Cognitive Archaeology

[Palaeocory]

For me the most interesting aspect of bushcraft is learning primitive skills and connecting with ancient knowledge that, in some way, might open a window to the way people thought thousands of years (even hundreds of thousands of years!) ago. The study of ancestral minds through ancient materials is called 'cognitive archaeology', and I think the bushcraft world has a lot to offer its research because of the experimental and experiential knowledge it produces.

Members on here might be interested in an online certificate at the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, a (roughly) one year undergraduate or graduate certificate that anyone can take: http://www.uccs.edu/~cca/

One of the courses is a new field school that runs in the summer (not online since you have to be there!), called 'Wild Cognition' where you get practical tuition in a lot of primitive skills, but also lectures concerning the archaeology and psychology of the technology. Check out the syllabus (http://www.uccs.edu/Documents/cca/ANTH 4205-5205 Wild Cognition Syllabus.pdf), there's lots of interesting skills to learn. At the end you live as 'stone age humans' in the camp using the skills you've learned! I'm hoping to go next summer (it's also offered as a stand alone course that anyone can go on!)

I thought there might be some people here that this course would suit - cognitive archaeology (and experimental archaeology, and archaeology in general!) could really benefit from people with practical bushcraft skills and outdoor know-how... too many armchair archaeologists don't get their hands dirty enough sometimes I think

 

[Macaroon]

That's all very interesting indeed; I'll do a bit of reading tomorrow, too tired right now.......Thanks for putting this up.

 

[Toddy]

There's a lot of that kind of theory that has been discredited and widely disputed though. It's a bit of throwback to the 70's and early 80's really. Processual archaeology vs post processual archaeology (i.e. that all interpretation, and archaeological data, is in itself subjective not objective since it is affected by interpretation and the social reality of the interpreter/archaeologist)

Interesting from a bush crafting point of view, but a tad limited in it's scope for archaeology, no ?

M

 

[Palaeocory]

Not at all limited - cognitive archaeology is a subject, not an approach I'm sure things people thought in the 70s and 80s regarding the mind have been updated and changed - but that's no different from any other subject.

For example, my research looks at how technology is transmitted (by teaching stone tool technology in different ways) and the different cognitive requirements that teaching requires, so that we can look at archaeological assemblages and find patterns in the tool variability etc to support that teaching has taken place in Palaeolithic contexts. The ability to teach signals other abilities that had to be there to support that type of awareness - I'm connecting that through modern psychology studies to language abilities

Since we're talking about cognition and minds, things that are intangible... it's always pretty controversial. It doesn't need to be though, people just have to provide rigorous arguments!

 

[Tengu]

Um, me too....Dont we have Anthropology for all that?

Our tutor was telling us about two close but different tribes in Australia. Each had similar burial rites but radically differing reasons.

If you found just the sites then you would naturaly assume they were the same tribe with the same beliefs.

 

[Toddy]

Spot on Tengu

Processual archaeology makes sense to those who use a known modern example (and often the only example) as a model of behaviour of the people of the past.
It fails to take account of just the kind of scenario that Tengu wrote about.

It lays claim to being 'scientific' but without science's failsafe of theory.

M

 

[Palaeocory]

Sorry Toddy I think you have a false impression of what the cognitive archaeology is about - it's not processual or positivisic or marxist, etc., though you may approach it in one of those ways. Many people approach it in a very Cartesian way, yet myself and a lot of other approach it in a more materialist way. It's a subject (the study of ancient minds from material culture), not an approach. Those who study it scientifically are being scientific - those who don't, aren't.

Here is a popular book on the subject with a free Google preview: https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl...e4Y#v=onepage&q=cognitive archaeology&f=false - it might give you a better idea of the study area. No one is saying the reasons for a burial rite - more likely they are supporting that there WERE burial rights, with evidence. Archaeologists aren't psychic, but they can, say, support at what point in human evolution language evolved for example.

 

[Toddy]

No they can't.
The bones of the individuals in the past give supposition to the voice box that allows modern speech, but communication is seen in all mammals……define language.
Studies in others of the great apes clearly shows that language is present in all of them.

That's a side track to this though.

Cognitive archaeology is trying to be a step on from post processual, fine, but that does not make it possible for modern humans to gain (or to claim ultimate) true insight, beyond that particular event, from, "At the end you live as 'stone age humans' in the camp using the skills you've learned!".

