Children at play: The role of novices in the production of Europe’s earliest Upper Paleolithic ceramics
Bibliographic record
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".