Sam Kean's New Book Dinner with King Tut Explores the Wild World of Experimental Archaeology
Experimental archaeology takes a hands-on approach to understanding the past. Instead of just studying ancient objects researchers re-create them. They build 30-foot medieval catapults, perform ancient surgeries with stone tools and prepare authentic Roman banquets using techniques so traditional, not even your nonna would recognize them. The goal is to understand not just what our ancestors made but how they made it—and what it felt like to live in their world.
Our guest today is Sam Kean, a science writer who's written seven books. His latest is called Dinner with King Tut, and it explores the world of experimental archaeology. He's tried his hand at everything from ancient brain surgery to mummifying a fish, and he's here to tell us all about it.
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
Thanks so much for coming on to chat today.
Sam Kean: Well, thanks for having me.
Feltman: So what exactly is experimental archaeology, and how did you get interested in it?
Kean: Experimental archaeology involves doing things—so making things, re-creating things from the past. And I got into it because I'd always had a bit of a gripe with archaeology, traditional dirt archaeology, in that I think it's a fascinating field; you learn so much about humankind and these big, meaty questions about us—you know, who we are, where we came from—these really important questions about deep human history. So I really like that aspect of traditional archaeology.
But every time I would go to an archaeological site, I found it so boring [laughs] to be there. It was just a bunch of sunburned people sitting around with brushes and dental picks, picking out little pot shards from the dirt. It just seemed like the most unimaginable tedium possible. And so there was always this disconnect in my mind between the big, important, cool things archaeology wrestled with and the day-to-day work of the field.
But experimental archaeology got me excited because again, they were doing things, they were making things: re-creating lost recipes, making ancient stone tools—everything from that up to, you know, people making giant catapults and boats and sending those off on the ocean. So it really got me excited 'cause you're much more active, and it's a very sensory-rich field, too. So I felt like it was a lot more immersive and it was more involved and kind of immersed in the past than you get from traditional archaeology.
Feltman: Hmm, and for people who aren't familiar with the idea of experimental archaeology, what are some of the projects from recent years that stand out in your mind as particularly exciting, that our listeners might wanna go learn more about?
Kean: Well, for the book I got to attend an authentic Roman banquet [laughs], which was pretty cool. I got to try my hand at ancient surgery and tattooing. There's a lot of food stuff out there; that's probably the best entrée for people wanting to get involved, is just try to make some ancient recipes—you know, some heirloom grains, things like that. I made a fish mummy at one point for the book, and that was surprisingly easy to do, so you can mummify a fish or, you know, another small animal, something like that.
So there's a lot of cool things to do, and it kind of runs the gamut, again, from everyday things like food and tools all the way up to catapults and boats and people—making human mummies, even stuff like that. So there's really a range of activities.
Feltman: Yeah, well, and I think even some folks who, you know, have maybe come across some of these projects, like people making perfume that smells like a mummy, might be surprised at how hands-on you were able to get in the book. Could you tell us some more about some of the things you were able to experience while you were researching?
Kean: Yeah, so, like, the catapult I got to see was pretty amazing. This guy made a 30-foot tall, medieval—authentic medieval catapult. And we spent a day out—he built this in Utah—we spent a day out there in the mountains, throwing these giant garden stones around at this wall that he had built that was 250 yards away, and it was pretty magical being out there and getting to see this thing fire—being able to fire it myself, actually. So that stands out as something. That, that was probably the most fun thing I did for the book, was [laughs] seeing that giant catapult.
Then there were some things, some days, that were really painful and awful. Like, the, the surgery that I mentioned that I did, it was a, a surgery called a trepanation, so you're removing a bit of the skull, essentially. And it's startling to think about, but this is one of the most ancient surgeries ...
Feltman: Mm.
Kean: That we know of. It's thousands and thousands of years old, and it involves, you know, kind of brain surgery, of all things. And we know that people survived it because we can see new bone growth around the rim of skulls that we found with holes in it, so we know that people survived this operation. And I tried it out not on a human, on a deer head, at a sort of a survivalist school, an experimental-archaeology school in Maine, and they made some stone tools for me, so I gotta try it, you know, pretty authentic. And the stone tools worked really well at first.
