Setting the experimental protocol

 

Of the questions I’m asked most frequently about my research, those relating to setting the experimental protocol based on our understanding of the parameters of ancient technologies seem to come up the most often. The final chapter (Iovita and Sano 2016) of a recently published volume, Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Study of Stone Age Weaponry, provides a fantastic discussion on the state of research into Stone Age weaponry, and its place in understanding human evolution (you can read more about the editors Radu Iovita here and Katushiro Sano here). Figure 20.1 shows a fantastic graphic on the volume of experimental research into early weapon systems, and how this experimental research co-occurs with archaeological discoveries. Archaeological research has the often-frustrating but incredible challenge of understanding a fragmented record. Key archaeological discoveries such as the Schöningen spears provide unusual insights into the human past. Archaeologists have many scientific methods in their toolkits, and we need to take multidisciplinary approaches! This is why I’m working with Impact and Armour engineers like Dr. Debra Carr at Cranfield University.

Experimental archaeology has a rich history and I’m benefitting from scores of weaponry experiments that have been conducted already. Ethnographic research is another key ingredient to understanding weapon technologies, informing our understanding of everything from hunting strategies, to typical and maximum distances weapons functioned, which prey were targeted (including which species, and what size, age and behaviours), how learning and skills are acquired, what the manufacturing processes may have been and much more.

Previous experimental work (including my own, capturing distances and velocities of javelin athletes throwing Schöningen spear replicas,