J Archaeol Method Theory (2008) 15:112131 DOI 10.

1007/s10816-007-9050-4

Playing with Flint: Tracing a Childs Imitation of Adult Work in a Lithic Assemblage
Anders Hgberg

Published online: 15 January 2008 # Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2007

Abstract This paper examines the potential for identifying play and childrens imitation in the archaeological record and reviews cultural constructions of play and cross-cultural behaviour. A case study, using a lithic assemblage from a discrete knapping area for Scandinavian Neolithic axe production in Southern Sweden which identifies a childs activity area, is discussed. The theoretical and methodological assumptions behind play, imitation and its identification as well as its social implications are also examined. Keywords Lithic technology . Child archaeology . Play . Sweden

Introduction That children existed in prehistory, and that they must have been an evident part of daily life, is obvious. Therefore, the contrast between the numbers of children who lived during prehistory and the (in)capacity of archaeological discourse to perceive, delimit and define them is striking (Kamp 2001; Park 1998; Welinder 1998). It is evident that prehistoric children have had an influence on, and are represented in, the archaeological record, regardless of whether or not we as archaeologists are creative enough to discern this (Sofaer Derevenski 1997: p. 192). During recent years, the study of children in prehistory has become an established research area on its own (see, for example, Baxter 2005; Johnsen and Welinder 1995; Kamp 2001; Lillehammer 1989, 2005; Moore and Scott 1997; Park 1998; Sofaer Derevenski 2000; Welinder 1998). With inspiration taken especially from gender perspectives in archaeology, the recognition of the problems and possibilities of the presence of children in the archaeological record has received augmented attention (Gero 1991; Moore and Scott 1997). From early studies working with the actual recognition of

A. Hgberg (*) Malm Heritage, Box 406, 201 24 Malm, Sweden e-mail: anders.hogberg@malmo.se

Playing with Flint

113

children, for example as an evident part of site formation processes and prehistoric daily life (Hammond and Hammond 1981), the subject has been working to find its place in the currents of archaeology, to use the words of Grete Lillehammer (2005: p. 21). As a consequence, many studies have been characterised by a focus on the problem of children and childhood as cultural constructs and the presence or absence of children within the archaeological discourse, rather than on those archaeological remains in the form of artefacts and features which could possibly be related to questions about cultural issues of the study of children in prehistory. In recent years, this has changed. Even though the amount of theoretical and methodological work is still small (Lillehammer 2005: p. 29; Welinder 1998: p. 194) several social, economic, behavioural and technological studies on different aspects on children and childhood have been published (see, for example, Alt and Kemkes-Grottenthaler 2002; Baxter 2005; Sofaer Derevenski 2000). This makes it currently quite troublefree to place an archaeology of childhood within a wider theoretical and methodological framework.

Children and Childrens Activities A basic and essential question is: If archaeology wants to look for children in prehistory, what kind of child-related behaviour can one expect to come across? To deal with this question we first need to look at the problem of definition. The concept of children and childhood are to the highest degree cultural constructions, and they differ from place to place and from time to time (Kamp 2001; Schwartzman 1978; Sofaer Derevenski 2000). One who, for example, by age and everyday definitions may be considered a child in a small village in southern Germany may be considered a fully-fledged member of the adult community by the Chewong of the Malaysian rain forests (Norman 1996: p. 27). It is also evident that the idea of the child and the use of this concept require different linguistic expressions within one and the same community. Elderly grandfathers refer to their 60-year-old sons as their children. For the new mother, it is natural to refer to the newly-born baby as her child (Ewerlf et al. 1982). The way in which those individuals in society designated as children are perceived and classified as being precisely children, as opposed to adolescents or adults, is related to the guiding social values of the community in which the child lives (Ewerlf et al. 1982: p. 22; Kanvall 1995: p. 7). Even the dichotomy of children versus adult is in many cases not valid as anything but a Western scholarship cultural construct (Olwig 1999). So, if the ambition is to look for children in the archaeological record, it is obvious that definition causes difficulties and needs to be discussed. However, as a starting point for this study, it is essential to state that there actually do exist cross-cultural, or expressed in another way, universal human, behavioural patterns which generally can be related to children, that is to say people at a certain social and biological phase of development in life, regardless of the childs cultural identity (Cullberg 1992: p. 54; Daun 1999: p. 36). While growing up, children undergo psychological, biological and social development along lines which are partly predicted and therefore also predictable (Fenwick 1990; Jerlang 1992: p. 171; Wood 1998). The form of construction, perception and designation of these lines of

