ArticleScientific reports2020
Functional analysis of sandstone ground stone tools: arguments for a qualitative and quantitative synergetic approach.
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.
- Article
- Beyond the Surface: Exploring Ancient Plant Food Processing through Confocal Microscopy and 3D Texture Analysis on Ground Stone Tools.Journal of archaeological method and theory · 2025Article
- The Ornaments of the Arma Veirana Early Mesolithic Infant Burial.Journal of archaeological method and theory · 2023Article
- Close-range photogrammetry reveals morphometric changes on replicative ground stones.PloS one · 2023Article
- Article
- Three-dimensional surface morphometry differentiates behaviour on primate percussive stone tools.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In the last few years, the application of quantitative methods in the field of use wear analysis has grown considerably, involving the use of different techniques. A development in surface measurements approaches has become necessary as standard assessments based upon qualitative functional analysis are often affected by a degree of subjectivity and a limited reproducibility. To advance the current methodological debate on functional analysis of ground stone technology, we present a combined methodological approach, including qualitative and quantitative analyses, applied to the study of experimental sandstone ground stone tools. We test surface quantification at a macro and micro-scale, paired with the observation and description of residue and use wear connected to the processing of plant, animal and mineral matters. Our results provide an exhaustive quantitative dataset concerning surface modifications associated with different uses and suggest an analytical workflow for the functional analysis of both experimental and archaeological ground stone assemblages. We also highlight the limitation and pitfalls of an exclusive adoption of quantitative methods in the study of ancient tool use demonstrating how a synergetic approach can enhance the quality, reproducibility and comparability of functional data.
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.