Experimental archeology. Down with the alternatives and their findings! Stokes experimental archeology

Down with the alternatives and their findings!

The ancient history of mankind to this day remains, in fact, unexplored territory. In textbooks, the entire period appears as a fairly clear and consistent picture, formed in accordance with only the only dominant paradigm in academic science of the formation and development of mankind.
At the present time, a huge amount of archaeological (and not only) facts have accumulated that contradict the historical picture accepted by the majority. Academic science simply ignores both the existence of such artifacts and the existence of hypotheses and theories that run counter to the "official" point of view. Any methods are used: "inconvenient" artifacts are declared "fake"; a “wall of silence” is erected around them, which actively prevents the spread of any information about the very existence of these artifacts.
And sometimes you can hear unconvincing criticism from those who are committed to academic science. A vivid example is the appeal of the editor of the site anthropogenesis.ru Alexander Sokolov (see the video at the bottom of the article).

After watching the video, we can say that Alexander uses 2 tricks used by most academics: to go over objectionable artifacts and say that it makes no sense to consider all this “garbage” separately, since scientists who adhere to alternative views are ignorant; and also cite obvious stupidity as an example (an example with an astronaut) and sum up the rest of the facts. Therefore, we will once again dwell on some “objectionable artifacts” in detail, and also take a closer look at the statements of Alexander Sokolov.

So, some misplaced artifacts:

1. Antikythera mechanism.

Antikythera Mechanism

The Antikythera mechanism is the oldest and most famous computational mechanism.

The reconstruction of the device showed that it was an astrological calculator, the calculations on which were carried out using a complex mechanism. On the outer side of the device were two disks responsible for the calendar and the signs of the Zodiac. By manipulating the disks, one could find out the exact date and study the position of the Zodiac relative to the septener: the Moon, the Sun, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn.

On the reverse side of the mechanism were also two disks that helped calculate the lunar phases and predict solar eclipses. The whole device was also a kind of calculator that could perform addition, subtraction and division operations.

Antikythera mechanism. Drawing

More details can be found here:

2. Disc Sabu

Disc Sabu

The Sabu Disc is an out of place artifact found in 1936 by Egyptologist Walter Brian Emeri during the excavation of the Sabu official's mastaba at Saqqara, dated to 3100-3000 BC.

Egyptology has not yet been able to explain the unusual shape of the Sabu disk - a plate of this shape is inconvenient for eating, like a lamp or part of a lamp, it is also inapplicable. Academic science argues that the disk of Sabu cannot be a wheel model - after all, it (according to science) appeared in Egypt only in 1500 BC. e. under the 18th Dynasty, during the Hyksos invasion. The working bodies of modern mixers for chemical processes have similar shapes, but no traces of chemical corrosion were found on the disk.

3. Iron pot 312 million years old

In 1912, in Oklahoma, an iron pot was extracted from a piece of coal aged 312 million years.

Iron pot 312 million years old

4. Stainless 16 centuries iron "Pillar of Indra"

And even if the finds are not so old, but have an age of origin of about 16 centuries, for example, like the "Pillar of Indra", there are many mysteries in their appearance and existence on our planet. The mentioned pillar is one of the mysterious sights of India. The structure of pure iron has been standing near Delhi in Shimaikhalori for 1600 years and does not rust.

Would you say that there is no secret if a metal pole is 99.5% iron? Of course, but imagine that not a single metallurgical enterprise of our time can now cast a 7.5 meter pole with a cross section of 48 centimeters and a percentage of iron content of 99.5 without applying special efforts and means. Why was it that the ancient people who lived in those places in 376-415 were able to do this?

They also, in a way incomprehensible to today's experts, put inscriptions on the pillar that tell us that the "Pillar of Indra" was erected during the reign of Chandragupta, on the occasion of the victory over the Asian peoples. This ancient memorial is still a Mecca for people who believe in miraculous healings, as well as a place for constant scientific observations and discussions that do not give a single answer to the question about the essence of the pillar.

