Saturday, October 29, 2005

Bones Jarring Bones

Maybe I should have called this post "Antlers Jarring Bones"

On Thursday, I stayed in the lab after class and worked on a large nodule which eventually turned into a large biface. I used a heavy elk antler billet which I have not used for a long time. I got great results, but that night, I noticed that my wrist, thumb, and forefinger on my right hand(the hand I use to apply percussion) were quite sore. It was almost as if I had sprained part of my hand and wrist. I also noticed that My upper left thigh was a little sore from absorbing the part of the shock of my percussion blows.

This isn't any great revelation, but I thought it was interesting. Ancinet people had to have been aware of the risks involved with flintknapping. Massive cuts, risk of eye injury, lung damage (at least from obsidian dust), and many other things which could easily debilitate someone.

Currently, my sprains/strains are healing, but for most of Friday and today I have noticed a slight discomfort and a loss of strength in my forearm.

I speculate that avoiding injury may have been a factor in the production of stone tools.
Nobody wants to cut their hand open or even loose a finger, let alone sprain their wrist and thumb.

Friday, October 28, 2005

The sickly sound of shatter...

Now that the students in my class are getting into flintknapping, my ears have really perked up. It is fairly easy to tell if a flake has been successfully removed. With the exception of a few in the class, I don't hear success very often.

The blue tarp that everyone flakes on is littered with broken cores, their faces scarred by ugly step and hinge fractures.

We all have to start somewhere though.

At least they aren't using metal hammers and metal letter openers like I did. It's been interesting to stay after class and look at the debitage scatter from each student. Errors abound, but even more interesting are the flakes that fixed the errors. On the dorsal side of these flakes that are many an ugly step fracture, but on the ventral surface, it is clear and clean.

I think that while often times many consider lithic scatters to be worthless sites, some knowledge could be gained from looking at the individual flakes to see what types of errors or successes occurred. That's something they never taught me when I was doing undergraduate lithic analysis...(if it wasn't faunal, it was useless).

Of course, when you are out on suvey, who has the time, money, or desire to look at individual flakes to see how things were produced? Most of the time we just record the scatter and move on so that we can get back to Cottam's 66 for a Fresca (some of you won't get that).

Intitially, when the class started, I had hoped to lay out a grid system to measure the types of flakes being produced by Dr. Clark (my faculty advisor for the course), myself, and all of the students. It would have been an interesting test. As it is, I don't think it will be possible in my class, but it is something to think about for future classes and lithic studies.

I could make some general assumptions though, because Dr. Clark and I generally sit in the instructor chair and all of the students sit around us. We could do some preliminary studies of error and success flakes and expert versus novice.

Everyone can comment now...sorry

One of my friends told me that they had tried to post a comment and could not because I had not set the filter correctly allowing comments. So much for providing a forum for discussion and commmentary when no one can even comment. Sorry about that.

But it's all better now, I promise. I'll never do that to you all again. Come on back, leave a comment, I didn't mean it.

Thursday, October 27, 2005

Putting it all back together part two.

Today's excercise in refitting went much better. The poster putty was not quite the right adhesive though. It's been difficult finding an adhesive that is not permanent, because I would like to be able to use these exhausted cores a few times to help the students conceptualize the reduction process.

Do any of you have any suggestions as to how I can keep these cores together with an adhesive that will not be permanent?

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Putting it all back together...

Yesterday in my ancient technology class, I gave the students a pile of debitage and some exhausted cores. Their assingment was to look at each flake and determine how and when it came off the core. We had mixed results, mainly because they were having a good time socializing.

Ultimately though, it provided a useful experience for them and me. On Thursday, I plan to bring some poste putty to let them put the flakes all together to reassemble their cores.

If it didn't waste so much obsidian to flake a nodule/core to exhaustion, doing refitting studies would be very interesting. My audience is incredibly low for this blog, but do any of you have any suggestions on sources concerning refitting studies?

This weekend, I think that I will blow through one more nodule and see if i can put it all back together (shatter and microflakes excluded of course).

Sunday, October 23, 2005

A little more about me

I suppose that since this blog is about experimental archaeology, I should tell you a little about my background in it.

As I mentioned in one of my other posts, my main interest is in flintknapping. I began flintknapping in a roundabout way. I had always been interested in Native Americans, especially the Navajo. My grandfather grew up near the Navajo reservation and would tell me all sorts of stories about them. Like many of his generation, he had a large arrowhead and pot collection. I was always fascinated with the arrowheads and how they were made.

