Experimental archeology
Experimental archeology- This is the direction of archaeological science. During the experiment, scientists live like people from distant epochs, learning ancient crafts and restoring forgotten technologies, carrying out seasonal agricultural work.
Notes
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010 .
- Petrel (cartoon)
- Entrecote
See what "Experimental archeology" is in other dictionaries:
ARCHEOLOGY. INDUSTRIES- As a rule, an archaeologist focuses on more or less limited topics for the simple reason that this science itself is too extensive and it is almost impossible to achieve the same qualifications in all its fields. The result of this…… Collier Encyclopedia
ARCHEOLOGY. MAIN CONCEPTS- Fundamental for all archeology is the assertion that archaeological sources - material objects created by ancient people or somehow connected with them, can tell us something about these people. In fact, archaeological Collier Encyclopedia
List of academic disciplines- This article contains an unfinished translation from a foreign language. You can help the project by translating it to the end. If you know what language the fragment is written in, please indicate it in this template ... Wikipedia
Archaeological terminology- # A B C D E F F G I K L M N O P R S T U V X T W ... Wikipedia
round house- This term has other meanings, see Round house (meanings). Modern round house or sphere house, Russia ... Wikipedia
Baking in Ancient Rome- Round bread with cuts to make it easier to break. Pompeii. bakery in Ancient Rome features of the production of products, mainly from wheat flour in ancient Rome. Bread and cakes were not typical ... Wikipedia
Experimental research methods in the system of historical sciences- Appeal to the topic of historical reconstruction* within the framework of this publication is not at all accidental. For several centuries, historians, archaeologists, ethnologists, anthropologists and other scientists different countries successfully used in their research ... ... Encyclopedia "Peoples and Religions of the World"
Reenactor- Lazare Ponticelli, the last surviving (confirmed) participant in the First World War from France with participants in historical reenactment dressed in the uniform of soldiers of that era Reenactors during maneuvers on the Molotov Sea line ... Wikipedia
Neanderthal- ? † Neanderthal C ... Wikipedia
Historical reconstruction- This article or section describes the situation in relation to only one region. You can help Wikipedia by adding information for other countries and regions... Wikipedia
In connection with the dominance of fans of Fomenko’s work and other freaks from History on the resource, I consider it necessary to acquaint comrades with sound scientific data on ancient history.
In particular, with a wonderful scientific book - Denys A.Stocks - "Experiments in Egyptian archeology. Technology of stone processing in Ancient Egypt ".
The conclusion from reading the book is simple: the ancient Egyptian pyramids were created by the ancient Egyptians themselves (yeah, a sensation, who would have thought!). The rest is under the cut.
so Denys A. Stocks. Experiments in Egyptian Archeology: Stoneworking Technology in Ancient Egypt, Routledge, 2010, 296 s (Experiments in Egyptian archeology. Technology of stone processing in Ancient Egypt)
In this book, dedicated to the problems of ancient Egyptian technology, the author examines the archaeological and graphic evidence of construction in ancient Egypt. Combining modern engineering knowledge with the approach of an archaeologist and historian, through a series of experiments in which more than two hundred exact copies of ancient tools were restored and tested, the author describes the operation of the methods of ancient Egyptian artisans, noting a number of innovations and progressive achievements made by this civilization.
It must be said right away (in fact, the only drawback of this book) is that, unfortunately, the book has not yet been translated into Russian. On the other hand, we all know perfectly well that Fomenko's fans read any texts in all languages and in any direction (after all, these are all "dialects of the Russian language") - and for them the British dialect of Russian will not be a big problem - so you can safely give them a link to this work. Yes, and the book has a lot of good illustrations and photographs, if suddenly there are problems with the "Russian".
What is remarkable about this book is that it is remarkable for its scientific approach and the many experiments carried out.
Egyptian technologies for working with stone are reproduced. From and to. If a copper saw was needed, then copper was smelted in an ancient furnace (according to Egyptian drawings), then it was forged with stone hammers (the handle was naturally carved from Egyptian wood species with a stone chisel), etc. Then they took the made saw, quartz abrasive and successfully sawed stones-granite blocks in Cairo. Similarly drilled with a copper drill. A detailed figure is given based on the results of experiments - copper consumption, stone production, sawing speed with a certain sawing technique, etc.
An example of an ancient image with stone work:
Photo - Emily Teeter Drill - on the handle with weights. Two drill, three polish, and one processes the inner surface. Relief from the 5th Dynasty.
And a modern experiment:
Ancient copper tools found at the excavations (pyramids of the 5th dynasty):
Reconstruction of the creation of a stone vase with a copper tool similar to that found
Finds of levels and their modern reconstruction
In general, after reading this book, the topic of who built the Egyptian pyramids can be safely closed. The pyramids were built by the ancient Egyptians themselves. Unbelievable but true!
Several related videos:
How granite, quartzite and diorite were processed in ancient Egypt, from the point of view of common scientific sense:
Pyramids, medieval astronaut and sloth.
Update1 in connection with the comrade's post regarding the "concrete" pyramids of Egypt and the "irrefutable" photo fact.
To plunge into the crystal truth or scientists hide once again
"The idea of concrete Egyptian pyramids could be treated differently. For example, consider this another "theory" among others. Equally unfounded. And we would not write about it in such detail if not for one circumstance. The point is that there is indisputable evidence that, for example, the pyramid of Cheops is really made of concrete.
This evidence is a Fragment of a Stone Block of the Cheops Pyramid, taken from a height of fifty meters, from the outer masonry of the pyramid. It is a chip in the upper corner of the block. The maximum size of the fragment is about 6.5 centimeters, . This piece was kindly placed at our disposal by Professor I.V.Davidenko (Moscow). He also drew our attention to the following striking circumstance, proving that the block of the Cheops pyramid was MADE OF CONCRETE.
As you can see from the photo, the surface of the block is covered with a fine mesh. Careful examination shows that this is a trace of a mat that was applied to the inner surface of the formwork box. It is clearly seen that the mat was bent at a right angle along the edge of the block. And at a short distance from the edge of the block, another mat was superimposed on it with an overlap. It can be seen that there is a fringe along the edge of the second mat. There are no fibers located along the edge, they fell out. As it usually happens on the raw edge of woven fabrics."
Photofact:
Well, the natural exposure of this myth:
(through determining the volume of copper required per one great pyramid)
Hypothesis (strictly scientific) of building the pyramid of Cheops using an internal ramp to lift blocks
A visual exposure of the "Typical delusional" with illustrations:
Video by A. Sklyarov - refutation of the concrete version:
A. Sklyarov's book (for all the controversy of the conclusions, the actual part on the pyramids is very useful): http://www.lah.ru/text/sklyarov/egypt-titul.htm
"There is no other way on the way to human knowledge, except for experiment"
Francis Bacon
None of us doubts that space travel cannot be undertaken without a certain amount of knowledge in the most diverse branches of science. Without knowledge, although of a different order, we cannot do without a journey into the past. Therefore, we begin to get acquainted with the subject of our reasoning - experiment and some concepts used by archaeologists.
