Blog 2022

In the next class we discussed two different readings: Sylvia Thompson’s “Food archaeology goes back to our roots” and Bill Schindler’s “Eat like a Human” website (https://eatlikeahuman.com/). Both addressed food and how those in the past ate. Much of the discussion on Thursday about these texts focused on whether food created, butchered, and prepared by those eating it was better for the “soul” than food that wasn't. The class watched a video by Bill Schindler in which he spoke about “Soul Authorship” and how he believed that people who created their own technologies felt more accomplished and attached to their work when compared to those simply buying the goods. We discussed whether or not the class would be interested in skinning a deer and preparing its hide and/or meat. While the creation of deer jerky would create soul authorship in the final product, I do not know how much Moravian University would appreciate it if a real deer was skinned and prepared on the front lawn. There were also conversations about whether or not classes with experiential components should be required at the university level.

Moving forward to our trip to the Deputy Center: most of us arrived at 2:00 PM on Friday and began an experiment right away. The first experiment was the pit firing experiment proposed by Hallie, Lauren, and Sarah. We got to work digging a hole and started a fire in said hole in an attempt to dry out the soil. In the meantime, others set up tents and assisted in setting up the table and canopy under which we kept some of our food. After the soil was sufficiently dry, we were able to put each layer of sawdust, branches, and clay down. We then stuck metal pipes into the pit to keep the fire hot and let it go ablaze. In the meantime, a group went off to find a tree to cut down. Despite it being Earth Day on Friday, the group was able to successfully find a tree and chop it into pieces. Lugging the logs from their fallen location up to the campsite was a task and a half but was needed in order to complete the project headed by Ethen, Robin, Brenden and Bryan. Dinner was up next which was rather good. Next, people had to go rinse the dishes, which was one of the most tedious tasks as cold water does not remove much grime from plates. We were able to boil water and use dish soap to further clean the utensils and plates, however. As the sun began to set, we were able to gather around the pit fire and some of us stayed up rather late to make sure the fire did not get out of hand.

After that, he tried to turn the slow wheel into a fast wheel with an outer handle that could be spun to keep momentum. He spent much time trying to figure out the best way to attach this outer handle, including creation of cordage to hold it in place. In the end, it did NOT end up working as originally planned and the outcome looked like some odd witchcraft voodoo symbol trying to possess the potter's wheel.

Despite the failure in this department, the basket weavers of Ethen and Bryan were able to successfully weave together bark from their fallen tree, and – through a bit of ingenuity – create their basket!

Although the basket may not look the best, it served its purpose and function. The basket was able to carry around a piece of wood, which was a substitute for an apple.

With all experiments completed, albeit with varying levels of success, we made dinner and packed up camp. The trip was an interesting experience and was very experiential when compared to a normal class here at Moravian. The completion of all our experiments at the Deputy Center made for a satisfying end to our semester’s journey in experimental archaeology.

Nick

April 18

Because of the holiday, there was no Friday lab, which leaves me with no fun activities to report this week. Tuesday’s class began by deciding which of the student project proposals we will attempt at the Deputy Center next weekend. Fortunately, all of the projects were manageable and several overlapped, so by combining proposals and taking shortcuts we can undertake nearly all of them. For example, students decided to merge Graeme’s hot rock cooking experiment with Ethen, Brendon, Bryan, and Robin’s comparison of hot rock and direct heat cooking. Ideally, they would cook in baskets, but if it turns out we cannot make or purchase appropriate baskets, then we will bring clay and metal pots to use. While we are comparing cooking methods, we can also make the pine needle tea proposed by Lauren, Hallie, and Sarah. In terms of scheduling, students prioritized the pit firing proposal because the fire will need to burn for a long time and will take about twenty-four hours to cool down. This makes good sense, and once the fire is burning, students can work on other projects. I am excited for the camping weekend so we can try our hands at these projects.

Once the class felt satisfied with the project details, we shifted the discussion to Guédelon, a modern, ongoing reconstruction of a style of castle built in 13th-century Burgundy, France. Specifically, we looked at the way Guédelon portrays itself on its website. This class represents a shift in the course away from experiments to how experimental archaeology is practiced in and represented to the public in a variety of settings. Guédelon is a fascinating and unusual example of the archaeocenters we read about earlier in the semester. No millionaire’s vanity project or fanciful imagining of the middle ages, Guédelon began in 1997 and employs about forty, skilled craftspeople and thirty researchers and support personnel who strive to learn and apply medieval construction techniques to create monumental architecture. Devoted to history, science, and education, Guédelon falls somewhere between the archaeocenters oriented to tourists and school groups and Peter Reynolds’ origin vision for Butser Ancient Farm as a center for scientific research. Student concluded that Reynolds would likely turn his nose up at the site’s emphasis on tourism and education (it boasts 300,000 visitors annually) but would approve of the scientific committee that reviews and approves (or not) proposals for solving architectural and construction problems. The faculty noted that Guédelon could not ignore the public even if it wanted to. Government funding has dried up in recent years, forcing sites once devoted solely to experimentation to lure tour groups and the public. This fact contributes to one of the incongruities students noted. “Medieval” Guédelon makes extensive use of the internet and social media to promote itself sometimes quite humorously. The introductory video is reminiscent of Monty Python. Though some thought this could undercut Guédelon’s claims to authenticity by promoting the picturesque over the scientific, financial realities make it unavoidable.

