Experimental archaeology. Experimental archeology See what “Experimental archeology” is in other dictionaries

Reproducible experiments with a variable part of material culture can be a fruitful source of data for testing the middle-range theory. Experimental archeology began in Europe in the 18th century, when people tried to play the spectacular bronze horns found in the marshes of Scandinavia and Britain. One zealous experimenter, Robert Ball of Dublin, could produce "a deep, low sound like the roar of a bull" using an Irish horn. Unfortunately, subsequent experiments with the pipe led to the rupture of the vessel, and a few days later he died (J. Coles - J. Coles, 1979). Ball is the only recorded victim of experimental archaeology. It was only at the beginning of the 20th century that experimental archeology became relevant. One reason was the conquest and study of the Ishi, one of the last tribes of California Indians who followed their traditional way of life (Fig. 14.8).

Technologies for making stone tools

In the materials of the first explorers of America, brief mentions of stone work have been preserved. Some Spanish monks, among whom Juan de Torquemada stands out, like Indian masons, pressed knives from obsidian. In 1615, he described how the Indians took a rod and pressed it against a stone core with their “chest.” “The force applied to the rod cut off the knife,” wrote Torquemada. Until recently, no one knew how spinning worked (J. Coles, 1979).

An Idaho farmer named Don Crabtree replicated how Paleo-Indians made the beautiful folsom points found on the Great Plain. He experimented for 40 years and was able to describe no less than 11 methods of reproducing the “flute” at the base of the artifact (D. E. Crabtree, 1972). Eventually he came across Torquemada's description of the squeeze and used a chest punch to squeeze flakes from a core held in a vise on the ground. The result was tips that were almost indistinguishable from prehistoric artifacts. Many researchers have followed in Crabtree's footsteps and have successfully reproduced almost every type of stone artifact that pre-Columbian Indians made.

Does obtaining exact copies mean that original techniques have been discovered through modern experiments? The answer, of course, is one - we will never be sure of this. Stone technologist Jeff Flenniken has reproduced dozens of Paleo-Indian points, and he argues that the many different "types" identified by archaeologists working on the Plain are simply heads repurposed for reuse after they were broken during initial use. He claims that by reducing the existing head, the Paleo-Indian craftsman gave it a different shape that was quite comfortable and that worked just as well as the original. The process of reduction may have led it to the same form again and again, but it was originally conceived differently (Flenniken, 1984). David Hurst Thomas (1986), an expert on the Great Basin, disagrees. He says that modern stone workers should not interpret prehistoric artifacts from the perspective of their own experience, because to do so is to ignore the huge chronological gap that separates us from prehistoric times. Thomas believes that a strictly technological approach to stone tool experiments limits the range of questions that need to be asked about stone technology. Experimentation with stone technology is a valuable approach to studying the past, but only if it is used in conjunction with other approaches such as reconstruction or cutting edge wear analysis.

Criteria for experimental archeology

Experimental archeology can rarely provide definitive answers (Ingorsoll and others, 1977). It merely provides a glimpse into the methods and techniques that may have been used in prehistoric times, since many activities in, say, prehistoric agriculture did not leave behind any material traces in the archaeological record. But some general rules can be applied to all experimental archaeology. First, the materials used in the experiment must be those that were available locally to the community being studied. Secondly, the methods must be consistent with the technological capabilities of the ancient community. It is obvious that modern technologies cannot be used in experiments. Experiments with the prehistoric plow should be carried out with a suitably manufactured plowshare, carefully preserving the grain of the wood, the shape and methods of finishing the cutting edges and other details. If the plow is dragged by a tractor, the effectiveness of the experiments will be distorted; thus, for the experiment to be accurate, a pair of trained oxen will be required. The results of the experiment must be such that they can be reproduced, and the experiment itself must consist of tests that will lead to the proposed conclusions.

Some examples of experimental archeology

One of the most famous examples of experimental archeology is the Kon-Tiki expedition of Thor Heyerdahl, who tried to prove that the Peruvians traveled thousands of miles across the ocean on rafts and reached Polynesia (Heyerdahl, 1950). He successfully reached Polynesia, and his expedition showed that long sea voyages on rafts were possible, but he did not prove that the Peruvians had reached Polynesia.

Much experimental archeology is much more limited in its scope, involving experiments with spears, bows and animals as targets (Odell and Cowan, 1986). There have been many experiments in forest clearing in Europe and elsewhere. Stone axes proved surprisingly effective in clearing forests; An experiment in Denmark showed that one person could clear half an acre in a week. Tree banding and fire have proven to be effective methods of tree felling in West Africa and Central America. For more than eight years, agricultural experiments were carried out in the Mayan lowlands and in Mesa Verde National Park. The last experiment lasted 17 years. Two and a half acres of heavy red clay soil were planted with maize, beans and other small crops. Good harvests could not be obtained only two times out of all 17 years, when drought destroyed the young shoots. These experiments showed how important crop rotation is to maintain soil fertility.

