One question that continues to interest researchers and critics of experimental approaches is the role of analogy in theoretical experimentation. Are researchers really engaging in experiments that can result in generalized laws, or are they merely participating in exercises that allow them to experience the potential challenges of  raw materials and different techniques?  What is the difference?  Metin Erin, a fellow colleague sums it up nicely by stating that experimental archaeology answers academic questions, whereas experiential archaeology does not (Metin Eren blog).  Based on this definition, many of the early experimental projects were, in fact, experiential.  Frank Cushing, for example, replicated metal objects in order to prove they were Native American in origin.  He did not ask if these objects were made by Native Americans and if so how could this be tested?  Rather, he made a priori assumptions that he then attempted to prove.  Are modern approaches that much different?  I think so, but in order to claim a truly experimental paradigm, we must adhere to rigorous scientific methods of refutation.  To do this, we must be honest with the shortcomings and failures of our experiments, something that can be very difficult to do in practice.