Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-dtkg6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-06T13:29:12.748Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Injury Costs of Knapping

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 May 2023

Nicholas Gala*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK, USA
Stephen J. Lycett
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University at Buffalo SUNY, Amherst, NY, USA
Michelle R. Bebber
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Kent State University, Kent, OH, USA,
Metin I. Eren
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Kent State University, Kent, OH, USA; Department of Archaeology, Cleveland Museum of Natural History, Cleveland, OH, USA
*
Corresponding author: Nicholas Gala, Email: nrg0335@utulsa.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

For at least three million years, knapping stone has been practiced by hominin societies large and small, past and present. Thus, understanding knapping, knappers, and knapping cultures is fundamental to anthropological research around the world. Although there is a general sense that stone knapping is inherently dangerous and can lead to injury, little is formally, specifically, or systematically known about the frequency, location, or severity of knapping injuries. Toward this end, we conducted a 31-question survey of modern knappers to better understand knapping risks. Responses from 173 survey participants suggest that knapping injuries are a real and persistent hazard, even though a majority of modern knappers use personal protective equipment. A variety of injuries (lacerations, punctures, aches, etc.) can occur on nearly any part of the body. The severity of injury sustained by some of our participants is shocking, and nearly one-quarter of respondents reported having sought or received professional medical attention for a flintknapping-related injury. Overall, the results of this survey suggest that there would have likely been serious, even fatal, costs to knappers in past societies. Such costs may have encouraged the deployment of any social learning capacities possessed by hominins or delayed the learning or exposure of young infants or children to knapping.

Resumen

Resumen

Durante al menos tres millones de años, las sociedades de homininos grandes y pequeños, del pasado y del presente, han practicado la talla de la piedra. Es fundamental, por tanto, comprender la talla, los talladores y las culturas de talla para la investigación antropológica en todo el mundo. Aunque existe la impresión general de que la talla lítica es intrínsecamente peligrosa y puede provocar lesiones, poco se sabe formal, específica o sistemáticamente sobre la frecuencia, la ubicación o la gravedad de las lesiones producidas por la talla. Con este fin, hemos llevado a cabo una encuesta de treinta y una preguntas entre talladores actuales para comprender mejor los riesgos de la talla. Las respuestas de los 173 participantes en dicha encuesta sugieren que las lesiones producidas por la talla lítica son un peligro real y persistente, a pesar de que la mayoría de los talladores actuales utilizan equipos de protección personal. Diversas lesiones (laceraciones, pinchazos, dolores, etc.) pueden ocurrir en casi cualquier parte del cuerpo. Es llamativa la gravedad de las lesiones sufridas por algunos de los participantes y casi una cuarta parte de la población encuestada afirmó haber buscado o recibido atención médica profesional a causa de una lesión relacionada con la actividad de talla. En general, los resultados de esta encuesta sugieren que, probablemente, habría habido costes serios, incluso fatales, para los talladores de las sociedades pretéritas. Dichos costes pudieron haber alentado el despliegue de las capacidades de aprendizaje social de que disponían los homininos o pudieron haber retrasado el aprendizaje o la exposición de bebés y niños a la talla.

Type
Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Society for American Archaeology

For approximately three million years, hominins have been flaking rock that possesses the property of conchoidal fracture (Braun et al. Reference Braun, Aldeias, Archer, Ramon Arrowsmith, Baraki, Campisano and Deino2019; Harmand et al. Reference Harmand, Lewis, Feibel, Lepre, Prat, Lenoble and Boës2015; Semaw et al. Reference Semaw, Renne, Harris, Feibel, Bernor, Fesseha and Mowbray1997). This process of stone tool production is called “knapping,” and it was practiced by Pleistocene and Holocene hunter-gatherers (e.g., Lycett Reference Lycett2011; Shea Reference Shea2017; Williams et al. Reference Williams, Simone, Buchanan, Boulanger, Bebber and Eren2019) and toolmakers and craft specialists in ancient sedentary and complex societies (e.g., Horowitz and McCall Reference Horowitz and McCall2019; Rosen Reference Rosen1997; Shafer and Hester Reference Shafer and Hester1991), as well as by historically and ethnographically documented peoples (e.g., Horowitz and Watt Reference Horowitz and Watt2020; Roux et al. Reference Roux, Bril and Dietrich1995; Stout Reference Stout, Roux and Bril2005; Watt and Horowitz Reference Watt and Horowitz2017; Weedman Arthur Reference Weedman Arthur2018; Whittaker Reference Whittaker2001; Whittaker and Levin Reference Whittaker and Anais Levin2019; Whittaker et al. Reference Whittaker, Kamp and Yilmaz2009). Knapping is also undertaken by modern experimental archaeologists and hobbyists with interests in the evolution, function, production, and artistry of past stone tool technologies (Eren and Patten Reference Eren and Patten2019; Eren et al. Reference Eren, Lycett, Patten, Buchanan, Pargeter and O'Brien2016; Lycett and Chauhan Reference Lycett, Chauhan, Lycett and Chauhan2010; Shea Reference Shea2015; Whittaker Reference Whittaker1994, Reference Whittaker2004). Thus, understanding knapping, knappers, and knapping cultures past and present is a fundamental issue to anthropological research around the world.

Except for the most rudimentary procedures, the knapping of strategically shaped stone tools is a difficult craft to master, involving several counterintuitive and causally opaque operations that necessitate repeated observation and practice (Lycett and Eren Reference Lycett and Eren2019). Even after a person achieves proficiency, stone tool production incurs costs in both time and energy (Mateos et al. Reference Mateos, Terradillos-Bernal and Rodríguez2019; Torrence Reference Torrence and Bailey1983). Another widely attributed but poorly documented cost of knapping is knapper injuries, the focus of this study. Knapped flakes possess razor-sharp edges (Whittaker Reference Whittaker1994) that “do not discriminate between cutting through animal hide or human flesh” (Patten Reference Patten2009:14). Tsirk (Reference Tsirk2014) notes that cutting oneself is inevitable while also emphasizing the risk of silicosis in the lungs and the risks from knapping over the long term, such as tendonitis, tennis elbow, worn-out cartilage, and carpal tunnel syndrome. Lycett and colleagues (Reference Lycett, Kerstin Schillinger, Kempe, Mesoudi, Mesoudi and Aoki2015:163; see also Lycett et al. Reference Lycett, von Cramon-Taubadel and Eren2016) also provide a description of potential flintknapping risks, which can include painful open wounds, blood loss, infection of injuries, and eye damage/loss, in addition to damaged ligaments that might be caused by using an incorrect form. Indeed, injuries among flintknappers are frequent enough that online flintknapping communities share and discuss them on message boards and forums (Facebook 2015; Paleoplanet 2010). In the past some of these injuries might have been fatal.

Given these risks, archaeologists and knappers often discuss injury prevention measures, especially in works aimed at novices (Clarkson Reference Clarkson2017; Ferguson Reference Ferguson2008; Hellweg Reference Hellweg1984; Hodgson Reference Hodgson2007; Lycett et al. Reference Lycett, Kerstin Schillinger, Kempe, Mesoudi, Mesoudi and Aoki2015; Patten Reference Patten2009; Shea Reference Shea2015; Tsirk Reference Tsirk2014; Whittaker Reference Whittaker1994). DVDs and online videos also often include a disclaimer, mentioning the potential dangers of knapping (Eren et al. Reference Eren, Kollecker, Clarkson and Bradley2010). Recommended protective gear, which modern knappers use to varying extents, includes gloves, leather lap pads, leather or rubber hand pads, and eye goggles (Hellweg Reference Hellweg1984; Whittaker Reference Whittaker1994).

