Should experimental archaeologists abandon John Coles’ “The rules of the game”?

In order to determine whether or not experimental archaeologists should abandon John Coles’

‘The Rules of the Game,’ we must first determine what these rules are, and then whether or

not they can should still be applied to experimental procedures, in light of the problems raised

by reconciling experience within these experiments.

The first rule states that, ‘the materials employed in the experiment should be those

considered to be original available to the society under examination,’ (Coles. 1979: 46). This

would seem to be one of the most fundamental points of experimental archaeology, for how

can we hope to recreate a situation if we do not use the materials available at that time? It

stands to reason that, wherever available, they would be used in experimentation. The second

rule links closely to the first, in that the methods used during experimentation must be

appropriate to the society under examination (Coles. 1979). One example of this is Unger-

Hamilition’s experiments using sickle blades to harvest wild plants. Not only were the blades

knapped from flint local to the sites in question, they were knapped and used both unhafted

and hafted in the style of a Natufian bone sickle. They were then used in the harvesting of

wild and cultivated plant species whose carbonised remains are commonly found at

Levantine Epipalaeolithic and Neolithic sites (Unger-Hamiliton. 1992). The results showed

that some plant species were difficult to cut using sickles, and that several different

harvesting methods must have been used (Unger-Hamilton. 1992). Therefore it could be

stated that rules one and two should not be abandoned, as they produce the right results.

On the other hand Sievert used a metal nail to insert chert microliths into a pine board whilst

making a manioc grater. This led her to admit that the metal may have scraped the stone, and

that the microliths would contain traces of metal, and also graphite from pencil markings
(Sievert. 1992). While these steps may have been necessary to produce a workable manioc

grater, it is certain that they would not have been used originally. Moreover after the two

hour experiment it became clear the use traces build up slowly on microliths, and are not

particularly noticeable after such a short period of time (Sievert. 1999). Here we come to our

first reconstructive problem, that we are unaware of the time frame and circumstances in

which an activity originally took place.

Lawson encountered a similar problem during his experiments with Medieval instruments; he

was unable to determine the correct tuning for a replica lyre. In order to discover this he

recreated bone flutes, for which the entire instrument was available for reference. He stated

then that it was not the material which was important, but the shape and form of the

instrument, as this is what would impart its tuning (Lawson. 1999). Although this may seem

to contradict the first two rules, it can be thought to be application of Coles’ third rule- that

modern techniques and analyses should be carried out throughout the experiments (Coles.

1979). This is in order for the results to be fairly assessed, and comparable to other data sets,

and should be the case not only in archaeological experimentation but in any research

process. The earthworks at Overton Down are an excellent example of this, as they were

designed to study site formation and environmental processes; Coles said that in studying

decay or collapse we need to know precisely how it happened (Coles. 1979. Bell et al.1996).

Reynolds championed the usage of new technologies within this field, whether the equipment

was designed for archaeological use or not, as long as it improved data acquisition (Reynolds.

1999).

Coles’ fourth law concerns scale, and brings us back to the problem of linking experience and

experiment. If scale models are used, even if they are accurate, they will cause discrepancies
in data which must be acknowledged (Coles. 1979). The fact is that it is impossible to

perceive the effects on the landscape and on the human body of building, for example, an

earthwork structure, if we only build one on a smaller scale. Even at Overton Down, which

was built to an exact size, the very fact that its contents are being inspected and analysed at

regular intervals detracts from its accuracy, as an earthwork would not, presumably, have

been treated this way. Additionally its deposits were laid down deliberately to discern the

effects upon them, which again would not have been how they were deposited in the past

(Bell et al. 1996). And yet, we can never truly recreate any past experience because we will

never be aware of the exact conditions, whether meteorological, biological or physical that

the activity first took place in.

The fifth rule states that repetition of the experiment must be undertaken in order to avoid

freak results (Coles. 1979). Again, this is something which should be applied not just to

archaeological experimentation, but to scientific process in general. For example the

repeated firing of houses in Denmark, after a Neolithic reconstruction at Allerslev accidently

caught fire led not only new theories on house plans and abandonment, but it was also

discovered that parts of houses could be identified among the ashes. This led to the re-

evaluation of old site plans, in which the ashes had been recorded, but not evaluated, along

with the realisation that there would be limited time for a mass evacuation. Therefore houses

must have been burnt deliberately, as very few traces of occupancy are found on these sites

(Coles. 1979). These findings could not have been made without repeat experimentation.

Hansen reiterates the problem of time with reference to the Umha Aois project: without a

degree of proficiency in the craft examined, there can be little understanding gained about the

societies who originated the process (Hansen. 2008). It is suggested that as the practitioners

gain a higher level of competence in Bronze Age technology, so too will their understanding
of the society. Repetition here is key. But missing in Coles’ rules is the social aspect of such

experimentation; at Umha Aois a community has developed who exchange goods and

services and engage in complex social rituals involving art and music (Hansen. 2008). While

it may not mirror a Bronze Age society exactly, the very fact it sprang up around an

experiment in casting suggests we need to look beyond Coles’ rules and allow for a shared

experience.