On Thursday, we considered experimental archaeology as infotainment. We watched parts of two quite different survival shows, National Geographic’s “The Great Human Race” (GHR) and “Naked and Afraid” (NaA) The class watched NaA first and got a kick out of how the show was staged for over the top dramatic effect. Apart from the fact that contestants were completely naked with strategic blurring to allow it to be aired on mainstream television, the show was loud, heavily edited, and emphasized both the physical dangers and the interpersonal conflicts that contestants would be sure to face. To ensure the latter, three participants with strong personalities were grouped together to maximize tension. The episode made no effort to recreate a specific context or time period. Indeed, the show seemed very much like a game show with the goal being to survive for forty days.

We next watched the GHR segment, and students immediately identified how different it was from NaA. GHR is educational in that it strives to show how our ancestors survived at different periods in early human history ranging from East Africa 2.6 million years ago to the peopling of the Americas at least 15,000 years ago. The GHR placed co-stars Bill Schindler and Cat Bigney in specific historical contexts and limited them to using appropriate technologies. The episode we watched, “Thirst,” was set in the Arabian Desert and recreated a time about 70,000 years ago when the climate was becoming hotter and drier. Schindler and Bigney followed dry riverbeds that they hoped would lead them to the seasonal monsoon. Unlike the contestants on NaA, Schindler and Bigney possessed the knowledge and skills to make and use tools appropriate to the time period. At the time, Schindler was an experimental archaeologist at Washington College in Maryland and Bigney was an instructor at the Boulder Outdoor Survival School. Students also pointed out that rather than competing with each other, Schindler and Bigney cooperated to survive. Schindler knapped flint spear points to aid in hunting, while Bigney showed Schindler how to create a sunblock out of charcoal. GHR is emphatically not a competition.

While NaA invited criticism, the GHR led to interesting conversations. Some of those conversations were prompted by Roeland Paardekooper’s review of the first episode of the GHR that appeared in the EXARC Journal https://exarc.net/issue-2016-1/mm/review-great-human-race-national-geographic (2016). While Paardekooper notes that the GHR is not experimental archaeology, it does raise important questions about whether Schindler and Bigney, despite their obvious knowledge and skills, could experience the world as our ancestors had. Some students noted that they are the products of modern times and, except barring accident, their lives were not on line. The way Schindler and Bigney worked together also made us think about the importance of social groupings and belonging to a community. According to Paardekooper, being accepted by other Paleolithic people even more than technological sophistication would have determined ones ability to succeed. An individual would not have survived in the distant past. The GHR reminds us that individualism is a luxury of the modern age, and perhaps an exaggerated one at that. Our conversation suggests that the GHR is both entertaining and educational.

Jamie P.

April 8, 2022

On Tuesday, our class came together to present day one of our project proposals for our upcoming camping trip. On this day, we discussed a proposal by Ethen, myself, Brenden, and Bryan, and another by Nick. Nick proposed creating different eras of pottery wheels using materials available to us at the Deputy Center. With different wheel types such as the Tournette Wheel, the Fast Wheel, and the Kick Wheel, Nick was able to bring a lot of interesting ideas to the table! We all discussed the circumference of the wheels in accordance with available resources. Below are images and sketches of the wheels he provided in his proposal.

The next proposal consisted of two cooking methods, the first being direct heat with kiln-fired pottery and the next via hot rocks in woven baskets. First, we aimed to make woven baskets from nearby tree pieces and bark; the pottery would also be handmade using clay nearby at the Deputy Center. Second, we aimed to make a kiln itself by digging a ditch or trench in the ground using a shovel and lining it with rocks to ensure a controlled fire. We discussed how, although convenient, collecting rocks from the surrounding area is not safe as they may explode with the high temperatures. We were hopeful that our project would be successful even though it had a lot of moving parts.

Above left: from Alton V Thomas, Rock of Ages (2009). Above right: from Archeology X (2019).

The last group to present was Hallie, Lauren, and Sarah who presented two different types of projects, each equally intriguing. The first was pit firing and painting with paints made from natural resources. The next project was making a variety of tea blends with local and introduced natural ingredients. Using the pottery we made weeks prior, they plan to fire each of them in the large fire pit they will be making. The large fire pit consists of a lot of variables to ensure it is kept at a proper temperature and is controlled and safe. Using natural ingredients like beets, strawberries, and blueberries, etc. they proposed crushing all the ingredients together to make natural paints. How cool! The many different plants they drew definitely caught my attention! Next, they suggested different tea blends, the first being a blend of spicebush and teaberry, also known as wintergreen. This is alleged to be a simple recipe to relieve the symptoms of a common cold. The next tea was made from pine needles and was used to treat congestion while containing high amounts of vitamin C. The final recipe was a simple salve. The contents included an oil, lemon balm, and beeswax. The oil will be sunflower oil as it is native to the region, but a more accurate source of oil would be lard. Beeswax, a byproduct of beekeeping, will act as a hardener for the salve. Finally, lemon balm was listed as an additive to help soothe burns and rashes. Due to concerns about health and safety, both professors decided on approving the pine needle tea but vetoed the spicebush/teaberry. Both projects sound promising, and it will definitely be a new experience for many of us!

