[3] Archaeometallurgical experimentation typically takes place in controlled laboratories or tries to remain as authentic as possible by being conducted using only the materials and facilities that were available to the subjects whose technology is trying to be reconstructed.
[4] A constant problem in any type of experimental archaeology is the cultural distance between the archaeologist and the individual who originally was involved with the metallurgy.
[9] Understanding the process of firesetting has been a crucial element to the development of an archaeological history of mining and as such has been the subject of several experiments to reproduce the technique.
[14][15][16][17][18] The experimental mining tool assemblage are primarily made up of hammerstones and antler picks that are reconstructed using willow and hazel sticks, rawhide, and hemp string to implement various hafting techniques and methods of utilization.
Then, through chemical or microscopic analysis, the products of the smelt are analyzed and compared with the findings of archaeological excavation in order to examine the likelihood of various manufacturing processes.
[32][1][33] In his experiments, Cushing used antler and stone tools to cut out sheets of copper and puncture round holes in them through a method of pressure and grinding.
Platinum is mostly an issue in South America and is typically left out from experimental archaeometallurgy because of its traditional use as a powdered metal as an additive to produce alloys.
[45] Several sets of data can be collected during the experimental process of smelting including fuel consumption rates,[43][46][47] the effects of variation in furnace airflow,[43][48][49] temperatures,[42] production time,[42] and chemical composition.
[50] The replication of technique in copper production includes a vast number of possibilities in trying to recreate what has been found through archaeological excavation.
Roberts and Ottaway[56] conducted such experimental reconstructions by casting bronze axes using them in a preconceived manner and then comparing the results against known archaeological remains.
Results gathered from such experimentation have found that objects have comparable wear patterns and there are European socketed axes that were deposited used as well as unused.
[56] Tool mark identification can also go the opposite ways using experimental reconstruction to show the difference between various material media and the wear patterns they leave.