114

Hgberg

development is a cultural creation, since the social community, almost without exception, demands that the development of the child and its childhood is defined and classified according to existing cultural patterns (Kamp 2001). Yet these lines of development are real, irrespective of how they are perceived in a given form and contextthey exist, irrespective of definition (Baxter 2005). In, for example, a study of childrens graves in a set of Swedish and Norwegian burial-grounds and churchyards dating from the Neolithic to Early Middle Ages (3500 BC 1350 AD), Stig Welinder (1998) was able to point at a basic pattern concerning how individuals turned adult in a number of steps from birth and onwards: These steps formed the process of bringing up the children, giving them knowledge, work tasks and responsibility (Welinder 1998: p. 186). The process of growth from infancy to adulthood is fundamental to the concept of childhood in all societies, but its transformation into, for example, ritual, material culture, symbols, and ideology is varied (Welinder 1998: p. 185). Lars Larsson has detected comparable patterns in his study of Mesolithic graves from the Zvejnieki cemetery in Latvia (Larsson 2006). While strongly emphasising that the cultural construct of children and childhood must be investigated and not assumed, Kathryn A. Kamp stresses the lack of research within archaeology focusing on life cycles and sequences of life stages of cross-cultural character; not simply for classification but to be used as the basis for studies on, for example, daily activities (Kamp 2001: p. 3). From this train of thought, it seems important for the questions asked in this paper to establish that: first, the concept of children and childhood is a cultural construct; and, second, there is an element of cross-cultural specific courses of events in a childs development, i.e. stages in life containing specific behaviours. In other words, what individuals in a community apprehend as children and childhood is dependent on the pre-dominant social and cultural values in that specific community. This varies across time and space. But specific stages in an individuals life development contain definite behaviours which are distinct for that particular stage of development. This is cross-cultural. To study the interface between the general and specific in child behaviour is in my opinion a challenge and also a main purpose behind the analysis presented here. So, returning to the question asked above: If archaeology wants to look for children in prehistory, what kind of child related behaviour can one expect to come across?, it is obvious that I have not come up with an answer, but have certainly framed the field of study. Looking at comprehensions and inferences drawn from current literature, aspects on childrens play is an example of studied behaviour which can be of special interest here (see, for example, references cited in Bamforth and Finlay, this volume; Baxter 2005; Kamp 2001).

Playing How to apprehend childrens play has been debated over a long period of time. So once again we first have to look at definition. Early Western twentieth century scholars pointed out play as consisting of different levels of childrens behavioural development, and regarded these levels as universally human. In particular Jean Piagets research has been influential (see, for example, Piaget 1945). The Soviet

Playing with Flint

115

behaviour psychologist, Lev Semenovich Vygotsky, was one early critic of this point of view, emphasising instead the culturally specific (Vygotsky 1962), but it was not until the publication of the anthropologist Helen B. Schwartzmans book, Transformations, that an alternative was presented. Schwartzman stressed the importance of taking the cultural variations of time and place into consideration, and she stated that play can only be understood as a culturally related phenomenon (Schwartzman 1978). Later scholars have delved more deeply into these questions and stressed the interaction between human behaviour and cultural learning, pointing out that the form and performance of play are to be regarded as cultural constructions. But the phenomenon, i.e. the fact that children play, is a universal human behavioural pattern (Daun 1999; Tomasello et al. 1993; Wood 1998). Play is regarded as the biological heritage of humans (Hughes 1991, cited in Kamp 2001) and especially children demonstrate a strong need to play. In fact, children tend to incorporate play into almost every part of their daily life (Kamp 2001: p. 18; Park 1998). Consequently, play and the character of play can on the one hand be looked upon as a culture construct, while on the other as a cross-cultural phenomenon (Jerlang 1992; Kamp 2001; Lillehammer 1989, 2005; Wood 1998). Children play if they have the opportunity to do so. At a certain and specific stage in an individuals life a stage we nowadays call childhoodplay is a distinct dominant activity. Accordingly, even though the concept of childrens play differs, playing exists regardless of time and place. Therefore, if the desire is to look for child-related behaviour in an archaeological record, play is a promising activity to look for. But the concept of play covers many different types of activities; variations are almost unlimited. The question is what kind of playing can be delimited for a closer look? This issue will be addressed from the point of view of imitation.

Imitation Imitation has a vital role in childrens play (Daun 1999). There are many examples which describe situations in which children, through play, imitate adult activities (Schwartzman 1978). For example, in a study looking into aspects of childhood in Inuit societies, Robert W. Park emphasizes the fact that children mimic and imitate adults in tasks like hunting, care-taking and household activities, and in doing so the children actually play the life and actions of the grown-ups (Park 1998: p. 274). This play takes on the form of both playful diversion and preparation for integration into societys social and economic activities (Chamberlain 1997: p. 250). Whiting and Whiting (1975, in Lillehammer 1989) have, in an anthropological study of childrens routines and chores, identified and listed a number of daily tasks in which children participate. Bringing water and collecting wood, preparing meals, and gathering vegetables and animal fodder are examples of occasions where work and play combine. Children learn the conditions of their work and behaviour through participation and playful imitation (Jerlang 1992; Wood 1998). The imitation through play consequently becomes a kind of game with a serious undertone. In the play, everyday events are incorporated, events in which children are expected to take a successively more active role as they become older. Play becomes a form of training, a socialisation process in which the meaning of being a person is made

116

Hgberg

concrete as the child is schooled in the ways of the community (Norman 1996: p. 13). In this way, play provides a model for society and prepares the individuals for future situations and roles by allowing them to practice different behaviours (Kamp 2001: p. 19). It is my belief that these circumstances give an opportunity to look for a social behaviour in archaeological material, i.e. childrens playful imitation of adult work. It also gives an opportunity to study the interplay between the cross-cultural, i.e. that children imitate adults in their play, and the culturally specific, i.e. the opportunities and restrictions imposed by the community on childrens play and imitation. Although there is considerable archaeological evidence of prehistoric toys and games, there are few studies which discuss imitation through play and what it actually can reveal about socialisation processes (but see, for example, Park 1998). Kamp (2001: p. 20) has formulated some relevant questions for future research concerning the role of play: Is play of necessity organized to allow children to work or does it interfere with the opportunity to work? Do play activities teach children the skills needed for later work? Is play even separable from work? These questions are inspiring and I have borrowed them for this study.

