April 27, 2020

The spirit of experimental archaeology has remained alive and well this semester, regardless of the limitations imposed by the coronavirus epidemic. Though our usual in-person classes were moved online, our discussions still raised all kinds of questions and opinions that scrutinized the material to the very fine details. While our labs for the remainder of the semester were cancelled, we had many experiences and we can look back on and acknowledge our victories (and failures) in the field of experimental archaeology. Over the last few months, we explored the Deputy Center, learned to flint knap, made clay pots, dyed fabrics, made cordage, carved bone, and conducted our own home experiments. The experiments conducted individually in quarantine turned out great with an amazing variety of replicated recipes, technologies, and artifacts. We have explored all kinds of readings regarding the diverse field of experimental archaeology in our discussions, so it's no surprise that our final class was no different.

On Tuesday, we discussed an article titled “A Journey in Time” by B. Pettersen and L. Narmo (2011) that focused on the emotional and sensual aspects of experimental archaeology. Prior to this, we had focused on works by Peter Reynolds, who advocates for a more scientific approach to his experiments. This essay seemed to be the counterpoint, exhibiting that there must be a consideration of sense and emotion in archaeological experiments in order to include the “human element.” This suggests that the experience of an experiment should be taken into account. We were all then asked to explain how we felt about the two approaches, and indicate which one we leaned more towards in terms of importance. There was a wide variety of opinions regarding this matter, but many students claimed to be impartial. It seemed that we came to the conclusion that human emotions should be considered in order to gather more than just a scientific view of what happened in the past. It enables us to achieve a big-picture view of what life was like, while also allowing us to detect certain details that could have been missed by utilizing the traditional scientific approach exclusively. Though our time exploring the world of experimental archaeology has come to an end, we will reflect on our exciting experiences and discussions for years to come (especially through the form of the 4-page reflection essay due Friday).

April 20, 2020

Class began with students providing updates about their individual at home projects. For today's class, we read an article by Sylvia Thompson in the Irish Times about food archaeology, and Bill Schindler is back! This time his topic of focus is food in archaeology, and he is trying to understand and recreate ancient food. This time around he pairs up with Professor Aidan O’Sullivan and Jason O’Brien, both of University College Dublin, on a project called “Food Evolution.” O’Brien brought many popular and renowned Irish chefs to a roundhouse and had them learn about and study ancient cooking methods, including making sourdough bread. Schindler had his students learn how to obtain food using old methods by meeting farmers, butchering animals, building fires, curing meats, and many other tasks.

Students related the article to their individual at home projects and gained a better understanding of their projects as well as to the overall food topic in experiment archaeology. Today’s reading led to a lot of discussion about the authors and their work. The difference between each author was clear and noticeable even if they were doing similar work. Their thoughts and views were steppingstones to formulate our own ideas.

April 18, 2020

Given the global pandemic of Covid-19, our Experimental Archaeology class had to change our plans in regard to our final project for the semester. Originally, we were supposed to spend the weekend at the Deputy Center, a Moravian College-owned plot of land in hopes of doing a collective experiment. Given the situation, accommodations had to be met in order for us to gain some experience in doing Experimental Archaeology. Our class was now tasked to do a small experiment at home using items we had around the house. Many students tried their hand at ancient recipes from around the world that offered different forms of cooking and ingredients. Others tried their hand at cordage and other experiments. For this blog post, I will be highlighting the experiments done by Sam, Evi, Peyton, and Aleks.

First up we had Evi, who tasked herself to create a clibanus-style earthen oven based loosely upon Graham Taylor's potted history blog entry on Roman bread and circuses. She cooked personal pizzas for each member of her family and had them taste the pizzas. She provided images from her homemade oven and the end product of the pizzas. Next, we had Aleks, who tried his hand with dying socks from black beans. He simply used water, heat, and black beans to dye his sock dark brown, which came out really nicely, besides the fact that it smelled like beans. Then, we had Peyton who took on the challenge of making a 4ply cordage from flax and then testing its strength. She cut 2-ply flax cordage and re-plyed it to make 4-ply. From there, she was able to see that her cordage held at least 60 pounds, at which point she stopped to promote safety. It was nice to see a project completed about cordage as we worked within cordage in a previous lab as a class at school. In this lab, we worked spinning the yarn and threading it, so it was nice to see a member of our class take that a step further. Finally, we had Sam’s Swedish torch, which was a way of keeping soldiers warm during the Thirty Years War. He took a log and cut it into different sections which were challenging. From there, he had to start a fire from kindling, which also proved a challenge. Eventually, Sam was able to start a fire and it was a success. Overall, we took great pleasure in doing these small experiments at our homes given the way the semester planned out. We still were all able to take some experience and fun away from these activities. Below are some pictures of the final products as well as the full projects that can be found on our blog website.

Here are the links to the individual projects:

1. Evi: https://sites.google.com/view/historycookbook/experimental-archaeology/clibanus-roman-style-oven
2. Aleks :https://sites.google.com/view/historycookbook/experimental-archaeology/black-beans-as-a-dye
3. Peyton: https://sites.google.com/view/historycookbook/experimental-archaeology/plied-cordage
4. Sam: https://sites.google.com/view/historycookbook/experimental-archaeology/swedish-torch

Evan M

April 18, 2020

Sadly, the end of the semester is near. To close out the time we have spent together, each student has chosen a home experiment. A majority of students chose a variety of food-based experiments as a fun way to explore the past while maintaining necessary social distancing. The five food experiments to which I paid closest attention were Bard’s, Brittany’s. Ciro’s, Francesca’s, and Schuyler’s. Each had a Roman component. Bard did an experiment with garum or fish sauce made from Mediterranean fish. He used sardines. From this experiment he concluded that the taste does not resemble fish, but it does have a good flavor, which would explain why it is something used often in Mediterranean cuisine.

