What individuals would you consider to be the most influential in your life/research/career?  Who are you most thankful for having had contact with? [Dr. Callahan was originally asked these two questions separately, but after considering it for some time, realized that the answers were the same for both questions]

For sharing their philosophy, craftsmanship, and generosity, the names that first come to mind are Don Crabtree, Francois Bordes, Gene Titmus, J.B. Sollberger, the DeHaas’s, John Coles, Steve Watts, Thorbjørn Peterson, Kjel Knutsson, Jacques Pelegrin and, while not an individual, the Society of Primitive Technology. Numerous supporters and funders including Jean Auel, the C.R.A.F.T. INSTITUTE, Lejre, the King of Sweden, the Schiele Museum, Bob Verry, and my customers have made my research possible.  I have also been impacted by, and am thankful for my followers including my many students, my customers, my family, patrons Ray Wood and Bob Richards, Hugo Nami, Bill Schindler, Greg Nunn, Hans-Ole Hansen, Jan Apel, Mike Frank, Peter Kelterborn, and Dan Stueber. 

Who, in your mind, do you feel contributed the most to the field of experimental archaeology?

John Coles, Peter Reynolds, Hans-Ole Hansen, Steve Watts, Kjel Knutsson, Jack Cresson, David Wescott, the DeHaas’, and Hugo Nami.  I must also acknowledge two organizations: the Schiele Museum and the Society of Primitive Technology (SPT) along with their publication, the Bulletin of Primitive Technology for their contributions.

Where do you see the future of Experimental Archaeology going and what do we need to do in order to ensure its success?

I believe the field must try to embrace all types of research and researchers.  The SPT must do the same or else I fear it will splinter and fall apart.  We should follow European models.  We must do more to apply our knowledge to environmental understanding.

We will see the death of traditional knapping if the ‘dark side’ takes over, as it almost has.  I am also leery of the fascination with digital technology and fear it may replace and kills the grassroots philosophy of hands-on learning and instruction.

We, experimental archaeologists and primitive technologists, need to be more service oriented.  We possess the knowledge and know-how to prepare the world for the next disaster, such as Katrina and the wide disasters of 2011, but fail to spread the word to the general population.

We need to consistently apply our research findings back to archaeology.  We cannot just stop with making and testing.  If we fail to do this, we will be just another special interest group.

I would suggest that there be a registry of certain key experimental sites.  Those should be identified, protected, and interpreted.  Some sites may, though ignored now, prove to be as important in time as are excavated archaeological sites, and may indeed even be excavated themselves - - as with Overton Down and the Old Rag experimental station in Virginia.  This latter site, after some 30 years of observation, resulted in a 800-plus page report.  Naturally, some committee would have to be formed to decide what the criteria would be for ‘important.’  This would not be just any place where a test was done, but one in which a body of research knowledge emanated so as to be shared with others in the field and/or the general public.  Such sites might be determined by state or nation or worldwide.  To get the ball rolling I would suggest European sites such as Lejre, Butser Hill, the DeHaas’ Polder site, and similar centres where projects were carried out and reports resulted.  In the United States I would suggest sites such as the Rabbitstick site, the Wintercount site, Dirkey’s Lake (Crabtree’s field school), Old Rag, Cliffside, Pamunkey, and the Schiele Museum’s aboriginal site.  This is not the time for an in-depth explanation.  I just wanted to introduce the idea here and let someone else run with it. 

What are the most pressing issues facing the field of Experimental Archaeology?

What the field desperately is in need of is a repository for experimental tools made and/or used for experiments and testing or even just created for art’s sake by modern craft producers. I envision this as something like a museum that could serve as an educational facility, storage facility and a library.  It should be traditional only, not inclusive of tools produced through high-tech knapping by machinery.  Otherwise, as this generation passes, our ‘stuff’ will end up in yard sales.  The library in this repository should include the personal libraries of noted pioneers in the field as well as correspondence.  Don’t let our books on paper become extinct!  It should also be a place where retired, tired, or deceased researchers may donate or will their leftover productions.  Crafters deserve a better fate than having their works ending up in some big yard sale of sticks and stones.  It should also include a sales shop where worthy crafters may have their replicas and reports sold not only among each other but also to the public at large.  Sales could go toward funding on-going projects.  There would also be a facility to put/store raw materials - materials such as flint, antlers, bones, and the like.  These could be leftovers from finished projects, or simply a place where material donations could go - to be shared by all.  Sales could possibly be not only a source of income, but also where those without funding could obtain material without cost or borrow for a time - up for grabs – no waste.

Let us each ask ourselves this: where will our precious possessions be in 100 years from now?  What can we do now to prevent the history of our endeavours from being forgotten, destroyed, or burned (as, unfortunately, we are doing with too many of our house reconstructions).  What are we doing to prepare the 2nd and 3rd generations, our children and grandchildren for how to appreciate, protect, and otherwise deal with these the products of we, their ancestors?  Yes, we will become ancestors some day – at 74 years old I am getting pretty close now.

This problem has been overcome by many European researchers, but many in the US do not have a catalogue of their productions.  I would suggest some kind of listing, and insignia, as the SPT endorses, so in the future their works may be identified – by maker, project, nations, etc.

The Bulletin of Primitive Technology is grasping at straws for articles.  Spread the basic topics around more; both specialize and generalize. It needs to stick to what has worked, avoiding tangents. 

