EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH VERSUS THE POPULARISATION OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE STONE AGE

In this paper we shall demonstrate the re lationship between experimental research regarding the oldest period of human history and the popu larisation of knowledge of the Stone Age. Our discussion is based primarily on our own experience of undertaking experimental research and presentation of its results to participants of popular scie n events. Some examples illustrating the relation ship between science and its popularisation have been pr ovided. Its potential notwithstanding, the popularisation o f the Stone Age still seems undervalued as compared to educational initiatives re lated to subsequent periods. A number of factors should be held responsible for such a state of affairs, i.e. the realm of school education, wherein information on a nthropogenesis is typically more frequently presented than other areas, such as the remains of material culture and its meaning, as well as the reform of education and the resultant syllabuses, which have reduced teaching prehistory to only key issues. Non etheless, an increased interest in this period of history has been noticed in recent y ears. This is probably due to the availability of information, which is i.e. dissemin ated as popular science through media, the Internet in particular, as well as the d evelopment of the historical 294 KATARZYNA PYŻEWICZ, WITOLD GRUŻDŹ re-enactment movement, as exemplified by the emerge nce of a few regional groups in Poland, who enact and portray life of people liv ing in the Stone Age. Even though in most cases these activities are far from archaeo logical experiments, they frequently accentuate their scientific aspect, aimed at att racting viewers. In the paper we attempt to determine the relationsh ip between the popularisation of the oldest period of human history, including it s educational asset, and experimental research . We shall address these issues in the context of a ctivities concerning the implementation of experimental research and present atio of its results and particular elements to the participants of popular science eve nts we have hitherto undertaken. While the outcomes of our experimental tests are em ployed primarily for research purposes: the tested hypotheses are presented at co nferences, in journals, bachelor and master’s theses, at the same time we apply them for educational and popularisation purposes (for more see Py żewicz et al. 2012). During various meetings with to urists, at picnics, festivals and lectures, we have given a cr edible account of the prehistory in a manner accessible to a wider audience. Bringing o ur professional, theoretical and practical background into play, we attempt to depic t the Stone Age through personal commitment, by entering into a direct interaction w ith tourists. EXPERIMENT AND ITS ROLE IN THE POLISH STUDIES ON THE STONE AGE For years in their deliberations on the Palaeolithi c and Mesolithic, archaeologists have referred experiments to as an invaluable source of potential information in research on the early periods of the Stone Age, cha ra terised by the paucity of available archaeological sources , thereby aiding in providing answers to research q uestions on various aspects of the daily life of prehi storic communities. The works of Stefan Krukowski , Ludwik Sawicki 4 and also Erazm Majewski , from the early twentieth century, are considered th e first attempts at experimental research in the Polish studies on the Early and Mid dle Stone Age. The aforementioned researchers addressed the issue of flint wor king in the era when knowledge of gunflint production was still available in a more e mpirical form, which certainly facilitated a more comprehensive understanding of t he ways of flint knapping and lithic tools production. Noteworthy is particularly the publication of Ludwik Sawicki

Its potential notwithstanding, the popularisation of the Stone Age still seems undervalued as compared to educational initiatives related to subsequent periods.A number of factors should be held responsible for such a state of affairs, i.e. the realm of school education, wherein information on anthropogenesis is typically more frequently presented than other areas, such as the remains of material culture and its meaning, as well as the reform of education and the resultant syllabuses, which have reduced teaching prehistory to only key issues.Nonetheless, an increased interest in this period of history has been noticed in recent years.This is probably due to the availability of information, which is i.e. disseminated as popular science through media, the Internet in particular, as well as the development of the historical re-enactment movement, as exemplified by the emergence of a few regional groups in Poland, who enact and portray life of people living in the Stone Age.Even though in most cases these activities are far from archaeological experiments, they frequently accentuate their scientific aspect, aimed at attracting viewers.