Brittany did an array of various dishes as her experiment and employed her siblings as taste testers. Her recipes included a take on rice pudding, Globi (a Roman donut), and a Roman cheesecake. Her siblings rated Globi as the best and the cheesecake as the worst. Ciro also made a version of a Roman cheesecake called Savillium. He found this recipe in texts by Cato the Elder. Texts from Cato the Elder are some of the longest surviving Latin scripts.

Francesca and Schuyler both did more savory recipes. Francesca attempted to replicate an Italian bread similar to the ones found in the ruins of Pompeii, and Schuyler made a dish composed of eggs in a pine nut sauce. Both looked interesting.

Each of these experiments was different despite their common place of origin. However, one commonality is how these recipes demonstrate the differences between past and present food consumption. These experiments show how cooking techniques, food palates, and even what was available at the time may have affected how people cooked and ate. Overall, eating was a much more laborious task in the past than it is today.

To dig deeper into this concept, the way we should look at food as history is well-explained in Jessica Hester’s article Putting Ancient Recipes on the Plate. The article explains how looking at food through three different “slices” is beneficial and how our interpretations of these slices is important for knowing more about the past. The three slices are physical evidence, visual evidence, and the written record. In the article, Farrell Monaco uses these slices to interpret what she thought the past may have been like when Pompeii was a booming city before the explosion of Mount Vesuvius.

Though we cannot escape our own biases of the present, looking at food as a window to the past can better help our interpretation of food today. Seeing how difficult it was to prepare and eat food in the past makes me more appreciative of how much easier it is to get food in the present.

Through all of the experiments I have witnessed this semester, I can see how our relationship with the past can definitely be enhanced by doing experiments. Experiments give us more insight to the possibilities of the past even if they are not always 100% correct.

Evi S

April 18, 2020

Amongst the many projects conducted due to our “stay at home” status, there were many who chose to employ the culinary arts in their current residences. Cooking is undoubtedly one of the best skills to employ when stuck at home; it's an invaluable skill to learn and the culinary arts have been honed across history. As such, it is quite interesting to look at the different aspects of culinary history. Cultures are shaped by the experiences they undergo and their unique relationships to their geographic origins. Due to the nature of geographic variety, and the wide array of different resources and cultural norms, we see that different types of culinary creations arise at different points in history. One of the articles read during our class discussions, Putting Ancient Recipes on the Plate, by Jessica Leigh Hester, goes into detail about the process of reviving past culinary exploits as a way to look back on the past. Her references to sources, such as the Roman Cato, show us that experimental archeology is not limited to field work but can expand to observe tastes of the past as well.

Sweets have always been a desirable foodstuff and have introduced some of the most unique and flavorful recipes. A sweet that has survived to this day from one of the most innovative civilizations was the Stuffed Shortbread from ancient Egypt, (https://sites.google.com/view/historycookbook/experimental-archaeology/egyptian-stuffed-shortbread) made by Bridgette. The shape of the dessert resembles that of modern cookies and the flavors are undoubtedly palatable. It is quite interesting to see how different ingredients from around the globe have come together to create these desserts even in times before widespread international travel. Another dessert style recipe were the cubes of Jellied Milk (https://sites.google.com/view/historycookbook/experimental-archaeology/cubes-of-jellied-milk), made by Caroline. Despite the replacement of vanilla for rosewater in the project, this Tudor recipe seemed to come out quite nicely. In modern times we often associate jellied goods with fruit flavored packaged store-bought products, but in the past such delicacies were considered a unique privilege to enjoy. Amongst these desserts was also Evan’s attempt at the German apple tart, a 16^th-century recipe that incorporated apples and cheese (https://sites.google.com/view/historycookbook/experimental-archaeology/german-apple-cheese-tart). It was reported that the cheese and apples did not have complementary tastes, and undoubtedly they would not bake well together. It is interesting to see not only how otherwise complementary flavors change under different circumstances, but how human tastes change with the times.

Desserts were not the only recipes examined for these experiments. Foodstuffs more closely associated with other mealtimes were made as well. Amongst them was Frumenty, a wheat porridge dish which was common in 14^th-century France (https://sites.google.com/view/historycookbook/experimental-archaeology/frumenty-2), made by Tim. This dish was similar in taste and texture to Cream of Wheat, which is interesting to observe. It seems that breakfast style foods have shared similar qualities across time. Another recipe that shared similar qualities was Nick’s Applemoyse and Snowe (https://sites.google.com/view/historycookbook/experimental-archaeology/applemoyse-and-snowe ). Similar to an apple porridge, the recipe was undoubtedly an enjoyable breakfast during 17^th-century England. But even now, it was shown to be a success, showing that certain flavors and culinary techniques pertain across time and culture.

Despite the conditions surrounding us, the Moravian Experimental Archeology class was still able to produce exciting and flavorful experiments. These unique culinary creations truly showed that even at home, creativity can be found. It is also important to note how these experiments came to show us how we can find ways to explore experimental archeology without being in the class. Experimental archeology as a whole shouldn’t be confined to purely data and numbers; that would ruin the “experimental” aspect of the field and limit the scope we have to examine. As we are living in difficult and unique times, it is a pleasure to see how we can find ways to learn about history despite our confined conditions.

Ciro C

April 13, 2020

This lovely piece of construction is Guédelon Castle located in the Guédelon forest in France. Unfortunately, we couldn’t build this castle ourselves due to both Covid-19 and the lack of building materials. Let it be known, however, that I can personally vouch for the fact that we would build it if we could. This particular project was started in 1995 after a survey was done of Saint-Fargeau castle. Two experienced fortification experts, Michael Guyot and Maryline Martin, decided they could build a castle like Saint-Fargeau from the ground up to learn more about the effort and techniques it took to make such fortresses. They decided that this castle would not be as complex as Saint-Fargeau, but that it would be based on surrounding thirteenth-century castles that were built in the name of Phillip Augustus, King of France. The blueprints for the castle were laid out by historical architect Jacques Moulin, who planned to have the castle look like this.