April 01, 2022

Our class on Tuesday discussed two articles that we read in preparation for the lab on Friday. The first article was Weapon Trials: The Atlatl and Experiments in Hunting Technology by John Whittaker. In this article, Whittaker discusses archaeologists’ theories around the prehistoric weapons of the atlatl and the bow and arrow. It concludes that the atlatl was developed before the bow and arrow although it also describes some scenarios in which an atlatl would be more useful than a bow and arrow. This article also focused on the relationship between the spear thrower and the bow and arrow. Although both weapons deal with projectiles, it is believed that there is little evidence that show that the atlatl developed into the bow and arrow. Whittaker also discusses the evidence for atlatls in the archaeological record. Most of the artifacts that have been recovered are from North America although there have been a few artifacts found in Europe as well. The most recovered part of the atlatl is the hook that is made from bone, but this is only a small fraction of the atlatl since most of it is made of wood. The class learned about the “missing majority” in the archaeological record from a source by Hurcombe that discusses how many organic artifacts are unrecoverable since they deteriorate very easily. We know of them because of their association with inorganic artifacts. One such inorganic artifact is the bannerstone, which is made of stone, and therefore survives after the atlatl has decayed. These artifacts were thought to have little practical use, although some experiments have tried using banner stones as a part of the atlatl. One believed use of these stones were to add more force into a thrown spear, but after some experimentation this turned out not to be true. After this Whittaker discusses the functions of the atlatl and the different theories that it can be used. The first method is the Lever Action which is the most correct description of throwing an atlatl. The other two methods are extended force and flexing springs although these are based more on physics theories than experimentation. Information from this text was useful for the experiment on Friday when we threw atlatls and used bow and arrows. More specifically we used the level action method of throwing the spears with the atlatls and experienced the differences between using an atlatl and a bow and arrow. The other source that we discussed was Hunting with Cane: Traditional Cherokee Blowguns and Darts by Doug Meyer. This source resembled a how-to guide to make a blowgun and darts in the traditional Cherokee style. In this source it describes the process of making these objects in the older method and a more modern approach. After this discussion of the two sources, we looked at some models of the atlatls that we would use on Friday.

On Thursday we made a video in response to a chemistry class that helped us with the experiment a few weeks ago regarding the chemical makeup of the food residue on pot shards that we found in a set up archaeological dig. In this video we mention the substances that we used to cook in the pot shards that the chemistry class tested, the methodology that was used to cook the food, the resemblance to the archaeological record, and what we learned about the chemical processes that the chemistry course did to analyze the pot shards. This combination of chemistry and archaeology provided useful insight about interdepartmental cooperation and helped give learning experiences for students.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lLATJ2Ze8aXe4u-HCdznUXS101tcgDxw/view (The link for our thank you video for the chemistry class that helped us with our experiment)

On Friday the class met on the front lawn of Comenius to shoot atlatls and bow and arrows. First, we began with just throwing spears without the atlatl, which led us to believe that we would be a very sedentary group that relied on agriculture. After this we practiced with the atlatls which led to spears landing both very short of and well past the targets. I can assure you that no gophers were harmed by the short throws and no pedestrians were hit by the far-flung spears. Although during this time, I produced one of the proudest moments as a Moravian student when I hit the deer decoy right in between the eyes. After a couple of tries with the atlatl we moved on to the bow and arrow where Lauren demonstrated for the class the proper technique to shoot. After this we practiced with the atlatls and bow and arrows more in order to be more acquainted with these weapons. This experiment was more experiential than scientific since we tested the different technology for hunting in prehistoric times and we did not test a hypothesis. Although this did give us insights about the skills that prehistoric people needed in order to hunt for food since we had a low hit rate with stationary targets at close range.

Brendon

March 26, 2022

In class on Tuesday, we started off by viewing a video made by the chemistry class to which we sent our video last Friday. As noted below, we asked if they could identify lipids found on the pottery sherds we excavated. In their video they analyzed the differences between fats and oils, helping us appreciate where their subsequent analysis will be based. We moved into discussing Hartl et al.’s 2015 article, “Reproducing colorful woven bands from the Iron Age salt mine of Hallstatt in Austria: An interdisciplinary approach to acquire knowledge of prehistoric dyeing technology.” Hartl et al. discuss natural dyes and an experiment done to try and recreate and analyze dyes from some bands found in a salt mine located in Austria. The authors utilized materials that are available today as well as laboratory equipment. The color variants that were created were compared back to the Hallstatt bands. The dyeing was done using woad, weld, and scentless chamomile. We evaluated this article as an experimental article that fell under three criteria of the Reynolds typology of experiments: construct experiment, process and function experiment, and simulation experiment. We started our discussion of dyes by learning that up until the mid-19th century, all fabrics that were dyed were done so using natural dyes coming from some portion of plants, bugs, and sometimes shellfish. The primary colors in European dyes were orange/red (madder), yellow (weld) and blue (woad/indigo). Dr. Bardsley provided us with a PowerPoint that informed us of many different dyes you can get out of natural resources, both imported and from the Americas. We discussed the color “Lincoln green” because it is made from woad and weld, and how different the variations in the green color come out depending on the order in which they are dyed. Dr. Bardsley also brought some examples to class showing some of the primary colors. These items we dyed this week consisted of cellulose (cotton and bamboo) and protein (wool, silk) fibers. They were scoured (deeply cleaned) by simmering, and then went through the processes of mordanting. This is where the cellulose fabrics soak in tannin and then alum acetate. The protein fabrics are heated in an alum solution. These objects were dyed on Thursday, and some were then overdyed on Friday.