You take your culture, your cultural reference points, your own abilities, faults, failings, successes, history, etc., with you into that 'scene'…..I would argue that instead of taking a true 'cognitive archaeology' view of it, that indeed it seems a very retrograde step into the 'dry positivisim' of the processual archaeology.

American anthropology often seems a little odd to Europeans. They use human examples as they learn, instead of learning the basics without emotionalism. Then they kind of mix anthropology and archaeology and try to fit the latter into their modern anthropolgy mindset.

Each to their own, but as I said, from a bushcraft point of view, interesting, but not really 'archaeology'.
More akin to the Tom Brown school of stuff.

You do realise that all the popcorn smilies are going to pop up

M

 

[Old Bones]

could really benefit from people with practical bushcraft skills and outdoor know-how... too many armchair archaeologists don't get their hands dirty enough sometimes I think

Lots of archeologists do actually have those sort of skills - flint knappers are all over the place (you can normally tell them by the number of cuts, etc they have on their hands), and archeo-botany is another big area. What sort of tree was used for what purpose, what sort of landscape do you need for gathering shellfish, etc. I was lectured by Gordon Hillman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Hillman once or twice (lovely bloke), and he certainly got his hands dirty! (as did the late David Harris) The information I heard was that he tended to have more sick days than most, due to his food gathering experiments often not being all that edible!

There are people who specialise in wooden boats, buildings, tools, etc, and I know from personal experience that when people build things like RB farmsteads, they use original techniques (I found out the hard way that cutting seasoned oak with no more than a two person saw is really knackering). And there are loads of people who use ethnography/anthropology research, including actually living with tribes, etc. I remember one prehistorian who used to go off to rural Rumania to learn more about Bronze Age peoples - he sometimes dressed in a huge woolen cape and black hat which made him look like an 18th century brigand.

And even lab bods get involved - the husband of a friend of mine specialised in analysing bio remains from ancient pots, to see what had been in them - drugs apparently!

The course looks really interesting, and the two week course sounds great! Of course they are so going to need a drink and a shower afterwards...

 

[Toddy]

That's a very good point. I honestly don't know any archaeologists who don't get their hands dirty. Even the ones with secure academic tenure get out there and do it

M

 

[Tengu]

Yup. No one just sits in a museum and fondles pots any more...Not without learning to make their own.

 

[Toddy]

I went to a local pottery group to get a grasp of the basics….there I was, up to my elbow inside a carinated pot, kind of 'unstan ware' style decoration on it, when my friend said, "Mary, what are you making ?". (she was making a plant pot in the shape of a pair of wellies, iirc)
I replied, "A cinerary urn". To which Margaret replied (and I was totally engrossed in what I was doing and hadn't quite clicked that everyone in the room was listening….. ) "Mary ? what's a cinner…. ? ciner something urn?".
"It's what they put your bones into once they've cremated you", I replied…..and then realised that there was a total silence in a room of about a twenty folks and looked up and found myself the centre of some utterly appalled looks
Sod's law this game sometimes, isn't it ?

A couple of years later and my now fired pot sat beside the hearth full of marbles (I used them as weights for a warp weighted loom, in little linen bags), and another friend, one who is also an archaeologist, came to visit and she glanced into the sitting room as we passed through the hall into the kitchen,
"Mary ? why is there a coffin in your living room ?", said Helen. "That's rather nice, did you make that pot?".…..now that's a friend 'cos she made all the connections and was interested in the processes, even though she's more into costume elements.

M

 

[Dave]

...............

 

[Palaeocory]

Hi Old Bones! You should come on the course in the summer Yeah, there are a few archaeologists around with these skills. It'd be nice to see more experimental archaeology skills being brought to the fore though. Do you know how many lithic analysts I know that don't flit knap? My colleagues have befriended a great bushcrafter and the mix has been fantastic, on both sides I think... we've learned oodles from each other. I want to encourage more of that mixing!

Well Dave if people have the popcorn out I guess I'll have to defend all the criticism! Save some for me, munch munch much...

