https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1103-2919
Figures
Abstract
Although archaeologists are learning more about the lives of Upper Paleolithic children, the significant contributions they made to the welfare of their communities, including their role in craft production, remain understudied. In the present study, we use high resolution photographs of 489 ceramic artifacts from Dolní Věstonice I and II, Pavlov I and VI, and Předmostí, five archaeological sites in Czechia (ca. 30,000 BP) to address two questions: 1. Can the ceramic products of novices be distinguished from those made by experts? 2. If so, can we tell if these novices were children? To address these questions, we documented variables known ethnographically and archaeologically to be associated with learners in a sample from these five sites. The sample is composed of fired (“ceramic”) and unfired (“sedimentary”) anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figurines, non-diagnostic figurine fragments and a sample of the so-called "pellets" from one site, Pavlov I. Our results support the hypothesis that ceramic objects are the products of novices, and in many cases, these novices are children. Our findings have implications for inter-generational knowledge transmission, the role of children in craft production and the importance of learning through play.
Citation: Farbstein R, Nowell A (2024) Children at play: The role of novices in the production of Europe’s earliest Upper Paleolithic ceramics. PLoS ONE 19(10): e0309107. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309107
Editor: Marco Peresani, Universita degli Studi di Ferrara, ITALY
Received: April 16, 2024; Accepted: August 6, 2024; Published: October 25, 2024
Copyright: © 2024 Farbstein, Nowell. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript.
Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Increasing attention to the archaeological study of children and adolescents in the European Upper Paleolithic record [1–15] has led to a greater understanding of the richness of the lives they led. For example, footprints [16] and handprints [17], provide direct evidence of their participation in the production of cave art, as well as the games they played and their relationships with others in their communities. Rare examples of engraved and painted images of children [2] help to presence them while figurines of children and adolescents provide data on clothing [18]. Bioarchaeological studies of burials offer further direct evidence of children in terms of health, morbidity and diet as well as mortuary practices, clothing, personal ornaments, and objects of meaning to the children and their communities in the form of grave goods [8 and references therein]. Archaeologists have also uncovered indirect evidence of children’s toys [8, 12, 18] and of children’s participation in communities of practice centered around stone tool manufacture [1, 8, 19–23].
There are, however, significant gaps in our knowledge of the lives of Paleolithic children [10]. One of the areas that remains understudied is children’s contribution to craft production. One of the reasons for this gap may be the assumptions Western archaeologists bring to a study of children and childhood in the past. Kamp [24, p.18] argues that archaeologists often assume that children are “incapable of performing complex tasks or assuming responsibility.” Similarly, Kohut [25, p.153] observes that “Western notions of childhood as an innocent, carefree period…may have hindered alternative views of the experience of childhood throughout space and time.” It is clear, however, from ethnographic and archaeological data that children around the world, and across time, have commonly been involved in tasks including herding, fetching water, harvesting vegetables, running market stalls, collecting firewood, tending animals, cleaning and sweeping, working as musicians, serving as soldiers, and caring for younger siblings [8, 24]. Furthermore, in many societies, children were actively engaged in the production of textiles, ceramics, stone tools and beads among other craft items [8, 25–30]. These activities are often discernible in the archaeological record if we know where to look and this undertaking begins with asking questions about children as makers in the past.
Accordingly, in this paper, we use high resolution photographs of ceramic artifacts from Dolní Věstonice I (DV I), Dolní Věstonice II (DV II), Pavlov I, Pavlov VI, and Předmostí, five archaeological sites in eastern Czechia dating to ca. 30,000 BP, to address two questions: 1. Can the ceramic products of novices be distinguished from those made by experts? 2. If so, can we discern if these novices were children? Novices are individuals who are new or inexperienced in a field or situation. Not all novices are children as it is possible to learn a new skill at any age. Similarly, not all children are novices as some quickly acquire expertise [24]. Nonetheless, in the Paleolithic, it is reasonable to assume that while not everyone might learn to make ceramics, those who did began at an early age [8]. Our study sample includes both fired and unfired anthropomorphic and zoomorphic clay figurines, figurine fragments and non-diagnostic pellets, all of which were made from a local, loess-rich sedimentary paste. To explore whether these artifacts were made by novices, we documented variables known ethnographically and archaeologically to be associated with learners and compared them to the same variables recorded in art objects made from ivory, bone and antler from these same sites. Our results support the hypothesis that ceramic objects are the products of novices and in many cases, these novices are children. By way of discussion and conclusion, we consider the implications of our findings for inter-generational knowledge transmission, the role of children in craft production and the importance of learning through play.
Methods and materials
Variables associated with novice makers
In this study, we drew upon variables known ethnographically and archaeologically to be associated with novice makers, with a particular focus on children and adolescents learning to make ceramics and stone tools. However, not all variables were applicable to our sample. For example, while many studies focus on the quality and nature of painted designs on pots [e.g., 27, 31–33], none of the ceramic artifacts from the Upper Paleolithic preserve any evidence of being painted. Similarly, novices are often associated with poorer quality raw materials, particularly where these materials are scarce [34]. The Paleolithic ceramic artifacts from our sample were all made from the same basic sediment, although it is possible to argue that the local, loess-rich sediment that was used to make Pavlovian ceramics was more abundant and thus perhaps a less desired or ‘lower quality’ raw material than the ivory, bone and antler used to make other symbolic material culture at the same sites. Accordingly, we focus on five key variables that were most recoverable in the assemblages of Paleolithic art considered in this paper:
Size.
Smaller sized artifacts are likely to have been produced by novices, while experts are more likely to produce larger artifacts [24, 32, 35–43]. While small artifact size can be the result of a number of variables (e.g., function, raw material availability or level of group mobility; see Discussion in [8]), Kaaronen et al. [44] demonstrate the cross-cultural importance of body-based measurements in ergonomic design; they argue that size is a significant factor in the design of objects such as tools, weapons, clothing and footwear and can be directly linked to the user’s body proportions.
Asymmetry.
Novices produce asymmetrical ceramic artifacts more often than experts [24, 40, 45]. We prefer this category to ‘irregular’ or ‘crudely made’, as novice produced ceramics are sometimes described [e.g., 38] because it is more quantifiable and less subjective.
Complexity of chaînes opératoires.
Although chaîne opératoire has historically often been used to document consistency in the production of mainly functional material culture within a cultural group, it also has the potential to be used to uncover variability and diversity. Novices are associated with less complex production sequences or chaînes opératoires [5, 24, see also 46] and simpler techniques such as pinching, pressing and pulling rather than coiling in the case of ceramics [24, 40, 45, 47]. We can also compare the relative complexity of chaînes opératoires across different classes of raw material (e.g., ceramic vs. ivory, or ceramic vs. bone) to gain insight if novices worked with some materials more often than others.
Experimentation and heterogeneity.
Novices produce artifacts which reveal higher degrees of experimentation and heterogeneity in both production and final form/appearance [27; see also 1]. Köhler [40, p.129], who studied how Sangopari (Côte d’Ivoire) novices learn to make pottery, writes “…girls who are by themselves are more likely to try out different techniques than when they are together with a competent woman, as she may regularly intervene and correct the learners.” This variable can be contrasted with evidence for seriation (i.e., the production of standardized objects) and homogeneity, as these characteristics may, by extension, offer evidence of forethought and planning, and suggest a more experienced, skillful craftsperson at work.
Non-productivity.
