You are on page 1of 11

Replication and Experimental Archaeology

Author(s): Toni L. Carrell


Source: Historical Archaeology, Vol. 26, No. 4, Advances in Underwater Archaeology (1992),
pp. 4-13
Published by: Society for Historical Archaeology
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25616188
Accessed: 15-10-2017 16:53 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Society for Historical Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Historical Archaeology

This content downloaded from 193.198.212.4 on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 16:53:57 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
TONI L. CARRELL other tests yielded important and useful informa
tion, experimental archaeology was viewed as an
interesting or even eccentric sideline to the real
Replication and study of archaeology. It was not seen as an integral
and necessary extension of archaeological re
Experimental Archaeology search.
This view is beginning to change, particularly
ABSTRACT with the growing acceptance of a broader based
approach in historical archaeology (Deetz 1977,
The construction or replication of objects, assemblies, or
1978, 1988; Brown 1978; Schuyler 1978; Butzer
processes, and their subsequent testing are the next steps in 1980; Keith et al. 1989; Carrell 1989; and others).
any complete exercise in anthropological archaeology. This It is an approach that takes advantage of four re
has been called "experimental archaeology," because it lated and integrated avenues (or steps) of research:
allows testing of conclusions reached through normal ave historical and archival documentation, artistic rep
nues of research, fine-tunes these conclusions, or deter
mines the order of steps in a procedure through replication.
resentations, ethnographic data, and, of course, ar
"Replica" is often used very loosely, i.e., in reference to chaeology.
efforts to provide sets for theatrical events or part of a Archival and historical documents illuminate
promotion. In fact, experimental archaeology differs greatly contemporary society's view of itself in a myriad
from mere copies or reconstructions and there are strict of ways. Art, models, reliefs, and maps often il
limits on its efficacy. After an experiment is successfully
lustrate details of daily life, work, and technology
carried through to completion, it is impossible to say that
the ancients did the same thing, but only that they may have not recorded elsewhere. Ethnographic information
used the same technique. Even if the archaeologist is able to reveals the nuances of process and ideas and is the
establish convincingly how a procedure was accomplished, most accessible link to behavior. Lastly, archaeol
the question remains, "But why?" ogy provides the tangible evidence of past human
endeavors. However, none of these avenues of re
search, even in combination, can demonstrate how
Introduction many artifacts, technologies, or processes worked.
The construction or replication of objects and their
The only thing modern about experimental ar use can provide this insight.
chaeology is its name. Interest in and attempts at The title of this group of papers notwithstand
recreating the use of ancient artifacts can be traced ing, experimental archaeology is not the last step;
to the 1800s (MacAdam 1860; Pitt-Rivers 1887; it is the logical next step in any complete exercise
Smith 1893). In general, all experimental activities in anthropological archaeology. As such it forms
tended to be conducted as isolated exercises rather the nexus of an inquiry, test, and evaluation loop
than as part of larger anthropological investiga that leads inexorably to more questions and some
tions. Replica stone tools were hafted and used to surprising answers.
determine their effectiveness (Evans 1897:162;
Evans 1957:83-84; Semenov 1964:130). Replica
wooden ploughs, hitched to teams of oxen, were Defining Experimental Archaeology
used to till the soil to determine the amount of and Replicas
effort that went into pre-Iron Age agriculture and
food production (Glob 1951; Aberg and Bowen The term experimental archaeology suggests a
1960; Reynolds 1967; Hansen 1968, 1969). An trial or test of a method or technique, and its focus
cient dwellings, earthworks, and monuments were tends to be on questions relating to subsistence or
reconstructed then destroyed and their subsequent technology. However, it is more than simply a test
decay monitored (Hansen 1962; Guillet 1963; of the efficiency of an artifact or assemblage of
Nielson 1966; Reynolds 1972). While these and artifacts. Precisely because it uses material culture,