Of course, such an endeavor requires a lot of labor. Currently about 70 people work at the castle with 40 of them actively constructing the castle itself and the rest serving in support roles. Their reasons for being there range from practicing their profession to simply being curious volunteers. They are broken up into groups based around their particular job on the castle. Woodsmen (below left), as the name suggests, cut wood to make frames and facilitate the other jobs on the site. Quarrymen (below right) have the difficult job of cutting stone from their quarry and making useful for construction.

Mortar makers have the job of making the mortar, the stuff that keeps stones together into a wall. You then have two kinds of masons, banker masons, who create all the complex shapes and pieces of art from the stone, and fixer masons, the slightly less glorified job of actually making those pieces of stone fit together. All together almost 700 people come to volunteer to help with one aspect or another, just not at the same time.

We also read a chapter from Alexander Langland’s book Craft: An Inquiry into the Origins and True Meaning of Traditional, in which he tries to define craft and to rescue it from the negative connotations associated with crafty or witchcraft. He wants to restore craft to its original association with wisdom and virtue. Without going into detail, the class generally had a negative opinion of his work. This was mostly due to the inconsistent nature of writing, disagreements on the etymology of the word craft, and a belief that he is arrogant and judgmental when it comes to modern crafts. Langland believes that in using machines “we become lazy, stupid, desensitized, and disengaged” (23). It is better to do things with less technology because it is better for you and makes you better. Again, we did not agree with that because it reeks of judgmentalism and sneering at people because they have different interests than you.

Schuyler E.

April 6, 2020

Amid the chaos in the world today, our class has found a niche in online schooling. Although these unforeseen circumstances have hindered many upcoming projects, we have created alternative options and have adapted as best as we can. This Tuesday, we read the article “Putting Ancient Recipes on the Plate” by Jessica Hester. It leads perfectly into our upcoming project; one created under the assumption that many of us are unable to leave our house. Instead, we were prompted to bring prehistoric life alive in our kitchens and homes. It may seem as though we have missed out on the best part of the semester, however, “the show must go on” and Professors Bardsley and Paxton have found a way to continue with experiments that allow us to fully grasp the concept of Experimental Archaeology. The project revolves around the creation of a mini social media story. Through pictures and videos, we attempt to allow others to visualize our experiments. Many ideas throughout class consisted of recipes, spinning/cord-making, and dyeing. My mini-project proposal is to either create a whole prehistoric meal or to create a few prehistoric recipes. Regardless of the choice, there will be anachronisms like using a gas fire, and possibly modern baking tools.

We also talked as a class previously about how some of us think this class should be taught as a first-year seminar. This would allow students who have undeclared majors to experience something they may not know they are good at or interested in something because it may have never been introduced in their life. Experimental archaeology shares primitive skills that may not be seen as useful in such a modern era however, I think the situation we face today shows how quickly our world can change and truly shows what our necessities really are. We will never know when skills like this can be seen as useful and not just as “leisure.”

In the article we read on Tuesday, author Jessica Hester shares Farrell Monaco’s experience of baking panis quadratus, a loaf of bread prehistoric people made. The whole article contextualizes the idea of historical empathy with imagining life through our ancestors’ eyes focusing on what they ate. In the article, Monaco says, “For so long, we’ve only done archaeology with our eyes.” She explains how she wants to taste and smell what prehistoric people did. The trouble that arises here is the lack of detail their recipes provide because many of them were found through archaeological artifacts. To create these older recipes, many people need to adapt to what is available today. Some ingredients may no longer exist, causing alternative but similar products to be used. This does not entirely ruin the experiment as you can still end up with a like product that will not be similar to much found in your modern-day kitchen. This article shows the class that our experiment will not be perfect, and it may fail because of the holes that exist within archaeology. Everything is subject to interpretation and we do not all interpret things the same way. In a previous class, we talked about failure and the need for failure to succeed. We discussed how common it is for people to be terrified to fail. We concluded that life without failure is a life that has not been lived to its fullest potential. Our experiments may fail but Bardsley said, “it is the process you endure that will teach you the most.”

Our class was not held on Tuesday, but we listened to a podcast with Roeland Paardekooper, a Dutch archeologist who is currently with EXARC and shares the work they do. Throughout the interview, Paardkooper reiterates the benefits of an open-air museum, a concept that was popularized 50 years ago when EXARC was formed. Previously focusing on education, these museums are now catered largely to tourists. The main purpose of these museums is to expose the public to Archaeology. They are meant to be places where you can expand your knowledge or build knowledge on an important subject that has been expanded upon over the years. Open-air museums allow visitors to divulge themselves into prehistoric life. To understand what came before us and recreate things before they were modernized in today’s era. This place was solely built with experimental archeology in mind and to give people a designated area to practice it. The podcast was an in-depth look into the life of a real archeologist. It shared his beliefs, his values, and passion for the subject.

On Thursday we read an article called Cooking in Baskets Using Hot Rocks by Jonathan Thornton. The article explained how during ancient times, different cultures, especially Native Americans, would use baskets filled with hot rocks to cook. During this time, it was unusual to use a basket for cooking. The baskets had to be filled with just the right kind of rock called the Vesicular basalt, which allowed heat and air to circulate throughout the basket. The food was then cooked using an effective and efficient method. At this time, they also had handmade tools to rotate the hot rocks, and one to handle the food. These tools were done using a material called bent greenwood. Overall this method was very common among Native Americans who would do this for most of their meals.

In the second article, "Chenopodium for Breakfast: Experimental Archaeology and Cooking Methods," Sarah Wisseman talks about the two different types of cooking methods; hot rock boiling or direct heat cooking. Hot rock boiling entails heating the rocks in a fire and placing them into a grain and water-filled vessel which is minimally buried in the ground to maintain heat. Some obstacles that arose from this method include the overflow that sometimes occurred along with the rocks needing to be continuously heated. For direct heat boiling, a pot was placed over rocks and balanced to ensure foods would be evenly cooked. This method was a much cleaner option and needed less attending by the cooks. The experiments constructed tested the efficiency of two different cooking methods to see what was more suitable and less of a hassle. The experiment concluded that both methods worked with a minimal difference in time and that the decision of cooking style depended on what was being cooked.

