You are on page 1of 28

Introduction: Archaeological Approaches to Lithic Production Skill and Craft Learning

Author(s): Douglas B. Bamforth and Nyree Finlay


Source: Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 15, No. 1, Skillful Stones:
Approaches to Knowledge and Practice in Lithic Technology (Mar., 2008), pp. 1-27
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40345992
Accessed: 06-09-2016 01:44 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40345992?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Archaeological
Method and Theory

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 06 Sep 2016 01:44:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
J Archaeol Method Theory (2008) 15:1-27
DOI 10.1007/s 108 16-007-9043-3

Introduction: Archaeological Approaches to Lithic


Production Skill and Craft Learning

Douglas B. Bamforth • Nyree Finlay

Published online: 15 January 2008


© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2007

Abstract This paper introduces the volume by considering what skill is and how
archaeologists have looked at issues of skill in stone tool production, along with
anthropological and archaeological approaches to the ways in which individuals
become skilled craftworkers. Archaeological studies of flintknapping skill tend to be
isolated from most larger debates, but both the archaeological and the non-
archaeological literature highlight how intimately skill and craft learning are woven
into the fabric of society, although they also highlight significant methodological and
interpretive issues.

Keywords Skill • Learning • Knapping • Ceramic sociology

Skill: ... 2: the ability to use one's knowledge effectively and readily in
execution or performance; technical expertness ... 3: a learned power of doing
a thing competently: a developed aptitude or ability (Webster's Seventh New
Collegiate Dictionary).
Skill is at once a form of knowledge and a form of practice, or-if you will-it
is both practical knowledge and knowledgeable practice (Ingold 1993, p. 433).
Skill is goal-directed, well-organized behavior that is acquired through
practice and performed with economy of effort (Proctor and Dutta 1995, p. 18).

Some things are harder to do than others, and some people are better than other
people at doing them. Becoming good at some tasks is much easier and less time-

D. B. Bamforth (El)
Anthropology Department, 233 UCB, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309, USA
e-mail: bamforth@colorado.edu

N. Finlay
Department of Archaeology, The University of Glasgow, The Gregory Building, Lilybank Gardens,
Glasgow G12 8QQ, Scotland
e-mail: n.finlay@archaeology.gla.ac.uk

£) Springer

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 06 Sep 2016 01:44:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
2 Bamforth and Finlay

consuming than becom


groups prize the ability t
and often distinguish amo
ways. For example, mode
athletics, a domain of act
even demeans, excellence
construction projects, a d
is essential to safety whil
being built - Terkel 1974
above define it is differen
among individual human
differentially, and somet
For archaeologists, all of
culture should have the
societies. However, while
great skill in ancient cra
attention to the issues
understanding of skill can
skill in the production of
used to identify skill in f
the myriad o implications
past societies. Rather tha
intention here is to explo
This volume provides a s
beginning to engage with
of methods and theoretic

Defining Skill

As outlined in the abov


definition, general charac
action and the interplay
implication that skill i
application: we can learn
an innate property and r
agents (Layton 1974), rais
acquire exceptional pro
application (Ericsson an
is also as dependent on th
of, and for, certain types
Skill and its material ex
of situations and context
types of knowledge and a
between practical knowle
termed connaissance and
knowledgeable practice
S Springer

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 06 Sep 2016 01:44:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Skill and Craft Learning 3

f connaissance f
knowledge (SKI
y cognition \~

Fig. 1 Skill as the intersection of co

making processes, the abstra


savoir-faire is concerned wit
skill: dexterity, motivation, f
we develop our own practical
stone as a medium, so we sho
of stonecraft nor the phys
discussion of these issues see
the intersection between kno
changes in terms of experienc
each flake is struck.
Archaeological approaches to skill in lithic studies can be considered under a
number of themes. In this Introduction, we focus on two of the larger issues that
emerge from teasing out the latitudes of skill in relation to stone tools as well as
reviewing both theoretical and methodological trends in isolating knapping skill.
These are how archaeologists recognize variation in levels of knapping skill and the
way(s) by which individuals become skilled. We begin by reviewing how
archaeologists have approached skill in relation to flintknapping and issues of
specialised production before turning our attention to the contexts of craft learning.
Here, we discuss insights from ceramic sociology and review and critique models of
cultural transmission. The next section introduces the papers within this special issue
and we conclude by highlighting some alternative and future directions for
engagements with skill in lithic studies.

Archaeological Approaches to Flintknapping Skill

In contrast to many other technologies, flaked stone tools and production debris
provide a unique and durable medium for documenting the acquisition and inferring
the social context of knapping skills. Acquiring what we now see as the arcane
knowledge of the knapper would have been a universal process in stone-dependent
communities, and both the process of learning and the outcome of this process must
be recorded in the mountains of debitage that characterise the archaeological record.
Furthermore, a century or more of experimental replication (see Lewis-Johnson
1978) provides a sophisticated and detailed body of knowledge that helps to make
sense out of the data provided by the archaeological record: we know what it takes to
make flaked stone tools.

£) Springer

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 06 Sep 2016 01:44:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
4 Bamforth and Finlay

Extracting information o
though, is a complex prob
word "skill." Following A
general uses of this term
skilled person as one w
particular activity. On
whether we are experts o
conceptions refers to "arti
the production of high qu
to the abilities required f
As Andrews discusses, h
part on whether we are f
how skills are learned and
stoneworkers. Recognizin
knapping skill from thr
produce particular artifact
of differing skill, and
represented by a particu
In a general sense, the
attention has focused on
(1990, p. 16) terms "elabo
often focus on expert an
daggers, Solutrean biface
(Apel 2001; Flenniken
research empha has often
of specialized production
Evidence from replicativ
identify variables that sh
skill to produce. Table I l
examples of tools that ill
them.

More often than not, we rely on a number of subjective value judgements about
the relative merits of particular artifacts and what constitutes a skilful piece. Values
such as aesthetics, symmetry, regularity, and precision are often cited in this regard.
Skill is, after all, a relative measure more than an absolute standard. Standardization
is linked to the notion of conforming to a perceived ideal whilst realising a mental
template (Keller and Keller 1996 p. 156). Archaeologically, discussion of
standardization tends to be bound up with the identification of craft specialization
in particular contexts of manufacture (Arnold 1987; Clark 2003; Cross 1993; Gibson
1982; Roux et al 1995; Torrence 1986).
While studies of standardization are applicable to those archaeological situations
where we can clearly document specialization, we must ask how relevant
standardization is for the mainstay of our material and how much variation we
should anticipate among individuals. A key issue in this regard is what levels of
consistency in production we should expect in pre-industrial contexts and whether
skill can be isolated as a determining factor in these. Eerkens and Bettinger (2001)
argue convincingly from psychological and other research that humans cannot
£) Springer

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 06 Sep 2016 01:44:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Skill and Craft Learning 5