When objects were made without a focus on a long use-life after production, and when they were found in situ at the location where they were made, they are considered to have been made ‘non-productively’ [24]. The practice of making the object itself, and the play (or playful experimentation) involved in production, are the primary motivations for making such artifacts [see also 48–50]. These non-productive pieces were more likely to have been made by novices and/or children [see also 21, 22, 24, 28, 51, 52]. Köhler [40, p.128] watching three children learning to make pots observes, “nothing the learners produced survived the end of this session, as the children were either unable to construct a pot, or the pots they made were destroyed afterwards. In addition, the smallest child added so much water to her own piece of clay and to the other pieces that they all fell apart.”
Sites
Data used in this study were collected from artifacts excavated from DV I, DV II, Pavlov I, Pavlov VI, and Předmostí, five archaeological sites in Czechia (Fig 1). Calibrated radiocarbon dates on human bones from burials at Pavlov I and DV II range between 31,270 calBP and 29,260 calBP [53; see also 54, 55; for comparable dates]. Collectively, these sites form part of the Pavlovian cultural complex that existed in the region of Moravia, northern Austria and southern Poland. A regional variant of the Gravettian, the Pavlovian is defined by its large open-air aggregation sites which preserve rich stone, bone, and antler material culture, both functional and decorative, complex symbolic burials, and lithic assemblages characterized by large numbers of blades, bladelets and burins often made by exotic raw materials [56, 57].
Data used in this study were collected from five Pavlovian sites in southern Czechia: Dolní Věstonice I and II (DV I and II), Pavlov I and VI, and Předmostí. Map data: Sevdari, Kristian; Marmullaku, Drin (2023). Shapefile of European countries. Technical University of Denmark. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.11583/DTU.23686383. This dataset is distributed under a CCBY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
This regional technocomplex is differentiated from other European Gravettian assemblages by the presence of the ceramic artifacts that are the focus of this paper. No ceramic pottery or functional vessels have been found in the European Upper Paleolithic. Instead, more than 12,000 ceramic figurines, figurine fragments/elements, and non-figurative pellets have been recovered from these sites with the two largest assemblages coming from DV I and Pavlov I. These artifacts are some of the oldest ceramic objects in the world (see [58] for a discussion of Paleolithic ceramic artifacts that postdate the Last Glacial Maximum).
Sample
The sample used in this study consists of high resolution photographs of 489 ceramic artifacts from DV I, DV II [54], Pavlov I, Pavlov VI [59, 60], and Předmostí. The collection includes figurines of animals (both carnivores and herbivores), male and female human forms, figurine fragments, non-diagnostic fragments that may have been figurine fragments but are no longer identifiable as such, and pellets that may have been made during experimentation with the novel material (Table 1). Pellets were identified as being whole artifacts (no visible breaks), but non-diagnostic in form and lacking any evidence of figurative representation. Following convention, ‘clay’ is used in this study to denote a raw material, specifically a material that is composed mainly of fine particles of hydrous aluminum silicates and other minerals; ‘ceramic’ is defined as a synthetic material composed of sedimentary material that is often (but not always) clay rich, which is then fired; and ‘pottery’ refers to ceramics that are formed to make functional vessels. Accordingly, ‘ceramics’ is used to refer to our sample because Upper Paleolithic peoples did not apply fired clay technology to making pottery [61]. One reason for this may be “that rather than risk a shift to the development of a novel ceramic vessel technology…people preferred to continue with the well-established tradition of making baskets and plant fibre containers, the evidence for which was found in favorable preservation conditions at sites such as Dolní Věstonice and Pavlov" [61, p.49 and references therein].
We compare these ceramics to ivory, bone, antler, and soft stone (schist/shale) artifacts excavated from DV I and Pavlov I, which include both figurative and non-figurative art and ornamentation. At Pavlov I, this includes 87 ivory, 15 bone, and 9 antler artifacts. At DV I, a smaller assemblage of 28 ivory artifacts and 1 bone artifact were available to study. Organic and soft stone symbolic material culture long predates the Pavlovian [see 62, 63] and symbolic artifacts in these raw materials have been found in many distinct regional techno-complexes, throughout the Upper Paleolithic.
Data collection and analysis
Digital photographs were taken of all artifacts discussed in this paper, as well as microscopic photographs (up to 40x magnification) of a smaller sub-sample of the assemblage. All artifacts were measured in three dimensions using digital calipers (in mm), and were weighed in grams using digital scales. All measurements were entered into an Excel spreadsheet. Other quantitative and qualitative data about the artifacts were also collected and recorded in the spreadsheets (e.g., subject matter, color, surface hardness, presence/absence of superficial engravings, state of preservation). Ceramic and ivory artifacts were compared in terms of size, asymmetry, evidence of experimentation, complexity of technique and chaîne opératoire and productivity. Both asymmetry and evidence of experimentation were recorded as binary criteria: if there was any evidence of experimentation during production, or if the figurine was asymmetrical in terms of its appearance/style/form, these characteristics were recorded as present in the artifact. Some figurines preserved more than one form of evidence of children or novices, whereas others preserved just one strong signature characteristic (see Results). Ceramics were also compared to bone and antler artifacts in relation to all of these variables except for degree of asymmetry and experimentation as bone and antler artifacts are non-figurative, rendering these variables less directly applicable. Pavlovian craftspeople carved and engraved geometric and decorative patterns onto the surface of the bones of various herbivores and carnivores, and onto the surface of reindeer antler, but, on current evidence, they never sculpted these materials to make representational depictions of humans or animals [64].
Results
Size
Compared to other materials used to make portable art such as ivory, bone and antler, ceramics are significantly smaller (Tables 2 and 3). At both Pavlov I and DV I, ceramic anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figurines are half the size of similar artifacts made of ivory while non-figurative/non-diagnostic pieces are half the size of non-figurative ivory artifacts, and even smaller still than non-figurative pieces made of bone or antler. The only exceptions to this pattern are the finely made “masterpieces” from these sites such as the virtually complete female figurine from DV I (Fig 2a). This figurine depicts a woman with abstracted facial features, large breasts, a deeply engraved navel and waistline or waistband. Only her lower legs and feet are missing. The break suggests that at least some portion of the lower limbs was originally depicted, although it is impossible to determine if feet were modeled. Another example of an unusually large ceramic figurine is a depiction of an owl from DV I (artifact # DV 28) ([65] for discussion of the multilayered relationship between owls and humans in the Pavlovian). This figurine’s head is damaged but retains the characteristic ear “tufts” associated with owls from DV I (Fig 2b). A third unusually large ceramic object is the damaged and fragmented but refitted mammoth figurine from Pavlov I [66].
(a) Female figurine from DV I dating to ca. 27,000 BP is 111 mm in height and 43 mm in maximum width. It was created from a loess based clay fired at a relatively low temperature (500–800 °C) [67]. (Photo: Rebecca Farbstein, taken with permission from Martin Oliva at the Moravian Museum, Anthropos Institute); (b) stylized ‘owl’ figurine, which depicts characteristic ear ‘tufts’ and an abstracted and elongated body (118 mm height, 21.4 mm in maximum width) (Photo: Rebecca Farbstein, taken with permission from Martin Oliva at the Moravian Museum, Brno).