“Learning how to flake and chip chert, obsidian, and other lithic material increases the experimenter’s respect for and understanding of ancient technology.” (Wisseman 1). This quote from the last article allowed me to reflect (especially with all the time on my hands) on my perspective of Experimental Archaeology. At the beginning of the semester, I’d say my knowledge was minimal at best and that may even be generous. At this point, after learning how to flake and chip obsidian, bone, and other lithic material I am much more knowledgeable and appreciative of how my ancestors lived. I have learned to appreciate and value the process as much as the results. Recreating things from the past provides us withvaluable lessons that help many archaeologists and students to understand things like “how” and “why.” It provides context to concepts learned through artifacts. Reading all the articles up until this point allowed me to reflect on what we learned during class and labs and connect with archeology on a new level.

Brittany G

March 30, 2020

In the midst of the COVID-19 outbreak the human spirit prevails and the fire of learning continues to burn. As history repeats itself, the class quarantines itself for the safety of not only themselves but also their fellow students and family members. As the discussion of the previous weeks’ experiment proposals had come to an end, the camping trip was cancelled much to the sorrow of all. Yet, not all is lost as the new week begins. Students are given the opportunity to create their own experiments at home. The future awaits. Yet, in the present Moravian College’s experimental archaeology class speaks of the past by examining the works of Bill Schindler, a prominent experimental archaeologist who visited Moravian last year.

On Tuesday, the group read R. Paardekooper’s Exarc review of Bill Schindler’s The Great Human Race to preface the day’s activity. In the review, the author lays the foundation of the series. Bill Schindler is an expert in the field of experimental archaeology, having honed skills which he uses in the program. Accompanying him is Cat Bigney, an accomplished survivalist who teaches to classes interested in primitive skills at the Boulder Outdoor Survival School. Her travels and years of collaborations with fellow experts has given her the skill set to make her the perfect companion to Schindler. Throughout their journey, they seek to discover the world of ancient humans. They follow the path of prehistoric humanity as they travel from the African savannah to the Middle East to Mongolia and to Alaska. Along their journey they demonstrate the methods and tools used to survive in different periods of human evolution. When compared to similar survivalist shows, the Great Human Race is the most ambitious. Not only do they explore multiple terrains and time periods, but they also replicate the tool kits of different hominid species. Using only the materials around them and archaeological evidence, they survived in the harshest of conditions to discover what it was like in the Paleolithic. In this way Schindler and Bigney distinguish their show from others. By using period accurate clothing and tools without a script, The Great Human Race enthralled the class with its natural drama where the stakes were truly high. No other film has done such a feat with such remarkable astuteness.

Yet, a single question always clawed at their minds: can the age be replicated accurately? With that in mind, the class viewed episode 7 of the series and discussed the validity of the program. Surely there is no way modern people can 100% accurately replicate Stone Age problems, but the series goes to great lengths to do just that. The focal point in the class discussion was the question of whether the show was infotainment or experimental archaeology. Despite the precision with which The Great Human Race was created, it is still a television program. A debate began about whether the information and reconstruction were undermined by the theatrical effects. We concluded that because television is a visual medium the effects should have been expected. Though The Great Human Race is an exceptional piece of media it serves as a way to think of other survival shows and experimental archeology programs as a whole in terms of practical application of historical techniques versus sheer entertaining splendour.

This would not be the end of Bill Schindler for on March 26 the class read R. Schiffman’s article “Professor Caveman” in the Atlantic. The class learned of his past trials – he flunked out of college, had debilitating eye problems, and worked on a farm - before earning a doctoral program and becoming the public face of experimental archaeology. It truly inspired those who read the article. To a greater extent than Doctors Bardsley and Paxton do with their classes, Schindler places students outside their comfort zones. He not only has his students knap stone to create sharp tools, but also has them use those tools to butcher a deer. Schindler’s hands-on methods showed the striking potential of the craft. Skills, which he sees as valuable like fire making, rope making, butchering, or even simple gathering, are the agenda of the day. To his class (some of whom had never cracked an egg), the experience brought humanity to history creating a new appreciation for prehistoric peoples.

Schindler truly is an exemplar of experimental archaeology. The skills he teaches are practical, but in the modern age, many are rarely used because we rely too much on technology, which also separates us from the environment. But history shows that to err is human no matter how close to nature. Schindler’s methodology may be firm but the world changes. It may be good to remember and relive the past, but ultimately many said that such romanticism must be taken with a grain of salt. Students debated whether the course Schindler taught was practical and how in the context of college curriculum the class must be examined. The conversation naturally evolved into an examination of who was responsible for pushing students beyond their comfort zones, the teacher or the student. The debate was thorough with students presenting their views in relation to their own schedules, though no agreement was reached whether the student, professor, or both should take the initiative. Nor was a firm answer given whether such a class would be practical even we agreed that one should exist. Lastly, based upon a quote by Schindler himself, failure, as it pertains to experimental archaeology and to life as a whole was debated in a final note of wisdom for the week. Failure, it is said by both Schindler and the class, is no catastrophe but an opportunity to learn. There is no deathly consequence at failing an experiment or in most situations in life. It is only an opportunity to gather what one needs, learn from the past, and evolve. And like generations before we move forward, but remember where we came from.

In spite of the virus which confines the class to their homes the class continues to be healthy. This week has proven the willpower of learning much as humanity has persevered, adapted, and used the skills which Bill Schindler teaches to dominate the planet.

Bard

March 23, 2020

When I saw I would be blogging for the week of the project proposals, I’d assumed I would have a relatively mundane blog entry, what with no practical sessions or eye-catching labs to discuss. Instead, COVID-19 has rapidly become a serious issue and shaken up the class, making for a great deal to discuss. Be careful what you wish for! By Tuesday’s class, students had been asked to leave campus voluntarily and self-isolate, and by Friday it was announced by the Governor of Pennsylvania that all campuses would be closed. As a result, this week was held entirely online through Zoom. While there were a few early hiccups, we very quickly adjusted to the new normal and got to work presenting our project proposals.

