Recebido em: 09/ 09/ 2018

Aceito em: 10/ 10/ 2018

ARTI CLE

Anders Högberg*

ABSTRACT
This text gives an overview of how lithic technology studies have approached the
topic of finding and interpreting the work of children in lithic assemblages. It
focuses on examples from Scandinavian and European contexts. A selection of
published studies is presented. Methods used in lithic technology studies and
results from these studies are discussed. Achievements made and obstacles that
still needs to be resolved by future research are discussed.

Keywords: Children; Lithic; Assemblages.

* Linnaeus University, School of Cultural Studies, Archaeology, Faculty of Art and Humanities, SE-391
82 Kalmar, Sweden. Centre for Anthropological Research, University of Johannesburg, P.O. Box 524,
Auckland Park, 2006, South Africa

DOI: https:/ / doi.org/ 10.24885/ sab.v31 i2.613

ARTI GO

RESUMO
Este texto fornece uma visão geral de como os estudos de tecnologia lítica
abordaram o tópico de encontrar e interpretar o trabalho de crianças em
conjuntos líticos. Centra-se em exemplos de contextos escandinavos e europeus.
Uma seleção de estudos publicados é apresentada. Métodos utilizados em estudos
de tecnologia lítica e os resultados desses estudos são discutidos. Conquistas feitas
e obstáculos que ainda precisam ser resolvidos por pesquisas futuras são também
discutidos.

Palavras-chave: Crianças; Lítico; Conjuntos.

ARTÍ CULO

RESUMEN
Este texto ofrece una visión general de cómo los estudios de tecnología lítica han
abordado el tema de encontrar e interpretar el trabajo de los niños en conjuntos
líticos. Se centra en ejemplos de contextos escandinavos y europeos. Se presenta
una selección de estudios publicados. Se discuten los métodos utilizados en los
estudios de tecnología lítica y los resultados de estos estudios. Se discuten los
logros alcanzados y los obstáculos que aún deben ser resueltos por
investigaciones futuras..

Palabras clave: Niños; Lítico; Conjuntos.

Approaches to children’s knapping… | Anders Högberg 59

 […] we know that to some extent all societies are structured in certain ways because
of the presence of children […] this argues that analyses are likely to not just be
incomplete, but may actually be flawed, if children are missing
(KAMP, 2015:167).

INTRODUCTION

Without children there is no inter-generational continuity of life and culture. As

humans live on earth today, it is an empirical (and banal) fact that children must have
been born, raised, grown into adults and had their own children throughout the deep
time of human evolution and prehistory. Children were present in prehistory. Whether
or not archaeologists acknowledge this in their research, children have without
exception made up a large share of prehistoric populations. Therefore, things done by
children, with children and for children have had impact on the archaeological record
(KAMP, 2006). As Lillehammer (1979) and Hammond and Hammond (1981) recognized
almost 40 years ago, this fact was largely overlooked by a mass of archaeological work
done since archaeology became an interpretative theoretical practice on its own. And it
still is (see KAMP, 2001, 2006, 2015 for extensive discussion).
Although earlier studies raised questions of how to identify children in the
archaeological record (LILLEHAMMER, 1979) and in lithic tool production
(LILLEHAMMER, 1982; KNUTSSON, 1983), Lillehammer’s influential article “A child
is born” from 1989 (LILLEHAMMER, 1989) is seen by many as the start of childhood
research within archaeology (e.g. BAXTER, 2006; SCHWARTZMAN, 2006; KAMP,
2001, 2006, 2015; CUNNAR & HÖGBERG, 2015; LILLEHAMMER, 2015). Anyone who
has read Lillehammer’s discussion on the importance of including children and
childhood as topics for interpretative archaeology, will have difficulties ignoring
children as a substantial part of past societies, and, as such, important contributors to the
archaeological record we excavate and interpret. This is also something that has been
well investigated since Lillehammer’s article was published (e.g. MOORE & SCOTT,
1997; SOFAER DEREVENSKI, 2000; KAMP, 2001, 2006; BAXTER, 2005, 2006;
DOMMASNES & WRIGGLESWORTH, 2008; LILLEHAMMER, 2010; FAHLANDER,
2011; LANCY, 2017).
If we bear in mind that children throughout prehistory (and in more recent times
as well) have been “playing” stone knapping by copying adults work and have learnt how
to produce stone tools to master technologies – or just have been banging stones together
for the fun of it – it is easy to conclude that children are responsible for a large portion
of the knapped stone left for archaeologists to examine (SHEA, 2006). A massive number
of stones must have been shattered, over time, generating huge amounts of waste. If we
consider that a great number of children have been knapping stone since the time of the
first evidence of stone tool production 3.3 million years ago (HARMAND et al., 2015;
SHEA, 2017), and have done so up till present day, the amount of waste generated by
children throughout prehistory is unimaginably large (STAPERT, 2007; HÖGBERG &
GÄRDENFORS, 2015). Hence, it is easy to conclude that much of the stones
archaeologists touch at excavations and in collections are the results of children’s work.
In this text I will give examples of how lithic technology studies have approached
the topic of finding and interpreting the work of children in lithic assemblages. I focus
on examples from Scandinavian and European contexts (for a similar approach see
GRIMM, 2000, and for a similar approach with a slightly different geographical focus,
see HILDEBRAND, 2012; GOLDSTEIN 2018, see also NEUBAUER, this volume). Here
I use the concepts child(ren) and adult(s). I am aware of the ambiguity of these terms (see
FINLAY, 1997; FERGUSON, 2008 for discussion in relation to stone tool production)

Approaches to children’s knapping… | Anders Högberg 60

but I have here chosen not to discuss them further. Instead I direct interested readers to
the works by e.g. Schwartzman (1978), Sofaer Derevenski (2000), Kamp (2001), Baxter
(2005), or Lillehammer (2015) for in-depth theoretical considerations.