Experiences in building houses. Houses made of logs, straw and clay usually leave post holes, foundation ditches, and fallen rocks. Unfortunately, traces of roofs and information about walls and their height are usually missing. But this did not stop experiments on recreating copies of Mississippian houses in Tennessee. This was done using information about the floor plans of excavated houses, complete with charred pillars, thatched roofs and fragments of clay walls (Nash, 1968). Two types of houses were built, dating back to 1000–1600 AD. e. One of them was built using small pillars, shaped like a rectangular inverted basket with an external clay plaster. Later houses had longer walls that supported sloping, gabled roofs. In this case, as in many others, the structural details of the roofs and rafters are lost, perhaps forever.

Butser Hill, England. An ambitious long-term experimental archaeological project was carried out at Butser Hill in Southern England, where Peter Reynolds reconstructed an Iron Age roundhouse dating from around 300 BC. e. (Fig. 14.9). The house is built from hazel twigs and a binding mixture of clay, earth, animal hair and straw. The house is part of a larger pilot project that is exploring all aspects of life during this time. Reynolds and his colleagues grew prehistoric grains using Iron Age technology, kept livestock that resembled prehistoric breeds, and even stored grain in underground storage facilities. The project examined not only how individual aspects of life support worked, but also how they combined with each other. This experiment gave very interesting results. For example, Reynolds discovered that grain yields were much larger than expected and could be stored underground for long periods of time. The Batser experiment provided valuable information that can be used to calculate prehistoric crop yields and land fertility (P. J. Reynolds, 1979).

Conclusion

An ethnographic analogy helps to reveal and complement the picture of the prehistoric past. Analogy itself is a way of thinking that assumes that if objects have similar attributes, then they also have other similar traits. It involves using any known identifiable phenomenon to identify unknowns of a broader, similar type. Most simple analogies are based on the technology, style and function of artifacts as defined archaeologically. However, such analogies based on people's opinions may be unreliable.

Direct historical analogies and comparisons based on texts are quite common. But meaningful analogies for American and Paleolithic monuments are much more complex. An approach using several analogies was developed to obtain test values. This method is based on a functional approach, which assumes that the formation of cultures does not occur randomly, but that they are integrated in various ways. Thus, analogies are drawn between recent and prehistoric communities based on very similar common characteristics.

Mid-range research is carried out on living communities using ethnoarchaeology, experimental archeology and historical documents. Its purpose is to create the subject of middle-range theory, objective theoretical tools for building connections between the dynamic living systems of today and the static archaeological materials of the past.
Ethnoarchaeology is ethnographic archeology with a pronounced materialistic bias. Archaeologists view ethnoarchaeology as part of middle-range research, attempting to make meaningful interpretations of artifacts in the archaeological material.

Experimental archeology strives to replicate prehistoric technologies and lifestyles under controlled conditions. As such, it is a form of archaeological analogy. Experiments are being conducted on all aspects of prehistoric culture, from stone technology to house construction. Experimental archeology provides insight into the methods and technologies of prehistoric cultures.

Key terms and concepts

Middle distance theory
Experimental archeology
Ethnoarchaeology

BINFORD, LEWIS R. 1978. Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. A descriptive monograph about ethnoarchaeology among caribou hunters. A must for the serious student.
–. 2001. In Pursuit of the Past. Rev. ed. New York: Thames and Hudson. Includes an account of living archeology and middle-range theory for a more general audience. Strongly recommended for beginners.
COLES, JOHN M. 1979. Archaeology by Experiment. London: Heinemann. An introduction to experimental archeology with numerous examples, mainly from the Old World.
DAVID, NICHOLAS, and CAROL KRAMER, eds. 2001. Ethnoarchaeology in Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. An important collection of essays covering new ethnoarchaeological research worldwide.
HODDER, L.A.N., ed. 1982. Symbols in Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ethnoarchaeological studies in tropical Africa that are used to support a structural and symbolic approach to archaeology.
YELLEN, JOHN E. 1977. Archaeological Approaches to the Present: Models for Predicting the Past. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Ethnoarchaeology among the San of the Kalahari Desert. A technical work with broad implications.

On this day:

Due to the dominance of fans of Fomenko’s work and other history freaks on the resource, I consider it necessary to introduce comrades to sound scientific data on ancient history.

In particular, with a wonderful scientific book - Denys A. Stocks - "Experiments in Egyptian archaeology. Stone processing technology in Ancient Egypt ".