On Tuesday, we had two proposals. The first, presented by Caroline, Evan, Tim, Peyton, and me, was a warp-weighted loom. A warp-weighted loom uses small weights of stone or ceramic to hold the warp of a fabric taut while the weft is worked. The warp-weighted loom would be a small- to medium-sized project, asking around two or three dozen hours of work to make a loom and weights. The second project discussed on Tuesday, proposed by Bard, Ciro, and Evi, was a Clibanus-style earthen oven. This style of small, portable earthen oven was found in Rome, and it is thought it was often mass produced. The Clibanus would be a small project, requiring only a few hours for a single oven.

Thursday offered three proposals. Brittany and Francesca proposed weaving baskets, both with traditional weaving methods and by the grass coil method. Basket weaving would also be a small project, only requiring an hour or two per basket. Schuyler proposed making stone hatchets based on a fusion of Native American and European finds. Again, this would be a small project needing only a handful of hours per hatchet. Bridgette, Sam, and Aleks proposed making a Navajo hogan, a round mud house found in the American Southwest. This was the only large project proposed, likely needing the full 140 hours available to us.

After all the proposals had been presented, we discussed the pros and cons of each. This led us to conclude that we were all interested in making the hogan, and thus we didn’t need to vote on the project we would pursue. We discussed the possibility of doing one or two of the small projects on the side but didn’t come to any solid decisions. We also talked about whether or not the camping trip would happen, and what we would do if it was cancelled. Since the trip will likely remain cancelled due to the campus closure, we discussed the possibility of an optional trip sometime in the fall semester.

Ultimately, I think it’s been an interesting and informative week for us all as we adjusted to a new form of the class and the new normal of quarantine. I’d say it’s been a successful transition and has set us up well for the rest of the (now online) semester.

Nicholas B.

March 18, 2020

There’s no bones about it - time seems to be racing as we have officially made it halfway through the semester as we wrap up this past week of classes. However, there were definitely some bones about this week, as we had the opportunity to learn about and work with that very material!

On Tuesday, we were introduced to an article titled “Diagenesis in Modern, Danish, Burned Pig Bone” by Anne Juul Jensen that is about an experiment involving the burning and burial of pig bones in order to better understand the concept of diagenesis, which is essentially the concept that objects can physically, biologically, and chemically change over time and create different products from the original item. Once the bones were buried, half of the sample was excavated after one year, and the remainder of the sample was excavated after twenty years. By comparing the chemical structure of these two excavations to the surrounding soil, it was clear to see that diagenesis had taken place. The chemicals between the bones and the soil had basically seeped into one another, causing the compositions to change. It was interesting to explore this link between chemistry and archaeology - one that is not often discussed or considered.

In addition to this, we got to bone up on all of the possibilities there are when it comes to crafting with bone. From axes to fish hooks, there really isn’t much that you can’t do with them. We explored an article titled “Bone Tools” from the University of Iowa that outlined different types of tools that can be made out of bones, as well as what specific bone would be ideal for certain tools. It was really neat to be able to expand our minds to understand what we are capable of making with what seems like such an unlikely resource. Once we had explored the possibilities, we were able to put ourselves into the shoes of people from long ago and make our own arrowheads from bones. Once the arrows were finished, we hafted them onto shafts to be put to the test during our lab session on Friday.

For Thursday, we were able to take a look at more uses for bone. However, these articles delved into some tools that were not as essential as the first article about tools. The first one from this set was an article by Hans Christian Kuchelmann and Petar Zidarov titled “Let’s skate together!

Skating on bones in the past and today” that explained the ins and outs of creating ice skates from bone. This was probably one of the last uses I could have ever imagined bone being used for, but the possibilities are truly endless! Unlike more scientific articles we have read, the authors focused on the experience of skating and how much fun they had. We also got to see another one of these incredible ideas when we read “My Caveman Style Bone Flute” by Andy J. Letke. He only used primitive tools to make this flute out of a turkey leg, which is really neat considering all of the tools available to us today.

During our lab, we put on quite the show when we had the opportunity to shoot the arrows we had made at our very own deer in disguise, or better known as our buck-skinned bovine, on the front lawn of Comenius. In addition to this, we had the chance to try our hand at using atlatls, which are handheld mechanisms used to aid in spear throwing. Some students really worked their fingers to the bone and were able to hone in some of these skills during the lab period. This was a great way to get some experience, which helps us to better understand the past by experiencing it. This is a key component in experimental archaeology, and we are lucky enough to have had the chance of doing this!

After such an eventful week, it really pays to reflect on some of the broader and more implicit lessons from our experiences. Acquiring the skills to make arrowheads, haft them to arrows, and shoot them all within one week is pretty impressive. However, perfecting these skills can take months or even years. Considering the time crunch, I’d say we all did pretty well. We managed to make useful tools and learn how to use them, and a few of us were able to do so with the promise of some beefy venison in the near future. Like Kuchelmann and Zidarov we appreciated the fun people in the past must have had using atlatls and bows. Overall, we had a very eventful and educational week, and I can feel it in my bones that next week will be just as great!

Bridgette R.

March 9, 2020

The week before spring break began with our class’s midterm exam. The exam consisted of two questions; the first part instructed the students to skim an article by experimental archaeologist Jannie Marie Christensen and write a response to that article, similar to our journal entries. We were asked to provide a summary of the text as well as our own thoughts and feedback, providing our own made up “grade” for the experiment. The article that we were given was titled “Living Conditions and Air Quality in a Reconstructed Viking House.” Christensen studied how select groups of people in a wide age range lived in two separate reconstructions of German Viking Age style homes. The article provides a decent amount of detail regarding the execution of the experiment throughout a fifteen-week period. Measures of fine particles, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide were taken, and health exams were performed on the participants. The air quality of the houses were equally poor, since the circulation of the smoke was worse than with modern fireplaces with chimneys. The second question asked for the definition of experimental archaeology, which to me is a rather subjective question. Archaeology is the study of human history and culture throughout the recovery of artifacts. Experimental archaeology takes this study one step further. To begin, an experiment is a scientific procedure, or method, of resolving one’s hypothesis through the use of various trials and tests. Combine the two and this is a very general summary of what experimental archaeology is.