Published but sporadic accounts of knapping injuries have appeared in the literature over the past two centuries. In one early example, William Henry Holmes (Reference Holmes1897:61) describes how his knapping experiments could not continue because he “disable[ed] [his] left arm in attempting to flake a bowlder of very large size.” Meltzer (Reference Meltzer2015:130) notes that Holmes's left arm was permanently disabled. Another published example involving an “injury” is that of the Yahi Native American, Ishi, and his time at the University of California, Berkeley. When asked what he would do if he got a knapped flake in his eye, Ishi indicated that he would “pull down his lower eyelid with the left forefinger, being careful not to blink or rub the lid. Then he bent over, looking at the ground and gave himself a tremendous thump on the crown of the head with the right hand” (Pope Reference Pope1918:117). Don Crabtree (Reference Crabtree1966:16) described one of the injuries he received while attempting to re-create the Folsom fluted point: “In an effort to remove a true Folsom fluting flake, I tried this short crutch method. When the pressure was applied, the unfluted preform collapsed, and I drove the antler tipped pressure tool through the palm of my left hand.”

More recently, John Whittaker (Reference Whittaker1994:3) describes one of his most severe injuries from his earliest attempts to replicate stone tools: he managed to drive a pressure flake through his leather glove and into his index finger. When he pulled off the glove, he recalls, “There was a small cut, less than a quarter of an inch wide. . . . There was no pain or blood to speak of, but the finger didn't seem to work. The jovial surgeon who worked on my hand kept exclaiming, ‘I can't believe you severed both the sublimis and profundis tendons with that one tiny cut’” (Whittaker Reference Whittaker1994:3). Whittaker (Reference Whittaker1994:79) also describes a time when he was teaching a flintknapping course. Many of the students did not show up with gloves, and by the end everyone had cut themselves at least once and one participant required sutures. Another experienced knapper, Harold Dibble, who was helping Whittaker with the class, also managed to injure himself while not wearing gloves. He was attempting to help a student remove a flake and “sliced a quarter-inch of skin and flesh off the top of one of his fingers of the hand he was using to hold the core . . . [the flake] still has a patch of skin with recognizable prints stuck to it with blood” (Whittaker Reference Whittaker1994:80).

After 42 years of flintknapping, Errett Callahan (Reference Callahan2001:46) states he lost his sense of control “all because of the damaged, and painful, rotator cuff.” He required surgery to remedy this injury. While attempting an edge-to-edge flaking technique presurgery, Callahan struggled to push his flakes to the far margin of his pieces. After surgery, a repeated “test” found his flakes traveling the full face of the points, noting the “kind of control this flintknapper demonstrated before rotator cuff damage” (Callahan Reference Callahan2001:46).

Recent ethnographic accounts also report knapping-associated injuries. When describing the adze makers of Irian Jaya (Indonesia), Hampton (Reference Hampton1999:267–268) notes that “knapping causes cuts on both the palms and fingers as the ja temen is struck with hammerstones.” Likewise, when describing the women of the Konso region (Ethiopia) who manufacture hide scrapers from stone, Weedman Arthur (Reference Weedman Arthur2010:236) points out, “Several of the novices and elderly hideworkers cut their fingers during production and edge rejuvenation, which resulted in collagen and blood residues identified through microscopic studies of these scraper edges.”

The authors of this study also experienced knapping injuries (but did not participate in the injury survey). As a novice knapper in 2021, N.G. nicked various areas of his fingers while clumsily handling the core he was knapping. He also managed to scrape his knuckles a couple of times and blister the tips of his right-hand fingers by rubbing them on the leather pad while swinging an antler billet. M.R.B. does not consider herself “a knapper” but has tried the craft several times and sustained minor cuts. S.J.L. has regularly incurred minor lacerations to fingers and hands over the course of his 11 years of flintknapping. These never required sutures but were frequently severe enough to require the application of antiseptic ointment and dressing with paper tape for a day or two after the injury.

M.I.E. has experienced many injuries over his 22 years of flintknapping, but by far his worst injury came in 2006 when he was freehand knapping a flake off an obsidian core. At that time, he had been knapping for approximately five years and would likely then have been at an intermediate skill level. He held the core in his left hand and accidentally drove the detached flake into the base of his left pinky (upper proximal phalanx). M.I.E. felt no immediate pain, but after washing off the blood in the bathroom, he got the rather nauseating glimpse of ligaments and bone. This injury required a trip to the emergency room and a series of stitches. M.I.E. recalls that his left hand ached and was essentially unusable for several months afterward. He also once got a small flint chip in his eye, despite wearing protective eyewear. Fortunately, the thin chip was flush against the cornea, and rather than using Ishi's method (described earlier), he was able to remove it with a mirror and some moisture on the tip of his finger. Finally, in 2021, M.I.E. was doing several weeks of pressure flaking for several hours a day. These efforts resulted in severe pain and inflammation in his right thumb, wrist, and distal forearm (which was holding the pressure flaker), requiring rest and the wearing of a brace for nearly a month.

Although these anecdotes illustrate a general sense of inherent danger to knapping, and a broad notion that some sort of personal protective equipment (PPE) should be worn while knapping to potentially prevent or mitigate risks, little is formally, specifically, or systematically known about the frequency, location, or severity of knapping injuries. Nor are there available data that potentially speak to variables that influence the frequency or severity of knapping injuries. Toward this end, we conducted a 31-question survey of modern knappers to better understand knapping risks. Our focus here is on reporting general survey trends on where knapping injuries occur and the frequency and severity of knapping injuries. We also discuss the potential implications of this survey for human evolution and cultural learning issues.

Survey Methods

Our survey included both closed and open-answer questions, with many more of the latter type to allow for as much detail as possible (Supplemental Data SI). Ours is not the first survey to gather information about flintknappers. Whittaker (Reference Whittaker2004) used a mail-in survey to gather data about various knappers and their relationship with the “knap-in” events held around the United States. He asked questions about how they learned to knap, their proficiency, their interests, what they do with their work, and why they attend knap-ins.

Before we distributed the survey and collected data, we obtained approval form the Kent State University Institutional Review Board (Protocol Application #20-327). Typeform.com hosted the list of survey questions, and we emailed a link to 176 individuals. We also posted the link on Facebook, Paleoplanet, and Flintknappers.com. In our emails and postings, we encouraged people to forward the link to knappers who might be interested in participating in the survey. The survey was available to answer for a period of two months from August to September 2020, allowing ample time for the initial group to answer and to pass it along to friends and colleagues. As an incentive, those who responded were entered into a drawing to win a knapped point from the late Bob Patten (Eren and Patten Reference Eren and Patten2019), courtesy of the Robert J. and Lauren E. Patten Endowment at Kent State University. A series of deadline reminder emails followed to those yet to take the survey.

All collected survey data are available in Supplemental Data S1. In several instances, a knapper provided multiple responses for a specific question, so that the respondent sample size does not always equal the answer sample size. For example, our 173 respondents provided a sample size of 198 for the question about their preferred stone raw material because some knappers listed more than such material. Similarly, they provided a sample size of 207 for their most common injury because some knappers listed more than one common injury.

Participant Information and Knapping Habits

Our 173 participants identified as 80.82% male (n = 140), 16.76% female (n = 29), and 0.58% nonbinary (n = 1); three did not provide their identified gender. The age range was large, from 17 to 79 years, with a mean of 45 years. The age at which the respondents began to knap ranged from 5 to 65 years, with a mean of 28 years. This last result broadly conforms to the number of years each respondent has been knapping, which ranged from 0 to 57 years, with a mean of 16.7.Footnote 1 Our respondents’ dominant knapping hand (the one wielding the percussion or pressure tool) was the right hand for 89.02% (n = 154) and the left hand for 10.98% (n = 19), which happens to mirror the average national distribution.

We asked our respondents to self-identify their knapping skill level on a scale ranging from novice (lowest skill level) to intermediate, experienced, expert, and master (highest skill level). Twenty-six of our respondents (15.03%) identify as novice, 51 (29.48%) as intermediate, 52 (30.06%) as experienced, 24 (19.65%) as expert, and 8 (4.62%) as master. Two respondents (1.16%) did not provide an answer.