The conclusion from reading the book is simple: the ancient Egyptian pyramids were created by the ancient Egyptians themselves (aha, a sensation - who would have thought!). The rest is under the cut.

So Denys A. Stocks. Experiments in Egyptian Archaeology: Stoneworking Technology in Ancient Egypt, Routledge, 2010, 296 pp. (Experiments in Egyptian archaeology. Stone processing technology in Ancient Egypt)

In this book, dedicated to the problems of ancient Egyptian technology, the author examines the archaeological and graphic evidence of construction in ancient Egypt. Combining modern engineering knowledge with the approach of an archaeologist and historian, through a series of experiments in which more than two hundred replicas of ancient tools were restored and tested, the author describes the operation of the methods of ancient Egyptian artisans, noting a number of innovations and progressive achievements made by this civilization.

It should be noted right away (in fact, the only drawback of this book) is that, unfortunately, the book has not yet been translated into Russian. On the other hand, we all know very well that Fomenko’s fans read any texts in all languages ​​and in any directions (after all, these are all “dialects of the Russian language”) - and for them the British dialect of Russian will not be a big problem - so we can safely give give them a link to this work. And there are a lot of good illustrations and photographs in the book - if suddenly problems arise with the “Russian”.

What is remarkable about this book is its remarkable scientific approach and many experiments carried out.

Egyptian technologies for working with stone have been reproduced. From and to. If a copper saw was needed, then the copper was smelted in an ancient furnace (according to Egyptian drawings), then forged with stone hammers (the handle, naturally, was carved from Egyptian tree species with a stone chisel), etc. Then they took the saw they had made, a quartz abrasive, and successfully sawed stone-granite blocks in Cairo. They drilled in the same way with a copper drill. Detailed figures based on the results of the experiments are given - copper consumption, stone production, sawing speed with a certain sawing technique, etc.

An example of an ancient image with stone work:

Photo - Emily Teeter Drill-on handle with weights. Two are drilling, three are polishing, and one is processing the inner surface. Relief from the 5th Dynasty.

And a modern experiment:

Ancient copper tools found at excavations (pyramids of the 5th dynasty):

Reconstruction of the creation of a stone vase using a copper tool similar to the one found

Findings of levels and their modern reconstruction

In general, after reading this book, the topic of who built the Egyptian pyramids can be safely closed. The pyramids were built by the ancient Egyptians themselves. Unbelievable but true!

Several videos on the topic:

How granite, quartzite and diorite were processed in Ancient Egypt, from the point of view of common scientific sense:

Pyramids, medieval astronaut and laziness.

Update1 in connection with the comrade’s post regarding the “concrete” pyramids of Egypt and the “irrefutable” photographic fact.

Surrounded by crystal truth or scientists are hiding once again

"The idea of ​​concrete Egyptian pyramids could be treated differently. For example, consider it another “theory” among others. Equally unfounded. And we would not write about this in such detail if not for one circumstance. The point is that there is indisputable evidence that, for example, the Cheops pyramid is really made of concrete."

This evidence is a Fragment of a STONE BLOCK OF THE PYRAMID OF CHEOPS, taken from a height of fifty meters, from the outer masonry of the pyramid. It is a chip of the upper corner of the block. The maximum size of the fragment is about 6.5 centimeters. This fragment was kindly put at our disposal by Professor I.V. Davidenko (Moscow). He also drew our attention to the following striking circumstance, which proves that the block of the Cheops pyramid is MADE FROM CONCRETE.

As can be seen from the photo, the surface of the block is covered with a fine mesh. Close examination shows that this is a trace of a mat that was placed on the inner surface of the formwork box. It is clearly visible that the mat was bent at a right angle along the edge of the block. And at a short distance from the edge of the block, another mat was placed on it with an overlap. It can be seen that there is a fringe along the edge of the second mat. There are no fibers located along the edge; they have fallen out. This is what usually happens on the raw edge of woven fabrics."

Photo fact:

Well, a natural debunking of this myth:

(by determining the volume of copper required for one great pyramid)

Hypothesis (strictly scientific) of building the Cheops pyramid using an internal ramp for lifting blocks

A visual expose of the “Typical Bradologist” with illustrations:

Video by A. Sklyarov - refutation of the concrete version:

Book by A. Sklyarov (despite all the controversial conclusions, the factual part on the pyramids is very useful): http://www.lah.ru/text/sklyarov/egypt-titul.htm

Reproducible experiments with a variable part of material culture can be a fruitful source of data for testing the middle-range theory. Experimental archeology appeared in Europe in the 18th century, when people tried to play the spectacular bronze horns found in the swamps of Scandinavia and Britain. One zealous experimenter, Robert Ball of Dublin, could produce "a deep, low sound like the roar of a bull" using an Irish horn. Unfortunately, subsequent experiments with the pipe led to the rupture of the vessel, and a few days later he died (J. Coles - J. Coles, 1979). Ball is the only recorded victim of experimental archaeology. It was only at the beginning of the 20th century that experimental archeology became relevant. One reason was the conquest and study of the Ishi, one of the last tribes of California Indians who followed their traditional way of life (Fig. 14.8).