Thursday’s class was largely discussion of experiments for our own projects. We had three readings for our journal entry revolving around potential projects for our class camping trip. The first was an article from EXARC.net discussing the construction of building a Mesolithic Hut. The construction of this hut required reeds, tree bark, miscanthus, and birch poles, as well as a lot of patience and craftsmanship. The second option given was the potential to recreate a Viking Age bead furnace. The article by Neil Peterson gave a detailed step-by-step how to create an imperfect furnace. The third option given in the reading was a guide to Roman and medieval kilns for pottery firing our clay pieces that we had made earlier into the semester. Professors Bardsley and Paxton also encouraged us to begin looking for alternate experiments that we may be able to perform on our trip, as we are not at all limited to just these three. In the next class, we would learn how to make cordage that will be useful in perhaps the construction of a hut. Also, looking back at our readings for Journal 7; Experimental Archaeology and Perishable Materials by Hurcomb, we were reminded that cordage was a common tool used in creating textures and designs in clay pottery of the Neolithic Age especially.

On Friday, our Lab day, we were introduced to the art of hand-spinning yarn and cordage! We were given a variety of materials from plant based fibers such as flax and banana silk, to wool from sheep and even alpaca hair. We started off the cordage making process by watching a how-to video filmed by a former experimental archaeology student at Moravian College, Katelyn Snyder. Her video was truly helpful in teaching somebody who has never created any type of cordage, such as myself. I found that the easiest material to begin with was the flax fiber because of its length and stretch-like qualities. The spindles that we were given were made from a wooden pole with a hook attached to the top and a CD going through the pole. These can also be called drop spindles. This tool was especially helpful in spinning our one-ply yarn. Professors Bardsley and Paxton showed us an informative video by Abby Franquemont on how to properly spin wool and other fibers with the tools that we were given. For the yarn, I used several different colors of sheep wool. This made for a fun challenge in twisting and spinning different raw materials together. The sense of community that formed in the classroom during our lab time was something that I imagine would have happened as the people before us created their own textiles. Now that I am familiar with how to spin wool and make cordage, as well as how to dye fabrics with natural dyes such as cochineal and madder, I would be greatly interested in possibly dying my own yarn! The dyeing process requires many necessary steps in preparing the fabrics for the dyes. This includes having to divide the fabrics into cotton vs. silk and wool, and scour each type of fabric by heating them up in hot water on the stove for about an hour. Afterwards, each needs a mordant, and then the cotton fabrics must be treated with chalk in order to maintain color vibrancy. These many steps were important to follow for those who lived during a time when yarn and dyes were not accessible in stores. We are so lucky to live in an age when we have such easy access to things that people in the past would have spent days making. Of course, everybody is different and everybody has their own unique skill sets. With this being said, there are some challenges that may arise in the creation of such textiles. This is okay, however, because in experimental archaeology, the students go into every lab as a learning experience.

Francesca B.

Feb. 24, 2020

This week we included the entire campus in our magic ritual of color changing fabric. It’s surprising we weren’t removed from the campus for sacrilegious practices, but I think the fact that our dyes were all natural saved us from the witch hunt.

As you’ve guessed, our main topic in class this week was dyeing! In great detail we went into the ins and outs of ancient dyeing techniques, where these techniques originated and how to replicate them ourselves (with some help from some modern equipment of course). Ancient textiles and dyes are difficult to find due to their perishable natures, but certain, well preserved samples and records have led the archaeological community to find out how these dyes were made. We looked carefully at Anna Hartl’s article “Reproducing colourful woven bands from the Iron Age salt mine at Hallstatt, Austria” which details an experiment that attempted to recreate the dyeing techniques used on extremely well-preserved textiles found in salt mines. Using a vast array of practical and scientific techniques, they were able to successfully understand how these textiles were dyed and recreate the process. One of the most impactful things from that article for me was this quote, “Dyeing with natural dyes is an ancient cultural technology that is simple in terms of equipment and resources, but sophisticated in terms of the knowledge required. It fully reflects the comprehensive knowledge prehistoric people had of the chemical properties of natural substances, the effect of temperature on (bio)chemical processes, and the ability to control and manage these processes”. It was humbling to read, especially after seeing the work and thoroughness that simply went into trying to recreate these textiles. While our approach was less intense, this idea of recreation and experience was our main guide when dyeing.

We used different plants (and bugs) and chemicals to get blue, various reds/magentas, and yellow, then mixed those into greens and oranges. All of these dyes (except for one) were then heated to specific temperatures and used to soak the clothes. Our vibrant yellow came from weld, which is a pale, yellow flower. Woad, the only cold water dye we used, made a deep blue color. Our deep, brownish red came from madder, a fleshy root that can change color based on mineral content. Adding iron gave us a great shade of magenta. Finally, cochineal bugs produced a very vivid red pigment at the cost of having to grind them up into dust (not while they’re alive of course). This dye was neat, especially because it’s probably the “oldest” dye we used, as the Incas and Maya used it to dye textiles and as an ink.

Because we the students would be in charge of educating and helping other people on campus dye stuff, we had a dyeing session with just our class where we pre-dyed fabrics for others to use and mix with other colors on the main lab day. This really made it easy for us to help others dye, as we already had a day of testing out the dyes and figuring out what colors mix well. With all these options we couldn’t help but show the whole campus how to dye. But while we were having fun dyeing, we were also testing and recording the different properties we observed between some dyes.