One day, my friend Ben and I found several large nodules of obsidian in a vacant lot near my house. They were slightly buried, and to this day, I don't know where they came from. It certainly was not an obsidian source. I guess it could be, but there is a house on top of it now, so we'll never know for sure.

I showed my find to my grandpa. He knew of a man who made arrowheads and large bifaces and took some of my obsidian to see if this man would make me a knife or other tool out of obsidian. A few months later, my grandpa gave me my obsidian back along with a book called A Manual for Neanderthals. Apparently the man wanted to charge my granpa a lot of money for a knife or arrowhead, so my grandpa decided that I should learn how to make them on my own. I still own the book and will hold on to it for sentimental reasons. The link I have posted is to an ebay page of someone who is selling their copy.

I didn't learn much from this book and my first attempts at flintknapping were poor. I started flintknapping during my senior year of Highschool (97-98). I took to the nodules with a metal hammer, and used my Dad's letter opener as a pressure flaker. Needless to say, I went through that obsidian very quickly and ruined the letter opener. I had no understanding of angles or fracture patterns. I would hit the nodule and hope that I got a good flake off.

I've come a long way since then and I have looked back with humor as I remember pounding nodules with a hammer and getting shattered obsidian all over the patio. I am now pretty good and have been proucing larger and larger bifaces.

While my main interest continues to be in lithics, I have also gained a new respect and interest in fiber perishables. In November of last year, I learned how to make cordage out of raffia, dogbane, and yucca.

I have had little to do with ceramics, but recently finished a ceramic unit in the class that I teach which was very rewarding because of all the things I learned.

My interest in replication and experimentation has provided me with many interesting ideas and theories concerning ancient technology. I often think that if I was not involved in making tools and other ancient technologies, my ideas and perspectives about archaeology in general would be slightly different.

Thursday, October 20, 2005

That was a long one...

That last post was a pretty long one wasn't it? I think it was necessary though. It's main purpose was to let you know where I stand and how I feel about experimental archaeology. I doubt that I have very many readers right now anyway. Hopefully, with time and some self-promotion, I'll draw some of you in to read and contribute.

Experimental Archaeology, who needs it?

This post is an argument (heavily supplemented by an article) in favor of experimental archaeology.

That article is by John E. Clark entitled Ancient Technology, Justifiable Knowledge and Replication Experiments: Resolving the Inferential Impasse (2002).

Clark argues that "technology studies must become a core concern of all archaeology given the discipline's unavoidable emphasis on interpreting material traces of past lifeways...Replication experiments need to be central to these studies of ancient technology" (Clark 2002:259).

Clark provides a postulate to justify the need for experiments.

"If we accept the foundational premise of archaeology and history that knowledge of the past is possible, and if we further stipulate that said knowledge--however defined--is unavoidably analogical, and if we consider inferences by analogy to be the pairing of contemporary knowledge or causal principle to material effects from the past existing into the present (i.e., artifacts and traces) then it follows that our knowledge of the past depends on (1) the recovery of material traces from the past and (2) our contemporary knowledge of cause and material effects and (3) our ability to match past effects with those of known cause in an observed present" (Clark 2002:264).

In sum, if we believe that we can learn about the past and that this knowledge is gained by obtaining material remains, then we must depend on knowledge we have gained by understanding cause and effect in a modern setting. If we understand cause and effect in a modern setting then we will be able to use contemporary observations to add to our knowledge of the past.

Of course, experimental archaeology, ethnographic research and ethnoarhcaeology cannot do it all, they can however, "establish a potentially useful interpretive principle for linking cause to material effect" (Clark 2002: 265).

It is my opinion that experimental archaeology serves to strengthen our abilities to make inferences about past life-ways. By participating in experimental archaeology, we can not only replicate ethnographically observed behavior, we can test theories about unobserved behavior and methods.

Many out there approach experimental archaeology with reluctance though, fearing that many of these inferences or observations are contrived or flase. Clark's counter for this argument is that "in the final analysis it must be admitted that the logical process of archaeological inference is little affected by the source observations of cause and effect, whether generated experimentally or described for indigenous peoples on some Pacific atoll" (Clark 2002:265).