Some Methodological Considerations At this juncture, some methodological considerations are needed. These considerations will be restricted to aspects relevant to the case study presented below, a case study which involves flint knapping and lithic analysis. First of all, the act of imitation requires something to imitate, some kind of action to mimic. To perceive this action as precisely imitation, it must relate to the action that is being imitated. The consistency of this statement is that if the childs playful imitations of adult work is the focus, one way to discover this archaeologically is when it occurs together with adult work. However, this demands first of all that it is possible to identify and differentiate the adult work. Secondly, it demands that this work is of a sort which actually can be imitated. And thirdly, it demands that the adult work is of a character that, when it is imitated, the result of this imitation is different from that of the original. This is where the discussion of skill, or maybe more accurately technological achievement, enters the picture. The adult work must possess a certain level of developed technological achievement and certain patterns of handling, which the child does not know or possess and therefore does not express in the imitation. The act of imitation must be a dualism between the childs and the adults work to possibly be recognised as imitation.

Identifying Childrens Behavior in Lithic Assemblages The basic premise for studies attempting to identify traces of childrens behaviour in lithic material is that children are beginners and therefore have not yet attained the proficiency or know-how (Apel 2001, this volume) in their craft that they are expected to reach later in life (Babel 1997; Fischer 1990; Grimm 2000; Pigeot 1990). The child is distinguished by the game-like and non-utilitarian character of

Playing with Flint

117

poorly knapped pieces, displaying less skill than the novice (Finlay 1997: p. 207; after Pigeot 1990). Artefacts interpreted as deriving from the activities of children are perceived as less technologically and methodologically developed than those produced by non-children (for critical comments on this point of view, see Finlay 1997). The work of children can consequently be identified as more simple and unstructured, compared to the more elaborate (adult) work. Practice, learning and skill training are the absolute dominant behaviours studied in relation to lithic technology. Karlin and Julien (1994) for example, have, in a study of a number of French Upper Palaeolithic settlements, identified technological and methodological features in lithic assemblages which they have interpreted as work carried out partly by experienced flintknappers and partly by beginners. Through analyses of manufacturing techniques and methods on a refitted assemblage, different levels of proficiency and experience in stone-working were analysed. In this research, Karlin and Julien were able to demonstrate that the flake assemblage which was produced by the least knowledgeable and experienced flintknapper was not secondarily utilised in tool production. Instead, the whole production remained at the knapping area in the form of unmodified flakes and blade-like flakes. This was compared with the experienced flintknappers work, parts of whose production were removed from the knapping area for use in tool production (Karlin and Julien 1994: p. 162). The inexperienced flintknappers work was evidently not intended to be used secondarily; its significance lay rather in the moment of practice in producing flakes and blade-like flakes. Based on these results, together with a discussion on Palaeolithic social and cultural conditions, Karlin and Julien interpret the inexperienced flintknapper to a child or adolescent. Fischer (1990) took a similar approach in his study of an Upper Palaeolithic assemblage from Trollesgave, Denmark. In this study, different technological and methodological levels were also identified in the flint material, resulting in an interpretation of the site as a late Palaeolithic school of flintknapping. Other knapping sites have been investigated with similar approaches by Grimm (2000) and Pigeot (1990) with respect to French Upper Palaeolithic sites, and Johansen and Stapert (2000) have explored comparable themes at sites in the Netherlands. Based on variables such as different raw material utilisation, different levels of technological achievement and different levels of productivity, these different sites have all been interpreted as representing the work of adults performing systematic work together with children or youths learning to knap. In the study presented below, it is important to state that, from the referred analysis above, it is obvious that childrens work is perceived as less developed and is identified as more simple and unstructured, compared to a more elaborate work. Hence, a fundamental point of departure for the determination of childrens activities is that the definition of their work as less developed is contrasted with artefacts of a more complex sort. It is not solely simplicity in an assemblage that defines it as coming from childrens activities, but simplicity in relation to a more complex working of material within the same context, which forms a basis for interpretation. It is also important to notice that most archaeological studies done on lithic analysis and children have focused on learning and apprenticeship, not play and imitation, which makes this study touch on, to some extent, a previously unexplored area of research particularly within lithic studies.

118

Hgberg

A Danish Behavioural Replication Study But what do the results from a childs flint knapping look like? A behavioural replication study which investigates this is a series of experiments conducted by Mikkel Srensen at the National Museum in Copenhagen, Denmark, who is an archaeologist specialised in lithic technologies. He has conducted several lithic studies, including experiments with children knapping flint (Lejre Experimental Centre 2002). During a week of public demonstrations in a local Danish museum, he asked the 6-year old son of one of the museum staff to sit along with him knapping (Fig. 1). During this week of knapping Srensen did not instruct the boy. The boy (Asbjrn) just imitated Srensens work, observed, asked questions and tried to knap as he did. The boy also looked at the displayed artefacts in the museum exhibition, and tried to copy them in his own flint knapping (Sternke and Srensen 2007). The result of the 6-year-old boys flint-knapping and imitation was a set of objects, which by shape look like prehistoric tools, but lack all significant technological attributes. As can be seen in Fig. 2, these tools are all knapped from one side with a direct technology, consistently using the ventral surface as striking platform. The form of the tools resembles prehistoric tool types, but the technology is incorrect. The result of this small behavioural replication study shows that the boy in his knapping was able to imitate form and shape, but not the technology (Sternke and Srensen 2007). The purpose of the presentation of this behavioural replication study is not to state that a child from the Stone Age behaved the same way as a child in the present. The lesson learned is, as in all theoretical responsive experimental archaeology, an inspirational one, not an interpretative one (Mathieu 2002).