You can get a really, really sharp edge on a stone tool, and obsidian even—it's a type of volcanic rock—you can get a sharper edge on that than even modern surgical-steel scalpels ...
Feltman: Wow.
Kean: They form a really, really sharp edge. The problem with stone tools is that they wear down quickly ...
Feltman: Right.
Kean: And so after I made the first, initial cut—I was removing a triangular-shaped piece—after I, I made the initial cut, the one leg of the triangle, it went really well for the first cut, but after that the stone tool got worn down, and after that it was just a war of attrition ...
Feltman: Mm.
Kean: Of me sort of grinding my way through this skull. I was just sitting there—there were flies biting me; it was hot. I was really upset and getting frustrated. But that was a good learning experience in and of itself, just to show you what something basic like medicine was like back then.
And the emotions eventually became an important part of the process. Learning things like that, you know, you get frustrated, but it really stuck with me, and it made me appreciate just how difficult things were for our ancestors and made me appreciate the fact that they did all this work and we wouldn't be here if they hadn't.
Feltman: Yeah, did those hands-on experiences change your perspective of the past in any other ways, beyond just appreciating how difficult things were?
Kean: It made me appreciate how good some of the technology was.
Feltman: Mm.
Kean: I was surprised at how—yeah, that you can get stone tools that are very, very sharp, form a very nice edge. I think we have sort of a narrow view of technology nowadays. We think about electronic gizmos as technology; they're sort of synonymous, almost, in our minds. But they were really good about practical chemistry, everyday biology—you know, observing other creatures, observing plants, things like that. And I think we've lost some of that nowadays. So it did open my mind up and helped me appreciate the really nice technologies that people had in the past.
Feltman: And you mentioned in the book that experimental archaeology is sometimes dismissed as kind of, like, a showy form of theater more than a science. What would you argue is the scientific value of sort of actively re-creating the past?
Kean: There are some cases where we just don't have information about how people did things. So the best examples of that in the book are with Egyptian mummies and how they built the pyramids in Egypt. We just don't know how they did things, especially with the pyramids [laughs]; we have no idea how they did that, which is kind of embarrassing for archaeologists, that they don't know this, but we just don't have any information.
So by running these experiments you can learn things and you can rule some things out. So I think it's valuable 'cause it can actively teach us things about the past. And I think by doing certain things, even something basic like making bread or beer or something like that, you start to ask more questions and different questions, and it teaches you aspects of the process that you would not have thought to ask about otherwise.
And there were some cases in the book as well where—there was one instance with a chef and one instance with a, a hairdresser who got interested in Roman archaeology, and they read these papers by classicists, by historians, by archaeologists, and they, even within a few paragraphs, realized that [the authors] had no idea what they were talking about [laughs]: they didn't know how to cook properly; they didn't know how to style hair properly. And because [the chef and the hairdresser] had this outside expertise they could make a lot of progress. These people who didn't have the expertise were just theorizing without any real evidence or basis ...
Feltman: Mm.
Kean: For their conclusion. So it can help you avoid going down wrong paths, and in some cases it can answer questions or evoke questions that we just wouldn't ask otherwise.
Feltman: Yeah, very cool, and I mean, I'm sure this really runs the gamut, but in your experience who are the people who are creating these experiments? You know, how are they getting interested in these questions?
Kean: Yeah, it really does run the gamut. In some cases they are traditional professors or credentialed archaeologists who realize they couldn't answer the questions they wanted to if they didn't try some experiments out, so they just decided to try 'em out. And in some cases, I think, they wanted to connect with their area of study a little bit more. And again, it's such a sensory-rich field—you feel more immersed in the past when you do these kind of things—so it helped them have a deeper connection with their field.
Then there are amateurs, people who just got obsessed [laughs] with some topic—and amateurs in the best sense of the word, in that they just loved the topic and wanted to learn all they could about it. They're not getting paid to do it, but they have a deep knowledge of the field, and they just decided to try something new and different. So they are a part of the field as well.