This content downloaded from 193.198.212.4 on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 16:53:57 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
REPLICATION AND EXPERIMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 5

it is also a means to test the validity of a theory or process, or technique cannot exceed that which
an idea about how past human behavior is reflected was within the knowledge or competence of the
in the physical remains archaeologists study today. contemporary culture. Modern technologies, such
In essence, experimental archaeology forces expla as the use of special analyses or equipment, can be
nation of human behavior in practical, everyday used but should not interfere with or replace an
terms. cient methods except insofar as they further an
Recreations of objects and technologies range understanding of past processes.
from fanciful inventions, such as the Hollywood The application of scientific rigor to assess re
rendering of Jason's Argo, to restorations of old sults and, as importantly, repeatability of results
but extant historical properties, such as USS Con are also procedurally integral in the pursuit of an
stitution. In between these two extremes lies the acceptable experiment. The artifact or technology
most appropriate range for the application of ex should be tested in a setting that is close to the
perimental archaeology. Experimental archaeol original use and more than one effort or test should
ogy is pursued through the faithful replication of be completed. The results of the experiments
artifacts, processes, or strategies used in the past. should be evaluated in terms of both the procedure
Simple copies or duplicates, often referred to as involved?was it appropriate to the test?and reli
replicas, are not suitable for experimental archae ability?did it ask the right questions.
ology as much from their purpose or intent as from Because the word "replica" is commonly used
research or precision of execution. to refer to both fanciful and accurate reproduc
A recent example is the manufacture of numer tions, it is necessary to define it clearly in terms of
ous celebratory ships commemorating the first its use here and in the articles that follow. The term
voyage of Columbus (Maree 1987:30-36; Fortune "replica" is confined to those objects that are au
1988:178; Stanford 1990:19-22). With the excep thentic in design, manufacture, and materials, re
tion of a single replica built by John Sarsfield, to flecting the basic criteria described for experimen
be discussed later, all will be used as movie props, tal archaeology.
elements in event-related promotions or for harbor Within this narrow working definition, how
tours {Hispanic 1990; San Diego Union 1990; ever, replicas can be made only of those objects for
Stanford 1990:23). Their intended use is not for which there is complete information. Because
research and their construction, incorporating most objects are not complete upon their discov
water-tight bulkheads and engines, does not reflect ery, it becomes the archaeologist's task to fill in
historical accuracy. the blanks?hypothetically to reproduce the miss
Experimental archaeology differs further from ing evidence. Many artifacts, particularly those
mere reproduction in that it requires the use of used in museum displays, fall into the realm of
procedural rules to insure reliability and confi hypothetical reproductions. Referring to replica
dence in the results. One of the most important of ships, Robert Grenier of Parks Canada terms them
these rules is the use of original design, materials, "three-dimensional hypotheses" (Robert Grenier
and methods. Accurate replication presupposes a 1990, pers. comm.). In actual fact, a hypothetical
detailed knowledge of the design of the artifact or reproduction is what is most often tested in exper
assemblage in question. Without this basic infor imental archaeology.
mation, the results and reliability of the experiment
are suspect from the outset. The materials used
must be as similar as possible to those used in the Limits of Experimental Archaeology
past. They must also be those that would have been
available through reasonable effort or channels of Nearly all endeavors in experimental archaeol
trade. Substitutions inevitably introduce a degree ogy stem from the presence of an enigma or an
of error that is difficult to quantify and eliminate. unresolved question. In essence, they represent
Finally, the methods used to replicate the artifact, problems in interpreting archaeological material

This content downloaded from 193.198.212.4 on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 16:53:57 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
6 HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 26
QUESTION

HYPOTHESIS
I chaeology may make it possible to determine, with
some degree of reasonable probability, the viabil
ity of a conclusion about how something was phys
I-^ TEST ically accomplished.
I ASSESSMENT
However, a successful experiment, i.e., one that

! I 1 RESULT
is repeatable, cannot prove incontrovertibly that
past peoples did the same thing in the same man

I I__L__|
I SUCCESSFUL ^_ QUESTIONABLE
1 | OR FLAWED ^
ner, but only that they may have used the same
technique. In fact, multiple answers are often the
result of an experiment:
| REPEAT EXPERIMENT l IREFINE HYPOTHESIS
OR EXPERIMENT