All three of these examples are noticeably larger than the vast majority of other Pavlovian ceramic figurines, which are by-and-large smaller in size and less finely made. For instance, a tiny ceramic mammoth from Pavlov I illustrates the full size range at the site, as this complete figurine measures only 14.4 x 21.8 x 9.5 mm in overall dimensions (Fig 3a). Although the characteristic silhouette of a mammoth is unmistakable, this figurine is otherwise a simplified and generalized depiction of this animal, rather than a detailed and realistic masterpiece. A similarly small ceramic mammoth from DV I (21.3 x 30.6 x 13.3 mm) supports the notion that very small ceramic figurines often exhibited less detailed or skillful finishes (Fig 3b). Another very small zoomorphic figurine from the same site measures just 11.3 x 17.6 x 5.6 mm. The subject matter is unclear, perhaps because of both the small size of the figurine and its abstracted style of depiction. These artifacts suggest there may be a relationship between the largest figurines and more skilled craftsmanship, and the smaller ones and somewhat less skillful production, perhaps coupled with more experimentation.
(a) Small ceramic mammoth from Pavlov I, measuring 14.4 x 21.8 x 9.5 mm (Photo: Rebecca Farbstein, taken with permission from J. Svoboda at the Institute of Archaeology, Dolní Věstonice). (b) Another small ceramic mammoth from the neighboring site of DV I, measuring 21.3 x 30.6 x 13.3 mm (Photo: Rebecca Farbstein, taken with permission from M. Oliva at the Moravian Museum, Anthropos Institute). Both illustrate the type of craftsmanship typical of very small ceramic figurines from these sites.
Asymmetry
The next variable considered was degree of asymmetry. At both Pavlov I and DV I, ceramics were found to be less symmetrical than portable art made from ivory (see Table 4). For example, there are assemblages of ceramic animal heads found at both Pavlov I and DV I. Some of them demonstrate that the maker created the face in one way on one side and then used a different technique to make the other side of the face to produce a completely different result. For example, on one side of a purported lion’s head (Fig 4a and 4b), found at DV I, the eye is a slit, a simple engraving across the surface. On the other side, the eye is a perforation that penetrates all the way through the head. Each one of the lion’s ears is rendered completely differently as well. The degree of experimentation evident even in the lion’s head suggests that symmetry of its final form was not a priority for this object; more broadly, the rest of the ceramics assemblage confirms that representational asymmetry was common in Pavlovian ceramics, but totally absent when working with ivory at the same sites.
(a) macroscopic photos of the two sides of a single ceramic lion’s head from DV I; (b) microscopic photos (40X) of the eyes of this figurine, showing how the craftsperson used two different techniques to create the eyes. The degree of experimentation and the lack of attention to symmetry in a ceramic lion’s head from DV I suggests the artifact may be the product of a novice maker. Length = 45 mm. Height/Depth = 25 mm (Photos: Rebecca Farbstein).
Experimentation vs. seriation
The significance of the degree of experimentation apparent in the ceramics becomes even more striking when they are compared to ivory art at the same sites. For example, both figurative and non-figurative ivory art from Pavlov I displays a higher degree of seriation and a lower degree of experimentation than the ceramic artifacts from the same site (Table 4). At this site there are a large number of highly standardized objects described as diadems that may have been worn as headbands or bracelets (Fig 5). They were all manufactured in the same way and exhibit broadly the same finished form [64, 68, 69]. Figurative art depicting a range of subjects, including lions, mammoths, and a purported ‘owl’, also often echoed this techno-stylistic approach to creating flattened silhouettes (Fig 6a and 6b). A series of ivory rings from Pavlov I reinforces this socio-technical pattern; when working with organic materials, Pavlovian craftspeople often privileged stylistic and technological homogeneity and seriation (Fig 7).
Both of these fragments are more than 90 mm in length. Full diadems from the same site measure up to 175 mm in length and approximately 35 mm in width. All diadems were made from ivory lamellae and thus have a relatively uniform depth of c. 2.5–3 mm (Photo: Rebecca Farbstein).
(a) Lion (length = 215 mm) and (b) mammoth (39 x 69 x 10 mm) from Pavlov I. Both were made from ivory lamellae and demonstrate the strong socio-technical preference for silhouetted representations of animals at this archaeological site (Photos: Courtesy of Martin Frouz and Martin Novák and the Institute of Archaeology of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Brno; permission granted by Martin Novák to publish under a CC BY 4.0 license).
These ivory rings demonstrate a high degree of technological and stylistic homogeneity. Diameter ranges between 23–31.5 mm. Width of the rings ranges between 2.5–7.5 mm (Photo: Rebecca Farbstein).
By contrast the ceramic figures evince much more heterogeneity. They are more diverse both in terms of the technique, subject and the finished form/finished aesthetics. For example, sometimes an animal is made with its forelimbs as two separate limbs while at other times makers created a more generalized form, rendering the forelimbs as one (Fig 8a and 8b). At least 30 ceramic leg fragments were excavated from Pavlov I which illustrate how craftspeople experimented with the range of ways both human and animal legs might be rendered in this medium. Sometimes a realistic foot was modeled. In other instances the base of the leg was flattened, perhaps to enable the artifact to stand upright, but a realistic foot was not modeled. On other artifacts, there is no evidence that an iconographic foot or flattened surface was modeled; instead, the leg was rolled to a tapered extremity. Greater variation is also noticeable in the use of surface engraving, decoration, and ornamentation across the assemblage, and even in the production of a single artifact.
(a) Zoomorphic ceramic figurine from DV I (DV 44), measuring 3.2 cm tall, 4.7 cm long. Forelimbs have been formed as a single appendage subsequently attached to the torso of the animal; (b) Zoomorphic figurine (sometimes interpreted as a bovid) from DV I (artifact # DV 33), measuring 2.5 cm tall, 4.8 cm long. The animal’s forelimbs were rolled separately, and subsequently joined both to each other, and to the torso of the figurine which was made separately (Photos: Rebecca Farbstein).
Technique/chaîne opératoire
Pavlovian craftspeople employed a range of different chaînes opératoires when making ceramic artifacts, although all of them shared the same initial stages of production (Fig 9a). The local loess-based sediment was collected from the immediate landscape, either in a slightly wet form or dry, in which case it would have been mixed with water to form a paste. This paste was then shaped by hand into various forms. Often component parts of a figurine, for instance, its torso, head, arms and legs, were formed separately, and subsequently joined together, in a technique described as ‘additive’ [66, 67, 70–74]. However, a significant proportion of the figurines were made using pinching, pressing, and pulling actions to create a figurine from a core shape, without additive technology [66]. Some figurines were decorated with surface engravings, made with a range of tools that might have included both stone and bone tools, as well as fingernails. Other artifacts were not decorated with engravings or carvings.
(a) Diagram of the Pavlovian ceramic chaînes opératoires, illustrating five distinct variations in the production sequence for figurines made in this material; (b) Comparative diagram of Pavlovian ivory chaînes opératoires, illustrating six distinct variations in the production sequence, the use of a variety of synthetic tools during production, and evidence of a longer temporal investment during production of art in this raw material.
Relative to ceramics, ivory, bone and antler are temporally elaborated materials. In other words, it takes a significantly longer amount of time to collect, process and make portable art objects from them (Fig 9b). For example, to obtain ivory, one would need to hunt a mammoth or scavenge a tusk. This task would necessitate leaving the site itself and coordinating a group of people. This task further requires a degree of skillfulness, likely acquired through observing and/or participating in past scavenging or hunting missions and listening to stories of elders (see, for example, [75]). Furthermore, a variety of specialized tools are needed to process these materials through techniques such as scraping, splintering, sculpting, and engraving. Bone and antler, which were primarily used to make non-figurative art at Pavlovian sites, necessitated similarly time- and labor-intense manufacturing techniques that required social collaboration, the use of specialized skills throughout the chaîne opératoire, and the use of a variety of specialized manufactured tools.
