Archeology is Experimentation

Emily Bartz, ARAS-UAPB Research Station
"Archeology is..." series - November 2025

Figure 1. Dr. Bartz conducting a direct-heat cooking experiment, placing a replica Stallings vessel over an open fire to test vessel performance and heating behavior.

Scientists often rely on experiments to test, validate, or challenge their ideas. Archeology, as both a humanistic and scientific field, is no different. Archeologists work with fragments of the past—broken pottery, stone tools, animal bones, and other traces of daily life—to interpret how people once lived. Because the evidence is incomplete, those interpretations are always open to testing and revision. One way to do that is through experimental archeology—the scientific study of the past through recreating and testing the tools, technologies, and practices used by communities in the past.

Experimental archeology helps bridge the gap between theory and practice. Like any experiment, it begins with a hypothesis (for example, “this tool was used for cutting hides”), followed by controlled testing and analysis to see whether the results match expectations. Since the rise of processual or “New Archaeology” in the 1960s and 1970s, this hands-on approach has become a major part of archeological research, allowing scientists to connect physical evidence with real human behavior.

The approach can be applied to nearly any question about the past. For example, a stone knife can be replicated using the same raw materials and techniques employed by earlier toolmakers. Each replica can then be used to cut different materials—bone, hide, or plants—and the resulting wear patterns examined under a microscope. Comparing those experimental marks to real artifacts helps determine how the originals were used (Keeley 1980; Miller 2014). Experiments with pottery have also examined how exterior carbon deposits form, with observations of soot and char patterns providing insights into vessel placement, heating intensity, and use (Hally 1983; Skibo 1992). Similar experimental frameworks have been applied to other artifact classes, including bone (Egeland 2003), perishable materials such as baskets and textiles (Hurcombe 2008), and ornaments like beads (Gurova et al. 2013), as well as to larger-scale features, architecture, and even taphonomy—the study of how archeological deposits form over time. Together, these experiments help researchers understand not only what people made, but how and why they made it.

Figure 3. Replica Stallings vessel coated with pine-tar sealant, applied to reduce porosity and prevent water absorption during experimental cooking trials.

Experimental archeology has also been used to explore the technologies of daily life, such as food preparation and cooking. Dr. Emily Bartz applied this approach to study Stallings pottery, the earliest known pottery tradition in North America, made about 4,500 years ago by communities along the middle Savannah River (Sassaman 1993, 2006). To test how these vessels were used, Bartz recreated them using materials that closely matched those found in the archeological record—clay sourced near the Piedmont, mixed with sand and Spanish moss fibers, following the same “paste recipe” as the originals. The vessels were created in collaboration with Mr. Bartz, whose hands-on skill and patience helped transform raw clay and fiber into working pottery—reminding us that experimental archeology often depends on both scientific inquiry and craft knowledge. The replicas were then used in controlled cooking experiments: some placed directly over a fire (direct-heat cooking; Figure 1), others heated by dropping hot stones into water (stone-boiling; Figure 2).

The results revealed both skill and insight. Spanish moss fiber had to be carefully prepared to prevent cracking, and pine resin likely served as a natural waterproof sealant (Figure 3). Stone-boiling reached a boil faster but demanded far more fuel and attention, while direct-heat cooking was slower yet steadier. These findings show how Stallings communities balanced practicality, labor, and tradition in their daily lives.

Through experimental archeology, researchers gain more than data—they gain perspective. Recreating past practices offers a glimpse, however small, into the problem-solving, patience, and creativity that shaped human experience. It also provides an engaging way to share that process with the public, transforming archeology from something abstract into something people can see, touch, and understand.

References:

Egeland, Charles P. 2003. Carcass Processing Intensity and Cutmark Creation: An Experimental Approach.
Plains Anthropologist 48(184):39-51.

Gurova, Maria, Clive Bonsall, Bruce Bradley, and Elka Anastassova. 2013. Approaching Prehistoric Skills: Experimental Drilling in the Context of Bead Manufacturing.
Bulgarian E-Journal of Archaeology 3:201-221.

Hally, David J. 1983. Use Alteration of Pottery Surfaces: An Important Source of Evidence for the Identification of Vessel Function.
North American Archaeologist 4:3-26.

Hurcombe, Linda. 2008. Organics from Inorganics: Using Experimental Archaeology as a Research Tool for Studying Perishable Material Culture.
World Archaeology 10(1):83-115.

Keeley, Lawrence H. 1980. Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Use: A Micro-Wear Analysis.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Miller, G. Logan. 2014. Lithic Microwear Analysis as a Means to Infer Production of Perishable Technology: A Case from the Great Lakes.
Journal of Archaeological Science 49:292-301.

Sassaman, Kenneth E. 1993. Early Pottery in the Southeast: Tradition and Innovation in Cooking Technology.
The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

2006. People of the Shoals: Stallings Culture of the Savannah River Valley. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.

Skibo, James M. 1992. Use Alteration: Carbon Deposition. In Pottery Function: A Use-Alteration Perspective, pp. 146-173.
Plenum Press, New York.