Table I Characteristics of Stone To

Characteristic Some Examples

Unusually large size Clovis ceremonial points: Frison and Bradley 1999
Bamforth and Hicks, this volume
Scandinavian daggers: Callahan 2006; Nunn, Apel, this
volume
Extreme thinness relative to width Folsom "ultrathin" bifaces: Root 2000
Ferguson, this volume
Extreme length relative to width or thickness Adzes in Irian Jaya; Stout 2002, 2005; Scandinavian
daggers, Callahan 2006
Extremely complex outline form Mayan eccentrics; Fash 1991:100, pp. 103-104, 147-8;
Titmus and Woods 2003
Regularity of form Whittaker 1987; Finlay; Sinclair, this volume
Volume Bamforth and Hicks, this volume
Plan-view symmetry
Smooth/symmetric cross-section Bamforth and Hicks, this
Precise and regular finishing flaking Post-Folsom Paleoindian
Intentional "overshot" flaking Clovis bifaces: Frison and Bradley 1999
Minimal platform preparation Mesoamerican blades: Andrews 2003
Very low metric variation in artifact size
Reliance on complex, patterned multistage Folsom points: Winfrey 1990
reduction strategies Bleed, this volume
Apel 2001; Apel and Knutsson 2006, this volume
Consistency in production Finlay, this volume

recognize variation in the size of objects that is less than about 2.0% of any given
measurement of those objects. They suggest use of the coefficient of variation (CV;
this statistic expresses the standard deviation of a group of measurements as a
percentage of the mean of those measurements) to assess this, and note that a set of
measurements produced without any attempt at standardization should produce an
expected CV of 57.7. They suggest further that CVs for most archaeological datasets
will fall between about 2% and about 60%, and that values above this upper value
likely reflect deliberate attempts to produce variability.
In a related analysis of errors making paper cutouts, Eerkens (2000) speculates
that samples of standardized flaked stone artifacts should have CVs of 10-15%.
However, Eerkens and Bettinger (2001, p. 494) also note that the kinds of artifacts to
which their discussion pertains are those made by a "skilled stone knapper." This
implies both that these values require experimental verification by stoneworkers
rather than paper cutters and that less skilled knappers, which is to say, all knappers
before they became fully skilled, have the potential to produce assemblages with
higher CVs than more skilled knappers. However, as Ferguson (this volume) notes,
this is not always the case: metric standardization may have different meanings for
different measurements and is dependent on artifact type and the character of a given
teaching and learning regime.
There has been less attention devoted to identifying the work of novice
stoneworkers and, by implication, contexts of learning. Approaches to the
identification of novice knappers have relied heavily on core and debitage analysis.
Here the impact of modern replication has had a profound impact on the clarification
of skill signatures, focusing analysis less on metric variation and more on the
£} Springer

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 06 Sep 2016 01:44:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
6 Bamforth and Finlay

predictable kinds of stra


These include such thing
marks on the core face
Shelley 1990). Table II su
knappers.
Identifying individual variation among the skill levels within a social group has
also occupied archaeological attention. A small number of studies have attempted to
identify the characteristic handiwork of individual, generally highly skilled, artisans
(e.g., Roux et al 1995; Bril et al 2005). Although controlled study of the products
of known individuals suggests that this should be possible (Hill 1978), studies
specifically focused on flintknapping have been somewhat problematic. In particular,
when dealing with highly skilled individuals, it can be difficult to distinguish
markers of skill from markers of individual/idiosyncratic "style" (although we might
argue that these are closely linked). For example, several early studies sought to
quantify differences in knapping style and ability in both biface and blade
production. Joel Gunn (1975, 1977) separated the products of six modern and one
prehistoric knapper using laser diffraction analysis to record biface scar patterns.
While Gunn's analysis was a pilot study in identifying individual style, it is not clear
to what extent the individuals are being distinguished on the basis of personal style
per se rather than technical ability. Similarly, Young and Bonnichsen (1984)
conducted an exhaustive analysis of the differences in manufacturing techniques
between two equally experienced knappers. Their results illustrate the subtle
variations in technique that can produce five-hours' difference in manufacturing
time for the same replica artifact between knappers of equivalent talent, not to
mention more subtle technical points of departure. Often the boundaries between
style and skill are blurred. In this volume, two papers specifically address individual
and novice skill signatures: Finlay considers the variation produced by knappers of
mixed ability in relation to simple blade production, while Ferguson explores
learning modes for pressure flaked projectiles.

Table II Indicators of Novice/Unskilled Knappers

Characteristic Some Examples

Irregularity in form Ferguson, this volume


Predictable errors Experiemental: Ahler 1989; Shelley 1990; Upper Palaeolithic: Pigeot
1990

Stacked steps & hinge Nichols and Allstadt 1978; Ahler 1989; Shelley 1990; Andrews 2003;
terminations Clark 2003; Milne 2005
Mis-hits and hammermarks Shelley 1990; Pigeot 1990; Clark 2003; Finlay, t
Inconsistency in production Finlay, this volume.
Wasteful and ineffectual use of Shelley 1990; Ferguson, this volume; Hogberg t
raw material
Failure to rejuvenate Pigeot 1990.
Low length/breath flake ratio Fischer 1989, 1990; Stout 2002, 2005
Deviation from expected chaine Grimm 2000; Fischer 1990; Hogberg 1999, this volume
operatoire
Peripheral spatial knapping Bodu et al. 1990, 1996; Pigeot 1990; Grimm 2000; Hogberg 1999, this
location volume

£) Springer

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 06 Sep 2016 01:44:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Skill and Craft Learning 7

A second approach focuses o


levels and idiosyncratic knap
domain of research often emp
blade reduction sequences) and
Pigeot 1987; Fischer 1989, 19
examined skill levels in relat
identification of skill is boun
1996; Bodu et al 1990; Pigeo
distinguish the products of re
that knappers always apply
discuss here, this is unlikely
refitting is the only mechani
studies also assume a Pompeii
reflect the complexity of the
of archaeological material.
A more general level of analy
the overall level of skill repr
Assertions that particular pe
cated (or unsophisticated) flin
impressionistic and tend to us
to assert that the Paleoindian
by exceptionally skilled st
succeeding Archaic period
reconstruction derives mainly
mundane majority of the ava
and systematic assessments a
approach to this). However, tw
Hicks compare measures of ag
at two sites on the North Am
failure rates at each step of t
level of skill represented at
Winfrey 1990). Instead of co
these studies reframe the p
assemblage level, thereby avo
of studies discussed above.

