Artikel Feestbundel Stapert 2012

Introduction: ‘fl int failures’When studying fl int artefacts, archaeologists regularly encounter ‘failed fl ints’: awkwardly shaped and ‘atypical’ pieces, which are often impossible to classify unambiguously. In many cases, such pieces show features of having been created by inexperienced knappers. In our opinion, many such pieces were ‘exercise material’ produced by children in the course of developing their knapping skills. On the basis of experiments and ethnographical sources, it is reasonable to assume that this learning period lasted several years. Work by children, long neglected in archaeological studies, may in fact have been an important contributor to artefact assemblages from the Stone Age, also in a numerical sense. Learners produce a lot of debris. An experienced teacher himself, Shea (2006: 212) writes: “By the time they achieved competence, every fl intknapper who ever lived had probably already littered the landscape with thousands of virtually indestructible stone artefacts.”

Our interest in this matter was kindled when studying a curiously shaped bifacial implement from an Early Middle Palaeolithic site near Rhenen (Fig. 1). This tool may be classifi ed as a pic in the typology of Bordes (1961). We pic in the typology of Bordes (1961). We picdescribed this tool in several papers (Stapert et al., 2006; Stapert, 2007b; Johansen & Stapert, 2008), and since then we have come across several more examples of ‘failed fl ints’. In our interpretation, the Rhenen pic (length 9.9 cm, pic (length 9.9 cm, picweight 129 g) was not meant as such, but in fact was a failed ‘normal’ handaxe. It acquired

its high triangular cross-section and relatively narrow shape not by intention, but as a result of an inadequate fl aking technique. Both faces had protruding parts that the knapper tried to remove in vain. In his attempts, he had been hammering both faces head-on, an irrational strategy that is often resorted to by apprentices in the art of fl intknapping, and rarely by experienced knappers. This hitting of surfaces, instead of edges, is called ‘face-battering’, and was described by Shelley (1990). He observed it quite often during his courses for fi rst-year students, whom he taught to make bifaces and blades. Similarly non-productive and irrational behaviour is the repeated hitting of an edge where earlier fl aking attempts had already failed and left step fractures. This results in what Shelley calls ‘stacked steps’. Hitting such a spot again and again of course destroys the edge to such a degree that further working of the piece usually becomes impossible.

Shelley (1990) observed that about 71% of the bifaces produced by his students had high-triangular cross-sections rather than the normal biconvex ones. Schick (1994) also noted that beginners often have the tendency to excessively narrow a piece without suffi cient thinning. In other words: pics or similar shapes pics or similar shapes picsoften result when inexperienced knappers try to make a ‘normal’ handaxe. It may well be that this type comprises quite a lot of failed handaxes produced by learners. The same may be true of ‘Abbevillian handaxes’: crude and thick, ‘primitive-looking’ handaxes, which were traditionally seen as type fossils of a very early

3 Some workpieces by Middle Palaeolithic apprentice fl intknappers

Lykke Johansen1 & Dick Stapert1

Abstract Abstract : In this paper it is suggested that many ‘failed fl ints’: irregularly shaped and atypical pieces, may in fact be workpieces by apprentice fl intknappers. Several specimens considered as such are illustrated and discussed, dating from both Early and Late Middle Palaeolithic times; these include bifacial tools and cores. At the end of the paper, several topics relating to such pieces are discussed, e.g. the infl uence of poor raw material, typological aspects and the identity of Palaeolithic apprentice fl intknappers. It seems plausible that they were mostly children, especially boys. Finally, the question whether fl intknapping is exclusively a cultural behaviour, or partly embedded in our instincts as a result of gene-culture coevolution, is briefl y discussed.

Keywords: Middle Palaeolithic, fl intknapping, ‘fl int failures’, apprentices, children, handaxes, typology.

Part I – The Lower & Middle Palaeolithic

50 Part I – The Lower & Middle Palaeolithic

phase of the Acheulian. In fact, they turn up in every handaxe culture, and many of them are probably children’s workpieces.

In this article, we briefl y present and illustrate a few more examples of what we consider to be ‘failed fl ints’, probably made by children during the Middle Palaeolithic. These specimens are either cores or bifacial tools. Bifaces and cores are complex artefacts, requiring not only quite a lot of tactical insight and motor skill, but also an understanding of a (multi-phase) chaîne opératoire. Because of their complexity, many things could go wrong at various stages in the work, off ering us the opportunity to evaluate the knapper’s level of competence. Of course, one should take

into account diff erences between various raw materials in this connection. Material of poor quality will produce proportionally more steps and hinges during knapping than good-quality fl int, by both good and poor knappers (see also the discussion). Alternatively, one might study simple fl akes. In that case, however, the approach must be statistical, and can hardly lead to interesting insights, because a kind of ‘average’ picture is obtained. It is much more interesting to come close to individual fl intknappers by studying their handiwork.

Quite a lot of research concerning work by apprentices in fl intknapping has been done for the Upper Palaeolithic, usually based on refi tting analyses. In this article, we focus on

Figure 1. A bifacial tool with a high-triangular cross-section (pic) from the Kwintelooijen quarry near Rhenen. Early Middle Palaeolithic (‘Rhenen Industry’, Acheulian). This tool was knapped in an incompetent way, and shows traces of ‘face-ba� ering’ on both faces, probably in an (unsuccessful) a� empt to remove protruding parts. Key to drawings: stippled areas = cortex, irregular cross-hatching = old frost-split surfaces, and blank areas = (sub)recent damages (drawing L. Johansen).

Johansen & Stapert 51

Figure 2. A core from Site K (K.00/212.2) in the Belvédère quarry near Maastricht. Early Middle Palaeolithic (Acheulian?). The core was worked in an incompetent way and shows ‘stacked steps’ in several places (drawing L. Johansen).


the Middle Palaeolithic, and most specimens are from the Netherlands though a few examples from abroad are also discussed. The Middle Palaeolithic is here defi ned as the period in which regular use was made of the Levallois core technology. This probably started around 300,000 years (300 ka BP) ago, maybe somewhat earlier. It is useful to subdivide this period into two parts: before and after the ice-cover of the Late Saalian around 150 ka BP.

The fi rst part, the Early Middle Palaeolithic, is represented in the Netherlands by several sites in the Belvédère quarry near Maastricht, and by dozens of sites in the central Netherlands which are known as the ‘Rhenen Industry’. The ‘Rhenen’ sites can be placed in (a later phase of) the Acheulian because of the occurrence of handaxes.

The Late Middle Palaeolithic, during the Eemian and especially the fi rst half of the

Weichselian, was created by the ‘classic’ Neanderthals. Many sites are known from this period, which can be placed in several ‘cultures’: the Mousterian, the Micoquian and the Leafpoint Culture. Most if not all Mousterian sites in the Netherlands seem to fi t best in the so-called Mousterian of Acheulian Tradition, hereafter referred to as MAT, because small, more or less triangular handaxes are a regular feature of this group. The Micoquian also features handaxes, but its type fossil is the Keilmesser, a tool with a back opposite the bifacial working edge. In our area, the Leafpoint Culture is the last culture of the Neanderthals (for an overview: Stapert, 2007c). So far, about a dozen leafpoints (or preforms of leafpoints) are known from the Netherlands.

After describing some examples of what we consider to be products of learners, we will

Figure 3. A bifacial tool with a very thick basal part (fi cron) from the Kwintelooijen quarry near Rhenen. Early Middle Palaeolithic (‘Rhenen Industry’, Acheulian). The tool was worked in an incompetent way and many steps are present (drawing L. Johansen).


briefl y discuss several topics relating to such pieces.

Specimens from the Early Middle Palaeolithic

A. Belvédère, Site K, a coreSite K is an artefact-rich site in Unit IV of the Belvédère quarry near Maastricht (Roebroeks, 1988; De Loecker, 1992, 2006). It probably dates from about 250 ka BP. At Site K, 10,912 fl int artefacts were excavated. This is the only Unit IV site with a substantial number of ‘tools’: 111 formal tools and 26 artefacts with macroscopic traces of use. Among the tools, scrapers predominate (c. 75%), including pointed double forms (‘Mousterian points’).

In an earlier paper (Stapert, 2007a), it was suggested that at Site K several apprentice fl intknappers had been active. This inter-pretation was based solely on an analysis of the data presented by De Loecker (2006), not on personal inspection of the material. The high proportions of fl aking accidents are of special interest here: no less than 85.7% of the cores at Site K show one or several of the following phenomena: steps, hinges, face-battering and stacked steps (De Loecker, 2006: 29). Stacked steps were observed on 59.3% of the cores, and face-battering on 17.6%. These are very high percentages, even when compared with the work of Shelley’s students.

In 2009, the second author visited Dimitri de Loecker in Leiden, and was shown some of the material from Site K. Several cores with clear indications of incompetent workmanship were inspected. One of these could be studied in greater detail in Groningen, and we are grateful to De Loecker for making this possible. This core is illustrated here in Figure 2 (it has the identifi cation no. K 00/212.2.). Its shape is somewhat ‘globular’. The dimensions of the core are 6.8x7.3x5.1 cm. Its weight is 278.8 g. Several remnants of old surfaces are preserved on the core, both frost-split faces and cortex remains. An inclusion (a fossil?) must have hindered the working of the core. The fl int is fairly fi ne-grained but with coarser parts. The piece is not heavily weathered; low gloss and possibly a weakly developed white patina are present.

This globular core was not exploited in any systematic way. In fact, fl akes were removed in a totally opportunistic manner, wherever it seemed even remotely possible to do so, and

also at places where fl aking was impracticable because of obtuse angles. Many fl akes ended in steps or hinges, in some cases in very deep steps (for example at the left on face B). Very often the knapper did not succeed in striking off a fl ake, and ended up merely splintering the edges. In at least three spots, coarse accumulations of steps were created, ‘stacked steps’ in the terminology of Shelley (1990): at the right on face A, at the base of face B, and at the top of face C. In all of these cases, the knapper hit the same spot over and over again, though several step fractures were present there already, resulting from earlier attempts. As noted, such behaviour is not rational because it will only make the situation worse: these edges became totally unsuitable for further knapping. An experienced knapper would never have done so, and it therefore seems very probable that this core was worked by an apprentice (probably an older boy, see the discussion at the end of this paper).

We saw at least fi ve more cores from Site K with similar features. In some cases, incompetent working of these cores seems to have taken place only in the last stage of their exploitation, after use by a more experienced knapper. Apart from the many steps and hinges, and notably the stacked steps, there are further indications of work by learners: selection of pieces which are unsuitable for use as cores because of their shape, little if any preparation of striking platforms, use of striking edges with obtuse angles. Although at Site K quite a few very large cores were worked, several very small fl int nodules were also used; the tiny fl akes resulting from these ‘micro-cores’ can hardly have been of any practical use. The exploitation of very small cores has been associated with apprentice fl intknappers at other sites too (see discussion).