SIZE MATTERS

From an abundance of ethnographic or anthropological studies we find examples

of tools used by children – as toys or for other purposes – that are of smaller size than
tools used by adults (SCHWARTZMAN, 1978; PARK, 1998). Thalbitzer (1914), for
example, showed how Inuit children made miniaturized hunting weapons to use for
hunting practice. Another example is Ember and Cunnar’s (2015) study of miniaturized
artifacts used by children as toys. Inspired by ethnography and anthropology,
archaeologists have presented several examples of small artifacts interpreted as
miniatures used by children for play and exercise (for early Scandinavian examples, see
VINSRYGG, 1979; JOHANSEN, 1986. See also KAMP, 2001; CRAWFORD, 2009;
LANGLEY, 2017; RIEDE et al., 2018; for discussions).
Size has also been used in lithic technology studies to explore possible traces of
work done by children. An early example is a text by Knutsson (1983) in which he
discusses the fact that children’s activities in one way or another must be present in lithic
assemblages from Stone Age sites (KNUTSSON, 1983). With reference to ethnographic
studies, he puts forward the hypothesis that children’s tools are probably smaller than
adults’. In this way children’s tools can be recognized in an archaeological assemblage
through their size.
In a text from 1986 Knutsson tests his hypothesis from 1983. He does so in a study
of bipolar cores from a north Swedish Stone Age site. This is one of the earliest examples
of studies exploring child-knapping as an interpretative explanation for material culture
analysis. In a discussion of the size of these cores Knutsson puts forward the idea that
small cores may have been used by children. The argument is that the cores are so small
that they could only have been held in place by small hands during knapping. An adult’s
hand, according to Knutsson’s hypothesis, is simply too big to hold the small bipolar cores
against an anvil when knapping (KNUTSSON, 1986), a hypothesis similar to what Shea
(2006) presented 30 years later. Based on this premises, Knutsson concluded that there
were no traces of children knapping in the assemblage he studied. More recent studies
have shown that miniaturization of bipolar cores is a phenomenon related to factors such
as raw material availability and style rather than as an indicator of child-knapping
(PARGETER & EREN, 2017; PARGETER et al., 2018).
Since Knutsson published his study, others have elaborated on size of lithic artifacts
as basis for analysis of children’s activities (e.g. SHEA, 2006; STAPERT, 2007;
JOHANSEN & STAPERT, 2008). Small tools are interpreted as toys or other forms of
children’s material culture. As discussed by Finlay (2008) and Shea (2006), the difficulty
with this approach is that “there are many other reasons why adult technological
strategies might emphasize the production of small tools, including raw material scarcity,
transport efficiency, and the use of hafted tools” (SHEA, 2006:214; see also discussion in
JOHANSEN & STAPERT, 2008). Consequently, if size is to be used as a variable for
finding the result of children’s activities in lithic assemblages, methods need to be
developed that take into account other possible reasons for making small tools that might
exist in a society. As we will see below, other ways of finding traces of children’s work in
lithic assemblages have been developed.

Approaches to children’s knapping… | Anders Högberg 61

STUDIES OF CHILDREN PLAYING WITH STONES AND LEARNING TO KNAP

Fischer’s lithic technology analysis of a flint assemblage from a late Palaeolithic

dwelling site in Denmark (FISCHER, 1990) is the first extensive study presented from
Scandinavia that discusses the work of a child knapping stone. The study is based on
detailed site excavation, refitting, analysis of horizontal distribution of each refitted
specimen and an estimation of the technological skill represented in the assemblage.
Fischer concludes that blades were produced at the site, using locally available flint
nodules as raw material. Two discrete clusters of knapping waste were analyzed.
Comparing refitted units from these clusters, Fischer deduced that one of the clusters
represents good craftsmanship. The waste products from the expert’s work were found
close to a boulder, interpreted as a sitting place for knapping. An expert knapper has been
working here. About 1.5 meters away from the boulder, other refitted units show less
skill in knapping performance. The techniques used here are the same as used by the
expert knapper, but the performance of the technique is described as less precise and
developed. Trimming of platforms was done less frequently and without precision, and
blows applied with a hammer-stone had been delivered with less precision and accuracy
in hitting the core. Fischer (1990:44) concludes that “obviously we are here dealing with
the traces of an untrained flint knapper – i.e. a child.” Fischer (1990), however, does not
discuss skill levels in his analysis. Instead he makes a judgment of the waste from what
he sees as the expert knapper: “Based on the author’s experience as a flint knapper, the
craftsman responsible for the refitted unit must be classified as careful, patient and highly
skilled” (FISCHER, 1990:41). From the distribution pattern of the cluster, Fischer
concludes that “the face of the young flint knapper has been oriented […] towards the
seat of ‘the master knapper’” (FISCHER, 1990:45), and consequently he labels the site “a
late Palaeolithic school of flint knapping.” A later publication (DONAHUE & FISCHER,
2015) confirms these results, and also discusses the presence of a third knapper at the
site, described as a “moderately qualified knapper” (DONAHUE & FISCHER, 2015:321).
Broadly contemporary with Fischer’s (1990) publication, results from excavations
of late Magdalenian sites at the Paris Basin in France were published. Several of these
studies present results from extensive refitting analysis, where children’s work as
knappers is discussed (see STAPERT, 2007; GRIMM, 2000, with references). Two studies
that are often referred to, and perhaps also have become trend-setting, are Pigeot’s (1990)
and Karlin and Julien’s (1994). These studies are similar in their styles (see also BODU et
al., 1990). Both use a chaîne opératoire approach with technological analysis, raw
material analysis, refitting work and site distribution analysis to examine levels of
expertise in blade production. Different types of products are interpreted as having been
produced by knappers of different skill levels, from experienced to beginners. Both
Pigeot (1990) and Karlin and Julien (1994) demonstrate that blades produced by the least
knowledgeable and experienced knappers were not secondarily utilized in tool
production. Instead, the whole production remained at the knapping area. This was
compared with the work of the experienced knappers, parts of whose production were
removed from the knapping area for use in tool production (PIGEOT, 1990; KARLIN &
JULIEN, 1994). The inexperienced knappers’ work were evidently not intended to be
used secondarily. Its significance lay rather in the element of practice.
In an approach similar to that of Pigeot (1990) and Karlien and Julien (1994), Grimm
presents a study of the French Upper Palaeolithic site of Solvieux (GRIMM, 2000).
Applying a chaîne opératoire approach, she analyzes qualities of blade core reduction
together with refitting and site distribution analysis to interpret children’s work at the
site. Grimm also provides an extensive in-depth theoretical discussion of social life and
considers aspects of who (age and gender) might have been working at the site and what