In Thursday’s class we educated ourselves on the dyes we were using, the colors they created and the process of dyeing itself. We pre-dyed bags, scarves, socks, crocheted stars, and bandanas. We had two hot dyes - Sappanwood (which at first was red, and over time lost its vibrance and turned slightly orange) and Osage Orange (which was more of a yellow). We also had a cold dye of Indigo in a third pot. We dyed half of our supplies of scarves, bags, stars and socks so that anyone who came to our dyeing event on Friday could either overdye these or start from scratch. As the dye colors started becoming a bit weaker, we added what we thought was iron to the Osage orange to try and make it a lime green color. It did not turn out like we thought it would (later we found out that it was not in fact iron we were adding; the printing on the container was too faint to read!). We also added some chalk to the Sappanwood pot which made the red/orange color turn into a fuchsia color. After taking the items out of the pots we squeezed them out and hung them to dry. The indigo stained our hands the worst, while the red and yellow came off with a hand wash or two after the dyeing event took place.

Above left is an example of what our items looked like before dyeing. Above right is Sarah holding a tie-dyed bandana.

In Friday’s lab we held our dyeing event with the Moravian University community and anyone who wanted to attend. We stood inside a square of four tables, ready to assist anyone who came. We had two pots of Sappanwood (one being left-over from Thursday, which turned fuchsia), two pots of the Osage Orange (one which was left over from Thursday) and two buckets of indigo dye. We examined how the items that were dyed took the color as well as how the colors overdyed. The most frequently asked question from people who stopped by our event was what each of the dyes were made from and were all surprised when told about the Sappanwood (red/orange) and the Osage Orange (the yellow). The magenta color made from Sappanwood, and chalk was very popular, especially when tie-dying fabrics. The crocheted stars we had available were also popular. Most people coming to the Sappanwood were surprised how each piece that was dyed varied in color, with some items turning out orange and some turning out more red. Dr. Carl Salter from Moravian’s chemistry department stopped by and brought with him molecular models of both indigo and alizarin. The items went quickly, and I would say this event was quite successful. I would say there were roughly 75 people that stopped by the event and who dyed a wide range of colors from pink to green, blue, orange, red, yellow as well as overdyeing their items to get variations of the colors as well as tie-dyeing their items. It was a bit chilly, but it did not stop people from stopping by and experiencing natural dyeing. Thank you to the History Club and History Department for co-sponsoring the event, as well as several members of the Hellertown Second Saturday Spinners group for coming and enjoying the event.

Above are some images of the wool dyed by members of the Hellertown Second Saturday Spinners group.

Above left is an image from the dyeing event Friday with some participants. Above right is Bard holding a tie-dyed scarf!

Hallie

March 20, 2022

This week’s focus was on food and specifically on lipid analysis of pot sherds. This is the match of chemical structures of compounds that were observed, their “chemical fingerprints,” and their stable isotope compositions that are linked to lipid materials that most likely were used in ancient times (Evershed, 2008).

On Tuesday, we went over Friday’s archaeological dig, minus us being stuck for 2 hours. We talked about what we found and what we missed and how the layers got mixed up. We then organized the layers and artefacts into a Harris Matrix. See below for the chart:

We also read two articles, “Chenopodium for Breakfast: Experimental Archeology and Cooking Methods” by Sarah Wisseman (2010), which compares “the efficiency of the 2 cooking methods in producing a palatable product: cooked grain the consistency of modern hot breakfast cereal.” Wisseman compared direct heat method of cooking with hot rock boiling and explained how the archaeological record can reflect dietary changes. The other article was “Experimental Approaches to the Interpretation of Absorbed Organic Residues in Archeological Ceramics” by Richard P. Evershed (2008), which provides insights into the way that experimental approaches can aid in the interpretations of organic residues from archeological ceramics. He concluded that lipid residue represented the pot’s lifetime of use, not simply its last use, and that lipids concentrated around the rim rather than the base of the pot. We discussed the two articles and placed them on a spectrum from experimental to experiential with one end representing Reynolds scientific, no “fun” approach and the other end to Kuchelmann’s experiential Ice Skating article:

We ended the class with a little preview of the week that was to come. On Friday we were going to record a video for a chemistry class to ask them for help to do a lipid analysis on the pot sherds we unearthed at the Deputy Center.

On Thursday, we talked about the article “Lipid Residue Analysis of Archeological Pottery: An Introductory Laboratory Experiment in Archeological Chemistry” by Clare S. Harper, Faith V. Macdonald, and Kevin L. Braun (2017). This article was pedagogical and showed how students in chemistry classes could perform lipid analysis on pot sherds. It was a lot more scientific and entailed a lot more chemistry compared to the other ones we’ve read. This article gave insights about how we should go about informing the chemistry class in the video. We were then split into groups. Each group had a topic to research, write and record for the video we will send to the chemistry class.