Stop burning down perfectly good reconstructions just because you don’t know what to do with them.  Instead, researchers should engage in deep time studies such as were accomplished with the Old Rag Project and Overton Down.

Researchers should spend more time on making experimental archaeology relevant to archaeology.  We need to predict what should be expected and let the archaeologists explain that.  I laid some groundwork for this during my research conducted at Lejre between 2004 and 2006, the reports of which exist at Lejre as well as in Volume III of my forthcoming dagger book.  We may never be able to distinguish the difference in the debitage or on the flake scars on the bifaces, but there must be some difference, for every change in behaviour yields a slightly difference result.  So get out there and make those predictions and let experimental archaeology stand in the service of Archaeology.  If it’s not relevant is just playing with toys again.

What have you learned from your experiences as a practitioner of Experimental Archaeology?

First off, I have gained a great appreciation for the past, for other cultures and other times.  I have also learned a lot about my own culture, self-reliance, and the problems of worldwide technologies. 

It has been said that we are currently in the ‘Golden Age’ of flintknapping.  In the 70’s, ‘replicas’ were not as ‘good’ as originals.  Now they are ‘better,’ more controlled, more accurate, more precise – in other words they are true replicas and more reliable.  In some cases, knappers testing their skill levels have gone beyond relevance to archaeology, creating works of art.  This, in itself is not a drawback until one begins to approach the ‘dark side’ via the use of modern tools and technologies not used in the past.

I have also learned that I, and other knappers, am guilty of ‘hoarding’.  As I ponder my stockpiles of obsidian and other lithic materials, while also pondering my few remaining days, I realize that I have acquired far more materials than I will ever knap.  Yes, I needed it for my classes, but I should have stopped amassing it years ago.  The same may be said of the knapper from Idaho, from Dallas, from Denmark.  Presumably, these materials will be circulated in the future and not just discarded.  Still, I would encourage future knappers to collect only what will be used for research and stop hoarding.  And so we learn.

I learned ways to help others in medical need.  For instance, I learned from Crabtree how to produce obsidian surgical scalpels suitable for surgery today.

I learned how to clarify archaeological assumptions, in the service of archaeology, by scientific experimental testing – such as correcting population estimates through my work with the Cahokia House Project.

I learned how to introduce stone knives into the cutlery world so as to be taken seriously by modern knife collectors and bow hunters. 

I also learned that I am hopelessly out-dated and will never catch up.  At the same time I have been able to maintain my standards with consistency and reliability in an ever-changing universe. And that has provided me and mine with a sense of trust.

What differences do you see between how Experimental Archaeology is practiced in the United States and in Europe?

I see very little experimental archaeology being practiced in the USA nowadays.  It seems to be exclusively ‘primitive technology’ and ‘primitivism,’ if you will.  In Europe I see what I consider to be serious testing being practiced extensively and on grand scales. Practitioners in Europe seem to have a pride in their country that we don’t have.  And this is probably because historically that is where their roots are.  We are usually limited to American Indian cultures.  However, the European interest is often restricted to academia.  There are less hobby workers and volunteers who work without pay.  There also seems to be little interest in ‘dark side’ knapping, though the Internet seems to be eroding away the traditional modes, unfortunately. 

There is a lot more quality housebuilding, but little in the way of projects.  Also, they are seem too eager to burn down their houses there, though the Cahokia archaeologists are just as guilty. 

In Europe there are a lot more experimental research centres than in the US.  There is also an increased appreciation for all technologies, not just the Stone Age.  They embrace the bronze and iron ages, etc.  They dive into technologies the Indians never were associated with.  They don’t hesitate studying and displaying bones in museums for the sake of political correctness. 

In USA we seem to be hamstrung by tensions between Native populations, archaeologists, and political awareness.  We also have many more recreational knappers – both responsible and irresponsible.  There is a great deal more ‘dark side’ knapping.  We have had little in the way of ‘projects’ since the 1970’s and from what I can tell little or no official support of experimental research. 

Is there any message you would like to leave us with?

On a personal level, I have tried to encourage a traditional philosophy.  I believe it is through traditions that cultures pass on their values from one generation to the next.  I believe that is what we should do now.  I have stressed this in flintknapping so as to have our knappers pick up the traditional tools and see where they will take us.  As opposed to the frightening contemporary trend of knapping with unauthentic tools, materials, and machinery that have no relevance to archaeology, to traditional solutions, or to whatever problems arouse our curiosity.  Otherwise, we are just playing with toys.

Looking back on my life’s work, I can see that there was too little stress upon trying to clarify archaeology.  Yes, when I do so, I was rewarded with a warm sense of satisfaction, one that I don’t get when just seeking ‘self discovery.’  I have been giving too much emphasis upon ‘self reliance,’ important as that may be to many.  My deepest interest lies in the searching out of research questions that explain archaeology, using clear thinking and an understanding of scientific investigation.

I have stressed the three levels of authenticity, Play Therapy, Primitive Technology, and Experimental Archaeology.  Arguments abound on all sides.  These levels are spelled out in my Cahokia book and they have been excerpted in the Bulletin of Primitive Technology from time to time.  They seem to fit right in with John Coles’ three levels noted in an earlier EuroREA report.  Correct or not, this is what I have tried to accomplish in this life.