Approaches to children’s knapping… | Anders Högberg 62

implications this might have for archaeological interpretation of Upper Palaeolithic
family life and site function (for a comparable theoretical discussion, see PIGEOT, 1990;
FINLAY, 1997).
Johansen and Stapert (2000, 2008) present a refitting study of assemblages from
Palaeolithic and Mesolithic sites in northern Netherlands and Denmark. Based on
identification of poor standards of knapping in refitted groups of flint pieces, together
with a discussion of spatial arrangement at sites, they speculate that some of the knappers
identified as responsible for the work were children (see also STAPERT, 2007).
Investigating a south Swedish Neolithic knapping area, Högberg (1999, 2008)
focused on play-copying (see RIEDE et al., 2018). In the assemblage, flakes from two
different knapping strategies were present. Building on methods similar to those of
Fischer (1990), Bodu et al. (1990), Pigeot (1990), Karlien and Julien (1994) and Grimm
(2000), Högberg (1999, 2008) interprets what happened at the site as an act of a child
copying the work of an adult manufacturing a flint axe-head (see also BABEL, 1997).
Based on the distribution pattern and technological analysis of flakes, together with other
flint implements, he concluded that, alongside a master working on an axe-head, a child
playfully knapped an implement resembling an axe-head. The axe-head production
(Figure 1, left) is the technology of the master at the knapping area. It is highly specialized
and uniform and based on selected raw material. The non-systematic technology (Figure
1, right) is the result of a child’s play-copying. It is based on low-quality raw material and
has resulted in what looks like a square-sectioned axe-head but could never be used as
one.

Figure 1 - Left: a Neolithic axe-head, a flake from production of such an implement, and a
schematic illustration of the technique used for its production. Right: a copy or qualifier axe-
head, a flake from its production, and a schematic illustration of the technique used for play-
copying (from RIEDE et al., 2018, modified from HÖGBERG, 1999, 2008).

Approaches to children’s knapping… | Anders Högberg 63

 From this example and drawing on results from previous studies (e.g. PIGEOT,
1990; KARLIEN & JULIEN, 1994; GRIMM, 2000), Högberg (2008) concluded that play-
copying can be traced by means of variables such as technological systematicity versus
ad hoc technology, the use of high-quality (selected) raw material versus low-quality
(non-selected) raw material (sensu TAKAKURA, 2013), and typological forms (formal
tools) versus non-typological forms (informal tools). Inspired by observations made by
Mikkel Sørensen (later published in STERNKE & SØRENSEN, 2009), Högberg (2008)
concluded that the non-typological forms (informal tools) produced by children can be
characterized as having been knapped using a “two-dimensional” approach that copies
the outline shape of a tool (like a drawing on a piece of paper) but not the three-
dimensional aspects of it (as in a 3D model) (also see SHELLEY, 1990 for discussion). In
addition, the distribution of debris resulting from play-copying contrasts with that
generated by a master. A master’s debris is recognized as concentrated within an
associated work space, whereas debris associated with play-copying was scattered in a
less structured manner around the work space, as if the child had moved around while
play-copying the work of the adult. Also, the products of a master’s work are typically
removed from the knapping site to be used elsewhere. In contrast, products resulting
from play-copying are left at the knapping site and not used for other purposes than play
(see PIGEOT, 1990; GRIMM, 2000; for discussion). Note that in Högberg (1999, 2008)
the term imitation is used to describe the child’s behavior. This is an incorrect term to
use. The child’s behavior is correctly described as copying by emulation not by imitation.
Emulation is when the learner observes the outcomes of the model’s actions and tries to
reach the same outcome (goal oriented), imitation is when the learner observes the
sequence of the model’s actions and tries to perform the same actions (process-oriented
learning) (see discussion in GÄRDENFORS & HÖGBERG, 2017).
Drawing on results from his study of a south Swedish Neolithic knapping area,
Högberg interpreted bifacially knapped implements from a South African Middle Stone
Age site, occupied about 80,000–72,000 years ago, as evidence for children learning to
knap bifacial spear heads at the site (HÖGBERG & LARSSON, 2011). Inspired by this
study, Cunnar (2015) took a similar approach in his analysis of bifacial implements from
Nevada, USA.
Building on results from Fischer (1990) and Karlien and Julien (1994), among
others, Sternke and Sørensen (2009) conducted lithic experimentation with children and
adults to discuss variation in skill-related attributes observed on tools and waste from
their work. The approach of Sternke and Sørensen (2009) is clear in how it systematizes
technological and morphological attributes of beginners’ products and therefore adds
significantly to previous similar studies (SHELLEY, 1990). Sternke and Sørensen
conclude that beginners’ (children’s) products are characterized by two-dimensional
knapping, a lack of core maintenance, evidence of frequent mistakes, and absence of
standardized product (STERNKE & SØRENSEN, 2009:724), results in line with
previous studies (SHELLEY, 1990; PIGEOT, 1990; HÖGBERG, 1999; GRIMM, 2000).
Based on their experimental outcomes, Sternke and Sørensen (2009) analyzed a Late
Mesolithic assemblage from Denmark. They conclude that reused cores and discarded
preforms for axes are products of beginners and novices and hence evidence of children’s
work. An approach similar to that presented by Sternke and Sørensen (2009) was used
by Dugstad (2010) analyzing an Early Mesolithic site from Norway.

SUMMING UP SO FAR AND STARTING A DISCUSSION

From the presentation of studies above, some observations can be made. Several
studies draw on each other’s results, use similar approaches and come to similar