If the action of B and only B upon material A produces an


| VERIFY
| J RESULTSRETT
j EST answer Z, then the inference is that B might have been the
I TRY ALTERNATIVE only method in the past to get Z. However, if Z is produced
. HYPOTHESIS I JASSESSMENT by C and perhaps D . . . then the possibility exists that any
one of B, C, or D might have been used in the past to get Z
RESULT (Coles 1973:15).
I_I_I
This example in
FIGURE 1. Hypothesis testing illustrates what is readily perceived, archae
experimental
ology. that "the main source of criticism levelled at ex
perimental archaeology [is] that it is generally
inconclusive. . . . Proof absolute [can]not be as
arising as a result of poor artifact preservation, sumed or claimed" (Coles 1973:15, 17). Further
incomplete survival, loss of understanding of orig more, even if the archaeologist is able to establish
inal purpose, and doubts about presumed function convincingly how a procedure was accomplished
or performance. Each experiment begins with rep in the past, the question still remains, but why?
lication (or a three-dimensional hypothesis) and It is generally believed that human behavior is
goes on to test for function or for suitability. As not well enough understood, and may never be, to
such, the experiment represents a series of steps be predictable at the level of the individual. Some
from question to hypothesis, to test and assessment behaviors have no basis in logic, and the physical
and very likely to retest and reassessment (Figure remains that result from those behaviors are inde
1). One or more questions can be evaluated, the cipherable using only the clues gleaned from ma
results can be refined and the hypotheses rede terial culture. There is also a danger in assuming
signed to address problems or failures not origi that the connection between form and function is
nally perceived. Experimental archaeology, like logical. In the past, as well as today, that connec
many endeavors in science, becomes part of the tion is frequently arbitrary, or at least not discov
process of discovery, not an end result. erable from outward appearances. For example, an
The same limitations inherent in the scientific early 18th-century patent for a machine gun spec
method are present in experimental archaeology ified the use of two types of bullets: round ones for
and the same basic questions must be asked: Is the use against Christians and square ones to be fired
problem one that is testable given the level of in upon "heathen Turks" (Figure 2) (Ellis 1975:12?
formation available about the subject? Is it possible 14). Admittedly, the gun's inventor, one James
to formulate one or more testable hypotheses that Puckle of London, was more than a little eccentric.
might constitute the answer to the problem? Can an But consider this, if this machine gun had ever
experiment be designed that will test the hypothe been built and fired, archaeologists excavating it
ses in such a way that the most probable correct and its ammunition would be hard-pressed to dis
explanation is provided? If the answer is yes, then cover the correct explanation for the two types of
pursuit of the problem through experimental ar bullets. If experimental tests were run to compare

This content downloaded from 193.198.212.4 on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 16:53:57 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
REPLICATION AND EXPERIMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 7

mains before, during, and after human use or mod


ification, thus illuminating the results of human
impacts to material remains.

Experimental Archaeology as a Tool

All archaeology is limited by the ability of the


archaeologist to interpret and explain the past.
Each flake, hole, stain, or artifact is scrutinized,
analyzed, measured, weighed, photographed, and
drawn to exacting detail in an effort to wring from
it every possible bit of information. Often, that
FIGURE 2. A prototype machine gun patented in 1718 information is then evaluated against a hypothesis
by James E. Puckle, London. The gun was designed with
that, in reality, is a statement considered most
interchangeable chambers to be loaded with round bul
lets for use against Christians and square bullets for use likely to be true (Spencer-Wood 1990:30). This
against heathens. (Drawing after Puckle, in Ellis 1975:12). method of hypothesis-testing leads to results that
are answers, not questions.
As a consequence, interpretation is often biased
with preconceptions that either reaffirm accepted
efficiency and destructive potential, it is possible assumptions or confirm a previously postulated
that some acceptable, functional, or even logical theory (Spencer-Wood 1990:30-34; Orser 1990:
reasons could be devised to explain the two types 43-45). The data are then made to "fit" the the
of projectiles. Meanwhile the real reason, which ory. When data are discovered that do not reify the
was illogical and based solely on the beliefs of the theory or validate a widely-held historical myth,
inventor, would still be elusive. This may be an they are either ignored or elaborate explanations
extreme example, but it demonstrates that experi are constructed to account for the dissonance. An
mental archaeology is not a device by which minds example is the misidentification of a 15th-century
can be read or one can easily discern the ' 'why'' of gun found on a 17th-century ship (Morris 1984:
past human behavior. 76-77). Rather than question the date or identifi
Complete understanding of the thought pro cation, i.e., the model used for interpretation, a
cesses of people in the past will continue to evade complicated scenario was developed to explain the
the best efforts at comprehension simply because unexpected. The search for an answer became
people cannot divorce themselves from, or cease to more important than questioning the model.
be aware of, the accumulated knowledge they pos A questioning attitude and the presence of an
sess; knowledge that directly influences interpre enigma are important ingredients in experimental
tations. This is not a liability, however. The per archaeology. The process of experimental archae
spective gained through accumulated knowledge ology can clarify and focus the development of
can be used better to understand the context within models that more fully account for the complexity
which technologies developed, discoveries were of the past. The analysis of shipwreck hull remains
made, and history unfolded on a broader scale. It is is an example. Excavation and data retrieval on
possible to elucidate 44why" by using the other shipwrecks is as meticulous as sites on land
avenues of investigation available, discussed (Martin 1975; Arnold and Weddle 1978; Grenier
above, to help formulate questions and evaluate and Tuck 1981; Rule 1982; Ringer 1986; Keith
answers obtained from experimental archaeology. 1987). Each nail or fastener hole, gouge, and piece
The use of modern technologies can also enhance of wood is recorded and analyzed and a purpose is
an understanding of the changes to material re assigned in an effort to interpret the construction

