ArticleScientific reports2020
Experimental and archaeological data for the identification of projectile impact marks on small-sized mammals.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Projectile weapon injuries in the Riparo Tagliente burial (Veneto, Italy) provide early evidence of Late Upper Paleolithic intergroup conflict.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Identification and quantification of projectile impact marks on bone: new experimental insights using osseous points.Archaeological and anthropological sciences · 2024Article
- First direct evidence of lion hunting and the early use of a lion pelt by Neanderthals.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Tracing the mobility of a Late Epigravettian (~ 13 ka) male infant from Grotte di Pradis (Northeastern Italian Prealps) at high-temporal resolution.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Quaternary taphonomy: understanding the past through traces.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Developments in data science solutions for carnivore tooth pit classification.Scientific reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The role of small game in prehistoric hunter-gatherer economy is a highly debated topic. Despite the general assumption that this practice was uneconomic, several studies have underlined the relevance of the circumstance of capture - in terms of hunting strategies and technology - in the evaluation of the actual role of small mammals in human foraging efficiency. Since very few studies have focused on the recognition of bone hunting lesions, in a previous work we explored the potential of 3D microscopy in distinguishing projectile impact marks from other taphonomic marks, developing a widely-applicable diagnostic framework based on experimental data and focused on Late Epigravettian projectiles. Even though we confirmed the validity of the method on zooarchaeological remains of large-sized mammals, the reliability of the experimental record in relation to smaller animals needed more testing and verification. In this report we thus present the data acquired through a new ballistic experiment on small mammals and compare the results to those previously obtained on medium-sized animals, in order to bolster the diagnostic criteria useful in bone lesion identification with specific reference to small game. We also present the application of this renewed methodology to an archaeological context dated to the Late Glacial and located in the eastern Italian Alps.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.