Becoming Skilled and Becoming Very Skilled: Craft Learning

The detailed study of craft-learning contexts must rank as one of the most
neglected areas of study in the realm of ethnography. Where the topic is dealt
with at all, observations are usually restricted to one- to two-sentence
generalizations meant to apply to entire communities. Data are usually lacking
on: sex, class, wealth, status, types of activities, secondary modes of learning,
and reasons for learning. (Hayden and Cannon 1984, p. 329).
^ Springer

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 06 Sep 2016 01:44:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
8 Bamforth and Finlay

I was about seven when


called a Handy Andy. . .
with a light over it near
spent there. . . . People of
absorbed all I know fro
observing him and other
just by experimenting.
Our craft can only be le
(Yang Fuxi, traditional C
"Morning Edition", 8 M
As children, budding
members, who were mo
products, and sometimes
collaborative work raised
community standards f

Being able to recognize s


in which those differen
record must contain the
competent knappers, an
ways in which ancient s
motor abilities required
and simple to acquire,
remembers her or his ow
necessary at even the mo
In culture-historical term
roughly to the ability to
biface reduction/Acheu
practice and close instru
complex and difficult craf
and/or prepare platforms
and must know where, at
also know how to hold or
and how to choose a suit
level of abstraction, the
strategically to the idiosy
flake removals that wi
inevitable mistakes that e
this outcome.

Experience, conversat
archaeological literature i
flintknapping-integratin
takes years of practice (
Roux 1990; Roux et al
2004); it can take as long
worn edge (Weedman 200
progress from being nov
4y Springer

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 06 Sep 2016 01:44:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Skill and Craft Learning 9

achieve, even the most e and


incompetents. Furthermore, l
skilled flintknappers work w
invention and experimentation
be learned as members of a s
Apel and Olausson in this vol
particular implications. First
extensively on highly-skilled
to the archaeological record o
way(s) in which novices becam
with different traditions and
about learning and apprentic
variability we see in archaeolo
explore ancient social formati
Humans learn many kinds of
them in many different ways:
the proper technique of kick
specifically on craft learning-
how we learn, for example, c
learning produces both abst
Keller 1996) and physical ab
repetition. In this context, it i
modern archaeologists have e
separation from family and
specific designated times, are
from the contexts in which h
One important distinction th
difference between societies in which craft skills are learned within a domestic
setting and societies that rely on the more formal kinds of training that are often
referred to as "apprenticeships". Structured apprenticeships (which often include
formal agreements about fees and duration of training) tend to develop in societies
with complex divisions of labor in which individuals often seek work that differs
from that of their parents (Coy 1989; Goody 1989). One aspect of such training is
control over craft knowledge by skilled workers (cf. Apel 2001 and this volume;
Olausson 1997, this volume). One way to move the study of craft specialization
beyond the simple question of whether or not a given group has specialists may thus
be to learn to identify the archaeological traces of different modes of specialist
training. Upper Paleolithic blade makers must have learned their craft in different
ways than did Aztec blade makers, and understanding these differences should have
important implications for the study of societies that are intermediate in complexity
between these two examples.
Unfortunately, as the quote above by Hayden and Cannon notes, systematic and/
or synthetic studies of the contexts within which humans learn that have concrete
implications for archaeological analysis are rare. Despite recognition of the central
role that learning plays in the transmission of cultural information from generation to
generation (see below), archaeology has devoted little systematic attention to the
ways in which humans specifically acquire craft knowledge (see Washburn 2001).
4y Springer

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 06 Sep 2016 01:44:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
10 Bamforth and Finlay

Studies of craft learning


adjuncts to research focus
the study of social intera
321; Hayden and Cannon
overall patterns of craft l
David and Kramer 2001, p
the limited available information.
Perhaps most generally, detailed ethnographic studies often note considerable
diversity in learning within and between communities, both in the sense that
different crafts can be learned in different ways and that different individuals can
learn a single craft in different ways. For example, individuals may begin learning at
different times in their lives, may learn within their nuclear family or from unrelated
individuals, and may receive different levels of close or formal instruction from
skilled teachers. Despite this potential variety, though, the data suggest two
important points. First, Shennan and Steele's (1999) review of ethnographic
information indicates that artisans in traditional societies overwhelmingly learn their
crafts within their family, although at least some of the detailed studies that Shennan
and Steele cite (for example, Hayden and Cannon 1984) show significant intra-
community variation in this. In general, boys learn crafts from their fathers or other
older male relatives and girls learn crafts from their mothers or other older female
relatives, and this learning is often integrated, formally or informally, into the flow of
everyday community life. Stout (2002, 2005) documents a group rather than
individual learning pattern for flintworking in Irian Jaya, although this also involves
older experts and younger novices who are the sons or nephews of the experts.
Apprenticeship in Stout's study group lasts "five years or more," although it can take
10 years or more to acquire the highest levels of skill (Stout 2002, p. 702).
Second, Hayden and Cannon (1984, pp. 331-332) assert that "at least in non-
stratified societies, there is little or no 'teaching' which occurs in the modern sense.
Children are expected to learn by watching others and then attempting the same task
by themselves". However, the data, including Hayden and Cannon's data, suggest
otherwise. For example, Hayden and Cannon's (1984, Tables 2-5) tabulations of
learning contexts for a variety of activities indicate that their informants
overwhelmingly acknowledged specific teachers in most cases, and this is most
clearly so in craftwork. In their data, self-taught activities tend either to be those that
are not related to craft production (for example, hunting and butchery) or that rely
more on coarse-motor skills (for example, general wood construction) than on highly
developed fine-motor skills. The Chinese bow maker quoted above clearly speaks to
an extreme example of the critical role that active teaching can play in craft learning,
and Crown (2007b, p. 204) notes that, in at least some cases in which experts assert
that novices learn through individual experimentation, observation documents active
teaching by those same experts.
More detailed studies of the process of learning to produce both ceramics and
flaked stone tools attest to frequent close relations and intensive interaction between
skilled teachers and novices. For example, skilled Shipibo-Conibo potters sometimes
mark designs for children to paint over and skilled knappers in Irian Jaya often assist
novices (Deboer 1990; Stout 2002). In fact, the process of integrating novices into
the work of experts - often referred to as "scaffolding" (Brunner 1976; Crown
^y Springer

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 06 Sep 2016 01:44:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Skill and Craft Learning 1 1

2007b; David and Kramer 2001


p. 370; Rogoff and Gardner
extremely effective way of tra
some of the potential archaeolo
flint knappers). Teachers inter
physically demonstrating techn
with no demonstration, and th
accomplish a task correctly, but
universal component of learnin
In contrast to archaeology's
psychology cognitive an and in
rare archaeological discussion
general study of human lea
developmental psychology has
learning that all humans appea
Piaget's (1972) developmenta
reconstruction of these. As C
ceramic production, the appare
and cognitive development can
products of children's craft prod
from the work of fully skil
conceptualize solutions to prob
also likely to produce predictab
adult stoneworking, as both Fe
volume, although more work i
However, a second stream of r
although humans grow and de
and places, this growth and dev
a tremendous variety of social
ways in which an individua
particularly on the way(s) in
(Keller and Keller 1996; Lave a
widely from context to context.
(and other learning) in modern W
societies suggests that we migh
complex and less complex socie
section should make clear that
Western society). The degree to
produce similar variation, and
single social group for crafts
members are expected to carry

