Experimental futures in archaeology

Abstract

Experimental archaeology can help to explain human patterns of production and discard from the Palaeolithic to historical periods, and can inform debates on topics as diverse as human migration and diet. When conducted unsystematically and used to support bold conclusions, however, experimental archaeology may quickly assume the trappings of bad science. Drawing on experimental and archaeological data, Holen et al. (2017) have argued for the presence of an approximately 130 000-year-old archaeological site in California. In our recent critique (Magnani et al. 2019), we evaluated the experimental data used by the authors to support their claims. In considering Holen and colleagues' rebuttal (2019), we first draw attention to their openness to quantitative analysis and further experimentation. While this approach is positive, we maintain that more rigorous experimentation should have been performed before publication of the original extraordinary claims. We agree with Eren and Bebber's (2019) succinct criticism: as with other scientific disciplines, experimental archaeology has matured. As Eren has stated elsewhere, This discussion might sound axiomatic or commonsensical, but we have encountered archaeologists who think that the mere act of 'busting rocks' or using a stone tool to butcher an animal constitutes publishable research. This may have been the case at one time in the same way that the act of dissecting a mollusk would have resulted in a published biology paper 150 years ago (Eren et al. 2016: 108).

Was Welling, Ohio (33-Co-2), a Clovis Basecamp or Lithic Workshop? Employing Experimental Models to Interpret Old Collections

“…The simple comparison of an experimental model to an archaeological collection presented here generated future experimental questions, testable inquiries involving future fieldwork, and hypotheses incorporating morphometrics, tool function, and social learning. We suggest, as have others, that the integration of collections analysis with experimental archaeology is increasingly becoming a critical source of new archaeological insight and findings (Eren and Bebber 2019;Magnani et al 2019; see also Surovell et al 2017). If we were to retest only a limited number of knapping variables discussed above-for instance, two more individual knappers, two more core sizes, and two more reduction sequences-this would result in eight additional experimental iterations, all of which should be compared against Welling.…”

“…Such curation and access is not only the way to fully combat the “reproducibility crisis” (Marwick and Jacobs 2017; Marwick et al 2017; Ram and Marwick 2017; see also Haythorn et al 2018), but it also allows researchers to ask new questions of collections. As experimental archaeology continues to mature, surge in practitioners, and exert progressively more influence on archaeological interpretations and conclusions (Eren and Bebber 2019; Eren, Lycett, et al 2016; Lin et al 2018; Magnani et al 2019), new questions will likely be posed at an increasingly furious pace. As a result, the curation and accessibility of both archaeological and experimental collections will become one of our discipline's most important challenges in the years and decades ahead.…”

Another tool in the experimental toolbox: On the use of aluminum as a substitute for chert in North American prehistoric ballistics research and beyond

“…Kletter and de Groot, 2001;Nash and Colwell, 2020;Surovell et al, 2017) archaeologists can continue to look forward to better understanding the past by focusing their efforts on the vast, understudied, and already-excavated collections recovered over the last few centuries. One way to productively and cost-effectively approach the study of these collections is via experimental archaeology (Diez-Martin et al, 2021;Magnani et al, 2019b), which has recently matured and expanded at a furious pace. An increasingly fruitful and highly replicable practice in experimental archaeology is the use of proxy materials: modern material substitutes for the types of materials that would have been more likely available to, or experienced by, past peoples.…”

Antarctica as a ‘natural laboratory’ for the critical assessment of the archaeological validity of early stone tool sites

“…These three drawbacks highlight the need for a sustained field research programme that complements experimental efforts (e.g. Eren & Bebber 2019; Magnani 2019a, 2019b; Borrazzo 2020) by investigating what natural processes do to conchoidally fracturing rocks outside of the laboratory. In other words, archaeological research would benefit tremendously from the development of a null model of conchoidally fractured rocks that developed entirely from natural processes, against which potential archaeological samples could be compared.…”