And then another really important aspect is there's a lot of native and Indigenous communities who have either kept traditions alive or they're trying to revive traditions that got stamped out by colonialism, missionaries, whatever the case was. And in a lot of cases they're the ones going to the archaeologists and teaching them how things were based on either things they have kept alive or lore they might know.
So all of those groups are kind of working together, and I think that's part of the fun of the field, is that you can get insights from a lot of different people in a lot of different places. So it was fun to meet all of 'em.
Feltman: Did any of the experiments you participated in in the book change the way you do things in everyday life? Like, I don't know, for example, have you picked up some Roman culinary techniques [laughs] or anything of that nature?
Kean: One thing it did do: I sort of view the world itself a little differently in that ...
Feltman: Mm-hmm.
Kean: Before I would walk down the street where I live in D.C., and there were a lot of trees in this neighborhood, but before to me it was just sort of this green canopy overhead; it was almost like decoration. And now I see it and I, I'm better about telling individual trees apart—you know, 'This is this type of tree. This is this type of tree.' And I also look at the trees differently because I can see them as, you know, a resource: the wood that they have—the acorns that they have are a food source. So I look at things like that differently, and—even, like, rocks on the ground, I can look at those and say, 'Oh, that'd be a good hammerstone for making tools,' or 'That's a good type of rock to make a tool with.'
So I feel a little more connected in the sense that it's not just, again, decoration, it's more, you know, their resources, and I feel like I understand that aspect of nature better because of the experiences I had.
Feltman: And is there anything that you really wanted to try that you, you weren't able to?
Kean: I did get to do, in Micronesia, a little bit with navigation there. So I got to go out in a boat, and they taught me a few things about navigation. I would really love, at some point, to get way out into Polynesia, maybe, even and be on an authentic ship like they used thousands of years ago and just sort of set sail and, you know, head out for an island you can't see over the horizon and just navigate with all of the amazing tricks they knew about, you know, the stars but also looking at wave patterns, wind patterns, migration patterns of birds. So at some point I'd love to take a long ocean trip on one of those authentic ships.
Feltman: Very cool. Well, thank you so much for coming on to talk about the book. I'm sure our listeners will love it, so this has been great.
Kean: Well, thanks for having me.
Feltman: That's all for today's episode. Don't forget to check out Dinner with King Tut for more on the wild world of experimental archaeology. We'll be back on Monday with our usual news roundup.
Science Quickly is produced by me, Rachel Feltman, along with Fonda Mwangi, Kelso Harper and Jeff DelViscio. This episode was edited by Alex Sugiura. Shayna Posses and Aaron Shattuck fact-check our show. Our theme music was composed by Dominic Smith. Subscribe to Scientific American for more up-to-date and in-depth science news.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scientific American
2 days ago
- Scientific American
Spellements: Friday, August 15, 2025
How to Play Click the timer at the top of the game page to pause and see a clue to the science-related word in this puzzle! The objective of the game is to find words that can be made with the given letters such that all the words include the letter in the center. You can enter letters by clicking on them or typing them in. Press Enter to submit a word. Letters can be used multiple times in a single word, and words must contain four letters or more for this size layout. Select the Play Together icon in the navigation bar to invite a friend to work together on this puzzle. Pangrams, words which incorporate all the letters available, appear in bold and receive bonus points. One such word is always drawn from a recent Scientific American article—look out for a popup when you find it! You can view hints for words in the puzzle by hitting the life preserver icon in the game display. The dictionary we use for this game misses a lot of science words, such as apatite and coati. Let us know at games@ any extra science terms you found, along with your name and place of residence,
Scientific American
2 days ago
- Scientific American
's First Issue, the Solar System Grew by a Planet