On Friday, we recorded the video for the chemistry class. Each group worked in a separate room; mine took 304. Each group was responsible for one of the following topics: an introduction to the Deputy Center, stratigraphy of the site, foods eaten by Indigenous people and colonists, possible complications with the study, and a request to the chemistry class to determine what was cooked in the pots.

We all recorded our individual sections of the video as many times as needed to get the right take. Recording didn’t take long for us, about 20 minutes. Professor Bardsley and Professor Paxton took all the recordings and put them together into a video, which I will say was very well edited. Here is the link to the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WMdM8AaC-0 .

Sarah

March 12, 2022

It was certainly an interesting week in the realm of experimental archeology. Our main discussion for the week was stratigraphy, which is different materials being layered on top of each other, with the bottom layers being the oldest. Stratigraphy is an important concept in experimental archeology because its layers are used to help determine dates, as stratigraphy allows for each layer to be categorically defined. Our Tuesday reading from Michigan State University (MSU) Archeology gave the analogy of lasagna to depict stratigraphy. Food is definitely a helpful way to picture things! For Tuesday, we also read N.N. Sahu's 2020 work "Archeological Stratigraphy", which introduced to us the concept of a Harris Matrix. It is a grid with rectangular boxes that systematizes units of stratigraphy. It can range from quite simple, to very complex! We found this out in class by trying to create a Harris Matrix with stratigraphy we found in the MSU article. There was much debate about where to put the various boxes that connected to each other. All I could say for sure was that the oldest box was at the bottom, and the youngest is at the top.

For Thursday's class, we read "Movement of Lithics by Trampling", which was published by Ben Marwick's research team in 2017. The experiment consisted of a man trampling over artifacts for 15 minutes in 5-minute intervals in a sandstone rock shelter in Australia. The experimenters concluded from this that larger artifacts may be moved vertically by trampling. However, there was little horizontal movement, and the experimenters also believed that the vertical movement was insufficient in challenging the early dates when artifacts were found. This is significant, as this trampling experiment helps us to date when the first people arrived in Australia. Trampling is something we have read about before in class, as Stephen C. Saraydar experimented with trampling over pieces of obsidian. Speaking of Saraydar, we used his criteria in class to judge Marwick's experiment. We gave it a positive review, noting the very detailed report the experimenters gave. They used mathematical formulas that, quite frankly, none of us really understood. It had me thinking, "I'm a history nerd, not a math nerd!". However, there were graphs that were more digestible. For example, the graphs showing the different shapes, lengths, and thickness of the artifacts helped me to better understand the material used in the experiment. Our only main gripe with the experiment was that there were insufficient repetitions, as 15 minutes is not a long time. However, we still gave the experiment a solid grade of A-.

For Friday's lab, we went out to the Moravian Deputy Center. We tested out our abilities with stratigraphy by digging at a site the professors set up and seeded with artifacts. I had fun digging up various artifacts from the ground, including a rubber band, and a jar lid. Because I found these artifacts near the surface, they would be categorized as "Level 1". Overall, the Harris Matrix for this site was more simple than the ones we did in class, as Level 1 lead into Level 2, and 2 into 3, and so on. During the lab, I spent most of the time marking down various artifacts others had dug up, and placing them in plastic bags. I would label what layer of the ground the material was found in, and what number artifact it was chronologically. Also, if it was similar to another artifact we already found, I'd mark that chronologically as well. For example, on one bag I wrote "Level 2, Pot Shard #21, Material #36". There were lots and lots of pot sherds. In fact, I would wager that about half of the material we found were pot sherds! So after our dig, it was time to wrap things up for the week. Or so we thought! Unfortunately, Dr. Paxton's van got stuck in the mud. We tried various methods to get it unstuck, including giving the van a big push. It did not work. And so, we patiently waited for help. I was listening to music, trying to pass the time as best I could. One person we called to help fix the situation mysteriously went away. Finally, Triple A emergency services showed up, and managed to get the van unstuck. After two or so hours of waiting, we were finally on our way back to Moravian!

Graeme

Feb 28, 2022

On Tuesday, we took the midterm. We read, identified, and analyzed key parts of an article according to criteria established by Saraydar and Reynolds. We also defined experimental archaeology according to our own criteria.

On Thursday, we read and discussed an article on organics and inorganics within the experimental archeological realm. “Organics from inorganics: using experimental archaeology as a research tool for studying perishable material culture,” by Linda Hurcombe, published in 2008, covers the use of inorganic records such as pottery to decode the organic record such as plants and fibers. This is necessary because organics decay much faster and by the time they are studied the imprints are often all that are left. Hurcombe suggests four main ways in which surviving inorganic materials can give clues to the “missing majority” of organic material. During class discussions we worked through several examples given by Hurcombe to come up with experiments that could test her thesis. We also placed the various articles and authors we have read on a line between experimental and experiential, deciding where each one landed. Most of the authors were deemed moderate, showing through their work that they believe both experimental and experiential foci are needed.