How to Identify Children Imitating Adults in a Lithic Assemblage There are, of course, many ways to study traces of childrens activities in a lithic assemblage. In this paper, I am just scratching the surface. But, from the archaeological examples and experiment presented above, it is possible to draw a

Fig. 1 A 6-year-old Danish boy, Asbjrn, knapping flint with a sort of self-invented bipolar technology, using a concrete slab as anvil. Photo: Mikkel Srensen.

Playing with Flint

119

Fig. 2 Asbjrn`s artefacts. He knapped several tools, and could point them out as transverse arrowheads (four to the lower left), a core (top left), different points and spearheads (middle), and a late Neolithic Danish dagger (right). The piece to the right is c. 8 cm long.

few guidelines for further investigations before considering a case study. It is evident that variables such as different raw material utilisation, levels of technological achievement and levels of productivity are essential for the interpretation of archaeological assemblages involving childrens activities. Also important is the reproduction of form without an understanding of the technology. It is evident that a definition of the behaviour of children imitating adults in flint knapping may stand out as dualistic variables such as understanding: no understanding, systematic: non systematic and productivity: non-productivity. In the interpretation of an archaeological assemblage this may be seen as, for example: & & & Systematic technology versus ad hoc technology High quality (selective) raw material utilisation versus low quality (nonselective) raw material utilisation Typological forms versus non-typological forms

Based on what has been discussed so far, I will now present a case study based on lithic debitage analysis.

Identifying Imitation in an Archaeological Lithic Assemblage: A Case Study from South Sweden During the autumn of 1997, an area south of Malm was excavated by Malm Heritage, as part of the resund Fixed Link Project (in Swedish resundsfrbindelsen). Archaeological excavations along a new circular road investigated one of the most densely populated regions in Scandinavia since the Mesolithic (Billberg et al. 1996, 1998). A knapping area (Fig. 3) was discovered and excavated by the author (see also Hgberg 1999). The site dates to the Neolithic (Sarns and Nord Paulsson 2001). The knapping area consisted of two large stones embedded in the till, and about 400 flint flakes and a few knapped pieces scattered around the stones.

120

Hgberg

Fig. 3 Location map and knapping area (excavated in 25 cm2) with c. 400 flint flakes scattered around the stones. Dotted line marks the investigated area. Dark gray Find of many flakes, light gray finds of fewer flakes.

Playing with Flint

121

No retouched tools were found, nor any pottery or organic material. Since the find exclusively comprised flint, and almost entirely flakes, the interpretation is based upon flake analysis, raw material utilisation, and site distribution analysis.

Flake Analysis While knapping flint, flakes are struck through a particular set of actions. These actions are performed with the help of appropriately suitable techniques and methods. These can be reconstructed from the appearance of the flake, because each technique and method leaves traces that are more or less typical. Analysis of diagnostic flakes is accordingly built upon a technological and methodological interpretation of the appearance of the flakes. This interpretation is based upon an understanding of technological and methodological style, and of which characteristic traces this style leaves behind. An analysis and interpretation of a number of different attributes that the flake gained during working is performed. The formation of these attributes is directly dependent upon the techniques and methods used when the flake was created. The fitting together of these attributes allows a production history of the flake to be reconstructed along with a consequent determination of the technology and method that created the flake. Different techniques and methods are connected to the production of different tools. Therefore, the technological and methodological diagnosis of a flake can also indicate what has been manufactured (Andrefsky 1998, 2001; Eriksen 2000; Holdaway and Stern 2004; Inizan et al. 1992; Odell 2004; Whittaker 1994).

The Flint from the Knapping Area Analysis made it clear that it was possible to divide the flint assemblage from the knapping area into two different categories, representing different knapping strategies (Table I). In the first, the majority of the flakes represented the production of one Scandinavian Neolithic square-sectioned flint axe (Fig. 4). This type of axe was produced with what is known as the quadrifacial method (Hansen 1983; Hansen and Madsen 1983; Hgberg 2002, 1999; Knarrstrm 1997; Nordqvist 1991; Stafford 1999; Waldorf 1988). The basis of this method is a four-sided surface flaking that result in an axe with squared or rectangular cross-section. The diagnostic flakes from the production of square-sectioned axes are marked by a combination of six attributes specific to these flakes: platform angle of 90 degrees angle de chasse, pronounced

Table I The Quantity of Flakes from the Two Different Productions at the Knapping Area Flake categories Diagnostic flakes from the production of a Neolithic square-sectioned axe Flakes from unsystematic production n 150 241

122

Hgberg

Fig. 4 Diagnostic flint flakes found at the knapping area, from different stages of the production of a Neolithic square-sectioned axe. The flake to the upper left is c. 2 cm wide. Drawings by Anette Nilsson.