Clark also points out the fact that many times "Replication experiments provide the observational basis for the first move because analysts can explore as wide a range of possibilities as deemed necessary, something not possible in ethnography and its parade of singular cases (Clark 2002:266). This is an interesting observation, and one that has built Clark's career in Mesoamerica, and contributed to the understanding of folsom point creation, specifically fluting. Were it not for this belief certain archaeologists like John Clark and Michael Collins, the Folsom Workshop may not have taken place and many of the ideas about folsom technology expressed during those years would have still been lurking in obscurity.

If important inferences about the past can be made, they should be grounded in present observations of experiments. Experimental archaeologists need to be cautioned though, that any run of the mill experiment will not do. According to Clark, "Poorly designed experiments or experiments of unknown significance will not do...Improved archaeology in the twenty-first century needs to [place] experiments on solid, logical ground" (Clark 2002:267).

throughout the rest of his article, Clark provides a summary on how to institute experimental archaeology programs in universities and colleges. Clark concludes with a discussion on the future of archaeological inference and suggests that if inferences about the past are to contribute to the archaeology, they must be justified though "acceptable logical standards" (Clark 2002:269).

I fully agree with Clark's observations and arguments, and that's not just because I attend the university where he teaches, it's because his observations and arguments make sense. Why should archaeologists limit themselves to merely looking at artifacts and making assumptions about them, when they could actually participate in the replication of those artifacts and make logical and supported inferences? Obviously, not all archaeologists have the time, ability, or desire to participate in experimental archaeology. There are some who exist though, and their voice and participation in the academic world needs to be louder and more active. By providing data from replicative and experimental studies, archaeologists can expand the boundaries of archaeological inference. Many claims about toolstone procurement, ceramic processing, and projectile point production can be tested and accepted or rejected through experimental methods.

I would suggest that certain archaeologists have made assumptions or inferences about past behavior with no real knowledge or understanding of that behavior. Many times, these inferences have been proved wrong by applying data gained from experimental studies, and embarrassment, crushed egos, and personal vendettas have resulted.

It is my opinion that general acceptance and application of experimental studies in archaeological research has significant benefits. These benefits range from the creation of better inferences and better science in general, to the creation of more informed artifact analysts. Improvements in the areas of scientific inference and artifact analysis are always welcome and enable archaeologists to ask more issue related and important questions.


note: the bibliographic information below is in SAA format. It may not be exact format due to issues beyond my control due to some of blogger's inadequacies in the word processing department. Also, the Clark reference was a little tricky and I didn't have time to look it up. I may edit it later.

John E. Clark
2002 Ancient Technology, Justifiable Knowledge and Replication Experiments: Resolving the Inferential Impasse. In Traditions, Transitions, and Technologies: Themes in Southwestern Archaeology, Proceedings of the 2000 Southwest Symposium. edited by Sarah H. Schlanger. University Press, Colorado

For a summary of the proceedings and papers given at the Folsom Workshop, see

Clark, John E. and Michael B. Collins

2002 The Folsom Workshop Conferences. In Folsom Technology and Lifeways, edited by John E. Clark and Michael B. Collins. Special Publication No. 4. Lithic Technology, Department of Anthropology University of Tulsa, Tulsa.

Tuesday, October 18, 2005

A forum on experimental archaeology

This blog is in response to an article I read recently by Henry Farrell of George Washington Univeristy, concerning the importance of blogs in the academic world.

Farrel, Henry
2005 The Blogosphere as a Carnival of Ideas, Section B of the Chronicle of Higher Education pp. B14-B15, In The Chronicle Review, 52(7). Washington, D.C.

Blogger makes SAA format a little difficult, and I hope the above helps in finding the article. It appeared in October 7th, 2005 issue. If all else fails, you can post a comment and we can arrange distribution. The article has nothing to do with archaeology, but really sold me on the possibilities for discussion and idea exchange.

A little about me:

I am a 25 year-old graduate student at Brigham Young Univeristy. I am currently teaching an ancient technology class and have been interested in experimental archaeology (specifically flintknapping) since high school. My areas of interest include the American Great Basin and the American Southwest. The Fremont and Anasazi are the two cultures with which I am currently most fascinated.

Hopefully, this blog will allow myself and its readers (if any) to discuss the merits of experimental archaeology, share success and failure stories, and to talk about experimental archaeology's place in general arhcaeological theory.

In other words, is making all of this stuff worth it? I think it is.

For the balance of the year, the focus of this blog will be mainly on my class and some of the experiences I have had there. I will also talk about toolstone procurement, flintknapping techniques, and hopefully include several photos. Well see how this all works.