This content downloaded from 193.198.212.4 on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 16:53:57 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
8 HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 26

procedure (Waddell 1986, 1990; Oertling 1989).


In the process, maritime archaeologists have de
facto accepted a model of construction that dem
onstrates what they already believe to be true; that
each hole, mark, or gouge has a functional expla
nation?in essence, a tidy view of ship construc
tion; an opinion that presupposes a predictable,
linear progression of behavior. This behavior can
be likened to a cartoon character that begins at the
bottom, or in this case the keel, and works whirl
wind-like around the ship with every feature in its
place on time and according to schedule, finishing
with a flurry at the top of the mast with a pennant
and sails billowing in the wind. This view does not
account for the humanity of the men who built the
ship or the vagaries of supply and demand of the
raw materials.
The necessity to consider the shipwrights, to
question functional explanations and traditional as
sumptions, is clearly demonstrated in a replica car
avel built under the supervision of John Sarsfield.
During construction numerous miscellaneous
holes, gouges, corrections, and plugs were made.
Some were holes from the ribbands, or temporary
forms, used to help detennine the shape of the hull
(Figure 3). Some were from bits of wood nailed to FIGURE 3. Thin strips of wood (upper right), known as
the frames for a scaffold. Some holes were from ribbands, are temporarily nailed to the stem. A small sec
chocks used to help force the hull planks snugly in tion of the stem was carefully replaced simply for aes
place until they could be permanently fastened. thetic reasons. (Photo by Toni L. Carrell.)
Some were marks that resulted from the fire
bending of wooden members (Figure 4). Some
were simply mistakes, while a rectangle of wood
cut from the stem post and replaced with another explain behavior; rather, the challenge is to dis
piece, carefully fitted and fastened, merely re cover what combination of models explains most
moved a flaw for aesthetic reasons (refer to Figure behaviors.
3). Many, possibly hundreds, of miscellaneous Once any interpretation is postulated or an ex
marks were made on the ship in the course of con planation accepted, archaeologists are then often
struction merely for the sake of expediency?they called upon to help devise reconstructions of the
had no inherent functional purpose. past. Usually these are no more elaborate than they
In this case, the procedures of experimental ar need to be to serve as museum exhibits or educa
chaeology led to a reexamination of accepted mod tional aids. Often that is sufficient, or all that is
els of ship construction. In the process, reexami possible given time and funding constraints. When
nation also leads to a consideration of alternative reconstructions are a necessity, however, they can
models that may better fit the data, address the provide the rare opportunity to apply, even on a
complexity of the past, and account for material small scale, the methods of experimental archae
culture/behavior in a more straightforward man ology.
ner. Clearly, no one model will ever adequately Not all ideas about the past nor situations for