Our main experiment was to compare the differences between madder and cochineal in terms of dyeing. Madder was used in ancient Europe, while cochineal was used by ancient South American cultures, and even though they both produce red, they have a lot of different properties that made cochineal the more desirable of the two. Visually, cochineal is much more pleasing (in my opinion), and makes a bright, vibrant red, while madder creates a deep, brownish rusty red. We also found that it takes significantly more madder to dye a piece of cloth than it would for cochineal to dye the same sized piece, making cochineal a much more efficient dye. Cochineal was also resistant to overheating, as an overheated cochineal would produce the same results as normal cochineal, while madder on the other hand would create a distorted dusty orange color if overheated. Finally, cochineal was a much faster process and needed far less time to produce the same vivid reds than madder, especially when dyeing cotton.

On top of fulfilling my childhood dream of dyeing at 22, this was a really rewarding lab. We all came together to teach other people about dyeing, while also having a lot of fun. People seemed genuinely interested in what we were doing, and I think that’s the fastest way to teach others and make the lessons stick. Not to mention being able to take home some souvenirs (I made some awesome socks).

Doing this sort of thing makes you really appreciate the ingenuity and curiosity of the ancient peoples who came before us. What was an afternoon of fun for us, was a deeply time consuming, cultural and difficult process for them. They engineered these processes with no manual, no directions, and no formal education, just human curiosity and a drive to create and use the environment around them.

Aleks R.

Week of February 10th

It’s hard to believe we just completed the fifth week of classes. Time just seems to fly by in this class, especially with such an enjoyable unit this week. This week was focused on learning about pottery and textiles, but before we could run off and make our own pots, there were some things we had to learn. On Tuesday, we had two readings; one was Karen G. Harry's 2010 article, “Understanding ceramic manufacturing technology,” and the second was Anthonio Akkermans’ website explaining “Three Methods of Making Pottery”. With Henry’s reading, we got to learn why it is so important to look at pottery when learning about the past and how to properly run experiments to try out new ideas. She also taught us that many of these experiments go through trial and error before they really work, which I really respect. Akkermans taught us how to actually make the pots using three different methods. It was great to have that resource later in the week when we would be sent off to try our hand at it.

We also focused heavily on learning about the Chaîne Opératoire, the chain of events to perform an action, essentially. We started with the fact that the clay had to be harvested before we could follow the rest of the steps for purifying the clay, tempering it, prepping, shaping, drying, and finally firing. Part of what makes pottery so great to find is that it can tell so much. We learned more about this idea in our Thursday reading of Linda Hurcombe’s article, “Organics from Inorganics: Using experimental archaeology as a research tool for studying perishable material culture.” We debated briefly over whether her article fell into the category of experiment report, literature review, or both. Hurcombe taught us to look to pottery for clues about an old civilization because it doesn’t decay like organic materials and contains traces so many different things like traces of food, designs, and materials. These pieces of pottery can fill in some of the gaps that the broken-down organics leave behind. Based on the imprint in this pot, what plants were used? Could this design hint at what it was used for, such as a tight weave pattern for holding water? What type of clay was used to make this pot? What tools were used? We also explored uses of the Chaîne Opératoire, marks on surviving tools, and skeuomorphs in identifying the “missing majority” of a society’s material culture.

With these questions in mind, we got to start on our own case study of using the “Organics from Inorganics” idea to anticipate where to find textile use in an imaginary society. While we were talking about what resources this culture would have, our very own Dr. Bardsley and Dr. Paxton had their own debate over the benefits and problems of domesticated animals. Large civilizations depended on them, but they brought diseases while hunter-gatherer societies were still able to thrive but did not have the easy food source. It was a little strange hearing them having the debate instead of other students. We then got back to work with our case study and had a great conversation about the different actions we could take to learn more about this civilization. Sometimes someone had an idea they weren’t sure about, but we were able to talk about it and expand upon the ideas. It was also interesting to see how many of our ideas overlapped, even though we had different topics to look into.

Friday was when we got to put what we learned into action. I still feel bad for any nearby classes being held at that time trying to have their own discussions and hearing a cacophony of WHACKs from down the hall as we all started to beat the air out of our lumps of clay. Pottery is definitely a social activity, but we still had a good discussion over whether, in the past, a small group of people handled it or whether everyone contributed. Some people already had a good hand for pottery, while some of us were less expert but still had fun anyway. By the end of class, we had a variety of pieces, dirty hands, and a plan for when we go feral in the woods. Now, all there’s left to do is let the pottery dry until our camping weekend when we will build our kiln to fire them.

Peyton Z

Feb. 10, 2020

This past week, we focused on heritage, archaeocenters, and lithics. The first article that we read was Mary Ellen Crothers’ “Experimental Archaeology within the Heritage Industry: Publicity and the Public at West Stow Anglo-Saxon Village.” At this archaeocenter, many buildings were reconstructed for visitors to see. Visitors are able to interact with and discuss different aspects of the home, such as the different possible floor constructions. One house was built with a sunken, earth floor, while another had a sunken floor with planks laid over top. Because of visitor feedback and interactions with the homes, researchers realized that a plank floor was more probable.

We also read Carolyn Forrest’s “Linking experimental archaeology and living history in the heritage industry”. In this article, she compares four different archaeocenters throughout Europe and how people interact with these sites. Some sites have guided tours, signs, and people reenacting what life was like in the time period. However, other sites, like Butser Ancient Farm which was founded as a center of experimental archaeology, do not have any of these things, and people are free to walk around these sites. Financial challenges, however, have meant that sites like Butser have had to attract tourists and school groups with events and tours.

We had a very detailed discussion about what heritage means in different countries and contexts, as the term was used often in both articles. While the term “heritage” has some negative connotations surrounding white supremacy in the United States, heritage is often seen as being similar to local history from a European perspective.

The fractures and microwear in stone arrowheads were analyzed in Fischer, Hansen, and Rasmussen’s 1984 article “Macro and Micro Wear Traces on Lithic Project Points.” An experiment was conducted to see what caused certain fractures on stone points. Hundreds of replica arrowheads were made. They were then shot at different targets, such as boar and sheep, using a replica bow. The resulting fractures were then analyzed visually and also by microscope. Fractures that were visible to the naked eye were called macrowear, and polish and striations that could only be seen underneath a microscope were called microfractures.