I guess I'll start by addressing the topic of studying the origin and evolution of language, and being informed by archaeology... it absolutely can and does happen (and it's all I've been doing for the last 7 years!). You can get a Masters degree in language evolution at the University of Edinburgh. There is a biannual 3-day conference on the topic that has run for more than 10 years. AND I'M TEACHING A COURSE ON IT IN THE SPRING at Southampton University, lol . It's through the continuing education department too, so anyone is welcome to register and take it... it's called The Archaeology of Language Origins. The definition of language generally used by linguists, psychologists and those studying language evolution are along the lines of (there is variation for sure), "a learned system of symbols used for intentional communication". Non-human apes do not have language, though some can be trained to use aspects of it (as can dogs, dolphins, and crows). And it's absolutely study-able. Here is a paper that gives a short overview of some of the ways, designed for skeptical linguists who don't often engage outside of their subject: http://www.ucd.ie/artspgs/langevo/langevobriefly.pdf

On the biases note: yes. Our experience of the world affects our interpretations and perception of the past. But it is important to note that biases of our own culture can colour our interpretations of a whole lot more than cognitive archaeology, and archaeology as a whole, and of the social sciences as a whole. We can still study humans. Yes there is bias; but we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water. It does not nullify cognitive archaeology as a subject. You mention American anthropology (I'm not an American anthropologist). Many of the teachers on the course I pointed out are, so maybe that's why you bring it up, but cognitive archaeology is not an American phenomenon. I can name cognitive archaeologists from Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Italy, Sweden, Indonesia, France, Spain, Canada... it's a very interdisciplinary and thus international subject.

I don't know who Tom Brown is (though I did date someone in high school by that name), but calling cognitive archaeology 'not really archaeology' just makes me sad I haven't explained the topic area well enough. So I'll give a few more examples of what sort of content a cognitive archaeology researcher might be interested in examining:

Lyn Wadley is a South African researcher that looks at residues of glues and mastics used in hafting stone tools. She studies the cognitive implications of using glue in hafting, because evidence of making and using glue to haft stone tools to a spear end etc. goes back at least 300,000 years, long before modern humans are on the scene, and when Neanderthals are the new kids on the block. Yet Neanderthals use a technique in knapping that creates very thin flat spear points (called Levallois), that is very hard to do if you're a knapper (I've been knapping for a few years and am not yet at the stage where I've even attempted it!). These points have been found with some residues of glues on them, on the proximal end where they would be hafted. Now the technology of making the glue is pretty advanced and requires forward planning and a number of ingredients: fat (or wax), charcoal, pitch from a tree - then it needs to be heated in some sort of container (a dip in a rock at least?) to a high tempurature and applied to the haft. What does all this tell us about Neanderthal intelligence? This is cognitive archaeology. Here is one of her papers: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/649836

Dietrick Stout looks at the neurological side of knapping. He looks at people's brains when they are knapping under fMRI to see the different cognitive activity of different stone knapping technologies - and there are major differences between taking off a simple flake versus fashioning a handaxe. How complex are complex knapping techniques? What can we say about the capabilities of makers of handaxes, 2 million years ago? How does the cognitive activity change with a beginner knapper compared to an expert knapper? This is cognitive archaeology. Here is one of his papers: http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/366/1567/1050.short

Ok what to address next... how about: "Yup. No one just sits in a museum and fondles pots any more...Not without learning to make their own."

This is exactly my gripe! This absolutely does happen. It is the norm. Lithic analysts are almost always not knappers (I mean it - I've been on excavations where the directors, lithic analysts, don't flintknap). People absolutely do sit in museums and fondle objects and that's it. I'm not saying every archaeologist should be engaged in the experimental side of things, or be an expert in creating what they study (I don't think numismatists should start their own mint, etc). You can be a great archaeologist and still have your hands clean, or limit your messy-time to excavation. But as an archaeologist who is involved in the experimental side of things, I often encourage colleagues to join us and engage with creating objects, because it's so great for question generation. My friends and I started the Oxford Palaeotechnology Society two years ago to give ourselves and others a chance to engage with Palaeolithic technologies in a fun way, and offer access to materials (this is often why people haven't tried it out themselves - it's difficult to get flint. It's difficult to find land where you can build a kiln and let it burn all night, scrape clay out of the side of a ditch, cut thick boughs off an oak tree, be offered a hide to tan). I've been in the Palaeolithic academic community in the south of England for the last 7 years, and a can confidently say that sitting in a sterilised lab looking at things in boxes IS the norm. So I'm doing my best to share resources and spread the fun.