"Pillar of Indra"

5. Mesozoic hammer

In Texas (USA), near the city of London, in 1934 a hammer was found enclosed in a stone that formed around it. The rock surrounding the hammer is said to be over 100 million years old. It is assumed that the hammer was made long before there were people who could make such an item.

Mesozoic hammer

6. Pyramids and objects of ancient Egypt

Since Alexander Sokolov also spoke about the pyramids, we will consider this issue in detail.
Speaking about the pyramids, first of all, it is necessary to touch on the parameters of the buildings themselves. The height of the Great Pyramid (initially, now somewhat less) is 146.59 m, the base area (initially) - 53 thousand m2, weight - 6.3 million tons; the structure consists of 2.5 million limestone blocks with an average weight of 2.5 tons.
That would be enough for 30 Empire State Buildings or a wall across the US back and forth 3 feet high and 1 foot wide.
With amazing accuracy, the sides of the base of the pyramid are verified - (initially) 230 m each (the discrepancies between the faces are in tenths and hundredths of a meter).
Nowadays, for a 25-meter wall, a deviation of 10 cm is considered a good achievement; at the Great Pyramid, with a length 10 times greater, the faces are lined up with an accuracy of about 0.5 cm (!).

pyramids

In modern construction, the tolerance for building shrinkage is 15 cm per century; at the Great Pyramid, shrinkage over thousands of years is estimated at only 4 cm (!).
The accuracy of the building orientation to the cardinal points has no analogues in the world: the pyramid is oriented to the true north with an error of only 3/60 degrees,
and even that deviation occurred due to the displacement of the earth's crust or the axis of the planet. The shape of a pyramid contains a mathematical function?: the perimeter of a pyramid is related to its height in the same way as the circumference of a circle is related to its radius (according to the accepted history of science, the number? was discovered by the Babylonians only around 2000 BC).
It has such a large mass that the internal temperature in it is constant and equal to the average temperature of the Earth - 68 ° Fahrenheit.
The Great Pyramid is located almost exactly on the 30th parallel and exactly in the center of the surface of the land mass of the Earth (the only meridian and parallel lines,
covering the largest part of the land, intersect only in two places - in the ocean and in Giza). The height of the pyramid is equal to the average height of land above sea level.
Of course, the civilization that built it not only had extensive topographical data on the Earth, but also had an extremely complex mathematical
tools for accurate calculations. Official Egyptology cannot explain the meaning of most of the features of the outer layout of the pyramid:
almost complete equality of the four sides, orientation in space, etc. The Second Pyramid of Giza is also oriented exactly to the north, and the measurements of the Red and L
many of the pyramids in Dahshur contain values of 3 ? and 3.5?.

Surprisingly accurate parameters of the pyramids are another argument of alternative historians that works against the concept of the tomb: no mausoleum requires such jewelry work with stone on an astronomical scale. These parameters indicate that their exact observance was a necessary condition for the functioning of the pyramids for the purpose for which they were erected.
According to academic Egyptology, the Great Pyramid was built by 10 thousand people in just 20 years (!?). Limestone and granite blocks were moved with
with the help of the muscular strength of slaves, and in the processing of these blocks, exclusively copper tools were used - chisels, drills, saws, because archaeologists attribute the period of the Old Kingdom in the history of Egypt to the copper age.

According to representatives of alternative Egyptology, these ideas are absurd. Considering that the Great Pyramid consists of 2.3 million blocks with an average weight of 2.5 tons,
it is easy to calculate that masons would have to assemble 4 blocks per minute (assuming they worked 10 hours a day for three months a year, the rest of the time
had to go to the field).
Regarding experimental archeology:
In 1992, the block hypothesis collapsed when the American company NOVA presented the film "This Ancient Pyramid": the construction of a small
pyramids less than 6 m high, allegedly by primitive methods. Later it turned out that only 3-4 one-ton blocks were manually lifted along the mini-ramp for
demonstrations in front of the camera (to the public); the rest was towed and placed in place by a loader with a hydraulic shovel in front.
The film's science editor filed a science fraud complaint with the U.S. Congress, and an experiment was conducted to lift the stone by hand.
using blocks and wooden boards to the tiny height of the pyramid, it took 6 hours (!) - the steps are very slow and dangerous to apply on the scale of the Great Pyramid.