Not only mankind has the most ancient history, but also the experiment. Before it became one of the main methods of science, with which it tests various hypotheses, people used it in a simple form of trial and error in everyday practice. It was first used by animals (the oldest ancestors of Homo sapiens), which began the history of human evolution about three million years ago. Foraging for food was not a pleasant pastime for them. With the help of the simplest fragments of stone, wooden sticks and bones, they obtained their own food by digging up edible plants or killing small animals. They learned from their own failures and successes, accumulated experience and passed it on to their descendants (it is assumed that early Paleolithic people could agree among themselves using sounds and gestures). They often paid for this knowledge at a high price, since failure often led to the death of experimenters. Thanks to the efforts of these pioneers, their successor, Homo erectus, gained the ability to think more abstractly. And his memory worked better. He was well versed in the surrounding nature, knew the habits of animals. Over time, armed with more advanced stone tools and wooden spears, he becomes stronger than wild animals larger and more agile than him. Based on the accumulated experience and the growing "vocabulary", the hunters could already analyze the possible situation in advance and find the most successful solution, that is, they could plan their actions. Communication with the help of the rudiments of speech played a very important role in this.
It is worth talking especially about the application of scientific experiment in the study of the emergence of speech. Even at university, we were taught that the Neanderthal belongs to our direct ancestors. But most modern anthropologists argue that he was at least our distant cousin and was incapable of further development. But why? Anthropologist Philip Lieberman pointed out one of the reasons and tested it during the experiment. He made models of the vocal organs of a chimpanzee, a Neanderthal, a child and an adult from silicone rubber. He shone through these models with light rays and, by their passage, determined what tone frequency Neanderthals could create in comparison with humans and chimpanzees. After studying the data obtained, he came to the conclusion that the structure of the nasopharynx and larynx, in all likelihood, did not allow Neanderthals to speak articulately at all. This was a serious shortcoming that excluded the Neanderthal from the process of human development, since the organization of hunting and the improvement of other activities are impossible without deepening communication between people. At the same time, another type of man had such prerequisites, which about 150 thousand years ago began its development in the direction of Homo sapiens. He was distinguished by a highly developed abstract thinking and the ability to create and use various symbols. The most ancient representatives of this species left behind works of art of a very high level, which even today, after thirty thousand years, excite us. These are not only images on the rocks, but also small sculptures, as well as engraved images of animals, female figures, plants and ornament. The then inhabitants of our planet made a great contribution to the treasury of ancient art.
However, let's return to the early Paleolithic era, where the gathering and consumer-hunting economy dominated. People devoted all their energy to searching for food, and yet they were constantly on the verge of starvation.
Three million years passed before man, thanks to his accumulated experience and observations of the natural world, grew an ear from grain and tamed the first wild animal. This event took place only ten thousand years ago, and a new era began with it - the period of the Late Stone Age. People have learned in this way to produce food in the quantity they need, and less than a hunter and a gatherer to depend on the whim of chance. By improving the tools of labor and methods of cultivating the land, man made his work easier and achieved greater yields. As a result, people have free time, which especially energetic individuals used for purposeful experimentation. The number of new inventions grew rapidly.
The next milestone (comparable to the emergence of language) in the process of experimentation was the emergence of writing. The achieved level could be accurately fixed, passed on to the next generations and developed further. Experiments have become a constant, conscious component of not only industrial activity. With their help, the beginnings of new sciences of ancient civilizations were created. We can confirm this fact by referring to ancient written sources. For example, in the early ancient Egyptian manual for the production of solid bronze, the optimal ratio of its components is given - 88% copper and 12% tin. It can be assumed that this ratio was obtained as a result of numerous experiments. Thus, the experiment ceased to be primitive, as it became quantitative.
An unknown author of the 5th century left witty remarks that indicate that he deeply understood the antiquity of experimentation. “I believe that our modern way of life,” he wrote, “is the result of discoveries and improvements over a long period of time. A lot of suffering fell on the lot of people who lived in a wild, bestial way, eating raw, heavy, simple food ... Most of them, of course, died, because they were too weak physically, only the strongest survived ... Therefore, it seems to me that people in ancient times were looking for food that suits their physique. So they discovered the modern diet ... Experimenting with food, they boiled or baked, mixed and kneaded, adding lighter food to heavy food until they adapted it to the strength and structure of man.
In the Middle Ages, the dependence of knowledge on the dogmas of the Bible left no room for experimentation and experimentation.
A new outbreak of the development of the experiment comes in the period of the Italian Renaissance. With the rethinking of the philosophical heritage of antiquity, there is a revival of philosophical thought. In turn, the rise of the Renaissance is based on the "commercial revolution", which led to the development of some Italo-Byzantine coastal cities of the XIV-XVI centuries. Trading cities such as Venice, Genoa, Pisa and Naples soon surpassed in their wealth the largest centers of the ancient world and began to finance the development of Rome, Florence, Milan and other cities of Northern Italy. Until the 15th century, the trading posts of Genoa and Venice were scattered from the Canary Islands to the Caspian Sea and from the Netherlands to the Niger River in Africa. Goods from all over the world settled in the ports of these cities. But much more valuable were the thousands of new ideas and inventions that arose locally or came along numerous trade routes from the East. During the European Renaissance, the basis of many modern arts and sciences was created. The Renaissance scientist was characterized by a wide range of interests. Leonardo da Vinci was a painter, sculptor, engineer, architect, physicist, biologist and philosopher. By the way, do you know that it was he who first noticed that each ring on a cut of a tree trunk means a year of his life? One of the most important dating methods in modern archeology, the so-called dendrochronology, is based on this.
At the same time, Tartaglia and Cardano create the foundations of modern mathematics. Natural history, medicine and chemistry are created by Salviani, Belon, Aldrovandi and Malpighi. Anatomy is developed by Vesalius and Fallopius, physics and astronomy by Galileo, Torricelli, Leonardo and Copernicus. The basis for the development of these sciences is experiment. Its passionate defender and theorist, the English philosopher Francis Bacon (1561-1626), writes the famous words: "There is no other way on the way to human knowledge, except for experiment."
At the same time, the elementary foundations of archeology are being developed - the science of the past of mankind, based on the study of material remains. Scientists pay attention to stone, ceramic and other finds that people of the Middle Ages did not notice at all. Among these researchers, the name of M.Merkati (1541–1593) is in the first place. Mercati was primarily a naturalist and, as senior curator of the Vatican Botanical Gardens, created a collection of minerals, fossils, and among them stone tools, which were then considered works of nature. Some circumstances helped to understand their real purpose to Merkati. Broad education gave him knowledge of the works of ancient thinkers - Hesiod, Pliny, Lucretius and Festus. Even in antiquity, these authors knew that people in different periods used first stone, then bronze, and finally iron tools. In addition, being a deeply religious Vatican official, he learned a lot from both the collection of ancient oral tradition and the Old Testament, which contain information about stone and bronze tools and a story about the invention of iron by the Philistines. Merkati's views were greatly influenced by the constantly growing collection of items from Asia and America sent to the Vatican by Italian, Spanish and Portuguese navigators and explorers. The navigators of the era of the Great geographical discoveries met people who still lived in the Stone Age during their travels. Their tools were easy to compare with similar European finds. And such observations and finds, ancient tradition and modern ethnography allowed Merkati to conclude that stone tools belonged to our ancient ancestors. Thus, he made a significant amendment to the then ideas of the people of the Renaissance. They had to come to terms with the fact that their ancestors were once at the same level of culture as the Indians, whom many of them despised and treated as inferior beings. Suffice it to recall the inhumanity of the actions of the Europeans in Mexico and Peru.
