Experimental archaeology plays a central role in lithic studies by exploring the technical feasibility of proposed manufacturing procedures. However, its interpretive value depends on how experimental results are integrated with archaeological variability. This paper argues that experimental archaeology does not provide proof of past technological practices, but rather identifies technological possibilities under controlled conditions. Focusing on recent experimental work on fishtail projectile points, it is shown that reliance on selective archaeological samples and the uncritical generalization of experimental outcomes may lead to a form of methodological post-truth, in which experimentally plausible technical solutions are retrospectively transformed into normative interpretive models. By distinguishing general technological principles from normative production schemes and by emphasizing variability as a constitutive feature of lithic technologies, this paper advocates a reflexive and epistemological approach to experimental archaeology that strengthens, rather than constrains, archaeological interpretation.
References
[1]
Andrefsky, W. (1998). Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. Cambridge University Press.
[2]
Ascher, R. (1961). Analogy in Archaeological Interpretation. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 17, 317-325. https://doi.org/10.1086/soutjanth.17.4.3628943
[3]
Bleed, P. (2001). Trees or Chains, Links or Branches: Conceptual Alternatives for Consideration of Stone Tool Production and Other Sequential Activities. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 8, 101-127. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1009526016167
[4]
Bunge, M. (1998). Philosophy of Science: From Problem to Theory. Transaction Publishers.
[5]
Callahan, E. (1979). The Basics of Biface Knapping. Archaeology of Eastern North America, 7, 1-180.
[6]
Callahan, E. (1981). Pamunkey Housebuilding: An Experimental Study of Late Woodland Construction Technology in the Powhatan Confederacy. Ph.D. Thesis, Catholic University of America.
[7]
Coles, J. (1979). Experimental Archaeology. Academic Press.
[8]
Eren, M. I., & Meltzer, D. J. (2024). Controls, Conceits, and Aiming for Robust Inferences in Experimental Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 53, Article ID: 104411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2024.104411
[9]
Eren, M. I., Lycett, S. J., Patten, R. J., Buchanan, B., Pargeter, J., & O’Brien, M. J. (2016). Test, Model, and Method Validation: The Role of Experimental Stone Artifact Replication in Hypothesis-Driven Archaeology. Ethnoarchaeology, 8, 103-136. https://doi.org/10.1080/19442890.2016.1213972
[10]
Hayden, B. (1998). Practical and Prestige Technologies: The Evolution of Material Systems. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 5, 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02428415
[11]
Horsfall, G. (1987). Design Theory and Grinding Stones. In B. Hayden (Ed.), Lithic Studies Among the Contemporary Highland Maya (pp. 332-377). University of Arizona Press.
[12]
Marreiros, J., Calandra, I., Gneisinger, W., Paixão, E., Pedergnana, A., & Schunk, L. (2020). Rethinking Use-Wear Analysis and Experimentation as Applied to the Study of Past Hominin Tool Use. Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology, 3, 475-502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41982-020-00058-1
[13]
Mathieu, J. R. (2002). Experimental Archaeology. BAR International Serie.
[14]
Nami, H. G. (1991). Algunas reflexiones teóricas sobre arqueología y experimentación. Shincal, 3, 151-168.
[15]
Nami, H. G. (1997). Investigaciones actualísticas para discutir aspectos técnicos de los ca-zadores-recolectores del tardiglacial: El problema Clovis-Cueva Fell. Anales del Instituto de la Patagonia, 25, 152-186.
[16]
Nami, H. G. (2003). Experimentos para explorar la secuencia de reducción Fell de la Patagonia Austral. Magallania, 30, 107-138.
[17]
Nami, H. G. (2010). Theoretical Reflections on Experimental Archaeology and Lithic Technology. In H. G. Nami (Ed.), Experiments and Interpretation of Traditional Technologies: Essays in Honor of Errett Callahan (pp. 91-168). Ediciones de Arqueología Contemporánea.
[18]
Nami, H. G. (2011a). Reflexiones epistemológicas sobre Arqueología y tecnología lítica experimental. In A. Morgado, J. Baena Preysler, & D. García González (Eds.), La investigación experimentalaplicada a la arqueología (pp. 37-43). Departamento de Prehistoria y Arqueología de la Universidad de Granada.
[19]
Nami, H. G. (2011b). Fundamentos teóricos y epistemológicos sobre arqueologia y tecnología lítica experimental. Arqueología Rosarina Hoy, 3, 75-98.
[20]
Nami, H. G. (2017). Exploring the Manufacture of Bifacial Stone Tools from the Middle Rio Negro Basin, Uruguay: An Experimental Approach. Ethnoarchaeology, 9, 53-80. https://doi.org/10.1080/19442890.2017.1286757
[21]
Nami, H. G. (2018). Theoretical and Epistemological Thoughts on Archaeology and Experimental Lithic Technology. Journal of Research in Philosophy and History, 1, 139-165. https://doi.org/10.22158/jrph.v1n2p139
[22]
Nami, H. G. (2021). New Morpho-Technological Studies to Enhance the Knowledge of Fell Point Variability in Southeastern South America. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 40, Article ID: 103205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.103205
[23]
Nami, H. G. (2022). La investigación actualística y experimental en los estudios líticos de Sudamérica. Antrope, 14, 57-121.
[24]
Nami, H. G. (2024). Retrospectivas sobre tecnología lítica y arqueología experimental en Argentina. Resumen de la conferencia dictada en el II CAELA. Cuadernos del Instituto Nacional de Antropología y Pensamiento Latinoamericano (Series Especiales), 11, 21-52.
[25]
Nami, H. G. (2026). Echoes of the First Americans: The Significance of Fell Points in the Peopling of the New World.
[26]
Nelson, M. C. (1991). The Study of Technological Organization. Archaeological Method and Theory, 3, 57-100.
[27]
Schiffer, M. B., & Skibo, J. M. (1987). Theory and Experiment in the Study of Technological Change. Current Anthropology, 28, 595-622. https://doi.org/10.1086/203601
[28]
Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational Choice and the Structure of the Environment. Psychological Review, 63, 129-138. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042769
[29]
Whittaker, J. C. (1994). Flintknapping: Making and Understanding Stone Tools. University of Texas Press.
[30]
Wylie, A. (1985). The Reaction against Analogy. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, 8, 63-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-003108-5.50008-7
[31]
Wylie, A. (2002). Thinking from Things: Essays in the Philosophy of Archaeology. University of California Press.