Though stacked steps occur in relatively high proportions, the phenomenon described by Shelley (1990) as ‘face-battering’ is seen much less often on the cores of Site K. Presumably face-battering is to be expected more often on bifaces than on cores, because the mental template of a biface is a symmetrical and relatively thin shape. Protruding parts on cores will not have bothered the knappers so much.

It is remarkable at Site K how many quite complete refi tting compositions could be created (see De Loecker, 2006) without large ‘gaps’ representing fl akes that were taken away for use elsewhere. This presumably means that in many cases the purpose of the knapping at


Site K was not so much to produce usable blanks for tools as to practise knapping skills.

B. Rhenen, Kwintelooijen quarry, a fi cronThousands of Early Middle Palaeolithic artefacts are known from several dozen sites in the ice-pushed region of the Central Netherlands. Excavations have shown that these artefacts derive from river gravels of the Urk Formation (for an overview: Stapert, 1987). The sediments containing the artefacts were pushed up by the ice during the last phase of the Saalian, between c. 160-130 ka BP, and the artefacts must therefore be older than about 160 ka BP. Find-bearing gravels at one of the sites, Leusderheide, produced OSL (Optically Stimulated Luminescence) dates of 168±19, 199±15 and 208±20 ka BP, i.e. shortly before the onset of glaciation (Van Balen et al., 2007). Therefore, Van Balen and Busschers (2010) suggest that the ‘Rhenen Industry’ dates from early MIS (Marine Isotope Stage) 6. However, the stratigraphical evidence especially at Wageningen points to a dating in the Belvédère/Hoogeveen Interglacial (probably MIS 7) (Stapert, 1987, 1991; several contributions in Ruegg, 1991; see also Vandenberghe, 1995).

The Kwintelooijen quarry produced par-ticularly large numbers of artefacts. A series of artefacts that were probably worked by children is known from this site, especially bifaces and (very) small cores. Some of these have already been published (Stapert, 2007b): a pic (mentioned above: Fig. 1), a ‘handaxe-pic (mentioned above: Fig. 1), a ‘handaxe-piclike implement’, a small quartzite core, and a ‘micro-Levallois fl ake’. Since then, several more specimens could be studied in the collection of Mrs Jonny Off erman-Heykens (at Kortenhoef; this collection has since been transferred to the Rijksmuseum voor Oudheden in Leiden). Rijksmuseum voor Oudheden in Leiden). Rijksmuseum voor Oudheden

A remarkable tool (found by Auke Boelsma) is the small fi cron illustrated in Figure 3. It has fi cron illustrated in Figure 3. It has fi crona maximum length of 9.2 cm; its weight is c. 103 g. The thick basal part of this strange implement is unworked, and shows cortex (face A) and remnants of old frost-split surfaces (face B). On face A a large negative is present from before the working of the edges. Several small fl akes, coming from the left, were struck in an incompetent way: they dig too deeply into the fl int, and the middle one ends in a step. Moreover, these fl akes made the tool too narrow and the working angle almost obtuse: ca. 80°. The working of the other edge also went very wrong. On face A, one negative

ends in a deep step, and close to the tip a series of superimposed steps occur: stacked steps. Also on face B, a series of failures can be noted. The negatives are irregular in shape and in several cases not perpendicular to the edge. Several ended in steps, of which one is very deep, creating a ‘ridge’ in the middle of face B. All negatives along the right-hand edge of face B are from fl akes struck before face A was worked. In other words: the knapper did not turn the piece around repeatedly during the work, as an experienced knapper probably would have done.

This tool must have been worked by an in-competent knapper (probably an older child). Though there are cutting edges along both sides over about 4 cm, the edge angles are almost obtuse and the piece is too narrow for its thickness (see the side-view). It is diffi cult to classify this specimen; perhaps it is best described as a fi cron. In general, fi crons have the fi crons have the fi cronsoutline of bifaces lancéolés or bifaces micoquiensin the typology of Bordes, but are crudely made: “... le travail des arêtes est nettement moins soigné...” (Bordes, 1961: 78). In Britain the name fi cron is used for handaxes with a largely fi cron is used for handaxes with a largely fi cronunworked base and a narrow top part. Like picsand bifaces lagéniformes in Bordes’ typology, bifaces lagéniformes in Bordes’ typology, bifaces lagéniformesfi crons are often shaped irregularly with a high fi crons are often shaped irregularly with a high fi cronstriangular cross-section. In terms of technical quality, or rather the lack of it, this implement is similar to the pic from the same site described pic from the same site described picearlier (Stapert, 2007b). Both show evidence of unskilled fl aking, such as too deep negatives, steps and indeed stacked steps, obtuse working angles and thick cross-sections. It seems plau-sible, therefore, that such irregular bifaces were mostly products of learners of the knapping craft. Such pieces are also known from other sites of the ‘Rhenen Industry’, for example from Kesteren (see under C).

C. Kesteren, a ‘pic’Kesteren is a location on the river Rhine, south of Rhenen, where suction dredging has produced artefacts of the ‘Rhenen Industry’. Most of these were collected by Auke Boelsma, some by Ben Walet. The fi nds are now in the Rijksmuseum voor Oudheden in Leiden (Off erman Collection). voor Oudheden in Leiden (Off erman Collection). voor OudhedenThe collection comprises about 70 artefacts, including some 35 fl akes and two blades or blade fragments. Several artefacts are not made of fl int but of quartzite: a chopper, two cores and four fl akes. One small core was made out of a ‘Meuse egg’ (rounded fl int pebble from fossil beach


Figu

re 4

. A

bifa

cial

tool

with

a h

igh-

tria

ngul

ar c

ross

-sec

tion

and

a th

ick

basa

l par

t (pi

c) fr

om a

suc

tion-

dred

ging

loca

tion

near

Kes

tere

n. E

arly

Mid

dle

Pala

eolit

hic

(‘Rhe

nen

Indu

stry

’, Ac

heul

ian)

. Man

y st

eps

are

visi

ble,

and

sta

cked

ste

ps a

lso

occu

r (dr

awin

g L.

Joha

nsen

).


deposits). Apart from the quartzite chopper, tools include a small handaxe fragment, a pic-like tool, pic-like tool, pic-three or four side-scrapers, and four pieces with Clacton notches (one made on a quartzite fl ake, two on fl int nodules and one on a fl int fl ake). In total, there are some 20 cores, of which quite a few are irregularly shaped; only one shows any sign of core preparation. At least three, mostly quite small cores were probably worked by (one or more) apprentices in fl intknapping. These pieces were not worked in any systematic way and for instance show fl aking attempts at places with inappropriate angles, resulting in steps or hinges.

The handaxe fragment (found by Walet) is a broken-off top part, only 3.5 cm long. The break is secondary, as its surface is less heavily patinated than the rest of the piece. As far as can be ascertained from this fragment, the handaxe had been worked in a competent way, its edge angles being 55-60°.

In our opinion, the pic-like tool is a clear example pic-like tool is a clear example pic-of work by an inexperienced knapper, and this piece is therefore described and illustrated here (Fig. 4). The clumsy tool is diffi cult to classify in a formal way; it may best be viewed as a ‘failed handaxe’. Alternatively, one could describe it as a core, since one face is much more arched than the other (see the side-view), but the shape as a whole suggests that a bifacial tool was envisaged. From the top, a part has broken off in recent times. The original length of the tool can be estimated at c. 13 cm; its present weight is c. 426 g.

One of the main reasons for assuming that this piece was created by an inexperienced knapper is that along one of the lateral edges there is a place with heavily stacked steps (shown in the drawing halfway along the right-hand side of face B), resulting from repeatedly striking this edge in an attempt to remove a protruding part in the middle of face A (see side-view and cross-section). This was, of course, unsuccessful,

Figure 5. A preform of a handaxe, made out of a fl ake, from the Middeldiep site in the North Sea, 15 km off the coast of the province of Zeeland. Late Middle Palaeolithic (MAT). The tool shows many steps, some of which are quite deep (drawing L. Johansen).


and consequently the cross-section of this piece is more or less triangular - a feature of pics (Bordes, 1961). The fact that attempts were pics (Bordes, 1961). The fact that attempts were picsmade to thin the piece suggests that a handaxe was the goal of its maker, because no thinning would have been necessary if the piece was intended only as a core. That the worker of this tool was no expert is shown by the presence of many steps and hinges, on both faces. In fact, there are hardly any negatives that do not end in either hinges or steps. The lateral edges are not functional at all, with angles of 70-90°, and in places they are even obtuse. The tool was worked clearly by hard percussion only. The base is unworked and displays remnants of old frost-split faces. Elsewhere too, on both faces, there are remnants of old surfaces, including cortex (face B).

This must be a product of a learner fl int-knapper, who had not yet mastered the motor skills for producing a functional handaxe. The piece is reminiscent of the pic-like tool from the Kwintelooijen quarry mentioned above and shown in Figure 1. Indeed, it seems that many pics in fact were not meant to be pics in fact were not meant to be pics pics at all, but pics at all, but picswere failed attempts at handaxes.

Specimens from the Late Middle Palaeolithic

A. Middeldiep, North Sea, two handaxesThanks to Jan Glimmerveen (Den Haag), it was possible to study two handaxes from Middeldiep, an important site in the North Sea some 15 km off the coast of Zeeland. The site has produced a small but characteristic part of a Neanderthal skull, now exhibited in the Rijksmuseum voor Oudheden at Leiden (Hublin Rijksmuseum voor Oudheden at Leiden (Hublin Rijksmuseum voor Oudhedenet al., 2009). Among the artefacts (c. 70) from this site are Levallois fl akes, a blade, side scrapers including double forms, and at least ten handaxes (Verhart, 2001; Mol et al., 2008; Johansen et al., 2009). The handaxes include triangular, Micoquian and bout coupé forms. bout coupé forms. bout coupéSeveral handaxes are masterly products, but there are also (at least) three handaxes that seem to us to be eff orts of learners. Two of these are briefl y described here (both are in the collection of Theo Lambrechts).

