hindrance in that it will limit the potential for other archaeologists to feel comfortable employing explicative experiments in their research, or to reach out to well educated experimental archaeologists (also see Cunningham, et al. 2008 for a discussion of this topic). Essentially, there is a danger of an experimental archaeology clique if we continue to view ourselves as separate from the wider archaeological community. To counteract this potential development, it is important to place experimental archaeology in its historical context. The aim of this paper is to evaluate claims concerning the acceptance of experiments by firstly creating a historical context for experiment, and secondly looking empirically at how experiments are accepted by the present archaeological community.

Contextual Framework

While this paper focuses primarily on textual evidence, it is part of a wider historically based, anthropological study of the nature of experiment in archaeology (Reeves Flores, forthcoming). Therefore, it draws from some basic concepts from both history and anthropology. This research assumes that present culture and institutions can be understood only within an historical context. This concept of historical awareness is based on three basic principles: difference, context and process (Tosh and Lang 2006, 6–23). The principle of difference recognises that time creates differences, or strangeness, between the present and the past, and the recognition of this gap primarily helps to guard against any anachronistic tendencies that may be projected on the past. Context helps to place the strangeness of the past into its proper setting, so that it can be more properly understood. Closely linked to this is the idea of process. Process, like context, helps to create a framework for understanding the past, but in a temporal sense that helps to formulate the relationships between different events. Process is especially important when studying a specific field of history. No matter how detailed a study may be, if the historical events described are not placed in the proper context of wider processes, true understanding can never hope to be achieved.

Ethnology has also greatly influenced how this research has been conducted, and hence a brief discussion is necessary to establish the contextual framework of the study. As with any established methodology, ethnology’s development has been affected by different theoretical schools. One such is positivism, which has also had a major influence on the social sciences, and continues to be a driving force in how archaeological experiments are developed and conducted (Outram 2008 states this clearly). According to positivism, scientific knowledge is based on observation of physical phenomena. Positivism goes as far as to claim that there is no way of obtaining metaphysical knowledge of a subject. Perhaps because of this, the processes through which theories are developed are excluded from scientific consideration (McGee and Warms 2004, 52, fn. 25; Hamersley and Atkinson, 2006, 6). Taking this into account, how can ethnology or historical research hope to achieve a scientific knowledge of culture?

This is why, instead of following the positivist line, many ethnographers embraced the concept of naturalism, which seeks to observe the world in its natural state, as opposed to the constructed experiments of positivism. The end goal here is more often a detailed description than a validated or invalidated hypothesis (Hamersley and Atkinson 2007, 7). While such descriptions themselves can supply important observational data, an emphasis on description tends to lead to the view that the processes being discussed as pure drama, upon which personal judgements can be placed. Such an approach does little to increase our understanding of social processes (Hoover and Donovan 2004, 6).

Perhaps a more profitable approach would be a reflexive realism (also see Hamersley and Atkinson 2006, 17). Indeed, there are statements about the world that on only slightly tainted by theory that they can be agreed upon by multiple people (Okasha 2002, 89). Ethnology is a method that can allow us to collect observations about the world that can then be double-checked and commented on by others. Indeed, this is a major goal of the social sciences, including history and archaeology, as a whole. In addition to this, such methods create a way for us to depict our understanding of the world in a way that is comprehensible to others (Hoover and Donovan 2004, 7, 10). Taking this into account, I know that in collecting data on the history of experimental archaeology, I needed to adopt a role as researcher that is both objective, but inclusive of the accounts I would be analysing. In this I am influenced by idea of culture histories, which seek to put history in a social and cultural context; the hermeneutical approach to studying texts; as well as heterophenomenology, or the “phenomenology of another that is not oneself”, which is employed by the cognitive psychologist Daniel Dennett (2003, 2006). Heterophenomenology is especially useful, since it is basically an anthropological form of the scientific method—and in some ways alleviates the gap between positivism and naturalism by taking into account an individual’s report with all other available evidence that may have affected that report’s development. Not only does this allow us to treat historical texts as data, but it also helps to reveal how the author saw the world without necessarily taking the wider accuracy of the text for granted.

While this methodological approach is rather flexible, it acts as a framework for approaching the key source of the bulk of the evidence: primary textual documents. Documents produced by the society being studied can provide a wealth of information. In the case of an historical study of experimental archaeology, these documents can consist of formal papers and essays, but also forms such as ‘health and safety’ and promotional and informational material from events such as conferences. For the present study we will be focusing on published academic texts, since the question being addressed is how the method was, and is, accepted by the archaeological community.