We also asked our respondents about their knapping habits. First, we asked them about the number of times they knapped per week and the number of hours knapped per session. Some of their answers were difficult to summarize because these were open-answer questions and the times provided varied wildly. To summarize these data here, we devised some simple rules. If a large range was given, differing by more than an hour, the median was taken and acted as the answer for the category. In the case of smaller ranges differing only by an hour, the higher of the two numbers was taken. Some respondents indicated that they knapped more frequently in the past than in the present, in which case the present number took precedence. Lastly, several respondents answered with a number and then added “sometimes more.” In these cases, only the number given was used. Regarding how many times a week our respondents spent knapping, 11 (6.36%) responded zero times, 41 (23.69%) less than one time, 35 (20.23%) one time, 29 (16.76%) two times, 18 (10.40%) three times, 9 (5.20%) four times, 11 (6.36%) five times, 4 (2.31%) six times, and 9 (5.20%) seven times. Three answers (1.73%) were indiscernible. The category encompassing less than one knapping episode per week is highly variable, with responses ranging from every other week to once a year. The zero-episode category includes those who said they did not knap anymore.

Regarding how long each respondent knapped per session, 2.89% (n = 5) answered zero hours, 4.05% (n = 7) less than a half hour, 24.86% (n = 43) one hour, 36.99% (n = 64) two hours, 12.72% (n = 22) three hours, 8.09% (n = 14) four hours, 3.47% (n = 6) five hours, 1.73% (n = 3) six hours, and 0.58% (n = 1) seven hours, with another 1.73% (n = 3) of answers being indiscernible. Additionally, because the zero hours group and the zero times a week group counts do not line up, there might be as many as six individuals who said they knapped zero times a week but might do so every other week. Alternatively, those who stated that they do not knap anymore could be listing the amount of time they would have spent per session knapping.

Respondents provided a variety of reasons for why they knap and how they learned to knap. For 49.13% (n = 85) of respondents, knapping is done for educational/research purposes; for 36.42% (n = 63), it is a hobby; 10.40% (n = 18) listed other reasons; 2.89% (n = 5) noted a commercial purpose; and 0.58% (n = 1) said they knap for practical purposes, with only one person not answering. Nearly one-third of respondents (32.95%, n = 57) appear to have primarily learned knapping from their friends and professors. A large sample of respondents (31.21%, n = 54) were otherwise self-taught. Respondents also learned by observing others (12.72%, n = 22) or from books (8.09%, n = 14), university courses (8.09%, n = 14), videos (4.62%, n = 8), or paid lessons (2.31%, n = 4).

Our respondents use and prefer different knapping tools and techniques and replicate a variety of artifact types. For example, 43.94% (n = 76) prefer hard hammer percussion (hammerstones), 37.57% (n = 65) soft hammer percussion (copper and antler billets), 11.56% (n = 20) pressure flaking (handheld flakers or Ishi sticks of antler or copper), and 6.94% (n = 12) some other technique. In addition, 60.69% (n = 105) prefer handheld support, 31.21% (n = 54) prefer lap support, and 5.78% (n = 10) prefer other methods. Three people use an anvil, and one person did not answer this question. More than four-fifths of respondents (80.35%, n = 139) answered that they like to sit on a low but elevated surface like a chair, bucket, or log. Far fewer (8.67%, n = 15) prefer sitting on the ground or a chair and even fewer (6.36%, n = 11) on the ground; 4.62% (n = 8) have no preference, some other preference like standing, or provided no discernible answer. As to where our respondents knap, 68.21% (n = 118) prefer to sit outside and 31.79% (n = 55) prefer inside; this preference may be due to a lack of suitable indoor space needed to avoid leaving debitage around their living space or to prevent silicosis.

Our respondents’ preferred archaeological culture or artifact type to replicate varied and can be seen in Tables 1 and 2. Their preferred and most often worked stone raw materials can be seen in Tables 3 and 4. Many answers had to be simplified or consolidated to prevent a vast multitude of categories with only one response. For example, “Other Paleoindian” is a consolidation of answers including and similar to the colloquial term for Paleoindian among hobby knappers, “Paleo,” and any other known post-Clovis Paleoindians, excluding Folsom. Well-known Paleoindian styles such as Clovis and Folsom were left unchanged.

Table 1. What Is Your Favorite Prehistoric Culture to Replicate?

Table 2. What Artifact Type Do You Prefer to Produce the Most?

Table 3. What Is Your Preferred Stone Raw Material to Work?

Note: Although it is spelled “adacite” in the survey response, the respondent perhaps meant “andesite” or “adawkite,” which is a type of andesite used for flintknapping in the Andean region of South America.

Table 4. What Is the Stone Raw Material You Have Worked the Most?

Note: We do not know exactly is meant by “republicanite.” Our best guess is Republican River Jasper in Nebraska. It is also known as Smoky Hill Silicified Chalk.

We found that 57.23% (n = 99) of knappers reported they use gloves, 86.71% (n = 150) use some sort of eye protection (e.g., eyeglasses, safety glasses), 64.16% (n = 111) use some form of leather pad, and 4.62% (n = 8) use a mask or fan to keep themselves from inhaling dust. Not wearing gloves could stem from what Whittaker (Reference Whittaker1994:80) calls “a streak of machismo, the sense of danger [that] pleases them.” Others claim that they cannot “feel the stone” when wearing gloves, which is expressed in Whittaker (Reference Whittaker1994). This sentiment is shared by author M.I.E., who, having been substantially influenced and trained by the late Bob Patten, places emphasis on the amount and placement of support in his knapping (e.g., Patten Reference Patten2005, Reference Patten2012:28), something that he feels he cannot consistently achieve while wearing gloves.

General Injury Survey Trends

Injury Frequency

We first asked how often knappers currently injured themselves while knapping. This first question was an open question, and as such, the answers varied substantially. However, there was a trend among answers that allowed us to categorize the answers: 12.72% (n = 22) injured themselves every time, 17.92% (n = 31) very often, 16.18% (n = 28) often, 19.65% (n = 34) not often, 18.50% (n = 32) rarely, 11.56% (n = 20) very rarely, 2.31% (n = 4) never/not yet, and 0.58% (n = 1) could not say with confidence. Only one knapper did not answer.

Next, we asked whether knappers injured themselves more in the past: 74.57% (n = 129) said yes, 22.54% (n = 39) said no, 1.73% (n = 3) did not know, and 1.16% (n = 2) believed the frequency to be about the same.

Finally, we asked knappers how often they got minor cuts: 15.03% (n = 26) said they received a minor cut every time they knap, 27.17% (n = 47) said most times, 17.92% (n = 31) reported every other time, 37.57% (n = 65) said infrequently, and 2.31% (n = 4) never received minor cuts.

Injury Type and Location

We then asked knappers to list the various types of injuries they have incurred: their most common, most severe, strangest (i.e., most unexpected), and any others they decided to share, including aches or pains. Injuries, which include all variations of cuts, punctures, bruises, carpal tunnel syndrome, and any other results that drew blood or are obviously harmful to the body (n = 687), are reported in Tables 5–7 and shown in Figure 1. Aches and tolls on the body, including joint pain and strain, soreness, and all types of tendonitis (n = 304), are reported in Tables 8 and 9. It is perhaps unsurprising that the most frequent common injuries are cuts to the fingers and hands, with lacerations accounting for more than 30% of reported injuries (Tables 6 and 7; Figure 1). More surprising is that some knappers commonly experience injury types that other knappers consider to be severe. Also surprising is the diversity of injuries, both in location on the body and severity, that the respondents collectively incurred. We describe severe injuries in the next subsection, but it is worth noting that nearly one-quarter of our respondent population (23.12%, n = 40) reported seeking or receiving professional medical attention for a flintknapping-related injury. This percentage would likely be higher, but either due to a “streak of machismo” as discussed by Whittaker (Reference Whittaker1994) or an effort to avoid medical expenses, more than a few respondents noted that they should have gone to get stitches for a cut but decided not to. Instead, they chose to clean and then superglue their wounds together. This method may have only worked because of how sharp flinty materials are and how they tend to cleanly slice through skin without bruising surrounding tissue (Patten Reference Patten2009).