Approaches to children’s knapping… | Anders Högberg 64

conclusions based on different excavated sites from various places and periods. The
influential work of Pigeot (1990) and Karlin and Julien (1994) has become a standard
reference for most studies presented. Also, the work of Grimm (2000) and Högberg
(2008), both building on, among others, Pigeot (1990) and Karlin and Julien (1994) is
referred to by many (e.g. ASSAF et al., 2015; CUNNAR, 2015; GOLDSTEIN, 2018;
NEUBAUER, this volume). Other studies (e.g. STAPERT, 2007) refer little to former
studies but come to similar conclusions as they do. If we look at the earliest work
presented here, it is interesting to see that some researchers appear to have opened up
similar areas of research without referring to each other. For example, Knutsson (1983)
does not refer to Lillehammer (1979). Fischer (1990) does not refer to Knutsson (1983,
1986) or Lillehammer (1979, 1982, 1989). Also, early work is not always referred to in
later work (but see FINLAY, 1997). For example, in an early experimental study Shelley
(1990) present technological attributes important for understanding how to trace
learners’ (children’s) work in lithic assemblages. These are attributes that have
subsequently been discussed by others (e.g. FINLAY, 1997; JOHANSEN & STAPERT,
2008). Shelley’s attributes are almost similar to attributes used by Högberg (1999, 2008)
and Sternke and Sørensen (2009) in their studies. However, none of these studies refer
to Shelley (1990).
Artifact size has been used for finding children’s work in lithic assemblages. Small
implements are interpreted as toys or tools used by children. However, few lithic
technology studies have elaborated on this approach and few studies actually present
results based on this line of thought. Instead, other methods for finding traces of
children’s work in lithic assemblages have been developed. Methods such as in-depth
knowledge of lithic technology based on chaîne opératoire approaches, experimental
work, refitting studies, raw material quality analysis and site distribution analysis for
interpretation are used. Using these methods, several studies build significantly on the
argument that a child (beginner/learner) learning to make a stone tool will make
mistakes at a higher rate than persons (adults) with more experience of stone tool
production (see FINLAY 1997, 2015; EREN et al., 2011; GOLDSTEIN, 2018 for
discussion). Hence, children’s work is characterized by a lack of control over basic
technological principles. This is marked in an assemblage by a higher frequency of
mistakes such as hinge or step fractures or irregular bulb of percussion. Lack of core
maintenance is common and reduction strategies practiced by novices are often
unfinished and poorly conceptualized. Low-quality raw material is often used (but see
discussion in TAKAKURA, 2013; FINLAY, 2015). The work of children or learners is
also typically defined as non-productive, meaning that novices do not produce tools
intended for later use: “the debitage clusters of novice knappers are recovered virtually
complete, a result of the debitage products having been abandoned at the knapping post
(unlike the widely disseminated products of experienced knappers)” (GRIMM, 2000:55).
Several studies also point out that spatial arrangement at the archaeological site show
that children’s work typically is scattered or performed on the periphery of what is
regarded as central parts of a site, for example a hearth or a sitting place for knapping.
The overview presented here thus shows that a basic premise for studies attempting
to identify traces of play, learning, or skill development in lithic assemblage is that the
children or learners are beginners and therefore have not yet attained the skill and ability
in their craft that they are expected to reach later on in life (for a critical discussion of
this perspective, based on experimental archaeology see EREN et al., 2011). Another basic
premise is that this “unskillful knapping behavior” is traceable in an assemblage by
comparison with adults’ work. Artifacts interpreted as deriving from the activities of
children or learners are perceived as less technologically and methodologically

Approaches to children’s knapping… | Anders Högberg 65

developed than those produced by non-children (for critical comments on this point of
view, see FINLAY, 1997). Typically, children’s work is defined by its less skillful
performance in relation to a more skillful (expert/adult) performance evident in the lithic
assemblage.
Hence, the work by children is not defined on its own terms (see FINLAY, 1997 for
discussion). Instead, dichotomies are a vital part of defining children’s work (see
GRIMM, 2000; GOLDSTEIN, 2018; NEUBAUER, this volume, for discussion). This is
evident, for example, in Högberg’s (2008) study where dichotomies such as technological
systematicity versus ad hoc technology, the use of high-quality raw material versus low-
quality raw material, and typological forms versus non-typological forms are formulated
as a basis for interpretation. Here, technological systematicity, the use of high-quality
raw material and typological forms are the definitions of an adult’s work that is used to
define the presence of a child working at the site. Consequently, identification of
children’s work in lithic assemblages heavily relies on identifying artifacts and
production patterns that deviate from what the analyst defines as the expert norm
(GOLDSTEIN, 2018).

EMBEDDED LEARNING

Ferguson (2003) presents an alternative pattern for learning strategies. In an

experimental study, pressure-flaking arrowheads together with beginners, he showed
that beginners working together with a skilled knapper in an embedded learning
situation produce flakes and artifacts that are difficult to distinguish from that of the
experienced. Ferguson designed his experiments in such a way that, as soon as the
beginner was confronted with a problem in her/his knapping, Ferguson, who is an
experienced knapper, took over the work and while handling the problem
simultaneously showed the beginner how to approach the problem to solve it. After the
problem was solved, the beginner continued knapping on the point. In this way problems
encountered that made it difficult for the beginner to knap a blank into a finished
arrowhead were practically solved by the experienced knapper while solutions to
knapping problems were taught simultaneously. The result was assemblages of flakes and
arrowheads with no or only modest traces of less skillful knapping (FERGUSON, 2003).
That different knappers can work on one and the same core is known from
anthropological studies (BINFORD, 1986). And what Ferguson’s (2003) experiment does
is to move away from the identification of the individual per se in a learning situation
(see FINLAY, 1997 for discussion). Consequently, if an assemblage like the one produced
by Ferguson and his students was found on an archaeological site, it would be difficult to
use the approaches presented above to identify the work done by learners (children). As
mentioned, these studies have identified children’s and learners’ work as less skillful in
relation to more skillful work represented in the assemblage. But in Ferguson’s (2003)
study the non-skillful knapping is not clearly visible. Instead, every time a problem is
encountered in the knapping it is merged with the skillful knapping (also see discussion
in FERGUSON, 2008).
The result of Ferguson’s (2003) study has, to my knowledge, not been tested further
in archaeological lithic assemblage analysis. This is clearly an area that needs further
innovative studies to develop (but see EREN et al., 2011 for a discussion based on
experimentation).

Approaches to children’s knapping… | Anders Högberg 66

NOT ALL POORLY KNAPPED PIECES ARE FROM CHILDREN’S WORK

From the studies presented above it can be concluded that there is a consensus in
the way children’s knapping is characterized – reduction strategies practiced by novices
are often poorly conceptualized, evident in an assemblage by higher frequency of
mistakes, such as hinge or step fractures or irregular bulb of percussion, with no practice
of core maintenance (e.g. SHELLEY, 1990; HÖGBERG, 1999; GRIMM, 2000; STERNKE
& SØRENSEN, 2009). But these characteristics are also typical attributes for expedient
knapping strategies in societies where informal chipped tools dominate (see
HOLDAWAY et al., 2015; GOLDSTEIN, 2018 for discussion). For example, south
Scandinavian Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age flint assemblages from household
contexts are characterized by informal flake tools knapped in an ad hoc manner. Flakes
are fragmented. They have an irregular bulb of percussion and a crushed platform. Core
maintenance is not performed. Core platforms are not prepared and show impact marks
from repeated unsuccessful attempts to detach flakes using a hammer stone. Core faces
show hinge and step fractures (HÖGBERG, 2001, 2009, 2010). Another example is
Downey’s (2010) study of expedient lithic technologies from excavated sites in Peru.
Downey show the importance of the use of expedient knapping strategies producing
informal tools for activities associated with a ceremonial center (DOWNEY, 2010). Yet
another example is lithic assemblages from a distant evolutionary past, with huge
variation in how informal tools were knapped a million years ago (SHEA, 2006, 2017).
Consequently, attributes and characteristics used to identify children’s work in
lithic assemblages are also attributes and characteristics typical of various assemblages
predominated by informal tools produced with expedient knapping strategies.
Consequently, poorly knapped pieces of stone cannot routinely be labeled as the work of
a child. And as Finlay (2008) has shown in an experimental study on the reproduction of
Scottish Late Mesolithic Blades, a skillful knapper occasionally has a bad day and
individual variation in knapping performance over time can influence what the
assemblage produced looks like. Now, this is all basic knowledge to researchers working
with identifying the work of children in lithic assemblages. The point I want to make
here is that the established way of identifying children’s work – shown above to have
been used in many studies – is an approach that does not work if one wants to identify
children’s work in assemblages dominated by informal tools produced using expedient
knapping strategies. To find ways to work with such assemblages to identify children’s
work is a challenge. As for example Högberg (1999, 2008) and Grimm (2000) show, to
include social context and site analysis in the work to identify children´s knapping is one
way forward. To discuss this in detail is however beyond the scope of this text and needs
to be dealt with in future research.