A History of Experimental Archaeology

Several key publications have helped to develop the way the history of experiment in archaeology is portrayed. The primary influence to date has been John Coles’ 1979 publication Experimental Archaeology. While those such as Cole’s history are primarily descriptive, others set out to address certain observations, such as Caroline Forrest’s work on the role of amateurs in the historical development of archaeology (Forrest 2008). The following history is descriptive, but also places experiment into its important role as part of the development of archaeology as a whole. Such a history moves towards addressing the idea of social memory that has developed among experimental archaeologists as a social group. Social memory refers to how a group seeks to justify or explain present circumstances. While based on historical events, social memory is different from history because it is often modified (consciously or unconsciously) to meet group needs (Tosh and Lang 2006, 12–3). I believe that certain portions of the experimental archaeology community have developed a social memory that helps to explain feelings of exclusions from the wider archaeological community.

By outlining a history of experimental archaeology that shows that the method has been accepted through most of the development of archaeology, I hope to address this false sense of history. However, this does not advocate complete denial of these feelings of exclusion. What needs to be done is establish an objective baseline of the history of experimental archaeology from which to address the feelings expressed by members of the community. Hopefully this will help to identify the real reason as to why some feel excluded, and also to establish if there is empirical evidence for such exclusion.

The following descriptive history is divided into general developmental categories, which are based on perceived and actual trends regarding the development of archaeology and the role of experiment in archaeology (see also Coles 1979). The first period is one in which there is no real presence of archaeology in general, however the social and ideological groundwork is laid for studying the past though material remains. The second period, from the early eighteenth century to the middle of the nineteenth century documents the formulative period of archaeology as a discipline. This period blends into the period after it, in which archaeology becomes a professional field of study. It is hard to mark a specific date in which this happens, but this turn in events is traditionally allotted to the middle of the nineteenth century, and for the present moment we will follow this inclination. Some experimentation is practiced during this period, although it seems primarily linked with prehistory. However it is not until after the 1850s that experimental archaeology really comes into its own, with the rest of archaeology. This continues until the early twentieth century, when the development of culture historical archaeology, as well as other events, affect the role of experiment and the progress of archaeology as a whole. It is not until after the Second World War that replicative experiments again become prominent. The increase in explicit theory leads to the discussion and formulation of ‘experimental archaeology’ in the 1960s. The development of post processualism in the 1980s eventually leads to the intense debate we are in today about the role of experimental archaeology in exploring the past, and its place in the wider archaeological community.

Laying the groundwork: studying the past before AD 1700

Before the eighteenth century, those that studied the past and history focused primarily on written texts, and there was almost no inclination towards using material culture as a resource for information about the past. However, changing social situations throughout Europe would help set the stage for the development of antiquarianism and archaeology in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Economic, political and social developments led to an increase in nationalism throughout many parts of western and northern Europe. Many states began to look to the past to justify their existence and promote a sense of pride. This, combined with the realisation that humans could invoke drastic change in the world, led to an increase interested in past events and processes (Trigger 2006, 78–9).

One such major development was the creation of mercantile city-states such as Florence. These newly emerging cities needed to justify both their existence, and independence. A major source of inspiration for creating identity was found in Classical remains (Trigger, 2006, 52–4). Supported by these developments, the systematic study of archaeological remains truly begins to develop in the fifth and sixteenth centuries. In the fifteenth century, the term antiquarian begins to be used to refer to people who study archaeological remains, and by the sixteenth century professional antiquarian positions are created.

Another important change during this period was the Protestant Reformation, which affected much of Northern Europe and Britain. The Protestant Reform, as it was experienced in England, also had a great affect on how people interacted with ancient material remains. When Henry VIII (1509–1547) declared the destruction of the catholic monasteries, landscapes that people had known for generations were altered. Many also recognised that a great amount of information, both in the form of text and materials, was being lost in the process. In England, as well as in Northern Europe, the interest in local past was aroused primarily in the raising middle class, who far from being overly wealthy, still had enough leisure time to devote to exploring and describing their local surroundings, as well as the antiquarian studies of those areas (Trigger 2006, 84–5).

However, one of the widest reaching changes was the development of the Enlightenment in the seventeenth century, which refers to the major developments in philosophy and culture during this time. One primary component of the Enlightenment was the development of a positive view of progress and technological advancement. This was combined with a more hopeful view of humanity’s, and the individual’s, place in the world. These ideas would be essential in fostering a worldview in which the interest in technological advancement would flourish. However, what was need for experimental archaeology to flourish was an interest in past technological achievements, as opposed to present or future advancements. This was partially supplied by nationalism, which continued to be a primary movement in the seventeenth century. Countries, as well as the middle class, turned more and more to the past for evidence to support their identity.