And the reason I bring this up (again I'm not saying that people who prefer lab work should make whatever their studying as a hobby) is that being with others and making things is great for creating questions, for discussing the process with others, and appreciating workmanship. As my colleagues and I are interested in the cognitive side of things, we'll stand around hacking at a piece of wood shaping it into an atlatl, and considering the cognitive mechanics that go into making, and using, such a weapon. There is so much more you learn by making a piece than reading about it in a book. Especially things like time and care and skill that go into things. And by experiencing it yourself, you don't divorce yourself so much from those processes and underestimate them.

But back to cognitive archaeology. At first glance you might think 'it is impossible to study mental capacities of extinct hominids - they aren't around anymore!' - but it's not entirely true. Yes, we will never understand them to the resolution that we understand the Romans or other historical cultures that wrote everything down... we will never know their names or the colour of their socks. But it's a real underestimation of archaeology to say that there is nothing we can say about the cognitive abilities of prehistoric ancestors. I've put two examples above, and I mentioned my own research in a post above that. It's a fascinating subject, a credible subject, and the reason I brought it up here is because often bushcrafters often

1) already have an interest in the minds of ancient humans

and

2) have an important skill set that can be used in experimental situations for data generation concerning technologies and behaviours of people that made and used those technologies.

I'll leave you with one last link, an accessible and a nice before-bed book, by two of the authors that are professors on the Centre for Cognitive Archaeology's course (they teach at Colorado Springs), called How to Think Like a Neanderthal: http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-To-Think-Like-Neandertal/dp/0199742820. It involves a lot of the subject matter in a few of the courses on offer (Cognitive Evolution and Neanderthal Cognition).

If anyone is in the Oxfordshire area and want to join our Oxford Palaeotechnology Society (seach for us on Facebook), please do come along and join us on events... and if anyone wants to know more about the certificate program, feel free to ask! I might talk your ear off though

 

[Toddy]

Wow, an American answer…..don't see many of them outside the self help book adverts these days.

Comments taken out of context and answered with seemingly overwhelming and unreproachable "data".

Mince.

Shall we start from the beginning ?

Language….the bit I called the side track…
"No they can't.
The bones of the individuals in the past give supposition to the voice box that allows modern speech, but communication is seen in all mammals……define language.
Studies in others of the great apes clearly shows that language is present in all of them."

Define language….I presume that from your context that you meant the use of language to instruct others in the creative processes….cognitive archaeology…..after all Archaeology is,
"The study of human history and prehistory through the excavation of sites and the analysis of artefacts and other physical remains."
That quote is from the Oxford English Dictionary, incidentally.

Wikipedia says (this is an online forum, let's keep it easy for folks munching the popcorn to have a browse too, shall we?)

" Archaeology or archeology,[1] is the study of human activity in the past, primarily through the recovery and analysis of the material culture and environmental data that has been left behind by past human populations, which includes artifacts, architecture, biofacts (also known as eco-facts) and cultural landscapes (the archaeological record). Because archaeology employs a wide range of different procedures, it can be considered to be both a social science and a humanity,[2] and in the United States, it is thought of as a branch of anthropology,[3] although in Europe, it is viewed as a discipline in its own right, or related to other disciplines. For example, much of archaeology in the United Kingdom is considered a part the study of history, while in France it is considered part of Geology."

So, language…..hmmm, spoken word……archaeology or anthropology ?
Development of language is also very different from the acknowledgment that there is a language. The great apes manage to use Yerkish keyboards, let alone sign language….that's cognitive thought communicate using symbolism. Deaf and dumb humans also communicate successfully….does that not equate to language ?
The fully developed voice box of the modern human (at least 50,000 years in the fossil record for the bone structure of the longer throat) might allow for a much, much wider range of sounds, but it's still all language.
Anyway, that's still a side topic good luck with your conference.

