The Value and Scale of the Experimental Archaeology Approach - The dialogue with science - OpenArch Conference, Kierikki 2014

The Value and Scale of the Experimental Archaeology Approach - The dialogue

with science

Dr Linda Hurcombe

University of Exeter

Experimental Archaeology:

interacting range of approaches

Realistic experiment with many interacting variables: less intensive records but

broadscale results

Intermediate

Highly controlled experiment: intensive record keeping giving detailed results

2

Why a dialogue with science ?

Sir Karl Popper’s The Logic of Scientific Discovery stressed that

ideas could come from anywhere but ideas had to become

hypotheses that could be tested.

The test could disprove or confirm the hypothesis and also

generate further ideas for testing.

Experiments are at the heart of all scientific investigation.

Experiments test ideas and also generate them.

The experiments and ideas are the dynamic conversation that

makes science.




broadscale results

Intermediate


3

Why a dialogue with science within Openarch?

Why Work Package 5?

Experimental archaeology is an active experience.

Archaeological Open Air Museums both present archaeological

knowledge to the public and can also generate archaeological

knowledge. The visitors, schoolchildren, staff, students and

researchers can all have a place.

University archaeology departments generate new knowledge and

communicate that knowledge to other researchers and to students,

and nowadays often also to the public.

Both museums and universities communicate knowledge.




broadscale results

Intermediate


4

The value of the experimental archaeology approach

Both museums and universities communicate science as an active

process.

Visitors and students can

•learn about archaeology as a subject

•learn about the past

•learn the process of knowledge creation

and all in a personally dynamic way because they are allowed to

make the discoveries for themselves via experiences and

experiments that are new to them.




broadscale results

Intermediate


5

Where does experimental archaeology happen?

The lab

The field

The archaeological open air museum




broadscale results

Intermediate


6

Experiment - a scientific investigation

contributes to archaeological research issues or the means of

communicating these issues

Experience - participation in an action or within an

environment

can contribute to research and to effective public engagement and

education

Demonstration - showing a process

Usually contributes to communication, public engagement and

education




broadscale results

Intermediate


7


an interacting range of approaches

Highly controlled experiment: intensive record

keeping giving detailed results

Combinations and phases

Realistic experiment with many interacting

variables: may have less intensive records but

broadscale results




broadscale results

Intermediate


8

Authenticity and the dialogue with science in AOAMs

The dialogue can be:

In the foreground and explicitly part of the story

hidden or in the background of the immersive experience

It may be a mixture of these approaches but it can be

separated in space via themed areas

separated in time via a talk before entering the museum

The dialogue with science can contribute to understanding not just

the knowledge presented but the scientific process behind the

knowledge.

Authenticity can be strengthened by presenting the dialogue with

science




broadscale results

Intermediate


9

The value and the scale of experimental archaeology

Different kinds of experiments

The tightly focussed experiment

The longer term or multi-aspect experiment

The generic experiments

The whole is more than the sum of the parts

The Missing Majority

• Plants and animals as material culture: existing traditions, ethnographic data, experimental archaeology and archaeological evidence

• Sensory engagement: experimental work and digital technologies

• Object biographies

– beginning in the field, wood, pond, mud of research experiments

- ending in the museum communication of objects and digital technologies

Experimental Actions: strengths

• Space: inside and outside

• Time: longevity; many days per annum and multi-year projects

• Diversity: each has different climate, soils, ‘time periods’

• People: staff researchers/presenters/volunteers public of all kinds - families and children!

• Living settings: interactions between tasks/spaces/people/seasons/crops/animals

• Tools/structures – performance and maintenance until exhaustion

• Depositional processes and formation/survival of archaeological evidence

• Sustainability and climate change agendas

11

Experimental Actions: weaknesses

• Use of Space: needs to be in keeping with period and safe for public

• Time: –long term commitments need to cope with many people or change in personnel

• Diversity: no clear patterns

• Staff /volunteers – need to do their job not make records

• public - difficult to keep records comparable and record the diversity of participants

• Living settings: interactions between tasks/spaces/people/seasons/crops/animals – reasoned guess

• Tools/structures – performance and maintenance until exhaustion – may not be truly comparable to past practices

• Depositional processes and formation/survival of archaeological evidence – changes can be exponential and influenced by sporadic events

12

An object biography approach to structures in experimental archaeology

The Lifecycles of structures as opportunities

Stage

• Planning

• Materials

• Construction

• Lived in/used

• Maintenance

• Revisions, additions

• Shift in function

• Rebuild

• Recycle

• Dismantle , decay, destroy

opportunities • Announcements, choices • Connecting to crafts • Skilled vs unskilled labour • Purposes, spaces • Longevity, durability • Flexibility • Alternative purposes • What elements endure, or are

recyclable • Processes of decay,

destruction, events




broadscale results

Intermediate


14

3rd Exeter Dialogue with Science workshop

Touching the Past, National Museums Scotland,

Edinburgh 6-7th December 2013

Hosted by Dr Alison Sheridan, National Museum of Scotland Featuring work from

AHRC project ‘Touching the past’, PI Dr Linda Hurcombe

‘Creative Spirit’ exhibition, National Museum of Scotland

Dog Rose Trust (heritage interactions for the visually impaired)

Focussed on

Using traditional craft replicas and modern technologies for engaging the

sense of touch in traditional museums

3D prints and interactives

Authenticity and identity

A small travelling exhibition related to this work is available in Kierikki

Museum during the conference

Touching the past: investigating sensory engagement and authenticity in the provision of touch experiences in museums across a range of media

Linda Hurcombe (Archaeology, Exeter),

Mark Wright (Informatics, Edinburgh),

Alison Sheridan (National Museums Scotland, Edinburgh)

Ian Summers (Physics, Exeter)

With thanks to

National Museums Scotland

Orkney Museum, Kirkwall, Orkney

Bute Museum, Island of Bute

The touching the past exhibition in Kierikki Museum, Finland, during the conference

16




broadscale results

Intermediate


17

Collaborative projects:

the whole is more than the sum of the parts

•Lipid residue analysis

•Usewear on tools (stone, bone, antler.....)

•Storage

•Cordage (including bow strings)

•Wood working and crafts from tree materials

•Plant and tree management

•Boats and moving around

•Heat

•Air qualities in structures

18

Kierikki Stone Age Village June 2014

The Value and Scale of the Experimental Archaeology Approach - The dialogue with science - OpenArch Conference, Kierikki 2014

Education