Another important distinction between ceramics and the other materials used to make Pavlovian art is that ceramics are ‘synthetic’; they require the use of fire to transform the ‘raw’ sedimentary paste into the final, durable ceramic form. This transformation of the material itself is an entirely new process associated exclusively with ceramics, which stands in stark contrast to the established ivory, bone, and antler technologies.
Non-productivity
Pavlovian sites are known not only for their ceramics but for their burials as well [76–79]. In some of these burials, highly diverse assemblages of ornamental culture were interred with the bodies. For example, at Brno II, a 23,680 year old Pavlovian site roughly 40 km north of the DV/Pavlov site cluster, archaeologists recovered the remains of an adult male [80, 81]. Associated with the man was a figurine depicting a man, known as the ‘marionette figure’ created from 3 interlocking pieces of ivory. Alongside the figurine were 13 disks made of mammoth molars and a variety of soft stones [82]. In other burials, such as the famous Triple Burial from DV II, perforated animal teeth and shells were included in the burials [76, 77, 83]. What is most remarkable is that no ceramics have been discovered in a Pavlovian burial. Given the abundance of ceramic artifacts found dispersed across the occupation sites, and the diversity of materials found within the burials, we argue that ceramic objects were purposely excluded from the interments.
By contrast, ceramics are found throughout the occupation sites, with some noteworthy concentrations of these artifacts in or immediately next to hearth structures. They were made adjacent to the fire and then placed in the fire as part of their production sequence, (chaîne opératoire) and they remained there. For example, at DV I, ceramic figurines were discovered inside and immediately around the periphery of the hearth. Furthermore, Farbstein and Davies [84] note that some figurines are so soft that it is clear that they were not fired but rather left to air dry. From these observations, it is clear that the ceramics are not moving very far from where they are made. This is a very different life history than what is documented for other symbolic culture at these sites. Not only is it shorter but there is an element of non-productivity with the ceramic figurines. They were not being manufactured for a specific purpose and this distinguishes them from the other material culture made from the other raw materials at the sites.
Discussion
Children as novice makers
Returning to the research questions posed at the beginning of this paper—can the ceramic products of novices be distinguished from those made by experts? If so, can we tell if these novices were children? First, the data presented in this paper allow us to distinguish between two different kinds of craftspeople and the types of artifacts they made. Ceramics are smaller, more asymmetrical, and the result of simpler, shorter production sequences and techniques than artifacts made from other materials. Furthermore, they demonstrate a higher degree of experimentation, techno-stylistic heterogeneity, and non-productivity. In this instance, at these sites, ceramics seem to be the type of material culture made by novices.
Second, there are multiple lines of evidence supporting the hypothesis that in many cases these novices were children. Not only are the variables considered in this study typical of child learners but some of the Pavlovian ceramics preserve the fingerprints of the people who made them and the majority of these belong to children. Children’s fingerprints can be distinguished from adult fingerprints by (1) overall size, (2) difference in breadth of epidermal ridges, and (3) ridge proportions [24]. For example, archaeologists studying a fingerprint on the back of the DV I figurine discussed above estimate that it belongs to a subadult of 11–13 years [36]. Similarly, a study of 2635 fired worked and unworked clay objects from Pavlov 1 uncovered 48 imprints on 29 objects [37; see also 85]. Using as a comparison a range of epidermal ridge breadths derived from a modern Czech sample, these researchers determined that these imprints most closely matched children between the ages of 6–10 and adolescents between the ages of 10–15. The mean epidermal ridge breadth of imprints on eight objects with the best preserved traces was 0.383 mm corresponding to an individual of 11.8 years old. At a minimum, this evidence documents the presence of children during the production process and thus their integration into a community of practice around ceramics. However, as Králík and Novotný [85, p. 473] note, “in most of the investigated Pavlovian objects, the imprint is also a trace connected with the molding process, so the author of the print is also likely to be the maker of the artifact. This is especially relevant in the last phases of molding.”
In combination with the evidence for novices, the fingerprint data strongly suggest that children made at least some of the Pavlovian ceramics. Comparable archaeological evidence for children’s participation in ceramic production in other time periods include fingerprints on artifacts such as seven miniature ceramic vessels from Těšetice-Kyjovice, a Neolithic site in Czechia [37], animal figurines in Egypt dating to 3,800–3,7000 BP [86], pottery shards from six Early and Middle Bronze Age sites in England [87], a variety of clay objects from Early and Late Bronze Age sites in Israel and Syria [43, 88–91], Iron Age pots in Spain [92], 3400 year-old clay tablets from Knossos [93], pottery from a late 14th century English site [94], 57 Sinagua figurines in Arizona dating to 1425 CE [26, 95, 96] and ‘learner vessels’ from a Late Woodland Iroquoian village in Canada [49, 50].
Kamp [96] notes that child novices make errors in tempering, drying and firing; and they may not follow the accepted procedures, skipping a step or producing a different shape. This may be because they do not completely understand what the final product should look like. Králík and colleagues [37; see also 36] observe that many figurines and figurine fragments exhibit cracks typical of thermal shock indicating that ceramics were often fired before they were sufficiently dry. Vandiver et al. [67] argue that fragments of ceramic figurines found in association with hearth structures at Pavlovian sites in Czechia suggest they were ritually exploded in what they term a pyrotechnical performance [70]. They assert that the properties of the loess paste make accidental thermal shock “improbable” and instead they believe that it required “intentional effort and practice” to explode these figurines into small fragments. While this scenario is a possibility, it is also possible that this phenomena is further evidence of novices [8, 32]. The ceramic human and animal figures from Pavlovian sites are solid pieces. Even when fired at very low temperatures, it is quite easy for solid pieces, relative to hollow ones, to explode if too wet. Even after a couple of days of drying, solid ceramic objects can appear dry on the outside but remain wet on the inside [97].
Children often enter communities of practice centered on ceramics through playing with clay and by making simple animal figures and small pots to use as toys or to practice cooking [e.g., 24, 35, 47, 48, 98–100]. In fact, Lew-Levy et al. [101] and Riede et al. [102] demonstrate the near universality of the association between children and these types of toys. According to Kamp [24], animal figurines often exhibit variability in execution, fingernail and fingerprint marks, lack detail, and are only rarely smoothed. Furthermore, the 2 sides are sometimes asymmetrical or out of proportion and heads or limbs are often missing because they were not securely attached. All of these features are observable in our sample of Pavlovian animal figurines [see also 84]. Králík and Novotný [85] suggest a scenario where Paleolithic children might have played at hunting with these animal figures, damaging them in the process; playing with the figures would have allowed children “to learn and explore vital aspects of ecologically and hence adaptively relevant knowledge about animal behavior” [12, p.54].