Rule six states that even though the experiment may have been formulated to answer a

specific question, improvisation and adaption may be necessary (Coles. 1979). This is

imperative, for it not only allows you to carry on with the experiment in the face of a

problem, but it will also allow you to experience the situation first hand. That is, by allowing

yourself to improvise an answer to a problem, if it is within the boundaries of the first two

rules, then we are ourselves experiencing what the original performers of the task would have

faced, and in doing so we may come to new conclusions or outcomes we would not have

discerned had we not allowed that flexibility. Even if we eschew personal experience and

side with Reynolds’ view that only structural information can be gained through experiment,

we are still adhering to the principle that past structures would have faced the same problems

and, potentially, the same solutions (Reynolds. 1999).

The seventh rule reads that results should not be taken at face value; just because a method

does work, does not necessarily mean that it was used and even though it is possible to

perform a certain act, does not mean it was performed in the past (Coles. 1979). Townend

points out that reconstructed roundhouses are normally made of oak, although pine, alder,

birch, ash and hazel have all been used, which does not indicate that these materials were

used in the Iron Age, but that it is possible to build using almost any timber (Townend. 2007).
He goes on to note that our own perception of roundhouses is based less on evidence but on a

prevalent image based on Reynold’s own experiments and that they provide us with little

understanding of the act of building as the very act, as enacted by the builders, did not form

the focus of any research (Townend. 2007).

Coles’ final rule states that the experiment must be evaluated for its accuracy in honest terms

(Coles. 1979). This is a given for an experiment of any sort and for a scientific procedure to

be considered valid it should have been appraised honestly. This rule, along with that of

repetition, should still be followed by experimental archaeologists today in order to achieve

accurate results. The latter, of course, may be constrained by budget, allowing the fourth rule

on scale to come into play. Although it will, inevitably, be less accurate, it may help us to get

a grasp of past techniques, if not of time frame. Perhaps the most important thing to assess is

the purpose for which the experiment is being undertaken. Reynolds displayed a clear need

to disassociate experiment, as a scientific procedure, from experience and education and yet

at Butser Ancient Farm today there is a roundhouse built using cardboard, simply for the

purposes of the latter (Woods. 2008). This may contradict Coles’ first two rules, and yet it

should be evaluated in terms of experience, not scientific procedure. Townend believes that

experience is the more valid of the two purposes and that little knowledge on activity can be

gained without its inclusion. Therefore Coles’ rules concerning the correct materials and

methods should be carefully observed if undertaking an experiments, but flexibility seems to

be more useful when reconciling this with experience. In any aspect of archaeology we can

never hope to uncover a truly precise picture of what went on before, but in abandoning

Coles’ Rules of the Game we would too be abandoning a structured approach that, coupled

with a more immersive research brief, will help us in our deconstruction of the past.
Bibliography

Bell. M, Fowler. P. J and Hillson. S. W. 1996. The Experimental Earthwork Project 1960-
1992. CBA Research Report No 100

Coles. J. 1979. Experimental Archaeology. New York: Academic Press

Hansen. C. 2008. Experiment and Experience-Practice in a Collaborative Environment in

Cunningham. P, Heeb. J and Paardekooper. R (Ed.) Experiencing Archaeology by
Experiment. Oxford: Oxbow Books. p 69-81

Lawson. G. 1999. Getting to Grips with Music's Prehistory: experimental approaches to

function, design and operational wear in excavated musical instruments in A.E. Harding.
(Ed.) Experiment and design: archaeological studies in honour of John Coles Oxford:
Oxbow Books. p133-138

Reynolds. P. J. 1979. Iron-Age Farm: The Butser Experiment. London: British Museums
Publications

Reynolds. P. J. 1999. The Nature of Experiment in Archaeology in: A. E Harding (Ed.)

Experiment and design; Archaeological studies in honour of John Coles. Oxford: Oxbow

Sivert. A. K. 1999. Root and Tuber Resources: Experimental plant processing and resulting
microwear on chipped stone tools in Anderson. P. C ed. Prehistorie de L’Agriculture:
Nouvelles Approches Experimentales et Ethnographiques. Paris: Editions du CNRS

Townend. S. 2007. What have reconstructed roundhouses ever done for us..? in Proceedings
of the Prehistoric Society 73. London: Prehistoric Society. 97-111

Unger-Hamilton. R. 1992. Experimenting in Harvesting Wild Cereals and Other Plants in

Anderson. P. C ed. Prehistorie de L’Agriculture: Nouvelles Approches Experimentales et
Ethnographiques. Paris: Editions du CNRS

Woods. J. 2008. Is Butser Ancient Farm still a Functioning Experimental Site? Unpublished
Internal Report.