bulb, lenticular platform shape, impact point off the edge, straight curvature and faceted platform (Fig. 5; Hgberg 1999). The production method of Neolithic square-sectioned flint axes is generally regarded as systematic production with a well-defined reduction strategy (Fig. 6). It represents a highly specialised and uniform production and is easily recognised (Hgberg 1999). In contrast, the product of the other flake population from the knapping site was more difficult to determine. The flakes had been knapped with an unsystematic technology, using a hard hammerstone. Together with these flakes, a worked flint

Playing with Flint

123

Fig. 5 Diagnostic attributes on flakes from the production of square-sectioned axes. Drawings by Ingela Kishonti.

piece was found. It has been knapped from one side and has the rough shape of a square-sectioned axe (Fig. 7). Consequently, the flint from the knapping area represents two different knapping strategies, one the systematic production of a highly specialised tool, and the other one the unsystematic production of flakes.

Raw Material Utilisation In the region around Malm there are several late glacial deposits of flint-bearing limestone and chalk formations (Hgberg and Olausson 2007). The axe flakes from the knapping area are of a high quality Danian flint which can be found in limestone downs bearing seams and in a post-glacial Littorina beach ridge in the vicinity of the site. At the Littorina beach ridge large numbers of axe preforms have been found, indicating the beach ridge to be an abundant raw material resource, and it is likely that the raw material from the axe production at the knapping area was selected from here (Hgberg 2002; Hgberg et al. 2001). In addition to the late glacial deposits of flint-bearing limestone and chalk formations. there are large amounts of different types of flint in the till, the so-called morainic flints. This term refers to secondary deposits of flint, which have been removed from the limestone or chalk where it originally was formed, transported by ice or moraine, and deposited on site in the till by the melting of the ice. This flint is of low quality and often exhibits cracks, fissures and irregularities. The second unsystematic assemblage from the knapping site was worked from this kind of

124

Hgberg

Fig. 6 Square-sectioned flint axe replica and typical production flakes, knapped by Thorbjrn Petersen. Photo by Anders Hgberg.

morainic flint. Consequently, the two productions were made out of different flint raw materials: one high quality Danian flint and the other one low quality morainic flint.

Site Distribution, the Positions of the Flint Knappers The axe flakes from the knapping site were concentrated in an area close to one of the stones. The distribution diagram shows that the concentration of these flakes laid spread out upon a small limited surface (Fig. 8, left). Concentrations of this kind at a knapping area usually occur directly below the flint knapper, in the precise area where the knapper sat (Fischer 1990: p. 39). In contrast to the distribution of the flakes from the axe production, the other flake assemblage displayed no clear concentration. It was scattered around the two large stones, indicating that the person who knapped these flakes had been moving around, performing the actions at different places within the knapping area (Fig. 8,

Playing with Flint

125

Fig. 7 Unsystematic flakes and a worked flint piece from the knapping area. Note that the worked flint piece has been knapped from one side, and has the rough shape of a square-sectioned axe. The piece is c. 7 cm long. Drawings by Anette Nilsson.

right). Consequently, the distribution patterns of the flakes at the site indicate two different knapping actions. One lively, the other stationary. Two Productions at One Site a Neolithic Square Sectioned Axe, and Something Else The flint material from this knapping area represents an obvious dualism (Fig. 9). A systematic technology was concentrated in a restricted area with the production of a square-sectioned flint axe, based on selective raw material, resulting in a characteristic typological form. This is found together with a scattered, nonsystematic technology, based on low quality raw material, and resulting in a form that looks like, but is not, a square-sectioned axe. Looking back on the earlier established premises for identifying a childs imitation of an adult work in lithic assemblages, it can be stated that all necessary qualities are present in this case study. The axe production represents a well-

126

Hgberg

Fig. 8 Different distribution of flakes. Left Flakes from the axe production concentrated around a stone where the knapper sat; right unsystematic production scattered around the two stones, without any distinct concentration. Dark gray More flakes, light gray less flakes.

developed technological achievement that can be imitated and separated from other kind of work. The second flake population represents a lower proficient technological achievement, looks like axe production, but has not resulted in an axe. My interpretation of what took place at the site is that an adult was knapping an axe. A child watched and, in their flint knapping, imitated but did not copy the adults work. Based on this, I consider that this material represents the behaviour of a child playing through imitation while an adult was knapping an axe. It is important here to engage with a few source critical considerations. Why a childs imitation, why not the trials and errors of a skilled toolmaker? This question summarises different versions of a common critique on the interpretation on children (and gender) in lithic assemblages. Even though this critique may be substantiated (see, for example, Finlay 1997), it is often based on a limited understanding of lithic technology (see, for example, Cromb 2007). The trials and errors of a skilled toolmaker would exhibit flake material which revealed a purpose of making an artefact recognisable as a typological form. A skilled toolmaker would not make methodological and technological misinterpretations, i.e. would not use an inadequate technique or method. A skilled tool maker may make mistakes, but these would be the exceptions proving the rule, not the rule (see Stapert 2007 for a more detailed discussion on this issue). Another aspect is raw material availability. It is important to take into account that flint raw material during the Neolithic in this part of Scandinavia was abundant (Hgberg and Olausson 2007). Jeffrey R. Ferguson (2003) has showed how limited raw material access can totally change the appearance of the material culture which is the result from learning, imitation and play. In his study, the processes of learning was almost totally absent in the lithic assemblage (see also Ferguson, this volume). Play Clarifies Reality: A Discussion What conclusions can be drawn from the analysis of a few hours of work at a knapping area during prehistory? In my opinion, this material touches on parts of a

