Reflecting on Experimental Archaeology: Interview

REPORTS / INTERVIEW 1 Refl ecting on experimental archaeology Even though most of his and there was competition to infl uential experimental get it! I think the 1973 book work goes back to the was more fun for me to write 1970s, any introduction to and use, but the 1979 book I experimental archaeology hope set out some procedures today will involve reading in a more topical way.” the works on this subject by John Coles. What publications on experimental archaeology have Some of his favourite sub- made the biggest impres- jects to which he has made sion on you? major contributions are wetland archaeology, Bronze Age “I was always intrigued by Se- archaeology, Palaeolithic ar- menov’s work on lithics, by chaeology, the archaeology Hansen of course on houses, of Scotland, rock art and of Q The logboat paddler John Coles (photo was taken by Bryony by Reynolds on his farming course experimental archae- Coles at the Archeon in 1987; the boat was modelled on Pesse). practices. I think it is a trage- ology. Although John Coles’ dy that Peter Reynolds did not interests are broad, we will in of the subjective element in ar- mental work around the world, complete his great work by this interview focus on experi- chaeological research, strong- even in universities.” (Gräslund, writing a fundamental book mental archaeology. ly underlining that element in in Harding 1999, ix). on the subject.” archaeological interpretation. “Archaeology has had a long- He teaches us that there are no How come you wrote an In experiment, three levels of standing interest in experimen- truths and that “archaeologists overview on experimental eff ort and achievement can be tal work. However, for a very can do nothing except deal with archaeology (1973)? recognised (Coles 1997, 307- long time experimental archae- opinions”. (Gräslund, in Hard- 308): ology was given little space in ing 1999, ix). “In 1973 I decided that some university circles, and was to a sort of statement, backed up 1. Display. Superfi cial in the large extent performed by am- “Th e advance of knowledge and by examples, should be made real sense of that word, con- ateurs. John was in fact the fi rst comprehension of human behav- in support of experimental ar- cerned with appearances only. established academic who had iour is the theme of all experi- chaeology. I had been lecturing Designed oft en for public con- the foresight and the courage mental work” (Coles 1997, 310). at Cambridge for some years sumption, to interest, amuse to point out the necessity for on the subject, and found that and instruct, this level is in- and the possibilities of system- How would you describe ex- examples were the best way creasingly preferred over the atic experiments, and to argue perimental archaeology and to explain the concepts, the more scientifi c Levels 2 and for a professional experimen- its position to archaeology problems, the achievements of 3. It might be argued that lev- tal archaeology. By doing ex- in general in the 1960s? experimental archaeology.” el 1 is wholly non-scientifi c. periments himself, by setting Nonetheless, replicas or pre- up sound methodological and “Th e origins of experimental Can you explain the suc- sumptive replicas of ancient theoretical rules for experimen- archaeology lie in the 19th and cess of the 1973 overview houses, or boats, or forts, or tal work, and by summarizing 20th century examination and and why it was translated other large artefacts, have an experimental archaeology in testing” (...) All of these experi- 6 times? attraction for the public, es- books published and distribut- ments were conducted by indi- pecially for its youngest mem- ed all over the world, he gave viduals with little institution- “Th e 1973 book seemed to at bers, and this fact should not experimental archaeology an al support” (...) Since about once fi ll a gap for many ar- be ignored. Th ere are too academic face.” (Gräslund, in 1960, experimental archaeol- chaeologists, as providing a many “heritage centres” using Harding 1999, ix). ogy has emerged as a distinct guide to experiments and an Level 1 experiments to sin- and sometimes dynamic disci- overview of work done and gle out any particular bad, or “He does not regard himself as pline, with its own practition- being done.” good, examples. a theorist and he does not nor- ers, various diff use and wide- mally take part in public theo- ly-separated reports, and an Why did you write a second 2. Level 2 is technological, con- retical discussions. Neverthe- uneasy place in the world of overview (1979)? cerned with the processes of less, as I understand it, many archaeological investigations” production and manufacture. of his works are imbued with a (Coles, 1997, 307). “Th e 1979 book came about deep understanding of