Flint knapping…..my University class, half a lifetime ago, were on a Geology trip to the Yorkshire coast. We were recording the erosion of the coast, and lo, and behold !! for to our absolutely astonished eyes, (mind we came from Scotland, no flint apart from a few pebbles seawashed over from the Antrim coast, and some from Boddam in Aberdeenshire. If we found flint in Scotland, someone took it there ) there were enormous flint nodules just falling out of the glacial tilth….we added three tonnes to the bus weight coming home
We all played with flint, we all had a go at flint knapping, we even had John Lord come up and visit and demo at the University. I used some of the flint scrapers we made (and I did try a huge range, did find ones that worked best, even worked out which ones were left handed ) to scrape deer hides, rabbit skins, etc., Butchered deer, rabbit, chicken, etc., too.
Nowt new there I'm afraid, just archaeolgists having a play and getting to grips with the actual work necessary, the edge ware causes. Made the glue, tried different haftings, lashings, timber, etc., (yew was the final favoured haft, and birch tar glue, iirc)
Fun though.

Same thing with pottery, dug clay out of the local river bank, Glasgow School of Art pottery lecturer did some some absolutely excellent work on this whole topic. Inter University collaboration showed that the same clay was the stuff used to make the pots used in the cremation burials found along the river side from here….4,000 years ago. (archaeology science at it's finest in the Geology labs )
Fascinating stuff, and again fun to do, to make, to understand.

I think that's the rub Corey. It's understanding, it's not pretending to 'live as a stone age man'.
It really is taking your culture, your history, your knowledge, your skills, with you, and hoping to understand. Hoping to have an awareness of just how the material remains, the archaeology, were created.

Basically all archaeology is ultimately just a recording of what was found, where, and in what context, until it it given interpretation.

Interpretation is the final report, and heaven help the archaeologist nowadays who doesn't make sure that all of the data recorded is properly recorded so that further future interpretation is possible.

Interpretation is an attempt to be objective about subjective aspects. It is always coloured by one's own wider knowledge.

Processual archaeolgy had criticisms that ultimately led to the post processual. Colin Renfrew (heard him speak, at Glasgow, the man offended half the audience by his insistance that the Gaels speak Gaylic that the native speakers were mistaken….kind of lost the plot a bit tbh) started talking about delving more into how the people of the past actually thought.
Cognitive archaeology.

The problem there is the question of whether the material record does actually leave sufficient evidence which can provide the necessary underpinning of theory…..can you test it ? can you actually test how someone thought to produce this artefact ?
Not just inform an interpretation.
I doubt many would disagree that testable theories can only give a fraction of the thoughts of the people of the past, and there is just too much absence of evidence to provide proof.

Tom Brown is an American who wrote books about tracking and "primitive" living skills, supposedly taught to him by an unbroken line teacher.

However, two sides to every tale, look up Tom Brown, jr., and both survival and then criticism.
Not quite archaeology, but terribly too close to 'cognitive archaeology' methinks

I agree with Old Bones, I honestly do not know any archaeologist who does not actually have some history of making material culture. Even those who are archaeobotanists do it…..one lady I knew actually recorded her own foods and excretions. Her stool samples were contrasted to the coprolites found in Roman forts in the UK.

Aye, cognitive processes in action there


M

 

[sandbender]

pulls up a seat.

 

[Palaeocory]

"Wow, an American answer…..don't see many of them outside the self help book adverts these days.

Comments taken out of context and answered with seemingly overwhelming and unreproachable "data".

Mince."

I'm not American, and I've been schooled in the British system... and what does 'mince' mean in this context?

Come on Toddy, we don't need to have such an aggressive/insulting tone... you don't buy cognitive archaeology (as you see it) as a discipline. That's nice,I totally respect that, but play nice! I'm just on here trying to extend resources to others and have a chin wag about some really interesting things. I think I set out my case pretty well. I'm sorry if you think I took them out of context and answered them with overwhelming data - I didn't mean to, I was trying to be clear. And I can try to clarify things if you want me to. Honestly, have a go at the book I mentioned at the end of my last post. If you have an interest in pre-prehistory, you might enjoy it, and it may change your mind about what is study-able. Or you may hate it, but you'll confirm your feelings It's an enjoyable book either way. But as a mod, I think it'd be nice if you didn't approach others so patronisingly...

We can have a mature discussion about the merits of cognitive archaeology in a more fruitful manner, less mocking way, can't we?

Cory (without the 'e')

*waves* hi sandbender!