Playing with Flint

127

Fig. 9 The axe production (left) is the technology of the adult at the knapping area. It represents a highly specialised and uniform technology based on selective raw material. The non-systematic technology (right) is the technology of the child at the knapping area. It is based on low quality raw material and has resulted in an imitation of a square-sectioned axe.

socialisation process. The cultural and social context constitutes an essential role in childrens learning and development. It forms the content as well as the structure and process (Vygotsky 1962). Consequently, childrens knowledge and know-how is a product of their own understanding, as well as an interaction in the social life with

128

Hgberg

more experienced and versed members of the cultural community of which the child is a member (Wood 1998). Accordingly, during the process of upbringing, norms and values which lie at the heart of the communitys perception of children are made evident, and the common attitudes towards what is regarded as permissible and not permissible for children to know, to be initiated into and to participate in, are embodied in these acts. In the identification of the interplay between the child and adult activities, there consequently exist possibilities of studying the ways of how the communitys traditions and values, expressed in the everyday life, are passed down from one generation to another. Conditions for the study of fundamental manifestations of how a society maintains its sense of community, through world views, cultural patterns and cultural basic themes, therefore exist in the process of upbringing (Frykman and Lfgren 1979). Play can in this way be regarded as a kind of mirror image of the child and adult world, in which the norms and values that form the basis of a societys communal value system are made apparent. If we once again draw attention to the discussion above on imitation through play and what it actually can reveal about socialisation processes, we can see that the results from the case study impact on several of the questions for future research concerning the role of play formulated by Kamp (2001: p. 20) and cited above: Is play of necessity organized to allow children to work or does it interfere with the opportunity to work? Do play activities teach children the skills needed for later work? Is play even separable from work? Looking at the results from the analysis of the knapping area, it can first of all be noted that from the childs point of view the production process of an axe offered a good opportunity to play. Obviously, play did not interfere with work. It also implies that it actually was possible for a child to be present during the manufacture of a square-sectioned axe. Within the social network to which the child belonged there were no prohibitions, rules or taboos to make this impossible. This also implies that the flintknapper who made the axe had no desire or no opportunity to work in a child-free environment. Childrens play was present in the everyday life of the adults. Finally, it also implies that the child was schooled in flint knapping through active participation and that the transfer of know-how between experienced and inexperienced in this case took place through imitation, although in a playful manner. Play and work was not separated.

Conclusion Contexts of playing and learning are expressions of social patterns. By identifying the variables involved in playing in the archaeological record, it is possible to study a fundamental part of human behaviour, that is, how past societies made people become people. The question opening this study was: If archaeology wants to look for children in prehistory, what kind of child related behaviour can one expect to come across? Previous lithic studies on children have generally focused upon children learning to knap. In this study, I have worked from a theoretical perspective which combines the cultural constructed with the cross-culture universal, studying the interface between the general and specific in child behaviour. Using the discourse of lithic analysis, I have suggested that imitation through play is a different

Playing with Flint

129

behaviour than learning, although tightly connected with it, which can be studied. This has been exemplified with a case study of a Scandinavian Neolithic knapping site bearing traces of a childs and an adults material culture. The result touches upon aspects on children as social agents. Childhood is primarily a construct made by adults. But children lives are neither social constructs nor biological universal. They live as individuals. Children are engaged in so much more than things limited by what is called childhood (Olwig 1999). With this in mind, a question for the future can be raised. I have worked with imitation, defining it through a dualistic approach, i.e. the base for the analysis is childrens versus adults material culture. But is it possible to study the children themselves in archaeology, how they acted and succeed as social beings on their own? The material culture which is the result from children as social agents on their own is an exciting area of research for future studies.
Acknowledgements This text is based on a previously published study (Hgberg 1999), although here set in a new, different and developed theoretical and methodological framework. Thanks to Nyree Finlay, Department of Archaeology, University of Glasgow, Mikkel Srensen, SILA National Museum in Copenhagen; Deborah Olausson, Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, University of Lund; Jan Apel, Societas Archaeologica Upsaliensis and Elisabeth Rudebeck, Malm Heritage.