In the paper we attempt to determine the relationship between the popularisation of the oldest period of human history, including its educational asset, and experimental research 1 .We shall address these issues in the context of activities concerning the implementation of experimental research and presentation of its results and particular elements to the participants of popular science events we have hitherto undertaken.While the outcomes of our experimental tests are employed primarily for research purposes: the tested hypotheses are presented at conferences, in journals, bachelor and master's theses, at the same time we apply them for educational and popularisation purposes (for more see Pyżewicz et al. 2012).During various meetings with tourists, at picnics, festivals and lectures, we have given a credible account of the prehistory in a manner accessible to a wider audience.Bringing our professional, theoretical and practical background into play, we attempt to depict the Stone Age through personal commitment, by entering into a direct interaction with tourists.

EXPERIMENT AND ITS ROLE IN THE POLISH STUDIES ON THE STONE AGE
For years in their deliberations on the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic, archaeologists have referred experiments to as an invaluable source of potential information in research on the early periods of the Stone Age, characterised by the paucity of available archaeological sources 2 , thereby aiding in providing answers to research questions on various aspects of the daily life of prehistoric communities.
The works of Stefan Krukowski 3 , Ludwik Sawicki 4 and also Erazm Majewski 5 , from the early twentieth century, are considered the first attempts at experimental research in the Polish studies on the Early and Middle Stone Age.The aforementioned researchers addressed the issue of flint working in the era when knowledge of gunflint production was still available in a more empirical form, which certainly facilitated a more comprehensive understanding of the ways of flint knapping and lithic tools production.Noteworthy is particularly the publication of Ludwik Sawicki Przyczynek do znajomości technik obróbki krzemienia ('Some remarks on flint working techniques')6 , wherein the first written observations on experimental attempts at splitting nodules of raw flint were stated.In the post-war years, an interest in experimental research decreased along with the change of the methodological approach, in contrast to western Europe, particularly France7 , and Russia, where Sergei A. Semenov worked intensively, having pioneered traceological analysis in which usage of experimental tools is necessary8 .Therefore, studies on flint working or other aspects of the prehistory differed considerably from those in Poland, wherein the impasse regarding the application of experiments began to resolve slowly in the 1980s.Developed mostly in relation to two trends: techniques of flint raw materials processing and the use of microscopic analysis to determine the function of tools, these studies were undertaken by i.e.Witold Migal, Jolanta Małecka-Kukawka, Małgorzata Winiarska-Kabacińska and, frequently with an entire panoply of both research questions and applied theoretical models, have been continued to the present day, both by the aforementioned researchers and others9 .
Experimental method10 has also been a significant element of our investigations of archaeological sources, particularly when our intention is to elucidate issues related to the methods of working various types of rocks and organic materials (such as antler, wood), using them to produce tools, to the strategies of their usage in the Stone Age, the nature of particular activities that could have been undertaken by prehistoric groups, or to the appearance and functionality of the then housing structures.In addition, we may examine the formation of archaeological sites, including the causes for their current structure, as well as verify experimentally other methods used in the research on the past societies.At the same time, we realize that we are not able to reconstruct the complete image of hunter-gatherer communities of the Stone Age in this way.Our archaeological experiments may only provide some clues regarding possible solutions or scenarios that could have been undertaken also in prehistory.In other words, we test our hypotheses developed on the basis of archaeological sources, with the result that we may formulate statements concerning, among others, the possible course of particular situations in prehistory or ways of using particular objects.