Mr. Sokolov refers to Denis Stokes, who in his book "showed" how he cuts granite with a copper saw.

In the book, when describing how, according to Stokes, granite sarcophagi were made, there is a photo with a saw inserted into the block (Denys A. Stocks. Experiments in Egyptian Archeology: Stoneworking Technology in Ancient Egypt, Routledge, 2010. p. 171, Figure 6.3).

At the same time, the result of cutting the block itself is missing, as well as data on the time spent and material costs. A photo with a saw inserted into a stone can be taken as much as you like.

You can also find a video on the Internet of how Denis Stokes “cuts” granite:

Denis Stoks "cuts" granite

The experiment was carried out with a small tile, and they worked with a huge saw. Even under such conditions, sand had to be used as an abrasive. However, the speed was very slow. The fact of sawing a small tile does not at all speak of the possibility of building entire complexes, such as the Granite Temple in Giza, where blocks of more than 200 tons were used.

Granite Temple. Giza.

At the same time, Denis Stokes himself says that in order to cut granite, you need a saw that is larger than the stone itself. Then what kind of saw sawed the stone in the photo below:

Sklyarov and blocks

Modern science claims that the ancient Egyptians could stubbornly perform any task monotonously for years. But then the question is why it was impossible to saw (if the Egyptians "could" saw with copper saws) huge blocks into smaller ones for ease of transportation?

In Abydos, upstream of the Nile, there is the Osirion building, 30 m long and 20 m wide, built from the largest blocks in Egypt.

The weight of the columns is about 100 tons, and some of them are monoliths. The planes and faces of the columns are perfectly aligned, which cannot be the result of manual work.

Block overlap in Osirion

How were the stones processed, in which the curvilinear ends have the same rounded shape?

The stones have the same contour

From the calculations of academic Egyptologists, it appears that the entire Giza complex was built in 66 years; even if we assume that the pharaohs began to build pyramids immediately from the moment they took the throne and did nothing but this during their reign, this is completely unrealistic, given the limited human resources and the lack of advanced science and technology from the point of view of modern Egyptology. As the physicist S.N. Pavlova: “If you imagine the amount of work, then Egypt simply could not recruit the required number of workers or feed them. In officialdom, it is believed that at that time the Egyptians did not even have a wheel, labor was only manual! And the instruments were copper and primitive. Ah yes Egyptology!”.

The above material is enough to show the inconsistency of Alexander Sokolov's criticism.

The author of this article does not build his own theories regarding the above artifacts - this is the task of scientists. But academic science today is at war with any facts that contradict the very generally accepted paradigm. As a result, the study of such "inconvenient" artifacts is completely deprived of the possibility of using the research base available to academic science, and is forced to be carried out only by single enthusiasts.

Alexander Sokolov "smashes" an alternative history

More detailed and a variety of information about the events taking place in Russia, Ukraine and other countries of our beautiful planet, can be obtained on Internet conferences, constantly held on the website "Keys of Knowledge". All Conferences are open and completely free. We invite all waking up and interested ...

At the present time, a huge amount of archaeological (and not only) facts have accumulated that contradict the historical picture accepted by the majority. Academic science simply ignores both the existence of such artifacts and the existence of hypotheses and theories that run counter to the "official" point of view. Any methods are used: "inconvenient" artifacts are declared "fake"; a “wall of silence” is erected around them, which actively prevents the spread of any information about the very existence of these artifacts.
And sometimes you can hear unconvincing criticism from those who are committed to academic science. A vivid example is the appeal of the editor of the site anthropogenesis.ru Alexander Sokolov (see the video at the bottom of the article).