 

[Toddy]

Cory (without the 'e', apologies for that) this is an online forum. We read and we converse. It's generally light hearted and fun.
We do argue, some of us rather more than others, but on the whole we get along.
Thing is though, the online bit matters. Many of the members are reading the forum on their phones (Mick, out for the weekend with nowt but the clothes on his back, for instance)

My comments as they ran….American self help book ads are huge enormous screeds of writing, all focused with convincing the reader of the veracity of every word. It's an American 'thing' though. Have an arguement online with an American and sure are eggs are eggs, there'll be the huge long screed again. This is what I meant by my comment, it wasn't a charge that you were American. It's just a different viewpoint and a different way of discusing things, not a disapprobation of Americans.

Mince ? ah, good old Scottish facetism at it's finest there It's a shorthand way of saying rubbish! and I disagree with you, that you're doing the very thing you're accusing me of doing.
Mince….Kaiser Wilhelm when offered mince for a meal replied, "No thank you; I prefer to chew my own meat".

I'm not trying to be confrontational; but I really do disagree that it's something new for archaeologist to actually make, to record, to interpret with insight from hard earned personal experience of the creative processes. Quite truthfully, every archaeologist, and virtually every archaeology student I knew, does something like this.
I sincerely hope you have a lot of fun with all of the craft skills you learn and practice. I hope you acknowledge seasonality too, the barter/trade and the social interaction that accompanies it all, as well, and I do agree that the bush crafters and the survival teachers have much to offer.
To see the physical reality created in it's entirely, complete and fully functional, that is only represented in the past by tiny shards of bone and antler, feels like a revelation.
Patrick McGlinchey, Joe O'leary, the Lord family, etc., are all superb exponents of their craft, and I would recommend any course by any one of them.

I also firmly believe that the onus is on the one explaining to make it clear, not the one reading, to 'understand'. That's my middle aged courtesy firmly in place there. Just as because is an excuse, not a reason.

Patronising ? me ? never. Seriously, that was neither the intent or (from the popcorn munching lurkers) given. I was trying to be polite and to use clear English. I am Scottish, I have something of a reputation for using both grammar and vocabulary that is confusing to non Scots. I was genuinely trying for simplicity.

Right now I have twelve books on my desk to be read; I'm always happy to add another to the pile

I can well understand the bushcraft/experimental archaeology relationship. Anything that informs and enriches interpretation is a good thing, just that it needs sound roots and it needs a discipline that manages the subjective/objective issue.

You're young and you have an enviable enthusiasm for your subject, I hope it leads to a great career for you.
These days I'm mostly a little middle aged housewife with a lot of very interesting friends Much more fun, and a lot less fraught, than living in Interesting Times.

You might show some examples of your makings ? lot of interest in that kind of thing among folks on this forum too.

cheers,
Toddy

 

[Palaeocory]

If 31 is still considered young, then I thank you I'm given that attribute less and less these days.

Well then I think we're broadly in agreement: experimental approaches to archaeology benefit the discipline. That's my main takeaway message. Cognitive archaeology is included in that! I'm just extending resources to interested bushcrafters to jump in and join if they'd like.

Not sure where to go from here... (I find your posts quite hard to follow the thread of myself, there are surely some cultural challenges going both ways here!) but if there are some finer points to zoom in on perhaps we can discuss those and I wont launch into an American style essay. I never said it's something new for archaeologists to be involved practically in their research - for example, experimental lithic knapping this goes back to the 19th century and the first systematic lithic analysis. It is just my impression (and of many people I work with) that it is for few. And since it is a benefit, I try to encourage it.

I will post pictures of our makings in the Oxford Palaeotechnology Society as they happen this Autumn - there are a bunch on our Facebook site! And if my latest experiment hadn't just been rescheduled I'd have a few to show of that, too. I am using porcelain as a knapping medium as it standardizes the starting blank - but I'm having a tough time finding a kiln to get them fired!

Here is what they look like after being bashed a bit:

 

[Toddy]

31 ? my sons are older than you are lad

Interesting approach….have you seen the glass bottle blades ? Glass apparantly knapps very akin to obsidian and to good crisp flint.
We don't have much flint here, but we have good chert, and we have both Arran pitchstone and Rum bloodstone, and both are excellent.

http://www.cavemanchemistry.com/oldcave/projects/stone/bottle.html

Certainly easy enough to find the materials

M