This content downloaded from 193.198.212.4 on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 16:53:57 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
REPLICATION AND EXPERIMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 9

elsewhere in this volume, most of the ships being


built are fanciful recreations. It is the Columbus
Foundation replica that holds the most promise for
unlocking many of the secrets of the caravel.
The Spanish Quincentennial Committee has
built three "allegedly" authentic replicas of the
ships used on Columbus' first voyage (Life 1989:
26-30; Stanford 1990:19-23). By all accounts,
and the unfortunate results of the first sea trials,
these ships are probably less authentic than the
three ships built in Spain in 1892 (Special Events
Report 1991:3). Why are these modern reproduc
FIGURE 4. A chock and wedge (center left) are used to tions so poor? Certainly not for lack of funding or
force the keelson into proper alignment on the floors. The the desire to do a good job. Nor necessarily for the
chock was fastened to the floor with large nails, necessi
inclusion of bulkheads, radar, engines, and other
tating the use of a crowbar to remove them. A subtle
groove on the keelson (center), visible adjacent to the modern features. Apparently, the project was
wedge, was the result of the fire bending process used to heavy on re-researching the same information that
shape the keelson. (Photo by Toni L. Carrell.) produced the 1892 replicas and they worked from
plans of Santa Maria developed in 1964 by
Martinez-Hidalgo (Stanford 1990:22). Unfortu
nately, the plans reflect an ignorance of discover
reconstruction lend themselves to testing through
ies in underwater archaeology or any of the new
experimental archaeology. But, when theorizing information published in recent decades. The di
has gone as far as it can and the desire and oppor rectors of the project appear to have been satisfied
tunity to tackle the problem from another avenue isto copy the 1892 recreations, presumably modified
strong, empirical evaluation, through experimental by 1964 information, despite their flaws apparent a
archaeology, is a viable research tool. It can con century ago. Certainly no thought was given to the
tribute an otherwise unobtainable familiarity with potential of experimental archaeology and clearly
material culture and a range of possible solutions they did not apply its basic procedural rules.
to problems of archaeological interpretation. Shortly after the Spanish struggled to cross the
Atlantic in their three recreations nearly 100 years
ago, Captain Magnus Andersen successfully sailed
Experimental Archaeology and and rowed a replica Viking longship from Norway
Ships of Discovery to the Chicago Exhibition via Newfoundland
(Thorvildsen 1961:26). He made this crossing to
Occasionally, public interest is high enough to remind everyone, in 1893, that Columbus was
justify the exorbitant costs of a large or complex very likely not the first European to cross the At
lantic. In addition, he demonstrated the value of
experimental replica. For those with an interest in
careful replication and, although it was not re
ships of the late 15th and early 16th centuries, the
fortunate coincidence of renewed interest in repli
ferred to as such, the potential of experimental
cating discovery period ships and the appearance archaeology.
of new, irrefutable archaeological evidence may In 1991, another replica Viking longship sailed
yet provide an opportunity to test the veracity of across the North Atlantic from Norway to Iceland
conclusions regarding how caravels and naos were on the first leg of a voyage that commemorated the
built and how well they performed. With the ex (almost) 1000th anniversary of the Norse discov
ception of the Columbus Foundation replica car ery of the New World (Schuster 1991:22-30). The
avel built by John Sarsfield, discussed by Keith voyage was a reminder that Columbus may not

This content downloaded from 193.198.212.4 on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 16:53:57 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
10 HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 26