At least two handaxes from Middeldiep were fashioned out of fl akes. One of these, a well-made specimen, was described by Verhart (2001: Fig. 7). Another example is illustrated here (Fig. 5). It is a failed preform of a handaxe

Figure 6. Small cordiforme handaxe, with deep steps, from the Middeldiep site in the North Sea. Late Middle Palaeolithic (MAT) (drawing L. Johansen).


made out of a thick fl ake. Length: 9.5 cm, width: 6.7 cm, thickness: 2.4 cm. Its weight is 154.4 g. A large part of the ventral face is preserved on face B. The location of the point of percussion (no longer present) of the fl ake is indicated in the drawing by a small circle. Though the bulb was largely removed during subsequent working, it can still be seen that it was prominent; therefore the fl ake was probably obtained by hard

percussion. Some of the larger negatives could also have been produced by hard percussion. The dorsal face (A) was worked from all sides, but this was not very successful: a protrusion remained in the centre. Attempts to remove it resulted in at least three steps or hinges; one hinge is very deep (see cross-section). After this occurred, further working of the piece had become virtually impossible. On the

Figure 7. ‘Mini-handaxe’ made out of a fl ake, from a site near Assen in the northern Netherlands. Late Middle Palaeolithic (MAT). Many steps are visible, including ‘stacked steps’ (drawing L. Johansen).

Figure 8. Small handaxe, from the same site near Assen. Late Middle Palaeolithic (MAT). This tool too shows a� ributes of defi cient workmanship, for example stacked steps (drawing L. Johansen).


ventral face, the knapper faced the same kind of problems. Some fl akes from the base were reasonably successful, but attempts to remove several remnants of old frost-split faces failed. The base is not a cutting edge. The attempts to produce a suitably thin tool failed, because several fl akes, intended to remove the bulb area, ended in steps. The failure of this tool was most probably the result of an inadequate fl aking technique. Many steps originated from the piece being hit at a wrong angle. The conclusion is that the knapper, though not a beginner, was still inexperienced, probably an older child. The second specimen is a small cordiformehandaxe, illustrated in Figure 6. Length: 7.1 cm, width: 5.1 cm, thickness: 2.5 cm. Its weight is 73.3 g. The base has a more or less rounded outline. Though the handaxe has a fair degree of overall symmetry, it is essentially a failed product. On face A, two protruding parts are present. The knapper tried to remove these, but this only resulted in a series of steps. In our opinion this is unlikely to have been done by a skilled knapper, because the chosen approach could never be successful. The same holds for a problem that occurred during the shaping of face B, where a very deep step (depth c. 0.5 cm) probably resulted from percussion at a wrong angle (see the cross-section). Apart from the deep step, a large remnant of heavily weathered cortex is present on face B (with windgloss). One negative, coming from the top part, seems to date from an earlier phase in the exploitation of this piece of fl int. It does not look like having originated from the shaping of the handaxe; maybe this fl int was used as a core before being transformed into a handaxe? If so, the core was probably used by an experienced knapper. The handaxe, however, must have been worked by an apprentice, though not a beginner. The knapper produced an acceptable contour shape, but the irregular cross-section and the steps refl ect defi cient motor skills. Nevertheless, parts of the edges do look functional.

This is one of the smallest handaxes known from the Netherlands. Children’s products often turn out quite small. It should be noted, however, that small size is an attribute of many MAT handaxes, also of technically fl awless specimens. For example, the fi ne triangular handaxe from Mander, made out of a fl ake, has a length of 7.7 cm (Stapert, 1982); and one of the recently found handaxes from a MAT site near Assen (discussed below), also a triangular and well-made spe-

cimen, is even smaller: c. 7 cm (Niekus et al., 2010). The conclusion that the small specimen from Middeldiep probably is a child’s handiwork is therefore not in the fi rst place indicated by its small dimensions, but by its workmanship (see also the discussion). Nevertheless, many products probably made by apprentices are relatively small, especially in areas where large nodules of good quality were scarce.

The two handaxes illustrated here could very well have been produced by the same young knapper, because they display similar kinds of fl aking inadequacy and a comparable level of skill. A third piece showing features of having been worked by an apprentice could not be studied by us.

B. ‘Assen’, two handaxes and a coreA site near Assen in the province of Drenthe (The Netherlands), has so far (fall 2011) produced some 79 Middle Palaeolithic artefacts (Niekus et al., 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011). The composition of this assemblage is amazing: it includes 12 (fragments of) handaxes or handaxe-like tools. At least two of these were most probably created by apprentices in fl intknapping, and are briefl y described below. A number of other bifaces (including several subtriangular specimens and cordiformes) were clearly worked by an experienced knapper. Several of these good-quality handaxes had not been made at the spot, but were imported from elsewhere. Tools of other types are virtually absent (one blade fragment has some scraper-like retouch combined with ventral thinning). Furthermore there are four blades or blade fragments, of which one is clearly a Levallois blade. In total, fi ve cores have been found so far, and some 56 fl akes. One of the cores, illustrated below, may have been worked by an apprentice. The rather extreme focus on handaxes - more than 14% of all artefacts! - sets the site apart. Another site with many handaxes (56) in the Northern European Plain is Ochtmissen near Lüneburg in Germany (Thieme & Richter, 1994), dating from the Late Acheulian; it is interpreted as a ‘hunting camp’. Most of the handaxes were worked in a masterly way, but not all: “Als Einzelstück ist ein grob zugerichtetes, massives cleaverartiges Stück zu nennen” (ibid.: 124).

The fi rst specimen from Assen discussed here is a ‘mini-handaxe’, shown in Figure 7. Its maximum length is only 5.7 cm, its width 4.4 cm, and its thickness 1.4 cm. Its weight is 31.8 gram.


This tool was made from a hard-percussion fl ake. The striking platform was not prepared; its remnant (1.8x0.4 cm) consists of an old frost-split face. The striking angle is c. 115°. There is a prominent bulb of percussion of which about half is preserved. Along the right-hand edge of the ventral face a series of negatives are present, the purpose of which was to remove the bulb. This was only partly achieved, however. On the dorsal face too a protrusion occurs in the basal part of the tool, making this a relatively thick part of the tool even though the knapper tried to thin it. Roughly in the middle of the right-hand edge of the ventral face a series of steps were created as a result of repeated, unsuccessful fl aking attempts: stacked steps (Shelley, 1990). Dorsally, remnants of old surfaces are present in the thick basal part. These are mostly old frost-split surfaces, but there is also a small remnant of cortex. Several larger negatives, coming from the tip part and dating from before the striking of the fl ake, end in hinges. Hence this was a coarse and thick fl ake to start with, which nevertheless was transformed into a tool. Since both edges were retouched dorsally, the tool could be described as either a Mousterian point or a converging double side-scraper in the typology of Bordes (1961). Given the attempts to remove the bulb, it resembles especially a pointe moustérienne à bulbe enlevé, rather than a racloir convergent. However, this classifi cation is problematic. The retouching was partly bifacial, and not done adequately; especially along the left edge, dorsally several retouch fl akes ended in steps, and ventrally even in stacked steps, as noted above. Alternatively, the tool may be described as a small biface partiel. In the typology of Bordes, these are mostly made of fl akes, with incomplete working of the ventral face. In terms of its outline, the piece would fall into the category of bifaces cordiformes. All in all, this implement has an unclear typology, and cannot be classifi ed unambiguously. For a handaxe it is very small, with a length of less than 6 cm. The relatively thick basal part argues against classifi cation as a Mousterian point, however. Ventral thinning is not uncommon on Mousterian points, to facilitate hafting. In this case, however, removing the bulb was not achieved, and this piece cannot have been a functional point. Moreover, the retouching was done in an incompetent way: quite a lot of steps, and indeed stacked steps resulted. Though the work was somewhat hampered by an old

frost crack in the fl int, this fails to explain the inexpert knapping. Therefore, our conclusion is that this is most probably the product of an apprentice in fl intknapping - not a beginner but an advanced learner.

Another possible example of an apprentice’s workpiece is illustrated in fi g. 8. Length: 4.9, width: 5.0 cm, thickness: 1.6 cm. Its weight is 42.9 g. From the top of this handaxe-like tool, a small part is missing, probably about 0.5 cm. The original length can be estimated at about 5.5 cm. The surface of the break is not (sub)recent, and therefore the break could be contemporary with the production of the tool. It is made of good-quality, fi ne-grained fl int. On face A there is a small part of an old frostsplit face, in addition to cortex. On face B, two larger areas of old faces are present. Since remnants of old faces occur on both faces, the tool cannot have been made out of a fl ake. It was made of a slab-like piece of fl int created by frost-splitting, with an original thickness of not much more than about 2 cm. This is a small bifacial tool with a somewhat unclear typology. One of the lateral edges is straight in outline, the other convex. It seems clear that the aim was to make a more-or-less triangular handaxe with a cutting base. The knapper did not succeed very well, however. There are quite a lot of negatives, on both faces, of unsuccessful fl akes: irregularly shaped, too steep, or stopping too early. Especially near the base there are series of small and steep retouches, partly ending in steps. The concave shape of the base is in fact the result of inadequate knapping. Also along the left-hand side of face A, the working of the handaxe went very wrong. By repeated hitting of the same spot, where knapping could not be successful, a series of superimposed steps were created: stacked steps. Quite a lot of steps occur elsewhere too on this small handaxe-like tool. Both lateral edges are shaped irregularly when seen in side-view, and the creation of good working angles along the edges largely failed. The signs of inexpert knapping, and especially the occurrence of stacked steps, indicate that the piece was probably knapped by an apprentice, not a novice but an advanced learner.

It is of interest that (so far) there are two small handaxe-like tools at this site with more or less the same marks of inexperienced knapping. Quite possibly they were made by the same person, because they refl ect about


the same level of skill. Apart from these two handaxe-like tools, a thin core may also have been worked by this youngster (see below). As mentioned above, the break at the top may date from Middle Palaeolithic times, though that cannot be proved. Indeed it could be a result of use. It is regularly observed that the relatively thin top parts of handaxes were broken off . In the Northern Netherlands, examples are the handaxes of Drouwen (Stapert, 1979) and Oldeholtwolde (Stapert, 1995). A broken-off handaxe tip (without the handaxe itself) from the Belvédère quarry near Maastricht is illustrated by Roebroeks (1988: Fig. 123, no. 3). One explanation is that such breaks occurred when handaxes were used for heavy butchering work, a function documented for Acheulian handaxes (e.g. Keeley, 1980). However, though some Mousterian handaxes may have served the same purpose, they seem to have been used much more often in woodworking (e.g. Anderson-Gerfaud, 1990; Soressi & Hays, 2003). Of course, breaks could also occur during woodworking, among other possibilities. In any case, the small handaxe described here seems hardly suitable for butchery.