Figure 1. Knapper injury locations and frequencies. (Color online)

Table 5. Variety of Injuries Reported by Respondents.

Table 6. Knapper Injuries, Reorganized and Consolidated.

Table 7. Total Knapper Injuries per Location.

Table 8. Knapper Aches and Tolls.

Note: Where a body part is listed with no descriptor following indicates an area where a toll was felt.

Table 9. Knapper Aches and Tolls, Reorganized and Consolidated.

Additionally, it should be noted that the percentages in Tables 5 and 6 are based on the total number of injuries reported, not the number of respondents. We adopted this approach because the reported data were at times unwieldy, and as already noted, many respondents provided more than one answer to some questions. Yet our choice to report percentages as a function of all reported injuries, rather than as a function of respondents, could potentially influence the perception of some injury categories. For example, 35 individual respondents reported a flake in the eye. As a percentage of all reported injuries (n = 687), an eye flake is only 5.09%, but 20.22% of respondents (n = 173) have experienced this injury.

On the topic of eye injuries, despite 35 reports of flakes in the eye, only one individual reported damage, which was a scratched cornea. No other respondent described any puncturing or cutting of the eye nor any permanent vision problems. Thus, flakes seem to “land” on the eye (as was M.I.E.'s experience described earlier) but only end up causing irritation or some blurriness and are quickly removed. Only a few respondents report seeing a physician to have a flake removed from their eye. But just as debitage can fly into an eye, flakes can also reach other nearby knappers; in one case a knapper's face was cut from someone else's knapping. Moreover, given that 86.71% of respondents report that they use protective eyewear to mitigate such injuries, the risk of eye injury in the absence of modern PPE likely would have been more severe than reflected in these results.

Several of our respondents reported flakes embedded in the skin when a stone fragment is driven into the flesh of the individual and is difficult to remove. Some pieces are only just beneath the skin; others lie deeper. A few respondents report that they currently live with embedded flakes that cause irritation from time to time.

Some knappers managed to hit themselves with their own hammerstones or billets. Sometimes this missed percussion strike resulted in broken bones or a lost nail (one such strike was so bad that the nail had to be trephined). In other cases, smacked fingers bled from the nail, but there were otherwise no serious injuries. One knapper managed to drop a hammerstone on their foot, and two knappers reported that they hit themselves in the testicles.Footnote 2

One knapper reports that they gave themselves acid reflux from pressure flaking by applying physical force while holding their breath. Another reported they had blood in their saliva, which they attributed to silica dust in their lungs.

Finally, most individuals, over their years of knapping, feel aches or have had a toll taken on their bodies—mostly their hands, wrists, elbows, and shoulders but also their backs (Tables 8 and 9). However, as with injuries, there are many locations where aches or body tolls occur.

Examples of Severe Injuries

In this section we describe several individual examples of severe injuries reported in the survey. There are other, and different, severe injuries described in the Supplemental Data S1, but here we simply illustrate some of the dangers that knappers encountered.

One respondent was in their first year of knapping. They were becoming more comfortable with the practice and, after having sustained typical minor injuries, were starting to finish points. They report that they were pressure flaking the edges of a large obsidian biface with an antler tip. The abrader stone they were using was wet, a tool technique they always use when working with obsidian. (They do not report why they kept their abrader wet, but Whittaker [Reference Whittaker1994:83] very briefly mentions that Gene Stapleton wetted his pieces to reduce dust.) This wet abrader technique made their hands and biface wet, which caused the biface to slip and deeply slice open the joint of their index finger. The knapper states that the cut was deep enough to need stitches, but they instead affixed their finger to a stick and wrapped it. Eventually the wound healed with a scar, but the knapper encountered a “odd feeling” for a couple of months when bending their finger.

John Shea (Stony Brook University) describes how he performed a knapping demonstration in Eritrea for some local militiamen and students. He then “decided to show off and make one of these big elongated Levallois points” from obsidian to demonstrate how to flake safely (Shea, personal communication 2020). Saying “this is how you do it safely,” Shea detached the point correctly, but it slipped and cut open his fingertip. It bled profusely but was washed and bound up. He initially thought that this treatment would take care of his injury, because it healed and did not bother him for years; that is, until he closed a window on the finger and dislodged a bit of stone that began to pinch a nerve. He had his physician look at the finger, and eventually John had surgery to remove the rest of the embedded flake. He was not put under anesthesia during the procedure and was asked what was in his hand. He simply told them to wait and see, ending his tale with the surgeon, anesthesiologist, and nurse swearing in surprise at what they found. Figure 2 shows the radiograph of the embedded flake, which is seen in the distal end of the ring finger.

Figure 2. Radiograph of embedded flake seen in the tip of the ring ringer (photo courtesy of John Shea).

While knapping, one knapper had a flake enter their hand and create a “long and deep bone scrape on the top of [their] right hand.” The scrape apparently resembled how wood looks after a wood planer shaves away a layer. The same knapper also managed to sever a tendon in their right thumb, although presumably not in the same incident.

One knapper reported slicing their calf deeply while engaging in some heavy percussion work. They say a palm-sized spall flew off the core, creating a cut in their calf about 1 inch deep and 2.5 inches long.

Another knapper described a wrist puncture wound, likely from a pressure-flaking accident; another knapper then had to bind the injury with a tourniquet. They also say they have had several deep lacerations on their fingers.

On two separate occasions, one knapper had to receive stitches. The first occasion was while pressure flaking a wide biface. They were attempting to push some long flakes off with a lot of force; their knuckle hit the edge of the biface, which sliced the knuckle open. The wound would not stay closed without stitches. The second injury occurred during the fluting of a Folsom point, but this time the knuckle of their right thumb was cut.

A knapper slipped while working a microblade core, and the core cut down to the periosteum of the bone, exposing muscle and one pulsing artery, as they described it. They say their recovery was lengthy but complete. They do not mention the need for stitches, but in answer to another question, they do admit they have sought professional medical attention for an injury, presumably this one.

A knapper's removal of a flake resulted in cutting their left ring finger. The cut ran across the width of their finger and exposed the bone. They required three stitches and a splint.

Similarly to John Shea, one individual reports driving an obsidian flake into their finger just below the nail. The wound did not heal for several days, and they did not realize there was a piece still lodged inside. The flake emerged after the knapper banged their hand on their computer.

Another knapper describes a “dramatic” injury in which they cut the outside edge of their left hand by hitting it on some debitage. This injury cut their ulnar nerve and required stitches. They also report nearly cutting their right ring finger off, resulting in infection.

One knapper reports puncturing an artery in their ankle. They say the wound bled internally, and their foot got huge from the swelling. It eventually healed after months.

Discussion and Conclusions

It is clear from the survey that injury is a real and persistent risk for those engaged in knapping. This highlights the need for safety procedures and the use of PPE, particularly in educational settings (Shea Reference Shea2015) or when conducting scientific experiments pertaining to this craft (Eren et al. Reference Eren, Lycett, Patten, Buchanan, Pargeter and O'Brien2016). This survey provides a more robust indication of knapping-induced injury risks than previously available but is consistent with the sporadic reports of injuries (especially lacerations and risk of injury to eyes) appearing over the last two centuries (e.g., Holmes Reference Holmes1897; Whittaker Reference Whittaker1994).