Archaeological Approaches t

Anthropological research on cra


thus documents a pattern of g
£) Springer

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 06 Sep 2016 01:44:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
12 Bamforth and Finlay

between communities. How


craft learning rarely grapp
translating what we know
American "ceramic sociol
also
see Deetz 1965) illustra
solutions to them.
This work argued from ethnographic data that Southwestern potters were women
who learned their craft from their mothers and grandmothers, and it searched for
spatial clusters of painted designs on potsherds within excavated sites, arguing that
such clusters should indicate the existence of matrilocal postmarital residence
patterns. However, as many critics have pointed out, Puebloan potters can be either
men or women, and, while most learning occurs within families, painters copy
designs form each other and from archaeological pots. That is, the learning process
is more complex than early studies suggest, and learning occurs in a variety of ways
(Kramer 1985; Stanislawski 1978). Making meaning of spatial clusters of similar
designs has also been problematic, both because these studies implicitly assumed
incorrectly that pots were made, used, and discarded in exactly the same places
(Schiffer 1972) and because at least some of the cluster differences mirror known
sequences of temporal ceramic change and therefore are likely to monitor temporal
shifts in occupation of different parts of a pueblo rather than contemporaneous social
groups (Dumond 1977). Other clusters reflect the analytic practice of counting
potsherd instead of pots: repeating design elements on a single vessel produces
"clusters" of sherds that actually represent only a single instance of ceramic
production (Schiffer 1987, pp. 323-338).
That is, the early ceramic sociology lacked necessary information on how
learning really occurs and relied largely on untested, and, in retrospect, incorrect
assertions regarding linkages between the behavior at issue and archaeologically
detectable patterns. Recognizing these problems, ceramicists have developed more
sophisticated efforts to take account of site formation processes (i.e., Schiffer 1987,
pp. 323-338) and, perhaps more importantly, have generated a substantial body of
experimental and ethnoarchaeological research. These latter efforts (i.e., Beck 2006;
Kramer 1985; Krause 1985; Longacre 1991; Longacre and Skibo 1994; Stark 1998,
2003) have confronted the assumptions of the early ceramic sociologists with
observations of the way living people really do the kinds of things earlier workers
hoped to study, and have thereby significantly advanced our ability to make meaning
of patterns in the archaeological record.
Craft learning (often subsumed under the general heading of "cultural
transmission") has continued to be an important topic of research for ceramicists
(i.e., Stark 2003, p. 204). In lithic analysis, though, this topic has been emphasized
mainly within the domain of evolutionary archaeology, where it relies almost
entirely on Boyd and Richerson's (1985, 1993) models of learning (i.e., Bettinger
and Eerkens 1999; Shennan 2002; Short 1997; also see Smith 2000). Drawing on the
general results of social learning research in psychology as of the late 1970s, Boyd
and Richerson defined four different kinds of human learning. The first of these
("guided variation") refers to learning that involves copying of a pattern of behavior
and modifying it by individual trial and error. The other three ("direct bias,"
"frequency-dependent bias," and "indirect bias") refer to learning in situations where
£} Springer

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 06 Sep 2016 01:44:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Skill and Craft Learning 13

a learner must choose among tw


alternatives and choosing the o
involves choosing the most co
involves choosing the alternat
attractive model.
These
models provide import
structure they give to that thin
possible ways to learn. Howeve
that they propose their models
refinement, and almost no such
is important because, while ar
widespread and well-document
(i.e., Bettinger and Eerkens 19
are theoretical constructs, not o
all clear that they exhaust the
learn. Boyd and Richerson's m
skill and appear to have been d
language and ideology than of
production. Certainly, they ef
teachers in craft learning, focu
observations of the world arou
"Individuals observe the behavi
the observed behavior, and th
repertoire" [Boyd and Richers
expert practitioners in ethnog
aspect of the critically import
Wenger 1991), plays a very lim
go beyond Boyd and Richerson
example, Henrich's (2004; also
explain temporal changes in T
suggesting that small populati
because the chances of ina
populations. How teaching mig
that active engagement betwee
profoundly.
Archaeological arguments regarding the ways in which Boyd and Richerson's
different modes of learning can be seen in the archaeological record are also wholly
unsupported by controlled observation. As is common in evolutionary archaeology
(Bamforth 2002b, pp. 440^41), these models have been linked to archaeological
data almost entirely by assertion rather than demonstration. In particular, archae-
ologists applying these models have claimed that guided variation should involve
more individual experimentation than indirect bias and therefore should produce
more variable archaeological results (how either of these might differ from direct
bias or frequency-dependent bias is unclear). In practice, this has meant asserting
that the former should produce collections of artifacts with more variable metric
attributes than the latter, although no archaeologist has presented any evidence that
this is so. Similarly, Shennan (2002, pp. 48-51) offers an evolutionary perspective
£) Springer

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 06 Sep 2016 01:44:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
14 Bamforth and Finlay

grounded in Boyd and R


relationships between teach
teacher instructing many
outlines his sense of how
variation in what is lear
translate these expectation
archaeological record, agai
construction, despite a t
artifacts in known cases.
This is a fundamental problem because, as we note above, Stout's (2002, 2005)
data indicate that at least metric variability need not reflect learning styles at all, but,
instead, can mirror skill differences, sometimes in counterintuitive ways (also see
Bamforth and Hicks, this volume, and Ferguson, this volume). Ferguson's
experiments (this volume), indicate that intensive training by a master role
model - "indirectly biased" learning in Boyd and Richerson's terms - can take
place in more than one way and can produce a range of archaeological signatures.
Significantly, Ferguson's results depend on how the skilled role model actively
interacts with learners, a factor that, as just noted, Boyd and Richerson's models
do not address. Without actualistic studies like Stout's and Ferguson's to guide
them, interpretations of learning patterns from archaeological data are supported
by little more than the common sense opinions of the archaeologists making
them. In effect, attempts to apply Boyd and Richerson's ideas or expansions of
those ideas to understand past patterns of craft production have replicated most of
the fundamental problems that archaeology encountered some decades ago in the
early work on ceramic manufacture discussed above. In particular, these attempts
oversimplify the learning process and build bridges between behavior and
material culture by assertion rather than by systematically investigating how the
particular behavior at issue is actually reflected in archaeological data in known
cases. As ceramicists' responses to these problems show, these difficulties can be
solved, and ceramic studies point the way to the kind of research that can help to
solve them. In the absence of such research, evolutionary studies of learning/
cultural transmission in archaeological contexts have essentially the same
scientific standing as ceramic sociology as it was practiced in the late 1960s
and early 1970s.
Ceramic studies also underscore the kinds of insights into learning and its social
implications that a closer integration with the wider literature on social learning can
provide. In particular, Crown's (1999, 2001, 2007a, b) work indicates that
archaeological data can allow us to address the complexity and variety of craft
learning in at least some situations. Focusing on pottery, Crown was able to
differentiate the products of skilled adults and unskilled children in the Mimbres and
Hohokam areas of the American Southwest and in producers of Cibola Whiteware in
eastern Arizona. Her analysis of her Mimbres and Hohokam data documents
differences in learning sequences and in the degree and character of adult
involvement in the learning process in these two areas. For example, like the
Shipibo-Conibo potters noted above, skilled Mimbres potters sometimes sketched
lines for children to paint over; no such sketches are apparent on Hohokam pots.
Similarly, skilled potters in both areas sometimes made pots that children then
& Springer

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 06 Sep 2016 01:44:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Skill and Craft Learning 15

painted, but did so less often


argues that her results

suggest that Mimbres childre


Hohokam children, often pai
sometimes painting over des
learning led to a greater fre
results also suggest that H
construction techniques, on
technology once they had m
The emphasis among the Hoh
what they were capable of do
was considerably lower.