One of the cores from the site near Assen is presented in fi g. 9. Its maximum length is 5.9 cm and its maximum thickness 1.3 cm. Its weight is 39.4 g. This is a very fl at and thin core. Face A shows negatives of a series of fl akes, but also has a remnant of an old frost-split surface. Most negatives come from the base, only one has another striking direction. Therefore this is no Levallois core, even though that may have been

the knapper’s intention. Face B largely consists of old frost-split surfaces, but along three sides striking platforms were created for the fl aking of face A. Angles between face A and these striking platforms are mostly around 60 or 70°. No large and well-shaped fl akes came from this core. Apart from a somewhat strangely shaped negative along the left-hand edge of face A, the largest negative has a maximum length of 3.3 cm. The core is very thin; in its present state its thickness is no more than 6 or 7 mm in several places. It is hardly possible to strike off any more fl akes from this core. It is curious that this piece of fl int should have been selected as a core in the fi rst place, because its thickness cannot have been much more than about 1 cm to begin with. Moreover, several fl akes ended in hinges. These features suggest that this core was not selected and worked by an experienced knapper, but by an apprentice practising his knapping skill. The selected nodule was not really suitable for use as a core, and the motor skills needed in knapping were still insuffi cient as shown by quite a few fl akes that ended in hinges. It must have been an advanced learner, not a beginner, because usable striking platforms were created for working the upper face of the core. In our opinion, this core and the two small handaxe-like tools discussed above may all have been produced by the same young knapper.

C. Hilversum-Corversbos, a blade coreCorversbos is a Late Middle Palaeolithic site west of Hilversum (province of North-Holland, the Netherlands). About 40 artefacts have been

Figure 9. Very thin core from the same site near Assen. Late Middle Palaeolithic (MAT) (drawing L. Johansen).


collected at this site, located in a fi eld, since its discovery in 1969 by Mrs Jonny Off erman-Heykens (Off erman-Heykens et al., 2010). The fi nds include three tools, all side-scrapers of which one was worked bifacially. Two blades are present. No diagnostic tools such as handaxes have been found so far. Among the three cores is a Levallois core for fl akes. Another core was probably also meant to become a Levallois core but had to be abandoned in the preparation phase. The third core is briefl y described here, because we believe it was (also) worked by a learner.

It is a core for short blades (Fig. 10). Max. length: 5.7 cm, weight: 65.9 g. The core is made out of fi ne-grained fl int of northern origin. Several remains of the weathered cortex are present, as well as parts of old frost-split faces. Almost all negatives on the core, about ten, come from only one striking platform; just a single small fl ake was struck from the opposite end of the core (on face A). This piece can therefore essentially be described as a unipolar core for blades, or rather for blade-like fl akes. The striking platform was not prepared; it consists of an old frost-split face. At the start of its exploitation, four or fi ve short blades were removed on face A, these were 3 or 4 cm in length and had a width of about 1.5 cm. Also on face B one or two fl akes were removed. Though relatively short, these blades must have been useful and we suppose they were struck by a

good fl intknapper, because the knapping went successfully as can be ascertained from the negatives. In a second phase of its exploitation, however, the core was completely ruined by an incompetent knapper. We suppose this was done by a novice, a beginner - probably a child. On face A, a whole series of small fl akes were struck from the platform, all ending in steps. This is an extreme example of stacked steps: the striking continued for some time after it had become quite clear that this was pointless. An experienced knapper would have stopped sooner. Moreover, striking had continued after the core angle had become unworkable: 100-105°.

It seems, therefore, that this core was fi rst exploited by an experienced knapper, and only later by an apprentice - who ruined the core. Examples of similar sequences are well known from the Upper Palaeolithic, for example at Étiolles (Magdalenian: Pigeot, 1987; Olive, 1988) and Oldeholtwolde (Hamburgian: Johansen & Stapert, 2004). This is, of course, a rational procedure in situations where good-quality fl int is scarce, as it certainly was in the surroundings of Hilversum. It is of interest to observe that at Corversbos the same course of events already occurred in Middle Palaeolithic times.

Also interesting is the fact that the Hilver-sum core is not a Levallois core, but an ‘Upper Palaeolithic’ type of core for blade-like fl akes,

Figure 10. A core for short blades from Corversbos near Hilversum. Late Middle Palaeolithic. A� er exploitation by an experienced knapper, the core was worked by an unskilled knapper, who destroyed the core (drawing L. Johansen).


be it with only one platform. Cores for short blades are known from several Late Middle Palaeolithic sites, including sites of the Leafpoint Culture, e.g. Beedings (Jacobi, 2007) and Mauern (Zotz, 1955); these have mostly two opposing platforms. From Beedings, an important Leafpoint site in Britain with some 33 unifacial leafpoints made of sturdy blades, several crested blades are known, and interestingly the only Jerzmanowice leafpoint from the Netherlands, a fragment found on the Aardjesberg (Stapert et al., 1993) also was made out of a crested blade. This fi ndspot is located only some 3.5 km northeast of the Corversbos site. The Aardjesberg leafpoint appears to be an isolated fi nd.

D. Zuidlaren, a leafpoint?From the northern Netherlands, several leaf-points are known, all of the bifacial type (Stapert et al., 2007, 2008). A remarkable fi nd is a bifacially worked object from Zuidlaren, Prins Bernardhoeve (Fig. 11). No other fi nds are known from the site, which has unfortunately not been investigated thoroughly. The fl int tool has windgloss and white patina. Its length is only 5.0 cm. The tool is not made of a fl ake, since both faces have remnants of old frost-split faces or cortex. Along one of the edges is an almost transverse face, also consisting of an old frost-split surface (see the cross-section). Face A was worked all around, mostly with

quite superfi cial fl akes, many of which ended in steps. Face B has a protruding part which the knapper could not get rid of. In attempting this, he struck quite a lot of fl akes from several sides, many of which again ended in steps. The working was irregular, with smaller and larger negatives occurring side by side. Though an internal frost crack did aff ect the knapping, it can nevertheless be seen that this was done in a rather incompetent way. Moreover, the aim of the knapping is unclear and the typology of the object is not very evident. Maybe the idea was to create a small handaxe-like tool, or, more probably in our opinion because of the small size, a leafpoint? Knapping continued after it had become clear that there could be no satisfying result. This object was certainly not worked by an experienced knapper, but most probably by a youngster. Of course, creating a leafpoint was one of the toughest jobs in fl intknapping during the Middle Palaeolithic. Even good knappers would encounter technical diffi culties during such work, partly as a result of the generally poor-quality nodules available in the northern Netherlands. Several preforms of leafpoints are known that were relinquished during the work because insurmountable problems occurred (see Stapert et al., 2007).

E. Mauern, two leafpointsMauern is a famous site of the Leafpoint Culture, excavated by Bohmers in 1937-39 (Bohmers,

Figure 11. The bifacial object from Zuidlaren, probably a failed leafpoint. Late Middle Palaeolithic (Leafpoint Culture?). The small tool shows a� ributes of poor fl aking technique, e.g. many steps (drawing L. Johansen).


1951; Carmiggelt & Stapert, 2009) and by Zotz in 1947-49 (Zotz, 1955). At least 50 leafpoints were found here, including several splendid and large ‘showpieces’ that may be described as ‘prestige tools’ (see also Stapert, 2007c). However, several failed preforms of leafpoints were also present. In the assemblage of 33 leafpoints recovered by Bohmers, there are at least two such pieces. One of them was already

briefl y described in an earlier paper (Stapert, 2007b). It is illustrated here again (Fig. 12), drawn after Bohmers (1951: Taf. 28-2). The original is exhibited in the Vorgeschichtsmuseum in Vorgeschichtsmuseum in Vorgeschichtsmuseumthe Residenzschloss at Neuburg an der Donau, Residenzschloss at Neuburg an der Donau, Residenzschlosstogether with fi ve other leafpoints excavated by Bohmers (this museum was visited by Arnold Carmiggelt and Dick Stapert in 2009). The relatively small artefact has a length of 6.4 cm.

Figure 12. A failed preform of a leafpoint from Mauern (Germany), excavated by A. Bohmers. Late Middle Palaeolithic (Leafpoint Culture). The tool shows a� ributes of poor knapping skill, e.g. many steps (drawing L. Johansen, a� er Bohmers, 1951: Taf. 28-2).Taf. 28-2).Taf

Figure 13. A failed preform of a leafpoint from Mauern (Germany), excavated by L. Zotz. Late Middle Palaeolithic (Leafpoint Culture). This piece shows a low level of knapping skill, similar to that in Figure 12 (drawing L. Johansen).


Figure 14. Sex-specifi city of three activities, in a cross-cultural study of 185 non-industrialized societies (Murdock & Provost, 1973). The peoples for which relevant data were available, are divided into fi ve categories for each activity (from le� to right on the X-axis): exclusively male, predominantly male (on average c. 80%), both sexes, predominantly female, exclusively female. It is clear that stone-working, wood-working and butchery are mostly male activities (graph D. Stapert).


Bohmers (1951: 56) writes about this piece: “Die Kanten sind aber durch Stufenretusche grob bearbeitet. Die Spitze ist grob zugerichtet ...”. bearbeitet. Die Spitze ist grob zugerichtet ...”. bearbeitet. Die Spitze ist grob zugerichtetThe knapping was unskilled: there are hardly any negatives reaching the middle of the faces, and many steps occur. Knapping went on for some time after it had become clear that the tool was a failure. This feature of many beginners’ pieces tends to result in, among other things, stacked steps, which also seem to be present here. A second ̀ preform‘ published by Bohmers (1951: Taf. 28-1) was also worked in a clumsy and irregular way, and is therefore probably also a learner’s piece (it was not studied by us).

In the material excavated by Zotz, there is at least one other failed preform of a leafpoint, showing about the same level of skill as the one discussed above. This piece is present in the collection of the Archäologische Staatssammlung at München. We were able to Staatssammlung at München. We were able to Staatssammlungstudy and draw the tool in Groningen, thanks to the friendly cooperation of Prof. Rupert Gebhard and Dr. Andrea Lorentzen of the Staatssammlung; it is illustrated in Figure 13. This piece was published by Zotz (1955: Bild 55, Bild 55, Bildno. 3, 113; its accession number is 1949.766); he describes it not as a leafpoint, however, but as a “dorsal und ventral z.T. fl ächenretuschierter Spitzschaber” (Zotz, 1955: 101). The dimensions Spitzschaber” (Zotz, 1955: 101). The dimensions Spitzschaber”of the tool: length 6.2, width 3.5, thickness 0.9 cm; its weight is 22.1 g. This artefact was clearly worked in an incompetent way; it shows short and steep retouches all around, many ending in steps, and there are also stacked steps. We are of the opinion that the knapper tried to make a leafpoint, but failed. It was excavated in Höhle 2 Höhle 2 Höhle(see Zotz, 1955: Bild 3, 16). Bild 3, 16). Bild

One other piece illustrated by Zotz (1955: Bild 59, no. 1, 119) may also be a workpiece Bild 59, no. 1, 119) may also be a workpiece Bildby an apprentice, but was not studied by us. Quite a lot of steps are visible in the drawing. Many retouches extend for only 0.5 - 1 cm and they are often too steep. Both faces have large cortex remnants. This artefact comes from the Saazer Loch and is described by Zotz (1955: 102) as a “Vielfachschaber, der dorsal partielle Flächenretusche zeigt.” We may conclude that during the Leafpoint Culture occupation at Mauern, there must have been at least one apprentice (probably an older child).

