Primitive Technology Read online

  During the 1980s, interest in experimental archeology and lithic technology in the States faded rapidly because of unwarranted, unfair, and harsh criticism mounted by archeology “guru” David Hurst Thomas (1986) and others. The fainthearted dropped by the wayside and the pioneers went into seclusion ever improving their skills and methodology, but keeping the results of their work to themselves. Meanwhile, the survival schools were growing by leaps and bounds as interest in technology as an end in and of itself, not as a means to science, which was where the criticism lay, gained in popularity.

  Finally, as the field was bursting at the seams for expression, the Society of Primitive Technology was born in 1989. The rest of the story you know.

  So where does that leave experimental archeology today? Interest in Europe never diminished, but has continued to grow and gain respect. In the USA, however, experimental archeology is all but dead. Most of the proponents have changed direction and gone into more “respectable” professions. Others, the die-hards, are still out there plugging away, making better and better science, but, as I said, doing so in privacy until the time is ripe for fruition.

  Perhaps that time has come. The Board of Directors of the SPT, at their last annual meeting, made a commitment to look into experimental archeology again, to dust it off, to give it a second chance. Realizing the common bond of interest between technology and experimental archeology, the Board is considering the sponsorship of exciting new projects in experimental archeology. For now the focus should be upon the methodology rather than the theory, upon the experiment more than its meaning to science.

  Accordingly, I would now like to offer some suggestions as to how to distinguish three different levels of investment in doing physical reconstructions. (The following is condensed from Callahan ms: 35-46.)

  These Levels dawned upon me as I personally examined projects in primitive technology and experimental archeology around the world. I came to realize that different attitudes and levels of quality were being expressed, often without the re-creators being aware of it. To avoid the pitfalls of claiming to be more or less scientific than you really are, I'd suggest a careful consideration of your objectives and a clear understanding of which level you are shooting for.

  Level I: NON-AUTHENTIC AND NON-SCIENTIFIC

  (“Play” level). Reproductions which are unsuccessful or non-functional units, whether undertaken with the correct period tools, materials, and procedures or not. Such reproductions may vary between honest, failed attempts at authentic units or blatantly non-authentic simulations of authentic originals. Artifact examples might range from an arrow which is made with the proper tools, materials, and procedures but which does not fly straight (improper alignment of fletching, underspined shaft, or simply too crooked) to an immaculate, straight-shooting arrow made with modern tools from a commercial dowel.

  These projects usually feature poorly researched, literal interpretations of ethnohistorical sketches or written accounts and are generalized versions of supposedly typical but usually imaginary situations. Although what the situation may pose to say and what it actually communicates may be at odds, I must add that the intentions of the designers are usually reverent and the mistakes often made in ignorance rather than by deliberation.

  Level II: AUTHENTIC BUT NON-SCIENTIFIC

  (Experiential level). Reproductions which are successful, functional units undertaken with the correct period tools, materials, and procedures. An artifact example might include the aforementioned arrow, made with the proper tools,materials, and procedures, which does fly true.

  Level II projects vary between those which are private and short-lived to those which are permanent and open to the public. Thus their educational value may fluctuate between "learning by doing" experiences for the builders and the better living history type re-enactments for the media or general public. In general, the questions which are raised are of the experiential or "how" variety rather than of the experimental or "why" variety.

  The value of these projects lies not only in their technological authenticity but in the critically important, experiential training which they impart to their practitioners— training which is imperative for gaining the experience required to attempt Level III reconstructions, which is where experimental archeology lies. (Level II is not experimental archeology.) It is my opinion that while Level II projects need not necessarily gravitate toward the Level II category, those who find themselves caught in Level I projects should work toward Level II status as rapidly as feasible. Likewise, and this is critically important, Level III projects should not be undertaken until Level II proficiency has provided adequate training (Kelterborn 1990).

  Level III: AUTHENTIC AND SCIENTIFIC

  (Experimental level). Reconstructions which are successful, functional units undertaken with the correct period tools, materials, and procedures and which are scientifically monitored. That is, objects are not just made, they are tested. An artifact example would again include the aforementioned arrow, still flying true. But this time it would be accompanied by data which documents its fabrication thoroughly enough that another could duplicate it. Without such documentation, there is no experiment. (Not only is data kept, but research reports, either in the form of lectures of publications, result so that others might have access to this information). The data might be supplemented with further information concerning the arrow's performance and/or damage patterns, which is then applied back to the relevant archeological situation so as to answer questions concerning the original arrow. This is experimental archeology.

  Level III projects demand that the designer and participants be fully aware of the investment in time and energy required to follow such undertakings through and plan accordingly. It is also essential to have experience with Level II reconstructions before Level III experiments are begun, for if the basic skills have not been acquired before the experiment begins, learning will interfere with research, a valid point to which Thomas alluded in his criticism (1986).