EACH GENERATION CHANGES THE BRAIN OF THE NEXT

As Reynolds (1993:410) notes, “the concept of the stone tool as the product of an
artisan working alone is an artifact of archaeology itself.” Drawing on this conclusion,
Finlay (2008) observes that lithic technology studies typically present stone tool
production as a relationship between individuals, tools, and raw material. But learning
to produce stone tools is not an activity done in isolation. The actions of tool makers are
closely constrained by the knowledge-transfer systems in which they are situated
(REYNOLDS, 1993; RIEDE, 2006). Technologies and their attributes are thus embedded
in culture (LEMONNIER, 1993), and prehistoric knowledge-transfer was performed in
context. Multivariate combinations of intra- and intergenerational transfer of
knowledge by social learning, teaching, and play-copying took place. It can be done on a

Approaches to children’s knapping… | Anders Högberg 67

one-on-one basis but is largely embedded in cultural settings (STERELNY, 2012) and
should be understood in a context of a many-to-many relationship, as well as
horizontally distributed within a generation and/or vertically between generations (see
discussion in D’ERRICO & BANKS, 2015; HÖGBERG et al., 2015; GÄRDENFORS &
HÖGBERG, 2017; LOMBARD & HÖGBERG, 2018; RIEDE et al., 2018).
As we seen from the discussion above, children are identified in lithic assemblages
as individuals based on their knapping skill and raw material choice and the way they
moved around at a site. But this is not the full story. Several studies also position the skill
represented by the child in relation to adult skills, and like the study by Högberg (2008),
for example, present the child’s work as a shared experience between a child and an adult.
Or as Grimm (2000) does, presenting an interpretation of the child in a social setting in
a discussion of prehistoric families. Yet these studies still emphasize results from
individuals’ working efforts. Such an approach may hamper interpretation in serious
ways, as becoming human is not an individual thing. As discussed by Högberg and
Gärdenfors (2015), genetic influences on children’s cognitive development are not
something fixed and predetermined from birth. They are entangled (SOLMS &
TURNBULL, 2002) and work in dynamic interaction with regard to the way that the
mind evolves. Consequently, the human mind cannot come into existence on its own. It
is wedded to a collective process and filtered through culture and the social (DONALD,
1991, 2012). How intimate the link between genetic and environmental influences is
varies. The years up to about twenty are particularly crucial (WASSERMAN & ZAMBO,
2013). This means that cognitive development must be seen as something that emerges
gradually from early infancy onwards and shaped in social interaction between nature
and nurture. Sterelny (2012) has described this as a “positive feedback loop” between
social complexity and individual cognitive capacity. It is an interaction based on the
brain’s ability to be shaped by the environment (body, culture, nature) and its increased
complexity in relation to social interactions. Consequently, by changing the social
environment, each generation changes the brains of the next (MITHEN & PARSONS,
2008). One way this is institutionalized is by intra- and intergenerational knowledge
transfer systems (HÖGBERG & LOMBARD, 2016). The processes of social learning and
teaching through verbal instructions, gestures and imitations, matching the actions of
others and facilitating learning in others, together with pro-social acts of feedback, are
unique characteristics of human social exercise. Consequently, studying children is
important (NOWELL, 2010, 2015; SHEA, 2006). They are and have for a long time
during prehistory been the ones that learn and are taught. In this sense it is not just what
children have done during prehistory, but childhood itself that has been fundamental to
development of societies (KAMP, 2001; BAXTER, 2006; SCHWARTZMAN, 2006).
Now, if the thoughts discussed here are set against what has been discussed earlier
about how lithic analyses concentrating on children are set up, it is easy to agree with
Finlay (2008) in her critique of studies focusing on individual achievement. As discussed,
identifying children’s work in lithic assemblages is typically done using methods that
isolate the products of individual knappers. Hence, analyses build on individuals and how
they relate to others. But stone tool production is social and embedded in culture.
Learning or teaching to produce stone tools facilitates intra- and inter-generational
knowledge transfer (LOMBARD & HÖGBERG, 2018). As such it is fundamental for
culture. This means that studying children using lithic assemblage analysis is not solely
about children, but also about society (GOLDSTEIN, 2018). This is theoretically
discussed by, for example, Pigeot (1990), Finlay (1997), and Grimm (2000). However,
these theoretical perspectives have not yet come to full realization in interpretations
based on lithic technology studies (see GOLDSTEIN 2018 for discussion).

Approaches to children’s knapping… | Anders Högberg 68

ENDING

As Cunnar and Högberg (2015) noted a few years ago, Lillehammer’s child from her
1989 article has grown into a full-fledged adult on her own. Writing these words, her
30th birthday in 2019 is approaching, and it is easy to conclude that aspects of children
and childhood have developed into archaeological research topics on their own (see
KAMP, 2015 for discussion). Archaeologists have developed empirical, theoretical and
methodological work on the topic, and important research has been published
concerning the identification of artifacts produced by children in the archaeological
record and the theoretical implications for interpretation.
At the same time, children and childhood still have not become part of mainstream
archaeology. Prehistoric children and childhood are discussed only by a limited number
of archaeologists, whose results have not made it to the mainstream of archaeological
interpretation. As Finlay (1997) argued more than 20 years ago, the recognition of
children and their impact on material culture is not yet part of an integrated
methodology and theory of interpretation that can provide a more complete picture of
ancient societies. And, almost twenty years after Finlay (1997), Kamp (2015:161f) reached
a similar conclusion:

Lillehammer (1989) made a case for the need for archaeologists to study children and
what has been referred to as ‘the archaeological child’ was born […] like a real child,
the archaeological child has matured […] the archaeological child has grown –
working, playing and learning from both peers and elders. The child has also been
creative, modifying existing tools and perspectives as well as developing new ones.
Despite its accomplishments, however, the archaeological child is still lingering on
the fringes, trying to prove its relevance and waiting to be fully-integrated in the
‘adult world’ of archaeological theory and practice.