References
Alt, K. W., Kemkes-Grottenthaler, A. (eds.) (2002). Kinderwelten. Antropologie Geschichte Kulturvergleich. Bhlau, Kln, Weimar, Wien. Andrefsky W., Jr. (1998). Lithics. Macroscopic approaches to analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Andrefsky, W., Jr. (ed.) (2001). Lithic debitage. Context, form, meaning. Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press. Apel, J. (2001). Daggers knowledge and power. The social aspect of flint-dagger technology in Scandinavia 23501500 cal BC. Uppsala: Coast to Coast 3. Babel, J. (1997). Teaching flintknapping skills in Neolithic mining societies. In R. Schild & Z. Sulgostowska (eds.), Man and flint. Proceedings of the VIIth International Flint Symposium Warszawa - Ostrowiec Swietokrzyski September 1995 (pp. 167169). Warsaw: Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology Polish Academy of Sciences. Baxter, J. E. (2005). The archaeology of childhood: children, gender, and material culture. Walnut Creek, Lanham: Altamira Press. Billberg, I., Bjrhem, N., Magnusson Staaf, B., & Thrn, R. (eds.) (1998). resundsfrbindelsen och arkeologi II. Projektprogram och underskningsplaner fr arkeologiska slutunderskningar, Stadsantikvariska avdelningen Malm Museer 1998, Malm. Billberg, I., Bjrhem, N., & Thrn, R. (eds.) (1996). resundsfrbindelsen och arkeologi. Projektprogram och underskningsplaner fr arkeologiska slutunderskningar. Stadsantikvariska avdelningen Malm Museer 1996, Malm. Chamberlain, A. T. (1997). Commentary: missing stages of life - towards the perception of children in archaeology. In J. Moore, & E. Scott (Eds.) Invisible people and processes. Writing gender and childhood into European Archaeology (pp. 248257). London: Leicester University Press. Cromb, P. (2007). Book review of: Milner, N. & P. Woodman. 2005. Mesolithic Studies at the Beginning of the 21st Century. (Oxford, Oxbow Books). PalArchs Journal of Archaeology of northwest Europe, (Date of publishing: 1 April 2007). http://www.palarch.nl/NorthWestEurope/review_Milner& Woodman_05.pdf Cullberg, J. (1992). Dynamisk psykiatri i teori och praktik. Stockholm: Natur & Kultur. Daun, . (1999). Det allmnmnskliga och det kulturbundna. Smedjebacken: Prisma. Eriksen, B. V. (ed.) (2000). Flintstudier. En hndbog i systematiske analyser af flintinventarer. Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag.

130

Hgberg

Ewerlf, G., Rst Andrasson, B., & Sverne, T. (1982). Barnets bsta. Om frldrars och samhllets ansvar. Stockholm. Fenwick, E. (1990). Bonniers barnbok. Stockholm. Ferguson, J. R. (2003). An experimental test of the conservation of raw material in flintknapping skill acquisition. Lithic Technology, 28, 113131. Finlay, N. (1997). Kid Knapping: the missing children in lithic analysis. In J. Moore, & E. Scott (Eds.) Invisible people and processes. Writing gender and childhood into European Archaeology (pp. 203 212). London: Leicester University Press. Fischer, A. (1990). A late PalaeolithicSchool of flint-knapping at Trollesgave, Denmark. Results from refitting. Acta Archaeologica, 60, 3349. Frykman, J., & Lfgren, O. (1979). Den kultiverade mnniskan. Skrifter utgivna av Etnologiska sllskapet i Lund, Lund. Gero, J. M. (1991). Gender lithics: womens roles in stone tools production. In J. M. Gero, & M.W. Conkey (Eds.) Engendering archaeology. Women and Prehistory (pp. 163193). Oxford: Blackwell. Grimm, L. (2000). Apprentice flintknapping: relating material culture and social practice in the Upper Palaeolithic. In J. Sofaer Derevenski (Ed.) Children and material culture (pp. 5371). London: Routledge. Hammond, G., & Hammond, N. (1981). Childs play: a distorting factor in archaeological distribution. American Antiquity, 46, 634636. Hansen, P. V. (1983). Hastrup Vnget - et flintvrksted fra yngre stenalder. In K. Kristiansen & A. Tnnesen (eds.), Antikvariske studier 6 Fortidsminder og Bygningsbevaring (pp. 186199). Kpenhamn. Hansen, P. V., & Madsen, B. (1983). Flint axe manufacture in the Neolithic. An experimental investigation of a flint axe manufacture site at Hastrup Vnget, East Zealand. Journal of Danish Archaeology, 2, 4359. Hgberg, A. (1999). Child and adult at a knapping area. A technological flake analysis of the manufacture of a neolithic square sectioned axe and a childs flintknapping activities on an assemblage excavated as part of the resund fixed link project. Acta Archaeologica, 70, 79106. Hgberg, A. (2002). Production sites on the Beach Ridge of Jravallen. Aspects on tool preforms, action, technology, ritual and the continuity of place. Current Swedish Archaeology, 10, 137162. Hgberg, A., Apel, J., Knutsson, K., Olausson, D., & Rudebeck, E. (2001). The spread of flint axes and daggers in Neolithic Scandinavia. Pamtky Archeologick XCII, 193221. Hgberg, A., & Olausson, D. (2007). Scandinavian Flint an Archaeological Perspective. rhus: Aarhus University Press. Holdaway, S., & Stern, N. (2004). A record in stone. The study of Australias flaked stone artefacts. Melbourne and Canberra: Museum Victoria and Aboriginal Studies Press. Hughes, F. P. (1991). Children, play, and development. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Inizan, M.-L., Roche, H., & Tixier, J. (1992). Technology of knapped stone. Meudon: C.R.E.P. Jerlang, E. (1992). Barnets utveckling - en helhet. Psykologiska och pedagogiska teman. Stockholm. Johansen, L., & Stapert, D. (2000). Two Epi-Ahrensburgian sites in the Northern Netherlands: Oudehaske (Friesland) and Gramsbergen (Overijssel). Palaeohistoria, 39/40(19978), 187. Johnsen, B., & Welinder, S. (eds.), (1995). Arkeologi om barn. OPIA 10. Uppsala. Kamp, K. A. (2001). Where have all the children gone?: The Archaeology of childhood. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 8, 134. Kanvall, P. (1995). Barn i frhistorisk tid. En teoretisk diskussion kring begreppetbarn. In B. Johnsen & S. Welinder (eds.), Arkeologi om barn (pp. 712) Karlin, C., & Julien, M. (1994). Prehistoric technology: a cognitive science? In C. Renfrew, & E. B. W. Zubrow (Eds.) The ancient mind. Elements of cognitive archaeology (pp. 152164). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Knarrstrm, B. (1997). Neolitisk flintteknologi - i ett sknskt randomrde. In P. Karsten (ed.), Carpe scaniam axplock ur sknes frflutna. RA Skrifter nr. 22, Lund, pp. 725. Larsson, L. (2006). Tooth for a tooth for a grave. Tooth ornaments from the graves at the cemetery of Zvejnieki. In L. Larsson, & I. Zagorska (Eds.) Back to the origin. New research in the MesolithicNeolithic Zvejnieke cemetery and environment, northern Latvia. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia, Series in 8, No. 52 (pp. 253288). Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell International. Lejre Experimental Centre, Denmark, Research, Lejre, October, 2002; http://www.english.lejrecenter.dk/ EXPERIMENTS_2002.812.0.html. Lillehammer, G. (1989). A child is born. The childs world in an Archaeological perspective. Norwegian Archaeological Review, 22.2, 89105. Lillehammer, G. (2005). Archaeology and children. K.A.N. Kvinner i arkeologi i Norge, 24, 1835.