ages, each building on the mistakes and refine


ments learned from previous replicas (Brogger and
Shetelig 1951; McGrail and Mckee 1974).
The curiosity of the National Geographic Soci
ety is another example of the interest in Columbus'
voyages that is accelerating for 1992. Instead of
attempting to replicate a ship, however, in 1986
they went to a great deal of trouble to settle, "once
and for all," the issue of Columbus' first landfall
(Judge and Stanfield 1986:566-599). Lakey dis
cusses this "experiment" in more detail later in
this volume, but suffice it to say that the results are
flawed. Why? Certainly not for lack of funding or
access to the facilities necessary to conduct a
proper experiment. Insufficient information and
the absence of any holistic approach to the problem
proved that the amount of investigation necessary
to produce a magazine article just is not sufficient
to seriously approach this question.
Comprehensive exercises in experimental ar
chaeology are few and far between. They are
costly and difficult to justify. Unfortunately, ex
perimental archaeology is still considered a luxury.
But imagine the knowledge that might be gained
from an integrated program in experimental ar
FIGURE 5. Well-preserved hull remains of Viking long chaeology on the ordnance, ships, and voyages of
ships on exhibit in Roskilde, Denmark. (Photo by Donald the discovery period.
H. Keith.) Simmons (1988a, 1988b) has previously re
ported on the progress made in the study of ord
nance and shot from the Molasses Reef and High
born Cay wrecks. However, one of the questions
have been first. The ship then continued on to the that still remains unanswered is, Why are there so
North American continent ending up in Washing many different types of shot? Is there something
ton, D.C. If the 1893 cruise of Captain Andersen intrinsic, either in their manufacture or destructive
can be taken as an example, the voyage proves the capabilities, that warranted such a variety? Or is
seaworthiness of these ancient ships and reaffirms their presence, like the square and round bullets
the value of experimental archaeology. from the machine gun, based not on logic or func
Why are the Viking replicas so successful and tion, but upon the beliefs of their users? As Sim
the Spanish attempts frustrating and unseaworthy? mons (this volume) clearly demonstrates in the
Part of the answer lies in the fact that complete next article in this volume, experimental archaeol
archaeological examples exist of the longships ogy can, at minimum, help to determine what, if
(Figure 5) (Brogger et al. 1917), but no well any, the functional differences are between the
preserved, identifiable caravels have been discov types. It can also lead to new interpretations, ex
ered. The other reason is that during the interven planations, and questions.
ing years the Scandinavians have been practicing John Sarsfield believed so strongly that caravels
experimental archaeology. More than a dozen were efficient, seaworthy, and safe, by contempo
longships were replicated and used to make voy rary standards, that he refused to compromise the

This content downloaded from 193.198.212.4 on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 16:53:57 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
REPLICATION AND EXPERIMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 11

replica by adding modern conveniences. Every de REFERENCES


tail of the ship's construction?masting, ballast Aberg, F. A., and H. C. Bowen
ing, fasteners, size of timbers, trimming?was un 1960 Ploughing Experiments with a Reconstructed Don
nerupland Ard. Antiquity 34:144-147.
dertaken with strict adherence to authenticity.
Keith explores the questions and problems of this Arnold, J. Barto III, and R. Weddle
1978 The Nautical Archaeology of Padre Island. Aca
unusual project in detail later in this volume; how demic Press, New York.
ever, it can be safely said that when the ship is
Brogger, A. W., H. J. Falk, and H. Schetelig
completed and finally sails, more will be learned 1917 Osebergfundet. Oldsaksamling Universitetets, Kris
in one week about caravel seaworthiness and the tiania.
seamanship of the explorers than has been discov Brogger, A. W., and H. Shetelig
ered in the past 400 years. 1951 The Viking Ships. Dreyer, Oslo.
Finally, if this replica is put to the ultimate test, Brown, Marley R. Ill
the subject of Lakey's thoughtful presentation in 1978 The Use of Oral and Documentary Sources in His
this volume, more than a theoretical knowledge of torical Archaeology: Ethnohistory and the Mott
Farm. In Historical Archaeology: A Guide to Sub
a landfall will be gained; the essence of the first
stantive and Theoretical Contributions, edited by
true seagoing ships will be revealed. Robert L. Schuyler, pp. 278-283. Baywood, Farm
ingdale, New York.
Butzer, Karl F.
Conclusion 1980 Context in Archaeology: An Alternative Perspective.
Journal of Field Archaeology 7:417-422.
Carrell, Toni L.
At the very least, experimental archaeology can 1989 In All Things Remembered: An Oral History Ap
provide the opportunity, to paraphrase James proach to Understanding Small Craft Remains. In
Deetz (1988:231), to be wrong in a creative and Underwater Archaeology Proceedings from the So
ciety for Historical Archaeology Conference, edited
interesting way, rather than right in a dull and pre
by J. Barto Arnold III, pp. 76-81. Society for His
dictable one. Of course, it is always better to be torical Archaeology, California, Pennsylvania.
right in an interesting way. However, if current
Coles, John
concepts are wrong, it also forces archaeologists to 1973 Archaeology by Experiment. Charles Scribner's
question preconceived notions about the connec Sons, New York.
tion between human behavior and material culture.
Deetz, James F.
Archaeologists deal with the possibilities and 1977 In Small Things Forgotten: The Archaeology of
probabilities of past, largely unrecorded, events. Early American Life. Anchor Press/Doubleday, New
York.
However, if one of the benefits of studying mate
1978 A Cognitive Historical Model for American Material
rial culture is that it can provide an insight into the
Culture: 1620-1835. In Historical Archaeology: A
people who created and used it, then: Guide to Substantive and Theoretical Contributions,
edited by Robert L. Schuyler, pp. 284-286. Bay
[By] pursuing these aspects beyond mere recovery and wood, Farmingdale, New York.
recording, experimental archaeology leads easily and 1988 Material Culture and Worldview in Colonial Anglo
perhaps inevitably into further stages of archaeological America. In The Recovery of Meaning: Historical
work involving more complex and more theoretical models
Archaeology in the Eastern United States, edited by
of human patterns of behavior. These too are experimental, Mark P. Leone and Parker B. Potter, pp. 219-233.
and are constructed and tested in the same ways and with
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
the same aims of the more prosaic hardware models (Coles
1973:13). Ellis, John
1975 The Social History of the Machine Gun. Pantheon
Books, New York.
The results of experimental archaeology can pro
Evans, J.
vide a range of possible solutions for interpretation 1897 Ancient Stone Implements, Weapons and Ornaments
of human behavior and can take archaeology one of Great Britain. Second edition. Longmans, Lon
step closer in its quest for knowledge of the past. don.