On Friday, our lab focused on an organic portion of experimental archeology, specifically working with various fibers to make rope and spin yarn. The tasks at hand were frustrating at first and served to support the necessity of skilled craftsmen for various tasks such as basket weaving and ceramic work discussed last week by Akkermans and Harry. The flax used for rope making had knots in it, adding the task of additional combing to the already processed flax. Making the rope required patience and focus, at least at first, but was relaxing once you got in the groove. The instructions we followed came from a video made by a former student. Spinning the yarn presented a new set of challenges. While many struggled with the start, hooking a length of yarn or hand spun roving around the hook of a drop spindle, I struggled with drafting. Drafting is pulling thinner portions of the fiber from the main piece in order to spin thinner threads. After practicing for the duration of the lab period, many excelled. It has definitely ignited an interest to continue spinning for me, and hopefully in others. I would like to see how it plays out for the projects at the end of the semester, specifically whether anyone chooses to use these new skills.

Lauren

Feb 21, 2022

On Tuesday, we had three readings: Jonathan Thornton’s 2016 article, "Cooking in Baskets Using Hot Rocks," Neil Peterson’s 2016 report on Viking bead furnaces, and “Roman and Medieval Pottery and Tile Production” from the Historic England website. The latter showed some of the techniques and kilns used in Neolithic, Roman, and medieval England and how those kilns changed over time from a single flue to multiple flues. These articles gave us ideas for our own project proposals. Peterson’s experiment with bead furnaces, in particular, gave me a lot of ideas and inspiration that I can share with my group for the final project. In the past, students have made shelters as a final project, but Dr. Paxton has not had a good experience with shelters. Every shelter project has gone wrong, with the main problem being the roofing. Here’s hoping this year's results are different!

On Thursday, the main topic of the class was the process of making ceramics and the chaîne opératoire. We discussed K. G. Harry’s 2010 article “Understanding ceramic manufacturing technology: the role of experimental archaeology” and A. Akkermans’ article “Three Methods of Making Pottery.” In the first article, Harry reviewed different kinds of experiments, the variables affecting ceramic experiments, and provided examples of experiments she has carried out. I think if Saraydar were to do an experiment with ceramics, he would use the same criteria from Harry’s article. The second article presented us the step-by-step guide about how to make pottery and the techniques used for each step (kneading, pinching, etc.) which the class followed in Friday’s lab. In class, we classified the readings we do into three types: how-to, review, and formal experiments. We classified the Akkermans article as a how-to type of article and the Harrys article as a review article. On the same day, the class was also introduced to chaîne opératoire, basically the step-by-step process for making something. The material and steps involved in chaîne opératoire provide archeologists with what is necessary to produce artifacts, including materials, techniques and all of the steps in the correct order.

On Friday, we had the hands-on experience of working with clay. Things got a little bit messy but nothing that a little bit of soap and water couldn’t fix. I will admit, this was both a fun and educational experience. We took what we read and put it in practice. At first, I really thought that working with clay would be easier than obsidian or bone, but I found that it was really hard to shape the clay into the form that I wanted. My bowl was never completely straight. Everyone in the class followed the step-by-step procedure that we learned from Akkermans’ article, and some were very successful. The process of kneading the clay was the one that got me stuck for a good 10 minutes, because I could not remove all of the air bubbles from the clay. This process is important because if the clay contains air bubbles it will explode in the kiln. I tried to stick to very basic shapes because after some time working with the clay, it dries out and becomes impossible to shape even when water is added. As I was looking at other people's pottery, I thought that some people were born to make pottery. I think that Ethen was the only one that tried adding temper to the clay, which makes the pot more porous and shock resistant. He added the temper in the correct proportions and did not have any extra difficulty working the clay. After completing our pots, we needed to let our pottery dry before firing it in a kiln.

Bryan

Feb 14, 2022

This week we were introduced to bone. Now, the word “introduced” should be taken with a grain of salt as by the end of the week (Friday) most of us felt pretty comfortable working with it as we shaped it into knives, arrowheads, and even flutes! Starting on Tuesday we assessed the experiment from Friday of the previous week and talked about diagenesis, techniques of bone carving, and carving arrowheads and flutes. We continued to use Stephen Saraydar's 8 main criteria for a good experiment. During Tuesday's class, we graded our experiment on the edgewear analysis of flakes a C+. We also assessed the experiment done on diagenesis that was published by Anne Juul Jensen in 2016 titled “Diagenesis in Modern, Danish, Burned Pig Bone,” rating it higher than our own by giving it a B+. There was some disagreement on this grade as some said that there needed to be more samples tested (there were only 6) to come to a firm conclusion.

In class on Thursday, we briefly talked about the bone ice skating experiment published by Kuchelmann and Zidarov in 2005 and also the bone flute experiment done by Andy Letke (Making a Bone Flute). These two experiments were quite different from what we have read in the past. As a group, we agreed that the two comprise experiments that are more experiential than any others we've encountered. Rather than being more focused on science like the diagenesis experiment, these two looked to recreate rather than analyze. With the help of Sarah and her science background, we were able to make this comparison. Would Reynolds have approved of these experiments? We know that Reynolds looked to disassociate archaeological experiments from both education and experience. The experimenters were serious about their work but also enjoyed doing it. Based on our class's enjoyment of our past labs, I personally do not think Reynolds would be too fond of the experiments that we have conducted due to the fact that we were performing them in an educational setting and also for the experience.