EXPERIMENT VS POPULARISATION
Recently, an opportunity has arisen to carry out a series of experimental tests relating to the Stone Age issues, the elements of which were used for educational and popularisation goals concerning the oldest period of prehistory.Our work has primarily focused on flint production and ways of using flint tools.Experimental research projects assume carrying out a series of laboratory, or, more frequently, field experiments, together with the so called actualistic tests11 , designed to simulate specific activities or situations that might have arisen in prehistory, assuming that the use of replicas of prehistoric objects leads to the formulation of general analogies in the process of interpreting archaeological data.We addressed, for example, the issue of the mode of production of the Late Palaeolithic blades which were produced potentially either as blanks for tools or specimens 'ready' to use.From an economic point of view, the process of blade formation struck us as remarkable, given that most of the removed fragments of flint nodules were left unused at the production site, as evidenced by microscopic analysis (no use-wear traces, typically occurring when a tool comes into contact with the worked material, have been recorded).On finding that, we posed a following question: why such a large quantity of flint material, analogous forms of which were utilised by other communities, was not made use of?We also wanted to find out how particular blades were produced.With a view of answering these questions, we used experimental tests.As it turned out, making specific blades, typically used by particular Late Palaeolithic societies in their daily activities, was a formidable task.In order to remove a few desired blades in shapes preferred by prehistoric flint knappers, an elaborate flint nodule preparation process was needed (a significant number of specimens of different kind were thus produced).In addition, the comparison of the morphology and microscopic technological traces of blades removed by us and of the Late Palaeolithic ones, revealed that pebbles of sandstone were most likely used for knapping, which undermines the statements persisted in the Polish subject literature12 .Since a person producing flint specimens needed to concentrate on the task, most of the elements of the above mentioned experiment were carried out in the absence of a large group of viewers.Only some tests were conducted during festivals, picnics or archaeological workshops, and different ways to produce core forms and blanks in the Stone Age were demonstrated at the same time.During this type of educational events we focused on the presentation of results of our research and demonstrated ways of flint working, using the same techniques we applied while doing our experimental work.
Another research project was related to game hunting strategies in the Mesolithic.Our objective was to verify the information on the morphology of flint elements of __________________ hunting weapons, methods of their setting in arrow shafts, as well as the alleged way of carrying arrowheads in containers (e.g.quivers).To this end, we have prepared an experimental base and enacted an experiment in the reserve at the Archaeological Museum in Biskupin, which was to simulate a hunting scene that could have taken place in the Mesolithic.The experimenter took a series of shots into the body of a freshly slaughtered animal using replicas of a Mesolithic bow and arrows (the test was later repeated).Owing to this simulation, it was possible to examine the capabilities and limitations of the carcass penetration by lithic arrowheads and to investigate deformations which formed at their tips.We believe that such experiments reflect prehistoric reality better than the use of ballistic gelatine.During the experiment part of the arrows did not reach their target and hit other objects, such as trees and the ground, which allowed us to attempt to analyse the specifics of deformation of those arrowheads which missed their target.In the next stage of the investigation we compared the results of the experiment, first of all traces resulting from setting arrowheads in a shaft, their specific location in the shaft and those originating when arrowheads hit various targets, to the surface of the Mesolithic insets from the area of the Polish Lowlands.A number of analogies were observed between the experimental forms and artefacts, thus providing an insight into the Mesolithic hunting.Our research aimed also at the identification of microscopic traces resulting from carrying experimental insets in leather or bone containers.Due to consecutive comparisons to prehistoric arrowheads we learned that even in the Mesolithic hunting weapons were carried in various types of leather containers13 .Our intention was to comprehensibly present the results of our experiments to the general public professionally unrelated to the issues of the Stone Age.It is noteworthy that due to the occurrence of radical scenes, namely shooting a freshly killed animal, and the need of the archer to focus, we chose to exclude tourists as spectators during tests.Therefore, the experiments took place in the reserve in the early hours of the morning, when the public was not yet present.Instead, the results were featured in the form of multimedia presentations during festivals, archaeological workshops and archery tournaments.To this end, we used descriptive documentation, drawings and photographs compiled during experiments, and also presented the replicas of arrows and a bow used in the experiments.In addition, tourists were given an opportunity to learn the basics of microscopic analysis.Those who were particularly interested could have conducted 'a microscopic analysis' of the flint insets used during the experiment and study the detectable use-wear, at which both adults and children evinced considerable interest.
Studies on the influence of postdepositional factors on the comportment of flint artefacts the surfaces of which are typically heavily modified provide another example of a research project that, to some extent, combines experimental research, edu-__________________ cation and popularisation14 .In order to examine the effects of one of the factors, namely treading by people and animals, which probably significantly affected the formation of these deformities in prehistory15 , we engaged tourists visiting the reserve and the Archaeological Museum in Biskupin.The experiment consisted in placing replicas of flint implements in boxes between layers of sediment analogous to sediment deposited in selected areas of the Stone Age settlement.Such prepared containers were thereafter exposed on the educational trail for the visitors to tread on.
