“What is Experimental Archaeology—is it Making, Understanding, Storytelling?”
By: Max Gordon
Experimental archaeology is a hands-on approach to understanding the past by recreating ancient cultures’ objects, technologies, and processes. This essay will explore three core aspects of experimental archaeology: the physical crafting of artifacts (“making” or “doing”), the intellectual exploration of methods and theories (“understanding”), and the emotional connection to past cultures through imaginative storytelling (“feeling”). By examining these elements, we can trace how experimental archaeology has evolved from its early theoretical foundations in the 1960s to its more expansive, interdisciplinary approach in 2024.
I aim to show how experimental archaeology has transformed its methods and reach and continues to inspire a deeper appreciation for the indigenous cultures that have shaped human history. Furthermore, this field reminds us of the enduring connection between humanity and the Earth that has sustained us for over 300,000 years. In the following paragraphs and response, I will show the reader my perspectives on experimental archaeology.
To begin, Robert Ascher writes, “Something analogous to the thought or imaginative experiment (Benjamin 1936:257) is often used preparatory to fieldwork. Thus, Thompson’s (1954) excavation of a Roman aqueduct is guided by entertaining and manipulating mental images of the course the aqueduct reasonably could have taken.” (Ascher, 1961, p.793)
What intrigues me about this quote is his use of the following: “Something analogous to the thought or imaginative experiment…used preparatory…mental images”. In science, analogies are often thrown away because they’re considered subjective and often fairy-tale-like. Ascher believes in the power of preparing oneself, through mental images, to imagine what things were like in the past.
Ascher says, “If archeology is taken to be the study of past cultural behavior, the imitative experiment is the keystone of experimental archeology. The present study is concerned solely with the imitative experiment.” (Ascher, 1961, p.793)
Following Ascher’s thought process, he says archaeology, cultural behavior, and one-to-one experiments, like initiative experiments and experimental archaeology, are married at the hip. Again, I enjoyed reading his perspective, which validates imitation in experimentation. It’s as if he’s asking us to be like children who imitate the adults in the tribe. I enjoyed his poetic writing style. Continuing, the reader could see this centuries-old jug of water sitting beneath the surface of the soil, waiting patiently for the rain to fall, “(1) At Wupatki National Monument, Schroeder (1944:329-30) (late) recovered a reconstructable jar embedded in an upright position in the ground. The vessel (dated A.D. 1075-1275) was situated 72 cm. below and 4 cm. in front of the ledge of a sandstone outcrop (he was looking for something). Two natural depressions on the surface of the outcrop converged to a point above the mouth of the jar. A slab house and two cave shelters (cave shelters seem like warm places) were within 20 meters of the jar…”(Ascher, 1961, p.796)
Again, I enjoy the vividness of the text and how this author can bring archaeology to life in writing (and in the field). It’s as if I’m there with him, reproducing the cave art. Ascher then introduces the idea of setting up experiments. “Three principal criteria were used to evaluate the success of 1) the ability of the author to reproduce the fine lines found in the painting; 2) the amount of the medium needed to reproduce a figure; and 3) the retentive ability of the paint on the cave wall. Two media failed in all three criteria, three failed in two criteria, and two failed on a single criterion. Only tempera was successful in all aspects. The author evaluates the result of the experiment with the statement: “I find it difficult not to be dogmatic about its (tempera) being the method.” (Ascher, 1961, p.797)