In astronomy, 180 years is a very long time—maybe not for the goings-on in the universe but certainly for our understanding of it. When Scientific American published its very first issue 180 years ago this month, our view of the cosmos was substantively different. We had no idea of the scale of the universe or even if anything existed outside our Milky Way galaxy. We didn't know how stars were born, what powered them or where comets came from—or that supernovae were even a thing. Closer to home, astronomers were wildly guessing about how our solar system formed and how Earth's moon came to exist. Heck, we didn't even know how many planets were in the solar system! On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. To be fair, we still don't. But our understanding of our sun's family was still pretty sketchy in August 1845, and it was scarcely a year later that our solar system would grow by an entire planet. For all of antiquity, Saturn was the most distant planet known to humanity. It wasn't until 1781 that German-British astronomer William Herschel reported seeing a slowly moving 'comet' in the constellation Taurus as he scanned the skies with his telescope. It took two years before orbital calculations showed it was not a comet at all but instead a giant planet orbiting the sun beyond Saturn. Uranus, the first new planet ever discovered, was found by accident. Over the ensuing decades, though, astronomers saw that Uranus was misbehaving. Using the mathematical equations governing gravity and orbits, they calculated the shape of Uranus's orbit and used that to predict where the planet should be in the sky. Observations indicated that the actual position of Uranus significantly deviated from what was predicted, however. Sometimes it 'pulled ahead' of the calculated location, and sometimes it lagged behind. Many astronomers wondered these anomalies were caused by another planet lurking unseen beyond Uranus, which itself was, at best, barely visible to the naked eye; a planet farther out would be much dimmer and could have easily escaped detection. But where was it? The sky is huge when you're trying to search for a dim point of light over thousands of square degrees; remember, back then, skywatchers only had their telescopes and eyes. No cameras or detectors were available. Searching for a faint, distant world was like looking for a planetary needle in a cosmic haystack. The mathematics of orbital mechanics offered a shortcut, though. If you assumed a given orbit for the planet, then its position over time could be roughly calculated by its effect on Uranus. This sort of 'X marks the spot' calculation can be done in moments on today's computers, but in the mid-19th century it was done by hand, and the word 'tedious' hardly describes the scope of the work. Still, in the 1840s, independently of each other, two men attempted exactly this. John Couch Adams, a British mathematician and astronomer at the University of Cambridge, worked on the calculations in his spare time starting in 1843. He reported his findings to James Challis, director of the Cambridge Observatory at the time, and to England's Astronomer Royal George Biddell Airy, both of whom treated it chiefly as an interesting bit of math rather than a guide for finding a potential planet. In their defense, however, Adams's calculations were incomplete and not yet suitable to be put into action. At the same time, French astronomer Urbain Jean Joseph Le Verrier was also working on calculating the presumptive planet's position. He announced his results at a public meeting of the French Academy of Sciences on June 1, 1846. I'll note that Le Verrier only disclosed his calculated locations for the planet on the sky, not his estimates for its mass or orbit. Still, this was enough to cause a minor panic across the Channel when Le Verrier's news reached Cambridge, with Airy realizing the similarity to what Adams was working on. Because discovering the first new planet in 65 years was a matter of great scientific and national pride, Challis went to the telescope and began an urgent, earnest search. Like the calculations themselves, this was a tedious undertaking that involved scanning the sky and comparing what was seen with hand-drawn, not entirely accurate star maps. Making matters even worse, Adams had been working on new solutions to the planet's location and his calculations were flawed, so Challis was looking in the wrong part of the sky. On August 31, 1846, Le Verrier made another presentation to the academy, this time also reporting the putative new world's calculated mass and orbit. Three weeks later, assistant astronomer Johann Gottfried Galle at the Berlin Observatory read of Le Verrier's work. Assisted by a student named Heinrich Louis d'Arrest, Galle took to the observatory's 24-centimeter telescope on the evening of September 23 to look for the planet. Using better star maps than the British had, they sighted the world in the early morning hours of September 24, less than a degree from the position Le Verrier had predicted. As the story is told, Galle read off the coordinates of stars he saw through the eyepiece, and at one point d'Arrest excitedly shouted, 'That star is not on the map!' Thus, Neptune was discovered. Le Verrier is credited for the discovery work, though Adams, upon insistence from the British at the time, is generally also given co-credit. This is controversial because it's not clear just how accurate Adams's results were— see the article 'The Case of the Pilfered Planet,' by science historians William Sheehan, Nicholas Kollerstrom and Craig B. Waff, in the December 2004 issue of Scientific American for details. Still, while Uranus was found by chance, Neptune was found by math (with a helping hand from happenstance). Ironically, that night in September 1846 was not the first time it had ever been observed. Galileo took