The increased navigation of the world that fostered the mercantilism that shaped Europe during this period also meant that there were clear material changes that helped to create an interest in primitive technology, primarily the interaction with stone tools from the Americas that was proliferated as European countries increased contact and trade with this part of the world. The increase in knowledge of American cultures that used stone tools led to the realisation that similar stone objects being found all over Europe were manmade (Trigger 2006, 82, as well as Coles 1979, 3–5).

Developing the field: archaeology and experiment from the eighteenth to the early nineteenth century

However, not everyone was content with the accelerated changes that had begun to take place since the end of the medieval period, and this led to an increase in conservative thought and yearning for the past. Romanticism, coupled with the conservative backlash against cultural-evolutionary thought did have a far greater influence of the development of antiquarianism of this period than did cultural-evolution. However there is also a dramatic increase in archaeological excavation during this time, and there is yet to be any real proof that there was a decline in how this evidence was interpreted (Trigger 2006, 110–3). However, the shift to a romantic view of the past and its emphasis on excavation, coupled with advances in approach and interpretation beforehand in the early part of the seventeenth century helped support a rise in excavation.

It is perhaps this romantic view of the past, coupled with increased interest in material remains, which encouraged the physical exploration through experimentation and replication of past remains and processes. Early experiment during this era is perhaps typified by the work carried out on bronze instruments that were uncovered throughout the period in both Britain and Denmark. These musical instruments began to be uncovered in Ireland as early as 1698. The first one found was also tested to see if it could be made to play any musical notes. The sound was considered low and dull (Coles 1979, 13). A contemporaneous bronze instrument, called a lurer, was found in Denmark in moorland at Brudevaelte, Zealand in 1797. It is thought that Christian Jurgensen Thomsen, creator of the Three Age System, was the first to experiment with the lurer. Later, J. J. A Worsaae also experimented with the instruments, and in 1843 recorded that the horns could be played, but emitted only dull sounds (Coles 1979, 13). The lurer and other bronze instruments continued to be a focal point for experiment through out the nineteenth and early twentieth century.

While interaction with stone tools from other cultures let to the realisation that similar artefacts found in Europe were potentially manmade, finds such as the bronze musical instruments indicated that different materials may have been in use at different points in time by European populations. The study of such tools eventually developed into prehistoric archaeology in Europe. According to Trigger (2006) this development took place in two waves, the first of which began in Denmark in 1816, and the second that developed fifty years later in England and France. One of the primary reasons as to why it took so long for prehistory to develop was that in the early 1800s, antiquarians and archaeologists simply did not see the necessity of having a field of prehistory, because there was no concept of there being a deep human past (Rowley-Conwy 2007, 3). While it is true that by the 1840s there was an established concept of deep geological timescale, this had not yet been applied to the human past (Rowley-Conwy 2007, 5). Replicative experiments and their application in studying archaeological remains are deeply tied to the development of prehistory.

This is especially made clear in the work of Scandinavian archaeologists who developed an evolutionary approach to studying culture (Trigger 2006, 164). One such prehistorian was Sven Nilsson, who was a Professor of Zoology at the University of Lund. As with Thompson, Nilsson was interested in cultural evolution, but focused primarily on the development of subsistence economies. As a contemporary of Thompson, he actively employed ethnographic evidence as well as replicative experiments in developing his study of the stone age, which was published in four parts between 1838 and 1843 (Trigger 2006, 129–30).

Not only were Scandinavian prehistorians using experiments to study technologies, they were also integrating it into wider archaeological projects. In 1848 the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences created an interdisciplinary commission to study shell middens. One of the heads of the commission was J. J. A. Worsaae. The reports published on the research undertaken by the commission mentioned taphonomic experiments which had been undertaken in order to explain why more middle parts of the long bones of birds were present in comparison to other parts of their skeletons (Trigger 2006, 133).

Towards the end of this period, prehistory begins to be properly developed in Britain and France in the form of Palaeolithic archaeology, which was modelled primarily on the natural sciences (Trigger 2006, 164). However it appears that before this point, the primary experiments in Britain with prehistoric materials focused primarily on the bronze horns mentioned previously. Indeed, such bronze musical instruments continued to be found in Britain throughout the eighteenth and twentieth century (see Coles 1979, 13 for a list of some). However, it is not until later that archaeologists truly begin to exploit replicative experiments in exploring the origins of early humans.