The results of this survey also permit some conclusions concerning the risk of injuries to prehistoric hominin populations and the implications relating to human evolutionary issues. Although tool use in the animal kingdom is more widespread than previously thought (Shumaker et al. Reference Shumaker, Walkup and Beck2011), toolmaking always involves costs and will only be initiated when the benefits outweigh these costs (Seed and Byrne Reference Seed and Byrne2010). The clear risks of incurring pain and laceration (as well as exposure to infection) are reflected in our study, even with the availability of PPE and modern medical treatment, and occur so frequently that they would have posed a real potential cost to prehistoric populations.Footnote 3 Indeed, other studies have shown that even following modern medical treatment of injury-induced lacerations, infection remains a pertinent risk (about 3.5% of cases), with wounds containing foreign bodies (such as those found in our survey) showing a heightened risk of infection (Hollander et al. Reference Hollander, Singer, Valentine and Shofer2001). In the case of hominin populations where care of injured individuals was not routinely provided by other members of the community, even relatively minor injuries to the hand or eye and infection could potentially have proven fatal if that injury prevented effective foraging. In the case of mothers with dependent offspring, such injuries would not only have threatened the life of the mother but also their offspring. This implies that from its inception, knapping had marked benefits that outweighed its costs and favored its use compared to less risky behavioral strategies. Given that some of the earliest Oldowan knapped stone tools (i.e., those dating to around 2.3 to 2.8 million years old) are associated with animal bones bearing cutmarks (de Heinzelin et al. Reference De Heinzelin, Clark, White, Hart, Renne, WoldeGabriel, Beyene and Vrba1999; Domínguez-Rodrigo et al. Reference Domínguez-Rodrigo, Pickering, Semaw and Rogers2005; Plummer et al. Reference Thomas W., Oliver, Finestone, Ditchfield, Bishop, Blumenthal and Lemorini2023; Sahnouni et al. Reference Sahnouni, Parés, Duval, Cáceres, Harichane, Van der Made and Pérez-González2018; Semaw et al. Reference Semaw, Rogers, Quade, Renne, Butler, Domınguez-Rodrigo, Stout, Hart, Pickering and Simpson2003), the most obvious conclusion is that a desire to obtain a high-value food source (i.e., meat) was sufficiently high, compared to alternative and easier-to-access food sources, to require the use of knapping by hominins at this time. Injury risks would have been combined with other direct costs involved in the manufacture of stone-cutting tools, such as the time spent gathering materials, learning time, and energy expended in achieving both; this emphasizes the significance of this extension of hominin behavioral strategies at this time to an activity that no other living nonhuman primate exhibits today. Although the inception of knapping itself may not necessarily have required cognitive or behavioral capabilities beyond those possessed by the last common ancestor that humans share with the genus Pan (Schick et al. Reference Schick, Toth, Garufi, Savage-Rumbaugh, Rumbaugh and Sevcik1999; Wynn and McGrew Reference Wynn and McGrew1989), the longer-term biological implications of this behavioral shift in strategies (Aiello and Wheeler Reference Aiello and Wheeler1995; Key and Lycett Reference Key, Lycett, Wynn, Overmann and Coolidge2023), as well of the technological beginnings of a more “plastic” world in which virtually all human artifacts are “cut,” cannot be overstated.

Such considerations also have implications for the learning and social learning of stone tool manufacture among hominins. Various mechanisms of asocial (i.e., individual) learning, as well as strategies for social learning or combinations thereof, were potentially available to hominins (Lycett Reference Lycett, Overmann and Coolidge2019). Animal studies have shown that social learning is more prevalent in circumstances where individual learning could prove costly or hazardous (e.g., Chivers and Smith Reference Chivers and Smith1995; Greggor et al. Reference Greggor, McIvor, Clayton and Thornton2016; Kelley et al. Reference Kelley, Evans, Ramnarine and Magurran2003). Comparisons of different tool manufacture and use strategies in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) reinforce this finding. Drawing on work by Humle and colleagues (Reference Humle, Snowdon and Matsuzawa2009), Lonsdorf (Reference Lonsdorf, Clancy, Hinde and Rutherford2013: 313) contrasts chimpanzee termite fishing with the more dangerous activity of ant dipping:

Maternal differences in time spent [termite] fishing were less significant for predicting offspring acquisition. . . . However, for ant-dipping, maternal differences were significant: offspring of more frequent dippers acquired the skill faster and were more proficient. Intriguingly, chimpanzee mothers with young offspring (5 years old or younger) ant-dipped significantly more at trails than at nests, which provided a less risky learning situation for both mothers and offspring.

This suggests that even though rudimentary knapping techniques might feasibly have been learned asocially by hominins (Tennie et al. Reference Tennie, Premo, Braun and McPherron2017), the inherently hazardous nature of knapping is more likely to have encouraged the deployment of any social learning capacities possessed by hominins, which even for the earliest industries would likely have included stimulus enhancement and emulation (Lycett Reference Lycett, Overmann and Coolidge2019). Indeed, some of the earliest (Oldowan) stone tool sites display a mastery of conchoidal knapping mechanics that exceeds simply smashing or breaking stones (Delagnes and Roche Reference Delagnes and Roche2005; Eren et al. Reference Eren, Lycett and Tomonaga2020; Panger et al., 2003; Roche et al. Reference Roche, Delagnes, Brugal, Feibel, Kibunjia, Mourre and Texier1999; Stout and Semaw Reference Stout, Semaw, Toth and Schick2006; Toth et al. Reference Toth, Schick, Semaw, Toth and Schick2006).

An alternative strategy for reducing risk might be to delay the learning or exposure of young infants or children to knapping (Shea Reference Shea2006), especially given the behavior of chimpanzees described earlier. There are also ethnographic analogies for this, such as the hide workers of Konso who are not generally taught knapping until around age 14 (Weedman Arthur Reference Weedman Arthur2010:237) or the adze makers of Irian Jaya where learning of this skill traditionally began around 12 or 13 years of age (Stout Reference Stout, Roux and Bril2005:333). Whether hominins had the opportunity to delay learning in this manner is inevitably speculatory: indeed, studies of tool use and manufacture in chimpanzees would suggest that effective learning is time sensitive, with exposure and practice during infancy and as a juvenile being key to gaining proficiency (Biro et al. Reference Biro, Sousa, Matsuzawa, Matsuzawa, Tomonaga and Tanaka2006; Humle et al. Reference Humle, Snowdon and Matsuzawa2009; Lonsdorf Reference Lonsdorf, Clancy, Hinde and Rutherford2013). However, such considerations may shed light on why more sophisticated strategies for flint knapping, such as handaxe production or more notably Levallois (Lycett et al. Reference Lycett, von Cramon-Taubadel and Eren2016; Muller et al. Reference Muller, Clarkson and Shipton2017), might not have emerged prior to marked changes in hominin life history—particularly the evolution of extended childhoods, secondary altriciality, ontogenetic delay of the teenage growth spurt, or the extended postmenopausal female life span (e.g., Coqueugniot et al. Reference Coqueugniot, Hublin, Veillon, Houët and Jacob2004; Nowell 2010; Nowell and White Reference Nowell, White, Nowell and Davidson2010; Peccei Reference Peccei1995)—when such delayed-learning strategies might have been more feasible. Moreover, cognitively underpinned shifts in social learning strategies (Lycett Reference Lycett, Overmann and Coolidge2019) and changes in hominin life history leading to delayed learning are certainly not mutually exclusive and may also have occurred together, leading to documented changes in the lithic records of later prehistory.

Undoubtedly more trends and relationships are to be found in Supplemental Data S1, but we leave those to be uncovered by our colleagues. The survey data include information on tool choice, raw materials, technologies, and knapper age and experience, among other subjects. For example, a researcher could use our data to potentially assess the following:

  • Does injury frequency decrease with knapping frequency (times per week) or duration (hours per session)?

  • Does injury frequency decrease or injury type differ between those who do or do not wear gloves?

  • Is injury frequency lower or does injury type differ depending on the type of percussor or type of support?