On Friday, we conducted a microwear experiment. We hypothesized that cutting different materials would produce different wear marks on the blades. The previous week, we made obsidian and flint flakes, which we used as blades this week. Each student was given four flakes, and then used three flakes for ten minutes doing one specific task. We chopped carrots, sliced and scored leather, and whittled and cut wood. With the fourth flake, we went to a random station and repeated one of the tasks. We then turned in those flakes and they were given a random number. Only the professors knew which material the flakes were used to cut.

We then took a trip to the biology lab, where we used microscopes to look at our three index flakes (flint or obsidian) to view the wear patterns that were produced. We were then given two of the numbered flakes. Looking at the cutting edge underneath the microscope, we tried to figure out which material that flake was used to cut by comparing it to our index flakes. Although I was not able to identify the individual wear patterns, many people in the class were able to. As a whole, the class was able to guess when the marks were carrots 50 percent of the time, 58.3 percent of the time for wood, and only 30 percent of the time for leather. However, we had a very small sample size, and that data could change it were larger.

We were then given two of the numbered flakes. Looking at the cutting edge underneath the microscope, we tried to figure out which material that flake was used to cut by comparing it to our index flakes. Although I was not able to identify the individual wear patterns, many people in the class were able to. As a whole, the class was able to guess when the marks were carrots 50 percent of the time, 58.3 percent of the time for wood, and only 30 percent of the time for leather. However, we had a very small sample size, and that data could change it were larger.

Although I thought that this experiment was conducted well, there were still a few small issues, such as people seeing different patterns on their index pieces and not knowing which edge of the unknown flake was the cutting edge. Many parts of this experiment fit into Peter Reynold’s ideas surrounding good experiments. This experiment could be considered both process and function, as we used these tools to figure out how they were used. This could also be seen as a simulation experiment, as we looked at the decay and damage to these replicas through usage. However, not all parts of our experiment fit within Stephen Saraydar’s steps surrounding experimentation, as we were not proficient in obsidian and flint knapping,

Overall, I enjoyed working on this experiment, and I learned lots about lithics and heritage sites throughout this week. I’m also looking forward to learning even more in the upcoming weeks!

Caroline F.

February 3, 2020

Here we are at the beginning of the third week of classes and experimental archaeology is off to a good start. We have a great bunch of students who persevered through some dense readings and who enthusiastically threw themselves into making flakes and arrow points in Friday’s lithics lab.

Tuesday’s class was particularly animated. We read Peter Reynolds’ classic article “The Nature of Experiment in Archaeology” and watched a video of him introducing Butser Ancient Farm. Students readily identified Reynolds as a processual archaeologist and a hard core one at that. Indeed, students champed at the bit to share their views on Reynolds and his approach to experimental archaeology. While many students reacted strongly to Reynolds’ acerbic tone, Evan thought his personality enlivened the reading and made for a nice change from last week’s dense articles. Even though Schuylar, a history major, gamely insisted that understanding human motivation was crucial to the endeavor, most ultimately accepted Reynolds’ argument that experiments cannot reveal insights into the motivations of past people. Some science majors liked seeing familiar methods and approaches reflected in the readings. Love teaching gen ed classes for the different disciplinary perspectives they bring out. We talked about the evolution of Butser Ancient Farm from a site that was almost purely experimental under Reynolds to one that has had to adjust to a new economic reality by welcoming the public and school groups. Dr. Bardsley elaborated and showed pictures from her visit to Butser last fall. We then reviewed Reynolds’ five types experiments: 1) construct, 2) process and function, 3) simulation, 4) probability trial, and 5) technological innovation. By this time, we had run out of time and did not get to Saraydar’s chapter on the experiment in the sciences and archaeology.

On Thursday we reviewed Saraydar’s eight criteria for an archaeological experiment since we did not get to it last day. Here is an abbreviated version of the guidelines.

1) Research both the archaeological and ethnological literature for clues about materials and process

2) Use the appropriate materials – those we know past people used or those available to them.

3) Work within the limits of the aboriginal situation. Do not use technologies the people in question did not possess.

4) Gain experience in the skill being tested. One needs to practice, take lessons, etc. in order to master the skill or obtain the assistance of an expert.

5) Repeat experiments whenever possible to account for anomalies.

6) Report on the experiment in sufficient detail so that someone else may critique it and replicate it.

7) The goal is to determine how something might have been made or used in the past, not that it must have been made in this way.

8) These are guidelines and may not be adhered to in every particular.

Saraydar, S. C. 2008. Replicating the past: the art and science of the archaeological experiment. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, 26-28.

Students worked in pairs to assess a number of experiments using Reynolds’ typology and Saraydar’s eight criteria. We heard some great conversations about the experiments, as students gave serious consideration about how to rank each. The results were surprisingly similar to last year’s rankings, indicating that students understand and can apply the criteria to real experiments.

I have been looking forward to Friday’s lithics lab all week. Knapping is fun and relaxing and it lets students ‘play’ with obsidian to see how it responds when knapped. Our goal was to produce a sufficient number of flakes to perform a use wear experiment next week. Once we had a small bucket full of flakes, students tried their hands at knapping flint, which they found had different properties than obsidian. Others used the pressure flake method to make notched arrow points that they hafted onto shafts. Clearly we have some budding flintknappers in the group.

As they worked, students speculated on the sociability of flint knapping and whether it was a specialized task performed by a small, skilled group or one that involved the community more generally. They are right to think of knapping and similar kinds of work as inherently social. It was interesting to watch as students shared tools and their newly acquired knowledge. I am curious whether students’ attitudes toward Reynolds will change as they do more hands-on work in labs and read more post-processual archaeology. A great start to the lab sessions.

Nick, Caroline, and Tim. Nick hafting an arrow point.

Jamie P.

In short, the first week has begun in a very promising way. We're doing a good job of figuring out challenging readings (with more to come tomorrow). We're looking forward to the first on-campus lab, on Friday, which will involve flintknapping. For faculty, it's always a relief to be underway and to know that we have a keen group of students (no whiners!) and a bunch of exciting things planned.

Sandy B