It is also during the end of this period, between 1780 and 1860, that archaeology in North America seems to progress through a phase similar to the antiquarian phase that England and Scandinavia passed through between the sixteenth and nineteenth century (Trigger 2006, 161). While studies in Europe continued to focus primarily on Classical and Near Eastern studies, archaeology in North America saw an increase in the interest in indigenous archaeology. However, it was heavily dominated by racist views of indigenous populations that helped to support the extermination of populations (Trigger 2006, 158–9). Despite these dominate ideological influences on the interpretation of archaeological material from North America, it can be said that in general, the level of research and the publication of that research continued to become more systematic during this period. Societies and groups, such as the American Antiquarian Society (begun in 1812 by Isaiah Thomas), created a forum in which the budding north American archaeology community could develop (Trigger 2006, 161). As part of this development, and investigation into the past of the native populations of North America, experiment would become an invaluable tool for North American archaeologists in the coming century.

While there were definite increased interests in other periods and geographic regions, there was still a major emphasis on studying classical and near eastern archaeology during the eighteenth century. In present literature there does not seem to be any indication that there was much of an application of experiment to materials being studied by classical archaeologists of the period. This may be due to the fact that these disciplines continued to be primarily based on the study of art and of text, as opposed to technology.

Mid-nineteenth century – early twentieth century: the establishment of archaeology, and the development of experiment

Traditionally archaeologists view their field as being established during the middle of the nineteenth century. On the world stage, industry was increasing dramatically across Europe, which was coupled with a renewed belief in the positive affects of progress, and increased interest in the idea of cultural evolution (Trigger 2006, 145–6). Material progress in terms of building and road construction also meant that archaeological materials were being uncovered at an impressive rate (Trigger 2006, 215).

Archaeologists themselves continued to be interested in creating chronologies for archaeological materials and periods, and Palaeolithic archaeology continued to develop. The discipline became more systematic and professional. Until the 1880s, archaeologists continued to focus on cultural evolution (Trigger 2006, 207, 215). However, as interested shifted to explaining the movements of human populations through diffusion, archaeologies began to focus more on culture histories (Trigger 2006, Chapter 6). While this switch from evolutionary archaeology to culture history may have eventually led to a decline in experiment in archaeology in the early 20th century, the methodology develops and maintains a state of popularity for most of this period.

The use of replicative experiment in prehistoric studies continues to be the norm, although it is worth mentioning that W. M. Flinders Petrie, prominent Egyptologist, promoted the study of technological processes (Coles 1979, 19). In North America, experiment develops as a methodology with close links to ethnography, and the study of historical populations. Prehistoric studies in Europe, including Palaeolithic archaeology, also begin to use replicative experiments to study ancient materials, particularly chipped stone tools. There is a wealth of experiment that takes place during this period, as can be seen in Coles (1979) discussion of the subject. Instead of surveying all of the experiments that took place, I would like to focus on those conducted by Frank Cushing and J. D. McGuire in the United States and Hezzledine Warren’s experiments with eoliths.

The achievements of prehistoric native populations of North America continued to be downplayed, or outright dismissed, during the nineteenth and twentieth century. However some archaeologists used historic ethnographic data and early European records in studying the production and use of prehistoric artefacts (one such example is Cushing 1894). While many studies focused on different stone technologies, J. D. McGuire and Frank Cushing experimented in replicating copper disks that were associated with the Hopewell Culture of Ohio. Using techniques that would have been available to indigenous populations, McGuire and Cushing were able to show that the disks were not an European technology. Cushing especially took exception to this idea and was very vocal on the point that indigenous people would have had the skill and expertise to produce such works of art (Cushing 1894; Coles 1979, 23–5). His work on worked copper not only integrated experiment into the study of prehistoric material remains, it also used those experiments to directly question deeply held ideologies regarding the ingenuity of Native Americans.

Meanwhile in Europe, experiment was playing an important part in the debate over eoliths, chipped stone objects thought to be early prehistoric tools. It was thought that producers of early stone tools would not have followed as uniform procedures of manufacture as later peoples. Therefore any stone that had regular chipping and a relatively uniform shape was of possible human manufacture. Hezzledine Warren developed and carried out a methodology for testing whether normal geological factors could yield results similar to what was being seen in eoliths. Warren published extensively on the topic from the early part of the twentieth century onwards (1905: On the Origin of Eoliths). The results and conclusions of his experiments were often criticised, as can been seen in the dialogue that took place between Barnes and Moir and Warren in the 1923 volume of Man (see Barnes and Moir 1923 and Warren 1923).

While much discussion is given as to the mechanics of the experiments, and the interpretations and presentation of results, the actual use of actualistic experiments appears to be a given. This is most likely that because by this time, experiment was considered a legitimate archaeological method (Coles 1979, 26–7). However, the next two decades would see a dramatic decrease in experiment, until the method finally re-emerges as a full-fledged experimental archaeology.