  It should not be forgotten that Level III projects include not simply the building of a dwelling or whatever, as physically exhausting as that may be, but the monitoring and the analysis of the associated data as well as the drafting up and presentation of a report. The latter task is the burden of the scientist. Unless the results of a test are made available so that it may be repeated by others, that test was an experience (Level II) not an experiment (Level III). Without such monitoring, however, there is no science. This is not to say that undocumented experiences with authentic reconstructions are not of intrinsic worth. They may indeed be. But they should not be passed off as science, as was all too often the case in the past.

  While in the narrow sense, reconstructive experimental archeology is usually concerned with the re-creation of authentic and scientifically monitored technological projects, in the broader sense, the field embraces all types and levels of serious reconstructions. Therefore perhaps our discipline should provide models by which anyone interested in understanding that part of ourselves amenable to re-creation, which we feel has been lost in the past, may turn for guidance. If the new experimental archeology can help in this search for truth, then perhaps the time has come when it should be resurrected.

  The Society of Primitive Technology and

  Experimental Archaeology

  By David Wescott

  * * *

  Inroduction

  The question, at this point, is still “who are we”? Is what we do limited to experimental archaeology, or is EA only a part of what we do ? For much of the SPT membership the answer would be “who cares?...l don't need more politics, I just want to have fun doing what I like.” Others who are aware of the need for accuracy in materials, tools, procedures and context, would say “I've heard the arguments of the "scholars" and their goals have merit. But I've watched their infighting and petty battles to be at the top of the pigpile and tear each other down. I've also listened to their criticisms of what I do ("playing Indian"), and for pe
ople who have "created" entire cultural scenarios based on a single point type, they have no room to judge me for speculating. At least my suggestions are based on practiced skills.”

  And then there are those pioneers who have braved the slings and arrows of the traditional scientists in trying to bring the field to a respectable level of precision. Their response may be “we have the skills and capacity to offer far more than well practiced skills. What we do has interpretive value for a field (understanding mankind) that, in many ways, shares goals that are common to us all. By emulating the techniques of science and refining the outcomes of our projects, we can provide solid foundations of experience, insight and theory, upon which the entire field may build.”

  These responses represent much of the membership of the Society of Primitive Technology. To support one stance in favor of the others would be in direct opposition to the goals and intent of the Society. In order to foster communication at the broadest levels, we have to provide a forum for including a variety of involvements, not a bully pulpit for those with the loudest voices or an axe to grind. Our membership represents a spectrum of participants ranging from trained professionals to the man in the street, and in the past five years with the SPT we have learned that everyone has something to offer. Membership in the SPT is not exclusive to any one agenda.

  GENERAL OPERATING PRINCIPLES

  from Cahokia manuscript by Errett Callahan, pages 157-159*

  The Experimental Approach: More than Exercise

  Experimental Archeology, as defined in Chapter 2-D, was employed on this project as a theoretical framework and practical application because it not only promised a means of clarifying the archeological record, but it promised to lend a degree of dignity to the project which a straightforward reconstruction exercise might not. The distinction between “experimentation” and “exercise”(which is also spelled out in Chapter 2-D) should be made clear to participants at the outset of any project (cf Callahan 1981:, 1987:). To reiterate, the exercise of reconstructing an aboriginal artifact, be it a stone tool or a house, should not be claimed as a valid experiment unless, first, the craftsmanship equals the original and, second, unless scientific methodology is followed. In my opinion, many of the so-called "experiments" so frequently seen within the discipline today are no more than craft exercises. As exercises, they may indeed have sound value because exercise builds the expertise needed for experimentation to claim credibility (cf Flenniken 1977: Callahan 1987: 4,5; Olausson 1987). But an exercise (i.e., a Level II project) does not automatically constitute an experiment simply because of the sincerity of the craftsman or the magnitude of the undertaking. An experiment (i.e., a Level III project) requires (1) the keeping of data under controlled conditions (enough data so that another may independently repeat the results: Hansen 1972:11), and (2) the interpretation of that data in the light of the problem under investigation. A consequence of this interpretation should be one or more probability statements or inferences, pertinent to the unknowns. Thus it is the ordering of the details, the manipulation of the context within which the exercise operates, which determines its scientific merit or lack thereof.

  On the Cahokia Project, we chose to adhere closely to the general operating principles espoused for experimental archeology by Dr. John Coles (1979: 46-48). These principles are widely accepted and form the very backbone of experimental archeology today. They may be summarized as [seen below] (cf Callahan 1981: 142):

  In 1981 I proposed a similar set of general operating procedures, which compliments Dr. Coles' list (Callahan 1981; 142-147). Since this list provided additional guidance, I will summarize it here.