Implications for socialization and learning through play
Cross-culturally, children, most often girls, begin playing with clay by two to five years of age [24, 92, 99, 103–109 but see also 100] and through play they learn the properties, or affordances, of the material [8]. Child-sized finger holes in clay at Upper Paleolithic sites suggest this behavior may have a great antiquity [e.g., 110]. They learn the steps that must be followed to successfully produce a ceramic artifact even though they may master some tasks earlier than others [40]. This learning is often integrated into other everyday tasks. For example, in an ethnographic study among the Kusasi of Ghana, children begin using clay between the ages of five to seven years and transition into a “proper learning of pottery production” when they reach eleven or twelve years old [111, p.93]. The Kusasi do not have a specific word for ‘apprentice’, which Trias et al. [111, p. 93] argue is evidence of “a fluid and multiform concept of pottery learning closely interrelated to the rest of the roles and activities taking place in the domestic sphere.” Children often assist in the pottery making process by collecting and preparing raw materials, e.g., bringing in clay, temper and water, tempering the clay (i.e., adding non-plastic material to clay to prevent shrinkage and cracking during the firing process), possibly grinding the clay and temper, removing foreign particles by hand, kneading the clay and collecting firewood to fire the clay [5, 24, 40, 112]. They may aid in clean-up and performing less technical aspects of the process until they develop both the muscle memory and cognitive capacity necessary to undertake all stages in the production process. In this way, ceramics can be thought of forming part of a ‘taskscape’. Ingold ([113], p. 158) writes, “every task takes its meaning from its position within an ensemble of tasks, performed in parallel, and usually by many people working together.” Thus ceramics may be part of a larger ensemble of tasks even though the task of collecting materials for the production of ceramics themselves is quite simple. At the French site Tuc D’Audoubert, known for its molded (unfired) clay bison, archaeologists working with professional trackers identified several sets of tracks left by an adult male and an adolescent boy as they twice made their way to and from a clay pit within the cave [114]. The depth of the tracks exiting the pit suggest the pair were carrying armloads of clay with them—perhaps as much as a total of 45 kg over the two trips based on the amount of clay extracted.
Children exhibit agency in their learning. As they get older they increasingly play a role in choosing what they learn and from whom they learn, including peers and slightly older children by setting goals and initiating interactions [8, 115, 116, see also 117, 118]. Skill is developed through active participation and observation, playful imitation, and experimentation [24, 40] and deliberate practice which involves dividing tasks into chunks, identifying specific goals, focusing on technique and receiving feedback from a teacher or mentor [119]. Accordingly, much of this learning takes place in a social setting. Köhler [40, p.138] uses the term ‘thick experience’ to emphasize the importance of social and spatial proximity in “the transfer of knowledge in making pottery over generations.”
Conclusion
Since their initial discovery more than a century ago, archaeologists have celebrated Pavlovian ceramics as an exceptional example of one of the earliest iterations of ceramic technology. Decades of research on these artifacts have advanced our understanding of the diversity of Paleolithic art, innovation, and lifeways. Pavlovian ceramics offer insight into the development of novel materials and technologies in the Paleolithic, and into the integration of these technologies into complex hunter-gatherer society. This paper has highlighted that, in comparison to expertly crafted, non-ceramic symbolic material culture that is well-known from this region, Pavlovian ceramics retain several characteristics consistent with production strategies used by novices, including their smaller size, higher degree of asymmetry and experimentation in production, and apparent non-productivity. In addition, the chaînes opératoires for Pavlovian ceramics indicate much more expedience throughout the life history of the artifacts. The local availability of the raw material, combined with the ability to manipulate it without the use of specialized tools, may have contributed to children working with ceramic materials. The fingerprints preserved on the surface of ceramic artifacts, which are consistent with sub-adults, offer direct evidence linking children to the production of Pavlovian ceramic artifacts. One question which remains, and is worth exploring in more detail in future research, is whether, as children grew up, they progressed from more expedient, experimental and exploratory ‘play’ with ceramics to carving, sculpting, and engraving the more time- and labor-intensive ivory, bone, and antler raw materials. It is a tantalizing possibility that the archaeologically recoverable differences in the ceramic and organic Pavlovian art traditions may reflect the difference between ‘art’ made by children and adults. Another important avenue of future research will be to compare ceramics produced during the Pavlovian with Paleolithic ceramics that post-date the Last Glacial Maximum [58] to see if evidence for children as makers is apparent in this period as well.
Much of the last century of research on both portable and parietal Paleolithic art has focused on the most well-preserved and visually striking ‘masterpieces’ [see 120, 121 and references therein]. While this valuable research demonstrated the complex and elaborate symbolic practices of the most skilled members of these societies, shifting the focus to study the production strategies of the broader assemblages, including less stylistically striking artifacts, provides a window into how the broader society, including novices and children, engaged with art-making in the past. The results of our research suggest that it may be possible to uncover children’s work through contextualized, comparative and integrated analyses of certain socially-embedded technologies such as Pavlovian ceramics. One of the most tantalizing interpretations from this research is that Pavlovian children may have been ‘at play’ during their experiments and explorations with ceramic materials. These artifacts may, in fact, be a fortunate and rare materialization of the celebrated, and ephemeral, act of play during childhood.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to Jiri Svoboda (Institute of Archaeology of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Brno) and Martin Oliva (Moravian Museum, Anthropos Institute), both of whom facilitated research on the Pavlovian ceramic assemblages, and to Martin Novák for permission to reproduce photographs used in Fig 6. We thank Lisa Rogers for research assistance and Robert Gustas for preparation of Fig 1.
References
- 1. Shea JJ. Child’s play: Reflections on the invisibility of children in the Paleolithic record. Evolutionary Anthropology 2006;15(6): 212–216.
- 2.
Bahn PG. Children of the Ice Age. In: Coşkunsu G, editor. The archaeology of childhood: Interdisciplinary perspectives on an archaeological enigma. Albany: State University of New York Press; 2015. pp. 167–188.
- 3. Nowell A. Working memory and the speed of life. Current Anthropology 2010;51(S1):S121–S133.
- 4. Nowell A., Children metaphorical thinking and Upper Paleolithic visual cultures. Childhood in the Past 2015a;8(2): 122–132.
- 5. Nowell A. Learning to see and seeing to learn: Children, communities of practice and Pleistocene visual cultures. Cambridge Archaeology Journal 2015b;25(4): 889–899.
- 6.
Nowell A. Childhood, play and the evolution of cultural capacity in Neandertals. In: Haidle MN, Conard NJ, Bolus M, editors. The nature of culture. Vertebrate paleobiology and paleoanthropology Series. New York: Springer; 2016. pp. 87–97.
- 7. Nowell A. Reconsidering the personhood of infants in the Gravettian. Journal of Anthropological Research 2020;76(2): 232–250.
- 8.
Nowell A. Growing up in the Ice Age: Fossil and archaeological evidence of the lived lives of Plio-Pleistocene children. London: Oxbow Books; 2021.
- 9. Nowell A. Oral storytelling and knowledge transmission in Upper Paleolithic children and adolescents. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2023a;30(1): 9–31.
- 10. Nowell A. Paleolithic children come of age. Childhood in the Past 2023b; 16(1): 3–12.
- 11. Nowell A, French J. Adolescence and innovation in the European Upper Palaeolithic. Evolutionary Human Sciences 2020;2(e36): 1–24. pmid:37588373
- 12. Riede F, Johannsen NN, Högberg A, Nowell A, Lombard M. The role of play objects and object play in human cognitive evolution and domain-specific innovation: a niche construction perspective. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews 2018;27(1): 46–59.
- 13. Assaf E. Dawn of a new day: The role of children in the assimilation of new technologies throughout the Lower Paleolithic L’Anthropologie 125(1): 102836.
- 14. Riede F, Walsh MJ, Nowell A, Langley M, Johannsen NN. Constructing the niches of and for innovation. Play objects and object play from a niche construction perspective. Evolutionary Human Sciences 2021;1–47. pmid:37588535
- 15. French J, Nowell A. Growing up Gravettian: Bioarchaeological perspectives on adolescence in the European Mid-Upper Paleolithic. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2022;67: 101430.