More generally, Crown (20


contrast may correspond to
"closed abilities," those "shape
demand standardized answers
tasks" (corresponding to the
shaped to respond to unstable
to unknown situations" (corr
interesting that this distincti
centralized and socioeconom
egalitarian Mimbres way of li
and/or closed and open abiliti
Wallaert-Petre 2001), but the
argument that analyses of s
important ways.
Similarly, Crown (2007b, p
time in the frequency with w
Whiteware pots, implying a s
between teacher and learners
appear to have both made and
particularly prior to AD 1 100;
of pots shaped by skilled potte
skilled) painters. Again in con
combination of skilled and uns
a specific portion of a desig
artisan. In this case, the shift
complexity of painted designs
structureor ideology.
The range of variation in the r
underscores the degree of abs
learning. For example, Crown
teachers were more intimat
Richerson's terms), biasing fo
and also that Mimbres novices
£) Springer

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 06 Sep 2016 01:44:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
16 Bamforth and Finlay

should be characteristic of
these data indicate that th
variable, than Boyd and R
theoretical models ideally
precise, but that most mo
others. Patterns like the Mimbres/Hohokam distinction and the difference between
both of these and the patterns in the production of Cibola Whiteware suggest that
Boyd and Richerson's models sacrifice realism in order to achieve generalizability
and (possibly) precision. This makes them problematic tools for investigating the
archaeological record, which monitors real, not ideal, patterns of behavior (contrast
this with optimal foraging theory's emphasis on realism and generality [Winterhalder
1980, p. 18], an emphasis that helps to explain the powerful insights this theory has
provided to archaeology).

Salient Issues in Skill Acquisition

While existing archaeological approaches to skill acquisition thus offer a limited


basis for our work here, recognizing problems and potentials like those noted above
underscores the complexity of the problem of conceptualizing and studying the ways
in which humans become skilled. Skill is not a static phenomenon but, instead, is
fluid and contingent. In examining skill, we have to consider the dynamics of
knowledge gain and loss. The acquisition of knapping skills varies throughout the
lifespan of an individual, not only because of the transformation of the apprentice
child (by whatever learning mode) into a proficient adult knapper but also because
an individual's products change as she or he acquires skill and loses it (even
temporarily) through fatigue or trauma. Long-term loss resulting from degenerative
changes in vision or motor skills through aging, arthritis, or injury will also have an
influence (Cross 1983, p. 92, 1993; Weedman 2002). Given that the contexts for
obtaining knapping skills are embedded within the human lifecycle, skill also may
thus enable us to identify and explore the child and adolescent archaeologically
(Finlay 1997; Hogberg 1999, this volume; Grimm 2000).
Furthermore, individuals may learn alone, but they are not divorced from the
wider context afforded by the transformation of their abilities and status. The
apprenticeship model is one that has been most prevalent to date, but equally we
need to consider both other (possibly less formalized) modes of training, the extent
to which the learner is transformed by the learning experience, and the implications
this has with respect to personhood and identity. This is the value of the "legitimate
peripheral participation" model as proposed by Lave and Wenger (1991), for it
acknowledges the socially situated context of learning. Here, the focus is not so
much on skill acquisition per se but on the shifting character of involvement in a
community of practice. Focusing attention on this topic takes us beyond the issue of
how a single artisan acquires the ability to make a tool to consider the nature of the
society in which that artisan lives and works.
We can document skill at many levels, from that of the individual through to the
complex networks of technology, communities and landscapes. It is a dynamic that
resonates within a spectrum of possibilities (Fig. 2). Acquiring the arcane knowledge
^ Springer

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 06 Sep 2016 01:44:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Skill and Craft Learning 17

SKILL SPE

child ^^^^^ ^ ^^ adult

archaeological correlates

poor raw material quality high

simple manufacturing stages complex

playful performance masterful

enskilment social context aggradizment


irregular product specialized
Fig. 2 Range and archaeological correlates of skill from novice to exp

of the knapper takes experience and is a complex proc


well as ability. Opportunities for instruction as wel
constrained both by the quality and the abundance of th
means that we can explore the spatial and social dimen
skill across a given landscape, and it could be argued th
will impact on the prevalence of different skill signat
(Fig. 3). In certain contexts, novice knapping might ha
prevalent at quarry locales and other primary sources of
supplies would have provided ample opportunities f
Ferguson, Bamforth and Hicks argue in this volume, n
and practice beyond the confines of the raw material so
Knapping is such an esoteric activity for the majority
difficult to gain a realistic impression of how abilities d
The commercial nature of the modern knapping mark
artificial reality where diversity in techniques and
proficiency (Whittaker and Stafford 1999; Whittak
significance of gender and age bias promoted (Gero 19
Lithic technology has long been considered as an ex
which impacts on discussion of skill levels with more at
knapper than the more expedient and less skilled dome
strategies. Yet even simple routines, such as bipolar knap
execution (Lingren 2004) and the contingency and e
simple reduction is often denied. Archaeologists particu
<£} Springer

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 06 Sep 2016 01:44:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
1 8 Bamforth and Finlay

Fig. 3 Possible relationship betwe


flintknapping.

unskilled knappers certain


and that the gender and age
than simply assumed. Studi
some alternative templates
contexts of learning. The fo
criteria can be developed fo
may have in the acquisition
Just as most knapping e
considered skill are conduc
knapper's actions. This limi
avoid given the time-con
programmes. Yet, despite t
and papers in this volume a
Learning the sequential pat
beads through repetition an
this is delivered is one of
exploration of the variation
instruction in the producti

The Present Volume

The papers we present here surely do not exhaust the ranges of either the possible
approaches to studying the lithic signatures of skill or the kinds of questions that
attending to skill can help us to answer. However, they highlight the breadth of both
of these issues.

