ArticlePloS one2020
Split-based points from the Swabian Jura highlight Aurignacian regional signatures.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Reconstructing flexible pathways of Aurignacian blade and bladelet production at Vogelherd.PloS one · 2025Article
- Cervidae antlers exploited to manufacture prehistoric tools and hunting implements as a reliable source of ancient DNA.Heliyon · 2024Article
- A pre-Campanian Ignimbrite techno-cultural shift in the Aurignacian sequence of Grotta di Castelcivita, southern Italy.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Identification and quantification of projectile impact marks on bone: new experimental insights using osseous points.Archaeological and anthropological sciences · 2024Article
- Subsistence of early anatomically modern humans in Europe as evidenced in the Protoaurignacian occupations of Fumane Cave, Italy.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The systematic use of antlers and other osseous materials by modern humans marks a set of cultural and technological innovations in the early Upper Paleolithic, as is seen most clearly in the Aurignacian. Split-based points, which are one of the most common osseous tools, are present throughout most regions where the Aurignacian is documented. Using results from recent and ongoing excavations at Geißenklösterle, Hohle Fels and Vogelherd, we nearly tripled the sample of split-based points from 31 to 87 specimens, and thereby enhance our understanding of the technological economy surrounding the production of osseous tools. Aurignacian people of the Swabian Jura typically left spit-based points at sites that appear to be base camps rich with numerous examples of personal ornaments, figurative art, symbolic imagery, and musical instruments. The artifact assemblages from SW Germany highlight a production sequence that resembles that of SW France and Cantabria, except for the absence of tongued pieces. Our study documents the life histories of osseous tools and demonstrates templates for manufacture, use, recycling, and discard of these archetypal artifacts from the Aurignacian. The study also underlines the diversified repertoire of modern humans in cultural and technological realms highlighting their adaptive capabilities.
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.