Beside the boxes we positioned posters which provided basic information on the experiment.100 000 visitors are roughly estimated to have taken a direct part in the experimental tests.As a consequence, not only were the tourists acquainted with the basic principles of conducting experiments, but we also acquired data which provided the basis for further research, consisting in the comparison of macroscopic and microscopic traces, resulting from treading on the experimental specimens to the deformations registered at flint implements recorded at selected archaeological sites.The results have enabled a more precise interpretation of the origins of traces and helped answer the question whether these changes on surface were use-wear or formed as a result of artefacts having been trodden on over thousands of years.
One more example that illustrates links between popularisation and experimental research is connected to our study on the important factors affecting the way flint concentrations are formed and structured 16 .The former is related to the depositional stage, namely human behaviour associated with various models of practice chosen by prehistoric people while working flint in a given period of time.The latter is related to postdepositional factors, natural and anthropogenic, which can heavily alter the primary layout of a flint concentration.These studies were carried out in the archaeological reserve at the Archaeological Museum in Biskupin.Experimental tests, designed with a view to recognising and achieving a better understanding of the process of deposition of flint specimens during flint processing, while applying selected techniques and during the production of particular types of tools, were undertaken by a number of experimenters with different levels of practical knowledge.Several clusters were produced as a result -series of cores, debitage, as well as flint tools, formed in a specific time and on various surfaces, which sometimes overlapped in space (Fig. 1).The final deposition of specimens depended on various factors, including the predisposition and the position of the flint knapper, the method of flint working, the use of additional instruments such as aprons or cleaning up some implements and transferring them to another location within a camp.The location of all flint products, their spatial dispersion, was documented in detail.At this __________________ stage of research, the tourists were only viewers, and in order to avoid the distraction of experimenters, we appointed one person to inform the tourists about the course of the experiment and to answer questions from the public.The second phase of the experimental studies was related to the activity of postdepositional factors.Here we focused primarily on examining one of the elements that affects the formation of the final layout of a flint concentration -treading by people and animals (Fig. 2).With this aim in mind, we set an educational trail through the selected, hitherto formed clusters, remains of the flint knappers' activity.For further research we engaged tens of thousands of tourists visiting the reserve and the Archaeological Museum in Biskupin.As a result, we obtained data that we may use for the next stage of the project (Fig. 3), where the idea is to 'reconstruct' not just one path, but 'a camp', with separate areas related to various types of human activity.

CONCLUSION
We have provided barely a few examples of our experimental work in this paper.As mentioned before, experiments in different forms (the so-called laboratory tests or actualistic studies) provide invaluable assistance in solving many research problems, and their results referred to archaeological sources considerably extend our knowledge of the past.At the same time, experiments can serve as an accessible educational tool addressed to the audience, often more interested in the empirical side of science.Noteworthy is the fact that the experimental method is very often identified with the popularisation activity.This conviction is particularly noticeable among visitors of a large number of organised festivals, picnics or archaeological workshops.Nevertheless, even if knowledge acquired as a result of hitherto completed archaeological experiments may be certainly used to some extent during demonstrations for a wide range of visitors, confusing education and popularisation with a research method is a mistake, committed also by archaeologists themselves.This stems probably from the fact that scientific research is 'mixed' with education and entertainment, which may be unrelated to making conclusions on the basis of archaeological sources.These types of events, often staged by enthusiasts, are almost impossible to exclude from archaeology, which is, inter alia, related to the fact that individuals involved in them typically adopt a façade of specialists or scientists and proclaim the 'revealed truth' while interacting with artefacts.A long tradition of experimental research notwithstanding, it seems that a dialogue between enthusiasts 'reconstructing' prehistory and academia still needs to be established.This would help 'remove' the tag of 'fooling around' from activities aimed at the dissemination of archaeology, which is earned by people, often acting in good faith, albeit not given any guidance from archaeologists.
To conclude, we believe that experimental research should be regarded as a universal tool to assist in considerations concerning a number of aspects of the history of the Stone Age communities, as well as the workshop of an archaeologist.This method needs to be recognised as entirely scientific and its research potential acknowledged, instead of being associated directly with activities aiming at dissemination of archaeology and prehistory, highly fashionable nowadays in Poland.