This content downloaded from 193.198.212.4 on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 16:53:57 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
12 HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 26
Evans, O. F. McGrail, S., and E. McKee
1957 Probable Uses of Stone Projectile Points. American 1974 Building and Trials of the Replica of an Ancient
Antiquity 23:83-84. Boat: the Gokstad Faering. National Maritime Mu
seum, Greenwich.
Fortune
1988 Columbus-San. Fortune 12:178. Morris, Roland
1984 The 15th Century Hand-Gun ex Association. Inter
Glob, P. V.
national Journal of Nautical Archaeology and Un
1951 Ard and Plough in Prehistoric Scandinavia. Univer
derwater Exploration 13( 1):76-77.
sity of Aarhus, Aarhus, Scotland.
NlELSON, S.
Grenier, Robert, and James A. Tuck
1966 Experiment. Skalk 3:13-23.
1981 16th-century Basque Whaling Station in Labrador.
Scientific American 245(5): 180-190. Oertling, T. J.
1989 The Molasses Reef Wreck Hull Analysis: Final Re
Guillet, E. port. The International Journal of Nautical Archae
1963 The Pioneer Farmer and Backwoodsman. Ontario,
Toronto. ology 18(3):229-243.
Orser, Charles E., Jr.
Hansen, H. O. 1990 Stretching Envelopes, Holding Up Elephants, and
1962 / Built a Stone Age House. Phoenix, London. Asking Questions that Don't Count: Comments
1968 Report of Imitative Ploughing Experiments with About a Session in Critical Archaeology. In Under
Copies of a Prehistoric Ard with Passing-through Silt water Archaeology Proceedings from the Society for
(Dostrop-type), 1962-1968. Reports from Experi Historical Archaeology Conference, edited by Toni
ments in Lejre 1968(1). Danish Research Center, L. Carrell, pp. 43-45. Society for Historical Ar
Lejre, Denmark. chaeology, California, Pennsylvania.
1969 Experimental Ploughing with a Dostrop Ard Replica.
Tools and Tillage l(2):67-92. Pitt-Rivers, A. H.
1887 Excavations in Cranborn Chase, Vol. 1. AMS
Hispanic Press, New York.
1990 500 Years of America. Hispanic, October: Special
Reynolds, P. J.
advertising section. San Antonio, Texas.
1967 Experiment in Iron Age Agriculture. Transactions of
Judge, Joseph, and James L. Stanfield the Bristol Gloster Archaeological Society 86:60
1986 The Island of Landfall. National Geographic 170(5): 73. Bristol Archaeological Society, Bristol.
566-599. 1972 Experimental Archaeology. Worcestershire Archae
ology Newsletter 9. Worcestershire Archaeological
Keith, Donald H.
1987 The Molasses Reef Wreck. Ph.D. dissertation, De Society, Worcester.
partment of Geography, Texas A & M University, Ringer, James R.
College Station. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. 1986 A Summary of Marine Archaeological Research
Conducted at Red Bay, Labrador: The 1984 Field
Keith, Donald H., Denise C. Lakey, Season. Parks Canada Research Bulletin 248. Parks
Joe J. Simmons III, and Mark D. Myers
Canada, Ottawa.
1989 Ships of Exploration and Discovery Research. In
Underwater Archaeology Proceedings from the So Rule, Margaret
ciety for Historical Archaeology Conference, edited 1982 The Mary Rose: The Excavation and Raising of
by J. Barto Arnold III, pp. 87-100. Society for His Henry VIIVs Flagship. Conway Maritime Press,
torical Archaeology, California, Pennsylvania.
London.