Playing with Flint

131

Mathieu, J. R. (Ed.) (2002). Experimental archaeology. Replicating past objects, behaviors, and processes. Oxford: BAR International Series 1035, Archaeopress. Moore, J., & Scott, E. (Eds.) (1997). Invisible people and processes. Writing gender and childhood into European Archaeology. London: Leicester University Press. Nordqvist, B. (1991). Reduktionsprocesser av boplatsflinta frn Halland. En spatial och kronologisk studie. In H. Browall, P. Persson, & K.-G. Sjgren (Eds.) Vstsvenska stenldersstudier. Gotarc Serie C. Arkeologiska skrifter No. 8 (pp. 71109). Gteborg: Gteborgs Universitet Institutionen fr arkeologi. Norman, K. (1996). Kulturella frestllningar om barn. Ett socialantropologiskt perspektiv. Stockholm: Rdda Barnen. Odell, G. H. (2004). Lithic analysis. New York: Kluwer/Plenum. Olwig, K. F. (1999). Brnsociale aktrer eller sociale konstruktioner? Perspektiver fra caribiska livshistorier. Barn. Nytt fra Forskning om Barn, 1, 2134. Park, R. W. (1998). Size counts: the miniature archaeology of childhood in Inuit societies. Antiquity, 72, 269282. Piaget, J. (1945). Play, dreams and imitation. New York: Heinemann. Pigeot, N. (1990). Technical and social actors. Flintknapping specialists and apprentices at Magdalenian Etiolles. Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 9.1, 126141. Sarns, P., & Nord Paulsson, J. (2001). resundsfrbindelsen. Skjutbanorna 1B & Elinelund 2AB, Rapport ver arkeologisk slutunderskning. Rapport nr 9. Malm Kulturmilj. Malm. Schwartzman, H. B. (1978). Transformations. The anthropology of childrens play. London: Plenum. Sofaer Derevenski, J. (1997). Engendering children, engendering archaeology. In J. Moore, & E. Scott (Eds.) Invisible people and processes. Writing gender and childhood into European Archaeology (pp. 192202). London: Leicester University Press. Sofaer Derevenski, J. (ed.) (2000). Children and material culture. London: Routledge. Stafford, M. D. (1999). From forager to farmer in flint. A lithic analysis of the prehistoric transition to agriculture in Southern Scandinavia. Aarhus University Press. Stapert, D. (2007). Youngsters knapping flint near the campfire: an alternative view on site K at Maastricht-Belvdre (the Netherlands). Archologisches Korrespondenzblatt, 37, 1935. Sternke, F., & Srensen, M. (2007). The identification of childrens flintknapping products in Mesolithic Scandinavia. In S. McCartan, R. Schulting, G. Warren, & P. C. Woodman (Eds.), Mesolithic horizons. Papers presented at the Seventh International Conference on the Mesolithic in Europe, Belfast 2005. Oxbow, Oxford. (In press) Tomasello, M., Kruger, A. C., & Ratner, H. H. (1993). Cultural learning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16, 495552. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge MA: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Waldorf, D. C. (1988). 20th Century Lithics. Vol No 1, 1988. Mound Builders Books, Branson. Welinder, S. (1998). The cultural construction of childhood in Scandinavia, 3500 BC-1350 AD. Current Swedish Archaeology, 6, 185204. Whiting, B., & Whiting, J. W. M. (1975). Children of six cultures. A Psycho-cultural analysis. Cambridge, MA. Whittaker, J. C. (1994). Flintknapping. Making and understanding stone tools. Austin: University of Texas Press. Wood, D. (1998). How children think and learn. The social context of cognitive development. Oxford: Blackwell.