copious notes when, centuries earlier, he first turned his crude telescope to the sky; we now know he saw Neptune in 1612 and 1613 but mistook it for a star. (Too bad; had he figured it out, he would've been famous.) Neptune had been spotted many other times before as well but passed over for the same reasons. In a very cruel irony, records reveal that Challis himself saw Neptune twice in August 1846 but failed to notice its true nature. I've observed Neptune many times through my own small telescope; it's a wan aqua dot, barely discernable from a faint background star. Still, seeing it myself—knowing those photons took many hours to fly across billions of kilometers of space only to fall into my telescope and onto my retina—has been a thrill. Of course, I've had a huge advantage over Galle, with modern star maps and software that have told me exactly where to look, but that has only shone a spotlight on what an achievement the discovery was almost 180 years ago. And what of the 18 decades since? The universe is vastly larger than we then imagined in 1846, and we can now find Neptune-like planets orbiting other stars by the hundreds. We've also discovered thousands more objects orbiting the sun beyond Neptune, including Pluto. It's almost routine. As for Neptune itself, we've observed it with an array of space telescopes and even sent a space probe, Voyager 2, to fly past the enigmatic giant planet, allowing us to see its array of bizarre moons and weather patterns up close. Scientific American has been there along the way, too, with its first issue in August 1845 nearly coinciding with the discovery of the last known major planet of the solar system. Researchers have taken immense steps in unlocking even deeper secrets of the cosmos over the past 180 years, and during that time, this magazine has played a major role in informing the public about their findings. I'm proud to be a part of this long-running adventure.
Scientific American
2 days ago
- Scientific American
Sam Kean's New Book Dinner with King Tut Explores the Wild World of Experimental Archaeology
Rachel Feltman: For Scientific American 's Science Quickly, I'm Rachel Feltman. Experimental archaeology takes a hands-on approach to understanding the past. Instead of just studying ancient objects researchers re-create them. They build 30-foot medieval catapults, perform ancient surgeries with stone tools and prepare authentic Roman banquets using techniques so traditional, not even your nonna would recognize them. The goal is to understand not just what our ancestors made but how they made it—and what it felt like to live in their world. Our guest today is Sam Kean, a science writer who's written seven books. His latest is called Dinner with King Tut, and it explores the world of experimental archaeology. He's tried his hand at everything from ancient brain surgery to mummifying a fish, and he's here to tell us all about it. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. Thanks so much for coming on to chat today. Sam Kean: Well, thanks for having me. Feltman: So what exactly is experimental archaeology, and how did you get interested in it? Kean: Experimental archaeology involves doing things—so making things, re-creating things from the past. And I got into it because I'd always had a bit of a gripe with archaeology, traditional dirt archaeology, in that I think it's a fascinating field; you learn so much about humankind and these big, meaty questions about us—you know, who we are, where we came from—these really important questions about deep human history. So I really like that aspect of traditional archaeology. But every time I would go to an archaeological site, I found it so boring [laughs] to be there. It was just a bunch of sunburned people sitting around with brushes and dental picks, picking out little pot shards from the dirt. It just seemed like the most unimaginable tedium possible. And so there was always this disconnect in my mind between the big, important, cool things archaeology wrestled with and the day-to-day work of the field. But experimental archaeology got me excited because again, they were doing things, they were making things: re-creating lost recipes, making ancient stone tools—everything from that up to, you know, people making giant catapults and boats and sending those off on the ocean. So it really got me excited 'cause you're much more active, and it's a very sensory-rich field, too. So I felt like it was a lot more immersive and it was more involved and kind of immersed in the past than you get from traditional archaeology. Feltman: Hmm, and for people who aren't familiar with the idea of experimental archaeology, what are some of the projects from recent years that stand out in your mind as particularly exciting, that our listeners might wanna go learn more about? Kean: Well, for the book I got to attend an authentic Roman banquet [laughs], which was pretty cool. I got to try my hand at ancient surgery and tattooing. There's a lot of food stuff out there; that's probably the best entrée for people wanting to get involved, is just try to make some ancient recipes—you know, some heirloom grains, things like that. I made a fish mummy at one point for the book, and that was surprisingly easy to do, so you can mummify