Also on Thursday, we started to work with bone. Thursday was partially used as a day to gain experience with using bone before our lab the next day. Although we are not experts yet in the field of experimental archaeology, our experience with obsidian proved to help us out with working with and shaping the bone. The small motor skills that are required for working with these objects take practice and with this being our fourth week, we have had a lot of practice. Similar to the obsidian that we worked with, we made arrowheads out of the bone. Bone is different in structure, making it easier to shape than obsidian. Besides arrowheads, some of us also made larger spearheads, knives, and even flutes out of the bone. One thing that we started to do was tie the arrowheads to actual arrows. Once we test them out It will be interesting to compare the durability of bone and obsidian and how well they pierce objects. Creating our objects was definitely a process as we utilized saws, files, sandpaper, hammers, and chisels. Many of these tools are modern; what were Neolithic people using? From our experience with flint knapping, we used strikers that were similar to what Neolithic people used, therefore we can conclude that while working with bone they also used some sort of striker. Now I think we can all agree that there is one BIG difference between working with the obsidian and bones from both the coyote and deer and it is the smell. It was more enjoyable to work with the obsidian due to this reason.

Ethen

Feb 5, 2022

This week, we tied together two of the several strands in our course so far: that of assessing experiments in Experimental Archeology and that of learning to work with stone tools. In Tuesday's class, we talked through Stephen Saraydar's 8 main criteria for a good experiment and applied them to the various case studies he outlines in his textbook. In doing so, we started a google document that we'll continue to use to assess experiments for the rest of the semester. Thursday's class looked more closely at a single experiment, from Denmark, involving damage to arrowheads caused when they make impact with their prey. The article distinguished between macrowear analysis, visible to the naked eye, and microwear analysis, visible under microscopes. For many of us, this scientific style of article was new, and we drew on the assistance of science majors in the class to orient us. We decided collectively that Saraydar would have approved of this experiment, since it met all of his criteria (albeit more thoroughly in some areas than in others).

Friday's lab saw us carrying out our own version of this experiment using the obsidian flakes we made in last week's lab. Our class-generated hypothesis was that edgewear markings on obsidian flakes was diagnostic of their use. In other words, that we would be able to figure out what a flake had been used for by analyzing it at both the macro and micro levels. One third of the students thus spent 15 minutes chopping carrots against a wooden board, a percussive, 90-degree chopping motion. Another third spent the time using flakes to saw through leather. The third group used the flakes to whittle wood. Groups then circulated three more times, ending with an extra session at the station where they started. What this meant was that they made enough flakes for each student to have an "index" set of a flake used on carrots, a flake used on leather, and a flake used on wood. In addition, we had 9 flakes that could be distributed and compared with the index sets. By this point, everyone had sore hands, like those experienced after handwriting exams, and we figured that we should carry out wear use analyses on hands as well as obsidian flakes.

After a short break to clean up the classroom and for Dr Paxton and me to number the test flakes, we headed over to the biology lab. Here's a shout out to Drs. Woods and Jones for letting us use the labs and checking that we had the right microscopes! We started by making macro-level observations of the various flakes, then examined the edges under the microscopes. We generated a good list of descriptions to distinguish flakes used on carrots from those used on wood and those used on leather. This paid off when we distributed the numbered-but-unidentified flakes to see if students could tell what they had been used on. Our first round was particularly accurate -- students could identify the material on which flakes were used in 7 of 9 cases. We then collected and redistributed the flakes twice more. Our final results showed that edgewear analysis was diagnostic of use in two-thirds of cases. Flakes used on leather were particularly identifiable: 8 out of 9 flakes were correctly identified. This correlates with data from previous years. Combining three years of results, flakes used on leather could be identified 65% of the time, those on wood 62% of the time, and those on vegetables 58% of the time. Given that there were only 3 possibilities (so completely random guesses would have been correct 33% of the time), we believe that edgewear analysis of flakes -- combining micro and macrowear analysis) is reasonably diagnostic of their use. It's by no means failsafe, but nor is it close to random guesses. Using Saraydar's criteria, we will assess our own experiment in class on Tuesday.

Sandy Bardsley

Jan. 31, 2022

As I reflect on the week, I am struck by what a good and engaged group of students we have this semester. This week was different in that we had two guest speakers, and even though it is only the second week of class, everyone actively participated in the lessons. For Tuesday, we read two articles on the heritage industry, Mary Ellen Crothers' study of experimental archaeology at West Stow Anglo-Saxon village and Carolyn Forrest’s analysis of the role of experimental archaeology at several British and European open-air museums. Heritage is a fraught term, and our guest lecturer, Richard Anderson, used the articles as a departure point to guide us through a discussion of public history, heritage, and why people connect strongly with the past. After using his relationship to his own family history as an example, he encouraged students to think about their personal connections to places in the past. Many students had strong memories of historical sites and powerful associations to childhood places, such as their grandparents’ home or a park. We discussed how we draw on the past to make sense of the present and guide us into the future. However, Anderson noted that heritage can divide as well as unite, as recent debates over Confederate monuments have shown.