  • Does knapping injury frequency change as knapping experience increases?

We encourage other researchers to analyze and add to these questions and data. Future surveys may ask knappers whether they participated in the “Gala et al. survey” to help ensure that data from knappers included here are not repeated (unless a knapper has incurred a new injury since completing the present survey).Footnote 4

Acknowledgments

We are appreciative to Debra Martin, C. Owen Lovejoy, Mary Ann Raghanti, John Shea, Tom Jennings, Mike O'Brien, and John C. Whittaker who provided positive and constructive comments throughout the course of this research and during the peer-review process. We are also appreciative to Fernando Diez-Martin for translating our abstract and key words into Spanish.

Funding Statement

Nicholas Gala is supported by the George H. Odell Anthropology Scholarship Foundation and by the F. B. Parriott Graduate Scholarship. Michelle R. Bebber and Metin I. Eren are supported by the Kent State University College of Arts and Sciences and by the Robert J. and Lauren E. Patten Endowment. This research was funded by the Kent State University Summer Undergraduate Research Experience program.

Data Availability Statement

The data are available in the Supplemental Material.

Competing Interests

The authors declare none.

Supplemental Material

For supplemental material accompanying this article, visit https://doi.org/10.1017/aaq.2023.27.

Supplemental Data S1. Flintknapping Injury Survey Raw Data and Responses.

Footnotes

1. Some responses to their years spent knapping do not line up with their age and the age at which they started knapping (i.e., a 78-year-old started knapping at 62 but says he has knapped for 25 years). These could be typos or respondents may have rounded off the number. Cases in which the years do not line up represent a minority, however. Additionally, in some cases, the age at which respondents started to knap does not necessarily represent the age in which they started to knap consistently, evidenced by a disparity between their age, years spent knapping, and the age at which they started.

2. We strongly suspect, but cannot prove, that these two knappers also injured their pride.

3. This may be why no living animal other than humans produces stone-cutting tools in the wild (Shumaker et al. Reference Shumaker, Walkup and Beck2011), despite the apparent capacities of some nonhuman primates to do so (Proffitt et al. Reference Proffitt Tomos, Falótico, Ottoni, de la Torre and Haslam2016; Schick et al. Reference Schick, Toth, Garufi, Savage-Rumbaugh, Rumbaugh and Sevcik1999; Wright Reference Wright1972).

4. As one reviewer correctly pointed out, we feel that it is important to consider whether historic and modern-day flintknapping and prehistoric stone working would in all cases result in identical injuries. The “industrial” nature of historic and modern-day knapping or the engagement with specific knapping practices may influence some aspects of injury frequency and type relative to those in the past. The results we report here should in no way be taken as some sort of direct representation of the past; instead, we employ the principle of uniformitarianism of past and present injuries with very broad brushstrokes.