It is of interest to note here that at Beedings, an important site of the Leafpoint Culture in Southern England where 36 unifacial leafpoints were found, there seem to be several

workpieces by apprentices. One of these is described by Jacobi (2007: Fig. 25.1 and p. 247) as an “unachieved blade-point”: “... a proximal fragment where some of the scars from what appears to have been bifacial percussive retouch have unintentionally bitten into the margins, producing irregularly notched edges (Fig. 25.1). This is regarded as a failed attempt at a small blade-point and it is probable that the distal break also is the result of a knapping accident.” On April 1st 2008, Roger Jacobi sent us a letter, st 2008, Roger Jacobi sent us a letter, st

in which he surmises: “Perhaps Fig. 25.1 of the Beedings paper was made by a child?” We agree Beedings paper was made by a child?” We agree Beedings paper was made by a child?with this interpretation, and would like to add that there may be other examples of workpieces by apprentices too, for instance a core made out of a tool fragment (illustrated in Jacobi, 2007: Fig. 11.2). Jacobi writes about the creation of a platform on this piece (ibid.: 239): “It is unclear why this should have been done as fl aws already developed during knapping would have meant that it was almost impossible to obtain further useful removals from this core.”

Discussion

Workpieces by learners versus failures caused by poor raw materialRecognizing workpieces by fl intknapping ap-prentices is not an unambiguous aff air. It is not possible to ‘prove’ such an origin with complete certainty. One can only state it as a hypothesis with a certain plausibility, based on relevant observations. This should not make us shun this topic, however, but instead inspire us to study it more deeply, because this is an important and interesting issue.

Several factors may complicate the discussion concerning possible workpieces by apprentices. The most important is probably the quality of the locally available raw material. If the available material is of poor quality, one cannot expect top-quality products, not even from top-quality fl intknappers. In such circumstances one may expect quite a few failures by experienced knappers too, and the question then is: can these be distinguished from workpieces by apprentices? In the literature, ‘failed fl ints’ are often attributed to the use of unsatisfactory raw material. For example, De Loecker (2006: 28) suggests that the high proportion of discarded and failed cores at Site K is a result of the poor quality of the local fl int. However, De Loecker observed not only


high percentages of artefacts with steps (c. 57%) and hinges (c. 68%), but also with stacked steps (c. 59%). As explained above, the last-named phenomenon is quite a strong indication of the work of learners. In fact, it seems that a lot of fl intknapping by apprentices went on at Site K.

It is well known that learners produce many more steps and hinges than experienced knappers: two or three times as many, according to experimental work (e.g. Nichols & Allstadt, 1978; Shelley, 1990). Of course, both good knappers and apprentices will produce more steps and hinges when using poor-quality fl int, but the diff erence between them will probably remain of more or less the same magnitude. However, experienced knappers will rarely produce stacked steps, regardless of the quality of the fl int, because this is an unproductive and in fact irrational behaviour. The same goes for face-battering.

As noted above, in many cases ‘raw material’ is seen as the cause of failed fl ints. To cite just one other example, Ashton and McNabb (1994) discuss several ‘non-classic’ handaxes from sites in Britain, including two rather peculiar bifaces from Swanscombe. Especially one of these (ibid.: Fig. 1b, 184, and the book cover) seems to us, judging from the drawing, to be a product of an apprentice fl intknapper. The piece is very thick, only partly worked, lacks symmetry, and the fl aking is irregular; moreover, it looks as if face-battering was applied in several places. Several other implements illustrated by Ashton and McNabb may also be workpieces by apprentices. This possibility is not mentioned by the authors, however. Instead, the raw material, especially the shape of the exploited fl int nodules, is considered to be largely responsible for the existence of such ‘atypical’ bifaces. It should be noted, however, that the problem here is poor selection of raw material, poor selection of raw material, poor selectionnot poor raw material as such, and selection of unsuitable nodules is a well-known attribute of inexperienced knappers.

Though the local fl int used at Site K may not be of top quality, it occurs in large nodules, and its quality is quite good compared with the small and often frost-cracked nodules that were available to Stone Age fl intknappers in the Northern Netherlands. It is therefore not surprising that Beuker (2010: 59) is somewhat sceptical with respect to the possibility of reliably recognizing products of apprentices in this region. He suggests that pieces revealing

incompetent knapping should be compared with well-knapped tools from the same types of raw material in the same archaeological context, and we can only agree. Diff erences should then become apparent in terms of, among other things, unsystematic versus systematic knapping, use of poor-quality raw material versus selection of good nodules, and the production of atypical shapes versus tools with a clear typology. This comparison is possible at the site near Assen. For example, we can compare the two small handaxes described above (under B) with several well-made specimens from the same site, and it may be observed that the former clearly display more steps/hinges, and indeed stacked steps; and that they are smaller and also diffi cult to classify in a formal typological sense. One may also note that the selection of raw material is ill-judged in several cases, for example in the use of a very thin nodule as a core.

Flint nodules in the Northern Netherlands, deriving from the so called bouldersand (a weathering residue of the glacial boulderclay), are mostly heavily weathered and often frost cracked. It must always have been diffi cult, if not almost impossible, for Stone Age people to fi nd large (>10 cm), intact pieces of fl int in this area. This situation had at least three important consequences.

First, in areas with poor raw material there will have been a tendency to produce relatively small tools. As an example we can mention the Hamburgian, studied in Southern Denmark by the fi rst author and in the Northern Netherlands by both authors. We noticed that blades, and as a result also blade tools such as points and scrapers, are 1.5 to 2 times longer in Denmark than in the Netherlands. This simply refl ects the diff erence in the quality of the available raw material. Because larger intact nodules are virtually absent in Drenthe, expert knappers also made relatively small tools. We noted above that apprentices tend to produce smaller tools than experienced knappers. In this area, this diff erence, if present, will be less meaningful than in areas where fl int comes in large nodules. Nevertheless, it may be noted that the two handaxes at the site near Assen that we have attributed to apprentices are the smallest of the site, even though several well-made handaxes are quite small too.

Secondly, the selection of usable nodules will have been more diffi cult, requiring not only


more time and energy, but also more experience and testing. It is to be expected that apprentices will have selected and used poor-quality nodules more often than experienced knappers. We can see this at several sites, notably also at the site near Assen.

Thirdly, knapping accidents will have been more frequent. Both experienced knappers and learners will produce more steps and hinges when using poor-quality nodules. In the case of apprentices, however, there will often also be other signs of a low level of skill: stacked steps, irregular fl aking, etc.

A holistic or a hierarchical approach?It is, of course, possible to list a whole series of attributes that may indicate work of unskilled knappers. We have already encountered several of these: relatively high frequencies of steps and hinges, irregularity in fl aking, lack of symmetry, unclear typology, thick cross-sections and/or the occurrence of protruding parts, the occurrence of stacked steps, marks of face-battering, poor selection of raw material, relatively small size. One may add a relative lack of preparation and testing; this was, for example, noted by De Loecker (2006) in the case of Site K. It has also been noted that master knappers produce series with a much smaller variation, i.e. more standardized products, than do learners (Stout, 2002). This is of course a logical consequence of several attributes listed earlier. Other attributes could be added, for example the use by apprentices of cores that had been abandoned by experienced knappers, a phenomenon noted at quite a few sites.

The use of peripheral knapping locations at the camp site by apprentices (as noted at Étiolles: Pigeot, 1987) is a phenomenon that does not belong in this list, as it is not a primary attribute which helps to identify artefacts as the work of learners. Moreover, it is not the `normal’ situation, as it does not necessarily apply to most sites. At some sites it seems that apprentices were seated close to the hearth, not peripherally, and the experienced knapper(s) further away (e.g. at Oldeholtwolde: Johansen & Stapert, 2004).

Combinations of several attributes may strengthen any hypothesis that certain work-pieces were by apprentices, but one should beware of circular reasoning. We would like to suggest a hierarchical approach in our attempts to recognize such items. Some attributes simply are

unavoidable results of a general lack of knapping skill, and therefore secondary. The complex of features refl ecting a general lack of both motor skill and experience should be our primary guide -line: high proportions of steps and hinges, stacked steps, face-battering, irregular fl aking and poor selection of raw material. Too thick cross-sections, protruding parts, lack of symmetry and unclear typology are some of the results of the lack of skill and experience. Small size may be an attribute of work by apprentices but often is not, and smallness is not a primary feature.

Bamforth and Finlay (2008: 7) advocate a holistic approach, and suggest that we should develop methods to “... assess the overall level of skill represented by a given assemblage or set of assemblages.” This idea does not seem of great practical value to us, because it is not very clear how to achieve this and what any measure of overall skill will tell us. At some sites, quite a lot of apprentices may have been active, at other sites none. In our opinion, it is more valuable to study the attributes of separate workpieces, because in that way one may come close to the work by individual knappers. In so doing, we may on the basis of diff erent levels of knapping skill arrive at reliable estimates of the minimum number of persons active at a site.

Children or incompetent adults?If specifi c workpieces can be shown to be failed fl ints not because of poor-quality raw material but because they were made by apprentices, then the question becomes: who were these learners? It is sometimes suggested that the knappers who produced ‘failed fl ints’ were not necessarily children. They could for example also have been old people crippled with arthritis or with failing eyesight (e.g. Kamp, 1998: 13; Bamforth & Finlay, 2008: 36), or perhaps adults having an off day. Maybe this happened now and then, but to us it seems an implausible explanation for the majority of such workpieces from the Palaeolithic. Moreover, previously profi cient old people with arthritis would probably not relapse into irrational behaviours such as face-battering.

Being able to make good fl int tools must have been very important for Palaeolithic people. It seems evident that the ability to knap fl int signifi cantly improved survival chances. Less evident maybe is the role that fl intknapping will have played in social life. Yet this may have been more important than generally assumed. Expert


fl intknappers may have enjoyed higher social standing in many Stone Age societies. Examples of large axes that were not functional, but meant for prestige display are known ethnographically, as noted long ago (e.g. Malinowski, 1934). It has also been suggested that complex fl int tools, such as large or beautiful handaxes, played a role in sexual selection during the Palaeolithic (Kohn & Mithen, 1999). There are quite a lot of indications that at least some types of fl int tool played roles other than strictly functional ones. At Acheulian sites, giant handaxes, over 30 cm in length, turn up occasionally. For example, Cole (1963: 161) mentions two handaxes from Isimila in Eastern Africa of about 39 cm long (“15½ inches”) and weighing about 4 kilos. These handaxes were made of quartzite and, even more astonishingly, fashioned from fl akes (they were described and illustrated by Van Riet Lowe, 1951). Such unwieldy tools cannot have been very useful, at least not in a practical sense.