  COLES PROPOSAL, 1979

  1 - Use the same materials available in the past;

  2 - Use the same methods appropriate to the past;

  3 - Analyze the results using modern technology;

  4 - Specify the scale of the reproduction;

  5 - Repeat the experiment;

  6 - Improvise and adapt to changing conditions;

  7 - Do not claim proof. Evaluate with modesty.

  8 - Be honest. Do not exaggerate.

  * Please consult Chapter 1-C for additional comments concerning principles of operation.

  CALLAHAN PROPOSAL, 1981

  1 - Use the same kinds of tools available in the past;

  2 - Use the same kinds of raw materials available in the past;

  3 - Use the same material articulation appropriate to the past;

  4 - Relate experiments to hypotheses and use them in the construction of inferences .

  5 - Seek a range of solutions rather than single answers;

  6 - Test under field conditions which approximate those in the past;

  7 - Document all pertinent experimental information;

  8 - Build at full scale;

  9 - Seek to reproduce technology, not social systems; avoid theatrics;

  10 - Strictly avoid the reuse of prehistoric sites and artifacts;

  11 - Document and register all experimental sites.

  Science paints in shades of gray what is then converted to black and white. Dick Hernstein

  The Problem - Definition and Reality

  According to Brian Fagan anthropology is the study of humankind's interacting social life, culture and natural environment. Archaeology is the study of human cultures and technologies , and is a subdiscipline of anthropology. Errett's definition of experimental archaeology - “that branch of archeology which seeks to interpret material culture, technology, or lifeways of the past by means of replication, reconstruction or theoretical modeling ”-does not stop at the artifacts, but strives to also understand the intangible elements behind the artifacts.

  In most of the world, the projects and theories of experimental archaeology have a long and respected tradition as being a complementary component of archaeological field work and research. It provides a solid experiential and scientific foundation for the assumptions and conclusions created from evidence unearthed through survey and excavation. These “two distinctly different means of data collecting”, when merged at the level of interpretation, cross the sacred boundary between social and physical science, creating anthropological archaeology (read Lightning Bird by Lyall Watson for a better understanding of this relationship).

  TABLE1

  archaeologist - interprets evidence from sites, artifacts and features.

  technologist - interprets evidence from reproductions, testing and experience.

  During the late 60's and through the 70's, EA in the U.S. had a popular following. It wasn't until the early 80's that heavy criticism was leveled against the claims of EA. Whether warranted or not, the field of EA was not prepared to respond to the criticism, and to this date has yet to mount an adequate response.The foundation was weak, the guidelines were not widely accepted or adhered to, and the body was too busy playing the ladder climbing game to work together to create what was needed to move forward. The result - guerrilla technology and splintered efforts.

  At this point, and accepting the above definitions, the problem takes on two separate facets; those criticisms from without, and those from within the field.

  Criticisms From Without:

  After collecting and reading ail of the available articles on experimental archaeology, 5 common criticisms need to be addressed. Some of them we can do something about, others should be recognized as concerns, but there is little we can do other than learn from them..

  1. Claims of being more than we are - How can we expect others to respect what we do when we have been unwilling to establish definitions and guidelines, and, either through ignorance or ego, ignore the writings of those (Coles, Kelterborn, Anderson, Callahan, etc.) who have tried to set models for us to adhere to. Until we accept guidelines to work within, we will always be susceptible to this criticism.

  2. Claims are too sweeping - Science reduces the variables and at the same time focuses the results toward more refined interpretation by narrowing the field of speculation. H
owever, the results are no less speculation. Heed Coles admonition that nothing can be proven with a certainty. This applies to both the technologist and archaeologist.

  3. Too many liberties are taken on possible solutions - All we can present are possible or optional solutions to problems or questions. Controls are needed to narrow results to only those options that have a solid technological foundation, and a realistic possibility of working.

  4. Too obscure testing - To avoid criticisms technologists are moving to more and more obscure projects. Callahan proposes that until we establish a solid foundation we focus on method more than theory, upon the experiment not the meaning. With solid guidelines and definitions we should be free to pursue both.

  5. Jumping from applied to social science - The academics say that it is impossible for technologists (those who “play Indian”) to recreate how people thought or acted, nor is it possible to explore the “why”. Yet they are merrily engaged in creating computer models to explore those very questions. We need to be very careful what we claim, and we need to present our results in a very professional manner...or we need to be willing to blow off their criticisms and go about our business...or we need to seek a middle ground.

  Criticisms From Within:

  1. Until the rules are clear, we don't want to play the game - Critical review is necessary to improve and monitor quality, but review should be done against established criteria and not lowered to personal attacks. Both active technologists and archaeologists alike are unwilling to put forward many neat ideas because of their fear of criticism. This is a real blemish on the entire field, and an indictment against those who have let it become the norm and participate in its practice.