This can also be seen in the field of lithic technology studies. The words from
Finlay’s (1997) influential text are still valid: “Add children and stir is not the solution,
rather we need to transform how we discuss people and lithics” (FINLAY, 1997:210).
Shea (2006) urges archaeologists to pay more attention to children in lithic analysis and
to develop methods to identify products of their work in lithic assemblages. As the
presentation above show, a number of studies have been published over the years which
interpret in different ways lithic assemblages using the idea that they may represent flint
knappers of different age (infancy, early childhood, middle childhood, adolescence), or
learners in different stages of skill development (novices, beginners, apprentices,
experts). These studies have presented clear results that demonstrate methodological and
theoretical achievements. Yet there are few studies based on lithic technology analysis
that have succeeded in analyzing children as the complex individuals they are “occupying
the realm of childhood, yet also embedded within the world of adults” (KAMP 2015:166)
and as such part of society. From this perspective, we have yet to see future innovative
lithic technology analysis studies presented.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to thank Fernanda Neubauer for kindly inviting me to contribute to this
volume. An anonymous review reader provided valuable comments to an early version
of this text.

Approaches to children’s knapping… | Anders Högberg 69

REFERENCES CITED

ASSAF, Ella; BARKAI, Ran; GOPHER, Avi. 2015. Knowledge Transmission and Apprentice Flint-
Knappers in the Acheulo-Yabrudian: A Case Study from Qesem Cave, Israel. Quaternary
International, 398:79-85.
BABEL, Jerzy. 1997. Teaching Flintknapping Skills in Neolithic Mining Societies. In SCHILD, R.
& SULGOSTOWSKA, Z. (Ed.) Man and Flint: Proceedings of the VIIth International Flint
Symposium Warszawa – Ostrowiec Swietokrzyski September 1995. Warsaw: Institute of
Archaeology and Ethnology Polish Academy of Sciences, pp. 167-169.
BAXTER, Jane Eva. 2005. The Archaeology of Childhood. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.
BAXTER, Jane Eva. 2006. Introduction: The Archaeology of Childhood in Context. Archeological
Papers of the American Anthropological Association, 15:1-9.
BINFORD, Lewis R. 1986. An Alyawara Day and Beyond. American Antiquity, 51:547-565.
BODU, P.; KARLIN, C.; PLOUX, S. 1990. Who’s Who? The Magdelenian Flintknappers of
Pincevent (France). In CZIESLA, E., EICKHOFF, N., & WINTER, D. (Ed.), The Big Puzzle:
International Symposium on Refitting Stone Artefacts, Monrepos, 1987. Bonn: Holos, pp. 143-163.
CRAWFORD, Sally. 2009. The Archaeology of Play Things: Theorising a Toy Stage in the
Biography of Objects. Childhood in the Past, 2:55-70.
CUNNAR, E. Geoffrey. 2015. Discovering Latent Children in the Archaeological Record of the
Great Basin. Childhood in the Past: An International Journal, 8(2):133-148.
CUNNAR, E. Geoffrey & HÖGBERG, Anders. 2015. The Child is Now 25 – A Short Introduction
to a Special Issue. Childhood in the Past: An International Journal, 8(2):75-77.
D’ERRICO, Francesco & BANKS, William E. 2015. The Archaeology of Teaching: A Conceptual
Framework. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 25(4):859-866.
DOMMASNES, Liv Helga and WRIGGLESWORTH, Melanie. 2008. Children, Identity, and the
Past. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
DONAHUE, Randolph, E. & FISCHER, Anders. 2015. A Late Glacial Family at Trollesgave,
Denmark. Journal of Archaeological Science 54:313-324.
DONALD, Merlin 1991. Origins of the Modern Mind: Three Stages in the Evolution of Culture and
Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
DONALD, Merlin. 2012. Evolutionary Origins of Autobiographical Memory: A Retrieval
Hypothesis. In BERNTSEN, Dorthe & RUBIN, David C. (Ed.), Understanding Autobiographical
Memory: Theories and Approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 269-289.
DOWNEY, Jordan T. 2010. Working with Expedient Lithic Technologies in the Northern
Highlands of Peru. Explorations in Anthropology, 10(2):77-95.
DUGSTAD, Sigrid. A. 2010. Early Child Caught Knapping: A Novice Early Mesolithic
Flintknapper in South-western Norway. In LILLEHAMMER, G. (Ed.), Socialisation: Recent
Research on Childhood and Children in the Past. Proceedings from the 2nd International Conference of
the Society for the Study of Childhood in the Past in Stavanger, Norway, 28–30th September 2008.
AmS-Skrifter, 23:65-74.
EMBER, R. Carol & CUNNAR, M. 2015. Children’s Play and Work: The Relevance of Cross-
Cultural Ethnographic Research for Archaeologists. Childhood in the Past: An International
Journal, 8(2):87-103.
EREN, Metin I.; BRADLEY, Bruce. A; SAMPSON, Garth. C. 2011. Middle Paleolithic Skill Level
and the Individual Knapper: An Experiment. American Antiquity, 76(2):229-251.
FAHLANDER, Fredrik. (Ed.) 2011. Spåren av de små: Arkeologiska perspektiv på barn och barndom.
Stockholm Studies in Archaeology, 54. Stockholm.

