Reconstructing a prehistoric arrow, a medieval period, a cusp flint is experimental archeology. But let's be careful: what separates a passionate re-enactement from a scientific paper? Or rather, what is the boundary that separates the confusion by trying to learn from our past?
archeology experimentation is difficult. The physical sciences experimental protocols have outright carved in granite, all in all paths that are more simplified. The variable human behavior plays a predominant role in the analysis so that a comparison of experimental archaeological leptons, quarks and gravitational waves are subject ... malleable from one point of view "experimental." Unfortunately, this behavioral variable escapes from any possibility of serious hearing. The undersigned
comes from a background of academic research in the physical sciences, specifically was in charge of astronomical observation and speculation in cosmology. Today we worked with prehistoric archaeologists participating with his hands to "experiments" aimed at rebuilding the operational chains buried in the mists of time and reconstruct scenarios "predicted" based on the correlation of data from the field with behavioral inferences based on the system - environment. Operations research on stone chipping, and prehistoric hunting behavior to be investigated as an attribute (which is what interests me most) led me to apply concepts to experimental work forgotten, and he becomes a participant in a considerable effort, trying to identify standards and protocols that have practical value to study through experimentation.
The survey of our origins is a very special sottomistero of the immanent birth of the universe, and with it, in terms of speculation, it has an unbreakable bond. The astrophysicist can never build a star in the laboratory and to submit to experiments as well as the archaeologist can not fully master the phenomena of study because of the huge amount of variables involved, unable to "witness live the phenomenon" trying to explain.
In cosmology and archeology, it is not always possible to rigorously apply the scientific method, empirical, Galilean, or experimental if you will ... but it should be considered as a "guiding principle" for any investigation converged to create a "model" and then never go contrary to it. This ensures quality work and common language that sets benchmarks solid, the only ones that allow progress in the sciences.
Schematically (*) the experimental method is divided into five phases:
observation ('perceived experience "of Galileo)
description of the phenomenon, an assumption which refers to the comments (which Galileo called" Axiom ")
the experiment that would validate or refute the hypothesis (the experimental trial)
thesis, the law expressing the results.
In the first phase, the observer captures the salient aspects of the phenomenon that describes schematization. Certainly this is not 'possible to describe any process without reference to intuition, experience and sensitivity the investigator. In the case of Archaeology, the phenomenon is observable from the archaeological remains and many of context data.
The second step is to formulate a general law (in the language of classical physics and mathematics) that accords with the observations as possible sperimentali.Il transition from first to second phase and 'inductive inference, that a' particular set of observations leads to a general statement.
The next step is' what is to obtain the largest number of consequences, so be prepared, starting from the assumptions. The forecast models are functional, in Archaeology, must contemplate the human behavioral variable.
This phase, which consists of a deductive inference, with the support of mathematics. The effort to deduction is also accompanied by that of accommodation.
The fourth phase 'of the experimental verification, as it accepts the principle that if a law of physics and' true, all that it can be deduced mathematically must be confirmed by experience within the limits of uncertainty measures. The experimental experience in Archaeology, is the reconstruction and use of the product.
The assumption underlying the phase of the experiment and 'that, if repeated in the same conditions, will provide the same results. This allows you to compare results in different laboratories, to repeat the experiment many times as needed to improve the accuracy results.
correct paths of investigation in the trial in Archaeology may be many, because they were inspired by different disciplines. All of these pathways intersect and cross-disciplinary course must still converge towards the single objective of clarifying the vision and understanding of the possible truth. Truth in the plural, for never in archeology as the real truth can never be defined as definite and unique. So you need to gather data, in particular one must learn to extract and manage them properly and in accordance with the methods of investigation of science, and you should always think in terms of probability and hypothesis.
The history of experimentation in archeology, especially here in Italy, is short, it is perhaps not appropriate to talk about history but to its more legitimate legend. Academia is just that we hear about - not a whisper.
There has been some experimentation in the past to the archaeologist who, guessing correctly in a way this survey is interesting improvised himself a potter, glassblower, blacksmith, scheggiatore, fisherman, hunter ... by deducting from his direct experience, often clumsy, however, indications "published" because of their undoubted originality, this presumption has made little unfortunately a disservice to the progress of knowledge on prehistoric material culture and the behavioral sciences ancient human, due to some hasty conclusions, questionable, but became more widely known and taken as given.
At the same time, the large number of willing people who have self-appointed "experimental archaeologists" creating associations and working groups, sometimes animated by a spirit of naive, sometimes peculiar to the above, has such widespread interest in the matter itself because of its spectacular but it has generated enormous confusion, inflating the message and creating a cacophony semantics without peer, especially among the media and in schools. The academic world, of course, has declined this amateur archeology, eradicating unfortunately for a long time (at least here in Italy) any serious prospect of scientific experimentation.
