Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33793614›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Selection preferences for animal species used in bone-tool-manufacturing strategies in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.

Justin Bradfield, Andrew C Kitchener, Michael Buckley

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
29.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Justin BradfieldPalaeo-Research Institute, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0002-6139-6227
Andrew C KitchenerDepartment of Natural Sciences, National Museums Scotland, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Michael BuckleySchool of Natural Sciences, Manchester Institute of Biotechnology, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
National Museums Scotland · GBUniversity of Johannesburg · ZAUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Animal symbolism is a prominent feature of many human societies globally. In some cases, these symbolic attributes manifest in the technological domain, influencing the decision to use the bones of certain animals and not others for tool manufacture. In southern Africa, animals feature prominently in the cosmogenic narratives of both hunter-gatherer and Bantu-speaking farmer groups. Whenever these two culturally distinct groups came into contact with each other there would be an assimilation of cosmogenic concepts of power and the adoption of certain symbolically important animals. In this paper, we report on which animals were selected to make bone tools during the first millennium AD contact period in KwaZulu-Natal Province, South Africa, and explore the extent to which this selection may have been influenced by the symbolic associations of specific animals. Our results show selective targeting of specific animals for tool manufacture at some sites, with a narrowing of the range of selected species during the first millennium AD contact period. Certain antelope tribes, such as Aepycerotini, Cephalophini and Antilopini, appear to have been deliberately avoided, thus arguing against opportunistic selection. Nor does the range of selected animals appear to show any obvious mechanical considerations, as has been noted in similar studies. We highlight the potential of ZooMS for understanding the dynamics of animal symbolism in the past.

Indexed as

ArchaeologyAnimalsBone and BonesCollagenFossilsHumansPeptidesProteomicsSouth AfricaSpecies SpecificitySymbolismCollagenPeptides

Identifiers

PMID33793614
PMCPMC8016335
OpenAlexW3150074571

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.