Approaches to children’s knapping… | Anders Högberg 70

FERGUSON, R. Jeffrey. 2003. An Experimental Test of the Conservation of Raw Material in
Flintknapping Skill Acquisition. Lithic Technology, 28, 113-131.
FERGUSON, R. Jeffrey. 2008. The When, Where and the How of Novices in Craft Production.
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 15:51-67.
FINLAY, Nyree. 1997. Kid Knapping: The Missing Children in Lithic Analysis. In MOORE, J. &
SCOTT, E. (Ed.), Invisible People and Processes: Writing Gender and Childhood into European
Archaeology. London: Leicester University Press, pp. 203-212.
FINLAY, Nyree. 2008. Blank Concerns: Issues of Skill and Consistency in the Replication of
Scottish Later Mesolithic Blades. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 15:68-90.
FINLAY, Nyree. 2015. Kid-knapped Knowledge: Changing Perspectives on the Child in Lithic
Studies. Childhood in the Past: An International Journal, 8(2):104-112.
FISCHER, Anders. 1990. A Late Palaeolithic “School” of Flint-Knapping at Trollesgave, Denmark:
Results from Refitting. Acta Archaeologica, 1989(60):33-49.
GÄRDENFORS, Peter & HÖGBERG, Anders. 2017. The Archaeology of Teaching and the
Evolution of Homo docens. Current Anthropology, 58(2):188-201.
GOLDSTEIN, Steven T. 2018. Knowledge Transmission through the Lens of Lithic Production:
A Case Study from the Pastoral Neolithic of Southern Kenya. Journal of Archaeological Method
and Theory. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-018-9387-x.
GRIMM, Linda. 2000. Apprentice Flintknapping: Relating Material Culture and Social Practice
in the Upper Palaeolithic. In SOFAER DEREVENSKI, J. (Ed.), Children and Material Culture.
London: Routledge. pp. 53-71.
HAMMOND, Gawain & HAMMOND, Norman. 1981. Child’s Play: A Distorting Factor in
Archaeological Distribution. American Antiquity, 46(3):634-636.
HARMAND, Sonia; LEWIS, Jason E.; FEIBEL, Craig S.; LEPRE, Christopher J.; PRAT, Sandrine;
LENOBE, Arnaud; BOËS, Xavier; QUINN, Rhonda L.; BRENET, Michel; ARROYO, Adrian;
TAYLOR, Nicholas; CLÉMENT, Sophie; DAVER, Guillaume; BRUGAL, Jean-Philip;
LEAKEY, Louise; MORTLOCK, Richard A.; WRIGHT, James D.; LOKORODI, Sammy;
KIRWA, Christopher; KENT, Dennis V.; ROCHE, Hélène. 2015. 3.3-million-year-old Stone
Tools from Lomekwi 3, West Turkana, Kenya. Nature, 521(7552), 310-15.
HILDEBRAND, Jennifer. 2012. Children in Archaeological Lithic Analysis. Nebraska
Anthropologist, 27:25-42.
HÖGBERG, Anders. 1999. Child and Adult at a Knapping Area: A Technological Flake Analysis
of the Manufacture of a Neolithic Square Sectioned Axe and a Child’s Flint Knapping Activities
on an Assemblage Excavated as Part of the Öresund Fixed Link Project. Acta Archaeologica,
70:79-106.
HÖGBERG, Anders. 2001. Flinta under yngre bronsålder och äldre järnålder. Öresundsförbindelsen.
Malmö Kulturmiljö. Malmö.
HÖGBERG, Anders. 2008. Playing with Flint and Learning to Knap: Tracing a Child’s Imitation
of Adult Work in a Lithic Assemblage. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 15(1):112-
131.
HÖGBERG, Anders. 2009. Lithics in the Scandinavian Late Bronze Age: Sociotechnical Change and
Persistence. BAR International. Oxford.
HÖGBERG, Anders. 2010. Two Traditions and a Hybrid: South Scandinavian Late Bronze Age
Flint. In ERIKSEN, B. (Ed.), Lithic Technology in Metal Using Societies. Jysk Arkæologiske Selskab,
pp. 61-80.
HÖGBERG, Anders & GÄRDENFORS, Peter. 2015. Children, Teaching and the Evolution of
Humankind. Childhood in the Past: An International Journal, 8(2):113-121.

Approaches to children’s knapping… | Anders Högberg 71

HÖGBERG, Anders: GÄRDENFORS, Peter; LARSSON, Lars. 2015. Knowing, Learning and
Teaching – How Homo Became Docens. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 25(4):847-858.
HÖGBERG, Anders & LARSSON, Lars. 2011 Technology and Behavioural Modernity: New
Results from the Still Bay Site Hollow Rock Shelter, Cape Region, South Africa. Journal of
Human Evolution, 61(2):133-155.
HÖGBERG, Anders & LOMBARD, Marlize. 2016. Still Bay point-production strategies at Hollow
Rock Shelter and Umhlatuzana Rock Shelter and knowledge-transfer systems in southern
Africa at about 80-70 thousand years ago, PLoS ONE 11(12): e0168012.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0168012
HOLDAYWAY, Simon., DOUGLASS; Matthew & PHILLIPPS; Rebecca. 2015. Flake Selection,
Assemblage Variablitiy, and Technological Organization. In SHOTT, M. J. (Ed.) Works in Stone.
Contemporary Perspectives on Lithic Analysis. Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press, pp.
46-62.
JOHANSEN, Lykke & STAPERT, Dick. 2008. Stone Age Kids and their Stones. In SØRENSEN,
M. & DESROSIERS, P. (Ed.), Technology in Archaeology: Proceedings of the SILA Workshop: The
Study of Technology as a Method for Gaining Insight into Social and Cultural Aspects of Prehistory,
The National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen, November 2–4, 2005. PNM. Publications from the
National Museum Studies in Archaeology & History, 14. Copenhagen, pp. 15-39.
JOHANSEN, Lykke & STAPERT, Dick. 2000. Two ‘Epi-Ahrensburgian’ Sites in the Northern
Netherlands: Oudehaske (Friesland) and Gramsbergen (Overijssel). Paleohistoria, 39/40:1-87.
JOHANSEN, Øystein, 1986. Miniatyrøkser fra mellomneolitikum: Et tolkningsproblem.
Universitetets Oldsaksamling. Årbok, 1984/1985:31–35.
KARLIN, C. & JULIEN, M. 1994. Prehistoric Technology: A Cognitive Science? In Renfrew, C. &
Zubrow, E. B. W. (Ed.), The Ancient Mind: Elements of Cognitive Archaeology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 152-164.
KAMP, Kathryn A. 2001. Where Have All the Children Gone? The Archaeology of Childhood.
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 8(1):1-29.
KAMP, Kathryn A. 2006. Dominant Discourses; Lived Experiences: Studying the Archaeology of
Children and Childhood. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, 15:115-
122.
KAMP, Kathryn A. 2015. Children and Their Childhoods: Retrospectives and Prospectives.
Childhood in the Past: An International Journal, 8(2):161-169.
KNUTSSON, Kjel. 1983. Barn, finns dom? Fjölnir, 1:8-11.
KNUTSSON, Kjel. 1986. Några ord om barn, stötkantkärnor och pieces esquillées. Fjölnir, 5/1:29-
39.
LANCY, David F. 2017. Homo Faber Juvenalis: A Multidisciplinary Survey of Children as Tool
Makers/Users. Childhood in the Past, 10(1):72-90.
LANGLEY, Michelle. 2017. Magdalenian Children: Projectile Points, Portable Art and Playthings.
Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 37(1):1-22.
LEMONNIER, Pierre. 1993. (Ed.) 1993. Technological Choices: Transformation in Material Culture
since the Neolithic. London: Routledge.
LILLEHAMMER, Grete. 1979. Gjemt og glemt – Barn i fortiden. AmS-Småtrykk, 5:4-7.
LILLEHAMMER, Grete. 1982. Med barnet på vei inn i forhistorien. AmS-Skrifter, 9:97-102.
LILLEHAMMER, Grete. 1989. A Child is Born. Norwegian Archaeological Review, 22:89-105.

