Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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efforts to provide sets for theatrical events or part of a Archival and historical documents illuminate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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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