Nevertheless, even a hundred years after the discovery of Mercati, there were stubborn defenders of other hypotheses. One of them believed that stone axes and wedges (chopped) appear in those places where lightning struck the ground. There were already absolutely fabulous-fantastic hypotheses. So, according to one of them, ceramic vessels were formed in the earth like root crops, while the other claimed that they were made by gnomes.
And in such a situation in archeology, for the first time, an experiment enters into a scientific dispute. The German scientist Andreas Albert Rode (1682–1724) himself created the flint ax to prove that stone tools were man-made. His colleague Jacob von Mellen (1659–1743) commissioned potters to investigate the surface treatment techniques of ancient pottery from northern Germany.
Experiments were also carried out in field archaeological research. The Englishman John Leyland (1506-1552), and after him others, established by observation, and then with the help of experiments, that the composition, color and height of plants can indicate long-standing traces of human activity on earth. More powerful and lush vegetation appears, for example, over recessed dwellings filled with organic remains, and where walls used to be, plants are smaller and rarer, etc. Coult Hoare (1758–1838) searched for hollow underground objects in Wiltshire, hitting with a stick on the ground, that is, in essence, primitive seismic sounding.
So we have already come to early XIX century. The number of finds grew literally every day. The Danish scientist Christian Jürgensen Thomsen (1788–1865) introduced a general order into their disorderly heap, which first arose in museums. In 1819, in the museum of Copenhagen, he divided the archaeological finds into three sections, corresponding to three epochs or ages: stone, bronze and iron (the so-called system of three ages or periods). Since then, chaos has been disappearing from archeology, and it has gradually taken the path of true science. Thomsen is rightfully considered its founder.
The experiment also acquires the right to exist in archeology. Thomsen himself used it in the study of lurs, huge metal musical instruments of the Bronze Age.
From the middle of the 19th century, the attention of experimenters focused on the production and use of stone tools. In 1874, at their congress in Copenhagen, archaeologists had the opportunity to see a wooden building, cut down exclusively with stone tools. The British lieutenant general of the Victorian era, and later a prominent archaeologist Augustus Lane-Fox (Pitt-Reverse), investigated the types of weathering and the occurrence of blockages at the site of ancient settlements. He learned from his own experience the process of the work of the ancient miners in the extraction of flint.
The opponents of Thomsen's system of three eras were finally defeated in the 70s of the XIX century. Their claims that stone tools could not be drilled before the invention of metal were refuted by Otto Tischler and his colleagues, proving that with a wooden drill and sand poured under it, flint can be drilled. With the help of the experiment, another thesis was refuted, according to which the engraving on bronze tools was made with harder steel tools. The experimenters carried it out with the help of a stone.
The Czech kings also appreciated the possibilities of the experiment very early. Jan Erazim Votzel, who wrote the first review ancient history Czech Republic, already in 1847, supported the method of chemical analysis of ancient bronze products. Jindrich Vankul, called the father of Moravian archeology, asked the specialists of the metallurgical plant in the city of Blansko to cast an exact copy of the Hallstatt hollow ring of the 5th century BC. e., found in 1872 in a burial in the Bull Rock, in the well-known Death Cave of Moravian Kras. He wanted in this way to prove his assumption that the ring was cast, and not forged, as one then-famous technologist claimed. The metallurgists cast a beautiful ring, but a modern analysis of the ancient find showed that the ring was nevertheless forged. At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, the Czech archaeologist Josef Vladislav Pich investigated the degree of firing of La Tène ceramics from the settlement near Stradonice, dating back to the last decades of the 1st century BC. e.
Since the end of the 19th century, the number of experiments in archeology has grown rapidly. In 1922, a new, modern form of archaeological experiment was born. Then there appeared on the shores of Lake Constance in Switzerland restored in their original form the settlements of the Stone and Bronze Ages. Now this wonderful open-air museum is visited annually by more than one hundred thousand people. Experimenters in Biskupin, Poland, not far from Poznań, went even further along this path when studying the ancient settlement of the Iron Age. The settlement was founded around 550 BC. e. on an island with an area of two hectares, in the middle of the lake and existed for about 150 years. It is assumed that it was destroyed as a result of a military attack. Thanks to the preservative action of lake silts, not only the lower parts of wooden buildings were preserved, but also many objects of organic origin. This made it possible to restore part of the settlement in its original form. Moreover, since 1936, Polish archaeologists began to imitate and study various economic processes of antiquity in Biskupin - cut down trees, process wood and bone, cultivate the land, cast bronze items, bake and cook food and live in Biskupin houses. And in 1939, eleven participants in the experiment, armed with clay balls and shields, tried to repeat the assault and capture of the reconstructed part of the defensive wall on three boats. Three defenders, hidden on the wall, in a few minutes with the help of the same balls put the attackers to flight.
And now remember the date August 10, 1956. On this day Biskupin experimenters for the first time in the world practice burned a model of an ancient house. The house was built exactly according to the plan of its ancient prototype; exact copies of ancient objects and food were placed in its interior. The fire was filmed until it died out, and the ashes were left untouched for future archaeologists. In this way, experimenters propose to get answers to questions about what traces certain objects leave after burning (we will consider these questions in Chapter 3).
The development of experimental archeology received new impulses in the 1950s in the USSR, where, under the guidance of the outstanding Leningrad archaeologist S.A. Semenov, expeditions are undertaken with an experimental program. Students, together with teachers, spend part of the year in remote areas in conditions close to primitive ones.
Hans Ole-Hansen builds in 1964 in Lejre (Denmark) an experimental village that lives the life of the Iron Age. It is surrounded by small, primitively cultivated areas, fences with cattle, bred by backcrossing, brought to a species that roughly corresponded to the animals of that era. Students, schoolchildren with their parents come to the settlement and, guided by the instructions of archaeologists, live the life of their ancestors, distant from them for many millennia. Similar experiments soon began to be carried out in other countries. In 1976, the First International Congress on Problems of Experimental Archeology was convened, two years later - the second, in 1980 - the third, held in London.
Experiments become constant companions of archaeologists on their complex and difficult path of understanding the life, work, art and thinking of people who left behind only dumber, most often broken or half-decayed objects, minor traces of their activities and a few fragments of written documents.
Archaeologists and specialists in related sciences use experiments when searching for archaeological sites in the field (search), during excavations and extraction to the surface, protecting finds from destruction and harmful effects of the environment (conservation), when analyzing the composition of finds, describing their forms, method of production, application and dates. And finally, experiments help to build a general picture of human history from these fragments of knowledge.