The first group of papers here focuses on modern flintknapping. These include
analyses by Finlay and Ferguson that provide new experimental data on skill
differences and Olausson's study of self-perceptions of modern knappers. Olausson
£) Springer

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 06 Sep 2016 01:44:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Skill and Craft Learning 19

addresses the topic of skill


manipulation of skilled knapp
challenge in teasing apart the
can be learned by and improved
complex. Using modern knapp
the role of natural talent and a
evident for the Scandinavian L
not create a piece like the Hin
Similarly, Ferguson's paper c
training of novices, although
emphasizes more pragmatic is
in knapping, and the need to
he considers the archaeologic
regimes, one involving prac
involving the integration of
indicate that there may be m
studies that focus on finished
particular meanings to degrees
Like Ferguson, Finlay empha
problem of differentiating
identification of different sk
series of replication studies
performance. Novice knappin
recognized providing the mec
within individual performa
replication (Cross 1993). He
standardization as a guide to
middle of the novice-expert spe
the contexts and individual c
importance of evaluating a su
Both replication studies raise
and recognize equivalency in
'snap-shot' of performance
compensate for this often bia
The second group of paper
discussed above to consider
contexts. These include Blee
Japan, Bamforth and Hicks' e
production in southwestern N
child's flint working in Neolit
production in the Scandinavia
Apel uses the chaines operat
the creation of Late Neolithic
socialstanding and manipulati
objects. Drawing on both the
apprenticeship in replicating t
allocates potential age-grade
^ Springer

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 06 Sep 2016 01:44:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
20 Bamforth and Finlay

2006). His discussion em


knowledge required to c
know-how is quite another
memory and learnt by the
and ability.
In his paper, Hogberg pre
role of play and its ident
details the juxtaposition o
strategies involved in cre
an unstandardized form
knapping of poorer quality
respectively, mirroring s
exploration of the place
relationship between form
ical achievement. In order
forms rejected in convent
realization. As with Crow
potential to infer contexts
of children in knapping ar
The presentation of an
highlights the general lack
Both of the last two paper
possibility and potential o
particular technology, alth
problems. Bamforth and H
which a knapper's skill lev
mind, they examine variat
located almost within sight
Great Plains. These sites dif
evidence indicates that th
workshop area, while the s
They attribute differences
sites (higher at the outcro
procurement and to the tra
Finally, Bleed's study of J
the skill concept and consi
consider, including the poss
than knapping practice and
to help to reduce failure r
documents aggregate skill d
the differing conditions u

Alternative and Future A

Finally, while the papers h


humans become skilled c
£) Springer

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 06 Sep 2016 01:44:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Skill and Craft Learning 21

illuminate the archaeological re


these topics can be approached
studies discussed in this volume
the knapper, their social status
One of the most obvious is vi
equipment as grave goods. Num
Late Woodland burials at the Is
pressure flakers with women a
tations of stoneworking (Cust
from the sixteenth-century La
and Ruggiero 2003). Other preh
identified at the Hazleton Nort
with a hammerstone by his left
1990). Further examples are
rewarding to review the provi
and visibility of knappers and
There are also the cumulative
consider. There may be specifi
knapping that can be used to s
long-term effects of silicosis m
fine fraction debitage in the c
monitored motor action contro
capabilities in early hominids
Roux and Bril 2005; Stout et
may have profound implicatio
more modern knappers as well
medical technology for explor
perhaps monitoring the differ
experimental situations.
Developing our approaches to
demands a longer term perspec
proficiencies of an individual
ational datasets to quantify cha
addressed issues like this in rel
Down experimental earthwor
Jewell 1998); but equally we m
and longer-term stoneworking
the curation of experimenta
material for future generation
publication affords an ideal opp
providing access to comparativ
integrated research programme
In conclusion, flintknapping is
Conceptions of skill in craft pr
learned, practiced behavior an
hand, the rich experimental lite
both this behavior and the s
^ Springer

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 06 Sep 2016 01:44:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
22 Bamforth and Finlay

idiosyncracies of their ma
stone tools and their prod
both of these in the archa
to see skillful behavior and
It seems apparent that, w
factor that clearly helps
intrinsically identified wi
contexts of technology an
bias towards the expert an
assemblage variation, but
holds more promise than i
While it is unlikely that
what skill actually is and g
exploit some of these co
manifestations. Acknowle
possibilities enables us to
cannot simply be reduced
it is for this very reason t

Acknowledgements We conceive
Ireland, and
of gra we owe a debt
the authors presented their pape
symposium at the Annual Meetin
by grants from the CU-Boulder C
The University of Glasgow, and
benefited from the comments of
Payson Sheets and two anonymou

References

Abrams, N. (1996). Measure Twice, Cut Once: Lessons From a Master Carpenter. New York: Little
Brown.

Ahler, S. A. (1989). Experimental knapping with KRF and midcontinent cherts: overview and
applications. In D. S. Amick & R. P. Mauldin (Eds.) Experiments in Lithic Technology (pp. 199-
234). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, International Series 528.
Andrews, B. (2003). Measuring prehistoric craftsman skill. In K. Hirth (Ed.) Mesoamerican Lithic
Technology: Experimentation and Interpretation (pp. 208-219). Salt Lake City: University of Utah
Press.
Apel, J. (2001). Daggers, Knowledge and Power. Uppsala: Wikstroms.
Apel, J., & Knutsson, K. (Eds.) (2006). Skilled Production and Social Reproduction. Aspects on
Traditional Stone-Tool Technologies. Proceedings from an International Symposium held in Uppsala,
August 20-24, 2003. Uppsala: Societas Archaeologica Uosaliensis, SAU Stone Studies 2.
Arnold, J. (1987). Craft Specialization in the Prehistoric Channel Islands, California. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Ashbee, P., & Jewell, P. (1998). The experimental earthworks revisited. Antiquity, 72, 485-504.
Bamforth, D. B. (2002a). High-tech foragers? Folsom and later Paleoindian technology on the Great
Plains. Journal of World Prehistory, 16, 55-98.
Bamforth, D. B. (2002b). Evidence and metaphor in evolutionary archaeology. American Antiquity, 67,
435^52.

£} Springer

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 06 Sep 2016 01:44:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Skill and Craft Learning 23

Bamforth, D. B. (2003). Rethinking the


Plains. In M. Soressi & D. Dibble (Ed
(pp. 209-228). Philadelphia: Universit
Beck, M. (2006). Midden ceramic as
American Antiquity, 71, 27-52.
Bell, M, Fowler, P. J., & Hillson, S. W
London: Council for British Archaeo
Bettinger, R., & Eerkens, J. (1999). Poi
arrow technology in the prehistoric
Bird, C. (1993). Woman the toolmaker:
Australia and New Guinea. In H. Du
Critique (pp. 22-30), Canberra: Austra
Bleed, P. (1991). Operations research a
Bodu, P. (1996). Les chasseurs Magdal
Lithic Technology, 21, 48-66.
Bodu, P., Karlin, C, & Ploux, S. (199
France. In E. Cziesla, S. Eickhoof,
Symposium on Refitting Stone Artif
in Modern Archaeology.
Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. (1985). Cult
Press.

Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. (1993). Nee


Bradley, B. (1991). Lithic technology
Edn.) (pp. 369-396). New York: Acad
Bradley, B., & Frison, G. (1987). Proje
Frison & L. Todd (Eds.) The Horner
Bril, B., Roux, V, & Dietrich, G. (2005)
Roux & B. Bril (Eds.) Stone Knapping
(pp. 53-71). Cambridge: McDonald In
Brunner, J. (1976). Early social inter
Mother-Infant Interaction. London: A
Callahan, E. (2006). Neolithic Danish
Skilled Production and Social Repr
Proceedings from an Internationa
137). Uppsala: Societas Archaeologic
Clark, J. (2003). Craftmanship and
Technology: Experimentation and In
Press.
Cobb, C. R., & Pope, M. (1998). Sixtee
Journal of Field Archaeology, 25, 1-
Cobb, C, & Ruggiero, D. (2003). Lithic t
Georgia. In C. Cobb (Ed.) Stone To
University of Alabama Press.
Cordell, L. (1997). Archaeology of the
Coy, M. (1989). From theory. In M. C
(pp. 1-11). Albany: State University
Cross, J. R. (1983). Twigs, branches, tr
& A. S. Keene (Eds.) Archaeologica
Press.
Cross, J. R. (1993). Craft specialisation
61-84.
Crown, P. (1999). Socialization in American Southwest pottery decoration. In J. Skibo & G. Feinman
(Eds.) Pottery and People: A Dynamic Interaction (pp. 25-43). Salt Lake City: University of Utah
Press.

Crown, P. (2001). Learning to make pottery in the Prehispanic American Southwest. Journal of
Anthropological Research, 57, 451^469.
Crown, P. (2007a). Lite histories ot pots and potters: situating the individual in archaeology. American
Antiquity, 72, 677-690.

£) Springer

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 06 Sep 2016 01:44:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
24 Bamforth and Finlay

Crown, P. (2007b). Learning abo


Anthropology: Perspectives on
Press.

Custer, J. F., Rosenberg, K. R., M


Site (7K-F-17), Kent County, De
David, N., & Kramer, C. (2001). E
Deboer, W. (1990). Interaction,
experience. In M. Conkey & C.
York: Cambridge University Pre
Deetz, J. (1965). The Dynamics of
4. Urbana: University of Illinois
Dumond, D. (1977). Science in arch
herkens, J. W. (2000). Practice mak
artefact variation. Current Anth
Eerkens, J. W., & Bettinger, R. L.
can we scale material variability?
Ericsson, K. A., & Lehmann, A.
adaptation to task constraints. A
Fash, W. (1991). Scribes, Warrio
Thames and Hudson.
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). Leicester: Leicester University Press.
Fischer, A. (1989). A late Paleolithic "school" of flint-knapping at Trollesgave, Denmark: results from
refitting. Ada Archaeologia, 60, 33-49.
Fischer, A. (1990). On being a pupil of a flintknapper of 11,000 years ago. In E. Cziesla, S. Eickhoof, N.
Arts & D. Winter (Eds.) The Big Puzzle: International Symposium on Refitting Stone Artifacts,
Monrepos, 1987, vol. 1 (pp. 447-464). Bonn: Holos studies in Modern Archaeology.
Fish, S. (1999). How complex were the Southwestern great towns' polities? In J. Neitzel (Ed.) Great
Towns and Regional Polities in the Prehistoric American Southwest and Southeast (pp. 45-58).
Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Flenniken, J. (1978). Reevaluation of the Lindenmeier Folsom: a replication experiment in lithic
technology. American Antiquity, 43, 473-480.
Fnson, G. & Bradley, B. (1999). The Fenn Cache: Clovis Weapons and Tools. Santa Fe: One Horse Land
and Cattle Company.
Gero, J. M. (1991). Genderlithics: women's roles in stone tool production. In J. Gero & M. Conkey (Eds.)
Engendering Archaeology (pp. 163-193). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Gibson, E. (1982). Upper Paleolithic flintknapping specialists? The evidence from Corbiac, France. Lithic
Technology 11, 41^9.
Goody, E. (1989). Learning, apprenticeship, and the division of labor. In M. Coy (Ed.) Apprenticeship:
From Theory to Method and Back Again (pp. 233-256). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Greenfield, P. (1984). A theory of the teacher in the learning activities of everyday life. In R. Rogoff& J.
Lave (Eds.) Everyday Cognition (pp. 117-138). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Grimm, L. (2000). Apprentice flintknapping: relating material culture and social practice in the Upper
Palaeolithic. In J. Soafer Derevenski (Ed.) Children and Material Culture (pp. 53-71). London:
Routledge.
Gunn, J. (1975). Idiosyncratic behaviour in chipping style: some hypotheses and preliminary analysis. In
E. Swanson (Ed.) Lithic Technology: Making and Using Stone Tools (pp. 35-61). The Hague: Mouton
Publishers.

Gunn, J. (1977). Idiosyncratic chipping style as a demographic indicator: a proposed application to the
South Hills region of Idaho and Utah. In J. N. Hill & J. Gunn (Eds.) The Individual in Prehistory:
Studies of Variability in Style in Prehistoric Technologies (pp. 167-204). London: Academic Press.
Hayden, B. (1982). Interaction parameters and the demise of Paleoindian craftsmanship. Plains
Anthropologist, 27, 109-123.
Hayden, B., & Cannon, A. (1984). Interaction inferences in archaeology and learning frameworks of the
Maya. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 3, 325-367.
Hennch, J. (2004). Demography and cultural evolution: how adaptive cultural processes can produce
maladaptive losses - the Tasmanian case. American Antiquity, 69, 197-214.

£) Springer

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 06 Sep 2016 01:44:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Skill and Craft Learning 25

Henrich, J. (2006). Understanding cul


Antiquity, 71, 771-782.
Hill, J. (1970). Broken K Pueblo: preh
Arizona Anthropological Papers 18. T
Hill, J. (1978). Individuals and their ar
43, 245-257.
Hogberg, A. (1999). Child and adult at
a Neolithic square sectioned axe and
part of the Oresund fixed link pro
Howe, M., Davidson, J., & Sloboda,
Sciences, 21, 399-407.
Ingold, T. (1993). Tool-use, sociality
and Cognition in Human Evolution
Johnson, R. (1976). Time and flint ne
Technology, 5, 26-27.
Keller, C, & Keller, J. (1996). Cognit
University Press.
Kramer, C. (1985). Ceramic ethnoarch
Krause, R. (1985). The Clay Sleeps. T
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situ
Cambridge University Press.
Layton, R. (1974). Technology as kn
Levins R. (1966). Strategies of model
Lewis-Johnson, L. (1978). A history of
19, 357-372.
Lingren, C. (2004). Mdnniskor och kv
Mellansverige. Stockholm Studies in
Longacre, W. (1970). Archaeology as A
Papers 17. Tucson: University of Ar
Longacre, W. (1991). Ceramic Ethnoa
Longacre, W., & Skibo, J. (1994). Kal
Marzke, M., Toth, N., Shick, K., Reec
study of hand muscle recruitment d
American Journal of Physical Anth
McClure, S. (2007). Gender, technology
in Valencia, Spain. American Antiqu
Milne, S. B. (2005). Palae-Eskimo novic
Archaeology, 30, 329-345.
Minar, J., & Crown, P. (2001). Learnin
Research, 57, 369-380.
Moran, A. (1996). The Psychology o
Hove: Psychology Press.
Nichols, J., & Allstadt, D. J. (1978). Hi
Nunn, G. R. (2006). Using the Jultan
edge-to-edge pressure flaking. In
Reproduction. Aspects on Tradition
Symposium held in Uppsala Augu
Upsaliensis, SAU Stone Studies 2.
Olausson, D. (1997). Craft specializatio
In R. Schild & Z. Sulgostowska (Eds
Symposium (pp. 269-278). Warsaw: In
Olausson, D. (1998). Different stroke
knapping. Lithic Technology, 23(2),
Pelegrin, J. (1990). Prehistoric lith
Cambridge, 9, 116-125.
Piaget, J. (1972). The Psychology of
Pigeot, N. (1987). Magdaleniens D'E
d'Habitation U5), 25th suppl Gallia