Early twentieth century to mid-twentieth century: the gap years

According to Coles, Warren’s work with eoliths marks the end of major projects employing experimental and replicative techniques in studying the past. While English archaeologists did some work in the 20s and 30s, the use of experiment as a methodology would not blossom again until Scandinavian archaeologists once again took it up in the 40s and 50s (Coles 1979, 29). Indeed, there are several developments that take place during the early and middle of the twentieth century that no doubt affected archaeology and the use of experiment to explore the past. Most notably, there were two world wars, and economic depression. However, in their own ways these events actually increased the amount of archaeological work being done. Two such examples would be the work projects in the United States that were developed to increase employment, and the support given to prehistoric archaeology under the Nazi regime in Germany.

Other developments, however, specifically affected the ability or desire to conduct replicative experiments. For the past two hundred years, replicative experiments had been closely tied to ethnology and information that could be gathered through observing indigenous populations. However, many people and their traditional ways of life had been irreparably changed by Western migration (Coles 1979, 27). This potentially affected experiment in two ways: firstly the ability to observe tools in use or to gather information on their use was greatly reduced, secondly anthropologists of the period no doubt recognised the damage being done, and shifted more towards recording information on cultural and social practices before they became extinct.

Another factor came from within the archaeological discipline itself. During the early part of the twentieth century, many archaeologists throughout Europe began to shift from cultural evolutionary archaeologies to those that focused on culture history. This movement was greatly aided by the work of V. Gordon Childe, such as his 1925 The Dawn of European Civilisation. While the culture history movement did much to increase the explicit dialog regarding theoretical approaches and interpretation of data, the focus of archaeology went from understanding technological changes to mapping changes in population and cultures. This shift in preoccupation served to weaken ties between archaeology and ethnology, even in North American were many archaeologists had relied heavily on ethnographic information before this period (Trigger 2006, 288–9).

Post-war and processual archaeology: the emergence of an ‘experimental archaeology’

Archaeology after the Second World War was different from previous eras in that there was much more of an emphasis on thoroughly and objectively recording archaeological data, and in the fact that archaeologists had begun to acknowledge that there were limits to what archaeological data could tell us about that past (Coles 1979, 30–1). Not only did technological advancements such as the introduction of C-14 dating increase the scientific aspect of archaeology, computers increasingly made it possible to store and analyse large amounts of archaeological data. This more ‘scientific’ approach to studying the past is best exemplified by the New Archaeology movement begun by Lewis Binford in the 1960s with publications such as Archaeology as Anthropology (1962), which also happens to reference Cushing’s work with copper. Perhaps most importantly, Binford’s work re-established the importance of using ethnographic evidence in archaeological research that had been diminished during the period of culture historical archaeology.

However, before New Archaeology reinvigorated the use of experiment in the United States and Britain, Scandinavian archaeologists had already revived the tradition in the 1940s. Perhaps one of the most well known experiments continues to be Thor Heyerdahl’s voyage on the Kon-Tiki, which he sailed from Peru to Polynesia in an attempt to show that people could have migrated from South American westward (Heyerdahl 1950). Another major development, which was pursued by Scandinavian experimentalists, was the foundation of the Historical-Archaeological Experimental Centre at Lejre in the 1960s (http://www.sagnlandet.dk/). During the same period Peter Reynolds established an experimental centre at Butser Hill in England (http://www.butser.org.uk/). While the sites differ in their approach and presentation, both have had a major influence in the development of experimental archaeology since their inception. The general trend appears to be that experiment is still commonly used to study prehistorical or non-historical cultures, and is still limited to its application to historical periods, especially in the realms of classical archaeology.

It is also during the 1960s that there is an increase in the literature specifically discussing the use of experiment in archaeology. Forrest notes that Robert Ascher’s article Experimental Archaeology (1961) appears to be the first use of the term, and to date I have yet to find an earlier incident (Forrest 2008). This is an extremely important trend because it marks the point from which experiment moves from a method that is commonly integrated, to an explicit methodological framework. Shortly after this there is a proliferation of articles on the topic. Many, such as Asher (1961) and Coles (1973, 1979), attempt to define the methodology as well as give examples of work that had been undertaken.

Thanks to the new ideological trends established by New Archaeology, and the pioneering works of experimental archaeologists, the methodology was not only once again being applied in research, but also actively being discussed. However, towards the end of this period, Saradyar and Shimada claimed that “the potential contributions which imitative experiments can make to archaeology are far greater in scope, complexity, and overall ‘value’ than is commonly realized (Saradyar and Shimada 1973, 344)” and rallied for a complex view of the role of experimental archaeology and a re-evaluation of the possible methods of application (Saradyar and Shimada 1973, 349). They also hypothesised that as archaeology and the questions archaeologists developed continued to develop and become more complex, so must the way in which we approached experimental archaeology if it was to maintain a useful methodology (Saradyar and Shimada 1973, 349).