Thus, the experiment became a powerful ally for archaeologists in their dealings with silent things. A powerful ally, but not omnipotent! Experimental archeology is by no means immune to errors. Let us recall, for example, the case of Wankel with a copy of the ring, when a seemingly successful experiment led to an erroneous conclusion. “Well, yes,” you answer, “in the 19th century, all analytical methods were still in diapers, now such a mistake is excluded.” Okay, let's take another example.
Here we turn again to stone axes and axes. As we already wrote, in the XVII-XVIII centuries, some scientists considered them to be the messengers of the sky itself (appearing when lightning struck the earth). Overseas voyages of the 15th-16th centuries and experiments gradually pushed such hypotheses further and further into oblivion. However, until the end of the 19th century, scholars debated whether the stone could have been drilled before the metal was discovered. It has even been suggested that we are talking about metal tools that have petrified from a long stay in the earth. When this issue was finally resolved, some argued that the production of polished stone tools was too laborious and time consuming for primitive man. Thus, the authors of a history textbook published in 1952 fully agree with the statement of the French missionary and ethnographer of the 18th century, Joseph Lifito, who wrote that “the creation of a stone ax was started by the grandfather, and finished by the grandson.” Thus, they wanted to emphasize that the production of stone tools lasted for years.
And now we will tell the story of where and how these tools were used. For a long time, supporters of two hypotheses have been arguing on this issue: they cut wood with them and cultivated a tree or cultivated a field.
In 1955, the German archaeologist Burchard Brentjes installed a stone ax as a pointer on a replica of an ancient ral. He harnesses the bull and plows several furrows, after which he gains complete confidence that his hypothesis is correct. At about the same time, in Denmark, a section of forest was cut with flint axes to create a "Neolithic field" in its place. Near Kaunas, under the blows of stone axes, members of the expedition of the Soviet scientist S.A. Semenov, mighty pines fall, and only 3-4 times slower than under the blows of modern iron axes.
Two experiments - two different results. Are both of them correct or just one of them? What will help us to solve this issue?
Most likely the so-called trace analysis. So, on most objects there are characteristic traces of the tool with which they were made. Based on these signs, S.A. Semenov already in the 40s of our century began to develop a method for deciphering traces of tools on things. From such traces it was possible to find out how these things (objects) were made, used, applied. (How simple everything is, isn't it? However, just like any significant discovery!). He found that some traces were in the form of grooves (or, as he said, traces), which can often only be seen under a microscope at multiple magnifications. These are traces of impacts, dents, smoothing and polishing.
However, Semenov could not yet consider his discovery proven. With the help of the trasological method he created, he could already determine the nature, shape and direction of the tracks, but still did not know their origin. Semenov established this only with the help of an experiment. For example, on the point of stone tools of the Late Paleolithic, he found working traces in the form of grooves, which were located perpendicular to the point on some tools, and at an oblique angle on others. As we already know, according to Brentjes, Neolithic people used these tools to work the land. S.A. Semenov tried to test this in practice. Alas! The point became dull after a few minutes under the influence of hard fragments of flint, which were in the soil, and became covered with numerous hollows, and these marks did not resemble the grooves on ancient tools.
According to another opinion, supported by ethnographers, these tools were used for felling trees and in general for processing wood (for example, according to the observations of scientists of the 19th and even 20th centuries among the Papuans of New Guinea). S.A. Semyonov checked this possibility, and - eureka! - the experience was a success! During cutting, when the tool touched the tree trunk at an angle, oblique grooves (an ax) appeared on its tip. During chiselling and splitting, when the point was immersed in the tree perpendicularly, the grooves were formed perpendicular to the point. S.A. Semenov also checked other objects and, after spending thousands of hours over a microscope, after hundreds of experiments, he reconstructed the technique for creating hand axes, flint points, bone daggers, etc.: he determined which flint tools were used for cleaning skin, cutting meat, drilling wood ... He was even able to find out in which hand the hunter of the early Paleolithic era held the scraper - in the right or left. It can be said that Professor Semyonov and his students perceived stone tools as books that told them a lot.
We will finish our reasoning about the possibilities and errors of the experiment with one more example. Ludwik Soucek, in his book Premonition of Relationship, writes that on the basis of his own "humble experience" he came to the conclusion that it is 300 times more difficult to cut down a tree with a stone ax than with a metal one. Modesty, as they say, adorns a person, this is true, but not always and not under all circumstances.
You probably already understand how it is with experimentation. The results of experiments are only close to ancient reality when they are programmed in accordance with the achievements of archeology for each specific situation. An important role is played here by ethnographic data (in some places on the globe, until quite recently, people who are at the primitive level lived or live now). Usually the solution to the problem turns out to be quite simple, since it is based on common sense which has been inherent in man since ancient times. For better clarity, we systematize the main lessons and rules of the archaeological experiment.
1) On the basis of experiment, it is impossible to firmly and unmistakably establish whether a given workflow was like this for our ancestors in the distant past, or whether it looked somehow different. We can neither assume nor demand absolute evidence. So, for example, even if we swim across the Atlantic Ocean in a supposed copy of an ancient ship, this is not proof that people in antiquity did the same.
2) The result of the experiment is uncertain in time and space. Having proved that some process in some place in the past was carried out in a certain way, we have no right to categorically assert that this happened always and everywhere. For example, archaeologists have proved that in the Trypillia culture of the Eneolithic period, some types of polished stone tools, processed only superficially, were used in earthworks (the construction of dugouts). We know very well that in the vast majority of cases such tools were used in wood processing. This means that there were exceptions, and therefore caution is needed, categorical generalizations must be avoided!
3) We usually carry out experimental work with clearly defined objectives and expected results. But at the same time, one should not be too sure that the method used can only give a positive result. We must always have a share of improvisation in reserve. It would be necessary, if possible, to apply several methods that would give different results, which would exclude blind faith in the first successful result. This was already recognized by the founder of experimental science, Francis Bacon, who wrote in 1620: “We must not forget that these people, despite all the attention paid to experiments, went towards goals set in advance and that it was in this that they overdid it and showed unnecessary zeal” .
4) During the experiment, we apply a material similar to the one used ancient man. Our methods would also have to be consistent with those of ancient society. Digging up the earth with a horn digger and cutting trees with stone axes represent modern man unusual work, and therefore, before the experience, you need to train for some time. Otherwise, we will allow such a distortion, as if using modern tools.
5) If we study the complexity of building large objects - settlements, pyramids, fortresses, etc., then there is no need to carry out work on the same scale as they were carried out in antiquity. You can zoom out, take a "typical" piece of work. Examples of how satisfactory results can be achieved through rationally found working methods are the Roman fortifications in Britain and the Mayan cult center at Uxmal.
6) When conducting experiments, we must accurately describe our actions, the material used and the results obtained in order to be able to objectively compare with the results of other experiments. For example, two archaeologists, when grinding grain in identical Celtic stone mills, obtained different results in terms of time and quantity. And since they did not clearly describe their experiments, we can only guess what circumstances led to unequal results: the type of stone from which the millstones are made, the number of revolutions of the runner and the magnitude of the pressure of the millstones, fresh, dry or roasted grain, or different evaluations of the quality of flour by experimenters ?