From later phases of the Palaeolithic, es-pecially from the later Middle Palaeolithic and the Upper Palaeolithic, splendid leafpoints are known. Some of the leafpoints from Middle Palaeolithic sites such as Mauern and Ranis are masterpieces of fl intknapping; these exceptional pieces are too large and thin to be of much practical use, and must have played a special role in Palaeolithic societies. It is of interest to note in this connection that Neanderthals started to make leafpoints at about the same time when Cro-Magnons arrived in central Europe.

Given the importance of stone tools, both for survival and for social reasons, it seems evident that most if not all Palaeolithic apprentice fl intknappers were children. Children up to 15 years make up 40-50% of the population among many groups of hunter-gatherers (e.g. Roveland, 2000: 36; Politis, 2005: 124). When this is combined with the observations that, fi rstly, apprentices produce on average at least twice as much ̀ debris’ as experienced knappers when e.g. making a handaxe (Shea, 2006: 213), and that, secondly, it takes years of practice to become a good knapper (e.g. Pelegrin, 1990), it is only to be expected that a signifi cant part of the fl int artefacts at many Palaeolithic sites were produced by children; we expect this to be the case at any rate at ‘base camps’ where groups of people lived for some time. Therefore, we believe that the occurrence of ‘failed fl ints’ will in general indicate the presence of children

who were practising their knapping skills. Apart from typical learner’s behaviours such as creating stacked steps and face-battering, signs of underdeveloped motor skills in knapping are the most reliable indicators of work by apprentices. It takes time and a lot of practice to polish these abilities. Lack of motor skill reveals itself in such things as hitting at a wrong angle, striking too far from the edge, applying too much or too little force, etc. Such mistakes not only create many steps and hinges, but also produce an overall irregularity of the workpiece, lack of symmetry and too thick cross-sections.

Experimental research seems to indicate that in modern children, three-dimensional insight - necessary in fl intknapping - develops at the age of around nine or ten years (Sternke & Sørensen, 2009: 3). Maybe, Neanderthal children will have started their knapping apprenticeship one or two years earlier, because they seem to have matured faster.

Boys or girls?Accepting that (most) apprentices during the Palaeolithic were children, one may ask: were they (mostly) boys or (mostly) girls? We think it is reasonable to suggest that most if not all of the fl intknapping during the Palaeolithic was done by boys and men. This interpretation is based on ethnographical observations. In their cross-cultural study, Murdock and Provost (1973) presented relevant data for 73 non-industrialized peoples, both hunter-gatherers and others. Among 67 of these peoples (c. 92%) stone-working was an exclusively male task, and in 6 societies (c. 8%) males and females participated about equally in this work. Of course, ‘stone-working’ includes more activities than fl intknapping. In fact, very few cases have been observed of women knapping fl int or equivalent types of stone. Nevertheless, feminist archaeologists (e.g. Gero, 1991; Owen, 2005) do not agree with using this information to model the division of labour during the Upper Palaeolithic. In our mind, however, it is much more plausible that similar conditions prevailed during the Palaeolithic.

If one wishes to use the ethnographic information as a valuable proxy for Palaeolithic times, as we believe justifi ed for want of better alternatives, then use-wear studies may off er further clues in this respect. As noted above, quite a lot of ‘failed fl ints’ from the Middle Palaeolithic are handaxes. In this paper, we


illustrate specimens from both the Early Middle Palaeolithic (Rhenen, Kesteren) and the Late Middle Palaeolithic (Middeldiep, Assen), and one may fi nd dozens of other plausible examples in the literature. In the Acheulian, handaxes were predominantly used in butchering work, as fi rst demonstrated by Keeley (1980). In the Mousterian, however, wood-working was the dominant use to which handaxes were put (e.g. Beyries, 1987; Anderson-Gerfaud, 1990; Soressi & Hays, 2003), although they served other functions as well, including butchery.

Just like stone-working, wood-working is typically male work in ethnographically studied peoples (Murdock & Provost, 1973): of the 164 groups for which there are data, in 159 (97%) it is even exclusively male. There is only one group where this is a predominantly female activity. The same trend, but less extreme, is seen with butchery. Among 122 of the 143 groups for which there is information (85%), butchering is an exclusively male activity; in this case, however, in contrast to both stone-working and wood-working, there are several groups where it is an exclusively female task: 4 (3%). If we assume that handaxes were made and used by the same sex, these data support the hypothesis that the failed handaxes were produced by boys. Basically, the same kind of reasoning holds for cores. Suitable fl int nodules fi rst have to be collected in the fi eld. According to the cross-cultural data collected by Murdock and Provost, not only stone-working is a predominantly male task, but also mining and quarrying: in c. 89% of the studied groups this is an exclusively male task.

Strange typesOne attribute mentioned above is unclear typology. Workpieces of apprentices tend to look rather clumsy, or strange, and in some cases may make a ‘primitive’ impression. It is our impression that several handaxe ‘types’, as defi ned by Bordes (1961), are in fact largely groups of workpieces by learners that failed in similar ways. Quite a few published specimens of ‘Abbevillian’ handaxes seem to exhibit clear features of work by learners, and the same goes for types such as pics, bifaces nucléiformes[core-shaped], and bifaces lagéniformes [bottle-bifaces lagéniformes [bottle-bifaces lagéniformesshaped], all mentioned under the general heading of bifaces non classiques in the famous bifaces non classiques in the famous bifaces non classiquespublication by Bordes.

For example, the attributes used in the classifi cation of pics: high-triangular cross-section and a relatively small width in relation to length and thickness, are typically produced by apprentices, as noted already by Shelley (1990). The pics from Rhenen and Kesteren illustrated in this paper show several clear signs of having been produced by learners, such as stacked steps and face-battering.

The Abbevillian was defi ned on the basis of fi nds from a number of quarries near Abbeville, collected around 1880 by D’Ault du Mesnil. Many of the handaxes from Abbeville, but by no means all, looked ‘primitive’, and so the ‘Abbevillian’ was postulated as the earliest phase of the Acheulian. It is of interest, however, to read that Bordes (1961: 91) notes the occurrence of ‘bifaces Abbevilliens’ not only in the early Acheulian but also in all later phases of the Lower or Middle Palaeolithic, including the Mousterian. He notes that most of these handaxes were shaped by hard percussion only, and states: “Ils sont grossiers, épais, à arêtes très sinueuses, à section quadrangulaire ou triédrique, et portent en creux l’empreinte négative des puissants conchoïdes des éclats enlevés pour les tailler.” Apart from these ‘primitive’ attributes, several of the specimens illustrated in his book also show signs of stacked steps or face-battering, which makes it plausible in our opinion that these are in fact learner’s workpieces. Three handaxes from Abbeville are illustrated in Plate 88 (Bordes, 1961). No. 1 shows traces of face-battering on a protruding part in the middle of one of its faces. No. 2 has a very irregular shape, with probably stacked steps along one of the side-edges. No. 3 has strongly protruding parts on both faces, and shows traces of face-battering on the face illustrated by Bordes. In all these tools, we may note irregular fl aking. Similar attributes can be observed in other handaxe illustrations. No. 4 in Plate 89, also from Abbeville, is described as a ‘biface abbevillien à section triédrique’, similar to a ‘pic’, worked in a very irregular way. Some illustrated handaxes from Abbeville look fairly well-made, however, for example the one illustrated in Plate 89, no. 1. No. 3 of the same Plate seems to have clear traces of face-battering; it does not come from Abbeville but from Couche 9 of Pech de l’Azé II (Acheuléen moyen), where also other unwieldy objects were collected (see Plate 90).


Several ‘pics’ illustrated by Bordes in Plate 91, and specimens of several other types, seem to our mind most probably workpieces by learners. One example is the ‘biface massiforme, variété des lagéniformes’ illustrated in Plate 94, no. 2, showing traces of face-battering on a protruding part in the middle of a face. Also some bifaces amygdaloïdes look suspiciously bifaces amygdaloïdes look suspiciously bifaces amygdaloïdeslike failed fl ints by apprentices, for example several pieces illustrated in Plates 67 and 68.

Small thingsIn general, workpieces showing attributes of having been created by apprentices are quite small, smaller than the average product of its type. The two handaxes from near Assen that were probably made by learners are small - in fact the smallest bifaces of the site, with (original) lengths of between 5.5 and 6 cm. Some of the well-made handaxes are quite small too, however. A beautiful triangular handaxe, most probably not made on the site but elsewhere, has a maximum length of about 7 cm. We have already noted the reasons why in this area tools tend to be rather small.

From several sites of the ‘Rhenen Industry’ in the central Netherlands, we have very small cores, with diameters of around 3 cm, which were probably worked by children (see examples in Stapert, 2007b). Some of these are Levallois-like, and it is likely that these cores were knapped only for practice, not to produce functional fl akes.

At sites of the ‘Rhenen Industry’, and notably at Site K in the Belvédère quarry, however, not all learners’ workpieces are small. In fact, very small specimens occur alongside pieces of ‘normal’ size, and this holds for both bifacial tools and cores. For example, the bifacial tools from Rhenen and Kesteren illustrated in this paper are not very small. From Site K, both very small and rather large cores show attributes of knapping by learners. So it seems that learners made both very small and normal-and normal-andsized products. One might suggest that the very small pieces were worked by beginners, and the larger implements by somewhat older children, advanced learners.

A complication is the occurrence of very small objects that were well made, although simple, and which do not show any signs of beginners’ mistakes. From one of the sites near Rhenen, a miniature handaxe is known, illustrated in

Stapert (2007b: Fig. 15), with a length of only 4.4 cm. Its weight is 17 g, and it cannot be assumed that such a small tool could be of any use in, for example, butchering activity. Typologically, it is a handaxe, worked in a minimal but competent way. In contrast to the Assen area, the Rhenen area off ered plenty of large and intact fl int nodules, so there were no practical reasons for producing very small tools.

In many cases, such tools may have been toys, made by adults. But, of course, this cannot be proven, and use in precision work is also a possibility. Beuker (2010: 59) illustrates a few miniature axes from Midlaren and De Pieperij, and writes: “These could be interpreted as children’s toys. But they may also have been normal tools for fi ner woodworking tasks.” This dilemma is also nicely illustrated by the curiousGroszaki found at the Neanderthal type location Groszaki found at the Neanderthal type location Groszakiand other Micoquian sites: small circular tools of mostly only 1-1.5 cm (Hillgruber, 2006; discussion in Stapert, 2007b: 34-35). Are these toys or game pieces, or did they have a practical function unknown to us?