Juliet Larkin-Gilmore joined us on Thursday to discuss experimental archaeology and Indigenous pedagogies. Drawing on the profile of Bill Schindler that appeared in the Atlantic article “Professor Caveman,” she emphasized his advocacy for hands-on, experiential education. She then shifted to an oral tradition related by Leanne Simpson (Mississauga Nishnaabeg) about an Anishinaabe child who learned to harvest maple sap. In each case learning takes place in an experimental, immersive hands-on fashion where it is okay to fail. Students who have taken this course previously have said they appreciate that failure, rather than being punished, was a way to learn. This is a theme we will return to again during the semester. Larkin-Gilmore then drew on Robin Wall Kimmerer’s chapter “Asters and Goldenrod” to discuss different kinds of knowledge. She contrasts traditional Indigenous knowledge of plants that is rooted in and passed down through families and communities with the western scientific method learned at school. Students seemed very interested in Indigenous knowledge and pedagogy and did a good job thinking through the ways these systems are different and how they can be combined for a more complex understanding of the world.

Friday’s class is one of my favorites of the semester. We spent the afternoon flintknapping and by the end we had turned obsidian cores into a pile of debitage, a reminder of our failures but also of how much we had learned. As we worked, I imagined Reynold’s expressing displeasure at our playing with stone to get a feel for knapping. Yet, as Saraydar tells us, we must become proficient at the craft before we can conduct experiments. Students learned quickly, became more confident working with obsidian, and did well to produce several usable flakes. Several went a step further and began working on shaped arrowheads and points. Nick and Bryan used the pressure flaking technique to good effect, while Lauren and Brendon attempted large bifacial points. We talked as we worked, speculating about whether small scale societies would have had craft specialization and discussing the complexities of navigating the Pacific Ocean many thousands of years ago. We cannot know what past peoples did or talked about as they worked, but undoubtedly flintknapping was a social task, one in which the knappers learned from each other. The supportive atmosphere put me in mind of Larkin-Gilmore’s lesson the previous day. Everyone seemed to enjoy flintknapping. Reynolds will be happier with next week’s class when we will use the flakes we created in a use wear experiment. I won’t say any more about that now, so next week’s blogger can describe the lab in detail.

Jamie Paxton

Top left: Preparing to flintknap.

Top right: Brendon, Robin, and Bryan studying their cores.

Below left: Hallie, Lauren, Nick, and Graeme producing flakes.

Below right: Bryan working on a biface.

Jan 22, 2022

Sandy Bardsley here, checking in for the first of our weekly blogs for Experimental Archeology. We now have an official class number (Hist 265) rather than being a Special Topics class. Our first week was one of transitioning back into the rhythm of the semester and learning how to be in a discussion-based class while wearing masks. In fact, we faculty talked more this week than usual, because we had a fair bit of ground to cover (we promise we won't always!). On Tuesday, we introduced the course and attempted some initial definitions of what Experimental Archeology is and can be. It was lovely to see that we have students from a range of majors and with a range of skills and interests -- that's part of what makes the course interesting for faculty. Thursday's class covered a lot of ground. We explored the ways in which the discipline of archeology, like that of history, has a background of its own that shapes scholars' questions and answers. We drew links between the 19th-20th century interest of historians in objectivity and the growth of the state, and the corresponding effort of cultural-historical archeologists to pin down and map out discrete stages in cultures. We then linked the Marxist, Annaliste, and social science historians of the mid-20th century with beginnings of processualism in archeology. Finally, we drew connections between the proliferation of history into multiple fields (e.g., women's history, gender history, history of race and ethnicity, postmodern history, cultural history) and the post-processualism that has expanded the questions asked by archeologists. We read the classic Peter Reynolds article, establishing him as a processualist and noting his insistence on the scientific within experimental archeology. Since the experiment vs experience spectrum has emerged in prior courses as an important theme, we were glad that students seemed to understand where he was coming from. Although we had packed a lot in and did not have time to discuss every nuance, student readings journals showed that they were thinking. Some asked good questions about whether climate change would affect the types of experiment that Reynolds lays out. Others found interesting connections between the article by Reynolds and a chapter by Stephen Saraydar that we also read for Thursday's class.

Friday's trip to the Deputy Center was wicked cold! The ground was covered by a couple of inches of snow, with a crunchy, icy surface. Our canine companions, Ruby Paxton and Clovis Bardsley-Cutler, thoroughly approved of the new group of students. The dogs were perhaps less likely than in other years to explore and poke about, though, given the cold. We found that the stream was almost iced over in several places. The Roman kiln from three years back is still standing, but more of the clay has washed out from between the twigs and straw that held it together. The burdei is in markedly worse shape, lacking most of its roof, plus all of the wattle-and-daub. Some of this may be due to human intervention rather than just nature. Students correctly identified our monitoring of the deterioration of these projects as akin to what Reynolds calls a simulation experiment. I had commented both in class and while visiting the burdei on the challenges of finding good roofing materials (it's really been our Achilles heel) and Dr. Paxton reminded me that members of the Lenni Lenape would seldom have built permanent or semi-permanent structures in this area. Perhaps roofing challenges, along with the climate, were part of the reason. The Deputy Center will look and feel quite different when we return in the spring, and we pondered the ways in which seasonality determines much of the appearance and availability of resources. On campus, winter affects the appearance and the temperature, but our grounds crew works hard to maintain accessibility, and we can get efficiently from one warm space to another. Up at the Deputy Center, seasons seem more pronounced with little human intervention.

In short, this was a good first week.

Submitted by Sandy Bardsley