If, however, we adhere to the rules of completeness and accuracy of fixation, we will thereby help both the development of experimental archeology and cognition itself. The possibilities and tasks of experimental archeology, as we will try to show below, are practically limitless.
But before embarking on a journey into experimental archeology, we will briefly explain some of the terms that appear frequently in this book.
Vesh- any object in which any intention of a person is embodied. In the narrow sense of the word, this concept includes tools, weapons, jewelry, etc. Large objects are called not things, but monuments (houses, pyramids, settlements, obelisks). This includes things in the broad sense of the word that are of great importance in the knowledge of the past, for example, waste from production activities (for example, waste obtained in the manufacture of a stone ax can tell a lot about the technique used by the ancient master); traces (for example, when plowing, which indicate the type of ral); leftovers (for example, barely noticeable sediments and burnt pieces at the bottom of the vessels, by which the type of food can be determined).
Experiment(experience). A way of cognizing phenomena in the process of their practical mutual influence under conditions controlled by the researcher (experimenter). With the help of an experiment, we can confirm or disprove our assumptions (confirmatory experiment), as well as look for new facts (orientation experiment). Through an experiment, one can not only refute or confirm our assumptions and conjectures, but also obtain new data.
Hypothesis. Assumption (guess), the correctness of which needs to be checked.
Layout. The concept of "layout" is used in the case when the features of the original (known to us only partially: from drawings, engravings, the remains of this or that thing) are studied on its imitation in one or another scale. These include models of houses, for which we know only the foundation, and we reconstruct the rest, or models of ships created on the basis of drawings on the rocks.
Reconstruction. Restoration or imitation of the previous state.
Replica. The case when the properties of the model correspond to the original to such an extent that the original and the replica are interchangeable. The original is a sample for creating replicas. A synonym for the concept of "replica" is a copy. Replication means the process of creating a replica.
Simulation. Imitation or imitation of a specific action or process. For example, we imitate the life of the Stone Age.
Test. A test whose purpose is to select possibilities known in advance. The boundary between test and experiment is in some cases indefinite. The derived word is testing.
For a free perception of the further text of the book, it is necessary to learn the meaning of some concepts used by archaeologists in the temporal classification and descriptions of ancient history.
Paleolithic- a word of Greek origin ("palaios" - ancient, "lithos" - stone), in Russian it corresponds to the ancient stone age. This is a period that includes over 99% of the entire history of mankind. It began about 2.5 million years ago, when the first representative of the genus Homo (Homo habilis - a skilled man) appeared, who created the first tools, and ended around the tenth millennium BC. e. But the latest finds push back the beginning of the most ancient history of man further back in time - up to 3 million years.
Geologists call this era the Quaternary or Ice Age or the Pleistocene. In the early period of the Early Paleolithic, the climate was warmer than at present. Elephants, rhinoceroses, buffaloes, horses, etc. roamed Central Europe. Then the ice ages come (the average annual temperature is 10–12 degrees Celsius lower than today); representatives of the animal world are mammoths, woolly rhinos, bears, arctic foxes, hares. Cold snaps that lasted for millennia were replaced by interglacial periods, when the climate became humid and was 3 degrees warmer than in modern Central Europe.
During the Paleolithic period, physical development Homo. In the early Paleolithic, two distinct types of man emerged. On the initial stage of this period in East, and possibly in South Africa, there lived a person with a very fragile physical constitution (height about 120 cm, weight about 40 kg), which the researchers called Homo habilis. In its physical structure, it differed sharply from its contemporary, Australopithecus, which, compared with Homo habilis, remained more like an ape-man, an anthropoid, combining the signs of ape and man. The “handy man” had extremely skillful hands. He could hold the tool not only with a forceful grip of his hand, but also gently manipulate his thumb and forefinger. He undoubtedly produced tools, although very primitive, from stone, bone and wood. Pebble tools and flakes have been preserved. About a million years ago (according to some sources - two million) a new type of person appeared - the famous Pithecanthropus from Java and his descendant (or contemporary?) Sinanthropus from China. This type of man, whom we call Homo erectus - "upright man", could make more advanced axes from flint, along with the previous pebble tools, and began to use fire. These first representatives of the human race lived in herds like modern great apes. From bad weather, they took refuge in primitive structures made of branches or in caves. They also organized collective hunting for animals.
The next period belonged to the first people of the sapiens (from "sapiens" - reasonable) type. Having exhausted the possibilities of its development, Homo erectus is gradually dying out over the entire range (in Africa, Asia and Europe) of settlement. The first Sapiens of Steinheim and other European finds lived about 350,000 to 150,000 years ago, but then disappeared or were supplanted by the more primitive people we call Neanderthals. Neanderthals lived in groups of several dozen people, related to each other by blood relationship. They created more advanced tools and weapons than the previous types of man, and not only could use fire, but also learned how to kindle it. The dead were sometimes buried with observance of primitive rites, which indicates the existence of their ideas about life and death. Neanderthals lived in Europe from 150 thousand to 40 thousand years ago. About 40 thousand years ago, in the Late Paleolithic era, people of the modern type settled again. Quite quickly, they populated all more or less suitable territories for human life.
With all our desire, we will not find anything in the structure of their skeleton that would distinguish them from living people, and the prerequisites for their mental and intellectual development were the same as those of modern man. Therefore, we can say that the history of mankind begins from this moment. Although people of this type still led an unproductive lifestyle (hunting and gathering), but thanks to more advanced tools made of stone, bone and wood (knives with blades, spears and darts with stone and bone tips, lasso, bolas, possibly also bow and arrows) and a better organization of the collective, they could provide themselves with food faster and in greater quantities. Their subsequent discoveries became the basis of various cultures (in the archaeological sense), as well as our civilization (we should not forget that they also inherited the experience of hundreds of previous cultures). They created a primary social unit - a community consisting of several large families who often lived in large dwellings (15 hours 10 meters). Their frame, made of the bones of large animals and branches, these people covered with skins. The center of each large family was a woman-mother (the continuer of the clan, traditions, the keeper of fire, blood relationship), who was respected by the entire community (matriarchy). The people of that time had the first decorations, they learned to sew clothes from leather and fur, weave ropes and ropes. All the richness and complexity of the relationship to life, each other and the environment, high level abstract thinking and language, they put the level of abstract thinking and language into beautiful images created by them in rock paintings, sculptures, in gifts to the dead, whom they said goodbye with great respect for them. All this is the basis of our civilization. We owe the emergence of these values to a handful of people. At the end of the Paleolithic, there were about five million hunter-gatherers around the globe. Their number during the Late Paleolithic increased very slowly, since even a small team needed a vast territory and a huge effort of the entire group to survive. Constant movement did not allow the mother to raise several children, in addition, many children died, and the human life was very short.
Mesolithic. This term is of Greek origin ("mesos" - middle), middle stone age. It begins in the tenth millennium BC. e. The harsh last ice age ended, and the Holocene, geological modernity, began. The climate has changed, in Central Europe it has become two degrees warmer than at present. Mammoths are dying out, and other large animals hunted by people of the late Paleolithic are moving north. People are forced to adapt to changing conditions. They live in smaller groups, several dozen people each, hunt forest animals, fish, and gather forest fruits. They used almost the same tools as their predecessors in the late Paleolithic era.