The miniature world of children’s toys in ethnographical context has been described by Park (1998), Politis (2005) and others, and it may be concluded that this phenomenon is widespread and very variable. It is only to be expected that miniature forms of handaxes and other tools were produced by parents for use as children’s toys during the Palaeolithic too; our problem is that of reliably recognising these objects as such.

‘Handaxes like bird’s nests’This characterization comes from Raymond Corbey (pers. comm. 2009). With this metaphor he wished to convey the idea that handaxes were not purely cultural products, at least not during the later phases of the Acheulian and later. In the course of hundreds of thousands of years, the ability to make handaxes would have become partly embedded in our instincts as a result of gene-culture co-evolution, just as nest building is with birds.

Gene-culture co-evolution is known to have been operative in the realm of human diet. Arjamaa and Vuorisalo (2010: 140) mention the higher lactose tolerance in herding peoples as an example, and write: “Sometimes culture may generate very strong selection pressures, partly due to its homogenizing infl uence on human


behavior. (...) A gene-culture coevolutionary perspective helps us to understand the process in which culture is shaped by biological imperatives while biological properties are simultaneously altered by genetic evolution in response to cultural history.”

Corbey believes that this process was also active in fl intknapping, a human pursuit for more than 2,500,000 years. In an article on warfare (Corbey, 2006: 34), he writes the following: “(...) human nature results from the co-evolution of genetic make-up and cultural as well as social behaviour. Our hands, for example, were shaped while wielding chopping tools and handaxes; parts of our brains and respiratory tracts when our ancestors started to use arbitrary symbols. Stone tools and spoken language are thus integral parts of our biological existence. (...) Our nature thus was, and is, social and cultural from its very beginning.”

This may be so, but the making of a handaxe in our opinion was (and is) a cultural behaviour that has to be learned by imitation and practice. It is as Bamforth and Finlay (2008: 8-9) state: “Humans are not born as skilled knappers. Rather, they progress from being novices to attaining whatever degree of skill they ultimately achieve, and even the most exceptionally skilled artisans started out as complete incompetents.” It takes years to become a good fl intknapper, not just for modern students, but also for children in non-industrialized contexts as a few documented cases may illustrate (see e.g. Roux, 1991; Stout, 2002).

Archaeologically speaking, we may note that many failed handaxes were left behind even during the last phases of the Middle Palaeolithic, as shown by several specimens illustrated in this paper. ‘Failed axes’ are known from the Neolithic as well, for that matter (Högbjerg, 2008).

In our opinion, handaxes are in fact a prime ex -ample of a cultural product that involves extended learning processes in social contexts.

AcknowledgementsMany people helped us in one way or another. Although we can only thank a few persons here, we are grateful to all. We thank all the owners of the material described in this paper for their friendly cooperation; special mention

should be made of Auke Boelsma (Hilversum) for his extensive collecting work in the central Netherlands. We thank Jaap Beuker (Assen) for communicating his thoughts on the topic of this paper to us. Many thanks to Arnold Carmiggelt (Den Haag) for his contribution to the Mauern project; the trip to the Weinberghöhlen in 2009 was most memorable! We also thank Prof. Rupert Gebhard and Dr. Andrea Lorentzen of the Archäologische Staatssammlung in Archäologische Staatssammlung in Archäologische StaatssammlungMünchen for their pleasant cooperation and the opportunity to study material from Mauern. Dick is grateful to Raymond Corbey (Faculty of Archaeology, University of Leiden), for his hospitality and for interesting discussions. We are grateful to Jan Glimmerveen (Den Haag) for the opportunity to study two handaxes from the Middeldiep site. Thanks go to Bert Huiskes (Museum Het Rondeel, Rhenen) for inviting us to study the Rhenen material in his museum. We are grateful to Dimitri de Loecker for allowing us to study some of the material from Site K in Leiden, and for lending us a core that we wished to draw. Many thanks to Marcel Niekus (Groningen Institute of Archaeology) for inviting us to contribute this paper, and for his great contributions to the study of the Middle Palaeolithic in Drenthe. We wish to thank Gijsbert Boekschoten (Groningen) for his dedication to the Middle Palaeolithic site near Assen - he found the ‘mini-handaxe’ described above -, and for his invaluable cooperation and friendship for so many years. Collaborating with Mrs Jonny Off erman-Heykens (Kortenhoef) has always been a great pleasure and we thank her for the opportunity to study and illustrate several tools from her collection. We are grateful to Roger Jacobi (who died in December 2009) for his interest in our work and for his useful comments, and we remember him as an inspiring and friendly colleague. Xandra Bardet (Groningen) as always expertly corrected our English text, for which we are grateful to her.

Notes1. Ossewei 6, 9751 SC Haren, The Netherlands.

Email Dick Stapert: [email protected]@planet.nl and email Lykke Johansen: LykkeJohansen@[email protected].


ReferencesAnderson-Gerfaud, P., 1990. Aspects of beha-

viour in the Middle Palaeolithic: functional analysis of stone tools from southwest France. In: P. Mellars (ed.), The emergence of modern humans; an archaeological perspective. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 389-418.

Arjamaa, O. & T. Vuorisalo, 2010. Gene-culture coevolution and human diet. American Scientist 98 (2): 140-147.Scientist 98 (2): 140-147.Scientist

Ashton, N. & J. McNabb, 1994. Bifaces in perspective. In: N. Ashton & A. David (eds.), Stories in Stone (= Lithic Studies Society Stories in Stone (= Lithic Studies Society Stories in StoneOccasional Paper No. 4). Lithic Studies Society, London, 182-191.

Balen, R.T. van, F. Busschers & K. Cohen, 2007. De ouderdom van de stuwwal en de artefacten bij Leusderheide. Grondboor & Hamer 61 (2): 62-64.Hamer 61 (2): 62-64.Hamer

Balen, R.T. van & F.S. Busschers, 2010. Human presence in the central Netherlands during early MIS 6 (~170-190 Ka): evidence from early Middle Palaeolithic artefacts in ice-pushed Rhine-Meuse sediments. Netherlands Journal of Geosciences 89-1: 75-81.of Geosciences 89-1: 75-81.of Geosciences

Bamforth, D. & N. Finlay, 2008. Introduction: archaeological approaches to lithic production skill and craft learning. In: N. Finlay & D. Bamforth (eds.), Skillful stones: approaches to knowledge and practice in lithic technology (= Journal of Archaeological lithic technology (= Journal of Archaeological lithic technologyMethod and Theory 15), 1-27.

Beuker, J., 2010. Vuurstenen werktuigen. Technologie op het scherp van de snede. Sidestone Press, Leiden.

Beyries, S., 1987. Variabilité de l’industrie lithique au Moustérien: approche fonctionnelle sur quelques gisements Français (= British quelques gisements Français (= British quelques gisements FrançaisArchaeological Reports, International Series 328). BAR, Oxford.

Bohmers, A., 1951. Die Höhlen von Mauern. Teil I. Kulturgeschichte der altsteinzeitlichen Besiedlung. Palaeohistoria 1: 1-107.Palaeohistoria 1: 1-107.Palaeohistoria

Bordes, F., 1961. Typologie du Paléolithique ancien et moyen. Institut du Quaternaire, Université de Bordeaux, Bordeaux.

Carmiggelt, A. & D. Stapert, 2009. De ‘biografi e’ van de collectie Mauern (1937-1939). Paleo-aktueel 20: 9-16.aktueel 20: 9-16.aktueel

Cole, S., 1963. The prehistory of East Africa.Weidenfeld and Nicholson, London.

Corbey, R., 2006. Laying aside the spear: Hobbesian Warre and the Maussian gift. In: T. Otto et al. (eds.), Warfare and society. Archaeological and social anthropological perspectives. Aarhus University Press, Aarhus, 29-36.

Gero, J.M., 1991. Genderlithics: women’s roles in stone tool production. In: J.M. Gero & M.W. Conkey (eds.), Engendering archaeology: women and prehistory. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 163-193.

Hillgruber, K.F., 2006. The Middle Palaeolithic stone artefacts from the site in the Neander Valley. In: R.W. Schmitz (ed.), Neanderthal 1856-2006 (= Rheinische Ausgrabungen Band 58). Verlag Philipp von Zabern, Mainz am Rhein, 111- 144.

Högberg, A., 2008. Playing with fl int: tracing a child’s imitation of adult work in a lithic assemblage. In: N. Finlay & D. Bamforth (eds.), Skillful stones: approaches to knowledge and practice in lithic technology(= Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 15), 112-131.

Hublin, J.-J., D. Weston, Ph. Gunz, M. Richards, W. Roebroeks, J. Glimmerveen & L. Anthonis, 2009. Out of the North Sea: the Zeeland Ridges Neandertal. Journal of Human Evo-lution 57: 777-785.lution 57: 777-785.lution

Jacobi, R., 2007. A collection of Early Upper Palaeolithic artefacts from Beedings, near Pulborough, West Sussex, and the context of similar fi nds from the British Isles. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 73: Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 73: Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society229-325.


Johansen, L. & D. Stapert, 2004. Oldeholtwolde: a Hamburgian family encampment around a hearth. A.A. Balkema, Lisse etc.

Johansen, L. & D. Stapert, 2008. Stone Age kids and their stones. In: M. Sørensen & P. Desrosiers (eds.), 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(= Publications from the National Museum Studies in Archaeology and History Vol. 14). The National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen, 15-39.

Johansen, L., M. Niekus & D. Stapert, 2009. Zwarte vuurstenen uit het Midden-Paleo-lithicum in Nederland. Paleo-aktueel 20: 1-8.Paleo-aktueel 20: 1-8.Paleo-aktueel

Kamp, K., 1998. Where have all the children gone? The archaeology of childhood. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 8 (I): of Archaeological Method and Theory 8 (I): of Archaeological Method and Theory1-29.

Keeley, L.H., 1980. Experimental determination of stone tool use: a microwear analysis.University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Kohn, M. & S. Mithen, 1999. Handaxes: products of sexual selection? Antiquity 73: 518-526.Antiquity 73: 518-526.Antiquity

Loecker, D. de, 1992. Site K: a Middle Palaeoli-thic site at Maastricht-Belvédère (Limburg, The Netherlands). Archäologisches Korres-pondenzblatt 22: 449-460.pondenzblatt 22: 449-460.pondenzblatt

Loecker, D. de, 2006. Beyond the site. The Saalian archaeological record at Maastricht-Belvédère (the Netherlands) (= Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 35/36). Ph.D. thesis, University of Leiden.