After watching the video, we can say that Alexander uses 2 tricks used by most academics: to go over objectionable artifacts and say that it makes no sense to consider all this “garbage” separately, since scientists who adhere to alternative views are ignoramuses; and also give an example of obvious stupidity (an example with an astronaut) and sum up the rest of the facts. Therefore, we will once again dwell on some “objectionable artifacts” in detail, and also take a closer look at the statements of Alexander Sokolov.

So, some misplaced artifacts:

1.Antikythera mechanism.

Antikythera Mechanism

The Antikythera mechanism is the oldest and most famous computational mechanism.

Antikythera mechanism. Drawing

More details can be found here:

2. Disc Sabu

Disc Sabu

The Sabu Disc is an out of place artifact found in 1936 by Egyptologist Walter Brian Emeri during the excavation of the Sabu official's mastaba at Saqqara, dated to 3100-3000 BC.

3. 312 million year old iron pot

In 1912, in Oklahoma, an iron pot was extracted from a piece of coal aged 312 million years.

Iron pot 312 million years old

4.Stainless 16th century iron "Pillar of Indra"

"Pillar of Indra"

5. Mesozoic hammer

Mesozoic hammer

6. Pyramids and objects of ancient Egypt

pyramids

In modern construction, the tolerance for building shrinkage is 15 cm per century; at the Great Pyramid, shrinkage over thousands of years is estimated at only 4 cm (!).
The accuracy of the building orientation to the cardinal points has no analogues in the world: the pyramid is oriented to the true north with an error of only 3/60 degrees,
and even that deviation occurred due to the displacement of the earth's crust or the axis of the planet. The shape of the pyramid contains the mathematical function π: the perimeter of a pyramid is related to its height in the same way that the circumference of a circle is to its radius (according to the accepted history of science, the Babylonians discovered the number π only around 2000 BC).
It has such a large mass that the internal temperature in it is constant and equal to the average temperature of the Earth - 68 ° Fahrenheit.
The Great Pyramid is located almost exactly on the 30th parallel and exactly in the center of the surface of the land mass of the Earth (the only meridian and parallel lines,
covering the largest part of the land, intersect only in two places - in the ocean and in Giza). The height of the pyramid is equal to the average height of land above sea level.
Of course, the civilization that built it not only had extensive topographical data on the Earth, but also had an extremely complex mathematical
tools for accurate calculations. Official Egyptology cannot explain the meaning of most of the features of the outer layout of the pyramid:
almost complete equality of the four sides, orientation in space, etc. The Second Pyramid of Giza is also oriented exactly to the north, and the measurements of the Red and L
the pyramids in Dahshur contain the values 3 π and 3.5 π.

Mr. Sokolov refers to Denis Stokes, who in his book "showed" how he cuts granite with a copper saw.

At the same time, the result of sawing the block itself is missing, as well as data on the time spent and material costs. A photo with a saw inserted into a stone can be taken as much as you like.

You can also find a video on the Internet of how Denis Stokes “cuts” granite:

Denis Stoks "cuts" granite

The experiment was carried out with a small tile, and they worked with a huge saw. Even under such conditions, sand had to be used as an abrasive. However, the speed was very slow. The fact of sawing a small tile does not at all speak of the possibility of building entire complexes such as the Granite Temple in Giza, where blocks of more than 200 tons were used.

Granite Temple. Giza.

At the same time, Denis Stokes himself says that in order to cut granite, you need a saw that is larger than the stone itself. Then what kind of saw sawed the stone in the photo below:

Sklyarov and blocks

In Abydos, upstream of the Nile, there is the Osirion building, 30 m long and 20 m wide, built from the largest blocks in Egypt.

Osirion

The weight of the columns is about 100 tons, and some of them are monoliths. The planes and faces of the columns are perfectly aligned, which cannot be the result of manual
work.

Block overlap in Osirion

How were the stones processed, in which the curvilinear ends have the same rounded shape?

The stones have the same contour

The above material is enough to show the inconsistency of Alexander Sokolov's criticism.