For this reason, the Mesolithic is, as it were, a continuation of the Paleolithic. It ends at a time when people begin to grow cereals and raise livestock. But in different places this happened in different ways, since wild cereals were not found everywhere, and the domestication of animals is a complex process.
In the Middle East, the first spikelets of grain were grown in the ninth millennium BC. e. Farming skills were brought to Central Europe three or four thousand years later by settlers who were forced to gradually leave the overpopulated places where grain cultivation began and look for new lands suitable for cultivation. Along the way they encountered scattered bands of Mesolithic hunters and gatherers.
It should also be noted that with the advent of agriculture, the former, relatively unified process of human development has changed dramatically and has become uneven. In those parts of the globe where there were favorable natural conditions (the Middle East, Egypt, etc.), the development of human society went far ahead and retained its advantages for millennia; in other territories, more primitive social structures developed. Moreover, even in our time, people live on Earth for whom the Mesolithic has not yet ended.
Neolithic. The term is of Greek origin ("neos" - new). In Central Europe, the Neolithic covers the end of the sixth millennium - 3200 BC. e.
During this era, decisive changes took place in the way people obtain food. The unproductive hunter-gatherer economy was replaced by agriculture. In Central and Eastern Europe, settlers created fields by clearing them of forest (cutting and burning). At a small field (with the help of hoes and digging sticks they cultivated such a plot that fed them) they built ten or fifteen large houses that formed a settlement, and fences for livestock. The most ancient farmers did not know how to return the land to its fertility, and when it was exhausted after ten or fifteen years, they burned the next section of the forest and created a new settlement. They acted according to a certain cycle and after thirty or forty years they returned to the place of the original settlement, where a forest had already grown and, after clearing and burning it, the soil turned out to be fertile again.
Houses reached five to seven meters wide and 20–45 meters long. In each such house lived a large family, including up to six paired families. Daughters remained in their own home, and sons went to the brides' houses. If a large house did not already accommodate new families, then a new house was built, and subsequently a new settlement was founded. The population grew, as agriculture made it possible to feed them, and a settled way of life made it possible to raise more children. In each new generation, the population could double. It is assumed that in the fifth millennium BC. e. about 20 million people lived on Earth.
Settled life and regular farming allowed for many improvements and discoveries that spread faster than among isolated groups of hunters and gatherers. Farmers invented and created a number of new tools that made their life easier and improved: polished and drilled stone axes for felling forests, pottery, jewelry, figurines for cooking, storing supplies and for cult purposes; weaving machines.
All these inventions appeared primarily in the first agricultural regions, and came to Central and Eastern Europe after millennia.
While our farmers were hard at work providing their food, the peasants in the fertile irrigated fields with a favorable climate in the Euphrates and Tigris valleys in Mesopotamia, in the Nile Valley in Egypt, produced much more grain than they themselves could consume. Therefore, soon some of them could devote all their time to the craft, the development of which in turn had a beneficial effect on the general increase in culture. In the middle of the fourth millennium BC. e. in the southern Mesopotamia, the first city-states arise.
Eneolithic. The first period of the metal era, its name consists of the Latin word "eneus" - copper and the Greek "lithos" - stone (3200-1800 BC). The Stone Age is over. The first metal products appeared (decorations, axes, daggers), but there were so few of them that they could not have any impact on the level of development of society. Therefore, during the Eneolithic period, the decisive changes in the cultural sphere of production occurred not due to metal, but to wood, especially thanks to the wooden ral.
A field in a scorched forest, due to the presence of ash, gave a greater harvest than just plowed virgin land. But on the other hand, in the virgin lands, plowmen with the help of a pair of oxen (they already knew that castrated bulls in a harness are stronger and more reliable) could plow and sow an immeasurably larger area than with hoes in slash-and-burn agriculture. As a result, the amount of grain grown increased significantly. All the members of the team no longer had to work in the field, as before, nevertheless, with the new method of plowing, the harvest was much larger than before - a surplus product arose. Therefore, the “liberated” community members could engage in other work - the extraction of salt, stone, the search for ores, experimenting with metals and exchange their products for the surplus product of the farmer. These changes strengthened the position of a man in a society where the leading role still belonged to a woman. The man plowed, grazed cattle, extracted raw materials and changed products and products, that is, he provided the main means of subsistence. The matriarchy gradually disintegrated, and it was replaced by a patriarchal system, where the decisive role belongs to the man. The woman was left to take care of the family, home and cooking.
The settlement during the Eneolithic consisted of several small houses of the same family, and everyone in it was subordinate to the most experienced man. The main unit of society is the patriarchal clan, headed by an elder. Among the pastoral tribes, the man ensured his leading position as a warrior. Cattle breeders, unlike farmers, were very mobile. Since the ancient pastoralism involved a frequent change of pastures, pastoralists roamed over vast areas. This way of life formed a nomadic warrior. He was poorer, but on the other hand he was more mobile and more militant than the farmer and could take his surplus product from the plowman by force. Settled farmers, defending themselves, erected fortifications.
From the beginning of the third millennium BC. e. in Mesopotamia and Egypt, the first state formations began to emerge with rich cities, privileged ruling strata, with kings (pharaohs), nobility, officials, regular troops, and slaves. The historical process was recorded in writing for the first time. Bronze culture flourished in the Eastern Mediterranean. In the middle of the third millennium BC. e. a highly developed culture arose on the territory of present-day India with the famous centers of Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro. At the same time, the Egyptians built the pyramids of Cheops, Khafre from powerful stone blocks ... Around 2100 BC. e. The Sumerian ruler Ur-Nammu publishes the oldest code of laws in the world.
Bronze Age. The decisive influence of metal on the development of society manifested itself only in the Bronze Age (1800-750 BC). Bronze, a golden alloy of copper and tin, displaced stone from the production of tools, weapons and jewelry, which had a beneficial effect on the development of various sectors of the economy, including agriculture. Specialization deepened (search for ore, its extraction, metallurgists, blacksmithing) and the exchange of raw materials and products.
The patriarchal clan remained the main social unit. At the end of the Bronze Age, in all likelihood, tribal associations of a higher order arose, the production and administrative centers of which were located in fortified settlements.
At the time when the Bronze Age began in Central Europe, Hammurabi founded a powerful Ancient Babylonian state in Mesopotamia. In the middle of the second millennium BC. e. Egypt entered the period of the so-called New Kingdom - the apogee of its power. Around 1700 B.C. e. as a result of a natural disaster, the palaces and cities of Crete were destroyed, which were then again raised from ruins. Mycenaean culture developed in southern Greece. In 1260 B.C. e. the Trojan War broke out, and Homer described its events four centuries later. During this period, the Greek city-states developed and ancient civilization was formed, which had a tremendous impact on later European culture. At the end of the second millennium BC. e. in the Middle East, in Anatolia and Greece, the first iron-smelting furnaces were lit, and the Phoenicians invented sound (phonetic) writing.