From another, now one of the archeologists who collected intelligent cross-disciplinary contributions of engineers, craftsmen and "specialist" was able to make great progress on the analysis and functional interpretation of the findings relative to specific cultural contexts.
specialized characters to which I refer are those whose cultural background is the experience gained through years of application and the characteristics of "behavior" are still based on pragmatism, namely "to achieve the goal" with limited means available to a deliberate renunciation of modern technology.
Of course this was when the teamwork between researchers and investigators worked: when the crew have offered their skills to scientists and when the scientists decided to encourage such specialists to problem solving, especially listening to their comments.
From here one can easily deduce the Experimental Archaeology as a collective figure is to be seen, a team, not a single individual. The investigation of the interpenetration of science and pragmatic problem absolutely must go together in the same direction. Empiricism and experiment means to respect scrupulously observe the standards and comply with a protocol replicable anywhere and by anyone who with the skills, allowing them to refute or confirm the findings. Being in control of laboratory conditions, data and procedures means being able to give appropriate weight to them and know how to separate the important variables than negligible, but not always accurately record and process each and every track the operating process. This will allow other researchers to be able to add pieces in the mosaic of truths investigated.
archeology it is very difficult. The physical sciences experimental protocols have outright carved in granite, all in all paths that are more simplified. The variable human behavior plays a predominant role in the analysis so experimental archaeological compared leptons, quarks and gravitational waves are subject ... malleable from one point of view "experimental." Unfortunately, this behavioral variable escapes from any possibility of serious hearing.
why testing needs in archaeological resources, structures, talking heads formed in years of academic studies, both scientific and humanistic, and above all, mediation and common sense, intuition and sometimes even a little bit of creative transgression. "
also needs the hand and brain of those who can not only replicate the artifacts, but one that aims to use them in contexts as similar as possible to those derived from archaeological and scientific data analysis. Neither party can do without the other. Today
finally seems that things can take a road interesting. The sensitivity of the academic world has matured, offering the possibility of a contribution to the cross-disciplinary research by engineers completed, finally aware of the importance of those who have "hands" to create and use. In field archery
much has been done, perhaps naive in trying to ennoble a bow and arrow to a role not only recreational and sports. And here I am in the first line of Arc when she was born and I had the commitment to work on it, he left the close cooperation Archers with the Society of Antiquaries (thanks to Stefano Benini and now Jill Victoria Brazier), and has published and read History and Science, were created "centers of interest" very strong, are born not only local exchange of views and there has been a progressive urge of questions and debates. He was born the historical period as a sport (... and with all its inconsistencies) but also in almost fifteen years has set a precondition to understand the importance in terms of investigation of our past who, academically, and has always only considered the arrowheads at most as indicators cronotipologici and cultural rights, without examining the direct role with anthropology, ethnology and the analysis of human behavior. The bow and arrows were always on the edge of the interests of scholarly research, a little 'for the lack of findings and a bit' for the approximation of the knowledge, they often ignore the complexity and relegated to the rank of any other "tool" of wood. Only after the iceman, something moved, given the extraordinary complexity and completeness of the kit (still far from fully explained) in which the components are the lion's share of archery.
part of serious scholars, it was decided to investigate further. Through collaborations unexpected has come to the scientific results. In short, he shyly out from the well.
The study of arrowheads (much more in America for the Culture paleoindiane) has always been much later. There are thousands of scientific publications, since 1800, will study the form, the so-called type, size, but only and exclusively from the point of view: that of identifying the shape as a cultural attribute, and then time indicator in relation to the excavated site.
If you found a skeleton with arrowheads around the tip is to date the burial. Neither more nor less than the shape of a clay pot. Between all those publications (I assure you, thousand) only speaks a few dozen (or try to speak) of the report form and function, that is, the relationship that seeks to interpret the use and purpose of such an indicator ballistic. They came in war or hunting is safe, but that becomes a secondary issue .... Understanding how an arrowhead can differentiate a behavioral attitude (relative to the context in which it is found) becomes a mechanism of inquiry that may lead to other important deductive inferences, such as organizing social and economic relationships between the components of rank community. Understanding how and why a bow made in a way represents an object of prestige becomes an economic indicator and role, but understand this was only possible thanks to Galileo's demonstration in the reconstruction, namely the difficulty of making a similar tool that highlights the complexity of non-manual - but awareness of the constructive relationship material - form - function, the will to pursuing an objective that goes beyond the appearance. Only by doing so you can get a tool that "makes" for a particular purpose, knowing just where you want to achieve you can achieve that mastery can take into account certain structural variables, etc.., Things that a skilled artisan well Arcaia knows.
Vittorio Brizzi
0 comments:
Post a Comment