a fish or, you know, another small animal, something like that. So there's a lot of cool things to do, and it kind of runs the gamut, again, from everyday things like food and tools all the way up to catapults and boats and people—making human mummies, even stuff like that. So there's really a range of activities. Feltman: Yeah, well, and I think even some folks who, you know, have maybe come across some of these projects, like people making perfume that smells like a mummy, might be surprised at how hands-on you were able to get in the book. Could you tell us some more about some of the things you were able to experience while you were researching? Kean: Yeah, so, like, the catapult I got to see was pretty amazing. This guy made a 30-foot tall, medieval—authentic medieval catapult. And we spent a day out—he built this in Utah—we spent a day out there in the mountains, throwing these giant garden stones around at this wall that he had built that was 250 yards away, and it was pretty magical being out there and getting to see this thing fire—being able to fire it myself, actually. So that stands out as something. That, that was probably the most fun thing I did for the book, was [laughs] seeing that giant catapult. Then there were some things, some days, that were really painful and awful. Like, the, the surgery that I mentioned that I did, it was a, a surgery called a trepanation, so you're removing a bit of the skull, essentially. And it's startling to think about, but this is one of the most ancient surgeries ... Feltman: Mm. Kean: That we know of. It's thousands and thousands of years old, and it involves, you know, kind of brain surgery, of all things. And we know that people survived it because we can see new bone growth around the rim of skulls that we found with holes in it, so we know that people survived this operation. And I tried it out not on a human, on a deer head, at a sort of a survivalist school, an experimental-archaeology school in Maine, and they made some stone tools for me, so I gotta try it, you know, pretty authentic. And the stone tools worked really well at first. You can get a really, really sharp edge on a stone tool, and obsidian even—it's a type of volcanic rock—you can get a sharper edge on that than even modern surgical-steel scalpels ... Feltman: Wow. Kean: They form a really, really sharp edge. The problem with stone tools is that they wear down quickly ... Feltman: Right. Kean: And so after I made the first, initial cut—I was removing a triangular-shaped piece—after I, I made the initial cut, the one leg of the triangle, it went really well for the first cut, but after that the stone tool got worn down, and after that it was just a war of attrition ... Feltman: Mm. Kean: Of me sort of grinding my way through this skull. I was just sitting there—there were flies biting me; it was hot. I was really upset and getting frustrated. But that was a good learning experience in and of itself, just to show you what something basic like medicine was like back then. And the emotions eventually became an important part of the process. Learning things like that, you know, you get frustrated, but it really stuck with me, and it made me appreciate just how difficult things were for our ancestors and made me appreciate the fact that they did all this work and we wouldn't be here if they hadn't. Feltman: Yeah, did those hands-on experiences change your perspective of the past in any other ways, beyond just appreciating how difficult things were? Kean: It made me appreciate how good some of the technology was. Feltman: Mm. Kean: I was surprised at how—yeah, that you can get stone tools that are very, very sharp, form a very nice edge. I think we have sort of a narrow view of technology nowadays. We think about electronic gizmos as technology; they're sort of synonymous, almost, in our minds. But they were really good about practical chemistry, everyday biology—you know, observing other creatures, observing plants, things like that. And I think we've lost some of that nowadays. So it did open my mind up and helped me appreciate the really nice technologies that people had in the past. Feltman: And you mentioned in the book that experimental archaeology is sometimes dismissed as kind of, like, a showy form of theater more than a science. What would you argue is the scientific value of sort of actively re-creating the past? Kean: There are some cases where we just don't have information about how people did things. So the best examples of that in the book are with Egyptian mummies and how they built the pyramids in Egypt. We just don't know how they did things, especially with the pyramids [laughs]; we have no idea how they did that, which is kind of embarrassing for archaeologists, that they don't know this, but we just don't have any information. So by running these experiments you can learn things and you can rule some things out. So I think it's valuable 'cause it can actively teach us things about the past. And I think by doing certain things, even something basic like making bread or beer or something like that, you start to ask more questions and different questions, and it teaches you aspects of the process that you would not have thought to ask about otherwise. And there were some cases