Present Practice of Experimental Archaeology

1980s to today: experiment in practice

The development of middle-range theory (Binford 1981) helped to further establish a framework from which the theoretical aspects of experimental archaeology could progress. However, the emergence of the post-processual movement during the 1980s questioned the scientific, objectivist stance of New Archaeology. By doing so, postprocessual archaeologists opened up the way in which archaeological materials could be approached and interpreted. While one of the main tenets of post-processual archaeologies is to explore the different interpretation of the past, there does not appear to be a specific movement to embrace experimental archaeology on a grand scale as there was with New Archaeology and middle-range theory. However, post-processualism has called into question the role of archaeology and the archaeologist, as well as advocating the need for more critical evaluations of our work. This has, no doubt, influenced the present state of the experimental archaeology community. During these past three decades, the use of experimental archaeology has continued to proliferate. It is now taught at the university level, as well as being the focus of an entire Master of Arts degree at the University of Exeter since 2000.

This brings us to the recent discussion on how experimental archaeology is viewed and presented. Despite a hiatus in the middle of the twentieth century, replicative experiments have always been a method that is well integrated into archaeology as a whole, especially in relation to topics that are considered part of the realm of prehistory. However, as the literature referred to at the beginning of this paper indicates, there appears to be the assumption that experiment is not well accepted at present. In order to evaluate these sentiments, we will now look at publishing records from three well known archaeological journals, and survey recently published works on the topic of experimental archaeology.

Publishing experiments in journals

Analysing the publications of archaeological experiments is important for several reasons, but primarily because it is the most public and prominent way to show that the experiment is considered acceptable by the standards of the audience to which the publication is meant to appeal. Here I will be looking specifically at the rates of publication for three major, peer-reviewed archaeological journals: Antiquity, American Antiquity and the Journal of Archaeological Science. These three journals were chosen for the fact that they are relatively broad in topic and accessible, as well as viewed positively, by most of the western archaeological community. Also important is that not only are issues of the journals often subscribed to by institutions and individuals, they are also available online for subscription, or accessible through prominent databases, such as JSTOR or EBSCO which are available to many academic archaeologists. Not only does this issue of accessibility make researching these journals easier, it means that those interested in experiment, or in research that contains experiments, can quickly find such articles. Therefore, not only are the articles being published, but also they are active parts of the continuation of the methodology.

The first two journals, Antiquity and American Antiquity, are quarterly publications that publish on a wide range of archaeological topics. Antiquity, which is not associated with a major institution, has published in the United Kingdom for over 75 years, during which time it has actively fostered wide range in terms of submission, types of articles and readership since its inception (DeMarrais 2002, 1089; Kohler 2002, 1121). American Antiquity, as the title implies, is published in North America by the Society for American Archaeology (SAA). While the dominant content covers American archaeology, other topics are often included, and the journal has a wide readership base, which includes both professional archaeologists and amateurs that are interested in the discipline (Kohler 2002, 1121–2). The Journal of Archaeological Science is published monthly, and has been printed since the 1970s. While articles cover a wide variety of subjects, the primary theme that links the articles included is that the research has some sort of ‘scientific’ basis. This can include the application of methods such as analysing isotopes of DNA, testing the practicality of new technologies in archaeological research, as well as lab based, and replicative experiments.

Methodology

Before surveying the journals for replicative experiments, I needed a definition of what type of experiments would be included in the calculations. When looking at the history of experiment in archaeology, I allowed some leeway, and included research, which attempted to replicate or test artefacts and processes with the intent of gaining information about the past. However, a more definitive definition was needed for the collection of modern publication rates. It is also more applicable to modern material because of the contemporary actions of discussion and definition that have taken place in the last 30 years. Therefore I decided to define replicative experiment as:

1) the process of replicating past material culture, conditions, and/or processes in order to address a hypothesis, as well as 2) the use of products resulting from the replication of past material culture, conditions and/or processes.

This definition was applied to all aspects of the articles under study. Therefore, the research being presented was not entirely based around a replicative experiment, but instead employed replicative elements to address and archaeological question, the article as a whole was included. In terms of understanding how archaeologists accept experiment, these articles are very important because they illustrate that the methodology can be, and is, often integrated into wider research schemes.