£} Springer

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 06 Sep 2016 01:44:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
26 Bamforth and Finlay

Pigeot, N. (1990). Technical an


Archaeological Review Cambri
Roux, V., & Bril, B. (Eds.) (2005
behaviour. Cambridge: McDona
Proctor, R. W., & Dutta, A. (1
California: Sage Publications.
Read, D. (2006). Tasmanian knowl
Antiquity, 71, 164-184.
Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing soci
participation, and apprenticeshi
of Mind (pp. 139-164). New Yo
Rogoff, B., & Gardner, W. (198
(Eds.) Everyday Cognition (pp.
Root, M. (2000). The Archaeology
Roux, V. (1990). The psychosocia
specialization. Archaeological R
Roux, V., Bril, B., & Gilles, D. (19
of stone-bead knapping in Kham
Saville, A. (1990). Hazleton Nort
of the Cotswold-Severn Group.
Schiffer, M. (1972). Behavioral
Schiffer, M. (1987). Formation P
Mexico Press.
Sheets, P. (1975). Behavioral analysis and the structure of a prehistoric industry. Current Anthropology,
16, 369-378.
Shelley, P. H. (1990). Variation in lithic assemblages: an experiment. Journal of Field Archaeology, 17,
87-193.
Shennan, S. (2002). Genes, Memes, and Human History. London: Thames and Hudson.
Shennan, S., & Steele, J. (1999). Cultural learning in hominids: a behavioral ecological approach. In H.
Box & K. Gibson (Eds.) Mammalian Social Learning (pp. 367-388). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Shott, M. (1997). Transmission theory in the study of stone tools: a Midwestern example. In G. Clark & C.
Parton (Eds.) Rediscovering Darwin: Evolutionary Theory in Archaeological Explanation (pp. 1 93-
208). Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 7. Washington, D.C.:
American Anthropological Association.
Smith, E. (2000). Three styles in the evolutionary analysis of human behavior. In L. Cronk, N. Chagnon &
W. Irons (Eds.) Adaptation and Human Behavior (pp. 27-46). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Stafford, M. (1998). In search of hindsight: experiments in the production of Neolithic Danish flint
daggers. Antiquity, 72, 338-349.
Stanislawski, M. (1978). If pots were mortal. In R. Gould (Ed.) Explorations in Ethnoarchaeology (pp.
201-227). Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Stark, M. (1998). The Archaeology of Social Boundaries. Washington: Smithsonian Press.
Mark, M. {2vv3). Current Issues in Ceramic hthnoarchaeology. Journal oj Archaeological Research, 11,
193-242.

Stout, D. (2002). Skill and cognition in stone tool production. An ethnographic case study from Irian Jaya.
Current Anthropology, 5, 693-722.
Stout, D. (2005). The Social and Cultural Context of Stone-knapping Skill Acquistion. In V. Roux & B.
Bril (Eds.) Stone Knapping: The Necessary Conditions for a Uniquely Hominin Behaviour (pp. 331-
340). Cambridge: McDonald Institute.
Stout, D., & Chaminade, T. (2007). The evolutionary neuroscience of toll making. Neuropsychologia, 45,
1091-1100.

Stout, D., Toth, N., Schick, K., Stout, J., & Hutchins, G. (2000). Stone tool-making and brain activation:
Positron Emission Tomography (PET) studies. Journal of Archaeological Science, 27, 1215-1223.
Terkel, S. (1974). Working. New York: Pantheon Books.
Titmus, G. L. & Woods, J. C. (2003). The Maya Eccentric. Evidence for the use of the indirect percussion
technique in Mesoamerica from preliminary experiements concerning their manufacture. In K. G.
Hirth (Ed.) Mesoamerican Lithic Technology: Experimentation and Interpretation (pp. 132-146). Salt
Lake City: The University of Utah Press.

fi Springer

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 06 Sep 2016 01:44:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Skill and Craft Learning 27

Torrence, R. (1986). Production and


York: Cambridge University Press.
Wallaert-Petre, H. (2001). Learning h
culture, a case study in handmade p
471^93.

Washburn, D. K. (2001). Remembering things seen: experimental approaches to th


information transmittal. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 8(\), 67-99.
Weedman, K. (2002). On the spur of the moment: effects of age and experience on hafted s
morphology. American Antiquity, 67, 731-744.
Whittaker, J. C. (1987). Individual variation as an approach to economic organisation: projec
Grasshopper Pueblo, Arizona. Journal of Field Archaeology, 14, 465-979.
Whittaker, J. C. (1994). Flintknapping: Making and Understanding Stone Tools. Austin:
Texas Press.
Whittaker, J. C. (2004) American Flintknappers: Stone Age Art in the Age of Computer. Austin: University
of Texas Press.
Whittaker, J., & Stafford, M. (1999). Replicas, fakes, and art: the twentieth century stone age and its
effects on archaeology. American Antiquity, 64, 203-214.
Winfrey, J. (1990). An event tree analysis of Folsom point failure. Plains Anthropologist, 35, 263-272.
Winterhalder, B. (1980). Optimal foraging strategies and hunter-gatherer research in Anthropology: theory
and Models. In B. Winterhalder & E. Smith (Eds.) Hunter-Gatherer Foraging Strategies (pp. 13-35).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wood, D., Brunner, S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 66, 181-191.
Wynn, T. (1993). Layers ot thinking in tool behaviour. In R. R. (Jibson & 1. Ingold (bds.) Idols,
Language and Cognition in Human Evolution (pp. 429-^45). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Young, D. E., & Bonnichsen, R. (1984). Understanding Stone Tools: A Cognitive Approach. Maine:
Centre for the study of Early Man.

^ Springer

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Tue, 06 Sep 2016 01:44:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

You might also like