in the book as well where—there was one instance with a chef and one instance with a, a hairdresser who got interested in Roman archaeology, and they read these papers by classicists, by historians, by archaeologists, and they, even within a few paragraphs, realized that [the authors] had no idea what they were talking about [laughs]: they didn't know how to cook properly; they didn't know how to style hair properly. And because [the chef and the hairdresser] had this outside expertise they could make a lot of progress. These people who didn't have the expertise were just theorizing without any real evidence or basis ... Feltman: Mm. Kean: For their conclusion. So it can help you avoid going down wrong paths, and in some cases it can answer questions or evoke questions that we just wouldn't ask otherwise. Feltman: Yeah, very cool, and I mean, I'm sure this really runs the gamut, but in your experience who are the people who are creating these experiments? You know, how are they getting interested in these questions? Kean: Yeah, it really does run the gamut. In some cases they are traditional professors or credentialed archaeologists who realize they couldn't answer the questions they wanted to if they didn't try some experiments out, so they just decided to try 'em out. And in some cases, I think, they wanted to connect with their area of study a little bit more. And again, it's such a sensory-rich field—you feel more immersed in the past when you do these kind of things—so it helped them have a deeper connection with their field. Then there are amateurs, people who just got obsessed [laughs] with some topic—and amateurs in the best sense of the word, in that they just loved the topic and wanted to learn all they could about it. They're not getting paid to do it, but they have a deep knowledge of the field, and they just decided to try something new and different. So they are a part of the field as well. And then another really important aspect is there's a lot of native and Indigenous communities who have either kept traditions alive or they're trying to revive traditions that got stamped out by colonialism, missionaries, whatever the case was. And in a lot of cases they're the ones going to the archaeologists and teaching them how things were based on either things they have kept alive or lore they might know. So all of those groups are kind of working together, and I think that's part of the fun of the field, is that you can get insights from a lot of different people in a lot of different places. So it was fun to meet all of 'em. Feltman: Did any of the experiments you participated in in the book change the way you do things in everyday life? Like, I don't know, for example, have you picked up some Roman culinary techniques [laughs] or anything of that nature? Kean: One thing it did do: I sort of view the world itself a little differently in that ... Feltman: Mm-hmm. Kean: Before I would walk down the street where I live in D.C., and there were a lot of trees in this neighborhood, but before to me it was just sort of this green canopy overhead; it was almost like decoration. And now I see it and I, I'm better about telling individual trees apart—you know, 'This is this type of tree. This is this type of tree.' And I also look at the trees differently because I can see them as, you know, a resource: the wood that they have—the acorns that they have are a food source. So I look at things like that differently, and—even, like, rocks on the ground, I can look at those and say, 'Oh, that'd be a good hammerstone for making tools,' or 'That's a good type of rock to make a tool with.' So I feel a little more connected in the sense that it's not just, again, decoration, it's more, you know, their resources, and I feel like I understand that aspect of nature better because of the experiences I had. Feltman: And is there anything that you really wanted to try that you, you weren't able to? Kean: I did get to do, in Micronesia, a little bit with navigation there. So I got to go out in a boat, and they taught me a few things about navigation. I would really love, at some point, to get way out into Polynesia, maybe, even and be on an authentic ship like they used thousands of years ago and just sort of set sail and, you know, head out for an island you can't see over the horizon and just navigate with all of the amazing tricks they knew about, you know, the stars but also looking at wave patterns, wind patterns, migration patterns of birds. So at some point I'd love to take a long ocean trip on one of those authentic ships. Feltman: Very cool. Well, thank you so much for coming on to talk about the book. I'm sure our listeners will love it, so this has been great. Kean: Well, thanks for having me. Feltman: That's all for today's episode. Don't forget to check out Dinner with King Tut for more on the wild world of experimental archaeology. We'll be back on Monday with our usual news roundup. Science Quickly is produced by me, Rachel Feltman, along with Fonda Mwangi, Kelso Harper and Jeff DelViscio. This episode was edited by Alex Sugiura. Shayna Posses and Aaron Shattuck fact-check our show. Our theme music was composed by Dominic Smith. Subscribe to Scientific American for more up-to-date and in-depth science news.