Life San Diego Union [California]


1989 Shipshape. Life, April, 12(4):26-30. 1990 Cabrillo Ship Replica. San Diego Union, 29 March:
II-2.
Mac Adam, R.
1860 Ancient Irish Trumpets. Ulster Journal of Schuster, Angela M. H.
Archaeol
ogy 8:99-110. 1991 The Vikings Are Coming! Replica Ships Head for
American Shore to Commemorate Leif Erikson and
Maree, Bern a Viking Explorers of a Millennium Ago. Archaeology
1987 In Honour of Dias. South African Panorama, No 44(5):22-30.
vember: 30-36.
Schuyler, Robert L. (editor)
Martin, Colin 1978 Historical Archaeology : A Guide to Substantive and
1975 Full Fathom Five: Wrecks of the Spanish Armada. Theoretical Contributions. Baywood, Farmingdale,
Viking, New York. New York.

This content downloaded from 193.198.212.4 on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 16:53:57 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
REPLICATION AND EXPERIMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 13

Semenov, S. A. Proceedings from the Society for Historical Archae


1964 Prehistoric Technology. Cory, Adams and Mackay, ology Conference, edited by Toni L. Carrell, pp.
London. 30-34. Society for Historical Archaeology, Califor
nia, Pennsylvania.
Simmons, Joe J. Ill
1988a Molasses Reef Wreck Ordnance: New Ideas on the Stanford, Peter
Manufacture of Wrought-Iron Artillery from the 1990 Columbus Rediscovered: In Quest of Ships for the
Great Age of Exploration and Discovery. In Under Voyage. Sea History 54:17-23.
water Archaeology Proceedings from the Society for
Historical Archaeology Conference, edited by James
Thorvildsen, K.
1961 The Viking Ship of Ladby. National Museum, Copen
P. Delgado, pp. 121-127. Society for Historical Ar
hagen.
chaeology, California, Pennsylvania.
1988b Wrought-Iron Ordnance: Revealing Discoveries Waddell, Peter J. A.
from the New World. The International Journal of 1986 The Disassembly of a 16th-Century Galleon. The
Nautical Archaeology 17(l):25-34. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 15(2):
137-148.
Smith, G. V.
1893 The Use of Flint Blades to Work Pine Wood. Annual 1990 Electronic Mapping of Underwater Sites in Canada.
In Underwater Archaeology Proceedings from the
Report of the Smithsonian Institution 1891:601-605.
Society for Historical Archaeology Conference, ed
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C. ited by Toni L. Carrell, pp. 57-63. Society for His
torical Archaeology, California, Pennsylvania.
Special Events Report
1991 The Decline of Texaco's Relationship with the Co
lumbus Commission. Special Events Report 10(2): Toni L. Carrell
3-4. International Events Group, New York. Ships of Discovery
Spencer-Wood, Suzanne P.O. Box 542865
1990 Beyond Reification. In Underwater Archaeology Dallas, Texas 75354

This content downloaded from 193.198.212.4 on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 16:53:57 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

You might also like