Malakhov, Vladimir
Picture of the world

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 claims that the many different "types" identified by archaeologists working on the Plains are just heads remade for reuse 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 vast 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 technologies are a valuable approach to the study of the past, but only if it is applied in conjunction with other approaches such as reconstruction or analysis of cutting edge wear.

Criteria for experimental archeology

Experimental archeology can rarely provide definitive answers (Ingorsoll and others, 1977). It merely provides a glimpse into the methods and techniques that may have been used in prehistoric times, since many activities, say in prehistoric agriculture, have left no material traces in the archaeological record. But some 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 have proven effective felling methods 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 pillars, 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 with 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 Butser 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 in 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 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.

Middle-range studies are carried out 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 links between the dynamic living systems of today and the 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. Died Ernst Emil Hertzfeld- German archaeologist and Iranian philologist, gained world fame thanks to his archaeological research in Samarra (1911-1913), Persepolis (1931-1934).

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 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 others have 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

Hello dear readers. At the numerous requests of our opponents, referred to quite accurately as non-mogliks, articles about how our science studies the methods and technologies of ancient crafts have long been asking for; whether in our time they can do the same things that were done by distant ancestors; and how they managed without laser grinders and 3D printers. There are many of these answers on the Internet. But our opponents look at Yandex or Google and see only what is consonant with them: they couldn’t, it’s impossible, it’s unthinkable, etc. Therefore, from time to time, the authors of our journal posted articles about experiments. For example, Fenol published materials on Vasyutin's experiments. Paulus had a series of articles on metallurgy, for example,. There are many videos on YouTube on this subject. So, perhaps, the article I posted for someone will be just a repetition of what has already been seen and heard.

Copy-paste with continuation: o) Photos from various places on the Internet.

Chapter 1. History of experiment in archeology

Experimental archeology is one of the constituent parts of archaeological science, exploring the past empirically. The main method in this field is experiment, which involves testing the hypothesis in practice. It, like other scientific methods, has its own history, described in detail by R. Malinova and Y. Malin in their monograph "Jump into the Past".

Before he, writes Malinova about the experiment, became one of the main methods of science, with the help of which it tests various hypotheses, people used it in a simple form of trial and error in everyday practice. It was first used by the ancient ancestors of Homo sapiens, who began the history of human evolution about three million years ago. 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 using the language of gestures and sounds. (Malinov R., Malina Ya. A jump into the past).

Through 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.

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 also had free time, which especially energetic individuals used for purposeful experimentation. The number of new inventions grew rapidly.

The next milestone in the process of experimentation, after the appearance of speech, was the appearance 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 refinements over a long period of time. A lot of suffering fell on people who lived in a wild, bestial way, eating raw, heavy, simple food ... Most of them, of course, perished, because they were too weak physically, only the strongest survived ... Therefore, it seems to me that people in ancient times were looking for such food that would match their physique. This is how they discovered the modern diet ... Experimenting with food, they boiled or baked, mixed and kneaded, adding lighter food to heavy food until it was adapted to the strength and structure of a person.

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. 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, it was he who first noticed that each ring on the 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. Malinov R., Malina Ya. A jump into the past. (book)

So, as follows from the foregoing, experimental archeology has a long history of its formation as an auxiliary branch of archaeological science. It is shown how the role of the experiment gained weight over time. The experimenters had to go through self-awareness, persecution from their fellow tribesmen who did not understand them, then severe censorship of the church, and the rejection of experiments in the next era, when the power of the church over science was only weakening, and the moral foundations of that time were just beginning to fall, giving the opportunity " bright minds" to take the initiative in their own hands. It can be seen how the attitude to the experiment changed depending on the epoch. The evolution of methods and techniques that experimenters have to resort to, thanks to which new conclusions and conclusions of their research arose, is traced. All this gave rise to the degeneration of the experiment into the main instrument of the researcher. In other words, although experimental archeology is only a branch, it has a layer of fundamental knowledge under it as an independent science.

(to be continued)