Introduction

Abstract

Archaeology is, in its most basic sense, a discipline founded on hypotheses. Our interpretations often present hypothetical explanations of the material record that are established through our understanding and synthesis of the data available to us. Archaeology is also unique in that it can be classified as both a science and humanity. An appreciation of human nature is essential, but there is also a reliance on scientific analysis of the raw data extracted from the material record in order to comprehend the past. However, empirical testing and theoretical insights cannot always provide access to the reasoning behind the actions of people. Indeed, our interpretive potential is often complicated further given the apparent duality of our field of study and the somewhat conflicting nature of the arts and the sciences (Jones 2002). This has resulted in multiple debates throughout the years concerning how archaeology should be practiced, as well as providing some confusion as to what archaeology actually consists of (Millson 2011a). Experimentation in archaeology can be seen to bridge the gap between these two opposing philosophies by not only providing the means to ‘get inside the minds’ of past populations, but also the ability to test the processes of data acquisition, as well as the conclusions and hypotheses that are formulated from such data. In addition, at its core, experimental archaeology enables us to interpret the material record in a realistic manner.