Approaches to children’s knapping… | Anders Högberg 72

LILLEHAMMER, Grete. (Ed.) 2010. Socialisation: Recent Research on Childhood and Children in the
Past. Proceedings from the 2nd International Conference of the Society for the Study of Childhood in the
Past in Stavanger, Norway, 28–30th September 2008. AmS-Skrifter, 23. Stavanger.
LILLEHAMMER, Grete. 2015. 25 Years with the ‘Child’ and the Archaeology of Childhood.
Childhood in the Past: An International Journal, 8(2):78-86.
LOMBARD, Marlize & HÖGBERG, Anders. 2018. The Still Bay Points of Apollo 11 Rock Shelter,
Namibia: An Inter-regional Perspective. Azania: The Journal of African Archaeological Research.
doi.org/10.1080/0067270X.2018.1513240
MITHEN, Steven & PARSONS, Lawrence 2008. The Brain as a Cultural Artefact. Cambridge
Archaeological Journal, 18, 415-422.
MOORE, Jenny & SCOTT, Eleanor. (Ed.) 1997. Writing Gender and Childhood into European
Archaeology. London & New York: Leicester University Press.
NOWELL, April. 2010. Working Memory and the Speed of Life. Current Anthropology, 51,
Supplement 1, S121-33
NOWELL, April. 2015. Children, Metaphorical Thinking and Upper Paleolithic Visual Cultures.
Childhood in the Past: An International Journal, 8(2):122-132.
PAGETER, Justin & EREN, Metin I. 2017. Quantifying and Comparing Bipolar Versus Freehand
Flake Morphologies, Production Currencies, and Reduction Energetics During Lithic
Miniaturization. Lithic Technology, 42(2–3):90-108.
PARGETER, Justin: de la PÊNA, P.; EREN, Metin I. 2018. Assessing Raw Material’s Role in
Bipolar and Freehand Miniaturized Flake Shape, Technological Structure, and Fragmentation
Rates. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-018-0647-1.
PARK, Robert, W. 1998. Size Counts: The Miniature Archaeology of Childhood in Inuit Societies.
Antiquity, 72(276), 269-81.
PIGEOT, Nicole. 1990. Technical and social actors. Flintknapping specialists and apprentices at
Magdalenian Etiolles. Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 9(1):126-141.
REYNOLDS, Peter C. 1993. The Complementation Theory of Language and Tool Use. In
GIBSON, K. R. & INGOLD, T. (Ed.), Tools, Language and Cognition in Human Evolution.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 407-428.
RIEDE, Felix. 2006. Chaîne Opératoire and Chaîne Evolutionaire? Putting Technological
Sequences into an Evolutionary Perspective. Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 21(1), 50-
75.
RIEDE, Felix; JOHANNSEN, Niels. N.; HÖGBERG, Anders; NOWELL, April; LOMBARD,
Marlize. 2018. The Role of Play Objects and Object Play in Human Cognitive Evolution and
Innovation. Evolutionary Anthropology, 27(1):46-59.
SCHWARTZMAN, Helen, B. 1978. Transformations: The Anthropology of Children’s Play. New York
and London: Plenum Press.
SCHWARTZMAN, Helen, B. 2006. Materializing Children: Challenges for the Archaeology of
Childhood. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, 15:123-131.
SHEA, John J. 2006. Child’s Play: Reflections on the Invisibility of Children in the Paleolithic
Record. Evolutionary Anthropology, 15:212-216.
SHEA, John J. 2017. Stone Tools in Human Evolution: Behavioral Differences among Technological
Primates. New York: Cambridge University Press.
SHELLEY, Phillip H. 1990. Variation in Lithic Assemblages: An Experiment. Journal of Field
Archaeology, 17(2):187-193.

Approaches to children’s knapping… | Anders Högberg 73

SOFAER DEREVENSKI, Joanna. (Ed.) 2000. Children and Material Culture. London & New York:
Routledge.
SOMLS, Mark & TURNBULL, Oliver 2002. The Brain and the Inner World. London: Karnac.
STAPERT, Dick. 2007. Youngsters Knapping Flint Near the Campfire: An Alternative View of
Site K at Maastricht-Belvédère (the Netherlands). Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt, 37:19-35.
STERELNY, Kim 2012. The Evolved Apprentice: How Evolution Made Humans Unique. Cambridge,
MA: The MIT Press.
STERNKE Farine & SØRENSEN, Mikkel. 2009. The Identification of Children’s Flint Knapping
Products in Mesolithic Scandinavia. In MCCARTAN, S. B., SCHULTING, G., WARREN, G.
& Woodman, P. (Ed.), Mesolithic Horizons: Papers Presented at the Seventh International Conference
on the Mesolithic in Europe, Belfast 2005. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 722-729.
TAKAKURA, Jun. 2013. Using Lithic Refitting to Investigate the Skill Learning Process: Lessons
from Upper Paleolithic Assemblages at the Shirataki Sites in Hokkaido, Northern Japan. In
AKAZAWA, T., NISHIAKI, Y., & AOKI, K. (Ed.), Dynamics of Learning in Neanderthals and
Modern Humans, Volume 1 Cultural Perspectives. Tokyo, Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht,
London: Springer, pp. 151-171.
THALBITZER, William. 1914. The Ammassalik Eskimo. Meddelelser om Grønland, 39-40.
Copenhagen.
VINSRYGG, Synnøve. 1979. Våre “eldste” barn. Ottar, 115:30-34.
WASSERMAN, Leslie Haley and ZAMBO, Debby 2013. Early Childhood and Neuroscience – Links
to Development and Learning. New York: Springer.

Approaches to children’s knapping… | Anders Högberg 74