Iron age. In Central Europe, the first iron products appeared at the end of the Bronze Age and in the early Iron Age - the Hallstatt (750-400 BC). Iron ore is much more common than bronze components (copper and tin). The heyday of metallurgy and blacksmithing came in the late era of iron - Laten (400 BC - before the turn of AD). These two periods were named after the location of significant archaeological sites of the Iron Age - in Hallstatt in Upper Austria and in Lathen in Switzerland. The economic and social consequences of the spread of iron were significant. New tools and almost unlimited reserves of raw materials led to further specialization of the craft, an increase in the level of development of the productive forces, which ensured the creation of a surplus product, and thus the possibility of the existence of people not participating in the production process. The economic position of the elders of clans and tribes was also strengthened. Thus, the foundations of collective property were undermined, and in the society of the Hallstatt phase, and especially during the Laten period, class stratification set in.
From Roman written sources, we know that during the Laten period, Czechoslovakia was inhabited by the Celts, and the name of one of the Celtic tribes, the Boii, began to be called the modern Czech Republic - Biogemum (Bohemia). The Celts were skilled blacksmiths, metallurgists, glaziers, jewelers and potters (they used the potter's wheel). The specialization of production and exchange among the Celts reached such a degree of development that they necessitated the minting of coins.
During this period, the role of Middle Eastern civilizations, which had influenced world culture for millennia, decreased, and the state formations of the Eastern Mediterranean, but especially the European states - ancient Greece, and somewhat later Rome, became its heirs.
From the 8th century BC e. many small Greek city-states arose, and three centuries later the "Greek miracle" was born in them - highly developed philosophy, art, technology. In their shadow, Rome gradually rose - in 753 BC. e. just an unremarkable settlement, which at the turn of our era turned into a city of a million people.
Roman period. The new chronology opens not only new era in Central Europe, called Roman (1-400 AD), but also the appearance in this area of the Germans, who subjugated the Celts. Roman soldiers left their mark on the territory of Czechoslovakia, but they were only in the south of Moravia and Slovakia, and even then for a short time. However, the name of the era - "Roman" for this territory is quite legitimate, since the Roman Empire not only determined the development of the provinces, but also extended its influence far beyond its borders.
Period of the Great Migration of Nations. The clash between the Asian tribes of the Huns and the Germanic tribes of the Ostrogoths in the Black Sea region in 375 opened the era of the chaotic movement of peoples, which captured all of Europe and the adjacent parts of Asia and Africa (400-600 AD).
On the territory of Czechoslovakia at that time, rare German settlements were scattered, which, moreover, often set in motion. The Slavs, who penetrated here during the 5th-6th centuries from their ancestral home between the Dnieper and the Vistula, found here the last German settlements. In all likelihood, for some time these two ethnic groups lived in close proximity, not at enmity with each other. Subsequently, there are more Slavs here than Germans, and they most likely assimilated their predecessors.
The Slavs lived in settlements that formed several semi-dugouts. The dead were burned, and their remains were buried in simple pits with very modest gifts (a vessel, a knife, a tinderbox), a barrow was sometimes poured over them.
Slavic period. In the ancient Slavic period (VII-VIII centuries), there were no significant changes in the tribal system of our ancestors, property stratification was poorly developed. The forms of political organization that arose in moments of external danger, such as the Samo tribal union, did not have a significant impact on the life of society.
The situation changed dramatically in the ninth century. Tribes are rapidly developing in Moravia, which is close to the cultural centers in the Danube region. There is an early feudal state - Great Moravia.
Archaeological finds from such well-known centers of Great Moravia as Mikulčice, Stare Mesto, Pohansko make it possible to clearly trace all the prerequisites that led to the emergence of the state. Some Great Moravian centers already had the character of cities and occupied a large area. Thus, Mikučice occupied an area of about one hundred hectares. The production system was able to provide not only food for the population, but also a sufficient number of tools and weapons. This allowed some individuals to subjugate the rest of society and turn these members into an instrument of the will of the ruler.
Reproducible experiments with a variable part of material culture can be a fruitful source of data for testing the theory of medium range. Experimental archeology appeared in Europe in the 18th century, when people tried to play on spectacular bronze horns found in the swamps of Scandinavia and Britain. One zealous experimenter, Robert Ball of Dublin, was able to produce with an Irish horn "a deep low sound reminiscent of the roar of a bull." Unfortunately, subsequent experiments with the pipe led to the rupture of the vessel, and a few days later he died (J. Coles - J. Coles, 1979). Ball is the only recorded victim of experimental archaeology. Only at the beginning of the 20th century did experimental archeology become relevant. One reason was the conquest and study of the Ishi, one of the last tribes of California Indians who followed their traditional way of life (Figure 14.8).
Technologies for making stone tools
In the materials of the first explorers of America, brief references to stone work have been preserved. Some Spanish monks, among whom Juan de Torquemada stands out, like Indian masons, pressed obsidian knives. In 1615, he described how the Indians took a rod and pressed it against the stone core with their "chest". “The force applied to the rod cut off the knife,” Torquemada wrote. Until recently, no one knew how spin works (J. Coles - J. Coles, 1979).
An Idaho farmer named Don Crabtree replicated how the Paleo-Indians made the beautiful folsom points found on the Great Plain. He experimented for 40 years and was able to describe at least 11 methods for producing a "flute" at the base of the artifact (D. E. Crabtree, 1972). Eventually, he came across Torquemada's description of the pressing, and used a chest punch to press the flakes from the core, which was clamped in a vise on the ground. The result was arrowheads almost indistinguishable from prehistoric artifacts. Many researchers followed in the footsteps of Crabtree and successfully reproduced almost all types of stone artifacts that were made by the pre-Columbian Indians.
Does obtaining exact copies mean that original techniques have been discovered with the help of modern experiments? The answer is, of course, one - we will never be sure of this. Stone technologist Jeff Flenniken has reproduced dozens of Paleo-Indian arrowheads, and he argues that the many different "types" identified by archaeologists working on the Plain are just heads recycled after being broken in the first use. He claims that by reducing the existing head, the Paleo-Indian artisan gave it a different shape, quite comfortable and which worked as well as the original. The shrinking process could bring it back to the same shape over and over again, but it was originally conceived differently (Flenniken, 1984). David Hurst Thomas (1986), an expert on the Great Basin, disagrees. He says modern stone makers should not interpret prehistoric artifacts in terms of their own experience, because to do so is to ignore the huge chronological gulf that separates us from prehistoric times. Thomas believes that a strictly technological approach to stone tool experiments limits the questions that need to be asked about stone technology. Experiments with stone technology are a valuable approach to learning about the past, but only if it is used in conjunction with other approaches such as remodeling or cutting edge wear analysis.