In order to quickly assess the recent rates of publication of replicative experiments in each of the three journals, all the issues for the years 2002, 2005 and 2008 were analysed. Future work will continue this process (1999, 1996, etc.). The methodology was as follows:

While this may seem straight forward, several issues developed over the course of trying to identify which articles would be included in the calculations – especially when it came to analysing articles from Antiquity and American Antiquity. Another problem was delineating between articles that contain experimental elements and those that contain replicative experiments. While the application of the experimental method itself is very important, the topic we are most interested in is the acceptance of replicative experiments. This no doubt has some affect on the final calculations, especially when looking at the results from the Journal of Archaeological Science.

Analysis and context

Before discussing the results, I would like to mention certain variables that may have affected the final outcome. First, note that in 2002, Antiquity celebrated its seventy-fifth anniversary, and there were a larger number of articles than normally expected. The vast majority focused on the history of archaeology in general, and many discussed aspects of the history of Antiquity. Likewise, in 2007 JAS increased its page budget, allowing for the acceptance of more articles (Rehren 2008).

While this is more circumstantial, other factors had to deal with the nature of the research itself, primarily the process of identifying experiments as replicative. The primary difficultly was distinguishing between laboratory experiments, ethnoarchaeological observations, and replicative experiments. For example, does the creation of experimental cut marks on bone in order to test a new method of three-dimensional analysis count as a replicative experiment? In determining whether something was ethnoarchaeology or experimental archaeology, it was based on whether the researchers participated in the activity either by actively taking part in the processes being studied, or by setting up an actual experimental process including the materials being used. Research that was based on pure observation was not included in the data calculations (see Table 3.1).

This data shows that the use of experiment in archaeological research is relatively common and accepted by the larger archaeological community. However, it does appear that replicative experiments are much more likely to be included in research that is considered more scientifically oriented. This may explain the larger percentage of replicative experiments included in JAS. However, they are not completely limited to this genre, as inclusion in Antiquity and American Antiquity show. It is also prudent to point out that since replicative experiments normally follow a procedure that includes scientific methodology, it would make since that there is a large number of such articles in a science oriented journal. Experiment seems to be relatively well accepted by the archaeological community in terms of publishing in general journals. However it has also been major topics in other publications. For example, the World Archaeology’s 2008 volume focused exclusively on experimental archaeology (Outram 2008). While the data collated thus far is only for the last several years, there is significant evidence that experiment is considered a viable methodology where academic archaeology is concerned.

Table 3.1. Percentage of articles containing replicative experiments.

In terms of experimental archaeologists publishing for their own community, the proceedings from the 2007 Experimental Conference in Exeter, UK were published in 2008 (see Cunningham et al. 2008). There are also the journal euroREA, which is a yearly European publication that includes articles on experimental archaeology, as well as other replicative projects, and reproductions. Several conferences have also been held, including the Experimental Archaeology Workshop in 2006 at UCL, the Experimental Archaeology Conference held in Exeter in 2007 and in Edinburgh in 2008, with another conference planned for 2009. There have also been sessions on experimental archaeology at major conferences, including at the Society for American Archaeology meeting in 2008 in Vancouver, British Columbia, and at the Theoretical Archaeology Group in Southampton in 2008, with another session planned for the 2009 Theoretical Archaeology Group at Durham.

Conclusion

A survey of the historical development of experimental archaeology and the present rates of publication on the topic strongly indicate that replicative experiment is not only an accepted methodology, but utilised widely in the literature researched. Therefore, there is no solid justification for experimental archaeologists as a group to adopt a feeling of exclusion as a part of the community identity. By accepting that, on the whole, experiment is well received we can begin to systematically evaluate areas in which it is not. An integral part of this is to maintain that experimental archaeology is a methodology, not a subfield such as wetland archaeology. While it is important to create a dialogue between those that practice experimental archaeology, there must be a critical evaluation of attempts to create an insular group or community.

Once this ideological stance is adopted, we can begin to analyze why certain experiments are not accepted within the subfields that they are presented. One example is Hopkins’ (2008b) discussion of how difficult it was for her methodology to be accepted within the field of classical archaeology. Historically, replicative experiments have not been an integral part in studying text-based societies. By experiment with dye-working facilities, Hopkins was undertaking a project that does not have an established basis in the literature of that chosen academic field, as would an experiment with lithics or pottery might. An initial step in addressing this issue of exclusion would be to reach out to classical archaeologists and, as Hopkins has done, illustrate how replicative experiments can not only complement archaeology and text based studies, but supply data not normally accessible through these means (Hopkins 2008a). As with any research, the way in which experimental archaeology is presented is of major importance, and while this subject as been discussed previously, such as in the 2005 edition of euroREA, it is worth mentioning once more. This is perhaps why nonacademic experimental archaeologists may feel excluded. It is not so much an issue of subject or content, but rather of presentation, as well as possible biases, not against experimental archaeology, but against amateurs in general. However, there is now a widely available amount of literature addressing this issue, and it is possible to overcome such a hurdle for the most part (Outram 2005; Mathieu 2005; Schmidt 2005). Therefore, while some practitioners way feel marginalised, it is primarily because of the tendency to view, and therefore present, experimental archaeology as a sub-field rather than a method. If it is instead viewed as a method that complements research in other aspects of archaeology, we can begin to actively integrate it into wider research practices and continue to develop experimental archaeology into an indispensable archaeological methodology.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Dr. Alan Outram for reviewing and commenting on drafts of the text.