the com- as a more refl ective essay on 3. Level 3 is to some the high- plexity of archaeological think- “His books Archaeology by Ex- experiments, allowing me to est level of anticipation, in that ing. ...” “Meaningful scientifi c periment (1973) and Experi- advance more structured ap- it is concerned with the ma- experiments simply cannot be mental Archaeology (1979) are proaches, more focussed upon nipulation, use and presump- performed and evaluated with- classics of their kind. Th eir indi- particular problems, and to in- tive purpose of the artefact. out some talent for theoretical rect infl uence has probably been clude more recent work. Sev- Clear answers at this level are thinking. John’s experimental even greater: they released an eral publishers wanted a book never certain, although they works refl ect a deep awareness explosion of systematic experi- on experimental archaeology are sometimes claimed. 6/2009 euroREA 6655 1 REPORTS / INTERVIEW Are there any anecdotes or able music notes. Of course West Stow. Th e classes, of al projects, and a permanent experiments with unexpect- such notes were mine and the about 6-8 students, were en- home for archives and publica- ed outcome you can recall? sequences were mine; all we thusiastic about experimen- tion achieved” ... “Th e impor- can say is that the basic notes tal archaeology as this was in tance of these (...) centres is to “I remember vividly my exper- were those created in the pre- part during the processual / be measured in three ways: iments with shields at the So- historic period, but sequenc- post processual debates and I ciety of Antiquaries in London es, music, fanfares are totally always thought experimental 1. By the scientifi c work com- (published in the Proceedings beyond our re-creation. So archaeology provided a good pleted and fi nished of the Prehistoric Society for any such experiments are for contrast with those concepts. 2. By the interest and support 1962). I was studying Bronze enjoyment, and not much sci- Th e students were oft en very of the public Age shields and had made rep- entifi c value (although some critical of any dogmatic state- 3. By the use made of the cen- licas of a metal shield and a people disagree with me). ments uttered by people like tre by educational authori- leather shield, based on exam- Peter Reynolds (or myself), ties” (Coles 1997, 310). ples from Britain and Ireland. Perhaps the most interest- and good arguments about It seemed obvious to me that ing set of experiments I ever houses, storage pits, plough “Biskupin (and other experi- the beaten sheet copper shield, worked with were concerned marks et cetera oft en took mental centres, ed.) ... has the only slightly less strong than with wood, and both Bryony place in the fi eld to the ben- position and opportunity to the prehistoric bronze shields, Coles and I experimented efi t of all parties. Reynolds present archaeology through would not withstand any blow, with stone, bronze and iron was a special friend to me and experiments to the wider but that the leather shield, be- axes to fell trees and sharpen we always enjoyed debating world in the following ways: ing slightly fl exible and moder- wooden pegs, and split tim- the issues of reconstruction ately thick, would have served ber with wedges, and partic- / construction, and of decay 1. To invite the public to con- as a defensive weapon. ularly to study the facets and over time, and variation in template how ancient people other marks left by our tools methods of work, of experi- may have lived and worked In front of an audience that on the wood. Th ese were then ence and initiation, and in held all of the leading profes- compared with the multitude the slow emergence of a theo- 2. To lead the public to under- sors in archaeology in Britain of axe-marks on our wetland- retical basis for experimental stand something about hu- I held my replica Bronze Age excavated wooden roads and archaeology.” man urges to create and de- metal shield and asked a col- tracks in the Somerset Levels. velop new technologies league to strike it with a spear, We learned a great deal about You were not alone in (inter) then with a sword. I knew it effi ciency, variation, angles, national experimental ar- 3. To guide the public towards would be cut and the sword axe-haft ing et cetera. chaeology. Who should be a comprehension of how ar- blow nearly sliced it into two mentioned? Could you say a chaeologists work, what their pieces; fortunately my hand My students at Cambridge few words about them? aims are and why support is holding the shield avoided the became involved in some of needed blow! Th en the leather shield this work and we also con- “I have mentioned Hansen & was attacked, and resisted all ducted educational experi- Reynolds, and they were pio- 4.

Load more