Abstract
AbstractExperimental archaeology is often understood both as testing hypotheses about processes shaping the archaeological record and as generating tacit knowledge. Considering lithic technologies, I examine the relationship between these conceptions. Experimental archaeology is usefully understood via “maker’s knowledge”: archaeological experiments generate embodied know-how enabling archaeological hypotheses to be grasped and challenged, and further, well-positioning archaeologists to generate integrated interpretations. Finally, experimental archaeology involves “material speculation”: the constraints and affordances of archaeologists and their materials shape productive exploration of the capacities of objects and human skill in ways relevant to archaeological questions.
Highlights
When philosophers discuss speculation, it is as a theoretical, imaginative, activity
Experimental archaeology is often understood both as testing hypotheses about processes shaping the archaeological record and as generating tacit knowledge
Speculation in experimental archaeology is intimately linked with the materiality of the archaeological record and proxies: it is speculation made material
Summary
It is as a theoretical, imaginative, activity. When archaeologists consider experimental archaeology, it is often in a hypothesis-testing mode: archaeologists perform experiments to probe ideas about how past processes shape the material record. Experimental archaeology provides epistemic goods beyond hypothesis-testing: it generates ‘maker’s knowledge’ which positions archaeologists to grasp, critique and integrate archaeological knowledge. I’ll provide an initial characterization of experimental archaeology, emphasizing hypothesistesting and linking archaeological theory with the material record. Archaeological knowledge requires integrating considering sites of interest holistically. I’ll argue that maker’s knowledge illuminates experimental archaeology in two ways. Maker’s knowledge well-positions archaeologists to integrate previouslydecontextualized knowledge. I’ll consider experimental archaeology as a material mode of speculation. I don’t argue that all experimental archaeology, nor speculation, is best understood in terms of maker’s knowledge and materiality.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