References

References Cited

Aiello, Leslie C., and Wheeler, Peter. 1995. The Expensive-Tissue Hypothesis: The Brain and the Digestive System in Human and Primate Evolution. Current Anthropology 36(2):199221.10.1086/204350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biro, Dora, Sousa, Claudia, and Matsuzawa, Tetsuro. 2006. Ontogeny and Cultural Propagation of Tool Use by Wild Chimpanzees at Bossou, Guinea: Case Studies in Nut Cracking and Leaf Folding. In Cognitive Development in Chimpanzees, edited by Matsuzawa, Tetsuro, Tomonaga, Masaki, and Tanaka, Masaki, pp. 476508. Springer, New York.10.1007/4-431-30248-4_28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, David R., Aldeias, Vera, Archer, Will, Ramon Arrowsmith, J., Baraki, Niguss, Campisano, Christopher J., Deino, Alan L., et al. 2019. Earliest Known Oldowan Artifacts at >2.58 Ma from Ledi-Geraru, Ethiopia, Highlight Early Technological Diversity. PNAS 116(24):1171211717.10.1073/pnas.1820177116CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Callahan, Errett. 2001. Archeological Evidence of Rotator Cuff Injury? Bulletin of Primitive Technology 21:4447.Google Scholar
Chivers, Douglas P., and Smith, R. Jan F.. 1995. Chemical Recognition of Risky Habitats Is Culturally Transmitted among Fathead Minnows, Pimephales promelas (Osteichthyes, Cyprinidae). Ethology 99:286296.10.1111/j.1439-0310.1995.tb00903.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarkson, Christopher. 2017. Teaching Complex Flint Knapping Strategies in the Classroom Using “Potato Knapping.” Lithic Technology 42(4):155160.10.1080/01977261.2017.1385213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coqueugniot, Hélene, Hublin, J-J., Veillon, Francis, Houët, Francis, and Jacob, Teuku. 2004. Early Brain Growth in Homo erectus and Implications for Cognitive Ability. Nature 431(7006):299302.10.1038/nature02852CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crabtree, Don. 1966. A Stoneworker's Approach to Analyzing and Replicating the Lindenmeier Folsom. Tebiwa 9:339.Google Scholar
De Heinzelin, Jean, Clark, J. Desmond, White, Tim, Hart, William, Renne, Paul, WoldeGabriel, Giday, Beyene, Yonas, and Vrba, Elisabeth. 1999. Environment and Behavior of 2.5-Million-Year-Old Bouri Hominids. Science 284:625629.10.1126/science.284.5414.625CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Delagnes, Anne, and Roche, Hélène. 2005. Late Pliocene Hominid Knapping Skills: The Case of Lokalalei 2C, West Turkana, Kenya. Journal of Human Evolution 48(5):435472.10.1016/j.jhevol.2004.12.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Domínguez-Rodrigo, Manuel, Pickering, Travis R., Semaw, Sileshi, and Rogers, Michael J.. 2005. Cutmarked Bones from Pliocene Archaeological Sites at Gona, Afar, Ethiopia: Implications for the Function of the World's Oldest Stone Tools. Journal of Human Evolution 48(2):109121.10.1016/j.jhevol.2004.09.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eren, Metin I., Kollecker, Mark, Clarkson, Christopher, and Bradley, Bruce. 2010. Dynamic Approaches to Teaching Lithic Technology. Ethnoarchaeology 2(2):223234.10.1179/eth.2010.2.2.223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eren, Metin I., Lycett, Stephen J., Patten, Robert J., Buchanan, Briggs, Pargeter, Justin, and O'Brien, Michael J.. 2016. Test, Model, and Method Validation: The Role of Experimental Stone Artifact Replication in Hypothesis-Driven Archaeology. Ethnoarchaeology 8(2):103136.10.1080/19442890.2016.1213972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eren, Metin. I., Lycett, Stephen J., and Tomonaga, Masaki. 2020. Underestimating Kanzi? Exploring Kanzi-Oldowan Comparisons in Light of Recent Human Stone Tool Replication. Evolutionary Anthropology 29(6):310316.10.1002/evan.21858CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eren, Metin I., and Patten, Lauren E.. 2019. Robert J. Patten (1944–2017): Life, Legacy, and Contributions to Archaeology, Lithic Technology, and Flintknapping. Lithic Technology 44(3):120131.10.1080/01977261.2019.1598624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Facebook. 2015. Flintknapping Injuries. Facebook group, September 23. https://www.facebook.com/groups/1642524122656149, accessed May 2, 2023.Google Scholar
Ferguson, Jeffrey R. 2008. The When, Where, and How of Novices in Craft Production. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 15(1):5167.10.1007/s10816-007-9047-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greggor, Alison L., McIvor, Guillam E., Clayton, Nicola S., and Thornton, Alex. 2016. Contagious Risk Taking: Social Information and Context Influence Wild Jackdaws’ Responses to Novelty and Risk. Scientific Reports 6:27764.10.1038/srep27764CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hampton, O. W. “Bud”. 1999. Culture of Stone: Sacred and Profane Uses of Stone among the Dani. Texas A & M University Press, College Station.Google Scholar
Harmand, Sonia, Lewis, Jason E., Feibel, Craig S., Lepre, Christopher J., Prat, Sandrine, Lenoble, Arnaud, Boës, Xavier, et al. 2015. 3.3-Million-Year-Old Stone Tools from Lomekwi 3, West Turkana, Kenya. Nature 521(7552):310315.10.1038/nature14464CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hellweg, Paul. 1984. Flintknapping: The Art of Making Stone Tools. Canyon Publishing, Canoga Park, California.Google Scholar
Hodgson, Susan Fox. 2007. Obsidian: Sacred Glass from the California Sky. Geological Society, London, Special Publications 273(1):295313.10.1144/GSL.SP.2007.273.01.23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollander, Judd E., Singer, Adam J., Valentine, Sharon M., and Shofer, Frances S.. 2001. Risk Factors for Infection in Patients with Traumatic Lacerations. Academic Emergency Medicine 8(7):716720.10.1111/j.1553-2712.2001.tb00190.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holmes, William Henry. 1897. Stone Implements of the Potomac-Chesapeake Tidewater Province. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Horowitz, Rachel A., and McCall, Grant S. (editors). 2019. Lithic Technologies in Sedentary Societies. University Press of Colorado, Louisville.10.5876/9781607328926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horowitz, Rachel A., and Watt, David J.. 2020. Eighteenth-and Nineteenth-Century Gunflint Assemblages: Understanding Use, Trade, and Variability in the Southeastern United States. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 24(1):95114.10.1007/s10761-019-00505-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humle, Tatyana, Snowdon, Charles T., and Matsuzawa, Tetsuro. 2009. Social Influences on Ant-Dipping Acquisition in the Wild Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes verus) of Bossou, Guinea, West Africa. Animal Cognition 12:S37S48.10.1007/s10071-009-0272-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kelley, Jennifer L., Evans, Jonathan P., Ramnarine, Indar W., and Magurran, Anne E.. 2003. Back to School: Can Antipredator Behaviour in Guppies Be Enhanced through Social Learning? Animal Behaviour 65:655662.10.1006/anbe.2003.2076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Key, Alastair J. M., and Lycett, Stephen J.. 2023. The Ergonomics of Stone Tool Use and Production. In The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Archaeology, edited by Wynn, Thomas, Overmann, Karenleigh A., and Coolidge, Fred. Oxford University Press, New York, in press.Google Scholar
Lonsdorf, Elizabeth V. 2013. The Role of Mothers in the Development of Complex Skills in Chimpanzees. In Building Babies: Primate Development in Proximate and Ultimate Perspective, edited by Clancy, Katherine B., Hinde, Katie, and Rutherford, Julienne N., pp. 303318. Springer, New York.10.1007/978-1-4614-4060-4_14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lycett, Stephen J. 2011. “Most Beautiful and Most Wonderful”: Those Endless Stone Tool Forms. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology 9(2):143171.10.1556/JEP.9.2011.23.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lycett, Stephen J. 2019. Cultural Transmission from the Last Common Ancestor to the Levallois Reducers: What Can We Infer? In Squeezing Minds from Stones: Cognitive Archaeology and the Evolution of the Human Mind, edited by Overmann, Karenleigh A. and Coolidge, Frederick L., pp. 251277. Oxford University Press, Oxford.10.1093/oso/9780190854614.003.0013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lycett, Stephen J., and Chauhan, Parth R.. 2010. Analytical Approaches to Palaeolithic Technologies: An Introduction. In New Perspectives on Old Stones: Analytical Approaches to Paleolithic Technologies, edited by Lycett, Stephen J. and Chauhan, Parth R., pp. 122. Springer, New York.10.1007/978-1-4419-6861-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lycett, Stephen J., and Eren, Metin I.. 2019. Built-In Misdirection: On the Difficulties of Learning to Knap. Lithic Technology 44(1):821.10.1080/01977261.2018.1539322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lycett, Stephen. Kerstin Schillinger, J., Kempe, Marius, and Mesoudi, Alex. 2015. Learning in the Acheulean: Experimental Insights Using Handaxe Form as a “Model Organism.” In Learning Strategies and Cultural Evolution during the Palaeolithic, edited by Mesoudi, Alex and Aoki, Kenichi, pp. 155166. Springer, Tokyo.10.1007/978-4-431-55363-2_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lycett, Stephen J., von Cramon-Taubadel, Noreen, and Eren, Metin I.. 2016. Levallois: Potential Implications for Learning and Cultural Transmission Capacities. Lithic Technology 41(1):1938.Google Scholar
Mateos, Ana, Terradillos-Bernal, Marcos, and Rodríguez, Jesús. 2019. Energy Cost of Stone Knapping. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 26(2):561580.10.1007/s10816-018-9382-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meltzer, David J. 2015. The Great Paleolithic War: How Science Forged an Understanding of America’s Ice Age Past. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.10.7208/chicago/9780226293363.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muller, Antoine, Clarkson, Christopher, and Shipton, Ceri. 2017. Measuring Behavioural and Cognitive Complexity in Lithic Technology throughout Human Evolution. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 48:166180.10.1016/j.jaa.2017.07.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nowell, April. 2010. Working Memory and the Speed of Life. Current Anthropology 51(S1):S121S133.10.1086/650479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nowell, April, and White, Mark. 2010. Growing up in the Middle Pleistocene: Life History Strategies and their Relationship to Acheulian Industries. In Stone Tools and the Evolution of Human Cognition, edited by Nowell, April and Davidson, Iain, pp. 6782. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.Google Scholar