- 16. Avanzini M, Citton P, Mietto P, Panarello A, Raia P, Romano M, et al. Human footprints from Italy: the state of the art. Journal of Mediterranean Earth Sciences 2020;12: 31–50.
- 17. Fernández-Navarro V, Camarós E, Garate D. Visualizing childhood in Upper Palaeolithic societies: Experimental and archaeological approach to artists’ age estimation through cave art hand stencils. Journal of Archaeological Science 2022;140.
- 18. Lbvoda L. The Siberian Paleolithic site of Mal’ta: A unique source for the study of childhood archaeology. Evolutionary Human Sciences 2021;3: e9. pmid:37588521
- 19. Fischer A. A late Palaeolithic ‘school’ of flint-knapping at Trollesgave, Denmark. Results from refitting. Acta Archaeologica 1990a;60: 33–49.
- 20.
Fischer A. On being a pupil of a flintknapper of 11,000 years ago. A preliminary analysis of settlement organization and flint technology based on conjoined flint artefacts from the Trollesgave site. In: The Big Puzzle: Proceedings of the international symposium on refitting stone artefacts. Bonn: Holos; 1990b. pp. 447–464.
- 21.
Grimm L. Apprentice flintknapping: Relating material culture and social practice in the Upper Paleolithic. In: Sofaer Derevenski J, editor. Children and material culture. London: Routledge; 2000. pp. 53–71.
- 22.
Takakura J. Using lithic refitting to investigate the skill learning process: lessons from Upper Paleolithic assemblages at the Shirataki Sites in Hokkaido, Northern Japan. In: Akazawa T, Nichiaki Y, Aoki K, editors. Dynamics of learning in Neanderthals and modern humans, volume 1: Cultural perspectives. Tokyo: Springer; 2013. pp. 151–171.
- 23. Cattabriga G, Gramigna A, Peresani M. Exploring knapping learning processes amongst Upper Palaeolithic hunter-gatherers. History of Education 2024;53(3): 1–21.
- 24. Kamp K. Where have all the children gone? The archaeology of childhood. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2001b;8(1): 1–34.
- 25. Kohut BM. Buried with children: Reinterpreting ancient Maya ‘toys’. Childhood in the Past 2011;4(1): 146–161.
- 26. Kamp KA. Prehistoric children working and playing: A Southwestern case study in learning ceramics. Journal of Anthropological Research 2001a;57: 427–450.
- 27. Smith P. Children and ceramic innovation: A study in the archaeology of children. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 2005;15: 65–76.
- 28. Högberg A. Playing with flint: Tracing a child’s imitation of adult work in a lithic assemblage. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2008;15(1): 112–131.
- 29. Arnold JE, Detecting apprentices and innovators in the archaeological record: The shell bead-making industry of the Channel Islands. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2012;19(2): 269–305.
- 30. Lancy DF. Homo faber juvenalis: A multidisciplinary survey of children as tool makers/users. Childhood in the Past 2017;10(1): 72–90.
- 31.
Crown PL. Socialization in American Southwest pottery decoration. In: Skibo JM, Feinman GM, editors. Pottery and people: A dynamic interaction. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press; 1999. pp. 25–43.
- 32.
Langdon S. Children as learners and producers in early Greece. In: Grubbs JE, Parkin , editors. The Oxford handbook of childhood and education in the classical world. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013. pp. 172–194.
- 33. Gagné LA. Learning to make pottery: a look at how novices became potters in Middle Bronze Age Cyprus. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 2014;372: 19–33.
- 34.
Striker S, Howie L, Williamson R. Forming pots and community: pottery production and potter interaction in an ancestral Wendat village. In: López Varel SL, editor. Innovative approaches and explorations in ceramic studies. Oxford: Archaeopress; 2017. pp. 53–69.
- 35.
Dennis W. The Hopi child. New York: Appleton-Century; 1940.
- 36. Králik M, Novotny V, Oliva M. Fingerprint on the Venus of Dolní Věstonice I. Anthropologie 2002;40(2): 107–113.
- 37.
Králík M, Urbanová P, Hložek M. Finger, hand and foot imprints: The evidence of children on archaeological artefacts. In: Dommasnes LH, Wrigglesworth M, editors. Children, identity and the past. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars; 2008. pp. 1–15.
- 38. De Lucia K. A child’s house: Social memory, identity, and the construction of childhood in early Postclassic Mexican households. American Anthropologist 2010;112(4): 607–624. pmid:21132947
- 39. Menon J, Varma S. Children playing and learning: crafting ceramics in ancient Indor Khera. Asian Perspectives 2010;49(1): 85–109.
- 40.
Köhler I. Learning and children’s work in a pottery-making environment in Northern Côte d’Ivoire. In: Spittler G, Bourdillon M, editors. African children at work: Working and learning in growing up for life. Berlin: LitVerlag; 2012. p. 113–141.
- 41. Fladd SG, Barker CS. Miniature in everything but meaning: A contextual analysis of miniature Vessels at Homol’ovi I. American Antiquity 2018;84(1): 107–126.
- 42. Fassoulas A, Rossie J-P, Procopiou H. Children, play, and learning tasks: From North African clay toys to Neolithic figurines. Ethnoarchaeology 2020;12(1): 36–62.
- 43. Ross J, Fowler KD, Shai I. New fingerprint evidence for female potters in Late Bronze Age Canaan: The demographics of potters and division of labour at Tel Burna. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2023;71.
- 44. Kaaronen RO, Manninen MA, Eronen JT. Body-based units of measure in cultural Evolution. Science 2023:380(6648): 948–54. pmid:37262170
- 45.
Garrido-Pena R, Herrero-Corral AM. Children as potters: Apprenticeship patterns from Bell Beaker pottery of Copper Age inner Iberia (Spain) (c. 2500–2000 cal BC). In: Sánchez Romero M, Alarcón García A, Aranda Jiménez G, editors. Children, spaces and identity. Oxford: Oxbow Books; 2015. pp. 40–58.
- 46. Stapert D. Youngsters knapping flint near the campfire: an alternative view of Site K at Maastricht-Belvédère (The Netherlands). Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 2007;37(1): 19–35.
- 47.
Bowser BJ, Patton JQ. Learning and Transmission of Pottery Style: Women’s Life Histories and Communities of Practice in the Ecuadorian Amazon. In: Stark MT, Bowser BJ, Horne L, editors. Cultural transmission and material culture: breaking down boundaries. Tucson: University of Arizona Press; 2008. pp. 159–169.
- 48.
Bagwell E. Ceramic Form and Skill: Attempting to identify child producers at Pecos Pueblo, New Mexico. In: Kamp K, editor. Children in the Prehistoric Puebloan Southwest. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press; 2002. pp. 90–107.
- 49. Dorland SGH. The touch of a child: An analysis of fingernail impressions on Late Woodland pottery to identify childhood material interactions. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 2018;21: 298–304.
- 50. Dorland SGH, Ionico D. Learning from each other: A communities of practice approach to decorative traditions of Northern Iroquoian communities in the Late Woodland. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2021;28: 671–703.
- 51. Shelley PH. Variation in lithic assemblages: An experiment. Journal of Field Archaeology 1990;17(2):187–193.
- 52.