Rice. 14.8. The Ishi Indian hunts with a bow and arrow. The study of archery (Pope, 1923) and technological processes (Kroeber, 1965) was important for archeology

Technologies for making stone tools

In the materials of the first explorers of America, brief mentions of stone work have been preserved. Some Spanish monks, among whom Juan de Torquemada stands out, like Indian masons, pressed knives from obsidian. In 1615, he described how the Indians took a rod and pressed it against a stone core with their “chest.” “The force applied to the rod cut off the knife,” wrote Torquemada. Until recently, no one knew how spinning worked (J. Coles, 1979).

An Idaho farmer named Don Crabtree replicated how Paleo-Indians made the beautiful folsom points found on the Great Plain. He experimented for 40 years and was able to describe no less than 11 methods of reproducing the “flute” at the base of the artifact (D. E. Crabtree, 1972). Eventually he came across Torquemada's description of the squeeze and used a chest punch to squeeze flakes from a core held in a vise on the ground. The result was tips that were almost indistinguishable from prehistoric artifacts. Many researchers have followed in Crabtree's footsteps and have successfully reproduced almost every type of stone artifact that pre-Columbian Indians made.

Does obtaining exact copies mean that original techniques have been discovered through modern experiments? The answer, of course, is one - we will never be sure of this. Stone technologist Jeff Flenniken has reproduced dozens of Paleo-Indian points, and he argues that the many different "types" identified by archaeologists working on the Plain are simply heads repurposed for reuse after they were broken during initial use. He claims that by reducing the existing head, the Paleo-Indian craftsman gave it a different shape that was quite comfortable and that worked just as well as the original. The process of reduction may have led it to the same form again and again, but it was originally conceived differently (Flenniken, 1984). David Hurst Thomas (1986), an expert on the Great Basin, disagrees. He says that modern stone workers should not interpret prehistoric artifacts from the perspective of their own experience, because to do so is to ignore the huge chronological gap that separates us from prehistoric times. Thomas believes that a strictly technological approach to stone tool experiments limits the range of questions that need to be asked about stone technology. Experimentation with stone technology is a valuable approach to studying the past, but only if it is used in conjunction with other approaches such as reconstruction or cutting edge wear analysis.

Experimental archeology

Experimental archeology- this is the direction archaeological science. During the experiment, scientists live like people from distant eras, learning ancient crafts and restoring forgotten technologies, carrying out seasonal agricultural work.

Notes

Wikimedia Foundation.

• 2010.
• Petrel (cartoon)

Entrecote

See what “Experimental archeology” is in other dictionaries:- As a rule, an archaeologist focuses on a more or less limited topic for the simple reason that this science itself is too vast and it is almost impossible to achieve the same qualifications in all its areas. The result is this... ... Collier's Encyclopedia

ARCHEOLOGY. BASIC CONCEPTS- Fundamental to all archeology is the statement that archaeological sources - material objects created by ancient people or somehow connected with them - can tell us something about these people. In fact, archaeological... Collier's Encyclopedia

List of academic disciplines- This article contains an incomplete translation from a foreign language. You can help the project by translating it to completion. If you know what language the fragment is written in, indicate it in this template... Wikipedia

Archaeological terminology- # A B C D E E E F G H I K L M N O P R S T U V H C H ... Wikipedia

round house- This term has other meanings, see Round House (meanings). Modern round house or sphere house, Russia ... Wikipedia

Bakery in Ancient Rome- Round bread with cuts to make it easier to break. Pompeii. Bakery in Ancient Rome features the production of products, mainly from wheat flour in Ancient Rome. Bread and flatbreads were not typical... Wikipedia

Experimental research methods in the system of historical sciences- Addressing the topic of historical reconstruction* within the framework of this publication is not at all accidental. For several centuries now, historians, archaeologists, ethnologists, anthropologists and other scientists from different countries have successfully used in their research... ... Encyclopedia "Peoples and Religions of the World"

Reenactor- Lazare Ponticelli, the last surviving (confirmed) participant in the First World War from the French side with participants in historical reconstruction, dressed in the uniform of soldiers of that era. Reenactors during maneuvers on the Molotov line... Wikipedia

Neanderthal- ? † Neanderthal C ... Wikipedia

Historical reconstruction- This article or section describes the situation in relation to only one region. You can help Wikipedia by adding information for other countries and regions... Wikipedia