Criteria for experimental archeology
Experimental archeology can rarely provide definitive answers (Ingorsoll and others, 1977). It only provides a glimpse into the methods and techniques that may have been used in prehistoric times, since many activities, say in prehistoric agriculture, did not leave behind material traces in the archaeological material. But several general rules can be applied to all experimental archeology. First, the materials used in the experiment must be exactly those that were available in that place to the community being studied. Second, the methods must match the technological capabilities of the ancient community. Obviously, modern technologies cannot be used in experiments. Experiments with a prehistoric plow should be carried out with a suitably made share, carefully preserving the texture of the wood, the shape and methods of processing the cutting edges and other details. If the plow is dragged by a tractor, then the effectiveness of the experiments will be distorted; thus, for the accuracy of the experiment, a pair of trained oxen would be required. The results of the experiment must be such that they can be reproduced, and the experiment itself must consist of tests that will lead to the proposed conclusions.
Some examples of experimental archeology
One of the most famous examples of experimental archeology is Thor Heyerdahl's "Kon-Tiki" expedition, who attempted to prove that the Peruvians traveled thousands of miles across the ocean on rafts and reached Polynesia (Heyerdahl, 1950). He successfully made it to Polynesia, and his expedition showed that long sea rafting trips were possible, but he did not prove that the Peruvians had reached Polynesia.
Much experimental archeology is much more limited in its scope, including experiments with spears, bows, and animals as targets (Odell and Cowan, 1986). There have been many experiments in clearing forests in Europe and elsewhere. Stone axes proved surprisingly effective at clearing forests; an experiment in Denmark showed that one person could clear half an acre in a week. Tree ringing and fire turned out effective methods felling trees in West Africa and Central America. For more than eight years, agricultural experiments were carried out in the lowlands of the Maya and in the Mesa Verde National Park. The last experiment lasted 17 years. Two and a half acres of heavy red clay soil were sown with maize, beans, and other small crops. Good harvests could not be obtained only twice out of all 17 years, when the drought destroyed the young shoots. These experiments showed how important the rotation of grain is for maintaining the fertility of the land.
House building experience. From houses made of logs, straw and clay, there are usually pits for poles, foundation ditches, collapsed stones. Unfortunately, traces of roofs and information about walls, their height, as a rule, are not available. But this did not prevent experiments to recreate copies of Mississippian houses in Tennessee. For this, information was used on the floor plans of excavated houses in combination with charred poles, thatched roofs and fragments of clay walls (Nash - Nash, 1968). Two types of houses were built dating back to 1000-1600 AD. e. One of them was built using small pillars, shaped like a rectangular inverted basket with clay plaster on the outside. Later houses had longer walls that supported sloping gabled roofs. In this case, as in many others, the design details of the roofs and rafters are lost, perhaps forever.
Batser Hill, England. An ambitious long-term experimental archaeological project was underway at Batser Hill in southern England, where Peter Reynolds reconstructed an Iron Age round communal house dating from around 300 BC. e. (Fig. 14.9). The house is built from hazel twigs and a binding mixture of clay, earth, animal hair and straw. The house is part of a larger pilot project that explores all aspects of life during this time. Reinodols and his colleagues grew prehistoric crops using Iron Age technology, kept cattle resembling prehistoric breeds, and even stored grain in underground storage facilities. As part of the project, they studied not only how individual aspects of life support worked, but also how they combined with each other. This experiment gave very interesting results. For example, Reynolds found that grain yields were much larger than expected and could be stored underground for long periods of time. The Batser experiment provided valuable information that can be used to calculate prehistoric crops and land fertility (Reynolds - P. J. Reynolds, 1979).
Overton Down. One of the longest experiments in archaeological interpretation is the excavation at Overton Down in England, which has become a classic prehistoric excavation of the 20th century. In 1960, the British Association for the Advancement of Science began an experiment at Overton with an estimated duration of 128 years (Jewell and Dimbleby, 1966). The earthen fortification and associated ditches were built on chalk subsoil, following profiles that roughly correspond to prehistoric sites. Archaeological material, including textiles, leather, wood, animal and human bones, ceramics, was placed inside and on the surface of the fortification. It was built partly with modern pickles, shovels and axes, and partly with deer antlers and ox shoulder blades, in order to try to establish the relative speeds of work with different technologies. The difference was 1.3:1.0 in favor of modern tools, mainly because modern shovels are more efficient. Then Overton Down was left, but small and very accurate excavations of the moat and bank are carried out at intervals of 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64 and 128 years. Excavations are used to check for deterioration and depletion of the fortification and siltation of the moat over an extended period of time. This project is a source of invaluable information for the interpretation of the archaeological material of sites of this kind on chalk soils (see Ashbee and Jewell - Ashbee and Jewell, 1998). Such controlled long-term experiments provide archaeologists with the objective results they need to understand static archaeological material when studied in the dynamic present. They will help us evaluate our ideas about the past and answer the question of questions: not "What happened?", but "Why?".
Conclusion
Ethnographic analogy helps to reveal and complete the picture of the prehistoric past. The analogy itself is a way of thinking that suggests that if objects have similar attributes, then they have other similar traits as well. It involves using some known identifiable phenomenon to identify unknowns of a broader similar type. Most of the simple analogies are based on the technology, style, and function of artifacts as defined archaeologically. However, such analogies based on people's opinions may not be reliable.
Direct historical analogies and comparisons based on texts are common enough. But meaningful analogies for American and Paleolithic sites are much more complicated. To obtain test values, an approach was developed using several analogies. This method is based on a functional approach, which assumes that the formation of cultures is not at all random, but they are integrated in various ways. Thus, analogies are drawn between recent and prehistoric communities in terms of very close common features.
Research medium distance are performed on living communities using ethnoarchaeology, experimental archeology, and historical documents. Its purpose is to create the subject of the theory of the middle distance, objective theoretical tools for building connections between dynamic living systems. today and static archaeological materials of the past.
Ethnoarchaeology is an ethnographic archeology with a pronounced materialistic bias. Archaeologists view ethnoarchaeology as part of middle-range research, seeking to make meaningful interpretations of artifacts in the archaeological material.
Experimental archeology seeks to replicate prehistoric technologies and lifestyles under controlled conditions. As such, it is a form of archaeological analogy. Experiments are conducted on all aspects of prehistoric culture, from stone technology to building houses. Experimental archeology provides a glimpse into the methods and technologies of prehistoric cultures.
Key terms and concepts
Middle Distance Theory
Experimental archeology
Ethnoarchaeology
BINFORD, LEWIS R. 1978. Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. A descriptive monograph about ethnoarchaeology among caribou hunters. A must for the serious student.
–. 2001. In Pursuit of the Past. Rev. ed. New York: Thames and Hudson. Includes an account of living archeology and middle-range theory for a more general audience. Strongly recommended for beginners.
COLES, JOHN M. 1979. Archaeology by Experiment. London: Heinemann. An introduction to experimental archeology with numerous examples, mainly from the Old World.
DAVID, NICHOLAS, and CAROL KRAMER, eds. 2001. Ethnoarchaeology in Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. An important collection of essays covering new ethnoarchaeological research worldwide.
HODDER, LAN, ed. 1982. Symbols in Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ethnoarchaeological studies in tropical Africa that are used to support a structural and symbolic approach to archeology.
YELLEN, JOHN E. 1977. Archaeological Approaches to the Present: Models for Predicting the Past. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Ethnoarchaeology among the San of the Kalahari Desert. A technical work with broad implications.