Karlin C, Julien M. Prehistoric technology: a cognitive science? In: Renfrew C, Zubrow E, editors. The ancient mind: Elements of cognitive archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1994. Pp. 152–164.
- 53. Fewlass H, Talamo S, Kromer B, Bard E, Tuna T, Fagault Y, et al. Direct radiocarbon dates of mid Upper Palaeolithic human remains from Dolní Věstonice II and Pavlov I, Czech Republic. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 2019;27.
- 54. Svoboda J, Hladilová Š, Horáček I, Kaiser J, Králík M, Novák J, et al. Dolní Věstonice IIa: Gravettian microstratigraphy, environment, and the origin of baked clay production in Moravia. Quaternary International 2015;359–360: 195–210.
- 55. Wilczyński J, Goslar T, Wojtal P, Oliva M., Göhlich UB, Antl-Weiser W, et al. New Radiocarbon Dates for the Late Gravettian in Eastern Central Europe. Radiocarbon. 2020;62(1): 243–259.
- 56.
Svoboda J. The Gravettian of Moravia- Landscape, settlement, and dwellings. In Vasil’ev S A, Soffer O, and Kozlowski J, editors. Perceived landscapes and built environments: The cultural geography of Late Paleolithic Eurasia (BAR International Series 1122). Oxford: Archaeopress; 2003. pp. 121–129.
- 57. Svoboda J, Novák M, Sázelová S, Demek J. Pavlov I: A large Gravettian site in space and time. Quaternary International 2016;406(A): 95–105.
- 58. Farbstein R, Radić D, Brajković D, Miracle PT. First Epigravettian ceramic figurines from Europe (Vela Spila, Croatia). PLOS ONE 2012;7(7): e41437. pmid:22848495
- 59.
Svoboda J. Frouz M. Symbolic Objects and Items of Decoration. In: Svoboda J, editor. Pavlov Excavations 2007–2011. Brno: Institute of Archaeology, Brno and Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic; 2011. pp. 200–206.
- 60. Svoboda J. Gravettian Art of Pavlov I and Pavlov VI: An aggregation site and an episodic site compared. Palethnologie 2013;5.
- 61.
Jordan P, Zvelebil M. Ex Orient luxe: The prehistory of hunter-gatherer ceramic dispersals. In: Jordan P, Zvelebil M, editors. Ceramics before farming the dispersal of pottery among prehistoric Eurasian hunter-gatherers. London: Routledge; 2010. pp. 33–89.
- 62. Conard N. A female figurine from the basal Aurignacian of Hohle Fels Cave in southwestern Germany. Nature 2009;459: 248–252. pmid:19444215
- 63. Floss H. Same as it ever was? The Aurignacian of the Swabian Jura and the origins of Palaeolithic art. Quaternary International 2018;491: 21–29.
- 64.
Farbstein R. Beyond Venus figurines: technical production and social practice in Pavlovian portable art. In Gheorghiu D, Cyphers A, editors. Anthropomorphic and zoomorphic miniature figures in Eurasia, Africa and Mesoamerica: Morphology, materiality, technology, function and context. British Archaeology Reports, 2138. Oxford, Archaeopress; 2010. pp. 9–16.
- 65. Hussain ST. Gazing at owls? Human-strigiform interfaces and their role in the construction of Gravettian lifeworlds in East-Central Europe. Environmental Archaeology 2019;24(4): 359–76.
- 66.
Farbstein RA, Davies W. Rediscovering Paleolithic art: overlooked ceramic figurines from the Pavlovian. In: Sázelová S, Novák M, Mizerová A, editors. Forgotten times and spaces: New perspectives in paleoanthropological, paleoetnological and archeological studies. 1st Edition. Brno: Institute of Archeology of the Czech Academy of Sciences; Masaryk University; 2015. pp. 328–339.
- 67. Vandiver PB, Soffer O, Klima B, Svoboda J. The origins of ceramic technology at Dolní Věstonice, Czechoslovakia. Science 1989;246(4933): 1002–1008.
- 68. Farbstein R. Technologies of art: A critical reassessment of Pavlovian art and society, using chaîne opératoire method and theory. Current Anthropology 2011a;52(3): 401–432.
- 69. Farbstein R. The significance of social gestures and technologies of embellishment in Paleolithic portable art. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2011b;18(2): 125–146.
- 70. Soffer O, Vandiver P, Klíma B, Svoboda J. The pyrotechnology of performance art: Moravian venuses and wolverines. Before Lascaux: the complex record of the early Upper Paleolithic. 1993: 259–75.
- 71.
Soffer O, Vandiver P. Ceramic fragments. In Svoboda J, editor. Pavlov I Southeast: A window into the Gravettian Lifestyles; Brno: Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic; 2005. pp. 415–431.
- 72.
Soffer O, Vandiver P. The Ceramics. In Svoboda J, editor. Pavlov I: Excavations 1952–53. Liège: Université de Liège; 1994. pp. 163–173.
- 73.
Soffer O, Vandiver P. The ceramics from Pavlov I–1957 excavation. In Svoboda J, editor. Pavlov I Northwest: The Upper Paleolithic burial and its settlement context; 1997. pp.383–401.
- 74.
Farbstein R. Palaeolithic Central and Eastern Europe. In Insoll T, editor. The Oxford Handbook of Prehistoric Figurines. Oxford, Oxford University Press; 2017, p. 681–704.
- 75. Lombard M. Hunting and hunting technologies as proxy for teaching and learning during the stone age of Southern Africa. Cambridge archaeological Journal 2015;25(4): 877–887.
- 76. Alt KW, Pichler S, Vach W, Klíma B, Vlcek E, Sedlmeier J. Twenty-five thousand year-old triple burial from Dolni Vestonice: An ice-age family? American Journal of Physical Anthropology 1998;102: 123–131.
- 77. Formicola V, Pontrandolfi A, Svoboda J. The Upper Paleolithic triple burial of Dolni Vestonice: pathology and funerary behavior. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 2001;115: 372–9.
- 78. Klíma B. A triple burial from the Upper Paleolithic of Dolní Věstonice, Czechoslovakia. Journal of Human Evolution 1987;16(7–8): 831–835.
- 79. Svoboda J. A new male burial from Dolni Vestonice. Journal of Human Evolution 1987;16(7–8): 827–30.
- 80. Absolon K. New finds of fossil human skeletons in Moravia. Anthropologie 1929;1: 79–89.
- 81. Pettit PB, Trinkaus E. Direct Radiocarbon Dating of the Brno 2 Gravettian Human Remains. Anthropologie (Brno) 2000;38(2): 149–150.
- 82.
Oliva M. The Brno II Upper Palaeolithic burial. In: Roebroeks W, Mussi M, Svodoba J, Fennema K, editors. Hunters of the Golden Age, the Mid Upper Palaeolithic of Eurasia, 30 000–20 000 BP. Leiden: Leiden University; 1999. pp. 143–153
- 83. Jelínek. J. New Upper Palaeolithic burials from Dolni Vestonice. ERAUL 1992;56: 207–228.
- 84. Farbstein R, Davies W. Palaeolithic ceramic technology: The artistic origins and impacts of a technological innovation. Quaternary International 2017;441: 3–11.
- 85.
Králík M, Novotný V. 2005. Dermatoglyphics of ancient ceramics. In: Svoboda JA, editor. Pavlov I Southeast. A window into the Gravettian Lifestyles. Brno: Institute of Archaeology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic; 2005. p. 449–497.
