From flax to linen. Experiments with flax - Ribe VikingeCenter

and experience that are the important aspects for research internal purposes, and therefore have
spurred more debate.
The distinction between experiment and experience in archaeology seems intuitively correct,
and needs to be explored further. It has also become increasingly clear that while “experiment”
represents an important type of archaeological investigation which follows the principles of
laboratory work in the sciences, “experience” is an equally important key to understanding past
processes and materials (Cunningham et al. (eds.) 2008).
We can certainly ascribe to this view. Our work with flax and linen has given us an
understanding of the processes and technologies, that there was no other way to obtain. One
example is the linen clubs. Most archaeologists mention them – in passing – as an alternative to
the breaker, when presenting flax processing in prehistory. Having tried we can safely say that
they are not. In fact we had severe difficulties in getting them to work at all in breaking the flax.
Reynolds claimed that there is “a great gulf between the experimental and the experiential”
(Reynolds 1999: 394). That may be, although experience is often achieved through experiment.
But we must maintain that even experience produces valid and qualitative new scientific
knowledge which is important to the understanding of prehistoric man - and woman. It is not least
in this context that the following work must be understood.
16