PaleoPlanet. 2010. Do You Have a Knapping Scar or Injury Story? PaleoPlanet (message board), January 25. https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/paleoplanet69529/do-you-have-a-knapping-scar-or-injury-story-t30397.html, accessed May 2, 2023.Google Scholar
Panger, Melissa A., Brooks, Alison S., Richmond, Brian G., and Wood, Bernard. 2002. Older than the Oldowan? Rethinking the Emergence of Hominin Tool Use. Evolutionary Anthropology 11(6):235245.10.1002/evan.10094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patten, Robert J. 2005. Peoples of the Flute: A Study in Anthropolithic Forensics. Stone Dagger Publications, Lakewood, Colorado.Google Scholar
Patten, Robert J. 2009. Old Tools—New Eyes: A Primal Primer of Flintknapping. Stone Dagger Publications, Lakewood, Colorado.Google Scholar
Patten, Robert J. 2012. Explaining Temporal Change in Artifacts by the Use of Process Controls. Lithic Technology 37(1):2534.10.1179/lit.2012.37.1.25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peccei, Jocelyn Scott. 1995. The Origin and Evolution of Menopause: The Altriciality-Lifespan Hypothesis. Ethology and Sociobiology 16(5):425449.10.1016/0162-3095(95)00069-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas W., Plummer, Oliver, James S., Finestone, Emma M., Ditchfield, Peter W., Bishop, Laura C., Blumenthal, Scott A., Lemorini, Cristina, et al. 2023. Expanded Geographic Distribution and Dietary Strategies of the Earliest Oldowan Hominins and Paranthropus. Science 379(6632):561566.Google Scholar
Pope, Saxon T. 1918. Yahi Archery, Vol. 13, No. 3. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Proffitt Tomos, Lydia Luncz, Falótico, Tiago, Ottoni, Eduardo, de la Torre, Ignacio, and Haslam, Michael. 2016. Wild Monkeys Flake Stone Tools. Nature 539:8588.10.1038/nature20112CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roche, H., Delagnes, A., Brugal, J.-P., Feibel, C., Kibunjia, M., Mourre, V., and Texier, P.-J.. 1999. Early Hominid Stone Tool Production and Technical Skill 2.34 Myr Ago in West Turkana, Kenya. Nature 399:5760.10.1038/19959CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosen, Steven A. 1997. Lithics after the Stone Age: A Handbook of Stone Tools from the Levant. AltaMira, Walnut Creek, California.Google Scholar
Roux, Valentine, Bril, Blandine, and Dietrich, Gilles. 1995. Skills and Learning Difficulties Involved in Stone Knapping: The Case of Stone-Bead Knapping in Khambhat, India. World Archaeology 27(1):6387.10.1080/00438243.1995.9980293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sahnouni, Mohamed, Parés, Josep M., Duval, Mathieu, Cáceres, Isabel, Harichane, Zoheir, Van der Made, Jan, Pérez-González, Alfredo, et al. 2018. 1.9-million-and 2.4-Million-Year-Old Artifacts and Stone Tool–Cutmarked Bones from Ain Boucherit, Algeria. Science 362(6420):12971301.10.1126/science.aau0008CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schick, Kathy D., Toth, Nicholas, Garufi, Gary, Savage-Rumbaugh, E. Sue, Rumbaugh, Duane, and Sevcik, Rose. 1999. Continuing Investigations into the Stone Tool-Making and Tool-Using Capabilities of a Bonobo (Pan paniscus). Journal of Archaeological Science 26(7):821832.10.1006/jasc.1998.0350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seed, Amanda, and Byrne, Richard. 2010. Animal Tool-Use. Current Biology 20(23):R1032R1039.10.1016/j.cub.2010.09.042CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Semaw, Sileshi, Renne, Paul, Harris, John W. K., Feibel, Craig S., Bernor, Raymond L., Fesseha, Nardos, and Mowbray, Kenneth. 1997. 2.5-Million-Year-Old Stone Tools from Gona, Ethiopia. Nature 385(6614):333336.10.1038/385333a0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Semaw, Sileshi, Rogers, Michael, Quade, Jay, Renne, Paul R., Butler, Robert F., Domınguez-Rodrigo, Manuel, Stout, Dietrich, Hart, William S., Pickering, Travis R., and Simpson, Scott W.. 2003. 2.6 Million-Year-Old Stone Tools and Associated Bones from OGS-6 and OGS-7, Gona, Afar, Ethiopia. Journal of Human Evolution 45:169177.10.1016/S0047-2484(03)00093-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shafer, Harry J., and Hester, Thomas R.. 1991. Lithic Craft Specialization and Product Distribution at the Maya Site of Colha, Belize. World Archaeology 23(1):7997.10.1080/00438243.1991.9980160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shea, John J. 2006. Child's Play: Reflections on the Invisibility of Children in the Paleolithic Record. Evolutionary Anthropology 15(6):212216.10.1002/evan.20112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shea, John J. 2015. Making and Using Stone Tools: Advice for Learners and Teachers and Insights for Archaeologists. Lithic Technology 40(3):231248.10.1179/2051618515Y.0000000011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shea, John J. 2017. Occasional, Obligatory, and Habitual Stone Tool Use in Hominin Evolution. Evolutionary Anthropology 26(5):200217.10.1002/evan.21547CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shumaker, Robert, Walkup, Kristina R., and Beck, Benjamin. 2011. Animal Tool Behavior: The Use and Manufacture of Tools by Animals. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.10.1353/book.98237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stout, Dietrich. 2005. The Social and Cultural Context of Stone-Knapping Skill Acquisition. In Stone Knapping: The Necessary Conditions for a Uniquely Hominin Behaviour, edited by Roux, Valentine and Bril, Blandine, pp. 331340. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Stout, Dietrich, and Semaw, Sileshi. 2006. Knapping Skill of the Earliest Stone Toolmakers: Insights from the Study of Modern Human Novices. In The Oldowan: Case Studies into the Earliest Stone Age, edited by Toth, Nicholas and Schick, Kathy, pp. 307320. Stone Age Institute, Bloomington, Indiana.Google Scholar
Tennie, Claudio, Premo, Luke S., Braun, David R., and McPherron, Shannon P.. 2017. Resetting the Null Hypothesis: Early Stone Tools and Cultural Transmission. Current Anthropology 58(5):652672.10.1086/693846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torrence, Robin. 1983. Time Budgeting and Hunter-Gatherer Technology. In Hunter-Gatherer Economy in Prehistory: A European Perspective, edited by Bailey, Geoff, pp. 1122. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Toth, Nicholas, Schick, Kathy, and Semaw, Sileshi. 2006. A Comparative Study of the Stone Age Tool-Making Skills of Pan, Australopithicus, and Homo sapiens. In The Oldowan: Case Studies into the Earliest Stone Age, edited by Toth, Nicholas and Schick, Kathy, pp. 155222. Stone Age Institute, Bloomington, Indiana.Google Scholar
Tsirk, Are. 2014. Fractures in Knapping. Archaeopress, Oxford.10.2307/j.ctvqc6jcmCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watt, David J., and Horowitz, Rachel. 2017. An Analysis of a Natchez Gunflint Assemblage from the Lower Mississippi Valley and Its Implications for Eighteenth-Century Colonial Economic Interactions. Southeastern Archaeology 36(3):214225.10.1080/0734578X.2017.1336606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weedman Arthur, Kathryn. 2010. Feminine Knowledge and Skill Reconsidered: Women and Flaked Stone Tools. American Anthropologist 112(2):228243.10.1111/j.1548-1433.2010.01222.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weedman Arthur, Kathryn. 2018. The Lives of Stone Tools: Crafting the Status, Skill, and Identity of Flintknappers. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.10.2307/j.ctt20p57bpCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittaker, John C. 1994. Flintknapping: Making and Understanding Stone Tools. University of Texas Press, Austin.10.7560/790827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittaker, John C. 2001. Knapping Building Flints in Norfolk. Lithic Technology 26(1):7180.10.1080/01977261.2001.11720976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittaker, John C. 2004. American Flintknappers. University of Texas Press, Austin.10.7560/701632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittaker, John C., and Anais Levin, A.. 2019. Nineteenth Century Gunflints from the Nepalese Armory. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 23(3):628650.10.1007/s10761-018-0494-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittaker, John C., Kamp, Katherine, and Yilmaz, Emek. 2009. Çakmak Revisited: Turkish Flintknappers Today. Lithic Technology 34(2):93110.10.1080/01977261.2009.11721075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Jeremy C., Simone, Diana, Buchanan, Briggs, Boulanger, Matthew T., Bebber, Michelle R., and Eren, Metin I.. 2019. Nine-Thousand Years of Optimal Toolstone Selection through the North American Holocene. Antiquity 93(368):313324.10.15184/aqy.2018.187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, R. V. S. 1972. Imitative Learning of a Flaked Stone Technology—The Case of an Orangutan. Mankind 8:296306.Google Scholar
Wynn, Thomas, and McGrew, W. C.. 1989. An Ape's View of the Oldowan. Man 24(3):383398.10.2307/2802697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. What Is Your Favorite Prehistoric Culture to Replicate?

Figure 1

Table 2. What Artifact Type Do You Prefer to Produce the Most?

Figure 2

Table 3. What Is Your Preferred Stone Raw Material to Work?

Figure 3

Table 4. What Is the Stone Raw Material You Have Worked the Most?

Figure 4

Figure 1. Knapper injury locations and frequencies. (Color online)

Figure 5

Table 5. Variety of Injuries Reported by Respondents.

Figure 6

Table 6. Knapper Injuries, Reorganized and Consolidated.

Figure 7

Table 7. Total Knapper Injuries per Location.

Figure 8

Table 8. Knapper Aches and Tolls.

Figure 9

Table 9. Knapper Aches and Tolls, Reorganized and Consolidated.

Figure 10

Figure 2. Radiograph of embedded flake seen in the tip of the ring ringer (photo courtesy of John Shea).

Supplementary material: File

Gala et al. supplementary material

Gala et al. supplementary material

Download Gala et al. supplementary material(File)
File 101.8 KB