Types of Experiments and their Findings
In our second week of Experimental Archeology, our class returned to the works of Stephen Saraydar and looked more closely at the different types of experiments one can conduct within the field of experimental archeology, as well as their outcomes. We examined how one can build on the work of others to successfully determine historical hypotheses, as well as how to apply a metric for the strengths and weaknesses of a specific experiment. For example, the class discussed methods of ancient Egyptian mummification, starting with Leek’s sheep experiment. The general consensus of the class was in agreement with Saraydar, which is to say that while the experiment was a fascinating attempt at brain removal via an incision through the brain, Leek failed to effectively replicate the original task due to his modernized approach. Once the class had successfully run through a few of the other named experiments within Saraydar’s text, Drs Paxton and Bardsley set us loose on applying Saraydar’s criteria ourselves. By working in small groups, we each discussed amongst our small groups how effective each case study was, and then assigned it a grade. My group discussed Shea & Klenck’s on trampling and edge wear case study, which was given a B (although a case could have been made for a B+ or an A-). As the class discussed their respective case studies, we defended our grade assignment and worked through ways the experiments could be improved. I found this to be remarkably helpful when it came to fully understanding the material.
Toward the beginning of class, Dr. Bardsley discussed a sign she once saw in a library that read, “Thank you for not doing research that has already been done”. I found this to be an excellent way to start off our discussion for the day, considering it laid a terrific foundation for establishing the first of Saraydar’s criteria. It allowed us to keep in mind the core tenet of research and discovery, which is to not only memorize the works of others but to expound on those topics with new information of our own. I especially appreciated this quote when looking back through my notes from the readings, and seeing exactly where Saraydar employs this idea firsthand. When commenting on the experiments, Saraydar also discussed areas of improvement or constructive feedback. I also found this to be an interesting parallel to our week 1 reading, in which we discussed Saraydar and Reynolds’s approaches to experimental archeological research. While Reynolds presents the field as one with little room for error or interpretation, Saraydar allows for more wiggle room, so to speak. These earlier readings lay a better groundwork for examining this week’s reading of Saraydar, in my opinion.
Submitted by Mary West