Bibliography

Asher, R. (1961) Experimental Archaeology. American Anthropologist, 63: 793–816.

Barnes, A. and J. Moir (1923) A Criticism of Mr. Hazzledine Warren’s Views on Eoliths. Man 23: 51–55.

Binford, L. (1962) Archaeology as anthropology. American Antiquity, 28: 217–8.

Binford, L. (1981) Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. Orlando, Academic Press.

Butser Ancient Farm. http://www.butser.org.uk/

Childe, V. G. (1925) The Dawn of European Civilization. London, Kegan Paul.

Coles, J. M. (1973) Archaeology by Experiment, London, Academic Press.

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

Cunningham, P., Heeb, J. and R. Paardekooper (2008) Experiencing archaeology by experiment, proceedings of the Experimental Archaeology Conference, 2007. Oxford, Oxbow Books.

Cushing, F. (1894) Primitive Copper Working: An Experimental Study. American Anthropologist, 7: 93–117.

Demarrais (2002) Antiquity and the new world. Antiquity, 76: 1089–94.

Dennett, D. (2003) Who’s On First? Heterophenomenology Explained. Journal of Consciousness Studies 10.

Dennett, D. (2006) Heterophenomenology Reconsidered (DRAFT), Phenomenology and Cognition (available online in draft form).

Dineley, M. (2008) More than the daily grind: experiments in grain processing techniques. Experimental Archaeology Conference, Edinburgh.

Forrest, C. (2008) The Nature of Scientific Experimentation in Archaeology: Experimental Archaeology for the Nineteenth to the Mid-twentieth Century. In Cunningham, P. et al. (eds) Experiencing Archaeology through Experiment. Oxford, Oxbow Books.

Hammersley, M. and P. Atkinson (2007) Ethnography: Principles in practice, New York, Routledge.

Heyerdahl, T. (1950) The voyage of the raft Kon-Tiki. The Geographical Journal, 115: 20–41.

Hoover, K. and T. Donovan (2004) The Elements of Social Scientific Thinking, Belmont, Thomson/Wadsworth.

Hopkins, H (2008a) Using experimental archaeology to answer the unanswerable: A case study using Roman dyeing. In Cunningham, P., Heeb, J. and R. Paardekooper (eds) Experiencing archaeology by experiment, proceedings of the Experimental Archaeology Conference, 2007. Oxford, Oxbow Books.

Hopkins, H. (2008b) Experience versus Experiment: differing disciplines’ definitions leading to the answering of ‘unanswerable’ questions. Experimental Archaeology Conference, Edinburgh.

Kohler, T. A. (2002) Antiquities compared. Antiquity 76: 1121–3.

Mathieu, J. R. (2005) For the reader’s sake: publishing experimental archaeology. EuroREA, 2: 110.

McGee, R. J. and R. Warms (eds) (2004) Anthropological Theory: An Introductory History, New York, McGraw-Hill.

Okasha, A. (2002) Philosophy of Science A Very Short Introduction. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Outram, A. (2005) Publishing Archaeological Experiments: a quick guide for the uninitiated. EuroREA, 2: 107–109.

Outram, A. (2008) Introduction to experimental archaeology. World Archaeology 40: 1–6.

Paardekooper, R. (2009) Review: Experimental Archaeology. EuroREA 6: 61.

Rehren, T. (2008) Going strong, and growing. Journal of Archaeological Science, 35: 213.

Rowley-Conwy, P. (2007) From Genesis to Prehistory: the archaeological Three Age System and its contested reception in Denmark, Britain, and Ireland. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Saglendet Lejre. http://www.sagnlandet.dk/

Saraydar, S. and I. Shimada (1973) Experimental Archaeology: a new outlook. American Antiquity, 38: 344–350.

Schmidt, M. (2005) Remarks to the publication of archaeological experiments. EuroREA. 2: 112–13.

Tosh, J. and S. Lang (2006) The pursuit of history. Harlow, Pearson Education Limited.

Trigger, B. (2006) A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Warren, S. (1905) On the Origin of Eoliths. Man, 5: 179–183.

Warren, S. (1923) The Eolithic problem: A Reply. Man, 23: 82–3.