Experimental Archaeology

Experimental archaeology is a crucial part of discovering the purpose and function of ancient artifacts. By putting replicas of these artifacts to the test, we can come to a greater understanding of the way that historical civilizations functioned, as demonstrated by the results of two different archaeological studies: the first concerning methods of cooking maize in Cedar Mesa, Utah, and the second detailing hunting techniques used by groups in the Eastern Mediterranean.

The first article examined methods of stone boiling maize that were potentially used by groups in Cedar Mesa, Utah, during the Basketmaker II period (AD 200-400). Building on previous research from the 1970s, which noted that burned limestone fragments were a common find in local archaeological surveys, the researchers hypothesized that “limestone may have been used as the heating element for stone boiling maize” within the Cedar Mesa populations during this time period (Ellwood 2013, 35). The researchers performed multiple experiments, testing how effectively the limestone in Cedar Mesa could be used to stone boil the maize that formed the majority of the population’s diet. Additional experiments explored whether or not using limestone to cook the maize made it more nutritious, given that a maize-dependent diet would lack supplemental protein. Their two primary conclusions were that Cedar Mesa limestone “was found to retain high levels of heat sufficient to both cook and chemically treat maize”, and that cooking maize in this way “is clearly beneficial in increasing the availability of digestible proteins lysine, tryptophan and methionine” (Ellwood 2013, 42).

The second article focused on a much earlier era in human history – the Epipaleolithic period in the Eastern Mediterranean (24,000-11,500 cal. BP). Noting that very little is known about hunting methods that were used during this period, the researchers made replicas of flint projectile weapons used by Epipaleolithic hunters and used them to shoot at the carcass of a freshly killed goat. A variety of different designs of microlith arrows were used. The bones of the goat were then examined, and the marks made by the projectiles were recorded and compared to archaeological gazelle remains recovered from Israel. The researchers noted that the marks on the bones of their specimens bore “great resemblance to some of the notches created in the experiment,” (Yeshurun and Yaroshevich 2014, 65) and concluded that it was likely that “gazelle hunting was performed primarily by shooting at the desired animals using projectile weapons rather than capturing animals” with traps (Yeshurun and Yaroshevich 2014, 67).

Despite being on opposite sides of the planet and concerning drastically different time periods, there are many similarities between these two studies. In both cases, the research paper begins by noting a lack of previous research into the topic that the study focused on. The Utah paper notes “the near absence of information on [Cedar Mesa limestone] in archaeological publications,” (Ellwood 2013, 36) while the Israel paper explains that “direct evidence on [Epipaleolithic] hunting methods and techniques is scarce, mainly due to the illusive archaeological signature of animal capture methods” (Yeshurun and Yaroshevich 2014, 61). This is a justification for why the studies were undertaken and what makes them important; in both cases, the results of the study fulfilled a gap in the researchers’ knowledge of the past. Building on this, both studies elaborate on how their conclusions could aid future archaeological research, with the Cedar Mesa paper explaining that sites used by pre-Ceramic maize-dependent cultures should be examined for the presence of burned limestone to determine how widespread this method of hot stone cooking was, and the Israel paper describing how their results became part of a database that could be used to identify marks and bone damage on future archaeological specimens.

However, there are many differences between these two studies as well. For example, the studies required expertise from differing fields outside of archaeology. The Utah study built upon a sophisticated understanding of chemistry and human nutrition, in order to anticipate that the nixtamalization process would occur when stone boiling with limestone, and to speculate about the effects that this process might have on the health benefits of the maize. Conversely, the Israel study would have required a specialist with at least a certain degree of proficiency in marksmanship in order to recreate the strength and accuracy that an Epipaleolithic hunter would have had with a bow and arrow. Additionally, the results of the Utah study are significantly more conclusive than the results of the Israel study. Because the Utah study has such a solid body of evidence for limestone-aided maize cooking (in the form of burnt limestone shards found