Malinowski, B., 1934. Stone implements of eastern New Guinea. In: E.E. Evans-Pritchard et al. (eds.), Essays presented to C.G. Seligman. Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner and Co, London, 189-196.

Mol, D., J. de Vos, R. Bakker, B. van Geel, J. Glimmerveen, H. van der Plicht & K. Post, 2008. Kleine encyclopedie van het leven in het Pleistoceen. Mammoeten, neushoorns en andere dieren van de Noordzeebodem.Natuurwetenschap and Techniek (Veen Magazines), Diemen.

Murdock, G.P. & C. Provost, 1973. Factors in the division of labor by sex: a cross-cultural analysis. Ethnology 12 (2): 203-225.Ethnology 12 (2): 203-225.Ethnology

Nichols, J. & D. Allstadt, 1978. Hinge fracture rates of novice fl intknappers. Lithic Tech-nology 7 (1): 1-2.nology 7 (1): 1-2.nology

Niekus, M., J. Beuker, L. Johansen & D. Stapert, 2008. Een tweede ‘Mander’: een recentelijk ontdekt kampement van Neanderthalers (Dr.). Paleo-aktueel 19: 1-9.Paleo-aktueel 19: 1-9.Paleo-aktueel

Niekus, M.J.L.Th., J.R. Beuker, J.H.A. Bosch, L. Johansen & D. Stapert, 2009. ‘Living on the edge’. De neanderthaler in Noord-Nederland. Archeobrief 13 (3): 25-36.Archeobrief 13 (3): 25-36.Archeobrief

Niekus, M.J.L.Th., J.R. Beuker, D. Brinkhuizen, L. Johansen, H. Paas & D. Stapert, 2010. Speuren naar Neanderthalers: een vuistbijlrijke vindplaats op het Drents Plateau bij Assen. Nieuwe Drentse Volksalmanak 127: 99-114.Nieuwe Drentse Volksalmanak 127: 99-114.Nieuwe Drentse Volksalmanak

Niekus, M.J.L.Th., D. Stapert, J.R. Beuker & L. Johansen, 2011. A new site of the Mousterian of Acheulian Tradition in the northern Nether-lands. Quartär 58: 67-92.Quartär 58: 67-92.Quartär

Off erman-Heykens, J., D. Stapert & L. Johansen, 2010. Een Neanderthaler-kampement in het Corversbos bij Hilversum (Noord-Holland). Paleo-aktueel 21: 9-16.Paleo-aktueel 21: 9-16.Paleo-aktueel

Olive, M., 1988. Une habitation magdalénienne d’Etiolles. L’Unité P15 (= Mémoires de la Société Préhistorique Française 20). CNRS, Paris.

Owen, L.R., 2005. Distorting the past. Gender and the division of labor in the European Upper Paleolithic. Kerns Verlag, Tübingen.

Park, R., 1998. Size counts: the miniature archaeology of childhood in Inuit societies. Antiquity 72: 269-281.Antiquity 72: 269-281.Antiquity


Pelegrin, J., 1990. Prehistoric lithic technology: some aspects of research. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 9 (1): 116-127.Review from Cambridge 9 (1): 116-127.Review from Cambridge

Pigeot, N., 1987. Magdaléniens d’Etiolles. Economie de débitage et organisation sociale (L’unité d’habitation U5) (= Supplement Gallia Préhistoire 25). CNRS, Paris.

Politis, G.G., 2005. Children’s activity in the production of the archaeological record of hunter-gatherers; an ethnoarchaeological approach. In: P.P. Funari et al. (eds.), Global archaeological theory: contextual voices and contemporary thoughts. Springer US, London, 121-143.

Riet Lowe, C. van, 1951. A new African Acheul stage IV site in Tanganyika. The South African Archaeological Bulletin 6 (24): 94-98.African Archaeological Bulletin 6 (24): 94-98.African Archaeological Bulletin

Roebroeks, W., 1988. From fi nd scatters to early hominid behaviour: a study of Middle Palaeolithic riverside settlements at Maastricht-Belvédère (The Netherlands) (= Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 21). Ph.D. thesis, University of Leiden.

Roux, V., 1991. Peut-on interpreter les activités lithiques préhistoriques en termes de durée d’apprentissage? Apport de l’ethnologie et de la psychologie aux études technologiques. In: C. Perlès (ed.), 25 ans d’études technologiques en préhistoire: bilan et perspectives. Editions A.P.D.C.A., Juan-les-Pins, 47-56.

Roveland, B., 2000. Footprints in the clay: Upper Palaeolithic children in ritual and secular contexts. In: J.S. Deverenski (ed.), Children and material culture. Routledge, London/New York, 29-38.

Ruegg, G.H.J. (ed.), 1991. Geology and archaeo-logy of ice-pushed Pleistocene deposits near Wageningen (The Netherlands) (= Mede-delingen Rijks Geologische Dienst 46). Rijks Geologische Dienst, Haarlem.

Schick, K.D., 1994. The Movius line reconsidered: perspectives on the earlier Paleolithic of eastern Asia. In: R.S. Corruccini & R.L. Ciochon (eds.), Integrative paths to the past: paleoanthropological advances in honor of F. Clark Howell. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliff , 569-595.

Shea, J.J., 2006. Child’s play: refl ections on the invisibility of children in the paleolithic record. Evolutionary Anthropology 15: 212-216.Evolutionary Anthropology 15: 212-216.Evolutionary Anthropology

Shelley, P.H., 1990. Variation in lithic ass-emblages: an experiment. Journal of Field Archaeology 17: 187-193.Archaeology 17: 187-193.Archaeology

Soressi, M. & M.A. Hays, 2003. Manufacture, transport, and use of Mousterian bifaces: a case study from the Périgord (France). In: M. Soressi & H.L. Dibble (eds.), Multiple approaches to the study of bifacial tech-nologies. University of Pennsylvania Mu-seum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia, 125-147.

Stapert, D., 1979. The handaxe from Drouwen (province of Drenthe, the Netherlands) and the Upper Acheulian. Palaeohistoria 21: 127-142.Palaeohistoria 21: 127-142.Palaeohistoria

Stapert, D., 1982. A Middle Palaeolithic artefact scatter and a few younger fi nds, from near Mander, NW of Ootmarsum (province of Overijssel, the Netherlands). Palaeohistoria24: 1-33.

Stapert, D., 1987. A progress report on the ‘Rhenen Industry’ (Central Netherlands) and its stratigraphical context. Palaeohistoria 29: Palaeohistoria 29: Palaeohistoria219-243.

Stapert, D., 1991. Archaeological research in the Fransche Kamp pit near Wageningen, Veluwe (The Netherlands). In: G.H.J. Ruegg (ed.), Geology and archaeology of ice-pushed Pleistocene deposits near Wageningen (The Netherlands) (= Mededelingen Rijks Geo-logische Dienst 46). Rijks Geologische Dienst, Haarlem, 71-88.

Stapert, D., 1995. De vuistbijl van Oldeholtwolde (Fr.). Paleo-aktueel 6: 9-11.Paleo-aktueel 6: 9-11.Paleo-aktueel

Stapert, D., 2007a. Youngsters knapping fl int near the campfi re: an alternative view of Site K at Maastricht-Belvédère (The Netherlands). Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 37: 19-35.

Stapert, D., 2007b. Neanderthal children and their fl ints. PalArch’s Journal of Archaeology of Northwest Europe 1 (2): 16-38 (Northwest Europe 1 (2): 16-38 (Northwest Europe www.PalArch.nl/NorthWestEurope/nwe_2007_1_2.pdf).


Stapert, D., 2007c. Bladspitsen en de ‘Grote Trek naar het Westen’ van de laatste Neanderthalers in Noordelijk Europa. Paleo-aktueel 18: 10-20.Paleo-aktueel 18: 10-20.Paleo-aktueel

Stapert, D., E. Drenth & J. Hulst, 1993. Een bladspits van de Leusderheide (Prov. Ut-recht). Paleo-aktueel 4: 29-32.Paleo-aktueel 4: 29-32.Paleo-aktueel

Stapert, D., M.J.L.Th. Niekus & L. Johansen, 2006. Curieuze vuistbijlachtigen van Rhenen (Utr.). Ook eens iets voor kinderen? Paleo-aktueel 17: 18-26.aktueel 17: 18-26.aktueel

Stapert, D., J. Beuker, L. Johansen & M.J.L.Th. Niekus, 2007. Bladspitsen en pogingen daartoe: souvenirs van de laatste Neander-thalers in Nederland. Paleo-aktueel 18: 21-31.Paleo-aktueel 18: 21-31.Paleo-aktueel

Stapert, D., J. Been, J. Beuker, L. Johansen, M. Niekus & P. Wiersma, 2008. Bladspitsen en andere middenpaleolithische vondsten rond het glaciale bekken van Steenwijk (Dr. en Ov.). Paleo-aktueel 19: 10-19.Paleo-aktueel 19: 10-19.Paleo-aktueel

Sternke, F. & M. Sørensen, 2009. The identi-fi cation of children’s fl intknapping products in Mesolithic Scandinavia. In: S. McCartan et al. (eds.), Mesolithic Horizons. Papers presented at the Seventh International Conference on the Mesolithic in Europe, Belfast 2005. Oxbow, Oxford, 722-729.

Stout, D., 2002. Skill and cognition in stone tool production: an ethnographic case study from Irian Jaya. Current Anthropology 43: 693-722.Current Anthropology 43: 693-722.Current Anthropology

Thieme, H. & P. Richter, 1994. Ein neuer Fundplatz der Acheuléen mit zahlreichen Faustkeilen in Niedersachsen - Rettungsgrabungen in Ocht-missen, Stadt Lüneburg. Berichte zur Denk-malpfl ege in Niedersachsen 14 (3): 123-126.malpfl ege in Niedersachsen 14 (3): 123-126.malpfl ege in Niedersachsen

Vandenberghe, J., 1995. The Saalian Complex and the fi rst traces of human activity in the Netherlands in a stratigraphic and ecological context. Mededelingen Rijks Geologische Dienst 52: 187-194.Dienst 52: 187-194.Dienst

Verhart, L.B.M., 2001. De zee neemt, de zee geeft. Spectaculaire vondsten uit de Noordzee. Westerheem 50: 102-107.Westerheem 50: 102-107.Westerheem

Zotz, L.F., 1955. Das Paläolithikum in den Weinberghöhlen bei Mauern (= Quartär Weinberghöhlen bei Mauern (= Quartär Weinberghöhlen bei MauernBibliothek, Bd. 2). Ludwig Röhrscheid Verlag, Bonn.

Date post:	02-Feb-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	independent
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Artikel Feestbundel Stapert 2012

Documents