- 86. Forte Vanessa, and Miniaci Gianluca. Profiling the people behind clay figurines: Technological trace and fingerprint analysis applied to Ancient Egypt (Lahun Village, MBA II, c. 1800–1700 BC). Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2023;72: 101543.
- 87. Laing M. Young hands at work: Using finger impressions to explore the demographic constitution of Early and Middle Bronze Age pottery-making communities of practice. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 2022;41(4): 350–372.
- 88. Fowler KD, Walker E, Greenfield HJ, Ross J, Maeir AM. The identity of potters in early states: determining the age and sex of fingerprints on early Bronze Age pottery from Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2019;26: 1470–1512.
- 89. Fowler KD, Ross J, Walker E, Barritt-Cleary C, Greenfield HJ, Maeir AM. Fingerprint evidence for the division of labour and learning pottery-making at Early Bronze Age Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath, Israel. PLoS ONE 2020;5(4). pmid:32302320
- 90. Fowler KD, Ross J, Barritt-Cleary C, Lederman Z, Bunimovitz S, Greenfield HJ. Age and sex determination of fingerprints on ceramic objects from the Late Bronze Age palace at Tel Beth-Shemesh, Israel. Levant 2022;54(3): 331–346.
- 91. Sanders A, Lumsden S, Burchill AT, Mouamar G. Transformations in the roles of men, women, and children in the ceramic industry at Early Bronze Age Hama, Syria and contemporary sites. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2023;70.
- 92.
Padilla Fernández JJ, Chapon L. Gender and Childhood in the II Iron Age: The pottery centre of Las Cogotas (Ávila, Spain). In: Sánchez Romero M, Alarcón García E, Aranda Jiménez G, editors. Children, spaces and identity. Oxford: Oxbow Books; 2015. p. 75–87.
- 93.
Sjöquist KE, Åström P. Knossos, keepers and kneaders. Göteborg: Åström; 1991.
- 94. Mynard DC. A Medieval pottery industry at Olney Hyde. Records of Buckinghamshire 1984;26:56–85.
- 95. Kamp KA, Timmerman N, Lind G, Graybill J, Natowsky I. Discovering childhood: using fingerprints to find children in the archaeological record. American Antiquity 1999;64(2): 309–315.
- 96.
Kamp KA. Ceramic form and skill: attempting to identify child producers at Pecos Pueblo, New Mexico. In: Kamp K, editor. Children in the prehistoric Puebloan Southwest. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press; 2002. p.71–89.
- 97.
Taylor L. The ceramics bible revised edition: The complete guide to materials and techniques. San Francisco: Chronicle Books; 2022.
- 98.
Marriott A. Maria: The potter of San Ildefonso. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press; 1948.
- 99.
Hill WW. An ethnography of Santa Clara Pueblo, New Mexico. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press; 1982.
- 100.
Lancy DF. Learning without lessons. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2024.
- 101. Lew-Levy S, Andersen MM, Lavi N, Riede F. Hunter-gatherer children’s object play and tool use: An ethnohistorical analysis. Frontiers in Psychology 2022;13. pmid:35645867
- 102. Riede F, Lew-Levy S, Johannsen NN, Lavi N, Andersen MM. Toys as teachers: A cross-cultural analysis of object use and enskillment in hunter—gatherer societies. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2023;30(1): 32–63.
- 103. Crown PL. Learning to make pottery in the Prehispanic American Southwest. Journal of Anthropological Research 2001;57: 451–469.
- 104.
Crown PL. Ceramic form and skill: attempting to identify child producers at Pecos Pueblo, New Mexico. In: Kamp K, editor. Children in the prehistoric Puebloan Southwest. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press; 2002. p. 108–124.
- 105. Wallaert-Pětre H. Learning how to make the right pots: apprenticeship strategies and material Culture, a case study in handmade pottery from Cameroon. Journal of Anthropological Research 2001;57: 471–93.
- 106.
Wallaert H. Apprenticeship and the Confirmation of Social Boundaries. In: Wendrich W, editor. Archaeology and apprenticeship: Body knowledge, identity, and communities of practice. Tucson:University of Arizona Press; 2013. pp. 20–42.
- 107. Silva FA. Ceramic Technology of the Asurini do Xingu, Brazil: An ethnoarchaeological study of artifact variability. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2008;15(3): 217–65.
- 108. Kaneko M. I know how to make pots by myself: Special reference to local knowledge transmission in Southwestern Ethiopia. African Study Monographs 2014;48: 59–75.
- 109.
Kaneko M. Variations in shape, local classification, and the establishment of a chaîne opératoire for pot making among female potters in Southwestern Ethiopia. In: Terashima H, Hewlett BS, editors. Social learning and innovation in contemporary hunter-gatherers: evolutionary and ethnographic perspectives. Tokyo: Springer;2016. pp. 217–228.
- 110. Franklin NR, Habgood PJ. Finger markings and the Willandra Lakes Footprint site, South-Eastern Australia. Rock Art Research 2009;26(2): 199–203.
- 111.
Trias C, García Rosselló MJ, Javaloyas Molina D, Santacreu DA. Playing with Mud? An Ethnoarchaeological Approach to Children’s Learning in Kusasi Ceramic Production. In: Sánchez Romero M, Alarcón García E, Aranda Jiménez G, editors. Children, spaces and identity. Oxford: Oxbow Books; 2015. pp. 88–104.
- 112. Mohr Chávez KL. Traditional pottery of Raqch’I, Cuzco, Peru: A preliminary study of its production, distribution, and consumption. Ñawpa Pacha 1984;22(1): 161–210.
- 113. Ingold T. The temporality of the landscape. World Archaeology 1993;25(2): 152–174.
- 114. Lenssen-Erz T, Pastoors A, Ciqae T, Kxunta U, Thao T, Begouen R, et al. Tracking in caves. Reading human spoor in ice age caves with San hunters. In: Puckett RF, Ikeya K, editors. Research and activism among the Kalahari San Today: ideals, challenges, and debates. Senri Ethnological Studies 2018;99:103–27.
- 115. Flynn EG., Laland KN, Kendal RL, Kendal JR. Developmental niche construction. Developmental Science 2013;16(2): 296–313.
- 116.
Boyette AH. Children’s play and the integration of social and individual learning: a cultural niche construction perspective. In: Terashima H, Hewlett BS, editors. Social learning and innovation in contemporary hunter-gatherers: evolutionary and ethnographic perspectives. Tokyo: Springer; 2016. pp. 159–169.
- 117. Lew-Levy S, Reckin R, Lavi N, Cristóbal-Azkarate J, Ellis-Davies K. How do hunter-gatherer children learn subsistence skills? A meta-ethnographic review. Human nature 2017;28(4): 367–394. pmid:28994008
- 118. Lew-Levy S, Milks A, Lavi N, Pope SM, Friesem DE. Where innovations flourish: An ethnographic and archaeological overview of hunter-gatherer learning contexts. Evolutionary Human Sciences 2020. pmid:37588392
- 119.
Ericsson KA. The influence of expertise and deliberate practice on the development of superior expert performance. In: Ericsson KA, Charness N, Feltovich PJ, Hoffman RR, editors. The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2006. pp.683–703.
- 120. Conkey MW. New approaches in the search for meaning? A review of research in ’Paleolithic art.’ Journal of Field Archeology 1987;14: 413–430.
- 121. Moro Abadia O, Gonzalez-Morales MR. Paleolithic Art: A cultural history. Journal of Archaeological Research 2013;21: 269–306.